Colonization

[Bast]

So something had been bugging me even when I've accepted that there might be something new and fun about the 3 changing ages. I have no problem with something like Maurya-Chola-Mughal India. But what if you have something like England as the modern civ for an earlier civ that is not England? Will it become a bit like you're playing a pre-WWII colonial Britain except you're stuck with that idea for the rest of the modern age? And you are actively rooting for it to win? The older architecture in the game is a nice touch for something like roman buildings in a modern European civ but is it when it's not Roman but another culture which may have been colonized in real life?


I know that most likely there would be geographical and historical paths for civs, I just don't know if it'll be enough. I am definitely hoping for less Eurocentrism.

 

[RedCourtJester]

So something had been bugging me even when I've accepted that there might be something new and fun about the 3 changing ages. I have no problem with something like Maurya-Chola-Mughal India. But what if you have something like England as the modern civ for an earlier civ that is not England? Will it become a bit like you're playing a pre-WWII colonial Britain except you're stuck with that idea for the rest of the modern age? And you are actively rooting for it to win? The older architecture in the game is a nice touch for something like roman buildings in a modern European civ but is it when it's not Roman but another culture which may have been colonized in real life?


I know that most likely there would be geographical and historical paths for civs, I just don't know if it'll be enough. I am definitely hoping for less Eurocentrism.

Yeah there's a bit of grossness that comes along with this era division for colonial civs. For India we were able to sneak by with the Mughals, but very relevant modern cultures like Mexico, Brazil, and South Africa will not be as lucky and have to incorporate some degree of colonial identity.

Personally, I would not mind a civ-like game that included "Mexico," "Brazil," "Gran Colombia," etc....but not-so-accidentally omitted the entirety of Europe. Would be an interesting thought experiment.

 

[Acepox]

less Eurocentrism

Yawn.

Africans, Asians, South Americans, Oceanians and Antarcticans are free to create their own games if they want "less eurocentrism".

But what if you have something like England as the modern civ for an earlier civ that is not England? Will it become a bit like you're playing a pre-WWII colonial Britain except you're stuck with that idea for the rest of the modern age?

So what?

Literally so what?

This is a game series in which you've been able to raze cities across entire continents. Basically thinly-veiled genocide.

Besides, why does your example, yet again, have to be England, and not, say, the Mongolian Horde, or the Han Chinese? Were their expansionist ventures lawful good for some reason?

nice touch for something like roman buildings in a modern European civ

You do realize that means the Romans had to murder and pillage their way there too, right?

 

[RedCourtJester]

Yawn.

Africans, Asians, South Americans, Oceanians and Antarcticans are free to create their own games if they want "less eurocentrism".

So what?

Literally so what?

This is a game series in which you've been able to raze cities across entire continents. Basically thinly-veiled genocide.

Besides, why does your example, yet again, have to be England, and not, say, the Mongolian Horde, or the Han Chinese? Were their expansionist ventures lawful good for some reason?


You do realize that means the Romans had to murder and pillage their way there too, right?

The conquest/warmongering is literally my least favorite element of Civ, and I've only gotten more interested in the franchise as it has developed further away from eurocentric domination and more toward a more culturally diverse and informed/sensitive depiction of the world. Historians, especially Americans it seems, get so caught up in glorifying warfare and cults of leadership. It's boring to me, not to mention kind of sheeply.

Sure, we could continue to put out exceptionalist media. Play to the same oversimplified understanding of the non-western world. Certainly very few countries in the world have the capital to compete with us on that front. But I think there are plenty of arguments for why western media does more good deconstructing imperialist hierarchies and raising up marginalized or ignored cultures. If that means white boys can't engage in their rote, over-done power fantasies, so what? 1. Privilege and power should generally be mindfully disrupted and redistributed, to prevent hoarding and inequity; 2. Nearly all media is empty distraction unless deliberately designed to inspire/educate, so being deprived of "yet another white power fantasy" isn't depriving any consumer of anything actually useful beyond the dulling escapism that is pervasive literally everywhere in leisure culture.

