Civ7 peoples-- before the starting gun -- NoGo

[SammyKhalifa]

"Cartoonish" is a perfect way to describe one way in which civ vi is a trash game.

It's what people have said about every single iteration of civ when it first comes out.

 

[Major Tom]

Technically Ferdinand Magellan was funded by Spain for that voyage.
I'm not discounting Portugal themselves for their role in history. Just in a roster of only 30 civs right now, I don't think they are needed just yet.

You are right about Isabella’s funding of the Portuguese. She also funded an Italian, Christopher Columbus for the western voyage. So technically Spaniards didn’t explore anything.

I'm not discounting Portugal themselves for their role in history. Just in a roster of only 30 civs right now, I don't think they are needed just yet.

Fair enough, under doubt.

 

[Zaarin]

and with the way Civs are spread out and structured, I'd think Phoenicia => Portugal is a slam dunk path for a future expansion or DLC.

Especially since we now know the Phoenicians settled Portugal as far north as Lisbon. Phoenicia > either of Spain or Portugal is one of the most sensible connections in the game.

This is wrong. Who was first to circumnavigate the world? A Portuguese. Who made the first ocean linked trading posts in the far east before Netherlands and Spain? Portugal.

Any resemblance to Phoenicia is a fake history.

The Phoenicians circumnavigated Africa a couple thousand years before the Portuguese and settled Portugal so...any resemblance to Phoenicia is very real history. Not to say that the Portuguese got their seafaring spirit from the Phoenicians; they learned seafaring from the Genoans, especially from Jews who were displaced from Genoa (a considerable portion of Columbus's crew, for instance, was Jewish, and until the union of the crowns Portugal benefited immensely from the expelling of skilled Jewish craftsman and scholars from Spain). But to say there is no resemblance between two cultures who were predominantly known for their seafaring prowess, their trade in luxuries, and their establishment of coastal colonies (indeed, "feitoria" is precisely what many Phoenician colonies would be called in Portuguese) is nonsensical.

 

[Major Tom]

I think you exaggerate the role of some city states in the Levante.

Especially since we now know the Phoenicians settled Portugal as far north as Lisbon

What is your source?

Phoenicia > either of Spain or Portugal is one of the most sensible connections in the game

Really? Lebanon or Palestina would be more appropriate if you look were they came from.

The Phoenicians circumnavigated Africa a couple thousand years before the Portuguese and settled Portugal so

Again, what is your source? Edit: And how could they since the Suez Canal was built in 1869?

Portuguese got their seafaring spirit from the Phoenicians

What kind of methodology brought you to this conclusion?

Moderator Action: It is against the forum rules to misquote others, please take more care in future. leif

 

[Zaarin]

I think you exaggerate the role of some city states in the Levante.

I think you exaggerate the role of some city-states in the Balkans.

What is your source?

Oxford Handbook of the Phoenicians (Lopez-Ruiz, Doak, eds., 2019).

Again, what is your source?

Ibid.

Really? Lebanon or Palestina would be more appropriate if you look were they came from.

They colonized the entire Mediterranean from Anatolia to Iberia so...

What kind of methodology brought you to this conclusion?

Under the charitable assumption you misquoted me accidentally, I will point out that I said they did not get their seafaring spirit from the Phoenicians rather than make a sarcastic response.

 

[Acepox]

The nigh-absence of European civs is an obvious failure point considering how central to global history Europe has been over the last thousand years.

 

[Acepox]

I'll never understand players who seem to only want the basic well known civs/leaders in a game. I love learning out about cultures and people I'd never heard of before.
Anyway, no idea what NoGo means either.

13 people like your comment.

In another thread, some of those same people liked a comment that used the exact opposite argument to justify not having Prussia in the game.

I love how people will execute mental Olympic gymnastics in here just to avoid saying they just hate their dads and Europe, which is the underlying real reason for their preferences.
Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. The_J

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

13 people like your comment.

In another thread, some of those same people liked a comment that used the exact opposite argument to justify not having Prussia in the game.

I love how people will execute mental Olympic gymnastics in here just to avoid saying they just hate their dads and Europe, which is the underlying real reason for their preferences.

I think "it's easier to market Germany if the devs call it by the more common name" and "I like having lesser known figures in the game" are compatible ideas, especially because the difference in the former is a single cosmetic choice that will represent the same part of the world. Besides, it's not like Amina is taking the slot of a European leader: she's the only representative of non-Egyptian Africa. Really, one criticism of the game could be that there are far too many European leaders already for the amount of civs they have.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Some individuals here clearly aren't interested in a healthy discussion.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

The civs in civilization, by having historically consistent leaders, units, infrastructure, music and architecture created verisimilitude so that you felt like the head of a nation.

I suppose the point of clash here is that I do not believe that Civ VII removes whatever level of verisimilitude exists. The "historically consistent" leaders are inherently inconsistent due to their immortality, so they are already a part of that suspension of disbelief. I'm used to accepting historical figures who did not lead a nation for eternity doing just that, Civ VII is no different.

