View attachment 721277
We've probably already seen Atomic age Independent Power designs in this livestream, looking back on it. The economic and scientific designs aren't present in the modern age at launch, what with the modern age IP leaders instead being represented with 18th and 19th century fashions, for the most part.
These strike me more as concept art (/models) rather than finalised units. It also seems more likely imo that they changed their minds about what time period the IPs should conform to dress-wise than that they designed atomic age IP models this far in advance and then put them in a graphic to show IP designs throughout the ages instead of the actual modern age ones.
Many people replied to me trying to argue that Ottomans were very naval-oriented. I would say that the Ottomans were as naval-oriented as Achaemenid Persia or Romans.
Owning a large navy or a corsair fleet does not necessarily equal maritime; it just means that this empire is very good at mobilizing its naval-capable imperial constituents. The Persian navy was drawn from the Phoenicians, Ionian Greeks, Cypriots, and Egyptians; the Romans had socii navales which were Greeks; and the Ottoman corsiar fleet was full of English, Dutch, Spanish, and Berber leaders, and their most outstanding admirals were either half-Greek or Croatian.
Saying the Barbary Corsair fleet is emblematic of the Ottomans is not unlike saying that the Cossack cavalry is emblematic of Russia, which is not necessarily a "wrong" description but a relatively questionable and ineffective one.
I'd be surprised if the Ottomans released as an in-game naval civ. But I think their association with Barbary piracy and great naval battles like Lepanto is enough justification to include them in a naval-themed pack, as this potentially could be, even though they would be the odd one out with non-naval abilities.
One thing I really dislike about the direction civ has taken recently, and sharply leaned into with Civ VII is the idea that a civilization is a political entity, rather than a culture or a people.
Proponents of Dixie have in my experienced argued that Dixie, and also the confederate battle flag, represent more than just the short lived Confederacy. They represent the distinct southern culture and people, and particularly in opposition to the dominant northern culture which usually smothers representation of the south.
I understand it kind of like a more extreme version of northern pride in the UK, and north-south relations.
One of the things I remember so strongly from studying history all the way from school to university is that symbols mean different things to different people. What you think Dixie represents is not the only or correct interpretation. It isn't a dog whistle, it isn't inappropriate. Every culture is valid. There are plenty of ways to bring in a Dixie civilization that do not base it solely or even at all around the Confederacy. Though in my opinion it would be stupid to ignore that part of history and whitewash it, not least because I think the chief reason for it's inclusion would be for people to "reenact" the secession from America in alt history.
The Confederacy itself were included in the American civil war scenario in Civ V too so it's not without precedent.
If the aim is to represent "the other half" of America, I would prefer we get the Republic of New Afrika before validating the general poisoning of history and public education by the Daughters of the Confederacy (and all of the terrible cults of exceptionalism and hatred that endured/spawned therefrom).
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.
Actually I’d argue World War II was the crisis and did change the fundamental nature of the United States from being an isolationist, racially segregated country to an industrial powerhouse that got thrust into the very middle of the global stage, becoming the leader of Western ideology, taking on various international mantles and issues that it refused to engage with before, and became an integrated nation expanding its influence through both soft and hard power. I mean, World War II changed the entire face of the planet in more ways than one for EVERYONE, of course, but the pre-World War II United States is drastically different in many ways from the post-World War II United States.
The biggest issue is how to separate the current American civ from a hypothetical “United States” civilization for a hypothetical fourth era that doesn’t feel like a repeat thematically and mechanically.
A crisis should be more than a mere transformation: it’s the end of a country and the rise of another, or at least of a formal political order (constitution, dynasty). A change of world view, no matter how meaningful, that leave the country with the same institutions, the same constitution, the same leadership system, the same capital, the same name, doesn’t even come close
A crisis should be more than a mere transformation: it’s the end of a country and the rise of another, or at least of a formal political order (constitution, dynasty). A change of world view, no matter how meaningful, that leave the country with the same institutions, the same constitution, the same leadership system, the same capital, the same name, doesn’t even come close
Agreed. In the games own terms, it represents the end of one civilization, and the start of another. I don't think anyone would argue that the American civilization has at any point ended and been replaced with something else.
Doing some snooping in the files to try and find what the base combat(/defense) strength for support units is, and found an 'army-names.xml' in base>modules>base-standard>data
If the aim is to represent "the other half" of America, I would prefer we get the Republic of New Afrika before validating the general poisoning of history and public education by the Daughters of the Confederacy (and all of the terrible cults of exceptionalism and hatred that endured/spawned therefrom).