Point being: why are you defending lazy, traditionalist media so vehemently? What is it about not thinking/improving that you are so personally invested in?

 

[AriochIV]

Africans, Asians, South Americans, Oceanians and Antarcticans are free to create their own games if they want "less eurocentrism".

I hear that Antarctican game industry is blowing up right now.

 

[Krikkit1]

So something had been bugging me even when I've accepted that there might be something new and fun about the 3 changing ages. I have no problem with something like Maurya-Chola-Mughal India. But what if you have something like England as the modern civ for an earlier civ that is not England? Will it become a bit like you're playing a pre-WWII colonial Britain except you're stuck with that idea for the rest of the modern age? And you are actively rooting for it to win? The older architecture in the game is a nice touch for something like roman buildings in a modern European civ but is it when it's not Roman but another culture which may have been colonized in real life?


I know that most likely there would be geographical and historical paths for civs, I just don't know if it'll be enough. I am definitely hoping for less Eurocentrism.

Why does Maurya-Chola-Mughal not bother you? those were empires that conquered their predecessors, exploited the populace (none were by the consent of the people) and imposed some of their ideas of the way things should be on those people they conquered. Just like the Romans, and the Normans (and many others) did in England.

If you choose the British civ in the Modern era,…..That means
1. In Your alternate History, Britain was produced by interactions between/within your previous civ, and your previous civ is part of their tradition. (if You went Egypt-Mongol-Britain, you will have access to Traditional policies from your Mongol/ Egyptian history)

2. In your alternate history Britain will have certain UU, UB, and bonuses and civics…. but you decide how they use those… are they going to pursue a global empire of exploitative moralizers…or will they become a hermit cultural / technological utopia…or will they drastically shrink by setting their earlier Mongol conquests free.


Now…if it’s just wanting to see more civs from outside Europe (or Modern ones strongly derived from Europe). Then having the Mughals, Buganda, and Meijii Japan indicate that there will probably be plenty of Modern precolonial options.

(The fact that they have Shawnee as an Exploation Age civ indicates there probably is a Modern Native American Civ, so someone playing a Shawnee civ could choose to either have their traditions preserved in another modern Native American civ, or in a US civ that had its deepest traditions based in the Shawnee rather than in Normans/Romans/Greeks )

 

[Bast]

Yawn.

Africans, Asians, South Americans, Oceanians and Antarcticans are free to create their own games if they want "less eurocentrism".

So what?

Literally so what?

This is a game series in which you've been able to raze cities across entire continents. Basically thinly-veiled genocide.

Besides, why does your example, yet again, have to be England, and not, say, the Mongolian Horde, or the Han Chinese? Were their expansionist ventures lawful good for some reason?


You do realize that means the Romans had to murder and pillage their way there too, right?

Because Mongolian horde, Romans and Han Chinese (talking about the antiquity Han Chinese I assume) happened centuries ago whereas there are still colonial issues from within the last 100 years.

I mean, you could potentially have Poland in exploration to Germany in modern as an example. I'm not sure I'm for that. Leaving aside non-white people as you seem to prefer to.

 

[Krikkit1]

Because Mongolian horde, Romans and Han Chinese (talking about the antiquity Han Chinese I assume) happened centuries ago whereas there are still colonial issues from within the last 100 years.

I mean, you could potentially have Poland in exploration to Germany in modern as an example. I'm not sure I'm for that. Leaving aside non-white people as you seem to prefer to.

Which is why they Need to let you keep your name…. if an Exploration Poland can choose between German or Russian Unique Packages, but keep the name of Poland, that changes a lot of the feel. (you already keep the Tradition Policies….but the Name is important)

 

[dagriggstar]

On one hand, if we take I guess you are the Chola and become Britain in the modern age, my headcannon is going something like the old royal line died out leading to a brief crisis (insert crisis choice here), however over time a new royal family emerged from the various minor noble families marrying each other. Try to echo the union of the crowns

On the other hand, the darker aspects of history should be remembered and learnt from imo.

