CIV 7 issues raised by a Native American

[TheGrayFox]

The thing is the Byzantine tradition (rare as it is) is much more common/historical than a civ that "stands the test of time". How many polities can say they lasted more than 1000 years, even if you ignore civil wars and such.

Civilization is not a series meant to recreate a 1:1 simulation of history. Creating civilization/empire that stands the test of time is what this game series is built on. if you want civ swapping as a mechanic just go play humankind and if you actually want history simulation and true historical abstraction implented well go play a Paradox grand strategy game

Civ 7 is getting More historical/realistic if you insist that Transition=your empire is invaded and die

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.

None of this is more historical. Eygpt turning into the Mongols and than becoming Buganda isn't historical by any stretch of the imagination. I don't even know how you're trying to justify arbitrary crisises occuring all at the same time which then cause every single civilization in the world to then mighty morphing into completely different cultural groups at the same exact time as "more historical". That's not how history works at all

 

[The_J]

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

It should be emphasized that we currently have 0 evidence this will happen (at least not from a Firaxis designed AI choice; what the player does is their decision), and it seems extremely unlikely that a project of this size has not considered this before.

 

[TheGrayFox]

It should be emphasized that we currently have 0 evidence this will happen (at least not from a Firaxis designed AI choice; what the player does is their decision), and it seems extremely unlikely that a project of this size has not considered this before.

but we do have evidence that that Eygpt > Songhai/Abbasids > Buganda....

Even if they're smart enough to avoid the colonized > colonizer problem. The reality of the alternative is just nonsense like the Shawnee and Aztecs becoming Cherokee which isn't much better either

 

[The_J]

The reality of the alternative like starting 4000 BC with America and Lincoln as a leader doesn't do it much better.
At least this is new, and could lead to some fun mechanics.

 

[lt22677]

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)

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

Wouldn't it be much simpler?
Rome / Renaissance Italy / Italy

If Renaissance Italy doesn't work, let's add the Papal State, Venice, the Kingdom of Sicily, Florence or even the kingdom of Italy included in the Holy Roman Empire

Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TheGrayFox]

The reality of the alternative like starting 4000 BC with America and Lincoln as a leader doesn't do it much better.
At least this is new, and could lead to some fun mechanics.

This strawman get addressed everytime it is brought up.

Civilization is not a strict 1:1 history simulator and nobody is asking for it to be. The reason we criticize historical accuracy of civ swapping is because that is how the devs are trying to sell us their incredible gamey mechanic a lot of us do not want.

The entire series is built on the tagline of taking a Civilization (singular) and building an empire that spans the test of time. Immortal civilizations and leaders is what the civilization series is built on. Lincoln in 4000 bc is a lot less straining to the immersion of a Civilization game than Lincoln leading the Greeks who then arbirarily morph into the Ottomans and then become the United States because of arbitrarily designed crises which everyone faces and resolves at the same time because now we've split the game into three rounds which no one asked for.

 

[lt22677]

This strawman get addressed everytime it is brought up.

Civilization is not a strict 1:1 history simulator and nobody is asking for it to be. The reason we criticize historical accuracy of civ swapping because that is how the devs are trying to sell us their incredible gamey mechanic

The entire series is built on the tagline of taking a Civilization (singular) and building an empire that spans the test of time. Immortal civilizations and leaders is what the civilization series is built on. Lincoln in 4000 bc is a lot less straining to the immersion of a Civilization game most than Lincoln leading the Greeks who then arbirarily morph into the Ottomans and then the United States because of arbitrarily designed crises which everyone faces and resolves at the same time because now we've split the game into three rounds no one asked for.

If you tell the Greeks that they transform into Ottomans you will see the Euzones attacking the Firaxis headquarters

 

[The_J]

This strawman get addressed everytime it is brought up.

Civilization is not a strict 1:1 history simulator and nobody is asking for it to be. The reason we criticize historical accuracy of civ swapping because that is how the devs are trying to sell us their incredible gamey mechanic

It's more "accurate" than the other way around.
And if we settled that it's not a history simulator, why is then everyone getting worked up about the "historical" choices anyways? It's a gameplay mechanic after all.

The entire series is built on the tagline of taking a Civilization (singular) and building an empire that spans the test of time.

By Firaxis.
Now they're changing it.
Their right to do so.

 

[Professor Phobo]

The reason to treat the two cases (4000 BC George Washington and Egyptogolia) differently is the former is part of the buy-in fantasy of the series; you're monday morning quarterbacking all of human history. It's a phenomenal premise for a strategy game. The latter is essentially a critique of that premise; nothing lasts forever, you are going to lose, you are going to fall, but there may be value you can extract from the legacy you pass on to your descendants/successors.

Of course people are going to get worked up when a game introduces the antithesis to its original thesis (no one stands the test of time, Sid!). I think from what they've described they are then attempting to create a synthesis of the two viewpoints, which I find fascinating, but I get the disgruntlement.

 

[TheGrayFox]

It's more "accurate" than the other way around.
And if we settled that it's not a history simulator, why is then everyone getting worked up about the "historical" choices anyways? It's a gameplay mechanic after all.

