Asset file hinting at future and/or cut content

[moondog385]

I generally agree. I wish the game launched with a 4 age Antiquity-Medieval-Exploration-Industrial lineup. The current Exploration age feels inconsistent with its identity. Some of the civs in Modern (mainly the Mughals, Qing, and Buganda) are better suited for the in-game Exploration age than the industrial-focused Modern age. The same can be said about the Khmer and Mississippians being weirdly slotted into Antiquity. But as it stands its unlikely. There'd have to be fundamental changes to make a Medieval age work without killing the flow of the game. Adding an Atomic age just takes way less work in comparison.

If we were to have four ages, I would’ve preferred a “medieval” age but having spent plenty of time with the game already, I think two age transitions is enough so a fourth age, no matter where it’s placed, is overdoing it.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Part of me thinks their absence is because they’ll be included in the Fourth Age in some way. That’s why Colombia is the only one to appear—if it ever becomes a playable civ, it will focus on Gran Colombia, which will almost certainly show up in the Modern Age rather than the Fourth Age.

I hope not. Brazil and Argentina can just be depicted like America and Mexico is, as in primarily19th and early 20th century.

The biggest drawback to Olmecs and Indus Valley in previous Civ games was the total lack of any language for either, and the lack of information or even names for any leaders.

Now that those are no longer required for Civs, the biggest stumbling block is constructing a city list for either. We literally do not have a single place name in Olmec and all the Indus Valley sites are also modern names of archeological sites.

On the other hand, having done the Mississippians, it's obvious that the lack of any 'real' city names is not an insurmountable drawback. - And we know, if anything, as much or more about the Olmecs and Indus Valley people from the archeology than we do about the Mississippians,

Not only city names but now trying to come up with a unique civics tree with names for those civics and traditions might be challenging.

 

[Patine]

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.

Yes, this is very true. However, marketability and palatability in the modern gaming environment is a VERY powerful factor. The swatstika means completely different things to the old Pagan Norse/Teutonic Peoples, the Interwar Latvians and Finns, and, by independent, coterminous development, Buddhism, the third biggest religion in the world today. However, a certain band of genocidal and warmongering men in grey uninforms from '30's-40's Germany spoiled that symbol for everyone in games like this. I'm afraid a war to rebel against their government and fight and die for the perceived right to own other human beings and run an economy on the darker-hued backs of their forced labour, by another group of men in grey uniforms, did likewise to Dixie symbols.

 

[Patine]

I would prefer we get the Republic of New Afrika.

They're proponents weren't any better. They espoused the same Antisemitic, Anti-Asian, Anti-Immigrant, Anti-Catholic, Anti-LGBTQ, Anti-Miscongenaton, Pro-Segregation, Pro-Hard Patriarchy notions as Southern U.S. White Supremecists - they just flipped the roles of White and Black people in their views. They also advocated genocide of White civilians to carve out New Afrika from a big chunk of the Deep South.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Yes, this is very true. However, marketability and palatability in the modern gaming environment is a VERY powerful factor. The swatstika means completely different things to the old Pagan Norse/Teutonic Peoples, the Interwar Latvians and Finns, and, by independent, coterminous development, Buddhism, the third biggest religion in the world today. However, a certain band of genocidal and warmongering men in grey uninforms from '30's-40's Germany spoiled that symbol for everyone in games like this. I'm afraid a war to rebel against their government and fight and die for the perceived right to own other human beings and run an economy on the darker-hued backs of their forced labour, by another group of men in grey uniforms, did likewise to Dixie symbols.

I just think we should let people express themselves and understand the world through their own lens, and seek to minimise how much we impose our own worldview on others. That's the lesson I take from the defeat of these various grey uniformed chaps, and I find it ironic where we've now got to as a consequence.

If someone wants to play as the Confederacy, I'm not one to presume their reasons as there could be many. I find it unfortunate that so many here are so quick to jump to presuming the worst about their fellow man for baggage laid upon symbols by people long dead.

 

[Willie5000]

The Wari are another good option and they certainly built terrace farms.

I would argue that Caral-Supe is a better choice. It’s mountains, it’s a logical Andean precursor to the Inca, and actually existed in the timeframe of the game’s Antiquity Age.

 

[Thormodr]

I would argue that Caral-Supe is a better choice. It’s mountains, it’s a logical Andean precursor to the Inca, and actually existed in the timeframe of the game’s Antiquity Age.

The Wari's period of prominence was from 500-1000 AD. That certainly could work for 7 where everything is fast and loose anyway.

