Civilization VII - Civilization and leader overview

[RedCourtJester]

But for something Completely Different . . .

Instead of the rather tired old Prussian Hobnailed trophe, why not use Bavaria or Saxony instead? Compared to Prussia, Saxony had a much higher reputation as a cultural center while Bavaria was stronger economically until the late 18th century. - And my experience living in Germany in the 1970s and 1980s is that Bavaria still maintains a very distinct set of cultural differences from the rest of Germany.

Then, of course, Exploration Age Bavaria could progress to the Modern Age Communist Bavarian Socialist Republic of 1919, which would probably generate more WTH? posts than anything else Civ has ever proposed!

Between Civ's historic obsession with expansion/sprawl, and its tendency to just reuse the same civs as before, I would be very surprised to see Saxony or Bavaria beat out the HRE/Carolingians in the exploration era and Prussia/Germany in the modern era. In fact I would be particularly surprised in the case of Germany where it is one of the few civs other than Rome and Britain (and arguably Italy) to have actually been represented by two civs in the past, and had an exploration (HRE) and modern (Germany) civ in the same game already. The "let's just reuse what we already had" pull is too great.

Nice ideas, but I think especially in the civ game where locality/specificity makes throughlines feel even less organic as opposed to "well the Normans/Mongols/Chola were everywhere," I don't think we will see many smaller kingdoms appearing, at least for a while, and especially in the exploration era.

(And, if/when we do get to that point, I would expect if Bavaria and Saxony are being considered, the devs would just pivot to Bohemia.)

 

[Zaarin]

just pivot to Bohemia

Yes, please. Jesus Christ be praised! Henry's come to lead us!

 

[Acepox]

Based off of every other civ that we know of in the Modern Age and the timeline, having Prussia makes the most sense. But for familiarity I could still see the modern civ just called Germany.

There's a slight chance Prussia could become an Exploration Age civ, if they based it off of the Duchy of Prussia and the Teutonic State. That in turn could lead into many different Modern Age civs such as Germany, Russia, Poland etc.

Goth - Teutonic - Prussia would be an awesome path.

On another note, someone mentioned Dutch to Boers too, I thought that'd be a stellar idea.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Goth

Seen that mentioned a bunch. I'd prefer the Vandals. I think a strong case can be made that Gaiseric actually delivered Rome a mortal wound. Moreso than Attila or any other Visigoth or Ostrogoth leader.

Gaiseric has almost no public profile today, but his achievements, creating a fleet and winning some very noteworthy victories with it, are very impressive.

I suppose the problem could be the Vandals were later destroyed pretty thoroughly by Belisarius, so there's little case for a plausible morph. But then again, Egypt morphs into Songhai so eh, whatever. Rules are loose.

 

[Zaarin]

Seen that mentioned a bunch. I'd prefer the Vandals.

Vandals were Goths or very closely related; I don't think there's any need to balkanize the Goths.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Seen that mentioned a bunch. I'd prefer the Vandals. I think a strong case can be made that Gaiseric actually delivered Rome a mortal wound. Moreso than Attila or any other Visigoth or Ostrogoth leader.

Gaiseric has almost no public profile today, but his achievements, creating a fleet and winning some very noteworthy victories with it, are very impressive.

I suppose the problem could be the Vandals were later destroyed pretty thoroughly by Belisarius, so there's little case for a plausible morph. But then again, Egypt morphs into Songhai so eh, whatever. Rules are loose.

Goths is considered likely at the moment because the Mausoleum of Theodoric has been identified as a wonder, and all civs have an associated wonder.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Goths is considered likely at the moment because the Mausoleum of Theodoric has been identified as a wonder, and all civs have an associated wonder.

Morphing into Spain, I would guess. There's actually a fairly direct line from Visigothic Spain to medieval Spain via the Kingdom of Asturias.

Vandals were Goths or very closely related; I don't think there's any need to balkanize the Goths.

Same language group, at least. Potentially neighbors in today's Poland with frequent interaction pre-Rhine crossing.

I tend to favor interpretations that political divides were very relevant to identity in the late Roman world, though.

 

[Acepox]

I tend to favor interpretations that political divides were very relevant to identity in the late Roman world, though.

Oof, get ready for the crowds who think anything close to a nation did not exist till the 18th century.

 

[uppi]

But for something Completely Different . . .

Instead of the rather tired old Prussian Hobnailed trophe, why not use Bavaria or Saxony instead? Compared to Prussia, Saxony had a much higher reputation as a cultural center while Bavaria was stronger economically until the late 18th century. - And my experience living in Germany in the 1970s and 1980s is that Bavaria still maintains a very distinct set of cultural differences from the rest of Germany.

Then, of course, Exploration Age Bavaria could progress to the Modern Age Communist Bavarian Socialist Republic of 1919, which would probably generate more WTH? posts than anything else Civ has ever proposed!

I think Modern age would fit better for Bavaria, Exploration age does not really fit.

But, as fun as it would be, I don't think it is going to happen, because we have seen the Brandenburg Gate as a wonder. As it was built by Prussia, it does not make sense to include it, unless we get either Prussia or Prussian-dominated Germany. They would have included some other wonder if it was Saxony or Bavaria instead.

If they go for Prussia, we could see a Bavaria or Saxony added later, though.

