Sounds almost like Gorgo already.
+1 point to Australia's contribution in the Pacific Theater and for their inclusion.
Last edited:
Designing America for Civ7
- Thread starter Lonecat Nekophrodite
- Start date
It's already included as part of the English civilization.+1 point to Australia's contribution in the Pacific Theater and for their inclusion.
Australia can show up after we have Norman and Breton civilizations separate from France, Anglo-Saxons separate from England, all three of Sumer/Babylon/Assyria, all the Korean kingdoms, five Indian civs, separate Old Kingdom/Middle Kingdom/New Kingdom/Ptolemaic Egyptian civs, and all of Ruthenia, Muscovy, Novgorod, and Russia--because once you start balkanizing there will be no end to it, as the Balkans aptly demonstrate. 
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
It's already included as part of the English civilization.
Don't forget to differentiate the Scythians into Massagetae, Roxolani, Aosi, Iazyges and Siraces, and properly keep separate their eastern neighbors, the Xiongnu. Yuezhi, Asli, Kushanas, Tokhariots, Wusun and Xianbei.
Then we can divide the generic 'Huns' into Kiderites, Hephthalites, Alchon, Nezak and Ounnoi.
- And Muscovy's contemporaries and rivals: Tver', Vladimir, Kazan, Suzdal and Ryazan.
And if anyone could still play the game at that point, my non-existant hat's off to him . . .
I'm glad that you've finally come around to the British Empire being part of the English civilization.It's already included as part of the English civilization.
Well I'd be fine with this one.
That would at least give them a somewhat proper city-list.
Maybe that is good for a separate discussion on how to design a steppe civ for Civ VII?
Hellenism Salesman
Emperor
This sounds like a fantastic idea for another thread, but unless Civ VII even acknowledges the concept of nomadism the answer will be "You don't."
(Or at least, Firaxis doesn't. Civ 6 Scythia and Mongolia are just horse domination civs, not really nomadic or attached to the steppe.)
In the last game a few Civs were granted the option of multiple leaders. In Civ IV America was given two optional leaders(Lincoln and FDR). If there is to be a next Civilization installment, Let give America that choice again. My 1st Choice still remains Dwight D Eisenhower. As I think the game needs a Cold War Era Leader. Given an choice for an alternate Leader. Here's my choice.
LEADER, Ulysses S. Grant
Army General in the Civil War. And 18th President of the United States. Known to most as the face on the $50 Dollar Bill. Forward thinking was Grant. A rare progressive in his day. Grant was ahead of his time in many domestic regards. Was in strong favor of Civil Rights for African Americans. Was a staunch supporter of the 15th Amendment. Grant was a highly decorated soldier in the Army. was a victorious General in the Civil War. As President Grant singed into law the act that created United States Civil Service Commission.. Grant also created the Justice Department. With Ulysses Grant leading America. He will have things marching in the right direction.
Traits and specialties. With Grant should come obvious bonuses toward the Military. Especially the Cavalry. Perhaps double movement for all Cavalry units.
Unique Units: Cavalry Corps(Automatically starts as a Army Unit. Double firepower as compared to standard Cavalry units) M4 Sherman Tank(upgrades from Cavalry corps), Double firepower when attacking cities).
This just a suggestion. Grant is not as known as others. But maybe worth a look.
LEADER, Ulysses S. Grant
Army General in the Civil War. And 18th President of the United States. Known to most as the face on the $50 Dollar Bill. Forward thinking was Grant. A rare progressive in his day. Grant was ahead of his time in many domestic regards. Was in strong favor of Civil Rights for African Americans. Was a staunch supporter of the 15th Amendment. Grant was a highly decorated soldier in the Army. was a victorious General in the Civil War. As President Grant singed into law the act that created United States Civil Service Commission.. Grant also created the Justice Department. With Ulysses Grant leading America. He will have things marching in the right direction.
Traits and specialties. With Grant should come obvious bonuses toward the Military. Especially the Cavalry. Perhaps double movement for all Cavalry units.
Unique Units: Cavalry Corps(Automatically starts as a Army Unit. Double firepower as compared to standard Cavalry units) M4 Sherman Tank(upgrades from Cavalry corps), Double firepower when attacking cities).
This just a suggestion. Grant is not as known as others. But maybe worth a look.
It can be done. Endless Legends had both districts and a mobile empire called, fittingly, the Nomads. In AoE4 the Mongols can pack up and move their base. The trick is it has to be worth doing.
I'm guessing you're not American? Grant is very well known in America. Unfortunately, he's well known for the scandals and corruption that plagued his administration. (While Grant was not involved in the scandals, one still has to point out that it reflects very poorly on his judgment. Competent general, woefully incompetent politician. IMO Hayes is the only viable Reconstruction era president, but Reconstruction was such a low point in American history that it's probably the worst time to select a president from short of the post-WW2 era to the present.)
If we're proposing presidents based on their campaign slogans, I suggest John Quincy Adams: "Little know ye who's coming if John Quincy not be coming. Hating's coming, Satan's coming, if John Quincy not be coming!"
