I want to give a very brief run down of RPG elements in strategy games like civilization.

Role playing elements exist as a way to express one's own personality, for example by creating an alter ego. In an RPG game that might be a warrior, mage, merchant etc. In strategy games like civilization your 'alter ego' is the civilization you create. It might be a civ of elite troops and mighty warriors, a civ of great scholars, a mercantile civ.

This creates a completely distinct way to 'play' the game, not necessarily to play effectively, but instead to roleplay a civ. It should be noted that strategy games that offer such RPG elements are often much more successful than those that don't.

The important points here are both the appearance of a character/civ, their name, flavor/building style and actual gameplay-important traits. The best way to implement this motivation to 'roleplay' would be a custom character option or in the case of civ a custom civ option.

Right now you offer a kind of custom civ option simply by having a 'social tree'/trait choice that creates the civ throughout the game. That is very nice because I wanted such a 'master of orion'/'master of magic' like customization option already for a long time in civ & never got it.

However, I got the impression that you do not allow the player to choose all his 'flavor' freely - the name of his civ, its flag, colors, building style etc.? Correct me, if I am wrong, but I got the impression that I have to choose, throughout the game, the Assyrians, Romans, Germans etc. and then take on their name, flag and colors etc.?

This might lessen the 'identification' players have with their alter ego civ. It might be advantageous to simply allow the player to choose a civ name, flag, colors etc. & let them keep it throughout the game. You could still receive the traits of the various cultures you take.

A lineage of people whose cultural identity evolved over time is a nation.

But I'm talking about the motivation of people to play a civ they identify with. I did not intent to discuss politics or ideological views.

i believe the edit to my initial post came after your response. Please read it.

Also, I wasn't interpreting your statement in any kind of political way.

"Besides which, if you examine the civ cards that they have shown in their videos, you might see some that make sense in chronological order. Like Mycenaeans and Greeks or two different Chinese dynasties. It seems like you might be able to play through the whole game with some of these major civilizations by picking civs that have historical lineage."

We can right now only speculate. I'm basically just talking about keeping a name & colors/flag throughout the game. Maybe the current mechanics already allow exactly that, I'm not sure. After all, changing the name & colors of your civ in the middle of the game would be very confusing.

Right now I got the impression we have a kind of evolution of civs throughout the game. Civs seem to adopt a whole new name, colors, flags, build styles if I interprete it correctly? From a historical point of view that is certainly interesting, from an RPGish point of view, players might not like to be forbidden to play their beloved alter ego civ.

My understanding is that things you build as one civ stay in that style, even as you build new things in a different style leading to a melting pot effect.

I have no idea regarding colors, but it appears that civ icons do change, as one screenshot showed a Nubian city with a Viking-esque icon.

"I have no idea regarding colors, but it appears that civ icons do change, as one screenshot showed a Nubian city with a Viking-esque icon."

Well, I would have to see how this works out. It's certainly something new.

Does at least the name of the civ stay the same or are you switching names from Nubia to Vikings?

I mean, you are basically renaming & restyling your civ. Such a thing could occur after a civ is conquered & subjugated, colonies declare independence or some kind of anarchy overthrowing the existing government/culture.  

I'd be really surprised if there wasn't enough similar civs that you couldn't just pick similar ones all the way through the game, especially various chinese dynasties and such. And if there's not, that will probably be one of the first things people mod in.

Arent11 wrote:

Well sure, I would probably pick something like Assyrians -> Romans -> Germans & get a militaristic civ.

Problem is that founding a new civ on the ashes of the old one usually goes hand in hand with conquest, upheaval or declaring independence. Renaming of a civ should not occur without good reasons.

Examples:

(1) The English were originally Celts, conquered by Romans, conquered by Anglo Saxons, who later on shortened their name to "English".

(2) The Americans fought a war of independence to create their own 'civilization'.

(3) The Chinese were only transiently conquered by the Mongols & consequently kept their name and culture for a long time.

If this held 1:1 for everything, the English should be the Normands, really, since they were the last major successful invaders.

If this held 1:1 for everything, the English should be the Normands, really, since they were the last major successful invaders.

You shouldn't listen to me anyway, it's your game. And I don't have any overview over how exactly your culture switching system works.

My statement was that a change in name & whole culture of a civilization usually goes hand in hand with conquest, independence or some form of internal upheaval. That the Normands did not impose their own name does not go against that.

A better example would be Enlightenment/industrialization. There, one could argue that a change in culture occured without outside conquest. However, Enlightenment did not result in any change of name of France, Germany or England and it did, in fact, result in civil wars, overthrowing of governments and wars. 

