Filling in the gaps - Charting the optimal Civ Switches

[Hellenism Salesman]

For the Modern Civ, again a few options are available:

• Romania, Bulgaria's northern neighbour which gained independence around the same time (though was consistently a weaker power)
• Serbia, which was under Austrian control for most of the Modern Age
• Yugoslavia, which is probably the BEST choice objectively speaking, but is also very recent choice
• Austria-Hungary which isn't slavic at all, but had most of the Balkans within its sphere of influence.

I understand your choice of Yugoslavia as a Modern Age Balkan civ, but I have some comments.

I agree it is a good civ for this scenario, especially because it opens up many, many new paths for the region, and I agree it is very recent, arguably too recent.

I’ll first treat the name “Yugoslavia” more narrowly, as the name of (a) specific state(s), though I’m aware literally means “South Slavia.” Basing the Modern Age’s historical breadth on its victory conditions, it ends with the conclusion of WWII and the development of nuclear weapons. This means that half unified Yugoslavia's lifespan- the more familiar half to Western, especially American audiences, no less- is beyond the scope of the game. I am not terribly concerned with constricting the game for Americans' sake, but Firaxis does not hold my opinions.

Assuming that a more narrow Kingdom of Yugoslavia civ made it into the game, I don't think it would fulfill the role of "unified Slavic Balkan endpoint" all that well. The real Kingdom of Yugoslavia was notoriously Serb-dominated. It was ruled by a Serbian monarchy with Serb politicians who physically fought- and on one occasion brazenly assassinated- politicians of other ethnicities and interests during sessions of parliament. This is not to say that Serb rule was anywhere near as brutal or unfair as some rulers of the region were, but rather to point out that if a civ narrowly defined to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia were added, it would really just be the Kingdom of Serbia in disguise. And considering that Serbia existed longer and was a nation able to establish and maintain their independence while sandwiched between the two biggest powers of the region, I think they would be worthy of the spot.

However, Yugoslavia exists as more than just a polity. It is both a geographic term and a thought movement. If a Modern Yugoslavia civ were to represent the region more broadly (like a sort of "blob" similar to "Celts"), I think it could actually work quite well! The civic tree could progress through the movement's different forms, progressing from Illyirianism to Jugoslavism proper. It also opens up the possibility for uniques from all ethnicities that the term entails, and would allow players to role-play "wars of independence" from a concurrent Austria-Hungary civ.

TL;DR: I would approve of a Modern Age Yugoslavia civ if it were designed to encapsulate the region as a whole rather than represent any given state. However, if Yugoslavia were added and was based solely off of the short-lived Kingdom of Yugoslavia (or the later Socialist Republic), I think Serbia would be a better choice for the Modern Age instead.

(and this is coming from the Croatian history guy!)

Edit: For anyone curious, these are my preferences for the region:

All civs could begin with the Avars, a Slavic blob civ, or Illyria.

• Croatia -> Austria-Hungary/Yugoslavia
• Serbia -> Yugoslavia or Serbia -> Serbia (I don't know what the difference in naming convention would be)
• Bosnia -> Ottomans
• Duklja -> Yugoslavia
• (Unsure for Slovenia who is also relevant to this discussion)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I understand your choice of Yugoslavia as a Modern Age Balkan civ, but I have some comments.

I agree it is a good civ for this scenario, especially because it opens up many, many new paths for the region, and I agree it is very recent, arguably too recent.

I’ll first treat the name “Yugoslavia” more narrowly, as the name of (a) specific state(s), though I’m aware literally means “South Slavia.” Basing the Modern Age’s historical breadth on its victory conditions, it ends with the conclusion of WWII and the development of nuclear weapons. This means that half unified Yugoslavia's lifespan- the more familiar half to Western, especially American audiences, no less- is beyond the scope of the game. I am not terribly concerned with constricting the game for Americans' sake, but Firaxis does not hold my opinions.

