Civilization VII - Firaxis Developer Panel (PAX West - 8/31) Discussion

[Chiyo]

Thinking a bit about the stream I have no idea what to think of it. The switch of civs is a huge danger of killing the game for me because as a concept it is so stupid. I still have hopes for the game as on the one hand it is Civ which I have been playing constantly in its different versions since 1992 and on the other hand the reasons they named for the changes were the right ones. I usually quit games once I have settled all the free space because that is the biggest fun to me. Waiting to finish the Space projects or until I have enough tourism is boring and conquering the world with many troups or converting all neighbours to my religion seems more like a chore than like fun after I have done it a dozen times. So that is good news. But I have had two very bad experiences with Humankind (in total I completed one match ending with France, but capitol Babylon and no French city names at all) and Millenia (I don't mind the stupid fight graphics but the opponents don't feel like opponents but are just annoying names that block the map. They are called Egypt or Aztecs but don't feel like them. Give them a leader who makes real diplomacy and it will probably be way more interesting!).

CIV VII will have a new problem but it also is immersion breaking. How on earth can there be the historical path from Rome to Normans to France? I once thought of studying history but refrained once I found out that it is diffcult to earn much money with it, at least in my home Germany. But I still am interested in that field and have been reading about it all my life. And seeing Rome developing into Normans and then into France I wish they had at least looked in children's books again for fact checking. You can argue when France exactly started existing because it does not have a founding date like for example the U.S. have. I have read historians dating it back to mid 9th century while others name the late 10th century. But there was no special event for that since it was a natural progression of kings during that time. After Vikings had raided the Northern parts of France for a long time and the French could not defend themselves successfully they decided in early 10th century that if you cannot beat them you have to befriend them. So King Charles gave parts of his land to a Viking called Popo and allowed him to settle there with his people so he would defend the French shores from further Viking raids. In the end that was a success and in order to be able to keep his new lands (now called the Normandy) Popo and his successors tried their best to adjust, marrying French nobles and being the best Christians possible so that they would be accepted. So from the beginning the Normans have always been a part of France. It does not make any sense for a Norman empire to evolve into France as that has already been there and created the Normans with their identity in the first place.
And the Normans who were Viking raiders being the successor of Rome is as stupid but on another level. They did not have anything to do with each other. It is completely different cultures, different languages, different people. The only thing they have in common is that they ruled the same piece of land. But that was a Roman province. The Roman coreland has absolutely no connection to it. So if I start as Rome how on earth can I become the Normans???

Ok, enough negative thoughs. I will give ARA a chance next and then come back to Civ once it is out and see how the reactions are. Being a huge Civ fan I will probably buy it one day after release just to test it myself but do not think I will have the 2.000 hours in it that I had in 5 and 6.

 

[pokiehl]

I think it would have been better if Firaxis did this:
* Have "Modern China" and "Modern India" as the option for the last Age.

I totally disagree. It’s awesome to see the Mughals and Qing in Modern.

A conception of “modern” so close to our time and representing existing nation states would have been a lot more boring.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

“Theoretically could have The Gauls, Franks, HRE”

I bet that they are already in the game or are coming in an expansion. Ed just does not want to officially confirm yet because he wants it to be a surprise.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

I’m particularly perturbed by Ed’s repeated erasure of the Anglo-Saxons.
There was only a few decades (within living memory for many sub-Romano-Brits) between the withdrawal of the last Legions from Britain and Hengest & Horsa’s invasion circa ~450 A.D.
Contrast that with the 600+ year time gap until the Norman invasion in 1066.
The Normans were *not* the historical successors to the Romans in Britain. They’re at best only geographically connected. It seems odd that there’s so much uproar over the path from Egypt to Songhai, but not a single mention of this on any forums or YouTube channels.

 

[Leyrann]

I’m particularly perturbed by Ed’s repeated erasure of the Anglo-Saxons.
There was only a few decades (within living memory for many sub-Romano-Brits) between the withdrawal of the last Legions from Britain and Hengest & Horsa’s invasion circa ~450 A.D.
Contrast that with the 600+ year time gap until the Norman invasion in 1066.
The Normans were *not* the historical successors to the Romans in Britain. They’re at best only geographically connected. It seems odd that there’s so much uproar over the path from Egypt to Songhai, but not a single mention of this on any forums or YouTube channels.

The Romans are an Antiquity civilization, lasting from ~500 BC to ~500 AD (assuming the Byzantines are a separate civilization).
The Normans are an Exploration civilization, lasting from ~800 AD (idk when exactly they settled Normandy and started to assimilate) to ~1200 AD (when they started to become the English, due to mixing with the Anglo-Saxons etc).

Just because they are civilizations that follow a historical progression doesn't mean they need to be immediate successors. You can't have every civilization in the game, and I imagine Anglo-Saxons didn't make the cut.

On top of that, if the Anglo-Saxons would be added in a future DLC, I imagine they (lasting from ~500 AD to ~1100 AD when they began to be subsumed by the Normans and formed the English in the process) would also be an Exploration civilization.