 

[Siptah]

I think Modern age would fit better for Bavaria, Exploration age does not really fit.

But, as fun as it would be, I don't think it is going to happen, because we have seen the Brandenburg Gate as a wonder. As it was built by Prussia, it does not make sense to include it, unless we get either Prussia or Prussian-dominated Germany. They would have included some other wonder if it was Saxony or Bavaria instead.

If they go for Prussia, we could see a Bavaria or Saxony added later, though.

Depends how you define the ages. A 30-years war Bavaria would be fun in any case, and Maximilian would be an interesting leader. But that would probably be modern in civ 7 terms. On the other hand, a pre-revolutionary Ludwig I-times Bavaria would be fun once they implement crazier bonuses that depend on your earlier civ choices.

I think the Hansa (despite not being a state) is a good candidate for the exploration era.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I'd Imagine the Golden Gate bridge could be an American wonder is it not? perfect opportunity to bring it back with navigatable rivers

I think Statue of Liberty is too iconic, but Golden Bridge could be a wonder not tied to any nation

 

[Giskler]

I don't understand the discussion about the Statue of Liberty; It's the most American thing ever next to Coca Cola, Hamburgers, and Hollywood. In the rest of the world, the Statue of Liberty is the #1 symbol of America, if you've ever walked into a US embassy it's plastered on every poster on every wall.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I don't understand the discussion about the Statue of Liberty; It's the most American thing ever next to Coca Cola, Hamburgers, and Hollywood. In the rest of the world, the Statue of Liberty is the #1 symbol of America, if you've ever walked into a US embassy it's plastered on every poster on every wall.

Because America didn't really design or build it, France did. It just feels weird that civs are now claiming wonders they actually constructed, and the Statue of Liberty wasn't really the product of America at all.

 

[Giskler]

Because America didn't really design or build it, France did. It just feels weird that civs are now claiming wonders they actually constructed, and the Statue of Liberty wasn't really the product of America at all.

They are called associated wonders and whether you like it or not the Statue of Liberty is associated with America, regardless of who built it in the first place. Furthermore, America had to build the base that the statue stands on so one could argue that the monument as a whole was the product of two nations.

 

[Wabnosa]

I know some nice caddo ladies. The caddo culture is very ancient. It seems older than most other tribes. The Caddo were more likely from the Spiro mounds group. Why not just make the Caddo.

Mississippi is not what they called themselves. Michi sipi is an Ojibwe word that means great river. I thought about calling them the ancestors but decided I didn't want to have bad luck.

 

[Mudokon Pop]

See, these all strike me as more quintessentially American. Even the St. Louis Arch, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Guggenheim?

I mean, maybe we don't deserve it. Maybe VII is a criticism of American exceptionalism. Maybe all we deserve is a crusty, wrinkly potato for a leader.

But if not, I would much prefer we get something other than the Statute of Liberty as the associated wonder.

Fair point. The Lincoln Memorial would be a great choice imo. But to assume that something isn't American because it was manufactured overseas disregards the American adoption the Statue of Liberty a national symbol. It's not a judgement of America to have it as a wonder.

I know some nice caddo ladies. The caddo culture is very ancient. It seems older than most other tribes. The Caddo were more likely from the Spiro mounds group. Why not just make the Caddo.

Mississippi is not what they called themselves. Michi sipi is an Ojibwe word that means great river. I thought about calling them the ancestors but decided I didn't want to have bad luck.

Perhaps Fireaxis have consulted with indigenous groups in this regards. If the 'Mississipian cultures' are represented independent people in-game, then I suspect they are each referred to with their own nation's names.

 

[Zaarin]

Oof, get ready for the crowds who think anything close to a nation did not exist till the 18th century.

No one thinks that. Nations have probably existed since there were humans. Nation-states did not exist until the 18th century because they were a product of nationalism.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

No one thinks that. Nations have probably existed since there were humans. Nation-states did not exist until the 18th century because they were a product of nationalism.

Political states that include multiple nationalities inside them are the norm. It's part of the reason that I dislike pops in Civ not having a cultural identity (ethnic, national, religious, whatever) separate from the "civilization", which is really a political entity/empire. Political states representing a single nation aren't just rare, historically, they're often problematic because of the issue of how to treat inhabitants who clearly aren't of that nationality.

 

[Zaarin]

Political states that include multiple nationalities inside them are the norm. It's part of the reason that I dislike pops in Civ not having a cultural identity (ethnic, national, religious, whatever) separate from the "civilization", which is really a political entity/empire. Political states representing a single nation aren't just rare, historically, they're often problematic because of the issue of how to treat inhabitants who clearly aren't of that nationality.

Cultural identity for population (along with religious and political identity) is something I've wanted for a long, long time. It's something I think ES2 handles very well, though I grant that ES2 has the advantage of dealing with aliens and not having to risk cultural stereotypes. Still, I think there's a lot of opportunity for interesting gameplay surrounding ethnic and religious minorities in your empire. (And it could tie into the age system! Maybe not all of your citizens come to identify as Mongolian! Maybe some still see themselves as Egyptian! Maybe it's because they still practice Kemetism and not Tengriism!)

 

[stealth_nsk]

We had cultural identity in the form of assimilating cities or tiles. More detailed cultural identity tracking would be a micromanagement hell for no obvious reasons (as in the end it would probably work like Civ6 loyalty).