Civ VII Weekly Reveal Guessing Thread

[RedCourtJester]

Sadly, it can't. Because there was no single state which was actually the ancestor of both nation. they slowly splitted by the strait and old kingdoms appeared later separately. Baekje built some alliance with Wa to defeat Goguryeo and Silla, but Baekje-Wa Civ doesn't make sense so much.

If that's the case, then I still expect both civs to prefer a start with Han. And if either gets an antiquity civ, I would put odds at Japan. (1) modern market interests, (2) there is already a dual leader that could properly lead specifically that antiquity civ, and (3) the Emile Bell is currently designed as a generic stat-boosting wonder, consistent with the other likely unassociated wonders. And then the devs would just settle for Korea starts to pick Han or Yamato (unsatisfying, yes). But still:

They might be talking about the Yayoi people/period? But that's not exactly an ideal idea to make a civ out of.

I'm quite convinced that Joseon and Silla will make an appearance. Considering Civ's history, these are the periods of Korean history that the franchise has focused on the most.

I'm not as certain about Goryeo, but it's still a possibility.

Yes, effectively. They already fudged design with Mississippians, so it's not totally implausible (also, guys, remember Sumer? good times, good times). I'm also not sure if Goryeo is a polity they would want to avoid and they might just push Silla into exploration (which, it could barely fit as). We do have imperial Russia, but I'm not totally ruling out the possibility that Korea only gets south-ruled kingdoms/empires.

Also, if I were to apply my personal preference based on a more globalist perspective, I absolutely would prefer Korea and Japan getting rough parity but also being connected to each other in some way as two halves of a similar coin. I don't think either is on the level of enduring legacy as a China or India or Persia, but maybe together under a Yayoi-ish heritage they could.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm not as certain about Goryeo, but it's still a possibility.

We've had Wang Geon/Taejo of Goryeo in Civ3 and Civ4. While that far back doesn't seem to be on the devs' minds, it is some precedent at any rate; from Civ5 on has definitely been Joseon-focused (with Seondeok as a nod to Silla, though the rest of the civ was very Joseon).

 

[Nikolai II]

Moderator Action: Please respect each other, everyone. This is a preemptive reminder that we encourage respect for both posters and their homelands, it's okay to wish a civ included or not, but keep the reasoning civil.

 

[gdr_willter]

They might be talking about the Yayoi people/period? But that's not exactly an ideal idea to make a civ out of.

Yes, Toraijin was the immigrant group from Korean peninsula as I mentioned before. But it can't automatically makes Yayoi as shared history of two nations, it's not how things work. They were merged into Jomon, or merged Jomon into them, and made the first identity of the island people: Japanese. It is their entering point to history from pre-history. If someone says it belongs both of Japan/Korea, it's unfair to them.

Especially for East Asia, the Languages in here are surprisingly different, they even don't share the language family. (We even don't know why) The relationship between Japonic and Koreanic languages is same with the one between Indo-European and Semitic languages. It makes situation more hard. Let's suppose that we choose [a hypothetical historical entity] as the candidate for the shared Civ of Korea/Japan. Then we have to pick uniques from two different language families! It can't persuade any customer in both markets.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Yes, Toraijin was the immigrant group from Korean peninsula as I mentioned before. But it can't automatically makes Yayoi as shared history of two nations, it's not how things work. They were merged into Jomon, or merged Jomon into them, and made the first identity of the island people: Japanese. It is their entering point to history from pre-history. If someone says it belongs both of Japan/Korea, it's unfair to them.

Especially for East Asia, the Languages in here are surprisingly different, they even don't share the language family. (We even don't know why) The relationship between Japonic and Koreanic languages is same with the one between Indo-European and Semitic languages. It makes situation more hard. Let's suppose that we choose [a hypothetical historical entity] as the candidate for the shared Civ of Korea/Japan. Then we have to pick uniques from two different language families! It can't persuade any customer in both markets.

No it doesn't, even Yayoi isn't very satisfying. But maybe reaching back to the Jin, with hints of Yayoi, could work.

 

[Zaarin]

The relationship between Japonic and Koreanic languages is same with the one between Indo-European and Semitic languages.