 

[Krikkit1]

I’m particularly perturbed by Ed’s repeated erasure of the Anglo-Saxons.
There was only a few decades (within living memory for many sub-Romano-Brits) between the withdrawal of the last Legions from Britain and Hengest & Horsa’s invasion circa ~450 A.D.
Contrast that with the 600+ year time gap until the Norman invasion in 1066.
The Normans were *not* the historical successors to the Romans in Britain. They’re at best only geographically connected. It seems odd that there’s so much uproar over the path from Egypt to Songhai, but not a single mention of this on any forums or YouTube channels.

Except Egypt and Songhai never controlled any the same territory…so it’s strictly a Regional association.

The Normans took over a lot of areas with traces of the previous Roman empire (not just the areas the Anglo-Saxons took over)

Since the Normans took over English and French areas, and some in Italy, North Africa and the Middle east, they are an excellent stand in for both Second Age France and England and potentially Italy to prevent civ bloat (until DLC gives the Anglo-Saxons, Franks, and Venice/Papal states)

 

[Prester John 2]

So I'm actually fond of the ages transition model, especially after clarification that there are area-specific progressions like Maurya-Chola-Mughals. What I don't get yet (and am worried about) is the way the transition works actually. For the most part transitions between empires were done by conquest and still this is for many civ players, particularly those interested in strategy, one of the key parts of interest and enjoyment: to got out and conquer your way to the Roman empire (from a small city state in 400). Or to conquer many parts of Europe as Vikings. Or to conquer the Near East as Persians, Arabs etc. You can still do that when you're in the antiquity age. But how does it work when I conquered big chunks of my continent as Romans: Do I actually take it all with me as I'm transitioning into the Normans? Or HRE? Or Byzantium? I guess we'll lose a bit due to the crises mechanism. But still: The fun in playing Vikings/Normans was to actually conquer my empire in the Middle ages. If I get handed all those cities and towns on a silver platter at the start of the exploration age what is there for me to do apart from managing? And to what degree does the age transition work as a rubberband mechanism if I inherit such a large empire?
OR: do I actually lose all my large empire which I've worked so hard to put together in the first age and only start with one or two cities? I mean, given Europe: That would mean not only I (choosing the Normans) would inherit parts of my former empire but for it to be somewhat of a challenge and immersion other cultures would also need to come out of my former territory: Take Rome's control of the Southern Europe and the Mediterranean. A part of my empire which I conquered in the antiquity age from rivals (say, Greece and Egypt) and some independents would need to respawn as new civs to actually pose a threat to me.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I can see why the dev team gravitated to the Normans for their new civ-switching system. They migrated to so many areas of Europe they could make a reasonable transition civ for a number of Modern era civs.

On the other hand, they're also "North-men" and should, themselves, arise from (or be part of) the Norse culture (or a proto-French Francia culture, which they mingled with), not from the Roman culture, if we're sticking strictly to a deterministic historical approach (which I think is a mistake from a gameplay perspective, but probably needed for marketing purposes considering how offput people are by the concept of civilizations evolving into new civs).

Personally, I'd be fine with the Normans being available as an Era 2 civ for any civ that ends Era 1 with at least 2 coastal settlements. When the Dark Ages come, the Vikings will find you.

 

[Krikkit1]

A few thoughts on that
1. the crisis will Probably take some of your Empire

2. All the other civs will get tech/civic boosts in the Transistion, to make them better enemies

3. In the next age opponents that are farther away can be a real enemy.


Exactly How the Crisis and Transitions work are the Core to how the game is balanced.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

So I'm actually fond of the ages transition model, especially after clarification that there are area-specific progressions like Maurya-Chola-Mughals. What I don't get yet (and am worried about) is the way the transition works actually. For the most part transitions between empires were done by conquest and still this is for many civ players, particularly those interested in strategy, one of the key parts of interest and enjoyment: to got out and conquer your way to the Roman empire (from a small city state in 400). Or to conquer many parts of Europe as Vikings. Or to conquer the Near East as Persians, Arabs etc. You can still do that when you're in the antiquity age. But how does it work when I conquered big chunks of my continent as Romans: Do I actually take it all with me as I'm transitioning into the Normans? Or HRE? Or Byzantium? I guess we'll lose a bit due to the crises mechanism. But still: The fun in playing Vikings/Normans was to actually conquer my empire in the Middle ages. If I get handed all those cities and towns on a silver platter at the start of the exploration age what is there for me to do apart from managing? And to what degree does the age transition work as a rubberband mechanism if I inherit such a large empire?
OR: do I actually lose all my large empire which I've worked so hard to put together in the first age and only start with one or two cities? I mean, given Europe: That would mean not only I (choosing the Normans) would inherit parts of my former empire but for it to be somewhat of a challenge and immersion other cultures would also need to come out of my former territory: Take Rome's control of the Southern Europe and the Mediterranean. A part of my empire which I conquered in the antiquity age from rivals (say, Greece and Egypt) and some independents would need to respawn as new civs to actually pose a threat to me.

