Asset file hinting at future and/or cut content

[Evie]

That's putting entirely too much credit into the music theme video.

If the current in-game America was actually supposed to be Colonial America, there'd be *something* Colonial about the design. Instead, it's all about the 1850-1900 period of the United States. It is not in any way, form, or shape "colonial america".

 

[untitledjuan]

I understand your gut reaction here, but I think the reality is that the game is already full with switches which are much more bonkers than this. This type of switch would also clear the way for Mughals to "India" and Qing to "China."

The current civs switches are still passing from one political entity, culture or group to another. A hypothetical America to United States wouldn't even be a switch at all, they are the same political entity, culture and group. It would be the weirdest switch of them all if it ever happened, mainly because it wouldn't be a switch at all. Sure, modern USA is different to 19th century USA, but so is 1st century Rome and 5th century Rome, yet they still are the same political entity and culture.

 

[Pokarnor]

I could understand that idea better if the America we had now was called "Colonial America" and had Minutemen and Founding Father's Great People, and a Town Center quarter with Meeting House and Courthouse, instead of Marines and Prospectors and an Industrial yard focusing on the U.S. after they achieved their independence.

Yeah, unfortunately the America we have in game is already pushing heavily toward the later end of the "modern" time period in game conceptually with marines and robber barons and so on, despite being aesthetically focused more on the colonial/early independence era. This is going to make any fourth age awkward as it will either have to deal with some substantial overlap in that regard or else not have the most important atomic age civ IRL (I hope that's not too controversial of a claim to make) actually represented in the game's atomic age.

 

[Pokarnor]

That's putting entirely too much credit into the music theme video.

If the current in-game America was actually supposed to be Colonial America, there'd be *something* Colonial about the design. Instead, it's all about the 1850-1900 period of the United States. It is not in any way, form, or shape "colonial america".

I agree with you for the record, but I do think it being labelled colonial America there (and I think it was somewhere else as well though I can't recall it now) gives some insight either into what the devs are thinking or were thinking at some point.

 

[Evie]

I'm not so sure it says anything about the devs so much as about what inspired the music people.

I rather imagine that if the plan had been to have a Colonial America civilization, the name "Thirteen Colonies" was right there to distinguish it from a later "United States" as two more significantly different entities.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Or "Great Britain" to "United Kingdom"

To me that also would feel weird considering most of the United Kingdom is just Great Britain. I could see the difference if the Modern Age civ was called the British Empire and then it just became Great Britain later in the next age.

I agree with you for the record, but I do think it being labelled colonial America there (and I think it was somewhere else as well though I can't recall it now) gives some insight either into what the devs are thinking or were thinking at some point.

I'm not aware of it being referred to "Colonial America" anywhere else besides the theme video. In game it's just referred to as America. It could have easily just been an early name that the devs gave the composers, which would coincide with the idea that a potential 4th Atomic age was planning on being added with a more modern interpretation of America. Would explain the Marines as the UU.

 

[moondog385]

America isn’t called “Colonial America” in-game and is much more of a Manifest Destiny/Industrial Era period-America anyway so I don’t think the name of the music has much bearing on anything.

 

[queenpea]

It’s having two civs that are literally the same polity and presenting them as two distinct “civs” that rubs me the wrong way, especially when we already have two American leaders and will probably have more.

I get it, but the game is already bonkers as is, amd we are just discussing a game mechanic. If they are working on new civilizations for a new age, then some kind of America will be in there.

And there is no reason why they couldn’t go backwards and make the America we have in vanilla be more distinct somehow than a new age United States.

Also there is no reason we don’t see other civilizations doing the same thing. People have been requesting England and France for Exploration, too.

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

I get it, but the game is already bonkers as is, amd we are just discussing a game mechanic. If they are working on new civilizations for a new age, then some kind of America will be in there.

And there is no reason why they couldn’t go backwards and make the America we have in vanilla be more distinct somehow than a new age United States.

Also there is no reason we don’t see other civilizations doing the same thing. People have been requesting England and France for Exploration, too.

just a quick note. i think requesting more iterations of France and England makes way more sense than USA. they have way longer histories, more turbulence and variety within their respective linguistic polities...

 

[Evie]

Quite. French Empire may have its issues as a name, and is not the most precise name, but all the things it can refer to all harken back to a specific time period of French history, the nineteenth century, which comes after a very notorious and very large complete reformation of the French state (the Revolution of 1789). You couldn't name an Exploration French civ "French Empire", and you couldn't name a Modern French Civ "Ancien Régime France" or "Capetian France" or whatever other names an Exploration France could use.