Arent11 wrote:

If this held 1:1 for everything, the English should be the Normands, really, since they were the last major successful invaders.

You shouldn't listen to me anyway, it's your game. And I don't have any overview over how exactly your culture switching system works.

My statement was that a change in name & whole culture of a civilization usually goes hand in hand with conquest, independence or some form of internal upheaval. That the Normands did not impose their own name does not go against that.

A better example would be Enlightenment/industrialization. There, one could argue that a change in culture occured without outside conquest. However, Enlightenment did not result in any change of name of France, Germany or England and it did, in fact, result in civil wars, overthrowing of governments and wars. 

 

During the Industrial era:  England -> United Kingdom,  Prussia -> Germany.  In both cases becauses smaller political entities merged, but regardless, name changes happen for reasons other than conquest, conquest doesn't always result in name changes, some conquests aren't military, etc.  Human history is complicated.

How the civshifts per era play out will be interesting to see.  I thought it was interesting that in this article, Romain implies that HK may offer some game modes where civ changes each era are not completely free form, but are constrained in some way:

https://www.strategygamer.com/articles/humankind-gamescom-2019/

TravlingCanuck wrote:

How the civshifts per era play out will be interesting to see.  I thought it was interesting that in this article, Romain implies that HK may offer some game modes where civ changes each era are not completely free form, but are constrained in some way:

https://www.strategygamer.com/articles/humankind-gamescom-2019/

Mmmh,such a restricted history mode would result in a "skill tree". Your initial choice of culture would be the general civ you take (western, eastern, african, middle eastern etc.) and then you would only choose inside that restricted skill tree.

For example, if you choose myceneans & are then only allowed to choose greeks, romans, english, germans etc. and these cultures lean more to science/production, your initial choice would lock you into a science game. If the chinese dynasties are more productive or mercantile choosing ancient china as a starting culture would lock you into a production game.

Actually, I like this idea. You initially take your broad "civilization" and then you follow the skill tree/cultures of that civ ;)

Arent11 wrote:

TravlingCanuck wrote:

How the civshifts per era play out will be interesting to see.  I thought it was interesting that in this article, Romain implies that HK may offer some game modes where civ changes each era are not completely free form, but are constrained in some way:

https://www.strategygamer.com/articles/humankind-gamescom-2019/

Mmmh,such a restricted history mode would result in a "skill tree". Your initial choice of culture would be the general civ you take (western, eastern, african, middle eastern etc.) and then you would only choose inside that restricted skill tree.

For example, if you choose myceneans & are then only allowed to choose greeks, romans, english, germans etc. and these cultures lean more to science/production, your initial choice would lock you into a science game. If the chinese dynasties are more productive or mercantile choosing ancient china as a starting culture would lock you into a production game.

Actually, I like this idea. You initially take your broad "civilization" and then you follow the skill tree/cultures of that civ ;)

If that was the case, the 1 million possibilities would not work out.

twimpix wrote:

If that was the case, the 1 million possibilities would not work out.

According to the article, it's a game mode, which is meant as a "history mode". So there are other game modes/options which allow free combination of all cultures.

Oh wow. Narritive quests are in the game! I didn't even know. But that sounds amazing

The events are based on actual history, but are available to any civ meeting the requirements. They are sometimes morally ambiguous. You can receive Fame from doing nasty things sometimes.

Casworon wrote:

Oh wow. Narritive quests are in the game! I didn't even know. But that sounds amazing

They're events, not quests.

EaglePursuit wrote:

They just did a panel on narrative events including some examples from HK.

Events are gated by era, but some options are only available to certain civs.

Is there an overarching game quest? Something like this:

Introduction: "You are a puny normadic tribe struggling for survival. Build a civilization that might stand the test of time!"

Quest 1: "You are a little normadic tribe. Survive the harsh conditions of the land!"

Quest 2: "Our sages recently developed agriculture. Settle down and build a great city!"

...

Quest X: "Our scientists have developed means to travel to the stars! Can we be the first civilization to settle another planet?"

Arent11 wrote:

EaglePursuit wrote:

They just did a panel on narrative events including some examples from HK.

Events are gated by era, but some options are only available to certain civs.

Is there an overarching game quest? Something like this:

Introduction: "You are a puny normadic tribe struggling for survival. Build a civilization that might stand the test of time!"

Quest 1: "You are a little normadic tribe. Survive the harsh conditions of the land!"

