CIV 7 issues raised by a Native American

[Kwami]

Yeah the United States quite literally colonized and genocided these Native groups and then named football teams and summer camps after them

And also towns, cities, states, rivers, mountains, national parks, and so on. Native names are everywhere in the US.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Who says they speak american English?

the fact that their cities are now being named in English after this arbitrary crisis would imply that

Also, Shawnee living in teepees is itself offensive.

I'll accept this one. I was just being flippant to make a point, you're right I should've said Wetu to be accurate.

Probably US won’t be their only option…but if a human or AI Shawnee Player chose to go US, then having that tie to history would

1. Not imply the people are gone (they are not)

2. Allow human players to interpret the civ change as they wish (genocide/ conquest and replace the elite / an internally driven change in response to the crisis)

3. Help all human players in the game maintain an anchor (this civ is in that part of the map was my friend/enemy,etc.)

1. Yes it does. The United States literally genocided these people and in game they are gone and being replaced by Americans

2. Most humans don't want to interpret this change at all

3. you don't need anchors if you don't unnessecarily detach leaders from their civs and make civs interchangable like accessories.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

1. Yes it does. The United States literally genocided these people and in game they are gone and being replaced by Americans

I will say we don't know 100% if that's true or not. All we know of for certain is that they will turn into some new civ in the Modern Age. But I agree with you that the Shawnee even turning into the Sioux, isn't that much better.

 

[TheGrayFox]

And also towns, cities, states, rivers, mountains, national parks, and so on. Native names are everywhere in the US.

Yes everywhere after we genocided them and decided to either keep local names or name these places after them...

 

[Krikkit1]

the fact that their cities are now being named in English after this arbitrary crisis would imply that


I'll accept this one. I was just being flippant to make a point, you're right I should've said Wetu to be accurate.


1. Yes it does. The United States literally genocided these people and in game they are gone and being replaced by Americans

2. Most humans don't want to interpret this change at all

3. you don't need anchors if you don't unnessecarily detach leaders from their civs and make civs interchangable like accessories.

1. They are not Gone. There are Shawnee alive today…Not that IRL wasn’t an (incomplete) genocide. but they are still here.

2. humans can interpret the Game switch however they want…keeping names and architecture makes it easier to interpret the Game switch in a way that says they stood the test of time.

3. You always need anchors, it depends which

(also, city names updates should also be an Option…Qin-Shawnee-America should have 3 name options for each new city)

 

[TheGrayFox]

1. They are not Gone. There are Shawnee alive today…Not that IRL wasn’t an (incomplete) genocide. but they are still here.

The game is implying they're gone when the Shawnee disappears after the exploration age to be ruins under another civilization especially one that historically colonized and genocided them

You're right many of these tribes still do exist today, autonomously recgonized as their own nations/governments under a federal reservation systems we ethnically cleansed into.

2. humans can interpret the Game switch however they want…keeping names and architecture makes it easier to interpret the Game switch in a way that says they stood the test of time.

They didn't stand the test of time if they get wiped out and replaced by a completely different people and civilization building over them. You are free to make up all the head canon you want to justify these changes. Many of us are telling you we don't want this at all

(also, city names updates should also be an Option…Qin-Shawnee-America should have 3 name options for each new city)

listen to yourself.... who actually wants this? If you sincerly love the sounds of these changes than more power to you but yuck, just yuck.

 

[Krikkit1]

The game is implying they're gone when the Shawnee disappears after the exploration age to be ruins under another civilization especially one that historically colonized and genocided them

You're right many of these tribes still do exist today, autonomously recgonized as their own nations/governments under a federal reservation systems we ethnically cleansed into.



They didn't stand the test of time if they get wiped out and replaced by a completely different people and civilization building over them. You are free to make up all the head canon you want to justify these changes. Many of us are telling you we don't want this at all



listen to yourself.... who actually wants this? If you sincerly love the sounds of these changes than more power to you but yuck, just yuck.

It implies they are gone as much as the Romans or Egyptians are gone…

Which is why Preserving the name (and a Human player should be able to completely customize the name)…but AIs should also let you know if they used to be Greek or Rome or Egypt in their name.

 

[TheGrayFox]

It implies they are gone as much as the Romans or Egyptians are gone…

Ancient Rome is gone, I'm not sure if you know but they're Italians now. You also have to understand that there is a reason why historians seperate Ancient Eygpt and Eygpt post-Islamic conquest. By Civilization series standard, they are radically different.

Which is why Preserving the name (and a Human player should be able to completely customize the name)…but AIs should also let you know if they used to be Greek or Rome or Egypt in their name.

that's you making an assumption about something we haven't seen yet and simply preserving place names doesn't not change the fact that the original civilization is being replaced and built over by another

 

[Krikkit1]

Ancient Rome is gone, I'm not sure if you know but they're Italians now. You also have to understand that there is a reason why historians seperate Ancient Eygpt and Eygpt post-Islamic conquest. By Civilization series standard, they are radically different.




that's you making an assumption about something we haven't seen yet and simply preserving place names doesn't not change the fact that the original civilization is being replaced and built over by another

Romans are called Italians now
Egyptians are still called Egyptians

Both cultures are “gone”, but both affect the current culture.

