7 New Civs You'd Like to See in Civ7

[Patine]

You're being pedantic my man, live a little

No, I am not. My point is solid, and quite poignant. And, again, it's not really a joke.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Eurasian Steppe Nomads.

Well if you said the Kazakhs, sure. But Kazakhstan I associate more with the modern-day country that was shaped by the Russians/Soviets.

You also didn't actually say the playstyle was planned to chage in that era, eithrer, in your view. Do you have a vision how that would be addressed?

Not specifically. If I'd had to choose a specific civ for that playstyle it could be the unique ability for the Sarmatians though.

 

[pineappledan]

Oh right not even the capital? So how do you lose?

didn't see this.

Complete kills only I guess

Make a whole new game called Civilisation: Barbarians
Where the entire game is you doing as much damage as possible
And your choices for Civs are all different Barbs
Then you get to be a Terrorist in the modern era

I haven't played it, but Shafer, the lead dev behind civ 5 released a self-published 4x game called 'At the Gates' that is pretty much this. reviews mostly report that it's fun enough mechanically, but it's hamstrung by bad AI and borderline unplayable as a result.

 

[Patine]

Well if you said the Kazakhs, sure. But Kazakhstan I associate more with the modern-day country that was shaped by the Russians/Soviets.

"Land of the Kazakhs." It was used before the Tsarist Russian conquest of Turkestan. The Soviets prefered, "Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic," for some reason. Nursultan Nazarbeyev reverted the name back in 1991, not any Russian. Like the, "Zululand," name in most historical records of Shaka and Cetanbayo's kingdom is exactly the same in Zulu as, "KwaZulu," in the modern South American Province of KwaZulu-Natal, and the preceding, "Bantustan," of KwaZulu.

 

[Patine]

Not specifically. If I'd had to choose a specific civ for that playstyle it could be the unique ability for the Sarmatians though.

My question remains on how you would envision things working at the dawn of Industral Age, though?

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I haven't played it, but Shafer, the lead dev behind civ 5 released a self-published 4x game called 'At the Gates' that is pretty much this. reviews mostly report that it's fun enough mechanically, but it's hamstrung by bad AI and borderline unplayable as a result.

I watched a playthrough by Shafer. It looked amazing, but sadly it seems that Shafer has abandoned the game, so it's rife with issues that are never going to get solved

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

"Land of the Kazakhs." It was used before the Tsarist Russian conquest of Turkestan. The Soviets prefered, "Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic," for some reason. Nursultan Nazarbeyev reverted the name back in 1991, not any Russian. Like the, "Zululand," name in most historical records of Shaka and Cetanbayo's kingdom is exactly the same in Zulu as, "KwaZulu," in the modern South American Province of KwaZulu-Natal, and the preceding, "Bantustan," of KwaZulu.

Was the name 'Kazakhstan' used? There was a Kazakh khanate, true, but I don't know that there was any significant degree of Kazakh nationalism pre-USSR. As far as I can recall, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan are modern post-USSR names

 

[Patine]

Was the name 'Kazakhstan' used? There was a Kazakh khanate, true, but I don't know that there was any significant degree of Kazakh nationalism pre-USSR. As far as I can recall, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan are modern post-USSR names

I'm pretty sure the Turco-Persiam suffix -stan was very prevelant in the region. It may have just been a pragmatic geographic reference for polities, though, rather than an indicator of Nationalism, back then, like the Anglo-Germanic -land or the Greco-Roman -a or -ia was in older days.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I'm pretty sure the Turco-Persiam suffix -stan was very prevelant in the region. It may have just been a pragmatic geographic reference for polities, though, rather than an indicator of Nationalism, back then, like the Anglo-Germanic -land or the Greco-Roman -a or -ia was in older days.

That it was, but the modern -stan states are modern concepts. I don't know for sure, but I don't believe these terms were commonly used pre-USSR

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

My question remains on how you would envision things working at the dawn of Industral Age, though?

People of the Steppe: May continue to build encampments after reaching the Ancient Era and settling your first city. +2 Science, Culture, Gold, Faith, and Production for every turn that you do not convert one of your encampments to your capital city. Cannot build settlers and found more cities.

Note that encampment is a term that might be used to describe earlier moveable settlements in a "Neolithic" Era. They are still able to produce units and have yields around it.

The idea behind this is you can stay as nomadic as long as you want. Though in order to have more cities you would have to go out and conquer them with units.

 

[Patine]

That it was, but the modern -stan states are modern concepts. I don't know for sure, but I don't believe these terms were commonly used pre-USSR

They're not Soviet term, either. The Soviets, officially, used <insert titular etniicity> Soviet Socialist Republic.

 

[Patine]

People of the Steppe: May continue to build encampments after reaching the Ancient Era and settling your first city. +2 Science, Culture, Gold, Faith, and Production for every turn that you do not convert one of your encampments to your capital city. Cannot build settlers and found more cities.

Note that encampment is a term that might be used to describe earlier moveable settlements in a "Neolithic" Era. They are still able to produce units and have yields around it.

The idea behind this is you can stay as nomadic as long as you want. Though in order to have more cities you would have to go out and conquer them with units.