Assuming that a more narrow Kingdom of Yugoslavia civ made it into the game, I don't think it would fulfill the role of "unified Slavic Balkan endpoint" all that well. The real Kingdom of Yugoslavia was notoriously Serb-dominated. It was ruled by a Serbian monarchy with Serb politicians who physically fought- and on one occasion brazenly assassinated- politicians of other ethnicities and interests during sessions of parliament. This is not to say that Serb rule was anywhere near as brutal or unfair as some rulers of the region were, but rather to point out that if a civ narrowly defined to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia were added, it would really just be the Kingdom of Serbia in disguise. And considering that Serbia existed longer and was a nation able to establish and maintain their independence while sandwiched between the two biggest powers of the region, I think they would be worthy of the spot.

However, Yugoslavia exists as more than just a polity. It is both a geographic term and a thought movement. If a Modern Yugoslavia civ were to represent the region more broadly (like a sort of "blob" similar to "Celts"), I think it could actually work quite well! The civic tree could progress through the movement's different forms, progressing from Illyirianism to Jugoslavism proper. It also opens up the possibility for uniques from all ethnicities that the term entails, and would allow players to role-play "wars of independence" from a concurrent Austria-Hungary civ.

TL;DR: I would approve of a Modern Age Yugoslavia civ if it were designed to encapsulate the region as a whole rather than represent any given state. However, if Yugoslavia were added and was based solely off of the short-lived Kingdom of Yugoslavia (or the later Socialist Republic), I think Serbia would be a better choice for the Modern Age instead.

(and this is coming from the Croatian history guy!)

Edit: For anyone curious, these are my preferences for the region:

All civs could begin with the Avars, a Slavic blob civ, or Illyria.

• Croatia -> Austria-Hungary/Yugoslavia
• Serbia -> Yugoslavia or Serbia -> Serbia (I don't know what the difference in naming convention would be)
• Bosnia -> Ottomans
• Duklja -> Yugoslavia
• (Unsure for Slovenia who is also relevant to this discussion)

What's your opinion on Republic of Ragusa as an Exploration Age civ?
I'd be lying to you if I said my reasoning also had nothing to do with my GoT obsession.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

What's your opinion on Republic of Ragusa as an Exploration Age civ?
I'd be lying to you if I said my reasoning also had nothing to do with my GoT obsession.

I have nothing against it! It's a beautiful city with a beautiful history. In fact, I think Ragusa should at least be included as an Independent Power.

And, hey, if Venice ever gets in, who better to pair them with than a rival across the Adriatic?

 

[socratic]

And before anyone else says that Venice and Genoa fit the Exploration Age better, Amerigo Vespucci was from Florence

I can totally see them adding Amerigo in as a leader at some point in place of the always controversial Columbus.

Old Norse => Kievan Rus' - This is by far the most historically accurate link and is probably what Civ7 should work towards

The Kievan Rus are also suitable for Antiquity. While not historically accurate, they do occupy the same space for Eastern Slavs as the Khmer do for much of SEA. Many Russians and Ukrainians view the Rus as ‘ancient’. Designing them for Exploration can be difficult too because of the similar civs already in the Age (Normans, Bulgaria, to an extant Mongolia, and the eventual Byzantines).

Also want to add that the Saxons can be a perfect starting point for Britain, while also leading into other paths.

 

[Xandinho]

As for the Polish path, I’ve always thought that a 'Grand Duchy of Lithuania > Poland' transition would work well and feel quite immersive. Obviously, Bohemia > Poland also works really well.

I had no idea that the Italian community was large in Brazil.

Also interestingly, Brazil has the largest Japanese community outside of Japan — not that I’m suggesting an Exploration Japan > Brazil transition.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The Kievan Rus are also suitable for Antiquity. While not historically accurate, they do occupy the same space for Eastern Slavs as the Khmer do for much of SEA. Many Russians and Ukrainians view the Rus as ‘ancient’. Designing them for Exploration can be difficult too because of the similar civs already in the Age (Normans, Bulgaria, to an extant Mongolia, and the eventual Byzantines).

Also want to add that the Saxons can be a perfect starting point for Britain, while also leading into other paths.

I'd feel like that would be a mistake if the developers went that route, personally for Kyivan Rus'. I feel that they are so intertwined with the mechanics like Religion, and certain civs of that time period like Bulgaria and the potential Byzantines, that it would look out of place if they were relegated to Antiquity. Plus, them coming from an Antiquity Norse makes sense to me and maybe another Antiquity Slavic civ (not sure if just a generic Slavs name would be appropriate, or a specific group).

