Civ7's representation of China: My suggestions of how to make it right

[BlessedBull]

So China is represented as Han in the Antiquity Age and Ming in the Exploration Age. For the Modern Age, we don't know how it's represented yet, but some people believe it's going to be Qing. This feels very strange, especially if its Modern Age representation is really going to be Qing.

For the Han civ, we have more details now. Its Unique Civilian Unit Shidafu draws from a pool of famous ancient Chinese thinkers. I like this idea, but the problem is that most of these thinkers are from the Zhou Dynasty (either the Spring and Autumn period or the Waring States period), not the Han Dynasty. Also, Wang Yangming is from the Ming Dynasty, which belongs to the Exploration Age.

I'm not sure how this Antiquity/Exploration/Modern Age partition is done. But reading a bunch of Wikipedia articles (for example, ancient great powers, medieval great powers and modern great powers) led me to believe that the Antiquity Age corresponds to 4000 BC - 500 AD, the Exploration Age corresponds to 500 AD - 1500 AD, and the Modern Age corresponds to 1500 AD - now. This partition is obviously Eurocentric. In Chinese history, there is actually a very clear three-part division:

1. Pre-imperial China, often called Pre-Qin Period (先秦时期), which ranges from 3000 BC - 221 BC, marked by the founding of the Qin dynasty. Before the Qin dynasty, China is in a quasi-unified state, employing a feudal system where the central government, headed by the Tianzi (天子, literally Son of Heaven) has very weak control over its peripheral territories. This period includes the Xia (often regarded as legendary by Western scholars), Shang and Zhou dynasties. Confucius, Sunzi, Laozi, Mozi, Han Fei, Mencius, Shang Yang, Xun Kuang, etc. all belong to this period.
2. Imperial China, which ranges from 221 BC - 1912 AD, marked by the abdication of the last emperor of the Qing dynasty, Puyi. In this period, the central government had very strong control over all its territories most of the time, thanks to many of Qin Shi Huang (秦始皇, the first emperor of China) 's efforts and policies. (For example, unification of writing and measurement, Jun-Xian system, qualification of state officials, official endorsement of the Confucian ideology, etc.) Because of this strong control, event though China had been divided into pieces a great number of times, it can always come back together as a whole. Important dynasties within this period includes the Qin, Han, Jin, Sui, Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming and Qing dynasties. Among these, the Qin and the Sui dynasties are both very short-lived, but they both did the monumental job of ending long periods of division, completed great works of engineering (Qin the Great Wall, Sui the Great Canal), introduced important governmental policies that lasted more than a thousand years (Qin the imperial system, Sui the imperial examination system), and ushered in great periods of prosperity (Qin the Han dynasty which lasted for 400 years, Sui the Tang dynasty which lasted for 300 years). Notably, the Yuan and Qing dynasties were founded by nomadic tribes from the north (Yuan the Mongols, Qing the Jurchens), so many people feel that they fall short of properly representing the "authentic" China. If you ask a Chinese person, "Which imperial dynasty you are most willing to live in?" More than half of them will pick the Tang dynasty (618 AD - 907 AD), because it's an apex of economic prosperity, military might, cultural diversity and personal freedom. Half of famous ancient Chinese poets, including Li Bai and Du Fu, are from this dynasty.
3. Post-imperial China, which ranges from 1912 AD until now. This period can be divided into the Nationalist Period (民国时期, 1912 AD - 1949 AD, where China was ruled first by the Beiyang warlords (北洋军阀) and then the Nationalist Party (国民党)) and the Communist Period (共和国时期, 1949 AD - now, where China is being ruled by the Communist Party of China). The Communist Period is further divided into two parts, the Pre-reform period (改革开放前, 1949 - 1979) and the Post-reform period (改革开放后, 1979 onwards).

There is another way of division:

1. Antiquity period (中国古代史, 3000 BC - 1840 AD), which is marked by the Opium War, before which China had been more isolated from the rest of the world and Westerners were regarded as uncivilized barbarians.
2. Early modern period (中国近代史, 1840 AD - 1949 AD), which is marked by the founding of the People's Republic, during which time China had been through a great deal of turmoil and humiliations and struggled to keep as one piece.
3. Late modern period (中国现代史, 1949 onwards).

So in conclusion, I think every nation has its own perceived division of history. There is no one-size-fits-all division. I guess the developers of Civ 7 are also aware of this. So if I were to make a compromise, I would probably represent China as:

1. Antiquity Age: Zhou
2. Exploration Age: Tang (Ming straddles across the Exploration Age and the Modern Age, so I think it less appropriate here)
3. Modern Age: China (Yes, without qualification, since the appearance of the word China/中华 in the official name of the country only begins after 1912. Also, modern China is without a doubt a great power of contemporary politics. It owns one of the five permanent seats in the UN Security Council. So it's a much better choice than Qing which was battered heavily by foreigners.)