It's also not as if Civ VII has invented menus tracking progress. If it felt like you were putting together a grand force to colonize distant planets when you had the tech tree and a checklist in front of you, I see no reason why it would be different.

The national theming, units, infrastructure, music, and architecture are also not truly "historically consistent." There were no ancient buildings of the United States, no ancient units of club-wielding Canadians. Waltzing Matilda was not a folk song in 4000 BC. In Civ VII, flags will always be associated with appropriate architecture, units, and music in the appropriate time period. What all of that is exactly will depend directly on my choices as a leader. If I lead a nation focused primarily on cavalry and conquest, my units, infrastructure, music, and architecture will represent that in the time period that I am in. To me, that sounds like it will make me feel as if I am leading my nation throughout history.

 

[Teproc]

The claim that Phoenicians circumnavigated Africa is based on a story told to us by Herodotus and nothing else. While it's possible to believe that the journey may have happened, it's based on the flimsiest of evidence (a guy who heard it from a guy who got it from who knows where told me) and pretty disingenuous to present as historical fact. I doubt the Oxford manual you reference does so.

 

[seasnake]

I suppose the point of clash here is that I do not believe that Civ VII removes whatever level of verisimilitude exists. The "historically consistent" leaders are inherently inconsistent due to their immortality, so they are already a part of that suspension of disbelief. I'm used to accepting historical figures who did not lead a nation for eternity doing just that, Civ VII is no different.

It's also not as if Civ VII has invented menus tracking progress. If it felt like you were putting together a grand force to colonize distant planets when you had the tech tree and a checklist in front of you, I see no reason why it would be different.

The national theming, units, infrastructure, music, and architecture are also not truly "historically consistent." There were no ancient buildings of the United States, no ancient units of club-wielding Canadians. Waltzing Matilda was not a folk song in 4000 BC. In Civ VII, flags will always be associated with appropriate architecture, units, and music in the appropriate time period. What all of that is exactly will depend directly on my choices as a leader. If I lead a nation focused primarily on cavalry and conquest, my units, infrastructure, music, and architecture will represent that in the time period that I am in. To me, that sounds like it will make me feel as if I am leading my nation throughout history.

It's a subjective line, to be sure. If you never had a suspension of disbelief when playing prior entries, then I understand why a lack of it in Civ VII does not give you pause. But for the reasons I cited, I think many other players were better able to get into the role-playing aspect in earlier entries than what we'll see in VII. Time will tell.

Compare it to DND. When some people play, they treat it like a board game where your character is an efficiency engine to optimize your turn actions. Others treat it more like LARP. But that doesn't mean the LARPers don't know it's all pretend. If you walked up to one and said, "You know you're sitting at a table rolling dice, not actually stabbing a goblin" you wouldn't be insightful, you'd be a buzzkill.

Bottom, some people when they game like to get caught up in the roleplay. Theme and verisimilitude create the secret sauce that makes that happen. And I think this latest iteration of Civ VII seems to be veering away from both in favor of more robust gameplay mechanics. Not saying it's a bad change, just that it's a change.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I suppose the point of clash here is that I do not believe that Civ VII removes whatever level of verisimilitude exists. The "historically consistent" leaders are inherently inconsistent due to their immortality, so they are already a part of that suspension of disbelief. I'm used to accepting historical figures who did not lead a nation for eternity doing just that, Civ VII is no different.

It's also not as if Civ VII has invented menus tracking progress. If it felt like you were putting together a grand force to colonize distant planets when you had the tech tree and a checklist in front of you, I see no reason why it would be different.

The national theming, units, infrastructure, music, and architecture are also not truly "historically consistent." There were no ancient buildings of the United States, no ancient units of club-wielding Canadians. Waltzing Matilda was not a folk song in 4000 BC. In Civ VII, flags will always be associated with appropriate architecture, units, and music in the appropriate time period. What all of that is exactly will depend directly on my choices as a leader. If I lead a nation focused primarily on cavalry and conquest, my units, infrastructure, music, and architecture will represent that in the time period that I am in. To me, that sounds like it will make me feel as if I am leading my nation throughout history.

You can't see how someone might feel a different type of immersion leading an Immortal George Washington leading the ancient United States to create an empire that spans all of time (you know the tagline of the series) against other similarily themed nations/leaders vs how that same fan might feel having Mansa Munsa lead the Greeks who morph into Normans who for some reason morph into the United States when the arbitarily designed round ends because we've fundamentally changed the very core of how the game plays?

I don't even think you're correct about flags will always be associated with appropriate architecture, units, and music in the appropriate time period in Civ VII. Why are the Shawnee in the Exploration age with medieval empires while the US is in the modern age, when they both coincided and conflicted? Why are we playing the Normans (whose domains didn't even expand to the new world) during the Exploration era, which was dominated by Colonial empires like England? Why are the Abbasids morphing into Subsaharan Africans?! When did the entire planet all undergo crisis events causing complete cultural collapse/evolution all at the same exact time? How is what Firaxis has designed any more consistent with history?

 

[pokiehl]

How is what Firaxis has designed any more consistent with history?