So the player should have the option to keep or change the name, and the AI default should be to keep all of the names (how the previous ones are included/indicated is an issue)

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Ancient Rome is gone, I'm not sure if you know but they're Italians now.

In game, Ancient Rome will be gone, but the Romans will turn into Byzantines or Germans or something.

You also have to understand that there is a reason why historians seperate Ancient Eygpt and Eygpt post-Islamic conquest.

What reason?

 

[TheGrayFox]

In game, Ancient Rome will be gone, but the Romans will turn into Byzantines or Germans or something.

then my civilization didn't span the test of time. it was destroyed and replaced by others

What reason?

Because Arabs conquered Eygpt changing its langauge, religion, culture, etc, etc as a result., An Ancient Eygpt which by that time had already become pretty Hellenized due to centuries of Greek occupation and then Roman vassalage following. By civilization standards, the Arab civilization conquered Eygpt.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

What reason?

Maybe the same reason that even the civ series always represents Egypt as it's ancient counterpart until it was fully annexed by Rome.

Because Arabs conquered Eygpt changing its langauge, religion, culture, etc, etc as a result., An Ancient Eygpt which by that time had already become pretty Hellenized due to centuries of Greek occupation and then Roman vassalage following. By civilization standards, the Arab civilization conquered Eygpt.

I agree. Civ 6 Arabia is essentially Islamic Medieval Egypt. And well Civ 7 seems to follow that trend somewhat with Egypt going into the Abbasids.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Romans are called Italians now

no

Egyptians are still called Egyptians

yes and they're now Arabs, the result of being conquered by several other civilization which is why they speak a different langauge, practice another religion, have different cultural values and practices.

Both cultures are “gone”, but both affect the current culture.

ok. this was already depicted when my civilization conquered another in civilization and the city name, religion previous buildings, cultural population/influence, etc, remained.

 

[Krikkit1]

no


yes and they're now Arabs, the result of being conquered by several other civilization which is why they speak a different langauge, practice another religion, have different cultural values and practices.

ok. this was already depicted when my civilization conquered another in civilization and the city name, religion previous buildings, cultural population/influence, etc, remained.

Except in Civ7
You will retain certain bonuses from previous civs, and which players they cooperate with will stay the same

Rome->Byzantium IRL not a result of Rome being conquered by Byzantium... it is a result of Rome effectively moving its capital and dealing with 100s of years of cultural and religious changes. (including losing some territory, but the empire was never conquered (until 1000 years later)

Rome->Franks... yeah IRL that was conquest.... but what if Rome made a third Capital in Northwestern Europe, and successfully assimilated the Germanics and held of the migratory barbarian waves in the west, but lost the East to Islamic conquest in the 800s.... others might call that new civ the Franks

So in GAME any transition could be a you lose and were replaced OR you survived the crisis coming out looking different (the better to survive the crisis and hopefully the upcoming age

 

[TheGrayFox]

Except in Civ7
You will retain certain bonuses from previous civs, and which players they cooperate with will stay the same

Except there is a hard reset/time skip between ages and the only bonuses we've seen that will carry over between civilizations and ages is leader traits.

Rome->Byzantium IRL not a result of Rome being conquered by Byzantium... it is a result of Rome effectively moving its capital and dealing with 100s of years of cultural and religious changes. (including losing some territory, but the empire was never conquered (until 1000 years later)

No its the result of an administrative division of the empire created solely due the constant civil wars and conflict being experienced during the 3rd century and division between the two states would lead to conflict between the two and ultimately its western Rome half being conquered by foreigners. Most historians of crediblity consider the "Byzantine" distinction meant to seperate Eastern Rome from their Roman tradition to be ahistorical anyway. The Eastern half of the empire was still Roman.

Rome->Franks... yeah IRL that was conquest.... but what if Rome made a third Capital in Northwestern Europe, and successfully assimilated the Germanics and held of the migratory barbarian waves in the west, but lost the East to Islamic conquest in the 800s.... others might call that new civ the Franks

What...?! No one would call that civilization the Franks if it wasn't conquered and ultimately ruled by Franks who assimilated with locals.

So in GAME any transition could be a you lose and were replaced OR you survived the crisis coming out looking different (the better to survive the crisis and hopefully the upcoming age

I don't know how many times I can repeat, if my civilization loses and were replaced my civilization and empire did not stand the test of time.

 

[Krikkit1]

The Eastern half of the empire was still Roman.

But everyone calls it Byzantine and it was culturally different... particularly Byzantine "Rome" of 1000 AD v. Rome of 1 AD

Even though Byzantium didn't conquer and wipe out the Romans.... So the name changed and the culture changed even the language of the majority of the population ended up different... But the people called themselves Romans and the Empire never exactly fell in the transition

So Transition to a "different civ" could mean...

