stealth_nsk
Deity
We still don't know if it's a civ at all. The file is a mix of different entities - civs, leaders and so on. It could be a crisis, for example.
EDIT: And it totally could be a discarded experiment
Asset file hinting at future and/or cut content
- Thread starter Giskler
- Start date
EDIT: And it totally could be a discarded experiment
Vahnstad
Emperor
Norse -> antiquity
Denmark -> exploration
Norway -> exploration
Iceland -> exploration
Normans -> exploration
Sweden -> modern (obviously)
To me it feels if it is at the detriment of another civ, that it would be Norway but i would not be concerned about no other Scandinavian civs eventually making it in. Also because Iceland is the most closely related to Norway anyways.
Thenewwwguy
Deity
denmark makes the most sense going forward, I think—it’s the longest-lived scandinavian state (norway and sweden both spent hundreds of years under danish rule), works for both exploration and modern, broadly the most powerful nordic country for most of history, and can be more than just “viking raiders”. also unlike norway and sweden, it didn’t appear in civ 6.
finland obviously isn’t scandinavian, but it would be really interesting to see as well.
finland obviously isn’t scandinavian, but it would be really interesting to see as well.
RedCourtJester
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2024
- Messages
- 1,068
There always has been a "meritocracy," but not in the exact sense. Historically, the civ franchise has not added that many new civs per each installment. And whenever it has, it has stuck primarily to "equivalent" representations of empires (e.g., Hungary instead of Austria, Norway instead of Denmark), the "other half" of empires (Scotland, Nubia), de facto imperial kingdoms (Georgia, Vietnam), modern "empires" (Brazil, Canada, Australia, Mexico), and/or cultures which dominated territory in an, again de facto sense (Cree, Mapuche, Maori).
And this makes sense ludoflavorfully, if the idea is that you are only roleplaying as "expansionist" polities/cultures; a civs' territorial dominance in a particular region dovetails with the game format. The more the game has pulled away from traditional 4X win-cons, the more room it has created for less "imperial" players. I think at this point VII could totally accommodate a "defensive" civ/leader type which would even further solidify smaller, more enduring civs such as the upcoming Nepal (maybe Iceland, Dai Viet or Silla, although both did have "expansionist" periods), maybe Bohemia, maybe Guarani, etc. etc.
It's not a bad thing that Firaxis has had general "standards" for inclusion. It creates a consistency of expectation, a sort of social contract between devs and players, that the completed lineup won't be wasting too much space on obscure inclusions, and that most of the wanted/expected civs will be present.
I am very curious how VII will turn out, however, as they have opened the standard up a lot as compared to VI. I would never have pegged Nepal or Iceland as being very likely, and their inclusion suggests that maybe, ala Tonga and Hawaii, we could be seeing a lot of new civs (like, just with respect to those surprises, Greenland/Inuit, Burma, or Tibet), in addition to maybe the usual full return of the prior rosters.
Whina is absolutely a political decision, as if they had wanted a modern "leader" in the traditional civ sense Te Atairangikaahu was an actual Maori monarch, and a long-reigning one at that.
Whina is political in the same sense that we have Harriet and Ada but no one named George. The choice of a more political candidate for modern leaders--which also includes Rizal, Lafayette, Franklin, Bonaparte, and Bolivar--gives better sociopolitical context to the modern era. Why modern polities exist at all, and maybe encouraging people to think a bit more on the implications for current times (and if anyone thinks there are no implications...boy why are you even playing a history game). It is an indisputably good decision that only the intellectually lazy and bigoted would euphemistically decry as "too political."
Yeah I think Norway just isn't happening, given that it is more than adequately represented by Norse and Normans. I think modern Sweden is a lock and would have been base game if they had wanted a Scandinavian path at launch; it is that much of a staple at this point.
The biggest fear I have is for a Kalmar Union exploration civ. I was really gunning for exploration Denmark, but that technically includes Iceland so like other coregional civs it's chances are a bit diminished. Tbh I think Iceland is a very weak candidate for exploration, and conceptually would have made more sense as either antiquity (in place of Norse explorers), or as a modern sustainability power. Very curious how it plays out.