In game terms, we have a clear Exploration Civ (Ancien Régime/Capetian France), a crisis period (the Revolution) and a new civilization (the French Empire) emerging. This works.

Likewise England, which cease to exist as a sovereign country around the end of the Exploration Era, to be replaced by the United Kingdom of Great Britain (later: and Ireland, still later: and North Ireland), a separate polity born out of the union of England and Scotland (and the gunpoint addition of Ireland to the wedding). The crisis is harder to pinpoint, though you could make a case that the English Civil War and subsequent Glorious Revolution are probably it.

In opposition, America and United States are just two perfectly interchangeable names that can both equally apply to the entire 1789-2025 period in the United States of America (of which they're both shorthand forms). The political structure and constitution of the polity remain largely the same through much of the period, and it does not go through a significant transition from one nation to another (eg, England - Great Britain). So having both names describing different things is infinitely more awkward, especially when the "Modern" america is clearly. There are multiple crisis candidate, but they don't lead to a fundamental change in the nature of the country.

On the other hand, *other* Atomic nations would also be bad. the French Empire and *modern* France are substantially the same nation (just without a colonial empire), likewise Great Britain and the United Kingdom, etc.

Which is the core difficulty here. If two civs in two different periods could exchange name and both names would still feel entirely appropriate (eg, call a Modern USA "United States" and an Atomic one "America"), then they aren't separate civs at all.

 

[queenpea]

Quite. French Empire may have its issues as a name, and is not the most precise name, but all the things it can refer to all harken back to a specific time period of French history, the nineteenth century, which comes after a very notorious and very large complete reformation of the French state (the Revolution of 1789). You couldn't name an Exploration French civ "French Empire", and you couldn't name a Modern French Civ "Ancien Régime France" or "Capetian France" or whatever other names an Exploration France could use.

In game terms, we have a clear Exploration Civ (Ancien Régime/Capetian France), a crisis period (the Revolution) and a new civilization (the French Empire) emerging. This works.

Likewise England, which cease to exist as a sovereign country around the end of the Exploration Era, to be replaced by the United Kingdom of Great Britain (later: and Ireland, still later: and North Ireland), a separate polity born out of the union of England and Scotland (and the gunpoint addition of Ireland to the wedding). The crisis is harder to pinpoint, though you could make a case that the English Civil War and subsequent Glorious Revolution are probably it.

In opposition, America and United States are just two perfectly interchangeable names that can both equally apply to the entire 1789-2025 period in the United States of America (of which they're both shorthand forms). The political structure and constitution of the polity remain largely the same through much of the period, and it does not go through a significant transition from one nation to another (eg, England - Great Britain). So having both names describing different things is infinitely more awkward, especially when the "Modern" america is clearly. There are multiple crisis candidate, but they don't lead to a fundamental change in the nature of the country.

On the other hand, *other* Atomic nations would also be bad. the French Empire and *modern* France are substantially the same nation (just without a colonial empire), likewise Great Britain and the United Kingdom, etc.

Which is the core difficulty here. If two civs in two different periods could exchange name and both names would still feel entirely appropriate (eg, call a Modern USA "United States" and an Atomic one "America"), then they aren't separate civs at all.

Yes, but I'm not saying it's a good idea; I'm saying its a likely outcome (if we add an age after Modern which requires civ switching).

 

[Pokarnor]

Yeah, the problem with a potential Atomic Age (or whatever we'd call the fourth age) is that a lot of the obvious candidates for inclusion are already well-represented by modern age civs that they wouldn't be well-distinguished from- America, France, Great Britain when it comes, arguably Japan too. On the other hand some could make the transition more neatly: Qing China -> PRC, Imperial Russia -> USSR, Prussia -> Bundesrepublik.

 

[Evie]

Fair, I'm just saying that it would significantly up the bonker-ness by having literally the same civ appear twice (in multiple trees).

Which is precisely why I'm such an opponent of the idea : I don't care if the paths aren't great, but I don't want two civs for the same polity when there's so many more that could be added, and yet Atomic would precisely do that for a lot of civs, while forcing awkward naming switcheroos (eg, Prussia up to 1950, Russia being half-Soviet Union (because it covers up to 1950) then the Soviet Union being half-Russia (because it covers past 1991)) on others.

About the only civs this really work for are India and China, and even then it's not a great fit.

