Old World Developer Mohawk Games

[Prestige_]

Hi guys!

I highly recommend that u check out Old World (released may 5). Looks awesome! :)
I think Old world is what civ 6 should have been and some of the developers from civ 4 and civ 5 made this game.

[parent child bowl]

Lol, no it shouldn't. Civilization is a series that allows the players to guide their empire through the ages. A dynasty system is inherently incompatible with that. While I think that a Civilization/Crusader Kings hybrid sounds interesting, I don't want to see that in Civilization. They are fundamentally different games they don't need to be the same.

[Gedemon]

Originally posted by parent child bowl:

Lol, no it shouldn't. Civilization is a series that allows the players to guide their empire through the ages. A dynasty system is inherently incompatible with that.

can you expand?

I don't see why you couldn't have a dynasty system in a civ game, changing families (and associated uniques attributes) with eras for example, then using political party with democratic governments.

Humankind optional change of culture with eras works a bit like that for example.

[parent child bowl]

Originally posted by Gedemon:

Originally posted by parent child bowl:

Lol, no it shouldn't. Civilization is a series that allows the players to guide their empire through the ages. A dynasty system is inherently incompatible with that.

can you expand?

I don't see why you couldn't have a dynasty system in a civ game, changing families (and associated uniques attributes) with eras for example, then using political party with democratic governments.

Humankind optional change of culture with eras works a bit like that for example.

In a dynasty system like Old World or Crusader Kings have one, it's no just a family that controls your nation, but individuals that are involved in events, get better or worse, age and die. It adds a role playing element to the game.

This can't work in Civilization for the simple reason that your first leader would already be dead in turn 3 and the second one in turn 4.

That's why in Old World one turn equals one year and the game doesn't send you through the ages. Don't get me wrong, it's a cool system, but it has nothing to do with what Civilization is and was.

What you are describing is something else.

[Gedemon]

I still don't see an issue, instead of one immortal leader, you can have multiple leaders, each covering 10-30 turns whatever calendar is used.

[ashvandam_uk]

I prefer Civ 6... but still annoyed that Civ doesnt have enough historic leaders, to make you feel at the start of the game you are playing in a historical era, either the Ancient era or classical.

Civ 6 doesnt have Assriya - Old world does
Civ 6 doesnt have and Ancient Egypt - Old world does
Civ 6 doesnt have Babylon........ Old world does.

Humankind has
Harappans, ------------ Civ 6 doesnt
ANCIENT Egyptians, ------------ Civ 6 doesnt
Babylonians, ------------ Civ 6 doesnt
Mycenaeans.------------ Civ 6 doesnt
The Hittites------------ Civ 6 doesnt
Assriya ------------ Civ 6 doesnt

then in the classical era Humankind has...
Celts ------------ Civ 6 doesnt
Byzantium ------------ Civ 6 doesnt
Goths ------------ Civ 6 doesnt
the Huns ------------ Civ 6 doesnt


I get Civ 6 can't have every Civilization from every Era, but they need at least another 4 from this list.... which we will not be getting in New Frontiers, so they would have to do even MORE content after new frontiers IMO

[Aachen]

Probably would be good to consider what the mechanical impact of the change would be before saying it’s entirely incompatible with the Civilization time-scaling.

[parent child bowl]

Originally posted by Gedemon:

I still don't see an issue, instead of one immortal leader, you can have multiple leaders, each covering 10-30 turns whatever calendar is used.

Which as mentioned before doesn't work in Civilization because the game ranges from ancient times into the future. It's too big in scope to do what you are asking for. At the moment one turn in the early game covers 40 years. Also the current speed setting in general is incompatible with CK like characters.

It would take an extreme change in pacing and the removal of different speed settings to even get close to what you are asking for.

[Gedemon]

Originally posted by parent child bowl:

Originally posted by Gedemon:

I still don't see an issue, instead of one immortal leader, you can have multiple leaders, each covering 10-30 turns whatever calendar is used.

Which as mentioned before doesn't work in Civilization because the game ranges from ancient times into the future. It's too big in scope to do what you are asking for. At the moment one turn in the early game covers 40 years. Also the current speed setting in general is incompatible with CK like characters.