EDIT: Actually I wouldn't be too surprised if Iceland turned out to be the antiquity Scandi civ. The timeframe doesn't get much earlier for Norse expansion (i.e. it would be borderline weird to have the almost contemporaneous Norse switch to exploration Iceland), the Saga Age works extremely well for antiquity as a concept (both as defining Norse literature but also generally Norse expansionism), and the era breakouts for the region work out roughly the same as for the Khmer. It would be weird, to be sure, but I could see it happening.
Last edited:
Thenewwwguy
Deity
i wouldn’t worry about this too much, scotland in civ 6 was basically a GB civ, and england in civ 6 was basically GB. so clearly this doesn’t matter to them too much
canada wasn’t fully independent under Laurier either.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
I mean, Medieval Explorers being in the era called Exploration, which is all about Exploration, which covers most of the Medieval period is pretty much the textbook definition of A Thing That Make Sense...
Antiquity Norse would almost by definition focus on the raiding, pillaing, and settling along rivers which had all started a few centuries earlier than the oceanic exploration.
(And Iceland is the only logical choice for an Explorer Norse civ)
untitledjuan
Prince
Gran Colombia's oficial name was the "Republic of Colombia". Neither Bolívar, nor the people who lived back then, used the term "Gran Colombia" they just called their nation "Colombia".
The term "Gran Colombia" was later created by historians to refer to the historical period when Colombia was waaay larger, but the nation per se never stopped existing. The Republic of Colombia still exists and has existed for 200 years, it still consider Bolívar to have been its first president and still has some active laws from the "Gran Colombia" period.
"Gran Colombia" is a historical period similar to "Revolutionary America", "Imperial France, or "Meiji Japan", it is just a fragment of the wider history of a country which kept on existing to this day.
Sure, the "Napoleonic French Empire" was short lived, but France kept on existing. Its the same thing.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
I may be misremembering as I am no expert in the history, but wasn't there something like an almost thirty years period between the collapse of the original Republic of Colombia (Gran Colombia) and the rise of the modern Republic of Colombia where it was, in fact, *not* called Colombia but New Granada? If so, that would indicate, to me, that it was one of many splinter states that emerged from the wreck of OG Colombia - not its continuation, with no more claim to being the original Colombia than any of the others.
Many countries like to claim the ancestry and legacy of previous regime ; this does not mean those claims are true or exclusive. Some are pointedly not. Saddam was no ruler of Babylon, and modern Ghana is not a successor of the Ghana Empire.
From where I sit, it looks more like the original Colombia broke apart into multiple states, *all* of which are equally its successors, but one of which later decided to rename itself after it (and claim to be the One True Successor).
Many countries like to claim the ancestry and legacy of previous regime ; this does not mean those claims are true or exclusive. Some are pointedly not. Saddam was no ruler of Babylon, and modern Ghana is not a successor of the Ghana Empire.
From where I sit, it looks more like the original Colombia broke apart into multiple states, *all* of which are equally its successors, but one of which later decided to rename itself after it (and claim to be the One True Successor).
Last edited:
Thenewwwguy
Deity
New Granada is just Colombia before it adopted the new name because that’s what the province of Gran Colombia that became Panama/Colombia was called. I would broadly agree with you that modern Colombia is a splinter state alongside ecuador and venezuela rather than the direct continuation, but i do think that’s a relevant distinction ton to make
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
I agree that New Granada *is* modern Colombia - that much is clear -...but the fact that it *wasn't* called Colombia for its first twenty-seven years is a pretty strong indicator that it was, in fact, one of many successors or splinter of OG Colombia rather than a continuation of it.
My guess it is called Atomic versus Information because then they can sell civs like Soviets, and early 50s or 60s personalities who are now dead. With the new rules for leaders who didn't need to be political leaders, it becomes so easy, you can add Neil Armstrong or Yuri Gagarin.
That said, while thematically it is Atomic, I hope it does extend into a proper late game high tech experience like we had in the previous games.
That said, while thematically it is Atomic, I hope it does extend into a proper late game high tech experience like we had in the previous games.
