Asset file hinting at future and/or cut content

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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.

The Mughals to me already feel like modern India "like" with a Stepwell improvement, Sepoy UU, and Delhi as their capital. Qing China basically has all the modern-day spellings of Chinese cities in its list.
Along with Prussia being essentially Germany too, it's hard for me to think of compelling designs for later civs that would be interesting and distinct enough.

 

[queenpea]

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.

I get that point of view, but there are players who just want to play the country with the names they are accustomed to. There have been way too many conversations about this already, and a lot of them are silly.

"China" would just be post-imperial/dynasty China.

 

[Evie]

I mean, no, my suggestion was that we actually just rename Prussia to Germany like it always should have been. Then people *can* play that civ with the name they're accustomed to, and we don't have to put through with the stupidity that is "I-can't-believe-it's-not-Germany" Prussia. As to China, I'm of the opinion that the three dynasties shouls just be called "Han China", "Ming China" and "Qing China" with China prominently present in the name. The complaint from Chinese players I've seen is not "There's no civ that' sjust called China", it's "We're stuck playing Qing in Modern" which adding China in Atomic wouldn't actually solve.

India remains the one thorny one.

 

[queenpea]

I mean, no, my suggestion was that we actually just rename Prussia to Germany like it always should have been. Then people *can* play that civ with the name they're accustomed to, and we don't have to put through with the stupidity that is "I-can't-believe-it's-not-Germany" Prussia. As to China, I'm of the opinion that the three dynasties shouls just be called "Han China", "Ming China" and "Qing China" with China prominently present in the name. The complaint from Chinese players I've seen is not "There's no civ that' sjust called China", it's "We're stuck playing Qing in Modern" which adding China in Atomic wouldn't actually solve.

India remains the one thorny one.

I think the complaint about Qing is that they aren't "modern," and in the Chinese context, "foreign" and "subservient." In my opinion, these players just want to play PRC, but calling it simply "China" would be less political. I agree that Prussia is "I can't believe it's not Germany."

Again, I'm not advocating for this, I just believe it is what we will likely receive.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I mean, no, my suggestion was that we actually just rename Prussia to Germany like it always should have been. Then people *can* play that civ with the name they're accustomed to, and we don't have to put through with the stupidity that is "I-can't-believe-it's-not-Germany" Prussia. As to China, I'm of the opinion that the three dynasties shouls just be called "Han China", "Ming China" and "Qing China" with China prominently present in the name. The complaint from Chinese players I've seen is not "There's no civ that' sjust called China", it's "We're stuck playing Qing in Modern" which adding China in Atomic wouldn't actually solve.

India remains the one thorny one.

The problem from the Chinese perspective isn't labelling or understanding - it's a profound rejection of any form of representation for China that isn't China led, especially the Manchu Qing who presided over the century of humiliation.

The answer isn't rebranding it Qing China. There's not a neat way of answering it without an alt history civilization as I'm not sure how well ROC would go down either, and runs a high risk of blacklisting the game in China because of the delicate politics.

 

[Evie]

The chief complaint I saw about Qing was the foreign invaders part, with "modern" being a secondary aspect. And the demands I saw have commonly been for Republic of China with references to Sun Yat Sen more so than PRC. So, not sold on your interpretation.

Either way, the complaints are about *having to play Qing*, which they woudl still need to do with any China in Atomic. Their demand, on the face of it, is for Modern non-Qing China, not Atomic China

 

[queenpea]

The chief complaint I saw about Qing was the foreign invaders part, with "modern" being a secondary aspect. And the demands I saw have commonly been for Republic of China with references to Sun Yat Sen more so than PRC. So, not sold on your interpretation.

Either way, the complaints are about *having to play Qing*, which they woudl still need to do with any China in Atomic. Their demand, on the face of it, is for Modern non-Qing China, not Atomic China

Then let them play Buganda

 

[Evie]

Fine, about lack of an appropriate Chinese civilization in modern.

That's the complaint.

Meanwhile, adding a fourth age would make other common complaints (like Spain being in Exploration and not existing as a civ afterward) worse rather than better - now even if you rename Exploration Spain to Castille you need to figure out both a modern *and* an Atomic Spain to satisfy that particular line of protest.

 

[queenpea]

Fine, about lack of an appropriate Chinese civilization in modern.

That's the complaint.

Meanwhile, adding a fourth age would make other common complaints (like Spain being in Exploration and not existing as a civ afterward) worse rather than better - now even if you rename Exploration Spain to Castille you need to figure out both a modern *and* an Atomic Spain to satisfy that particular line of protest.

Well, the good news is that you can pre-order the new Modern Spain Pack DLC to scratch that particular itch.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Fine, about lack of an appropriate Chinese civilization in modern.

That's the complaint.