You might lose cities during the crisis if say there is a "barbarian" invasion that captures some of your cities. But that is before the Age ends. I don't think you lose cities automatically when you change ages. We do know that your cities will get downgraded to towns when an Age changes, unless you have achieved the economic golden age milestone. We also know that the map expands when you move to a new Age. So my guess is that you keep whatever empire survives through the crisis, but the surviving cities downgrade to towns (unless you have the economic golden age). Then when the new Age starts, the map expands to reveal new independent powers around you. So you have new neighbors who might be friend or foe.

 

[AntSou]

I’m particularly perturbed by Ed’s repeated erasure of the Anglo-Saxons.

I wouldn't read much into omissions. And what do you mean by "repeated"?

Any cultures associated with their main markets are no brainer choices for DLC.

 

[The_J]

The icons for the Cholas and the Mughals seem to have been switched on this graphic. Mistakenly, perhaps.

Yes, Andrew has confirmed that these were swapped in the slides, but are correct ingame.

 

[Zaarin]

The Iroquois Confederacy was arguably like the first indigenous superpower north of Mesoamerica.

The Mississippians would like a word.

 

[Leyrann]

I can see why the dev team gravitated to the Normans for their new civ-switching system. They migrated to so many areas of Europe they could make a reasonable transition civ for a number of Modern era civs.

On the other hand, they're also "North-men" and should, themselves, arise from (or be part of) the Norse culture (or a proto-French Francia culture, which they mingled with), not from the Roman culture, if we're sticking strictly to a deterministic historical approach (which I think is a mistake from a gameplay perspective, but probably needed for marketing purposes considering how offput people are by the concept of civilizations evolving into new civs).

Personally, I'd be fine with the Normans being available as an Era 2 civ for any civ that ends Era 1 with at least 2 coastal settlements. When the Dark Ages come, the Vikings will find you.

Keep in mind that the Normans are not Norse. They are a hybridization of Norse and Frankian culture. The latter of which draws (in part) from Latin culture...

The Norse come from Scandinavia, the Normans come from Normandy.

 

[Prester John 2]

A few thoughts on that
1. the crisis will Probably take some of your Empire

2. All the other civs will get tech/civic boosts in the Transistion, to make them better enemies

3. In the next age opponents that are farther away can be a real enemy.


Exactly How the Crisis and Transitions work are the Core to how the game is balanced.

I guess all civs start afresh in a new age, and start with the same tech level and compete for new techs.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Keep in mind that the Normans are not Norse. They are a hybridization of Norse and Frankian culture. The latter of which draws (in part) from Latin culture...

The Norse come from Scandinavia, the Normans come from Normandy.

Yes, exactly. They were Vikings who came to Francia from Scandinavia, intermingled with the Frank women (and Frank men they didn't kill), resulting over time in a unique culture based in what is now known as Normandy. Then from there they continued to raid and settle other lands, eventually ruling lands from Sicily to England while also participating in wars from Iberia to Byzantium.

With only 3 ages, I do think you could represent that as part of the Norse culture in the exploration age if the dev team was taking the "big picture" view of civilizations, but I do like it better as an evolution of Norse or Franks - which if you skip the Franks, could be any of Gauls/Celts, early Germans, or Rome. I think Rome is the weakest link to them, but there is one. Which is one of the reasons I'm not fussed about the historical evolutions and am more interested in what makes sense in any particular game. I think the Norse could have intermingled with many other cultures and resulted in a civilization with the game-oriented characteristics of the Normans - seafaring adventurers, but now under a major religion (Christianity) rather than pagan beliefs, and with a view to settling and ruling, rather than simply raiding.

 

[Prester John 2]

I guess the Roman-Norman link that is alluded to is in Southern Italy and Sicily where the Normans build a kingdom in between 1060 and 1150.

 

[Zaarin]

I guess the Roman-Norman link that is alluded to is in Southern Italy and Sicily where the Normans build a kingdom in between 1060 and 1150.

Or that the Normans speak a Romance language.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The Mississippians would like a word.

It's why I emphasized arguably.

Keep in mind that the Normans are not Norse. They are a hybridization of Norse and Frankian culture. The latter of which draws (in part) from Latin culture...

The Norse come from Scandinavia, the Normans come from Normandy.

I wouldn't be surprised if we got the Norse in Antiquity that leads to the Normans and other Scandinavian civs, such as Kalmar Union Denmark, or Sweden.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Personally, I suspect that the Norse, Franks, Goths, Saxons, etc... will appear as minor states that play a large role in the end of antiquity Crisis. Is there enough we could say about, eg, the Norse before 500 AD to build a full, flavourful civilization out of them?

If they go the Civ 6 route, you can unlock Viking Longships at sailing tech.
They'd also come in the game before established religions were founded, so you literally could roleplay a Norse pantheon civ. Plus what's more Viking like than exploring the other side of the world before everyone else hits their Exploration Era? I might have just convinced myself.