It really isn't more "accurate"

and as we've already established the problem is that the devs tried to sell this abstraction on some sort of argument of historicity and accuracy. As a gameplay mechanic it looks like and most likely will feel like crap too, just like it did when it was implemented worse in Humankind.

By Firaxis.
Now they're changing it.
Their right to do so.

and its my right to say it looks like crap and I'm not going to buy it because I don't want Humankind 2

 

[Zaarin]

The latter is essentially a critique of that premise; nothing lasts forever, you are going to lose, you are going to fall, and there may be meaning and value you can extract from the legacy you pass on to your descendants/successors.

I love the phrasing of this because there is beauty in loss and ephemerality, and it's not something games are traditionally good at capturing.

 

[The_J]

It really isn't more "accurate"

and as we've already established the problem is that the devs tried to sell this abstraction on some sort of argument of historicity and accuracy. As a gameplay mechanic it looks like and most likely will feel like crap too, just like it did when it was implemented worse in Humankind.

The first is marketing, the latter a matter of taste.
So that is exactly the same as for every other game out there.

and its my right to say it looks like crap and I'm not going to buy it because I don't want Humankind 2

Very well, that is your choice.
What are you again doing here?

 

[TheGrayFox]

The reason to treat the two cases (4000 BC George Washington and Egyptogolia) differently is the former is part of the buy-in fantasy of the series; you're monday morning quarterbacking all of human history. It's a phenomenal premise for a strategy game. The latter is essentially a critique of that premise; nothing lasts forever, you are going to lose, you are going to fall, but there may be value you can extract from the legacy you pass on to your descendants/successors.

one more time, the reason i treat these things differently because one is what the series was built on and the other is a radical and fundemantal change to an established formula decades old that sucked in another game and looks to suck just as badly (but for different reasons) in this one.

Of course people are going to get worked up when a game introduces the antithesis to its original thesis (no one stands the test of time, Sid!). I think from what they've described they are then attempting to create a synthesis of the two viewpoints, which I find fascinating, but I get the disgruntlement.

atleast you seem to understand where many of us are coming from. I don't understand those who seem completely dumbfounded when someone says "this isn't what I want and this breaks my immersion."

 

[TheGrayFox]

The first is marketing, the latter a matter of taste.
So that is exactly the same as for every other game out there.



Very well, that is your choice.
What are you again doing here?

Discussing a game series which has been one of my favorites for around 20 years introducing things I (and from the looks of it many others) don't want in a sequel. Knowing that Firaxis looks at the forums

What are you doing here?

 

[Professor Phobo]

I love the phrasing of this because there is beauty in loss and ephemerality, and it's not something games are traditionally good at capturing.

Plus, the very idea of a civilization as this static, rigidly defined thing is kind of a fallacy. It's all ships of Theseus all the way down. Now they are implementing it in a very sort of brute force approach, but I get the general idea.

 

[The_J]

What are you doing here?

Making sure that a loud minority doesn't outscream a the silent majority.
But I should be sleeping or reading a book or cleaning my house or literally anything else TBH.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Making sure that a loud minority doesn't outscream a the silent majority.
But I should be sleeping or reading a book or cleaning my house or literally anything else TBH.

from the active poll , it seems only 19% of the active community here has any positive feelings towards this change but yeah we're definitely the minority here...

 

[Professor Phobo]

one more time, the reason i treat these things differently because one is what the series was built on and the other is a radical and fundemantal change to an established formula decades old that sucked in another game and looks to suck just as badly (but for different reasons) in this one.

I think that's what I said minus the Humankind stuff, which I didn't play and can't comment on. I agree entirely that it's a big break to say, "Yeah, maybe that Sid Meier guy had it wrong back in 1991, and standing the test of time is a fool's errand!" but sometimes a franchise needs that kind of debate. Maybe there's more answers to the test of time than victory points, empires, and spaceships.

As for how it will actually play out, I dunno, I like the crisis mechanic in Stellaris as a Thing To Do late game, I like the idea that we're getting the "early game" resource-scarcity-and-vital-discovery pattern three times in a campaign, and if they avoid the usual pitfalls of rubberbanding mechanics (a big if) it might be more exciting than annoying.

 

[lt22677]

Plus, the very idea of a civilization as this static, rigidly defined thing is kind of a fallacy. It's all ships of Theseus all the way down. Now they are implementing it in a very sort of brute force approach, but I get the general idea.

Civilizations are not static, but they evolve, they certainly don't transform like that suddenly. Do you know any civilization that has transformed from Sedentary Agricultural to Nomadic? If so, which ones (I teach history and my specialization is medieval history)

 

[The_J]

from the active poll , it seems only 19% of the active community here has any positive feelings towards this change but yeah we're definitely the minority here...

We're not exactly representative, and still more than 50% intend to buy it.
And no matter what: This change was announced so widely that everyone's grandma has now heard it, and it's only 6 month until launch, so no time to change even if someone wanted to.
Chance of the complaints having any effect on this here is effectively 0. Only the sales numbers will have an impact.