Civ VII Weekly Reveal Guessing Thread

[Verified_Confection_Being]

But what would Exploration Russia turn into?

Modern Russia.

They don't both need to be called Russia though. I could see kievan rus or novgorod for exploration and Russia for modern

 

[Evie]

Yeah, "exploration Russia" is shorthand for "whichever of Novgorod, Kievan Rus, Muscovy or half a dozen other proto-Russian powers of the 900-1500 period end up being in the game." The actual civ named Russia is unquestionably modern.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Why would Norse civ go into antiquity to begin with, if not only they fit exploration era chronologically but also thematically? They are all about meeting other cultures, exploration, expansion, trade and colonies.

Progression wise it would make more sense for the Norse to go into the Normans. If we follow the logic that the Khmer are put in the Antiquity age for being the progenitor Southeast Asia civ, then the Norse could be the progenitor North Europe civ.

Beyond that I also think that the Exploration Age will have Denmark, which would also fit the Exploration Age theme with it's overseas possessions under the Kalmar Union, which would then go into Modern Sweden.

 

[queenpea]

Progression wise it would make more sense for the Norse to go into the Normans. If we follow the logic that the Khmer are put in the Antiquity age for being the progenitor Southeast Asia civ, then the Norse could be the progenitor North Europe civ.

Beyond that I also think that the Exploration Age will have Denmark, which would also fit the Exploration Age theme with it's overseas possessions under the Kalmar Union, which would then go into Modern Sweden.

Norse --> Denmark --> Norway or Sweden sounds great to me. It's kind of strange to me that we haven't seen a civ with a combat bonus on navigable rivers by now (unless I'm mistaken).

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

There's an interesting divide here that I just want to point out, and it concerns the question "what is a civilization?" I've posted about this before, but it's worth repeating here.

We can take kind of two models here - an essentialist view and a materialist or political view. The first of these goes something like this: a civilization is a people who share a certain cultural or linguistic continuity that goes back in time. They might not have been united or even seen themselves as similar to others in their "civ", but we see them from the vantage point of the present as "the same." The political view instead puts linguistic unity aside and focuses on organization - a civilization is a structure of power, a political unity.

Greece or Maya would be examples of the former - these were not unified politically (except for once, under that one guy) and no one figure issued commands (Athens, you build the Parthenon. Rhodes, you build the Colossus). It takes some difficulty to imagine an ancient Germanic civilization that stretches from the Alps to Denmark. Rome would be the opposite - Rome is not Rome without its Greek, Egyptian, Gaulish, or other residents, and comes together through political power.

Rulers and states at times play with this distinction between essence and political power - China and Rome both undertook projects to "civilize" territories, meaning bringing them into line with the customs of the center. But the big confusion comes in the 18th-19th centuries, when states began to present themselves as the manifestation of ethnicities - we get the X people's republic, or the kingdom of the Y (consider the change from the title "King of France" to "King of the French"). This often creates unity where there could have been splits and splits where there could have been unity (Bretagne, Bavaria, Yue lands on one hand; Laos, Flanders, etc on the other). So projecting a modern construction of timeless ethnicity back in time feels correct to us ("what is the German civilization doing in 4000BC?), but that's because we're products of the present system. This debate would be very different in 1500, or it will be different in 2200 (if there's anyone to have it then). But the debate can feel very heated because "the realization of a timeless essence in political form" is the calling card of many states. Historical evidence towards origins simply scatters and falls apart when you go back far enough - I've got a paper somewhere that I'm writing on the conjecture as to the origins of the Thais - what we know is the first real mention is in Cambodian records. Before that, there's a host of theories, all with extremely dubious evidence and pushing their own agendas.

So, the question (that I'm posing, not answering) is this: is the Civ player a kind of godlike world-spirit, guiding a group of people who don't know they're a unity towards their destiny, inspiring the construction of wonders and guiding the people towards scientific inquiry; or more of a ruler, moving troops here and there and commanding construction? And, of course, with the bottom line being that the game has to be fun, how do we deal with this question?

 

[untitledjuan]

But what would Exploration Russia turn into?

Norse>Rus'>Russia could work

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Norse --> Denmark --> Norway or Sweden sounds great to me. It's kind of strange to me that we haven't seen a civ with a combat bonus on navigable rivers by now (unless I'm mistaken).

Not sure about Norway being Modern considering it's only been fully independent since 1905, though it was in a union with Sweden for about 90 years prior. I'd give the Norse a Norwegian flavor regardless, such as the city-list.