I agree with your general point, but there are credible theories that Japonic and Koreanic languages are related. It hasn't been demonstrated, but it's not the ramblings of crackpots. By contrast, there are no credible theories linking Indo-European and Semitic. (Japano-Koreanic seems mostly to be the work of Korean linguists, and it's largely based on morphology, not shared vocabulary, so if such a relationship exists we're talking about a very ancient separation, nor do I personally find the proposals particularly convincing. But the salient point is that the linguists proposing them aren't crazy fringe theorists but respectable academics.)

 

[gdr_willter]

I agree with your general point, but there are credible theories that Japonic and Koreanic languages are related. It hasn't been demonstrated, but it's not the ramblings of crackpots. By contrast, there are no credible theories linking Indo-European and Semitic. (Japano-Koreanic seems mostly to be the work of Korean linguists, and it's largely based on morphology, not shared vocabulary, so if such a relationship exists we're talking about a very ancient separation, nor do I personally find the proposals particularly convincing. But the salient point is that the linguists proposing them aren't crazy fringe theorists but respectable academics.)

The point is they are looking obviously different each other to ordinary speakers of each language. the same-ish feeling is critical to accept some merged blob Civ concept.

+) bonus
As far as I know, the most of those theories are finally denied. Simple theory about sharing ancient words was denied by further comparative linguistics study. Of coursely Ural-Altaic languages theory failed to solve it. And there is a hypothetical Peninsula Japonic, but it only explains the movement of Japonic speakers, not the relationship between Japonic and Koreanic languages.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I agree with your general point, but there are credible theories that Japonic and Koreanic languages are related. It hasn't been demonstrated, but it's not the ramblings of crackpots. By contrast, there are no credible theories linking Indo-European and Semitic. (Japano-Koreanic seems mostly to be the work of Korean linguists, and it's largely based on morphology, not shared vocabulary, so if such a relationship exists we're talking about a very ancient separation, nor do I personally find the proposals particularly convincing. But the salient point is that the linguists proposing them aren't crazy fringe theorists but respectable academics.)

It's also just a lot more probable as a matter of geographic dispersion and isolation, as compared to trying to connect the Avestan region to the Levant/Arabia and ruling out all the other cultures that trafficked through that area.

(Although obviously the divergence does seem to be quite old and at least as a layperson compelling cases for heavy Chinese and Polynesian influence. Not to mention the whole Altaic nonsense haha.)

 

[Zaarin]

The point is they are looking obviously different each other to ordinary speakers of each language. the same-ish feeling is critical to accept some merged blob Civ concept.

Though clearly language family is not necessarily a salient factor in determining civ links, e.g., the current SEA line runs Mon-Khmer > Austronesian > Kra-Dai.

 

[gdr_willter]

Though clearly language family is not necessarily a salient factor in determining civ links, e.g., the current SEA line runs Mon-Khmer > Austronesian > Kra-Dai.

Yes, it may works for Age by Age. What I'm talking about is the language-swapping blob Civ within a single Age.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Yes, it may works for Age by Age. What I'm talking about is the language-swapping blob Civ within a single Age.

Yeah the language choice for a proto-K/J civ would be something they would have to settle on if they tried to blob them. But I don't think there is anything wrong with an antiquity blob civ, especially if it required some reconstruction, and especially in cases that can be somewhat focused like J/K.

The later eras don't have that excuse, but I would rather we get semi accurate origination points for civs than have to start every game as the Han or Khmer. It's why I fully expect Samoa/Tonga to appear at some point because Hawaii is more underserved than any other civ in the base game.

 

[gdr_willter]

Wellll... I still prefer two seperated Civs for both, but I can come up with some mildest ideas for blobbing.

Baekje Civ
UA or UMU "Wa Alliance", inspired from the Baekje-Wa alliance

Wa Civ (including Kofun period)
UCU "Oushi(王師)", inspired from 王仁(Wang in, Wani) and 阿直岐(Ajikgi, Achiki)

 

[RedCourtJester]

Wellll... I still prefer two seperated Civs for both, but I can come up with some mildest ideas for blobbing.

Baekje Civ
UA or UMU "Wa Alliance", inspired from the Baekje-Wa alliance

Wa Civ (including Kofun period)
UCU "Oushi(王師)", inspired from 王仁(Wang in, Wani) and 阿直岐(Ajikgi, Achiki)

I'm curious if enough attestation exists that they could be pushed back to the Jin (pre-Baekje/Silla). Apparently Jin artifacts resemble Yayoi and it is believed to have been a bilingual state. And I think maybe Japanese gamers would be less offended if the antiquity civ reached back into a period (a) before the traditional Korean kingdoms had developed and (b) when peninsular Japonic languages supposedly existed.

