Filling in the gaps - Charting the optimal Civ Switches

[Xandinho]

Why not put Caral/Norte Chico in the ancient South America slot? It's literally the first major civilization on the continent, with plenty of unique features, and certainly very ancient. Meanwhile Nazca, Moche, Tiwanaku or Chimu can just as well go to the exploration era slot.

I'm not entirely sure if Caral is well-documented enough to be included in Civ, given the many elements this game requires. I don't know how many civs this game will have in the end, but I personally would not spend the Antiquity South American slot on Caral. I'd much rather see something like Tiwanaku, Nazca, or Moche, as I find it unlikely we would get more than one of them. That said, I'd love to have one of Caral’s pyramids as a wonder.

Chimú is a good alternative to the Incas in the region, although the Muisca are also practically screaming to be included in the game.

Edit. By the way, should people maybe start considering a Rapa Nui civ as a possibility? If they like to include famous things in this game, the Easter Island statues certainly need no introduction. Lately, I have started to think this could serve as a kind of bridge between Oceania and South American civs.

 

[Krajzen]

My general idea for South East Asia is the Antiquity/Exploration/Modern distinction is more of Precolonial/Colonial/Post Colonial

I don't like this framework because a) it makes SEA civs entirely dependent on and defined by the European factor, whereas for many SEA civs Westerners were for a long time just yet another useful foreigner and a secondary factor compared to the other things

And b) "Colonialism" means 16th century in case of Philippines and Malacca but 17-18th in case of Java, 18-19th in case of Sumatra and 19th in case of mainland SEA (with Thailand escaping it entirely to begin with) so it's not a unified and comparable phenomenon (with the 19th century colonialism being very different animal from the 16th wave)

SEA in particular has its own distinctive and indigenous "early modern" period of approx 1400-1800 as argued by many historians, beginning before Western exploration efforts, therefore there is no need to tie them to the Western actions. In mainland SEA in particular the interactions with Europeans were far from being the primary concern of that era.

 

[Krajzen]

For Exploration Philippines I would prefer the Sulu Sultanate or the Maguindanao Sultanate

My problem with those civs being the "representation" of Philippines is them not being very, well, representative of the archipelago in general - they were Islamic state exceptions of the 95% non-Islamic non-state Filipino archipelago, and to this day there are massive problems with Muslims of those areas not feeling common identity and history with the other Filipino people (hence the conflict that last to the modern day), hence they are not super convincing for me in terms of being "the missing link" between the ancient Filipino people and the modern state

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Edit. By the way, should people maybe start considering a Rapa Nui civ as a possibility? If they like to include famous things in this game, the Easter Island statues certainly need no introduction. Lately, I have started to think this could serve as a kind of bridge between Oceania and South American civs.

In Antiquity? I guess that could work. Is there enough information about them to give them two UUs and civics though?

 

[Archanist]

I don't like this framework because a) it makes SEA civs entirely dependent on and defined by the European factor, whereas for many SEA civs Westerners were for a long time just yet another useful foreigner and a secondary factor compared to the other things

And b) "Colonialism" means 16th century in case of Philippines and Malacca but 17-18th in case of Java, 18-19th in case of Sumatra and 19th in case of mainland SEA (with Thailand escaping it entirely to begin with) so it's not a unified and comparable phenomenon (with the 19th century colonialism being very different animal from the 16th wave)

SEA in particular has its own distinctive and indigenous "early modern" period of approx 1400-1800 as argued by many historians, beginning before Western exploration efforts, therefore there is no need to tie them to the Western actions. In mainland SEA in particular the interactions with Europeans were far from being the primary concern of that era.

good points, thank you for broadening my perspective

 

[Xandinho]

In Antiquity? I guess that could work. Is there enough information about them to give them two UUs and civics though?

My idea would be to place them in the Exploration Age, with the Va'a as their unique unit — a type of generic Polynesian vessel that the ancestors of the Rapa Nui people possibly used to reach Easter Island. For their civilian unit, they could have the “Moai Sculptor,” which would build the unique improvement Moai Statue (or simply Ahu, the large stone platforms on which the Moai were placed), similar in concept to Nepal’s Sherpa civilian unit.

As for their associated wonder, this could be Ahu Tongariki, the largest of all Ahus, or simply Paro, the tallest Moai ever erected. Some possible civic ideas could include the Birdman Cult, the Successive Dynasty of Ariki, and Ancestor Worship.

Rapa Nui could be connected to South America, having as its predecessor not only a Tonga civ but also something like a Nazca civ, for example.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

My problem with those civs being the "representation" of Philippines is them not being very, well, representative of the archipelago in general - they were Islamic state exceptions of the 95% non-Islamic non-state Filipino archipelago, and to this day there are massive problems with Muslims of those areas not feeling common identity and history with the other Filipino people (hence the conflict that last to the modern day), hence they are not super convincing for me in terms of being "the missing link" between the ancient Filipino people and the modern state

Didn't mean them as a missing link, more in the sense they were the most important native states during the time period covered by the Exploration Age period. Besides, whether the Moro or the other Filipinos like it or not, they're still part of the history of the Philippines

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Rapa Nui could be connected to South America, having as its predecessor not only a Tonga civ but also something like a Nazca civ, for example.

Ok. I thought you meant that they could be a precursor to both Hawaii and Inca, which honestly I wouldn't mind that either. It's better then what they have now.
Though I guess "bridge" would signify you mean in the middle.

 

[socratic]

Hawaii’s inclusion in Exploration makes me think we’ll get a historically loose pathway for the Polynesians. A Tonga > Hawaii > Maori path seems the most likely. Rapa Nui is definitely possible though. We know as much about them as we know about the Mississippians.