 

[Evie]

I think that "sense of identity" and "actual unity" are two layers - certainly Machiavelli notably had a concept of Italy and Italians distinct from their surrounding people and countries that is quite apparent in the Prince, though Italy had not meaningfully been united politically in a long time; and I seem to recall the Greeks also had similar concepts of Greekness vs non-greekness even absent unity. So lack of political unity cannot in my opinion be taken to mean that the concept of them as a distinct group is purely a modern perception/conceit.

 

[queenpea]

Not sure about Norway being Modern considering it's only been fully independent since 1905, though it was in a union with Sweden for about 90 years prior. I'd give the Norse a Norwegian flavor regardless, such as the city-list.

Yeah, I get you. I think there is a strong bias at Firaxis to "innovate" by introducing civs that were not in the previous iteration and thus would be "new" in VII. As Sweden was in VI, I think Norway, or (gasp) Finland, could be possible for VII.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yeah, I get you. I think there is a strong bias at Firaxis to "innovate" by introducing civs that were not in the previous iteration and thus would be "new" in VII. As Sweden was in VI, I think Norway, or (gasp) Finland, could be possible for VII.

Well, both of them were in Civ 6, and Sweden was also in Civ 5 with Denmark. I think in terms of civ progression Sweden makes the most sense for the Modern Era, with its Swedish Empire and possible Nobel laureate unique civilian.

 

[Gori the Grey]

is the Civ player a kind of godlike world-spirit, guiding a group of people who don't know they're a unity towards their destiny, inspiring the construction of wonders and guiding the people towards scientific inquiry; or more of a ruler, moving troops here and there and commanding construction?

In my view, as a (competitive) game, it's the second of these two options.

In a game where you are competing with other players for some victory condition, the ultimate satisfaction will come from feeling as though the choices you made are what resulted in your victory (or that another player triumphed because he or she made better choices). At the end of a game of Monopoly, I want to feel that I won because I bought the right properties, traded properties advantageously, developed my properties well. Since Monopoly involves a good deal of luck, I can shrug off a loss if I know full well that I got crappy rolls, never got a chance to buy good properties, etc. But a well-designed competitive game should be designed such that the winner feels that the victory was because of more strategic play. So let's also get chess in the mix (yes, some Chex mix does sound lovely), as an example of a game so well designed that one's victory is entirely a result of one's own strategic play.

Now, for me, Civ lies in between Chess and Monopoly. The AI will never be sufficiently well designed that a victory (by me or it) is really entirely a result of better strategic play. (I don't play MP, and even if I did) moreover luck (starting terrain, goodie huts, key rolls in combat) also play more of a role than it ever does in Chess (which has only one single instance). But, because Civ has more turns than Monopoly, there's more of a chance for the mere luck-of-the-die to even out over the course of a whole game and therefore make my own strategic decisions be what really matters.

So, I'm not playing "the world-spirit of the Scottie" or of black. One consciousness (mine) is making choices designed to leverage whatever initial starting advantages I have (terrain, uniques, goodie huts) and whatever other developments there are in the course of a game into a game victory. And that makes me more like the dictator issuing build and marching orders than like an ethnicity gradually evolving over time. Even if the Scottie got some advantage over the top hat in the game of Monopoly, that would just be a game advantage, not a manifestation of some world-spirit of the Scottie.

Don't get me wrong. I love it that I can construct a quasi-historical narrative of some "people" as I pursue the activities that I think will move me toward one of the victory conditions. I in fact construct elaborate narratives of what is going on in my people's lives as the game marches on and it's a huge appeal of for me of playing Civ. But as a game the motivating factor for each of the many choices I make is game-advantage. It is one mind (mine), that makes all of those choices.

The stated design philosophy of Civ used to be that it provided the player interesting choices, or meaningful choices; I forget how they said it. They are meaningful as choices in a game. I once had to choose between a granary and a water mill, so I elaborately played out in my mind which one would come in on which turn, and therefore what food and production advantage would I get at exactly what turn. (Others could probably have done it using math.) And the water mill came out like one hammer ahead of the granary over a fifteen-turn period. So I went with the water mill and I thought of that one hammer advantage as me playing the game better rather than worse. That was the archetypal Civ moment for me.

This should be made a thread its own right.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Well, both of them were in Civ 6, and Sweden was also in Civ 5 with Denmark. I think in terms of civ progression Sweden makes the most sense for the Modern Era, with its Swedish Empire and possible Nobel laureate unique civilian.

As an aside, Alfred Nobel might make for an interesting leader. He has single-handedly been part of Sweden's unique abilities since Sweden has been in Civ.

He could be a leader where you want to intentionally choose civs with unique Great people.

