Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Calidovi]

Back in 2015, MDF had an idea about the rise and fall of civilizations. Although simplistic, the idea is well-communicated.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Early-Counter Behaviours:

-Rapid colonization of surrounding lands
-Rapid population growth/likely to attract defectors from other civilizations
-Philosophies of this civilization are likely to spread to other civilizations
-Reclamation of old sites (if applicable)

Middle-Counter Behaviours:

-Monumental building projects
-Increased rate of warfare and conquest
-Expansion by population growth/colonization slows

Late-Counter Behaviours:

-Population shrinks (through inflicted plague/famine death causes or by emigration to other civs)
-Construction slows, old buildings are subdivided (i.e. throw up crude wooden walls to subdivide older houses into smaller apartments)
-Much more likely to attempt conquest of neighbouring civilizations, but since the civilization is substantially weaker also much more likely to do poorly in these wars.
-Much more likely to adopt philosophies of other cultures

Dark Ages:

-Population continues to shrink
-Sites have a decent chance of becoming abandoned (this includes a lot of knowledge loss)
-Symbols of various groups and names of groups/places may change.
-Eventually, the society reverts to the Early Counter, and the cycle begins anew

I disagree that civilizations should be sent back to stage one at the end of their lifespan.

With the recent additions of immigration and libraries, and the upcoming developments of player squad mobilization and artifact movement, this idea has much greater weight. If something like this were to be added, though, there are still a few questions:

• What should be the causes of a civ's development and downfall? Should it be on a fixed timer, as MDF said?
• Should civilizations be able to balkanize? If so, when and why?
• What should trigger the development of a completely new civilization during worldgen? Should the ruins of a dead civ be able to foster the growth of another group, or do they need to be conquered outright?
• Should a player adventurer be able to conquer sites in the name of another civilization?
• Should a player fortress be able to form its own government/send out settlers/etc. and separate from the parent civ?
• Should civil war's frequency increase in civs liable to nationalism and balkanization?
• Where should mythgen fit into the role and development of the states?

[Azerty]

What should be the causes of a civ's development and downfall? Should it be on a fixed timer, as MDF said?

The causes of the development of a civ could be the

Should civilizations be able to balkanize? If so, when and why?

Balkanization should happen when much cultural drift happened, drift helped by huge distances or obstacles such as mountains or oceans, along with the presence of another civ to influence.

What should trigger the development of a completely new civilization during worldgen? Should the ruins of a dead civ be able to foster the growth of another group, or do they need to be conquered outright?

When enough drift happened - about this, could we envision future public entities (states and asimilated statuses) separated from civilisations, so that one state might have several civilizations (IRL, Switzerland has the French, German and Italian civs) and a civilization might be separated in several states (Greece, which was divided in several cities and kingdoms)? -, a new civ should be created.

And dead civ can serve to create another one - see the Classical culture after 476.

Should a player adventurer be able to conquer sites in the name of another civilization?

Yes, as a conquistador, or even for himself.

Should a player fortress be able to form its own government/send out settlers/etc. and separate from the parent civ?

If they don't want to pay their taxes, then yes.

Should civil war's frequency increase in civs liable to nationalism and balkanization?

Yes, because they want to be separate.

Where should mythgen fit into the role and development of the states?

Gods and other deities could interviene in the creation of some civs, and rulers could claim to descend or having been granted their rule by deities.

[Calidovi]

When enough drift happened - about this, could we envision future public entities (states and asimilated statuses) separated from civilisations, so that one state might have several civilizations (IRL, Switzerland has the French, German and Italian civs) and a civilization might be separated in several states (Greece, which was divided in several cities and kingdoms)? -, a new civ should be created.

And dead civ can serve to create another one - see the Classical culture after 476.

I guess this was unclear in the parent, but I use civ and state interchangeably because that's how they are in DF.

EDIT: Also, these questions are more in terms of feasibility than worth.

[HMetal2001]

THIS is an AWESOME idea. The closer to the real world, the better. With cheese-cannons of course.

To add, should several dwarf civilizations form 1 state/union, like the failed attempts of unifying Arabs into one state?

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

THIS is an AWESOME idea. The closer to the real world, the better. With cheese-cannons of course.

You seem to be new here, so I'm not angry or anything, but...

Try to make a contribution. If you like a suggestion, say why you like it and try to refine it if possible. If you don't like a suggestion, say why and be civil about it.

"+1, this is good" isn't a contribution.

[Detoxicated]

Back in 2015, MDF had an idea about the rise and fall of civilizations. Although simplistic, the idea is well-communicated.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Early-Counter Behaviours:

-Rapid colonization of surrounding lands
-Rapid population growth/likely to attract defectors from other civilizations
-Philosophies of this civilization are likely to spread to other civilizations
-Reclamation of old sites (if applicable)

Middle-Counter Behaviours:

-Monumental building projects
-Increased rate of warfare and conquest
-Expansion by population growth/colonization slows

Late-Counter Behaviours:

-Population shrinks (through inflicted plague/famine death causes or by emigration to other civs)
-Construction slows, old buildings are subdivided (i.e. throw up crude wooden walls to subdivide older houses into smaller apartments)
-Much more likely to attempt conquest of neighbouring civilizations, but since the civilization is substantially weaker also much more likely to do poorly in these wars.
-Much more likely to adopt philosophies of other cultures

Dark Ages:

-Population continues to shrink
-Sites have a decent chance of becoming abandoned (this includes a lot of knowledge loss)
-Symbols of various groups and names of groups/places may change.
-Eventually, the society reverts to the Early Counter, and the cycle begins anew

I disagree that civilizations should be sent back to stage one at the end of their lifespan.