I think Finland is a surprisingly (?) strong candidate for a modern (or atomic era
) civ--- Nordic country, even though not "Scandinavian" or "Germanic", hence can serve as an end of their line
--- Very logical inheritor of the Swedish civ (and other Scandinavians feel ok too)
--- Very distinctive and interesting
--- Doesn't fit anything but the modern (or atomic...) era, due to being frankly super backwards and unaccomplished before
--- But fits the modern (or atomic) era very well due to its fantastic success in the building of the modern civilization, while still having some dramatic modern military achievements of the highest sort
--- Wouldn't feel too off going from other civs or under non - Finnish leader
--- Moomins
If we truly get the atomic era, and if Firaxis is crazy enough to bother with filling it with its own separate set of civs, then we could even get
Norse -> Iceland -> Sweden -> Finland
Also, if I get drunk enough I may introduce Hungary as a second era civ and then Finland as its Finno-Ugric inheritor; and if both Firaxis is crazy enough and I take drugs too then we can go through Hungary -> Finland -> Estonia.
j51
Blue Star Cadet
So… Anyone find anything else in the files?
untitledjuan
Prince
You're right. However, the situation would be a bit similar to what happened after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Before Gran Colombia, the Viceroyalty of New Granada pretty much included all of the territory of what later became Gan Colombia (and even more territory). In that sense, the original New Granada (as a Spanish colony) was the predecessor of Gran Colombia, similar to how the Russian Empire was the predecessor of the USSR.
When Gran Colombia formed, it federally divided into itself into departments: New Granada, Venezuela and Ecuador. Again, something similar to how the USSR divided itself into republics and one of those was Russia.
The dissolution of Gran Colombia happened because the departments of Venezuela and Ecuador declared independence from the central government in Bogotá in 1830. Similar to how the Soviet republics began to declare independence from Moscow. New Granada, at least legally, never declared an end to the union or actively separated from it.
There was a brief war between the central government of Gran Colombia against Venezuela and Ecuador. However, due to Bolívar's death and lack of funds of the central government due to the recent independence war against Spain, not much was done to actively fight agains Venezuelan and Ecuadorian independence from Gran Colombia.
Due to this, there was a brief period between 1830 and 1832 were Colombia (aka. Gran Colombia) still legally existed, but it only controlled the territory of the Department of New Granada. Kind of like the USSR only controlling Russia after the independence of the other Soviet republics. It was not until the Constitution of 1832 was promulgated by the Congress of Colombia that the name of the remaining Gran Colombia was changed back to New Granada, for obvious reasons.
Much of the Constitution of 1832 kept various articles and important parts of the original Constitution of 1821 (the Constitution of Gran Colombia) and almost all of the laws made during the Gran Colombia period were still active after 1832 and some are still active in present-day Colombia, whose current Constitution still has many articles from the original 1821 Gran Colombian Constitution, especially the democratic institutions that have existed since then in Colombia/New Granada.
Moreover, in terms of international relations, the treaties that Gran Colombia made with foreign nations, such as the USA, UK and France remained active but applying only to New Granada/post-1863 Colombia.
For instance, the USA counts its ambassadors to Colombia since the first ambassador they sent to Gran Colombia and consider their foreign relations to have started and to been been the same and continous with Colombia since 1823. In a similar way, the UK and the Netherlands did not recognise a new New Granadan state after the end of Gran Colombia, they just kept the ambassadors they had in Bogotá.
Also, the debts contracted by Gran Colombia with the UK, France, the Netherlands and Haiti during the wars of independence were legally transferred to New Granada/post-1863 Colombia and were paid by them, not by Venezuela and Ecuador, which were considered by the those nations to be new nations without prior legal responsibilities with other nations.
To conclude, New Granada/present-day Colombia was the legal and political successor, both in local law and international law, to the original Republic of Colombia (Gran Colombia), similar to how Russia inherited the legal representation of the USSR (UN Security Council seat, etc.)
In Colombia's case, it was a change of name and territory, but laws, foreign relations and treaties remained almost the same.
Ryansinbela
Emperor
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Thanks for the clarification. The international recognition certainly make a very strong case for continuation of which I was not aware.
I mean I'd take Texas over Pirates.
Yes, I'm biased.
I've always envisioned that the Norse in Antiquity could at least have Old Norwegian settlement names, especially if Demark and Sweden were to appear as civs in later ages.
Thenewwwguy
Deity
to be fair though, i hate the fact that the ussr is lumped into russia in civ too. i don’t think they should be considered the same, just as colombia and gran colombia