 

[queenpea]

Well, both of them were in Civ 6, and Sweden was also in Civ 5 with Denmark. I think in terms of civ progression Sweden makes the most sense for the Modern Era, with its Swedish Empire and possible Nobel laureate unique civilian.

I agree with you. I guess what I mean about Norway not being in VI, because clearly they were, but their design and leader leaned heavily into Vikings, and nothing really felt fresh about that, in my opinion. A "Modern" Norway would be a new way to present the civilization.

 

[Siptah]

I agree with you. I guess what I mean about Norway not being in VI, because clearly they were, but their design and leader leaned heavily into Vikings, and nothing really felt fresh about that, in my opinion. A "Modern" Norway would be a new way to present the civilization.

So, a civ about oil profits and preserving nature?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I agree with you. I guess what I mean about Norway not being in VI, because clearly they were, but their design and leader leaned heavily into Vikings, and nothing really felt fresh about that, in my opinion. A "Modern" Norway would be a new way to present the civilization.

Oh okay. That's why I emphasized an Exploration Denmark being post-Viking based off the Kalmar period, since they were essentially the Viking civ in Civ 5, and didn't appear last game. I feel like that would be "new" enough.

 

[Evie]

Gori - I don't think your answer revolve around the question at all? It seems to be about offering strategic choices to the player (which is a valid discussion), not about what the player actually represent in the game. Both an immortal god-spirit and a ruler can be presented with useful and important choices ; the two questions are wholly separate from each other.

Personally, I'm firmly against the notion that the player is some sort of ruler of a unified state, which enforce strict limit on what a civilization can be and how the game can be played without offering any meaningful additional choice in return (and it opens the whole can of worms of 'why do the ruler lives forever" and such like).

 

[Gori the Grey]

I tried to get at that, Evie, by stressing that the player's strategy-choosing consciousness is more akin to a dictator barking orders than it is to some generalized "spirit of the people."

Professor Johnson's question is about how the game models ethnicity, nationalism, national-identity, etc. My answer is that Civ isn't primarily about modeling anything from history, but about providing a game experience (with flavor drawn from history).

The starting pieces (Scottie, top hat, wheelbarrow, China, India, America) are not in themselves crucial. They are fundamentally defined as game effects in any case. A game has players. The players in a Civ game are each rulers of a unified "state" (one of the polities that the game gives you to play).

Your comment too suggests that what is at stake is how we conceive of civilizations. That's a question for historians/anthropologists to settle in scholarly books and articles.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

So, the question (that I'm posing, not answering) is this: is the Civ player a kind of godlike world-spirit, guiding a group of people who don't know they're a unity towards their destiny, inspiring the construction of wonders and guiding the people towards scientific inquiry; or more of a ruler, moving troops here and there and commanding construction? And, of course, with the bottom line being that the game has to be fun, how do we deal with this question?

For me these two models you've cited and the questions you've consequently posed are based on the false assumption that there should be some kind of way to reconcile playing civ as a game with real history in a sensible way that amounts to anything other than flavour.

For me Civ is an alternate reality where all the greatest civilization you can conceptualise are plopped into reality in 4000bc as a band of settlers with the challenge of overcoming one another to be the best utilising the unique aspects of their civilizations in reality as advantages to leverage over one another. You as the player are some kind of all seeing immortal god king (as are each of the ai personalities like Montezuma or Alexander the great) who are thrown into this alt reality to lead your civilization through this challenge. A civilization in the context of the game for me is one of those reset alt history groups of people borne of that original civilization, plucked from time and space and thrown into 4000bc.

This is why these civilizations are fighting it out in a standard game on maps that are not earth. The map is basically a giant planet sized colosseum.

And that allows for mayhem like nuclear Gandhi and Aztec jaguar fighting Roman tanks, the fun stuff.

This is why civ 7 misses the mark so much for me. It's taking itself so seriously it's forgotten what drew people to it as a fun concept. It's losing what is "civilization" and becoming "bland 4x history game number 17"

 

[Evie]

It's a question that's crucial to the flavoring of the game. You're entirely right that the game could be about Elves and Gangsters and Aliens and whatever else, but it isn't, and it's eminently clear from volumes of writing on the topic here, on reddit and everywhwere else that a vast number of fans are invested in that flavoring, and the conceit that the game is about "civilizations" drawn from our history is a key part of what the game is.

In that light, how the game conceive civilization is an important question.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Yep - exactly. I think what I'm describing can be fitted to either model, and I'm saying I don't mind. If you can describe something as a civilization, why not. America? Sure. The Chinese? Yeah why not. Rome? Yeah fab, But let me choose any of them to play against any other of them, and don't make me change