I absolutely don't think we need any more American civs, but if we did go for one I'd absolutely go for maroon communities and something like the Great Dismal Swamp before the confederacy gets their own civ
I absolutely don't think we need any more American civs, but if we did go for one I'd absolutely go for maroon communities and something like the Great Dismal Swamp before the confederacy gets their own civ
I'm so tired of the anti-American animus pervading these forums.
American history has been sufficiently impactful on the modern world to justify at least three American civs: Colonial America (Exploration), America (Modern), and United States (Fourth Age)
I'd personally prefer more than that (the Republic of Texas & Dixie), but I'm biased (but in the right direction)
There's a long list of American people, indigenous, formerly enslaved, rowdy pirates and colonial alike, who should be included before the Confederacy, and an incredibly short list of Civs that deserve it less than they do.
Iceland has had an almost continuously running parliament for about 1100 years. They also have a rich literary tradition and a unique culture. Certainly would fit in with the exploration age and could be appropriately paired with Norway.
I quite enjoyed Sukritact's Iceland Mod in Civ VI.
Now that I’m done dramatically flinging objects across the room due to the implication of Age 4, I’m rather happy with the civ selection… looks like a fun lineup! It’s also encouraging that none of them scream “Atomic Age exclusive,” a point against an additional switch. Though a naval pack that includes the Pirate Republic over the Swahili almost feels like it’s mocking me… they did give me the relatively obscure Tonga, though, and pirates probably sell, so that’s the sacrifice you make. (It is sort of funny that my reaction to more marketable civs paired with less famous ones is the inverse of Firaxis’s idea of the average customer - I bet me and the average YouTube commenter would have a very different idea of what the “necessary evil” would be in a pack making you purchase Portugal and a local ancient weaving culture from the desert of modern day Peru simultaneously)
They need an Andean precursor civilization to the Incas to make a logical switch to them. Bring on that ancient weaving culture from Peru. Nazca is not a bad option.
I'd be surprised if the Ottomans released as an in-game naval civ. But I think their association with Barbary piracy and great naval battles like Lepanto is enough justification to include them in a naval-themed pack, as this potentially could be, even though they would be the odd one out with non-naval abilities.
Since civ 5, the Ottomans have had a weirdly naval focus in civ games. I suspect it's some wargamers behind the scenes at Firaxis. Would definitely believe that this is intended to be a naval pack.
OTOH the DLC pack we've seen have not had particular relevance to the names given, i.e. Crossroads of the World containing Britain, Carthage, Nepal, and Bulgaria. Aside from being varied locations, none of these are particularly associated with being "the crossroads of the world."
They need an Andean precursor civilization to the Incas to make a logical switch to them. Bring on that ancient weaving culture from Peru. Nazca is not a bad option.
Yes, and I don't think Nazca is any more obscure to a casual player than Tonga, for example. Its Lines are quite famous and appear quite a bit on these History, Science, and Aliens channels. Another option would be Tiwanaku, which is equally a great choice, though that one might actually be less well-known to casual players.
Yes, and I don't think Nazca is any more obscure to a casual player than Tonga, for example. Its Lines are quite famous and appear quite a bit on these History, Science, and Aliens channels. Another option would be Tiwanaku, which is equally a great choice, though that one might actually be less well-known to casual players.
Tiwanaku is another great choice. They definitely need at least one Andean precursor Civ to the Inca. It would be my go to play if I eventually get 7 when the "gatekeeper" is removed.
However, I don't like how the Inca are in the exploration age and forced to "play along," though. Maybe I don't want to launch ships and explore but just built mountain palaces, terrace farms and huge honking cities.
Tiwanaku is another great choice. They definitely need at least one Andean precursor Civ to the Inca. It would be my go to play if I eventually get 7 when the "gatekeeper" is removed.
Indeed, an Andean predecessor to the Incas is a high priority right now, but unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be anything on the horizon in the near future. I'd be very disappointed if there isn’t a pack focused on the Americas after so many additional civs with no sign of American civilizations. South America is empty now. Anyway, either Tiwanaku or Nazca would make me happy at this point, while the other could be included later in the development cycle.
Indeed, an Andean predecessor to the Incas is a high priority right now, but unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be anything on the horizon in the near future. I'd be very disappointed if there isn’t a pack focused on the Americas after so many additional civs with no sign of American civilizations. South America is empty now. Anyway, either Tiwanaku or Nazca would make me happy at this point, while the other could be included later in the development cycle.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.