Civilization VII - Content Spreadsheet Thread - Civ overview!

[gdr_willter]

That's just fact isnt it? He's about to win a science victory because his rockets are going to be powering a human to the moon in the Artemis program

Honestly, I dare to say the whole achievement of Musk's Space X is a part of the complex of the western ideology - the Civilization (especially USA). He started it based on the prior technologies, grew it based on the capitalism, and was supported by the need of the government. He couldn't make it the same things in any other countries, like Russia or South Africa.

You can call him a great person if you want, but not the non-state who win the civ game. He is a part of the America which win the game.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

If another civilization gives you a gift that means you can build the rocket, you've still won by building the rocket.

I find it interesting that he's such a divisive figure now that this is something that is pushed back on rather than chuckled at!

He is a contractor. It's not his mission. It's not his crew. He provided the hardware. He claims more glory than is his due.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

He is a contractor. It's not his mission. It's not his crew. He provided the hardware. He claims more glory than is his due.

Scrap the mission and hardware sentences and you’ve got a nice rhyming couplet there!

 

[chaosprophet]

A few people have been insisting that it must be wrong, even though the first announcement didn't leave much open to interpretation...

There was only one person I remember really strongly convinced the 31 info was wrong, and they stopped posting as soon as we got the last Antiquity Age Civ Guide with took out the "more to come" from the Antiquity part, so they probably got convinced too (hopefully it is that or being busy and that they're safe and well).

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

There was only one person I remember really strongly convinced the 31 info was wrong, and they stopped posting as soon as we got the last Antiquity Age Civ Guide with took out the "more to come" from the Antiquity part, so they probably got convinced too (hopefully it is that or being busy and that they're safe and well).

The guessing thread really isn't the same without them, but if they decided the game wasn't something they weren't interested in anymore and don't feel a need to come back, good on them.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

I think the idea that there will be more 30 civs comes from the idea that 30 means some civs that "should be" in the initial release will be missing.

 

[Zaarin]

There was only one person I remember really strongly convinced the 31 info was wrong, and they stopped posting as soon as we got the last Antiquity Age Civ Guide with took out the "more to come" from the Antiquity part, so they probably got convinced too (hopefully it is that or being busy and that they're safe and well).

I wasn't trying to call out anyone specifically.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Scrap the mission and hardware sentences and you’ve got a nice rhyming couplet there!

I briefly entertained the idea of editing it to give it appropriate meter, but alas.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

If another civilization gives you a gift that means you can build the rocket, you've still won by building the rocket.

I find it interesting that he's such a divisive figure now that this is something that is pushed back on rather than chuckled at!

No, you win by completing the mission, not just by building the rocket.

And the problem is, Musk's mission is not to send humans to the moon (and bring them back alive, which I would argue is the most important part of the package), since he is a capitalist, his mission is to make gobs of money. The rocket is just a by-product.

That's the basic problem with attaching the 'profit motive' to any task: in any profit system the most important thing is to make a profit: not send people to the moon, or provide health services, or in fact to provide anything - those are just by-products, and all too often the less money and resources you can get away with providing for the supposed mission, the more profits you can pocket.

As one of the early astronauts observed:
"It is not a good feeling to know you are entrusting yourself to a massive system every part of which was provided by the lowest bidder." - or the contractor out to make the most profit out of the system.

 

[Gori the Grey]

To win Civ IRL, wouldn't Musk have to get people to Alpha Centauri?

I mean, IRL, there has been a civ that has put people on the moon. So if that was the victory condition, the game would seem to have been won by the USA some number of turns back.

 

[Jeppetto]

Feel like current situation is shifting us from mainline Civ into Beyond Earth so we're looking at winning through Domination, Emancipation, Transcendence, Promised Land or Contact

 

[Krajzen]

Frankly speaking, for a long time I have had a significant problem with the civ series' idea of a scientific victory.

Like, let's assume some country - say China - manages to send a succesful mission to Mars all by itself. Good, China gets a lot of prestige.
So what?
When the Soviet Union or the US had their firsts in the space race, sure those were very prestigious achievements, but they were still dominated by the global discourse of those being achievements of the entire humanity rather than those of the particular empire. Which makes sense: seeds allowing us to go to space were growing for thousands of years of global scientific and economic accumulation. It's not like Americans did the job exclusively with the millenia of work of American scientists, or as if the famous bronze age Soviet or American civilizations could get some laurel on their heads for eventually leading thousands of later to the Moon. Even if Greeks or Indians got this job done, continuously pursuing physical sciences since 6th century BC, it would still feel strange for me to treat it as "their victory". Space exploration is simply a common achievement of all humanity.