Quest 2: "Our sages recently developed agriculture. Settle down and build a great city!"

...

Quest X: "Our scientists have developed means to travel to the stars! Can we be the first civilization to settle another planet?"

Not that we know of.

twimpix wrote:

Arent11 wrote:

EaglePursuit wrote:

They just did a panel on narrative events including some examples from HK.

Events are gated by era, but some options are only available to certain civs.

Is there an overarching game quest? Something like this:

Introduction: "You are a puny normadic tribe struggling for survival. Build a civilization that might stand the test of time!"

Quest 1: "You are a little normadic tribe. Survive the harsh conditions of the land!"

Quest 2: "Our sages recently developed agriculture. Settle down and build a great city!"

...

Quest X: "Our scientists have developed means to travel to the stars! Can we be the first civilization to settle another planet?"

Not that we know of.

Given what we've been told about the Fame system and how it will determine end game victory, I'd go as far as to say "no".

Arent11 wrote:

A lineage of people whose cultural identity evolved over time is a nation.

But I'm talking about the motivation of people to play a civ they identify with. I did not intent to discuss politics or ideological views.

That's not at all what a nation is. The Latin people of the Roman Empire shared a cultural identity. That identity evolved into the nations of Italy, France, and Spain. Nations and cultures have nothing to do with each other. Nations are administrative definitions, not cultural ones.

Loveblanket wrote:

Arent11 wrote:

A lineage of people whose cultural identity evolved over time is a nation.

But I'm talking about the motivation of people to play a civ they identify with. I did not intent to discuss politics or ideological views.

That's not at all what a nation is. The Latin people of the Roman Empire shared a cultural identity. That identity evolved into the nations of Italy, France, and Spain. Nations and cultures have nothing to do with each other. Nations are administrative definitions, not cultural ones.

This thread is about RPG elements in strategy games. Please open another thread to discuss the definition of nations.

To make it short: A nation in the original sense of the latin word is an ethnic group. However, one might argue that ethnic groups partially also define themselves not only by ancestry but also by customs and laws.

Arent11 wrote:

Loveblanket wrote:

Arent11 wrote:

A lineage of people whose cultural identity evolved over time is a nation.

But I'm talking about the motivation of people to play a civ they identify with. I did not intent to discuss politics or ideological views.

That's not at all what a nation is. The Latin people of the Roman Empire shared a cultural identity. That identity evolved into the nations of Italy, France, and Spain. Nations and cultures have nothing to do with each other. Nations are administrative definitions, not cultural ones.

This thread is about RPG elements in strategy games. Please open another thread to discuss the definition of nations.

To make it short: A nation in the original sense of the latin word is an ethnic group. However, one might argue that ethnic groups partially also define themselves not only by ancestry but also by customs and laws.

Customs and laws is more true than ancestry. Most people who consider themselves English are more genetically similar to the Celtic  neighbors than the Anglo-Saxons that gave birth to the English identity. 

The idea that the A-Ss displaced the Britons has been disproven by genetic study. The A-S invaders seem to have established themselves as the ruling caste and culturally assimilated the Britons. The genetic controbutions of Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Norse, and Normans to the modern population is smaller than the controbution from the original Celtic Britons.

Therefore, a case could be made that the preponderance of people in England (over time) started as Celts, adopted a Roman identity,  then an Anglo-Saxon identity,  before partially assimilating Norman identity, and kludging it together into what is now considered English.

From a pure RPG perspective, the "I am Napoleon and I'm going to lead the French to world dominance" is simple and appears to be what a percentage of 4x players seem to want.

Personally, I'm glad that HK is going to offer a different experience.  But I fully understand why the HK's approach to civ-switches on era changes will not work for those players.  

No amount of justifcation for the system or explanation of why it's realistic is going to help people who want a different experience.  Although maybe if the overall game is good enough, those players will find they're able to enjoy HK while playing it with a different mindset than they bring to Civ.

EaglePursuit wrote:

Therefore, a case could be made that the preponderance of people in England (over time) started as Celts, adopted a Roman identity,  then an Anglo-Saxon identity,  before partially assimilating Norman identity, and kludging it together into what is now considered English.

That's what I would more or less subscribe to.

This is also why I am ok with defining broad "civilizations" (in the actual sense of the word) as western, eastern, african, middle eastern etc. and wouldn't be completely opposed to my chinese morphing into koreans and then japanese. However, the chinese and japanese might strongly oppose a game that basically throws them together, despite being historically not entirely wrong.