 

[j51]

Hawaii’s inclusion in Exploration makes me think we’ll get a historically loose pathway for the Polynesians. A Tonga > Hawaii > Maori path seems the most likely. Rapa Nui is definitely possible though. We know as much about them as we know about the Mississippians.

Those abandoned files someone found in the game did indicate they plan on adding Tonga and Māori.

 

[Xandinho]

Those abandoned files someone found in the game did indicate they plan on adding Tonga and Māori.

I hope that when (or if) Tonga and the Māori are included, they come with a Polynesian leader. It just feels strange that, in such a large roster of leaders, we don’t have anyone from there.

 

[Ryansinbela]

Yeah, I like Rizal but why is he the guy associated with Oceania

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I hope that when (or if) Tonga and the Māori are included, they come with a Polynesian leader. It just feels strange that, in such a large roster of leaders, we don’t have anyone from there.

The files had Whina Cooper listed. She wouldn't be my choice though.

Yeah, I like Rizal but why is he the guy associated with Oceania

Because he lived on a group of islands too?

 

[Lord Lakely]

Yeah, if the plan is Tonga => Hawaii => Maori with Whina Cooper as the leader, I would be okay with it. It resolves the problem the game has with Hawaii's awkward standalone position, introduces a new Civ in the Tonga and brings back an old favourite in the Maori. I don't believe Polynesia needs more than one Civ per age anyway.

Rizal I think should be more closely related to the Majapahit line, and specifically one that ends in the Philippines, and/or passes through an Exploration Filipino Civilization. Him as the standalone Hawaiian leader is one decision made out of poverty, and one that hopefully gets retconned.

For NA, any notable nation that would agree to feature should be put under consideration. The devs nailed the designs for Shawnee and Mississipians, so hopefully that encourages a few more tribes to be open to the idea of appearing in Civ. Pueblo would be my first choice for that, and it's more likely now that Civs no longer require a direct leader (from my understanding the general veto against the Pueblo in Civ5 was the use of the sacred Hopi language by its leader, Popé.). Cherokee and Iroquois should be doable as well. But I'm open and receptive towards any indigenous Civ or leader from that region, personally.

In South America, ho boy. If you can find a Civ that has enough information on a possible UU, UC, Traditions & Civics, Infrastructure, World Wonder AND 30ish Cities for their City list, absolutely introduce it to Antiquity. I'm thinking Nazca or Moche, but at this point I would even take an anachronistic choice like the Muisca (who we definitely have enough intel about) to give the Inca's something.

In meso-America, the choice is very obviously Aztecs. We don't really need any other Civ, but the Mexican line does need a leader - Spearthrower Owl would be my choice for that, but it'll be the (very adequate) Montezuma I, I'd wager.

In the Caribbean... Well, Taino exist, and so do Haiti, which can be used to bookend the datamined Pirate Civ, and I don't know how I feel about that. (well okay, I do, and it's negative. Screw Pirates.)

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

AND 30ish Cities for their City list

Why would you need so many? You can only build so many cities in a single Age. In Humankind each culture has a max of about 10-12 cities, and you almost never see the full roster in a single playthrough

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

For NA, any notable nation that would agree to feature should be put under consideration. The devs nailed the designs for Shawnee and Mississipians, so hopefully that encourages a few more tribes to be open to the idea of appearing in Civ. Pueblo would be my first choice for that, and it's more likely now that Civs no longer require a direct leader (from my understanding the general veto against the Pueblo in Civ5 was the use of the sacred Hopi language by its leader, Popé.). Cherokee and Iroquois should be doable as well. But I'm open and receptive towards any indigenous Civ or leader from that region, personally.

I'd love a SW path starting with the Anasazi/Pueblo and possibly ending with the Navajo.

Why would you need so many? You can only build so many cities in a single Age. In Humankind each culture has a max of about 10-12 cities, and you almost never see the full roster in a single playthrough

I'm pretty sure they all have about 30ish cities in their list right now. America has 32 according to the wiki: https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/American_cities_(Civ7)

 

[Xandinho]

In South America, ho boy. If you can find a Civ that has enough information on a possible UU, UC, Traditions & Civics, Infrastructure, World Wonder AND 30ish Cities for their City list, absolutely introduce it to Antiquity. I'm thinking Nazca or Moche, but at this point I would even take an anachronistic choice like the Muisca (who we definitely have enough intel about) to give the Inca's something.

Finding associated wonders is not difficult; there are plenty of grand monuments in the Andes built before the Inca period. Civics and traditions are also not hard to come up with, since even for Nazca — one of the more obscure ones — it’s easy to think of such elements. We wouldn’t need more than a dozen settlement names. The biggest challenge for some of them, however, is finding unique units. Unfortunately, we'd need to take some creative liberties for that.

I'm pretty sure they all have about 30ish cities in their list right now. America has 32 according to the wiki: https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/American_cities_(Civ7)

It’s strange, because I never find myself founding cities in the Modern Age. All my cities still have the names of cities from previous civilizations, which is another immersion break in this game, but that’s another matter.

 

[socratic]

Why would you need so many? You can only build so many cities in a single Age. In Humankind each culture has a max of about 10-12 cities, and you almost never see the full roster in a single playthrough

Some people play with like 80+ settlements. I don’t know how, that sounds like a nightmare, but I’ve seen it a couple of times.

 

[Archanist]

The files had Whina Cooper listed. She wouldn't be my choice though.

Because he lived on a group of islands too?

Rizal is an islander in the Pacific, but not a Pacific Islander (so close enough for an unlock i guess)

 

[Archanist]

All civs in Civ 7 have at least 30 cities, and I don't think Firaxis will try going lower than 20 (unless they pull off something like Huns Civ 5). If they struggle to find, I'd expect them to get dig sites or some related settlements in the region, even if it's not directly under the civ.