For associated Wonders, I would choose:

1. The Great Wall for Zhou (built during the short-lived Qin dynasty by linking segments of walls already present during the Zhou dynasty Spring and Autumn & Waring States periods)
2. Daming Palace (大明宫) for Tang
3. For modern China, either the Three Gorges Dam (三峡大坝), the Oriental Pearl Tower (东方明珠塔), the Bird's Nest (鸟巢), the Water Cube (水立方), or the Giant Egg (巨蛋).

That's my thoughts for now. Welcome to comment and discuss!

 

[gdr_willter]

Developers said that the Age of each civs was not decided by specific year but depends on its historical position and influence.

I think Han dynasty is a quite good choice for Antiquity Age, because it strongly established the Chinese empire system after Qin dynasty.

 

[Archanist]

For context, FXS-Ajohnson's comment on the civ subreddit explains the dev's reason for what civs go to which age.

Great comment, u/jalapisa! On identifying Ages, we sought to capture and represent general historical trends that were happening roughly around the same time period. One thing we didn't want to do was have the events of the Mediterranean dictate a calendar for the rest of the world. So if we were to summarize some general processes within each Age:

Antiquity is characterized by competition between states and non-state regions around them – the “blank spaces” on the map. It is a time of city-building, of universalism and expansion, where states claim a mantle of absolute authority. This is the time when states claim to represent the heavens, and that their language is the one true one.

Exploration is a time of vernacularization – when these prior empires split into fragments of the former whole, and where local innovations alter what was there before. It is a time when universal religions rise to suture this gap, but where interconnections – especially global interconnections – come to define states.

Modernity is a retrenchment of empire. Here, modern and scientific thought, bureaucracy, has replaced or fused with notions of divine right, and empires are increasingly seeking to understand, catalog, control, and apportion their subjects.

In that way, Khmer was a better fit for Antiquity – early Khmer was continually expanding into non-state lands, the building and establishment of cities and the construction of a mandala state - a center-oriented city that sought to bring the cosmos into orbit around itself. In creating this gravitational/civilizational pull, Khmer cast itself as a universal center for civilization – something which resonates much more with Antiquity states elsewhere.

Importantly, there are also excellent descendants in the region that are doing very Exploration Age related things - so having Khmer in Antiquity allows us to create a more solid throughline for Southeast Asia.

 

[BlessedBull]

Developers said that the Age of each civs was not decided by specific year but depends on its historical position and influence.

That's nice to hear.

I think Han dynasty is a quite good choice for Antiquity Age, because it strongly established the Chinese empire system after Qin dynasty.

Good point. But like I said, this choice doesn't accomodate the obvious, traditional and more meaningful division of Pre-imperial, Imperial and Post-imperial. If speculations about Qing being the Modern Age civ is correct, then all three China civs will be from the Imperial Period. This doesn't give justice to the richness of Chinese history. Also, a vast majority of featured thinkers used as its unique civilian unit, the Shidafu, actually come from the Zhou dynasty, not the Han dynasty.

 

[gdr_willter]

Good point. But like I said, this choice doesn't accomodate the obvious, traditional and more meaningful division of Pre-imperial, Imperial and Post-imperial.

Civ 7 seems to focus on the exact centralized era of human politics as far as possible. For example, Egypt has shown as the New kingdom, putting the Old kingdoms aside. Rome also has shown as the empire, putting its kingdom and republic period aside. The exceptions like Mississippians can be considered that there're less options for them. I think Greece is only one exception from this principle (it has shown as City states period instead of the Hellenistic Empire of Alexander).

And it seems that it's quite obvious that Civ 7 will not focus on the contemporary countries which were formed after 19c.

I prefer Han-Tang-Ming (with compatible modern civ Qing), but Han-Ming-Qing is also not the worst scenario.

 

[BlessedBull]

Civ 7 seems to focus on the exact centralized era of human politics as far as possible. For example, Egypt has shown as the New kingdom, putting the Old kingdoms aside. Rome also has shown as the empire, putting its kingdom and republic period. The exceptions like Mississippians can be considered that there're less options for them. I think Greece is only one exception from this principle (it has shown as City states period instead of the Hellenistic Empire of Alexander).

Well, the Zhou dynasty (about 1000 BC - 250 BC) existed at almost the same period as Ancient Greece, that's including the city states and the Hellenistic periods. Confucius and Laozi lived at about the same time as Plato and Aristotle. Like, I get the vibe that the Roman Empire existed at about the same time as the Han dynasty, so it's interesting to see how they will clash in the game. But seeing Greece and the Zhou dynasty interact would be fun as well.