Other benefits/coincidences of a Jin civ:

1. Neither Himiko's Yamato nor the Emile Bell's Silla get explicit antiquity representation.

2. Silla can be pushed to exploration after Jin to avoid any Goryeo issues.

3. The choice of Han China as opposed to Qin China now makes a bit more sense, as Jin/Qin share similar etymological origins.

4. Jin is contemporaneous with Han China, which isn't necessary but definitely makes the region feel a bit more coherent for people who like playing against contemporary civs. Not to mention more firmly defines the "east Asia" antiquity era as approximately 300 B.C. to 200 A.D.

 

[Black Gate]

I think the fact that you can't even pick a name for such a hypothetical Japano-Korean civ shows that it would be an absurd inclusion, especially when Silla exists. Considering that archaeological evidence indicates that the Yayoi migrated to Japan by the 4th century BC, and no one can agree which languages and cultures Chinese sources are describing in the Korean peninsula at the time of the Samhan, this isn't the same situation as the Mississippians who were already understood to be disunified culturally but shared organisational models and trade.

For what it's worth, I think both Japan and Korea are big enough markets to be pandered to (if Civ6 is any indication, we should expect that and a number of colonial civs too) with a full stack of three civs but they wouldn't be likely to come at once. Maybe a Korea pack, that combines elements Civ fans globally recognise (Sejong, science-focused Joseon, etc.) and the lesser known older civs. Meanwhile, Shogunate Japan can sell a disparate DLC pack on its own but Asuka/Nara/Heian Japan would likely be a part of an expansion as one of many quirky picks.

 

[gdr_willter]

I'm curious if enough attestation exists that they could be pushed back to the Jin (pre-Baekje/Silla). Apparently Jin artifacts resemble Yayoi and it is believed to have been a bilingual state. And I think maybe Japanese gamers would be less offended if the antiquity civ reached back into a period (a) before the traditional Korean kingdoms had developed and (b) when peninsular Japonic languages supposedly existed.

Other benefits/coincidences of a Jin civ:

1. Neither Himiko's Yamato nor the Emile Bell's Silla get explicit antiquity representation.

2. Silla can be pushed to exploration after Jin to avoid any Goryeo issues.

3. The choice of Han China as opposed to Qin China now makes a bit more sense, as Jin/Qin share similar etymological origins.

4. Jin is contemporaneous with Han China, which isn't necessary but definitely makes the region feel a bit more coherent for people who like playing against contemporary civs. Not to mention more firmly defines the "east Asia" antiquity era as approximately 300 B.C. to 200 A.D.

You means Jinhan, one of early Samhan before the Three Kingdoms of Korea. But the problems are:

1. The entire Samhan have less records than only one of the Three Kingdoms. What will be the unique Civics and Units for them?
2. Less representative then Silla and whatever Antiquity Japan. With a same justification, the Korea-Nomadic blobbing Malgal (Peninsula Jurchen) Civ also can be, but do you think this is more likely than Xiongnu and Goguryeo?

If you means Jinguk before the Samhan, even worse.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I think the fact that you can't even pick a name for such a hypothetical Japano-Korean civ shows that it would be an absurd inclusion, especially when Silla exists. Considering that archaeological evidence indicates that the Yayoi migrated to Japan by the 4th century BC, and no one can agree which languages and cultures Chinese sources are describing in the Korean peninsula at the time of the Samhan, this isn't the same situation as the Mississippians who were already understood to be disunified culturally but shared organisational models and trade.

For what it's worth, I think both Japan and Korea are big enough markets to be pandered to (if Civ6 is any indication, we should expect that and a number of colonial civs too) with a full stack of three civs but they wouldn't be likely to come at once. Maybe a Korea pack, that combines elements Civ fans globally recognise (Sejong, science-focused Joseon, etc.) and the lesser known older civs. Meanwhile, Shogunate Japan can sell a disparate DLC pack on its own but Asuka/Nara/Heian Japan would likely be a part of an expansion as one of many quirky picks.

I just picked a name though? The Jin.

My understanding was that the archaeological evidence was indeterminate and the Yayoi started immigrating to Japan as early as 400/300 B.C., and as late as 300 A.D., i.e. roughly contemporaneous to the Jin states. And that possibly political/linguistic developments in the Jin era were what motivated the migration in the first place.

