I've made mention elsewhere (probably the Steam forums) that this game bears a STRONG resemblance to the Avalon Hill boardgame, Pax Britannica.  In that game, there were several initial cultures that would, at different dates go extinct or be absorbing by a rising culture.  Like Humankind, the different player positions were color-coded: The initial red culture could only transition to the next red culture.  But in PB, there was some distinct aspects of understandable EVOLUTION from one to the next.  Based almost entirely on the historical rise and fall of cultures across Britain.  Here in Humankind, there literally NO cultural restraints on the transitions.  The player can go from a culture of peaceful philosophers and scientists to become a horde of nomadic bloodthirsty horde massacring anyone in their path. 

^That seems far too .... whimsical of a transition to me.  In some cases as drastic as being Black one day and White the next.

Yeah, it is very "gamey," but restricting what cultures a player can pick in a game wouldn't really work mechanically.

They could add a narrative event, that helps to sort of reframe the sudden change. (and maybe allow you to change names/graphics of capital/important cities to the new culture)

Also could be something to start planning a mod for.

I do like the idea of an Earth mod where your choices of culture are limited by the territories you control. ie you only pick Mongols if you control part of the area the historical Mongols did.  If there are no available options in your current territory, then the culture closest to you (and any others not much farther) are your only options.

Krikkitone wrote:

I do like the idea of an Earth mod where your choices of culture are limited by the territories you control. ie you only pick Mongols if you control part of the area the historical Mongols did.  If there are no available options in your current territory, then the culture closest to you (and any others not much farther) are your only options.

Sounds a lot like Paradox games formable nations, i.e. forming Japan in Europa Universalis 4 by owning 25+ cities and the core provinces of Kyoto and Musashi.

You pick a Militarist because you want to go to war. You go to war during the period where your people were more inclined toward it, and developed specific culture around it (emblematic unit), and you built up to it once the winds started to shift.

Don't imagine the culture as the people are suddenly Mongols when they were peaceful Greeks just a moment ago. Imagine instead your people were peaceful and had a tradition of debate, but over time too much effort was spent debating and standard of living declined, and now people have started to take to horses and find pillaging easier than farming as a result. Eventually, they go to war.

Perhaps the issue is just that the game waves away the transition as a sudden gameplay change, and that if they provided a narrative then it would feel more natural to you?

Yeah, I would prefer it if already built quarters didn't magically change on culture switch, although it might look a little funky to have Ancient Era Quarter next to modern ones.

A couple thoughts to add:

1) What if more turns were added as a "transition" period? And if the type of culture is different than your current one (both regionwise and type) then there is more instability and certain events around that?

2) Definitely think the built areas should stay the culture of when they were built, but they can modernize. This way you can remember your past. So for example, you build Roman cities, then switch to Teutonic Knights (eg), your new areas would be medieval German, but your previously built ones would upgrade to medieval Latin. Historically it would make more sense, but graphically, it probably impacts gameplay since you wouldn't be easily able to tell districts, etc., since there'd be a huge mix of things going on at once.

I would also prefer to see some kind of transition period if the shift is very drastic. It should still be possible - I dont mind it being gamey, because afterall this is a game and even the concept of egyptians becoming mayas is weird in every level but in a game like this.

It gives you options to plan forward, but "choose your new culture" and next turn everyone agrees to be something else entirely is a bit... odd. At least there should be some kind of stability hubup for a few turns.

It comes with the nature of naming these cultures after historical counterparts instead of something generic. Not much to do except add flavour to the culture transition screen in order to make it more believable. Something in addition to the breakdown of all their districts, units, effects, but also the reason for why you're becoming this culture, explaining their style of gameplay and line of thinking, in order to better understand how and why you're becoming them.

Players should not be punished for moving on to the next culture, especially not for  moving on to certain cultures. The flexibility is key to the game.

Krikkitone wrote:

I think a “transition narrative event” would work to handle the suspension of disbelief.

The problem with this idea is that there are TOO MANY combinations that would have to show how, "We went from this to that."

In regards to transitions, I'd suggest that there be something like a "philosophical scale":  Pacifist <<<<<<<>>>>>>>>Warmonger

When transitioning from one era to the next, the player would be restricted to choosing the same, current philosophy to the philosophy to either side, more Pacifistic or more Warmongerish.  That would reduce the now present "culture shock" of having a culture make a 180 degree change.

Krikkitone wrote:

If you limit it to affinity->affinity you only have 49...for that matter you really only need 7 (different narrative explaining the rise of the new affinity (regardless of the old ones)...and pacifist/Warmonger is not part of Humankind’s culture (or ideology) the closest is the militarist affinity...but that is 1 out of 7

Just to clarify, what I was suggesting was (using your 7 point scale) an eligible shift for, say, a 3 Culture would be to a next era 2, 3, or 4 Culture.  A present 1 Culture would only have a choice of a future 1 or 2 Culture, and a present 7 Culture would have only a choice of a future 6 or 7 Culture.  If there was additional scalable parameters, say Religiosity, it would further narrow possible choices.

Still, even with fewer possible transition choices available, trying to create narratives for each possible combination would require LOTS of graphic resources.  For EACH era change.  I doubt that any game developer would believe that the cost to make those narratives necessary.  (Which, if necessary, would cost the company LOTS of money when, invariably, development NEVER has enough money to do all the things that they want to do.  Not to mention an impatient game development banker demanding, "Finish and release the damn game already!")

The entire purpose of the culture system is to be as free-form as possible. This goes against the entire design philosophy of the game.