The inability to build settlers is part of those arbitrary, artificial limits that make no sense, as I see it. And, iis as historically inaccurate to the Eurasian Steppes Nomads as it is to the Venetian Republic.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Was the name 'Kazakhstan' used? There was a Kazakh khanate, true, but I don't know that there was any significant degree of Kazakh nationalism pre-USSR. As far as I can recall, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan are modern post-USSR names

Specific Kazakh identity doesn't seem to predate the Kazakh Khanate that was formed around 1465 CE after the Mongol Golden Horde fell apart, and Kazakh language and culture don't seem to have been solidly differentiated from other Turkic groups in the area until the following century. The Khanate seems to have been almost entirely a tribal organization and was completely subjugated by the Russian Empire between 1813 and 1907 - and by the latter date a large number of Russians had been moved into Kazakh territory to increase Russian influence in the area.

After the revolution, in 1920 there was a Kirghiz Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic which included the territory of modern Kazakhstan, but it was run by Russians. In 1925 the Kirghiz ASSR was renamed the Kazak Autonomous Soviet Social Republic, and two years later the capital moved to Alma-Ata. The area was a destination for many 'resettled' people like the Volga Germans (400,000) and Crimean Tatars (200 - 250,000) moved away from the German invaders in 1941 - 42, and it also had a large concentration of Gulag labor camps by the end of the war.

Although during the Soviet period the term 'Kazakhstan' was never used officially for the area or its government, it shows up frequently in books from the period as unofficial 'shorthand' for the area, and during the war Kazakh was one of the ethnic groups reported in Personnel Status reports from Soviet units. One of the most famous units in the Red Army, in fact, was a reserve Rifle Division formed in the area, composed of about 50% native Kazakhs: the 316th Rifle Division, which became the 8th Guards Rifle Division in November 1941. There is a large granite monument dedicated to the division northwest of Moscow to this day.

The first official use of the term Kazakhstan that I can find was when it declared itself a 'sovereign republic' under the USSR on 25 October 1990. It declared complete independence the following year, 16 December 1991, as the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Despite the policy of both the Russian Empire and USSR of moving native Russians into the area to dilute the natives, the population of Kazakhstan today is 70% ethnic Kazakh, chiefly because many of the Russians and other groups moved in earlier left in the 1990s to move back home!

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The inability to build settlers is part of those arbitrary, artificial limits that make no sense, as I see it. And, iis as historically inaccurate to the Eurasian Steppes Nomads as it is to the Venetian Republic.

This is why I proposed 'Pastoral Settlers' that cost much less to build, but it takes 2 to form a City while only 1 can build a Settlement to expand territory. That allows the pastoral group to expand fairly rapidly and later convert to city-building when pastoralism becomes less efficient compared to Industrialization.

A flat prohibition on pastoral groups both makes their survival later very problematic and also is simply not accurate given that Scythian, Mongol, Kushan, and other pastoral nomadic groups did build cities and even used them as Capitals.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That it was, but the modern -stan states are modern concepts. I don't know for sure, but I don't believe these terms were commonly used pre-USSR

Which is why if they ever got into civ I think they would just use the name Khazaks. I'm pretty sure I've seen Humankind use that name too as a minor nation, but I'm not sure?

The inability to build settlers is part of those arbitrary, artificial limits that make no sense, as I see it. And, iis as historically inaccurate to the Eurasian Steppes Nomads as it is to the Venetian Republic.

I'm fine with the idea of changing that to settlers can still found encampments that can eventually grow into cities.
Though if it were the Huns I'd probably keep it as is.

 

[Evie]

Mostly, they should use the name Kazakh because that's been the norm for naming Civs from Civ I onward: French, English, German civilizations. Not France, England, Germany,

The practice of using the country name rather than the people/culture name is largely just obstinate fannish misspeaking.

 

[Patine]

Mostly, they should use the name Kazakh because that's been the norm for naming Civs from Civ I onward: French, English, German civilizations. Not France, England, Germany,

The practice of using the country name rather than the people/culture name is largely just obstinate fannish misspeaking.

Well, it may not be typical in-game parlance, but, "the practice of using the country name rather than the people/culture name is largely just obstinate fannish misspeaking," is a bit, egregiously, unnecessarily harsh, and not actually true. I admit, I have descended into such inexplicable, out-of-the-blue, unpleasant phrasing here, myself, but I have also noticed it doesn't leading to good fellowship.

 

[Evie]

Obstinate fannish slang, then (because really, thirty years of replacing actual game terminology with our own really is obstinate)

For the rest, not a commentary on any individual, just a genersl observation. It's a fan terminology thing, we all do it becsuse we're all part of that fan culture, myself included, but it's rather silly when we get so caught up in our fan speak that we forget thirty-some years of actual game terminology to debate whether a country name would be the appropriate name for a civ.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Which is why if they ever got into civ I think they would just use the name Khazaks. I'm pretty sure I've seen Humankind use that name too as a minor nation, but I'm not sure?

Yes, they should use the name "the Kazakh". Kazakhstan is the modern nation-state that doesn't fully correspond with the Kazakh Khanate

 

[Patine]

Obstinate fannish slang, then (because really, thirty years of replacing actual game terminology with our own really is obstinate)

For the rest, not a commentary on any individual, just a genersl observation. It's a fan terminology thing, we all do it becsuse we're all part of that fan culture, myself included, but it's rather silly when we get so caught up in our fan speak that we forget thirty-some years of actual game terminology to debate whether a country name would be the appropriate name for a civ.

But was a derisive call-out for such a minor point not everyone shares really needed? This is something I, myself, have not always stopped to think about before making some of my infamous, egregious, angry rants