From a gameplay perspective, I kinda wish the errr I'm going to call them "alt-world" factions (The background factions that aren't contactable until the exploration age) had different technologies to yours. I think that's a missed opportunity to introduce different diplomatic dynamics to the game.

 

[greenOak]

The conquest/warmongering is literally my least favorite element of Civ, and I've only gotten more interested in the franchise as it has developed further away from eurocentric domination and more toward a more culturally diverse and informed/sensitive depiction of the world. Historians, especially Americans it seems, get so caught up in glorifying warfare and cults of leadership. It's boring to me, not to mention kind of sheeply.

Sure, we could continue to put out exceptionalist media. Play to the same oversimplified understanding of the non-western world. Certainly very few countries in the world have the capital to compete with us on that front. But I think there are plenty of arguments for why western media does more good deconstructing imperialist hierarchies and raising up marginalized or ignored cultures. If that means white boys can't engage in their rote, over-done power fantasies, so what? 1. Privilege and power should generally be mindfully disrupted and redistributed, to prevent hoarding and inequity; 2. Nearly all media is empty distraction unless deliberately designed to inspire/educate, so being deprived of "yet another white power fantasy" isn't depriving any consumer of anything actually useful beyond the dulling escapism that is pervasive literally everywhere in leisure culture.

Point being: why are you defending lazy, traditionalist media so vehemently? What is it about not thinking/improving that you are so personally invested in?

Equating warmongering in a 4x game to "being just another white power fantasy" is one hell of a take.

 

[greenOak]

Because Mongolian horde, Romans and Han Chinese (talking about the antiquity Han Chinese I assume) happened centuries ago whereas there are still colonial issues from within the last 100 years.

I mean, you could potentially have Poland in exploration to Germany in modern as an example. I'm not sure I'm for that. Leaving aside non-white people as you seem to prefer to.

Do you feel the same way about nukes being in the game? What about the facist / communist government types?

 

[kaspergm]

Which is why they Need to let you keep your name…. if an Exploration Poland can choose between German or Russian Unique Packages, but keep the name of Poland, that changes a lot of the feel. (you already keep the Tradition Policies….but the Name is important)

But if you keep the name, you lose the entire idea if civ switching (which may be good or bad depending on your pov.).

I’ve argued for this elsewhere, but still feel the perfect solution would be for you to have the option of keeping your civ if you overcome some set of objectives in the crisis. So basically the crisis is a quest you can win or lose, and if you lose, your old civ is lost and you have to develop into a new civ.

The colonisation problem will also become a non-issue imo. if there is an option to write an alternative history.

 

[RedCourtJester]

But if you keep the name, you lose the entire idea if civ switching (which may be good or bad depending on your pov.).

I’ve argued for this elsewhere, but still feel the perfect solution would be for you to have the option of keeping your civ if you overcome some set of objectives in the crisis. So basically the crisis is a quest you can win or lose, and if you lose, your old civ is lost and you have to develop into a new civ.

I think the fairest option is to just let players name their civs, and opportunities to change it in the different eras.

 

[Arent11]

So something had been bugging me even when I've accepted that there might be something new and fun about the 3 changing ages. I have no problem with something like Maurya-Chola-Mughal India. But what if you have something like England as the modern civ for an earlier civ that is not England? Will it become a bit like you're playing a pre-WWII colonial Britain except you're stuck with that idea for the rest of the modern age? And you are actively rooting for it to win? The older architecture in the game is a nice touch for something like roman buildings in a modern European civ but is it when it's not Roman but another culture which may have been colonized in real life?


I know that most likely there would be geographical and historical paths for civs, I just don't know if it'll be enough. I am definitely hoping for less Eurocentrism.

