Civ 7 civ theories

[Imaus]

Assyria can stand on its own. It's a ruthless early expansionist power with disciplined and iconic armies; who went toe to toe with Egypt and won. They have a vicious reputation and a lot can build up from there; like I said elsewhere on the net, Assyrians with Cannons are basically Draka-level problems for the world.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Assyria can stand on its own. It's a ruthless early expansionist power with disciplined and iconic armies; who went toe to toe with Egypt and won. They have a vicious reputation and a lot can build up from there; like I said elsewhere on the net, Assyrians with Cannons are basically Draka-level problems for the world.

This argument from importance carries little weight in VI. For one, VI is placing higher value on cultural uniqueness over military achievement. For two, the very fact that you can claim the same military importance for Akkadia, the Hittites, Armenia, Palmyra, etc. etc. begs the question: why Assyria over equivalents? Why not something with more flavor like Armenia? Merely asserting that Assyria was "important" doesn't fly anymore in a game with a much more objective, global perspective on the lasting relevancy of cultures.

Nubia went toe-to-toe with Egypt, as did other civs like the Hitties and Mitanni. The Mongols, the Ottomans, Arabia, Macedon, Maurya, Qin Dynasty, all vicious. Merely being militaristic is not unique, in fact alongside being "religious," being militaristic is perhaps the least unique thing a civ can claim. Every empire was, as a rule, aggressively expansionist. Assyria in the grand scheme of things was. Not. Unique. An argument from ruthlessness is in every sense of the word banal.

I honestly grow tired of these sort of arguments of relevancy. Everyone thinks that just because a civ did things makes it exceptional and necessary to this franchise. They held territory for 2.5 seconds! They are "one of" the best in a small, tangential area of expertise! Things were recorded about them! They existed! They should be a civ! These are ultimately arguments from ignorance, because they all hinge on refusing to look at all the conflicting evidence that your proposed civ is not that special.

If you want a game that is full of nothing but boring, samey warmongerers, go play Total War. VI has already made perfectly clear that it will not acquiesce your shallow bloodbath fantasies.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

So, you don't like artistic license and what has already been made, ergo design space exists. That is a complete non sequitur. Sumeria is already in the game and taking up design space. You can't just erase it and build Akkadia from scratch.

I don't want to erase Sumeria at all. But another Civ from the same region I want.
Some suggestions for Babylon abilities that can differentiate them:
UA: Walls of Babylon- Founded and conquered cities start with the ability to have a range attack even if walls aren't built. Walls are one more level advanced than normal when built.
LA: Code of Hammurabi- Start the game with Code of Laws Civic. Gain +1 Extra Economic Slot in any government.
UU: Bowman (Replaces Archer) - Stronger when garrisoned
UB: Scribe School (Replaces the Library) Can hold a Great Work of Writing and provides more science. May spend extra gold to establish a scribe in another Civilization for more diplomatic visibility.

 

[Xandinho]

I honestly prefer that they keep working on Civ6 instead of jumping to Civ7. After GS, this game will become very complete, and I would hate to have to start all over again in a new interaction of the series. Civ6 was released in 2016, and considering the interval time between 5/6 years in each release of the series, I would say that Civ7 will only be released in 2021/2022, so there is room for a third expansion.

But talking about future interactions of the serie...

There are some civs included in Civ6 that I want to become staples, these civs I want to be included in all the interactions of the series, they are: Kongo, Nubia, Mapuche, Georgia, Hungary and Maori. I would not mind having Macedon again, I know this is controversial, but it makes sense to have Macedon in the game as long as Alexander is added as a leader. I can see all the modern civs included so far becoming staples (America, Brazil, Canada and Australia), and in Civ7, there is the possibility of including some more modern civs like Argentina or Colombia.

On the other hand, some of the new civs do not have to become staples and appear in all editions: Scythia (can be replaced by another one), Norway (can alternate with Denmark), Cree (there are many other options for North American civs ) and Scotland (can alternate with Gaul).