I agree the attestation seems to be poorer and it would be difficult to parse out linguistics, but like the Mississippians I would imagine some rudimentary infrastructure and unit mechanics could be developed that reflect early Baekje/Mahan and Yayoi culture. And we already know from Mississippi, Maya, Gaul, etc. that disunified states don't totally obviate a unifying culture and interrelated polity, especially when we are trying to reach back to cultural origins of regions.

Iunno, I'm fine agreeing to disagree as to whether/how the devs are going to represent antiquity Japan/Korea, but I suspect if there were any way they felt they could get away with a shared antiquity civ, they absolutely would. I would play Himiko from Jin -> Kamakura/Edo -> Meiji and think that a totally appropriate historical path. The question to my mind is whether the Japanese would accept it (and maybe with a lot of leaders they will).

 

[gdr_willter]

Iunno, I'm fine agreeing to disagree as to whether/how the devs are going to represent antiquity Japan/Korea, but I suspect if there were any way they felt they could get away with a shared antiquity civ, they absolutely would.

I don't know what makes we reached to this conclusion. There is no evidence shows the devs prefer the shared roots nor its the primary criteria to pick a Civ.

Of course Rome and Greece are the best shared roots of all following European Civs, but they're also just the best candidates for the Antiquity Civ. The other lineups also the remarkable players of each region, not so highly suggest the multiple succeessors.

 

[RedCourtJester]

You means Jinhan, one of early Samhan before the Three Kingdoms of Korea. But the problems are:

1. The entire Samhan have less records than only one of the Three Kingdoms. What will be the unique Civics and Units for them?
2. Less representative then Silla and whatever Antiquity Japan. With a same justification, the Korea-Nomadic blobbing Malgal (Peninsula Jurchen) Civ also can be, but do you think this is more likely than Xiongnu and Goguryeo?

1.A. The Maya and Mississippian unique units are pretty generic. I'm not too concerned about the devs picking an archetype and giving it a generic name but a unique gimmick like burning or trapping.

1.B. The Mayan civics are mostly based around mythology. Again, I'm not as concerned for a semi-reconstructed civ. I could see a Taoist or other shamanist branch. It would require some creativity but not impossible, and I think that the Jin/Baekje/Wa offer a fairly unique set of cultural features that I think would be pretty distinct from nearly any other antiquity region. No other place feels like that solid mixture of diplomatic infrastructure and shamanism. So it has that going for it.

1.C. City names are going to be the hardest, but maybe not impossible? I noticed the Tamna kingdom on Jiju also represents a curious intersection of old Japonic and Baekje.\

2.A. It could be reasonably representative of both antiquity Korea and Japan, especially if Silla is pushed forward into exploration to skip Goryeo. We've already acknowledged Japanese antiquity options are weak too.

2.B. Again, I am not sure if Goguryeo and Goryeo are even on the table. If they are, sure I would agree that splitting Xiongnu and Goguryeo, or Silla and Goryeo, makes more sense than trying to blob. But I would sooner expect that the Xiongnu/Gorugyeo break is irrelevant and we would just get Xiongnu (which seems a stretch now, but I am hoping for Xiongnu to somehow make a Turco-Mongolic expansion along with options like the Ottomans, the Turks/Gokturks/Oghuz and Sakha/Yakutia).

3.C. And, more to the point, I still think that the devs trying to cram two antiquity civs into the Korea-Japan seems like lower priority to me when there are plenty of antiquity regions that still need to be represented as well. Perhaps not lowest priority, but I don't know. It is also entirely possible that Japan gets no single antiquity civ but gets to choose between Silla/Baekje/Jin and a second Ainu civ. But thinking conservatively, as I said, if there is anyway to create a single "wellfont" for that region, that feels more aligned with how we are seeing Maya, Khmer, and Aksum (and, presently, Rome) representing their respective regions. For now.

3.D. Btw, Ainu into Mongolia, how crazy would that be? Altaic conspiracists validated.

 

[gdr_willter]

Aye, okay. Let's just stop the hypothetical madness. I'll wait Silla and Yamatai (or whatever Antiquity Japan). You wait Jin (or whatever blob Civ). Case closed.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Aye, okay. Let's just stop the hypothetical madness. I'll wait Silla and Yamatai (or whatever Antiquity Japan). You wait Jin (or whatever blob Civ). Case closed.

Hehe okay.