Also, for any civilization to develop space race tech it needs to be extensive, as in huge in size. You may have the most utopian and technologically advanced society (Nordic states or Singapore or whatever) but you shall still be beaten by a miserable and even somewhat backwards! country such as Soviet Union which simply has much bigger total sum of capital of all kinds. Would anybody seriously say that 1950s Soviet Union were the peak of global innovation, technology, education system, freedom of thought etc and Switzerland or Sweden "lost" compared to them? Or that modern China is clearly more scientifically developed than Switzerland, South Korea, Sweden or Singapore because it can potentially send people to Mars and they cannot?

Likewise, there could be a civilization which was scientific superpower for 90% of the human history, and then it enters relative decline and some random newcomer with almost zero prior history of science takes up its tools and ends up being more advanced in 2050 AD - who deserves "scientific victory" in such case; the late ultimate champion, or the titan on whose shoulders it was standing?

Personally I think more sensible scientific victory would be the one accumulating scientific achievements across all ages, and then combining the titles "okay so you win because you invented astronomy, calculus, quantum physics and genetic engineering, whereas your rival gets second place cause they were first only in space and medieval surgery". I imagine something akin to the cultural victory of civ5, where you kinda have to work for the entire game to get it, though later eras get exponentially more important in the overall task and you can allow some room for early backwardness.

 

[Gori the Grey]

It's one of those places where game-play trumps historical accuracy. You need some accomplishment that will mark that victory condition, and something that will come at roughly the point in RL history where the tech tree has to cut off (b/c we don't really know what's next--I mean, except for giant death robots). Landing people/colony on moon, AC, or wherever is a concrete manifestation of that. Seeing that ship launched is the most satisfying graphic representation of any of the victory conditions.

 

[Evie]

The point of the science victory originally was not just sending a mission to Mars but colonizing another planet. It was victory because in doing so you basically "escaped" the game - you were leaving the game board behind, and even if other civs destroyed you on Earth, you would continue to exist among the stars.

That makes it to my mind one of the most legitimate victory condition, as unlike most others, there's a logical reason why the game ends then (some of the players have expanded beyond what the game can represent), and a logical reason for who gets picked (the civilization that was first to escape the game).

While they talked about achievements for mankind, they are very much remmembered as US and USSR firsts, and it's absolutely a huge part of the event ehich country did it. The space race was very real, and it didn't happen because of eagerness to advance mankind. It happened because beating your rivals to the stars was crucial.

All victory conditions, even conquest, are built on thousand of years of work by all kind of humans - the weapons you use, the communication and administrative techs that let you keep the empire together, and even all the opponents your rivals conquered first, are all contributions to world conquest by others.

 

[Krajzen]

Ok you both have a point

I still maintain my last point though - that I'd prefer scientific victory having pacing of cultural one, where you have to really purposefully work for it for the entire game, with later eras getting exponentially more important, but needing more active effort before the modern age space race than simply "let's get as much science as possible" (which is obviously something every civ should always do anyway)

 

[Gori the Grey]

All victory conditions, even conquest, are built on thousand of years of work by all kind of humans - the weapons you use, the communication and administrative techs that let you keep the empire together, and even all the opponents your rivals conquered first, are all contributions to world conquest by others.

Cultural productions may be the one exception to this principle. The more ancient, the more venerated. Homer is "worth" more than any 20th c. novel, even one that "builds on" Homer.

where you have to really purposefully work for it for the entire game,

I never played 6, but science was my favored victory condition for years in civ 5 (now conquest), and what you say here was actually my experience with that VC in 5: that I had to have my pedal to the scientific metal for the whole of the game if I was going to be in a position to build that ship. (Agonizing how I had to ignore the military line of the tech tree and worry about being gobbled up by a warmonger.) As I remember, late game, different components of it are down different tech lines, so you need to have an expansive command of science, not just beeline to one thing. Felt to me like a satisfying experience of a game's worth / history's worth of focus on science.

 

[Evie]

Somewhat true, but it's France, not Italy that reaps the spoils for the Mona Lisa, and the UK, not Greece, for those Parthenon marbles.

 

[Krajzen]

Somewhat true, but it's France, not Italy that reaps the spoils for the Mona Lisa, and the UK, not Greece, for those Parthenon marbles.

I mean, that depends on whether we count the "spoils" as financial and tourist benefits or the immortal fame of the culture that originally created those artworks and breathed its spirit in them

 

[Jeppetto]

I mean, that depends on whether we count the "spoils" as financial and tourist benefits or the immortal fame of the culture that originally created those artworks and breathed its spirit in them

So we need to separate cultural and touristic victories you say?

 

[Evie]

France gets more than just "tourist benefit" from the Louvres, likewise the British museum. Their collection of cultures both their own and imported from other countries that has served to make those cities a thriving cultural hub (especially Paris!) for the past multiple centuries,

Athens may have immortal fame, but few people look to it for new cultural leadership today, and even Florence and Pisa are places you visit to see the monuments, not for continuing cultural leadrship (even Rome, for that matter). London, Paris, New York, with their culture gifted by others (Statue of Libery) or bought (Mona Lisa) or stolen from them (Parthenon marbles) are far ahead of those.