And I think some civs like Khmer, Indonesia, Sweden, Mali and Siam should become staples. It would be interesting to have some additional civs from these regions: Ashanti and Burma, for example, they don't need become staples.

Speaking about mechanisms, I would like governor systems, loyalty and era points continue in Civ7 and the future editions, and of course, natural disasters. The system of religion could be improved by adding reforms. Barbarians could be improved. And they could add corporations and an economic victory (I would like them to do it on Civ6 in a third expansion, but adding it to Civ7 is not late).

 

[awesome]

"More science" based on what? Sumeria already has the ziggurat? What Babylonian structure could be as resonant as that? It doesn't exist. VI has added more unique abilities per civ, and has generally tied them all to a visual asset. You can't just imagine a civ getting more great scientists anymore and call it good. You need a comprehensive art design, and one that doesn't overlap with Sumeria.

Nobody said anything about them just getting more great scientists? I mean, I get it that Sumeria is basically an Akkadian/ancient Near East blob civ with their unit and improvement, but that doesn't mean there can't be another civ in that general area, even if there's a little bot of overlap (and that's if there even is any).
But, this whole argument is getting a bit stale.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I don't want to erase Sumeria at all. But another Civ from the same region I want.
Some suggestions for Babylon abilities that can differentiate them:
UA: Walls of Babylon- Founded and conquered cities start with the ability to have a range attack even if walls aren't built. Walls are one more level advanced than normal when built.
LA: Code of Hammurabi- Start the game with Code of Laws Civic. Gain +1 Extra Economic Slot in any government.
UU: Bowman (Replaces Archer) - Stronger when garrisoned
UB: Scribe School (Replaces the Library) Can hold a Great Work of Writing and provides more science. May spend extra gold to establish a scribe in another Civilization for more diplomatic visibility.

Walls of Babylon are already represented in the Hanging Gardens model by the Ishtar gate.

Bowman and Scribe School have utterly no flavor. Nubia has the more iconic pitati. And to date only the "thermal bath" and "stave church" have not been uniquely named buildings (and electronics factory which is modern enough to get a pass). And still, both have clearly iconic designs and are indisputably Hungarian/Norwegian structures. What was a scribe school called? What would it look like? This is a terribly thin concept.

My point stands. Players do not think ideas through. Next.

 

[awesome]

I wouldn't be surprised if Scythians return in civ7, but I'd also like to see Sarmatians or Cimmerians, instead. I don't think we'll ever see the Huns again.

 

[Imaus]

This argument from importance carries little weight in VI. For one, VI is placing higher value on cultural uniqueness over military achievement. For two, the very fact that you can claim the same military importance for Akkadia, the Hittites, Armenia, Palmyra, etc. etc. begs the question: why Assyria over equivalents? Why not something with more flavor like Armenia? Merely asserting that Assyria was "important" doesn't fly anymore in a game with a much more objective, global perspective on the lasting relevancy of cultures.

Nubia went toe-to-toe with Egypt, as did other civs like the Hitties and Mitanni. The Mongols, the Ottomans, Arabia, Macedon, Maurya, Qin Dynasty, all vicious. Merely being militaristic is not unique, in fact alongside being "religious," being militaristic is perhaps the least unique thing a civ can claim. Every empire was, as a rule, aggressively expansionist. Assyria in the grand scheme of things was. Not. Unique. An argument from ruthlessness is in every sense of the word banal.

I honestly grow tired of these sort of arguments of relevancy. Everyone thinks that just because a civ did things makes it exceptional and necessary to this franchise. They held territory for 2.5 seconds! They are "one of" the best in a small, tangential area of expertise! Things were recorded about them! They existed! They should be a civ! These are ultimately arguments from ignorance, because they all hinge on refusing to look at all the conflicting evidence that your proposed civ is not that special.