Guys, most "switched civs" are in truth conquest & subjugation, they are "colonialism" I'm pretty sure Egypt -> Abbasids was done by conquest. And don't get me started on the Mongols(!)

The same is true for basically every "fall of civilization" - it was accompanied by razed cities, slavery & genocide. The Romans did it, the Indians did it, the Mongols did it.

I'm always astonished by people that seem to assume conquests, slavery & colonialism would only have been done by European civs. That is simply rewriting history. & in some cases, this false view on history crosses the line to ethnic prejudice.

 

[Bast]

Do you feel the same way about nukes being in the game? What about the facist / communist government types?

I guess the difference is it's not about how you want to run your civilization, it's about your very identity. All I'm saying is that whilst something like Rome>Normans>England might work fine it doesn't work as well for everyone else. And there might be some problematic ones based on very recent history.

 

[timmychompchomp]

Why does Maurya-Chola-Mughal not bother you? those were empires that conquered their predecessors, exploited the populace (none were by the consent of the people) and imposed some of their ideas of the way things should be on those people they conquered. Just like the Romans, and the Normans (and many others) did in England.

If you choose the British civ in the Modern era,…..That means
1. In Your alternate History, Britain was produced by interactions between/within your previous civ, and your previous civ is part of their tradition. (if You went Egypt-Mongol-Britain, you will have access to Traditional policies from your Mongol/ Egyptian history)

2. In your alternate history Britain will have certain UU, UB, and bonuses and civics…. but you decide how they use those… are they going to pursue a global empire of exploitative moralizers…or will they become a hermit cultural / technological utopia…or will they drastically shrink by setting their earlier Mongol conquests free.


Now…if it’s just wanting to see more civs from outside Europe (or Modern ones strongly derived from Europe). Then having the Mughals, Buganda, and Meijii Japan indicate that there will probably be plenty of Modern precolonial options.

(The fact that they have Shawnee as an Exploation Age civ indicates there probably is a Modern Native American Civ, so someone playing a Shawnee civ could choose to either have their traditions preserved in another modern Native American civ, or in a US civ that had its deepest traditions based in the Shawnee rather than in Normans/Romans/Greeks )

We know why it doesn’t bother him/her. Euro bad, everyone else good. Nothing bad happened anywhere until Europeans arrived. When they left everything that went wrong was their fault and anything that was good, was good because they left.

This is obviously a dramatic, hyperbolic, ridiculous statement that sadly reflects the basic foundation of the current educational landscape.

 

[kaspergm]

I think the fairest option is to just let players name their civs, and opportunities to change it in the different eras.

It may be the “fairest”, but then you lose the fact that history was not always fair. I don’t think civ should be an exact history simulator - in fact I’d argue forcing changes as they do here makes it too much of a history simulator - but I do find it very welcome if the fact that some civs historically where overthrown by force and not just by conquest from a neighbouring civ makes it into the game.

 

[Bast]

Why does Maurya-Chola-Mughal not bother you? those were empires that conquered their predecessors, exploited the populace (none were by the consent of the people) and imposed some of their ideas of the way things should be on those people they conquered. Just like the Romans, and the Normans (and many others) did in England.

If you choose the British civ in the Modern era,…..That means
1. In Your alternate History, Britain was produced by interactions between/within your previous civ, and your previous civ is part of their tradition. (if You went Egypt-Mongol-Britain, you will have access to Traditional policies from your Mongol/ Egyptian history)

2. In your alternate history Britain will have certain UU, UB, and bonuses and civics…. but you decide how they use those… are they going to pursue a global empire of exploitative moralizers…or will they become a hermit cultural / technological utopia…or will they drastically shrink by setting their earlier Mongol conquests free.


Now…if it’s just wanting to see more civs from outside Europe (or Modern ones strongly derived from Europe). Then having the Mughals, Buganda, and Meijii Japan indicate that there will probably be plenty of Modern precolonial options.