Most of them do feel very generic and most of them I wouldn't have even thought of considering.
I guess it doesn't help that I've never been a fan of baseball or like eating hamburgers, and I say that as an American.
Some other things that I would consider are Saloons or maybe a Jazz Club, in addition to the Film Studio.
As you said very well known as the General who defeated the Confederacy, less well known as a President. I wouldn't be surprised to see many people forgot he was one.
Most of them do feel very generic and most of them I wouldn't have even thought of considering.
I guess it doesn't help that I've never been a fan of baseball or like eating hamburgers, and I say that as an American.
Some other things that I would consider are Saloons or maybe a Jazz Club, in addition to the Film Studio.
I mean they are generic because they are everywhere in the US. Baseball stadium has 29 huge ones in the US and a couple hundred more mid-sized ones between minor league teams, independent league teams, and college teams.
Hamburger stand is the ubiquitous fast food option of course.
American cities and towns tend to have a main street as their important commercial feature rather than a main town square like in European cities.
Land Grant Universities have been covered but they pretty much set the standard for what people think of in a modern university with an emphasis on STEM rather than on liberal arts.
Movie Theaters have great history and are a big part of American culture from the lavish and ornate theaters of the 20s and 30s to the drive ins of the 50s and 60s to the modern rather plain one.
Yeah what I meant is some of them feel a little too generic, as in I could easily see some of them such as Mall and Movie Theater (Cinema) being universal buildings that anyone can build, which shopping mall was in Civ 6. But that is part of the problem when designing a unique infrastructure for civs like America.
Actually a Drive In Move Theater would be interesting and unique, maybe even replacing a generic Cinema, or a unique improvement.
I'm a poor judge of what's well known, but my general impression is that Grant's presidency is fairly well remembered but remembered negatively as a bad presidency.As you said very well known as the General who defeated the Confederacy, less well known as a President. I wouldn't be surprised to see many people forgot he was one.
My issue is that a lot of the things on the list feel trite, like the Canadian Hockey Rink and Scottish Golf Course.
Baʿl, if that isn't the most American thing on the list.
Grant was strongly connected with Military Service. I want the American Forces as a focal point in this game. I look at people like Ike or Grant. And I see successful War General. One defeated the Confederates. The other defeated the Nazis. I like Grant also in regards for his hatred for the rising KKK, he detested slavery, and was a rare progressive in other areas considering the period. Of course he has negatives. Little Big Horn was not his finest hour. Every President has such negatives. Hayes was elected after one of the dirtiest elections in history. I would like a leader connected to Military Service. Such as Grant or Ike. Both are associated with victory. meaning success. That would give major unit bonuses. America is a Superpower. let's have an America Civ that reflects that strength. A Civ that leads with strength and industry. One that carries a very big stick.It can be done. Endless Legends had both districts and a mobile empire called, fittingly, the Nomads. In AoE4 the Mongols can pack up and move their base. The trick is it has to be worth doing.
I'm guessing you're not American? Grant is very well known in America. Unfortunately, he's well known for the scandals and corruption that plagued his administration. (While Grant was not involved in the scandals, one still has to point out that it reflects very poorly on his judgment. Competent general, woefully incompetent politician. IMO Hayes is the only viable Reconstruction era president, but Reconstruction was such a low point in American history that it's probably the worst time to select a president from short of the post-WW2 era to the present.)
If we're proposing presidents based on their campaign slogans, I suggest John Quincy Adams: "Little know ye who's coming if John Quincy not be coming. Hating's coming, Satan's coming, if John Quincy not be coming!"
To be fair the Golf Course was an out of the box pick, so out of the box that probably almost no one thought of it.
The Hockey Rink I agree, but to me it's no more stereotypical than a sugar shack which I also saw a lot of people suggesting.
But here is my new and improved top 5 probably (in order) without being overly stereotypical:
Drive-In Movie Theater
Jazz Club
Film Studio (again)
Saloon
Meeting House (if not a worship building)
Honorable Mention: (American) Football Stadium- Because American Football is at least better than Baseball.
Yes, progressives sure were rare in the Progressive Era.
I don't dislike Grant on a personal level. He was a competent if not particularly outstanding general (it's easy to look competent when you're surrounded by idiots; same thing with Lee), and as a person he seems to have been neither remarkably good nor bad. But there's no getting around the fact he was a bad president. He didn't participate in the scandals of his administration, but he did enable them to happen through his poor judgment and he failed to do anything about them.
TBH America is the third most boring civ in the game after Australia and Canada so to an extent I don't care how it's designed. Military civs are also boring so in that sense I guess it's a match made in...purgatory.