If you want a game that is full of nothing but boring, samey warmongerers, go play Total War. VI has already made perfectly clear that it will not acquiesce your shallow bloodbath fantasies.

I said nothing about uniqueness, nor that it was 'mine', Phoeniciangold brought up Assyria, and questioned how it could be fleshed out. To me, that's an easy answer. Unlike Sumer or Babylon, Assyria's focus on expansion and autocratic control gave it a look that stands out in time: the conical helmet, the long skirt, the long beard, the elfin archers and the blocky spearmen. The grape-eating King who has no qualms of razing cities or rebellious subjects.

It can be the 'militaristic' option for the ancient era; while something like Egypt focuses on Production or Religion.

Do you still feel good after aggressively ranting now? Hmm?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Walls of Babylon are already represented in the Hanging Gardens model by the Ishtar gate.

Bowman and Scribe School have utterly no flavor. Nubia has the more iconic pitati. And to date only the "thermal bath" and "stave church" have not been uniquely named buildings (and electronics factory which is modern enough to get a pass). And still, both have clearly iconic designs and are indisputably Hungarian/Norwegian structures. What was a scribe school called? What would it look like? This is a terribly thin concept.

My point stands. Players do not think ideas through. Next.

How strange. In a discussion of Civ VII you are dismissing ideas right and left because you have made the totally unwarranted assumption that the Wonders, Civs and their attributes of Civ VI will remain the same in the next iteration of the game.
Just for starters, Civ V had both the Walls of Babylon and the Hanging Gardens. Whether the combination will or should occur in Civ VII is a legitimate discussion but you can't dismiss either one by saying, essentially "this is the way it's represented in Civ VI so that's it."

That has never been true in the Civ Franchise, and I don't expect it will be true in Civ VII.

Now as to Scribal Schools, that's another story: never have been in Civ, but to me, IF they were to be included, they would be a mechanism for adding a Science Boost to ancient Civs, but not necessarily Sumer or Babylon: scribal schooling was also an Egyptian phenomenon.
This then, should not necessarily be a Civ Unique, but rather a development that requires a set of prerequisites so that it cannot be Universal. Perhaps, for instance, a Scribal School would be a building in a Holy Site (assuming, of course, we're going to keep the same Districts, or any districts, in Civ VII - I think they will) Instead of a Shrine - so that you have to make a potentially Painful Choice: religion or science.

Another possibility would be to make the Scribal School a building that can take the place of Either the Shrine in the Holy Site, or the Monument in the City Center - in Mycenean Greece and Minoan Crete there were lots of written lists and tablets, but they all seem to have been stored in the Palaces and 'administrative centers' instead of associated with the temples and priesthood: let's explore the alternative developments.
Then you'd have the explicit choice of Religion, Culture or Science: can't have all three simultaneously in those Very Important early stages of the game.

My own preference, just to throw mud into the waters, would be None of the Above. I'd like a vastly expanded and more flexible system of Specialists, with every single Building and Wonder having Specialist slots, but considerable potential flexibility in what kind of Specialist goes where.
In this (very early stages of thinking about it) system, the Scribal School as a concept (probably the equivalent of a Civic rather than a Technology) would allow you to place a Science Specialist in either the Palace or the Shrine. In the Shrine he'd take the slot away from a pure Religion Specialist, so you'd get less Religion from the Shrine but a bit of Science instead. In the Palace, he'd take the place of (potentially) an early Military or Administration Specialist, so you'd be trading Science for Military or Loyalty.

In every case, getting Scribal Schools would obviously depend on having some kind of Writing, and also having some kind of basic administration, since the earliest writing seems to have been lists to keep track of goods/food stored for later distribution.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

The grape-eating King who has no qualms of razing cities or rebellious subjects...

Do you still feel good after aggressively ranting now? Hmm?

That kind of tyrannical personality has no place in Civ VI's design paradigm.

I don't know what kind of clever point you think you've made, but you haven't made it yet.