You were wiped out... want to try again with something new? (and a few memories of those you defeated)
OR
You survived and changed

The more the player can control things which make EITHER of those interpretations make sense, the more fun the game will be.

So a Rome Civ could switch to Mongols, Change their civ name to Mongols and rename all of their cities from the Mongol list.
The Roman empire was razed to the ground and the Mongols resettled it for the good pasture land (like Genghis's initial plans for China...) (those towns are filled with mongol settlers... a few straggling survivors build the old way)
OR
A Rome Civ switched to the Mongols, kept the name Rome and all new cities are named from the Roman list.
Roman Generals becoming more powerful to the point of leading warbands across the empire during the Crisis.. breakthroughs in cavalry archery technology and tactics (some copied from invaders), allowed a particular commander to unite the warring generals and lead the empire into the next great phase of conquest.


Either of those stories are a Rome->Mongol Civ switch
If the Player can Easily ie by default control
1. The civs name
2. The city list options

Then the player can go for the feel/history they want.

The default for AIs (and probably human players) should probably be switch to new, but with portions of the old... but the option to keep all of the old (particularly in names) would be important.

This could be in
civ name
city name
city graphics
"flags"

(That way Rome and Aztecs and even Poland can into space)

 

[TheGrayFox]

But everyone calls it Byzantine and it was culturally different... particularly Byzantine "Rome" of 1000 AD v. Rome of 1 AD

Even though Byzantium didn't conquer and wipe out the Romans.... So the name changed and the culture changed even the language of the majority of the population ended up different... But the people called themselves Romans and the Empire never exactly fell in the transition

Let me stop you here. Byzantine is a completely western and relatively modern name for the Eastern Roman Empire who called themselves Romans and were called Romans by their contemporary neighbors. Western historigraphy has always tried to distinguish the eastern portion of the empire that continued after the west's collapse specifically because the states in the west conquered and settled by Germanic peoples continued to try and claim a succesorship to the state of Rome.

The "difference in culture" you are referring to is what happens to a people after centuries, the Empire still used had roman imperial structure, culture, archietcture, law, entertainment, roman religion, spoke the language spoken by this half since before Rome even was administratively split in two. The Eastern portion of Rome (and a predominate portion of Roman elite in the west) had spoke Greek before the Romans even conquered it, their langauge didn't change.

and even then this transition into two seperate halves was the result of civil wars, conflict, and collapse. This Byzantine example is one of the few that actually work in the context of whatever nonsense the devs are trying to sell us as historical. This "just imagine your Ben Franklin and you are a Roman and then you suddenly decide to have have a mongol phase and then you're feeling a bit tropical so you become Buganda. Just imagine you're wiped out or you transition" doesn't

 

[Kwami]

Yes everywhere after we genocided them and decided to either keep local names or name these places after them...

What's your actual point here?

You agree that "Rome" is no more and that other civilizations have fallen and been replaced. Why not the Shawnee, too? A bunch of other other civilizations that fall in the first two ages were victims of genocide, plague, conquerors, or whatever else. The Shawnee are no different.

 

[TheGrayFox]

What's your actual point here?

My point was very clear. Having indignious civilizations forced into morphing into their colonizers is digusting and NOBODY wants this

You agree that "Rome" is no more and that other civilizations have fallen and been replaced. Why not the Shawnee, too? A bunch of other other civilizations that fall in the first two ages were victims of genocide, plague, conquerors, or whatever else. The Shawnee are no different.

Civilization is about building a civilization to stand the test of time.

Do you think I believe any civs in this game should be civ swapping into the people who wiped them out? Resticting a civilization to a single age, and then replacing it with completely unrelated peoples or their literal conquerers/genocides is stupid. The historical justification for the game mechanic is shoddy and the actually mechanic itself looks like it will suck and ruin our immersion just like Humankind.

 

[Krikkit1]

This Byzantine example is one of the few that actually work in the context of whatever nonsense the devs are trying to sell us as historical. This "just imagine your Ben Franklin and you are a Roman and then you suddenly decide to have have a mongol phase and then you're feeling a bit tropical so you become Buganda. Just imagine you're wiped out or you transition" doesn't

The thing is the Byzantine tradition (rare as it is) is much more common/historical than a civ that "stands the test of time" (which doesn't exist). How many "civilizations" can say they lasted more than 1000 years without a little conquest/genocide happening of the previous inhabitants, very few... and thats only 1/6 of the game.

Civ 7 is getting More historical/realistic if you insist that Transition=your empire is invaded and dies
Civ 7 is also getting More historical/realistic (although not as much) if you want it to be Transition=you system is shaken by problems but continues in a different form.
Civ1-6 was the least realistic of these options

By
1. Allowing the player some control over names
and
2. Having the default names/graphics incorporate some of the past

Then the player gets to experience it as closer to unshaken empire, wiped out empire, or altered empire as they choose.