I would say the Saxons too, but personally I wouldn't mind that considering we have the Normans. Well, the Anglo-Saxons at least.

 

[Lord Lakely]

As for the Polish path, I’ve always thought that a 'Grand Duchy of Lithuania > Poland' transition would work well and feel quite immersive. Obviously, Bohemia > Poland also works really well.

Kievan Rus' also works, as Ukraine belonged to the Commonwealth. So does Mazovia (which is earlier Poland) and the Teutonic Order, if they're added.

The general rule of thumb that I've found is that the typical Renaissance Civs are ideally put in the game's Modern Era. I don't like this for all of them (Ottomans for instance), but it is how the game has line-up so far with it's Era transitions.

 

[WillK96]

Maybe I missed it in the thread but I'd rather have an Poland, the HRE, and maybe a Habsburg Austria rather than a Teutonic Order.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Here's what my Europe would look like including civs already introduced (this isn't necessary my preferences it's just what I think the game needs at minimum.):

Antiquity:
Norse
Gauls
Goths
Slavs
Saxons (Anglo)

Exploration:
Dutch Republic
Portugal
Byzantines
Bohemia
Teutonic Order (I'd normally choose a Frankish/Carolingian civ over them, but I don't think that's needed with the Normans encompassing parts of Exploration France too)
Denmark
Florence or Venice
Ireland
Kyivan 'Rus

Modern:
Sweden
Polish Republic (PLC)
Austria or Austria-Hungary
Italy/Piedmont-Sardinia
Netherlands or Belgium

Maybe I missed it in the thread but I'd rather have an Poland, the HRE, and maybe a Habsburg Austria rather than a Teutonic Order.

In my view a Teutonic Order civ would be Exploration and lead to many of those you mentioned: Modern Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth, or Austria, as well as Prussia and Russia already in the game.

 

[WillK96]

Exploration:
Teutonic Order (I'd normally choose a Frankish/Carolingian civ over them, but I don't think that's needed with the Normans encompassing parts of Exploration France too)


Modern:
Polish Republic (PLC)
Austria or Austria-Hungary



In my view a Teutonic Order civ would be Exploration and lead to many of those you mentioned: Modern Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth, or Austria, as well as Prussia and Russia already in the game.

I think part of the problem I'm having with the Teutonic Order is that they are such a niche state. Also the PLC barely extends into the Modern Age's time parameters. While geopolitically sensitive, I don't think the Baltics necessarily need a Modern Age presence (outside of an IP) given the extremely large shadow Russia casts on the region. To me, it'd make sense to have Poland as an Exploration age civ (either the Kingdom or the PLC).

Austria also spans both time periods fairly well and could fit into either, I think I'd just prefer them as an exploration civ for a stronger Germanic line. However, I think the HRE could scratch that itch, would avoid the Frankish/Norman problem, and would avoid the Austria --> Prussia transition.

 

[j51]

In the context of Civ VII the HRE just makes a lot of sense as THE exploration German civ. It could lead into a ton of modern civs: Prussia, Austria, the Netherlands, Sardinia-Piedmont. Also its weirdness as a polity lends itself well to a unique/creative playstyle.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think part of the problem I'm having with the Teutonic Order is that they are such a niche state. Also the PLC barely extends into the Modern Age's time parameters. While geopolitically sensitive, I don't think the Baltics necessarily need a Modern Age presence (outside of an IP) given the extremely large shadow Russia casts on the region. To me, it'd make sense to have Poland as an Exploration age civ (either the Kingdom or the PLC).

True. Like the HRE as mentioned above, I wouldn't even consider it if it wasn't for the age switching. But yes, either the Teutonic Order or the HRE would do as an Exploration German civ.

As for Poland, I just wouldn't want Russia to be the only Modern civ in Eastern Europe. The PLC is the most probable, at least as much sense as the Mughals in an Industrialization and Ideological centered Modern Age.