How strange. In a discussion of Civ VII you are dismissing ideas right and left because you have made the totally unwarranted assumption that the Wonders, Civs and their attributes of Civ VI will remain the same in the next iteration of the game.
Just for starters, Civ V had both the Walls of Babylon and the Hanging Gardens. Whether the combination will or should occur in Civ VII is a legitimate discussion but you can't dismiss either one by saying, essentially "this is the way it's represented in Civ VI so that's it."

This thread is about both VI and VII.

That has never been true in the Civ Franchise, and I don't expect it will be true in Civ VII.

Now as to Scribal Schools, that's another story: never have been in Civ, but to me, IF they were to be included, they would be a mechanism for adding a Science Boost to ancient Civs, but not necessarily Sumer or Babylon: scribal schooling was also an Egyptian phenomenon.
This then, should not necessarily be a Civ Unique, but rather a development that requires a set of prerequisites so that it cannot be Universal. Perhaps, for instance, a Scribal School would be a building in a Holy Site (assuming, of course, we're going to keep the same Districts, or any districts, in Civ VII - I think they will) Instead of a Shrine - so that you have to make a potentially Painful Choice: religion or science.

Another possibility would be to make the Scribal School a building that can take the place of Either the Shrine in the Holy Site, or the Monument in the City Center - in Mycenean Greece and Minoan Crete there were lots of written lists and tablets, but they all seem to have been stored in the Palaces and 'administrative centers' instead of associated with the temples and priesthood: let's explore the alternative developments.
Then you'd have the explicit choice of Religion, Culture or Science: can't have all three simultaneously in those Very Important early stages of the game.

My own preference, just to throw mud into the waters, would be None of the Above. I'd like a vastly expanded and more flexible system of Specialists, with every single Building and Wonder having Specialist slots, but considerable potential flexibility in what kind of Specialist goes where.
In this (very early stages of thinking about it) system, the Scribal School as a concept (probably the equivalent of a Civic rather than a Technology) would allow you to place a Science Specialist in either the Palace or the Shrine. In the Shrine he'd take the slot away from a pure Religion Specialist, so you'd get less Religion from the Shrine but a bit of Science instead. In the Palace, he'd take the place of (potentially) an early Military or Administration Specialist, so you'd be trading Science for Military or Loyalty.

In every case, getting Scribal Schools would obviously depend on having some kind of Writing, and also having some kind of basic administration, since the earliest writing seems to have been lists to keep track of goods/food stored for later distribution.

So, you are to some extent arguing for the game design in VII to regress and become more generic by repeating concepts and calling uniques "scribal schools." Got it. Never gonna happen, though. Every iteration has emphasized greater diversity, not less.

Also, as you admit, Edubas were Sumerian before they were Babylonian. Let's just give Sumeria a second UI instead of doing all the mental gymnastics you're proposing. If anything they deserve it more given that Civ VI has been assigning uniques to "first" adopters of structures just as equally as it is assigning to "best" adopters.

 

[awesome]

That kind of tyrannical personality has no place in Civ VI's design paradigm.

I don't know what kind of clever point you think you've made, but you haven't made it yet.



So, you are to some extent arguing for the game design in VII to regress and become more generic by repeating concepts and calling uniques "scribal schools." Got it. Never gonna happen, though. Every iteration has emphasized greater diversity, not less.

Also, as you admit, Edubas were Sumerian before they were Babylonian. Let's just give Sumeria a second UI instead of doing all the mental gymnastics you're proposing. If anything they deserve it more given that Civ VI has been assigning uniques to "first" adopters of structures just as equally as it is assigning to "best" adopters.

what are you talking about? There are several civs built around domination and raiding. There's even a leaderhead whose leader ability is named after how at least one source said she killed another of the game's leaders. This game is all about big personalities, not about whatever you're pretending it's about.

And you're quoting somebody who said that scribal schools shouldn't be a unique building, and telling them they said the opposite of that.