It would take an extreme change in pacing and the removal of different speed settings to even get close to what you are asking for.

because you're basing your logic on years, while I base mine on turns.

you have no problem with a 6000 years old leaders in current civ games, but you can't imagine a 30 turns old leader ? Yep that means 600 years in the beginning of the game, that's still 10x less and goes well with the fantasy leaders that are already in for that period.

[parent child bowl]

Originally posted by Gedemon:

Originally posted by parent child bowl:

Which as mentioned before doesn't work in Civilization because the game ranges from ancient times into the future. It's too big in scope to do what you are asking for. At the moment one turn in the early game covers 40 years. Also the current speed setting in general is incompatible with CK like characters.

It would take an extreme change in pacing and the removal of different speed settings to even get close to what you are asking for.

because you're basing your logic on years, while I base mine on turns.

you have no problem with a 6000 years old leaders in current civ games, but you can't imagine a 30 turns old leader ? Yep that means 600 years in the beginning of the game, that's still 10x less and goes well with the fantasy leaders that are already in for that period.

Yes, I'd prefer one immortal leader over a half assed dynasty system with 10 Methuselahs. I'd rather play Old World and Civilization than the mix you are proposing. I think Old World does the mix right.

[Gedemon]

Originally posted by parent child bowl:

Originally posted by Gedemon:

because you're basing your logic on years, while I base mine on turns.

you have no problem with a 6000 years old leaders in current civ games, but you can't imagine a 30 turns old leader ? Yep that means 600 years in the beginning of the game, that's still 10x less and goes well with the fantasy leaders that are already in for that period.

Yes, I'd prefer one immortal leader over a half assed dynasty system with 10 Methuselahs.

not liking the idea is perfectly fine.

personally I wouldn't even have "leaders" at all in a civ game.

but with the current implementation of the time scale in the current game (40 years to move an unit 2 tiles, 200 years to build a scout unit, immortal leaders, immortal great persons, etc, etc,...), it's not a big leap to implement a dynasty system.

[parent child bowl]

Originally posted by Gedemon:

Originally posted by parent child bowl:

Yes, I'd prefer one immortal leader over a half assed dynasty system with 10 Methuselahs.

not liking the idea is perfectly fine.

personally I wouldn't even have "leaders" at all in a civ game.

I agree. I'd also prefer it to be a "nation" game.

Originally posted by Gedemon:

but with the current implementation of the time scale in the current game (40 years to move an unit 2 tiles, 200 years to build a scout unit, immortal leaders, immortal great persons, etc, etc,...), it's not a big leap to implement a dynasty system.

Yes, the system already has problems in itself that ask for a lot of suspension of disbelief. I'd rather not stack anything else onto that though.

[Aachen]

Considering the increasing complexity of the governments throughout a game, the “dynasty” probably should not be particularly similar from-ancient-through-to-information, anyway. Trying to treat things as “an unbroken line 10ky long” wouldn’t make for much realism, either.

[parent child bowl]

Originally posted by Aachen:

Considering the increasing complexity of the governments throughout a game, the “dynasty” probably should not be particularly similar from-ancient-through-to-information, anyway. Trying to treat things as “an unbroken line 10ky long” wouldn’t make for much realism, either.

They don't have to be. There are marriages, your leader might not have a son, there can be rebellions, usurpers, political/diplomatic crisises that have you adopt someone etc.. There are posibilities to shake things up.

[Prestige_]

Nice to see that the topic generates talk or maybe i should say debate :)

Developers call it a "early release" so i do think the game will have more in store for us in terms of ages and techs, i really hope so!! and transition in to other ruling classes?

I am NOT a modder but i do think that if this game is going to contend with the civ franchises in the feature they have to open for modding.

What do u guys think about the possibilities of modding in this game?

[Gedemon]

Originally posted by Prestige_:

Nice to see that the topic generates talk or maybe i should say debate :)

Developers call it a "early release" so i do think the game will have more in store for us in terms of ages and techs, i really hope so!! and transition in to other ruling classes?

I am NOT a modder but i do think that if this game is going to contend with the civ franchises in the feature they have to open for modding.

What do u guys think about the possibilities of modding in this game?

The source code is available, so it's already better than civ6 for modding gameplay mechanisms, on the other hand we can't easily add assets yet (while it's one of the best modding capability of civ6), but it's planned for the release.