And it seems that it's quite obvious that Civ 7 will not focus on the contemporary countries which were formed after 19c.

Then that will sadly leave out possibilities like Australia, Canada and modern African republics. I hope they don't take that route.

 

[BlessedBull]

For context, FXS-Ajohnson's comment on the civ subreddit explains the dev's reason for what civs go to which age.

Admiral Zheng He's expeditions did fit quite well with the theme of the Exploration Age. However, I will argue that the Tang dynasty more or less fit that theme as well. There's Xuanzang (玄奘) 's journey to India to acquire the authentic scriptures of Bhudism, an inspiration for the fantacy novel, Journey to the West, featuring Sun Wukong, the Monkey King. There are Japanese missions to Tang dynasty to learn advanced culture and technology from China. More ties are formed between central China and Tibet as well.

 

[gdr_willter]

Well, the Zhou dynasty (about 1000 BC - 250 BC) existed at almost the same period as Ancient Greece, that's including the city states and the Hellenistic periods.

The timeline in the real history is not matter. Look Khmer civilization. Firaxis set them as Antiquity civ, regarding their historical role in the Southeast Asia, regardless their real timeline.

And we have to consider the civ design. Qin is kinda conqueror who unified China with militaristic power. Zhou and Han are kinda stable ruler. If you wanna describe the ruler of Antiquity China, both Zhou and Han can be a good choice because both can have similar civ design. But Han still can be a better choice because it has larger territory and more clear identity. Philosophers of the warring state period were linked with the vassal states rather than the weaken Zhou dynasty, and they affected more to Han dynasty and its successors.

Meanwhile, how about Greece? City states period and Hellenistic empire must have different civ designs. If the developers want to focus on the academic and diplomatic side of Greek history, Macedonia and Alexander will not be a good choice.

 

[Siptah]

Then that will sadly leave out possibilities like Australia, Canada and modern African republics. I hope they don't take that route.

I guess we'll see them nonetheless. Some, such as America, might be built around the 18th or early 19th versions. Some others, such as Canada might feel a bit more modern.

Good point. But like I said, this choice doesn't accomodate the obvious, traditional and more meaningful division of Pre-imperial, Imperial and Post-imperial. If speculations about Qing being the Modern Age civ is correct, then all three China civs will be from the Imperial Period. This doesn't give justice to the richness of Chinese history. Also, a vast majority of featured thinkers used as its unique civilian unit, the Shidafu, actually come from the Zhou dynasty, not the Han dynasty.

Honestly, I feel China is by far the best represented country in the best game. They chose a path that has some sense to it and is more or less consistent, in contrast to e.g., India's, Egypt's or the European paths. I mean, in what way does Egypt > Abbasids > Ottomans represent the richness of Egyptian history? I also think we'll see more imperial Chinese representation in the future - Zhou and Tang seem obvious choices for eras 1 and 2. It wouldn't help your dilemma that you want Pre- and Post-imperial China, but I think those are more likely than Qin or Modern China.

I'm curious what you think of China's representation in the long run. What you think about having wars between Qin and Han or Qing and modern China? Do you think this is more problematic than helpful for a good representation?

 

[dagriggstar]

I'm actually really looking forward to the Qing dynasty on the basis that it hasn't been represented before in the series. I think with the "classic" factions (the ones that have been in all the games in the series) you have to take them in new directions to keep them exciting.

I think an issue with post-imperial China is that you are kind of looking at either trying to represent a lot of very different political actors (Call it "China" and have civic trees for Sun Yat-Sen, Chiang Kai Shek and Mao seems to be asking for trouble and would probably play incoherently) OR it's kinda CCP focused but the bonuses take too long to kick in. Like if the final era is say 1775 to 1975 how much play do you get out of the CCP ? Like the last 40 turns ?

 

[BlessedBull]

I guess we'll see them nonetheless. Some, such as America, might be built around the 18th or early 19th versions. Some others, such as Canada might feel a bit more modern.

Honestly, I feel China is by far the best represented country in the best game. They chose a path that has some sense to it and is more or less consistent, in contrast to e.g., India's, Egypt's or the European paths. I mean, in what way does Egypt > Abbasids > Ottomans represent the richness of Egyptian history? I also think we'll see more imperial Chinese representation in the future - Zhou and Tang seem obvious choices for eras 1 and 2. It wouldn't help your dilemma that you want Pre- and Post-imperial China, but I think those are more likely than Qin or Modern China.

Zhou dynasty is Pre-imperial, despite also being called a dynasty like the others. So having it in the game will solve half of the problem. And I think having modern China will not be a bad choice either, seeing that it is becoming such a major player in the current world almost on par with the USA, especially considering the possible inclusion of, say, Australia, Canada and Indonesia.