(The fact that they have Shawnee as an Exploation Age civ indicates there probably is a Modern Native American Civ, so someone playing a Shawnee civ could choose to either have their traditions preserved in another modern Native American civ, or in a US civ that had its deepest traditions based in the Shawnee rather than in Normans/Romans/Greeks )

I am talking about the concept of building a civilization that is based on recent examples of colonialism, that's why I used British India as an example. If you are building India>>India>England, are you essentially not building a civilization is that is British India? The theme of CIV VII is to build something you believe in, I don't really believe in that, you could say I just choose not to take that path but having that path is problematic imo. And there could be others depending on what they pick like Poland> Germany/Russia. Again I don't believe in.

Many in antiquity were already empires in their own times like Rome and Maurya. That's not the point. The point is the 3 step process that could lead to some very painful continuations or imaginations.

Victoria is one of my favorites to play in Civ IV and VI and loved her imperialistic qualities in both games, I have no problem with this. But I'm not about to recreate the British Raj quite deliberately complete with Indian buildings from antiquity and modern British buildings whilst I try to send the Raj into space knowing full well that in this situation Indian civilization has ended.

 

[moysturfurmer]

I am talking about the concept of building a civilization that is based on recent examples of colonialism, that's why I used British India as an example. If you are building India>>India>England, are you essentially not building a civilization is that is British India? The theme of CIV VII is to build something you believe in, I don't really believe in that, you could say I just choose not to take that path but having that path is problematic imo. And there could be others depending on what they pick like Poland> Germany/Russia. Again I don't believe in.

Many in antiquity were already empires in their own times like Rome and Maurya. That's not the point. The point is the 3 step process that could lead to some very painful continuations or imaginations.

Victoria is one of my favorites to play in Civ IV and VI and loved her imperialistic qualities in both games, I have no problem with this. But I'm not about to recreate the British Raj quite deliberately complete with Indian buildings from antiquity and modern British buildings whilst I try to send the Raj into space knowing full well that in this situation Indian civilization has ended.

The inclusion of America alone is loaded with an inherent implication of violence. The entire country exists at the expense of millions of murdered and displaced First Nations peoples. This is a series with Nuclear weapons, WWII era unique units that call to mind some of the darkest periods of multiple major nations. It’s a series with Genghis Khan and Rome and Alexander and Civs and leaders who are responsible for unthinkable brutality inflicted upon conquered civilians. At a certain point you can’t exactly separate these things from a genre that looks to represent the path humanity has taken over the past 6 millennia. Where can you even draw the line?

At a certain point, all you’ll be left with is a Lego set of The Pyramids, if we’re willing to ignore the possibility that they were built using slave labor.

 

[Krikkit1]

But if you keep the name, you lose the entire idea if civ switching (which may be good or bad depending on your pov.).

I’ve argued for this elsewhere, but still feel the perfect solution would be for you to have the option of keeping your civ if you overcome some set of objectives in the crisis. So basically the crisis is a quest you can win or lose, and if you lose, your old civ is lost and you have to develop into a new civ.

The colonisation problem will also become a non-issue imo. if there is an option to write an alternative history.

I disagree that losing the crisis means changing your name. (losing the crisis means losing the game). It should be a Narrative choice to keep or change your name.

I also very very much disagree that Name keeping defeats the point of civ switching.
Civ Switching would still
1. have all the same gameplay effects
2. Show that your civ changed even if the name is the same (the Byzantines called themselves Romans…but they were different, even if they used the same name.)

The point of civ in general is making alt history, what if Egypt and China were neighbors, what if the Indians conquered the British (apply to either meaning of the term). What if large scale conquerors (Alexander, Genghis, Charlemagne) ensured their conquests weren’t split up.
What if the WW were avoided?

All those require some identification with real history, but there must be plenty of room for diversion. Including in the names.