But as an American historian, I don't like the idea of America being led by one of its worst presidents. Grant was politically inept, and his skill as a general has been overstated. IMO American presidents who are Civ leader material, based both on competence and image, (without commenting on whether I would actually want them or not) would be Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Polk, Lincoln, TR, Coolidge, and FDR; one might make an edge case for Monroe, Van Buren, McKinley, Wilson, Truman, and Eisenhower. However, FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower are already in iffy territory regarding political controversy, and in my opinion anyone more recent than Hoover is too recent. (Hoover--great guy, lousy president.)I mean, to some extent one expects unique units and infrastructure to be stereotypical because there's a thin line between "iconic" and "stereotypical," but to me the Hockey Rink feels trite where the Sugar Shack does not.
I'd call it a Sugar Shack but graphically include the maple grove TBH.
Yes, progressives sure were rare in the Progressive Era.
I don't dislike Grant on a personal level. He was a competent if not particularly outstanding general (it's easy to look competent when you're surrounded by idiots; same thing with Lee), and as a person he seems to have been neither remarkably good nor bad. But there's no getting around the fact he was a bad president. He didn't participate in the scandals of his administration, but he did enable them to happen through his poor judgment and he failed to do anything about them.
TBH America is the third most boring civ in the game after Australia and Canada so to an extent I don't care how it's designed. Military civs are also boring so in that sense I guess it's a match made in...purgatory.
I mean, to some extent one expects unique units and infrastructure to be stereotypical because there's a thin line between "iconic" and "stereotypical," but to me the Hockey Rink feels trite where the Sugar Shack does not.
Any leader prior to WWII represent an America that's incomplete. A rising power is nice. But not as complete as an undisputed Superpower. The Cavalry is is nice. But I would much more refer an M1 Abrams or a Super Aircraft Carrier. Those prior periods are all interesting. But I agree we need an America that is anything but boring. At least a Cold War Era Leader will represent a Civ that gives us Frank Sinatra as a Great Musician/Performer and destroys a city with B-52 Bombers at the same time. The World can either cheer at our Baseball games or hold it's breath as we threaten to drop Hydrogen Bombs from same B-52 Bombers. Now that makes an exciting Civ. The American Way
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
The problem is not with the hockey rink itself - it IS a fitting Canadian unique. Not as the NHL big ice rinks, but as all the local ice rinks, sometime built on local lakes or in the open air that every village and every town insists on.
As a famous Canadian story of childhood in Canada in the 1950s phrased it: "The winters of my childhood were long, long seasons. We lived in three places - the school, the church, and the skating rink - but our real life was on the skating rink.". That is a culturally relevant UB all right.
The problem is that the hockey rink was played as one of many, many aspects of the atrocious "Canada live in snow" theme, that played up all the aspects of Canadian winter and somehow managed to equate Canadian winter and snow with permafrost tiles (eg, tundra), and lock all Canadian bonuses to tundra.
As the game set things up, most of the major Canadian cities and towns, on a proper real world map, can either not built a hockey rink at all, or would have to wait to build it far out in their third ring, because that's how far the tundra is from all of Canada's major population center. (The same applies to all those other tundra bonuses). Yes, Canada owns a lot of tundra - but it's empty and uninhabited except for pockets around natural resources. If Canada were to have any bonuses on tundra (aside from the resource extraction one, which is actually fair), attractiveness bonus to allow for national parks on tundra would be far more in line than the "Canada should settle in Tundra, it's basically super grassland for them" we got.
Sure, Canadian forest is just as much of a cliché (sigh I'm a lumberjack and I'm okay...) but at least THAT cliché has the merit of being roughly accurate economically, culturally and socially.
As a famous Canadian story of childhood in Canada in the 1950s phrased it: "The winters of my childhood were long, long seasons. We lived in three places - the school, the church, and the skating rink - but our real life was on the skating rink.". That is a culturally relevant UB all right.
The problem is that the hockey rink was played as one of many, many aspects of the atrocious "Canada live in snow" theme, that played up all the aspects of Canadian winter and somehow managed to equate Canadian winter and snow with permafrost tiles (eg, tundra), and lock all Canadian bonuses to tundra.
As the game set things up, most of the major Canadian cities and towns, on a proper real world map, can either not built a hockey rink at all, or would have to wait to build it far out in their third ring, because that's how far the tundra is from all of Canada's major population center. (The same applies to all those other tundra bonuses). Yes, Canada owns a lot of tundra - but it's empty and uninhabited except for pockets around natural resources. If Canada were to have any bonuses on tundra (aside from the resource extraction one, which is actually fair), attractiveness bonus to allow for national parks on tundra would be far more in line than the "Canada should settle in Tundra, it's basically super grassland for them" we got.
Sure, Canadian forest is just as much of a cliché (sigh I'm a lumberjack and I'm okay...) but at least THAT cliché has the merit of being roughly accurate economically, culturally and socially.
Last edited:
Unless history ends tomorrow, it is incomplete. That's the nature of history.
Copyright law says otherwise.
Not really. What's exciting is a matter of taste. To me, an exciting version of Civ would be one that didn't include anything more recent than the 18th century, including no America. I realize that's never going to happen, but no 20th century leaders would be a big step in the right direction.
Similar threads