The Caral-Supe are believed to be the first sophisticated culture in the Americas so they get bonus marks for that. IIRC, they rose and fell roughly around the time of Sumeria. I don't believe they were a mountain culture, though. Do you have evidence of that?

 

[Krikkit1]

The Wari's period of prominence was from 500-1000 AD. That certainly could work for 7 where everything is fast and loose anyway.

The Caral-Supe are believed to be the first sophisticated culture in the Americas so they get bonus marks for that. IIRC, they rose and fell roughly around the time of Sumeria. I don't believe they were a mountain culture, though. Do you have evidence of that?

I think it's better if the geographic predecessor is Not a mountain culture.
The mountain line could be nongeographic
???-Inca-Nepal
and the ?Western? South America line be separate
Caral-Supe/Nazca/etc.->Inca->?Bolivia/Peru/Paraguay?

 

[Siptah]

Caral-Supe is, as quite a few other civs, mountain-adjacent. The cities at least were not directly in/on the mountains, but in larger valleys. I'm no expert on the region or how it looked 5000 years ago, but as far as I'm aware these are not the kinds of mountains in which you settle larger settlements, you stick to the rivers in the valleys.

What counts as mountain civ isn't that easy if you think about it. Yes, the Inca for example are a good example for larger settlements in and on mountains. But even in Tibet, most cities are on valley floors (which are high altitude, of course) and rivers, and not on the slopes or in the mountains. Does that make Tibet a mountain civ or a mountain-adjacent civ? You also find a few larger settlements in the alps or in mainland Greece for example (and dating back a long time in some cases), but even in Austria and Switzerland, where the mountains are filled with villages, the majority always lived elsewhere. Is Hallstatt (i.e., early continental celts) a mountain civ because their type site is? But their successors, with La Tène as type site, is only mountain-adjacent? Or is neither any? There is a lot of arbitrariness in this.

But more to the point. Caral-Supe/Norte Chico is only archeologically known culture, which is something that civ so far shied away from (unlike Humankind). I can see getting some of these in civ 7 to fill out Antiquity in the coming years though. So maybe, it is an option. And aside from the associated problems of being only archeologically known and very clichéd (which civ always loves to go for, so prepare for a civ that doesn't declare war), it's a rather good option imho.

I also think it would be a shame if we end up with only 3-5 South American civs, the majority of which focuses on mountains. Rather, spread this kind of civs across the world and ages, and show the diversity within SA a bit better - mountains, highlands, deserts, coasts, rainforests, patagonia, llanos, pampas, whatever. SA isn't just the Andes, and even in the Andes, it's not just about who cultivates the steepest slopes and lives on highest altitudes.

 

[moondog385]

Lots of great options for South America. Tiwanaku, Nazca, Wari, Guarani, Muisca, Mapuche. That’s without tapping into modern states. Hell, they could even go super left field and do an Amazon civ like the Marajoara.

I agree it would be pretty disappointing to only see two or three indigenous civs by the end of the game’s life cycle. I found VI’s indigenous representation on the barebones side myself.

 

[Xandinho]

Hell, they could even go super left field and do an Amazon civ like the Marajoara.

The Marajoara would be interesting, but unfortunately, we don’t know much about them. The Xinguans remain my top choice for an Amazonian civilization, as they are well-documented in all the elements Civ 7 requires to form a civ. However, the Xinguans do not correspond to a specific tribe but rather a large cultural sphere of closely related groups, similar to the Mississippians. Another option, though less appropriate, would be a broad synthesis of Amazonian tribes into a civilization called "Amazonian."

 

[moondog385]

The Marajoara would be interesting, but unfortunately, we don’t know much about them. The Xinguans remain my top choice for an Amazonian civilization, as they are well-documented in all the elements Civ 7 requires to form a civ. However, the Xinguans do not correspond to a specific tribe but rather a large cultural sphere of closely related groups, similar to the Mississippians. Another option, though less appropriate, would be a broad synthesis of Amazonian tribes into a civilization called "Amazonian."

The Xingu would be a great addition. Would definitely prefer them over something blobby like “Amazonian.” Reminds me a bit of “Polynesians.”

 

[untitledjuan]

I think it's better if the geographic predecessor is Not a mountain culture.
The mountain line could be nongeographic
???-Inca-Nepal
and the ?Western? South America line be separate
Caral-Supe/Nazca/etc.->Inca->?Bolivia/Peru/Paraguay?

Paraguay would be a more "Eastern" South America "descendant", they'd come from the Guaraní, who in turn are related to the Tupi, the Native inhabitants of the easternmost coast of Brazil.