Meanwhile, adding a fourth age would make other common complaints (like Spain being in Exploration and not existing as a civ afterward) worse rather than better - now even if you rename Exploration Spain to Castille you need to figure out both a modern *and* an Atomic Spain to satisfy that particular line of protest.

I unfortunately agree that it looks likely Firaxis will do the stupid move anway. It's one of the biggest reason I haven't yet bought the game, the threat that they're going to waste design space on duplicating civilization into an end-game era while leaving the earlier era poor understaffed is more than enough to make me suffer a significant loss of interest.

Yeah, it's clear that if you design a Modern Age that spans from 1750 to the early 20th century the only logical Chinese polity that you could put there is the Qing Dynasty, regardless of how you feel about them. The Indian subcontinent is less obvious, but I'd rather take the Mughals any day over a British Raj civ. That's just the nature of age switching.

I'd hate it too if the only reason we do get an Atomic Age is to appease the people wanting a Modern China, and to a lesser extend Modern India.

 

[Evie]

Technically, you could justify an early XXth century Republic of China, since it was founded before the First World War. Or just China for short.

Bottom line is, yes, I agree, right now it seems likely we're getting the stupid cookie-cutter era where half the civs are duplicate of modern civs with asinine renames to try and differentiate them.

It's the main reason I have yet to buy Civ VII

I can accept the three-era split, if it's used to deliver a wide diversity of temporally or geographically unique representation. Not they waste their efforts on doubling up on many civs that are already in under barely different names.

(Main reason, not only one - there are three others - the Dev's unholy love affair with forward settling AI; their condescending dismissal of players who like large maps and insistence that smaller maps it the right way to play ; and certain current geopolitical considerations best not detailed here).

 

[marius_kaparius]

Well, the good news is that you can pre-order the new Modern Spain Pack DLC to scratch that particular itch.

Has this been announced?

 

[Evie]

(Pretty sure that was sarcasm)

 

[queenpea]

Has this been announced?

No, sorry, I am just being sarcastic. But I believe/fear that we will be receiving a great deal of DLC like this to satisfy whatever market is grumpiest about the game at any given moment.

Technically, you could justify an early XXth century Republic of China, since it was founded before the First World War. Or just China for short.

I would like to avoid civ "personas" (a civ being double-represented in a single age with modified mechanics).

 

[Evie]

But if you accept the Chinesse logic, Qing is a *Manchu* civ, not a Chinese one.

(I'm not onboard with it, and I don't want the doublet, just saying, this is the complaint, so any solution that leave Qing the only Chinese civ in modern actually fails to address it).

I'd actually be fine with a Modern Spain DLC, since exploration Spain, much like Prussia, is another case of a civ who is named for one civ but actually designed after their successor/predecessor. In this case, Ex-Spain really is Castille in all but name, so a modern Spain DLC could just easily change the name, add a new civ called Spain in modern, and be done with it.)

(But don't add Atomic to have TWO Spains!)

 

[queenpea]

But if you accept the Chinesse logic, Qing is a *Manchu* civ, not a Chinese one.

(I'm not onboard with it, and I don't want the doublet, just saying, this is the complaint, so any solution that leave Qing the only Chinese civ in modern actually fails to address it).

I'd actually be fine with a Modern Spain DLC, provided it does a reverse-Prussia and rename Exploration Spain to Castille (which it really is, and which it should always have been named), and symbols are shifted accordingly.

Yeah, I don't accept the logic Glad you're on board with my imaginary DLC. Being on board with DLC is a good attitude to have when looking at the future of VII.

 

[Evie]

I'm onboard with DLC.

I'm just not onboard with DLC that result in doubling up on lots of (mostly European, isn't that weird) civs to add a new era at the expanse of badly needed diversity in the entire rest of the game.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

d actually be fine with a Modern Spain DLC, since exploration Spain, much like Prussia, is another case of a civ who is named for one civ but actually designed after their successor/predecessor. In this case, Ex-Spain really is Castille in all but name, so a modern Spain DLC could just easily change the name, add a new civ called Spain in modern, and be done with it.)

Speaking of that it would be really nice if once they released the Qajar, they would rename Persia to the Achaemenids. Or I wouldn't mind the compromise of the two being Achaemenid Persia and Qajar Persia. At least some consistency would be nice.

 

[queenpea]

Speaking of that it would be really nice if once they released the Qajar, they would rename Persia to the Achaemenids. Or I wouldn't mind the compromise of the two being Achaemenid Persia and Qajar Persia. At least some consistency would be nice.

Best we can do is Pirate Republic.

 

[Evie]

(Far) better than than two Americas - it's a clearly distinct entity even if a very short-lived one, and one that I would expect to have fairly unique gameplay in a way a conventional country like the America2 (or France2, UK2, Germany2, Russia2, etc) is is far less likely to.