 

[queenpea]

Fair, I'm just saying that it would significantly up the bonker-ness by having literally the same civ appear twice (in multiple trees).

Which is precisely why I'm such an opponent of the idea : I don't care if the paths aren't great, but I don't want two civs for the same polity when there's so many more that could be added, and yet Atomic would precisely do that for a lot of civs, while forcing awkward naming switcheroos (eg, Prussia up to 1950, Russia being half-Soviet Union (because it covers up to 1950) then the Soviet Union being half-Russia (because it covers past 1991)) on others.

About the only civs this really work for are India and China, and even then it's not a great fit.

But the devs can always go back to try to make the Modern Age iterations of these civs more distinct.

Also, with more civilizations being added throughout the other ages by DLC, I think we will be getting used to some of these more “gradual” switches. Rome to Byzantium, for example.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Also there is no reason we don’t see other civilizations doing the same thing. People have been requesting England and France for Exploration, too.

Great Britain will also include cities from Scotland and Wales, most likely, and be designed after the Union of the Crowns as under the British Empire. Ancien Régime France at least would be pre-revolutionary France, so in my mind these scenarios are different than going from America to U.S.A.

But the devs can always go back to try to make the Modern Age iterations of these civs more distinct.

Also, with more civilizations being added throughout the other ages by DLC, I think we will be getting used to some of these more “gradual” switches. Rome to Byzantium, for example.

I said this earlier, but if the devs decided to make it "Colonial America" from the start with minutemen and Founding Fathers Great People, I could see the possibility for a distinct American civ later on in a new age after they achieved Independence. Right now that would require a total rework of the civ as it is currently.

 

[Evie]

That would require completely redesigning a number of civs (because nothign about current America design works for a colonial america), while being unable to reuse the assets you had created for them for the new age (Because none of it work in Atomic, either), while running a (very high) chance of upsetting people who liked the original design. It's not a very sensible plan.

 

[queenpea]

Ancien Régime France at least would be pre-revolutionary France, so in my mind these scenarios are different than going from America to U.S.A.

If we get "Ancien régime France" or "Capetian France," I will blow my brains out.

I said this earlier, but if the devs decided to make it "Colonial America" from the start with minutemen and Founding Fathers Great People, I could see the possibility for a distinct American civ later on in a new age after they achieved Independence. Right now that would require a total rework of the civ as it is currently.

I'm not advocating for this! Just saying it's possible.

That would require completely redesigning a number of civs (because nothign about current America design works for a colonial america), while being unable to reuse the assets you had created for them for the new age (Because none of it work in Atomic, either), while running a (very high) chance of upsetting people who liked the original design. It's not a very sensible plan.

I don't think they would/should call it "colonial America" -- and I agree, I don't think it's a very good idea. However, we are where we are with this civ switching theme, and a 4th age feels inevitable to a lot of players or people just watching the evolution of the series.

 

[Evie]

I still think - although I don'T expect it, because I fully expect the devs to take the path of least resistance - that an Atomic Age centered on *international organizations* would be just about the best way to do things.

It establishes immediately the age's own separate identity as a time when alliances, blocs and spheres of influence come to replace the old Colonial Empires, while fitting the timeline much better as the movement toward forming great international cooperative bodies only really begin to show immediately before the Second World War and really hit the ground running after the War, precisely where the Atomic Age picks up. Then make gameplay about making independent join your block (but mostly not through conquest)

Throw NATO, the Warsaw Pact, the European Union, The Commonwealth, La Francophonie, the African Union, ASEAN, OPEC, (or obvious stand-in thereof for those organizations that have intelectual property on their names, ie "Atlantic Alliance", "Eurasian Pact", "Europe", etc) and you have good ground for building an actual fourth age.

 

[queenpea]

Yeah, I agree that the WWII-framing and the Space Race especially make the Age straddle an awkwardly long, yet undefinable, time period. The same can be said for the Exploration Game. I understand the path of least resistance argument, but I think, commercially, there are a lot of players who want to play "China," "India," and "Germany" to name a few examples.

Personally, I am open to adding "France" or "French Republic" into the game because I really don't enjoy playing the French Empire design we received in VII.

 

[Evie]

Prussia is already Germany in all but name so (unlike America) that's actually an easy fix, and China is troublesome because there's already three China in the game, mind (so who really should get the actual name?). India is the trickier one, I will grant.

I still think an international organization fourth age is really by far the best way to do the fourth age.