Austria also spans both time periods fairly well and could fit into either, I think I'd just prefer them as an exploration civ for a stronger Germanic line. However, I think the HRE could scratch that itch, would avoid the Frankish/Norman problem, and would avoid the Austria --> Prussia transition.

I still think Austria, or Austria-Hungary, fits in better in the Modern. If not the Teutonic Order than the HRE could go into them, or Exploration Bohemia or Hungary.

 

[moondog385]

Here's what my Europe would look like including civs already introduced (this isn't necessary my preferences it's just what I think the game needs at minimum.):

Antiquity:
Norse
Gauls
Goths
Slavs
Saxons (Anglo)

Exploration:
Dutch Republic
Portugal
Byzantines
Bohemia
Teutonic Order (I'd normally choose a Frankish/Carolingian civ over them, but I don't think that's needed with the Normans encompassing parts of Exploration France too)
Denmark
Florence or Venice
Ireland
Kyivan 'Rus

Modern:
Sweden
Polish Republic (PLC)
Austria or Austria-Hungary
Italy/Piedmont-Sardinia
Netherlands or Belgium


In my view a Teutonic Order civ would be Exploration and lead to many of those you mentioned: Modern Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth, or Austria, as well as Prussia and Russia already in the game.

I love this! Now do all the other continents

 

[socratic]

There is so much overlap between the Franks and the HRE that I don't see why it can't be rolled into "Francia" or something along those lines. Having the Franks also opens up a path for France separate from Britain and allows them to coexist in the same game without any weird transitions. I also dont think we need another vikings civ in Exploration. Franks and Normans should be enough to cover most of Germanic Europe.

If I had to choose the most essential:
Antiquity
- Goths/Saxons
- Celts/Gauls
- Scythians
- Old Norse/Kievan Rus

Exploration
- Byzantium
- Franks
- Venice/Florence/Sicily
- Kievan Rus

Modern
- Italy/Piedmont-Sardinia
- Hellenic Republic
- Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth/Austria-Hungary

The most difficult region to create satisfying pathways is central and eastern europe, and this has a lot to do with Bulgaria’s inclusion. Had it been named “First Bulgarian Empire”, it would be a different story. Bulgaria just covers a lot of ground (gameplay-wise) without being the best middle stage for a lot of other civs.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Maybe I missed it in the thread but I'd rather have an Poland, the HRE, and maybe a Habsburg Austria rather than a Teutonic Order.

When I'm refering to Teutons, I'm not specifically talking about the order, but about Medieval Germany (which is called 'Teutons' in AoE2) that includes both them and the HRE in one package.

There is so much overlap between the Franks and the HRE that I don't see why it can't be rolled into "Francia" or something along those lines. Having the Franks also opens up a path for France separate from Britain and allows them to coexist in the same game without any weird transitions. I also dont think we need another vikings civ in Exploration. Franks and Normans should be enough to cover most of Germanic Europe.

Frankia unfortunately doesn't alleviate the Franco-Germanic bottleneck by itself, given that it can be conceivably led by Napoleon, Augustus, Friedrich, Lafayette, Charlemagne and a prospective Dutch, Flemish or Gallic leader. Even if you provide alternative lines for some of them (Normans for Lafayette, Italy for Napoleon, Byzantium for Augustus), you still run into trouble in games where most of them show up, especially alongside leaders like Lovelace, Mach and Franklin who can all conceivably lead the coverage Civs.

I don't believe a second German faction soon is *necessary* if the Franks are also added, but near the end of the development cycle ? Why not.

Of course the real solution is to allow for Duplicate Civilizations, and that would allow for Franks to cover the east of France and all of Germany by itself, while also providing a lead into Modern Netherlands, if you can add enough Cities to their list to facilitate such a scenario. (and you can. )

The most difficult region to create satisfying pathways is central and eastern europe, and this has a lot to do with Bulgaria’s inclusion. Had it been named “First Bulgarian Empire”, it would be a different story. Bulgaria just covers a lot of ground (gameplay-wise) without being the best middle stage for a lot of other civs.

Bulgaria is weird in that it actually is a valid inclusion across all three ages - Thrace is a notable polity during the Classical Era, has an easy UU in the Peltast and an easy wonder in Perperikon.

