Colonization

[AntSou]

Yawn.

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

Yawn.

You're free to create your own game if you want more. You don't need to rely on what other Europeans/Westerners have accomplished for a sense of personal pride and identity, you know?
---

As for the point of this thread, I don't really see what the issue is? Colonization happened and Firaxis have always depicted leaders and elements from this period. The exploration Age seems like it could potentially have gameplay implications inspired by the Colonization series, and warfare between Civs from different continents sounds like a self-evident possibility.

I don't even think your logic holds. Aztec into Mexico creates the narrative that the Aztecs developed into a modern Mexican state. The historical elements of Spanish involvement are irrelevant in the context of the game you're playing. This is especially the case if you play as an Aztec leader leading Mexico.

Less Colonial Option: (Tecumseh) Shawnee -> United States
More Colonial Option: (Franklin) England -> United States

This looks fine to me, gives players a ton of possibilities.

 

[chaosprophet]

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.

From what I understand, the idea of the game is more like your civ developed into that new one. So in your example of India>>India>England, It doesn't mean India in the modern age was conquered by a foreign already existing power that was Britain, but instead that this India developed into a country like England.

 

[aieeegrunt]

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.

This is genius. How the hell didn’t the devs think of this. It would certainly turn civ switching from a feature that basically ruins the game for me to one I’d buy the game for

 

[lymond]

Moderator Action: Thread closed for review. -lymond