If we are to "divide" South America in any geographical "lines", I think the most sensible options would be as follows:

"Eastern South America":
Ancient: Carib/Marajoaran/Arawak
Exploration: Tupi/Guaraní
Modern: Brazil/Guaraní/Paraguay

"Western/Andean South America"
Ancient: Caral/Nazca/Chimú
Exploration: Inca/Mapuche
Modern: Colombia/Argentina/Mapuche

"Northern South America/Caribbean"
Ancient: Carib/Arawak
Exploration: Muisca/Taíno
Modern: Colombia/Haiti

"Southern South America"
Ancient: Charrúa/Diaguita
Exploration: Inca/Mapuche
Modern: Argentina/Mapuche

 

[untitledjuan]

The Xingu would be a great addition. Would definitely prefer them over something blobby like “Amazonian.” Reminds me a bit of “Polynesians.”

I think that the Yanomamo, a specific Amazonian group from Brazil and Venezuela, rather than a blob such as the Xingu, would be a very interesting addition in terms of mechanics, considering the peculiar circular shaped settlements they built (known as "Shabono"), as well as their complex social systems based around waging war with other groups. They could fit in the Exploration Era.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

What other group of people than southern Americans would you say this to? Are Germans allowed heritage or is theirs also hate? What about Belgians? They still have the same flag and monarchy that committed atrocities in the Congo. What about creole culture, is that ok to represent or is that also hate, and culturally and morally backward because it is southern?

Every argument you've made could also be used to keep Brazil out of the game as another colonial slaving power - and the last one to ban it in the western hemisphere. Is Brazil not "culturally, politically, economically and morally backwards compared to the northern U.S."? Is there some ranking order of superior to inferior peoples and cultures you have that I should be aware of?

Interesting thought exercise for the day might be to ponder why the southern identity in particular is absolutely despicable and must be erased at all costs, no compromises, but other places are allowed to keep parts, even parts associated with the atrocities that happened.

Moderator Action: Edited out deleted post-AH

 

[Patine]

Still a complete lack of appreciation for other viewpoints going on. The Confederacy is everything you both have said it is. But it can mean other things to others too. When people celebrate Gandhi, I would hope for the most part they are doing so selectively, celebrating the bits they want to celebrate around his push for Indian rights, and not for his racism or his paedophilia.

If we can have that nuance around Gandhi, why can't we have any around the Confederacy?

The Deep South of the United States was ONLY ever a separate nation or civ from the United States for around 4-5 years as the Confederacy. For the rest of it's history, it was part of the United States as a civ. You seem to be trying to portray that as though it were different.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

Still a complete lack of appreciation for other viewpoints going on. The Confederacy is everything you both have said it is. But it can mean other things to others too. When people celebrate Gandhi, I would hope for the most part they are doing so selectively, celebrating the bits they want to celebrate around his push for Indian rights, and not for his racism or his paedophilia.

If we can have that nuance around Gandhi, why can't we have any around the Confederacy?

I have two, somewhat unrelated thoughts on this, one on the level of relevance and the other on the level of nuance.

1. Honestly, if California declared independence for four years and then rejoined the United States, I don't think it would qualify to be added as a Civilization, even with the unique cultural tidbits it may have that the rest of the United States doesn't. The Confederacy is just that except with a big focus on slavery and one of history's best PR teams in the DotC. It just doesn't justify itself as a separate civ.

2. If Gandhi was famous specifically for being racist or a pedophile and his work in Indian independence was a footnote, I think that he wouldn't be considered for the game either. This is why I don't think we'll ever see, for instance, Andrew Jackson: his introduction of populist narratives to the political climate and his service at the Battle of New Orleans are (imo, rightfully) overshadowed by the Trail of Tears in his modern reputation. To use one of your examples, I also think that a "Builder King" Leopold II is out of the question.

 

[untitledjuan]

You may not think that, but that's because you are ignoring the nuance that exist. Symbols aren't simply the sum of a things parts. They exist and grow beyond the vessel that started them.

However, symbols alone, are not enough to be a civilization by themselves.

Southern American culture is part of the wider American culture, they are already represented by the inclusion of America in the game, in the same way Athens, Sparta, Thebes, etc. are represented in-game with the inclusion of the Greece civilization.

 

[marius_kaparius]

Does anyone know if this TRAIT_INCA and TRAIT_INCA_2 mean anything in Base/modules/base-standard/data/civilizations.xml ? It suggests they consider a different set of traits for the Inca. Was this in older files?

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: I've deleted a good part of the confederacy discussion. Back to topic please.