I'm curious what you think of China's representation in the long run. What you think about having wars between Qin and Han or Qing and modern China? Do you think this is more problematic than helpful for a good representation?

It depends on the exact pairing. Having wars between the pairings (Song, Yuan), (Yuan, Ming), (Ming, Qing) is more acceptable. But it will be very strange to have Tang fight Ming. You have to consider this: Most Imperial Chinese dynasties considered themselves legitimate successors to a line of earlier Chinese dynasties. In many cases, the new dynasty even grew out of the fabrics of the old dynasty. Maybe a general of the old dynasty gathered so many military victories that he was pushed to become the first emperor of a new dynasty (like the Han to Wei and Wei to Jin transitions). Some of these power transitions were more peaceful than the others. The last emperor of the Qing dynasty, for example, peacefully abdicated his throne, despite being of the minority Manchu ethnicity, and was offered pension by the newly-found Republic government.

 

[Siptah]

Zhou dynasty is Pre-imperial, despite also being called a dynasty like the others. So having it in the game will solve half of the problem. And I think having modern China will not be a bad choice either, seeing that it is becoming such a major player in the current world almost on par with the USA, especially considering the possible inclusion of, say, Australia, Canada and Indonesia.

Ah ok, I thought Zhou would be considered imperial. I'm not sure how much post-WWII history will be in the 3rd age.

It depends on the exact pairing. Having wars between the pairings (Song, Yuan), (Yuan, Ming), (Ming, Qing) is more acceptable. But it will be very strange to have Tang fight Ming. You have to consider this: Most Imperial Chinese dynasties considered themselves legitimate successors to a line of earlier Chinese dynasties. In many cases, the new dynasty even grew out of the fabrics of the old dynasty. Maybe a general of the old dynasty gathered so many military victories that he was pushed to become the first emperor of a new dynasty (like the Han to Wei and Wei to Jin transitions). Some of these power transitions were more peaceful than the others. The last emperor of the Qing dynasty, for example, peacefully abdicated his throne, despite being of the minority Manchu ethnicity, and was offered pension by the newly-found Republic government.

I thought so. But I also think Tang and Ming are both good choices for Age 2 on their own, so maybe having them in the same game every now and then is better than never having Tang at all.

 

[BlessedBull]

I'm actually really looking forward to the Qing dynasty on the basis that it hasn't been represented before in the series. I think with the "classic" factions (the ones that have been in all the games in the series) you have to take them in new directions to keep them exciting.

I think an issue with post-imperial China is that you are kind of looking at either trying to represent a lot of very different political actors (Call it "China" and have civic trees for Sun Yat-Sen, Chiang Kai Shek and Mao seems to be asking for trouble and would probably play incoherently) OR it's kinda CCP focused but the bonuses take too long to kick in. Like if the final era is say 1775 to 1975 how much play do you get out of the CCP ? Like the last 40 turns ?

We can change government type in Civ7, can't we?

 

[dagriggstar]

We can change government type in Civ7, can't we?

Everyone can change government
But when you say “the ideas of (insert opponent of the CCP here) were both uniquely good and uniquely Chinese so we put them in the game as bonuses”, like that’s basically glorifying those opponents, which is a potential problem for a country with censorship.
It’s also different in civilisation which is a general history game compared to say a game specifically focused on WWII. In a WWII game you kind of need to make the nationalists fun and playable. In a general history game there isn’t the same need to do that, it can be seen as unnecessary.

 

[BlessedBull]

Everyone can change government
But when you say “the ideas of (insert opponent of the CCP here) were both uniquely good and uniquely Chinese so we put them in the game as bonuses”, like that’s basically glorifying those opponents, which is a potential problem for a country with censorship.
It’s also different in civilisation which is a general history game compared to say a game specifically focused on WWII. In a WWII game you kind of need to make the nationalists fun and playable. In a general history game there isn’t the same need to do that, it can be seen as unnecessary.

So the perceived problem is censorship. Actually, the ROC period is almost a staple in contemporary Chinese TV drama. Sun Yat-Sen is reveared as the "Pioneer of the Democratic Revolution" by official media of the CCP. In fact, the CCP fears no comparison against the Nationalists, since it has achieved so much over the last 40 years after the reform (改革开放). It is the total negligence of its achievements that may end up attracting censorship for Civ7 by the CCP, not a favorable depiction of the Nationalists.

Also, regarding the Qing dynasty. If you ask an ordinary Chinese Civ player, more than 80% of them will have strong opinions against representing "modern" China with the Qing dynasty. I mean, why would a Chinese person want to virtually live through a period when they were ruled by nomadic savages, and then forced to swallow tons of addictive opiums, and then signed pages and pages of unequal treaties? It's almost like glorifying their pain. They've really had enough of the Hollywood cultural stereotypes and the misconceptions such as Fu Manchu and the likes.