I think rather than getting hung up on inaccuracies with specific historical events (which Civ has never emulated anyway—when’s the last time WW2 broke out in Civ?), the point is that reflecting that history is built in layers is the more accurate portrayal. Aside from accurately reflecting the components of each faction, Civ’s history hasn’t ever been about simulating everything as it was.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

Bottom, some people when they game like to get caught up in the roleplay. Theme and verisimilitude create the secret sauce that makes that happen. And I think this latest iteration of Civ VII seems to be veering away from both in favor of more robust gameplay mechanics. Not saying it's a bad change, just that it's a change.

I understand. I'm definitely a "stabbing the goblin" guy with both D&D and Civ myself, so I wanted to share the perspective of someone who is that sort of person but nevertheless finds the major changes in Civ VII to be mostly positive.

 

[planetfall]

I had expected the jargon term Go|NoGo would be understood, but from all the comments that is not true. Go|NoGo is a shorthand expression meahing the same as Pass|Fail. It comes from an assembly line where at each station the decision is to either Go to next stage of production or NoGo: reject object and redo or trash. For example, GE in its manufacture of small applicance motors welds together a stack of of metal. Picture a square stack of metal slices with welds on the ends and a rotor size hole in the center. Before the metal stack can proceed, it needs to be tested for electrical properties. Then the operator has to make a Go|NoGo decision. Go means send down the line to next stage of wrapping wires in thru the hole. NoGo means slam the metal stack again and again until the electrical properties are good. In the development world there is a similar concept where a bug is evaluated as minor or Showstopper, i.e. NoGo. For example in the civ world, look at the world builder introduced in civ4. That feature allowed players to modify the current map being played and add say, difference terrain features and resources, as iron, gold, etc. In civ6, there is a broken world builder which can only change map at beginning of play. Obvious Fireaxis took a different approach and said not showstopper, but not fully developed. We'l warn players about it and let them decide to use it or not.

 

[TheGrayFox]

w

I think rather than getting hung up on inaccuracies with specific historical events (which Civ has never emulated anyway—when’s the last time WW2 broke out in Civ?), the point is that reflecting that history is built in layers is the more accurate portrayal. Aside from accurately reflecting the components of each faction, Civ’s history hasn’t ever been about simulating everything as it was.

Oh I agree that this game has never been a simulation of history and have never argued it was. Which is why I ask why is splitting the game into three seperate rounds and trying to poorly implement and abstract a reflection of "history being built in layers" by forcing unavoidable crisises and nonsensible civ swapping was nesecarry.

 

[Zaarin]

The claim that Phoenicians circumnavigated Africa is based on a story told to us by Herodotus and nothing else. While it's possible to believe that the journey may have happened, it's based on the flimsiest of evidence (a guy who heard it from a guy who got it from who knows where told me) and pretty disingenuous to present as historical fact. I doubt the Oxford manual you reference does so.

"The final instance of Phoenician exploration was the most astounding and the most enigmatic: a circumnavigation of the continent of Africa. The circumstances are known solely from a sparse report by Herodotus (4.42), but can be securely dated to the reign of the Egyptian king Necho (610-595 BCE), who commissioned the voyage. Herodotus learned about it from an Egyptian source--a reference to the 'northern sea' (Mediterranean) demonstrates this--and the expedition reflects the grandiose plans of the king, as well as a Phoenician interest in seeing if any connection could be made between East Africa (already known to them) and their settlements on the Atlantic coast of the continent. The journey was seen to be feasible because it was believed that Africa was much smaller than it was (Strab. 2.3.4-5; Roller 2006: 22-23).
"The cruise--from the mouth of the Red Sea counterclockwise around the Pillars of Herakles--took over two years, with the winters spent on shore, planting and sowing crops. Eventually the travelers reached a point where 'they had the sun on their right.' These two facts give the greatest credibility to the journey, which would have reached 35 degrees south latitude. Herodotus's account is straightforward, lacking personal touches or mythic encounters, further evidence that the expedition actually occurred. The voyage would have covered 20,000 km, yet the time of over two years is quite adequate, and there is no reason to believe it did not take place, although critics from Herodotus's to modern times have demonstrated unwarranted skepticism. Even if the continent were not fully circumnavigated, this source indicates the Phoenicians went well into the Southern Hemisphere, probably farther south than anyone else from Mediterranean antiquity." (Duane W. Roller in The Oxford Handbook of the Phoenician and Punic Mediterranean 649-650).

If you're going to call someone a liar, do it on better evidence than "I have a hunch" or "this disagrees with my preconceptions."

 

[planetfall]

For leaders and countries, I expected some major countries and minor. If I were designing play, I would start with world wide counties.

Level 1 == 6 counties with either the world's top six population or top six GNP and actual historic leaders.
Level 2 == 6 counties in the top 20 countries by population or GNP. Any leader.
Level 3 == 6 counties in the top 50 counties by population or GNP.

Further comments about counties and leaders in gameplay will be in a coming thread to separate discussion from this thread.

 

[Evolena]

But that criterion only works with current countries?