With the recent additions of immigration and libraries, and the upcoming developments of player squad mobilization and artifact movement, this idea has much greater weight. If something like this were to be added, though, there are still a few questions:

• What should be the causes of a civ's development and downfall? Should it be on a fixed timer, as MDF said?
• Should civilizations be able to balkanize? If so, when and why?
• What should trigger the development of a completely new civilization during worldgen? Should the ruins of a dead civ be able to foster the growth of another group, or do they need to be conquered outright?

1 a civ should create on basis of security and liberty.  People unite under new banners when capitol arme is defeated or in enough people develop unique norms in one place or another.  Fall of civ happens at conquest extreme hunger nation wide tantrum spirals, beef between lords and religion and trade.  If a group enters a hamlet and starts converting the people that could bring civs to fall.

2yes why?  Cuz it happened in history

• Should a player adventurer be able to conquer sites in the name of another civilization?
• Should a player fortress be able to form its own government/send out settlers/etc. and separate from the parent civ?
• Should civil war's frequency increase in civs liable to nationalism and balkanization?
• Where should mythgen fit into the role and development of the states?

[HMetal2001]

Back in 2015, MDF had an idea about the rise and fall of civilizations. Although simplistic, the idea is well-communicated.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Early-Counter Behaviours:

-Rapid colonization of surrounding lands
-Rapid population growth/likely to attract defectors from other civilizations
-Philosophies of this civilization are likely to spread to other civilizations
-Reclamation of old sites (if applicable)

Middle-Counter Behaviours:

-Monumental building projects
-Increased rate of warfare and conquest
-Expansion by population growth/colonization slows

Late-Counter Behaviours:

-Population shrinks (through inflicted plague/famine death causes or by emigration to other civs)
-Construction slows, old buildings are subdivided (i.e. throw up crude wooden walls to subdivide older houses into smaller apartments)
-Much more likely to attempt conquest of neighbouring civilizations, but since the civilization is substantially weaker also much more likely to do poorly in these wars.
-Much more likely to adopt philosophies of other cultures

Dark Ages:

-Population continues to shrink
-Sites have a decent chance of becoming abandoned (this includes a lot of knowledge loss)
-Symbols of various groups and names of groups/places may change.
-Eventually, the society reverts to the Early Counter, and the cycle begins anew

I disagree that civilizations should be sent back to stage one at the end of their lifespan.

With the recent additions of immigration and libraries, and the upcoming developments of player squad mobilization and artifact movement, this idea has much greater weight. If something like this were to be added, though, there are still a few questions:

• What should be the causes of a civ's development and downfall? Should it be on a fixed timer, as MDF said?
• Should civilizations be able to balkanize? If so, when and why?
• What should trigger the development of a completely new civilization during worldgen? Should the ruins of a dead civ be able to foster the growth of another group, or do they need to be conquered outright?

1 a civ should create on basis of security and liberty.  People unite under new banners when capitol arme is defeated or in enough people develop unique norms in one place or another.  Fall of civ happens at conquest extreme hunger nation wide tantrum spirals, beef between lords and religion and trade.  If a group enters a hamlet and starts converting the people that could bring civs to fall.

2yes why?  Cuz it happened in history

• Should a player adventurer be able to conquer sites in the name of another civilization?
• Should a player fortress be able to form its own government/send out settlers/etc. and separate from the parent civ?
• Should civil war's frequency increase in civs liable to nationalism and balkanization?
• Where should mythgen fit into the role and development of the states?

What are you trying to say here?

[Detoxicated]

Sorry mobile Phone typing is complicated.
There should be many reasons why nations fall and rise.
These reasons should be economic, religious due to little security. Sometimes mere values could be a reason aß well.

Books and the likes should play a vital role to a civ building and falling process. Books can teach and should be able to shift beliefs and values. People should discuss matters everyday and by reading cultural values change and one could read the values in legend mode.

There should also be social agents of change.  Demons controlling a site should intrigue towards independence through influencing public opinion.  Kings and nobles should Do this as well.  To counter this people could decide to kill the King to replace him with someone they like better. Social agents should pay for bards to write songs and poems pro their arguments and maybe dangerous songs could becpme forbidden books maybe burnt.

[HMetal2001]

Books and the likes should play a vital role to a civ building and falling process. Books can teach and should be able to shift beliefs and values. People should discuss matters everyday and by reading cultural values change and one could read the values in legend mode.

Historians cherry-picking and sometimes fabricating their facts according to their (or their civilization's) interests should be implemented. With Legends mentioning all omitted, edited, or fabricated facts.

[Detoxicated]

The player should be able to decide on a topic in poem and writing and should be able to decide the tone

[HMetal2001]

Like in writing the poem itself?

[Detoxicated]

More like deciding on topic like the god astor
And then the tone like mocking
this poem might help to shift People away from astor

[HMetal2001]

More like deciding on topic like the god astor
And then the tone like mocking
this poem might help to shift People away from astor

So we make the poem?
Regarding religious reasons for Balkanizing, the Creation Myth Gen should be completed, with one God declaring another God to be His enemy. Dwarves would either be militant or just mistrusting of the enemy God's followers, which'll depend on the Dwarf's characteristics and personality traits.

[Detoxicated]

Libraries and ability to read and write would be key to Power just like in real life.
Just remember how carholic church had a monopoly on knowledge

[HMetal2001]

With one hardliner writing a codex against a particular God, which then persuades many to go out to the streets shouting "Nomud! Nomud!"? Then Crusades happen?
And all of this is supposed to happen in one civilization?