Compared to the other Balkan countries around it, Bulgaria industrialized and militarized faster and had notably competent leaders. Bulgaria almost single-handedly won the first Balkan War against the Austrian-backed Ottomans, and then was still strong enough to attack its former allies Greece and Serbia during the second one. They only lost after Romania and the Ottoman Empire also joined the dogpile, fighting the war on all sides.

The Bulgaria in-game covers the First Empire's transition into the Second Empire, and that's fair I suppose. It's the peak of their history. The Modern Balkan polity can be something else like the Kingdom of Serbia, (or the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Bosnians, which later became Yugoslavia), Albania or be absorbed by Austria-Hungary.

I believe they can work as a middle stage just fine, as both Albania and Serbia have been covered by a large stretch of the Bulgarian empire during its peak. The trickier part is finding a fitting first stage, where the options are Illyria, which covers the most ground, Dacia which is more fitting to the Balkans and covers Romania, and Thrace which is a direct ancestor to Bulgaria.

 

[Xandinho]

I know it would be very naive of me to expect this, but as someone passionate about Ethiopian history, I'd truly love to see the country receive a full historical path across all three eras.
It’s easily one of the most viable nations for that — very few other civilizations would have such a coherent and immersive historical progression.

Aksum (focused on trade)
Zagwe (focused on religion and culture, with the Church of Saint George of Lalibela as the associated wonder)
Ethiopia (focused on militarism and defense, with Fasil Ghebbi as the associated wonder)

If this game ends up having the long lifespan it was initially expected to have (though I’m sadly less optimistic now, due to the negative reception), could we hope for a fully fleshed-out Ethiopia across all three eras?
I really hope they don’t hesitate to invest deeply in civilizations that genuinely fit well within this civ switching system.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I also dont think we need another vikings civ in Exploration. Franks and Normans should be enough to cover most of Germanic Europe.

I'd based Denmark off of its post Viking period like when it was the capital of the Kalmar Union, throughout the Early Modern period when it was in a personal union with Norway.

I know it would be very naïve of me to expect this, but as someone passionate about Ethiopian history, I'd truly love to see the country receive a full historical path across all three eras.
It’s easily one of the most viable nations for that — very few other civilizations would have such a coherent and immersive historical progression.

Aksum (focused on trade)
Zagwe (focused on religion and culture, with the Church of Saint George of Lalibela as the associated wonder)
Ethiopia (focused on militarism and defense, with Fasil Ghebbi as the associated wonder)

If this game ends up having the long lifespan it was initially expected to have (though I’m sadly less optimistic now, due to the negative reception), could we hope for a fully fleshed-out Ethiopia across all three eras?
I really hope they don’t hesitate to invest deeply in civilizations that genuinely fit well within this civ switching system.

I'd like to see that. Though I could also see the devs use Somalia (specifically the Ajuran Sultanate) to fill the role of the Exploration Age civ in that region.

 

[moondog385]

I know it would be very naive of me to expect this, but as someone passionate about Ethiopian history, I'd truly love to see the country receive a full historical path across all three eras.
It’s easily one of the most viable nations for that — very few other civilizations would have such a coherent and immersive historical progression.

Aksum (focused on trade)
Zagwe (focused on religion and culture, with the Church of Saint George of Lalibela as the associated wonder)
Ethiopia (focused on militarism and defense, with Fasil Ghebbi as the associated wonder)

If this game ends up having the long lifespan it was initially expected to have (though I’m sadly less optimistic now, due to the negative reception), could we hope for a fully fleshed-out Ethiopia across all three eras?
I really hope they don’t hesitate to invest deeply in civilizations that genuinely fit well within this civ switching system.

Ethiopia certainly warrants a “full path,” though I’m concerned whether future civs and leaders will be added more based on fan outcry due to the current state of the game and less based on how well they plug holes or fit the game’s design philosophy.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Ethiopia certainly warrants a “full path,” though I’m concerned whether future civs and leaders will be added more based on fan outcry due to the current state of the game and less based on how well they plug holes or fit the game’s design philosophy.

I feel like the next one that should get at least get a full path is Persia, but I'm not even optimistic about that.

 

[Ryansinbela]

Either Sassanids or Safavids in Exploration