marius_kaparius
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2016
- Messages
- 462
One thing that I find notable about the current batch of DLC is that none of it hints at a 4th Age
Future DLC announced: Bulgaria, Nepal, Simon Bolivar + more
- Thread starter Cuauhtémoc's Rage
- Start date
Also having the Militaristic Attribute doesn’t affect their behavior Or their abilities. Civ attributes only affect the narrative events.
RedCourtJester
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2024
- Messages
- 1,068
I'm not sure why it would? Even if a fourth age were planned, there is no reason they would open it up so early as the first year of DLC.
I would expect if/when we get a 4th age, it will be "expansion pack" content used to justify a higher price point for that batch of content.
8housesofelixir
Emperor
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2020
- Messages
- 1,902
Note that many Expansionist civs have at least 2 different bonuses related to combat or unit production in their civic or tradition. America, Khmer, and Qing are good examples. On the other hand, non-Expansionist, non-Militarist civs tend to have only 1 combat bonus or not at all.
It is reasonable to group both Civ 7 Exp and Mil civs into the traditional "militaristic" category, just that Exp civs often have more empire-building (esp. culture and happiness) bonuses than Mil civs.
(This is very similar to the Expansionist and Militarist categories in Humankind - Exp emphasizes land-grab and holding more cities, Mil primarily focuses on fighting a war, whether offensive or defensive.)
I would say the attributes, as a category, could reflect the civ's main playstyle.
TheGhostEnthusiast
King
I'm still not certain for this exact reason. The Expansionist trait itself has nothing to do with conquering, and their tendency to have more combat bonuses in the Civics tree is closer to coincidence with such a small sample size. Even for the ones that do happen to have additional combat bonuses don't have playstyles focused on conquering. The Mississippians are Expansionist-Economic because they focus on Food and Resources with their City Building. They have one Tradition that makes their UU stronger on the defense. They're to be listed as a war civ because a Modern war Civ happens to not give you Militaristic Legacy Points? Because Khmer gets some extra Cavalry movement and a Tradition for stronger units on tiles that match their Starting Bias? That doesn't sound like the traditional militaristic category to me. Meanwhile, the Maya have two UUs with combat potential, a unique combat focused Tradition, and boosted Happiness to go over the Settlement Cap. The Han have a combat Tradition and Happiness buffs, again to go over the Settlement Cap. Mexico has a bunch of Military-focused Great People and Happiness boosts, which once more can help with the Settlement Cap. Those are all Diplomatic Civilizations, and it's a yield actually associated with the Diplomatic trait, Happiness, that gives them part of their conquering potential. There are also a good amount of Militaristic civs that are also Diplomatic: France, Prussia, Normans... why not group them all into the same category too? If anything, it makes more sense: Happiness helps with conquering, while Food is only as related to it as it is to any other aspect of the game.
If you're going to refer to Civilizations without the "Militaristic" trait as militaristic for the sake of organizing playstyles, I think a case-by-case basis is necessary. It's more subjective, sure, but it doesn't toss in random internal development Civilizations who, outside of the context of a slight trend, have less to do with domination than other Civilizations who aren't on the list.
I don't think modern post ww2 states are avoided as some cultural subversion, I think this is done to possibly leave them for the 4th age
Which does sound bizarre for me regarding several crucial civs - Britain, France and freakin USA - not appearing after ww2 this way lol, so maybe (I hope) the 4th age does have changed ruleset and you can retain 3rd age civ? The notion of playing cold war and information age without USA sounds utterly ridiculous
But I don't think it's accidental that instead of India, China, Japan, Iran, Thailand, Germany and let's say Soviets and Ethiopia we got Mughals (lol), Qing, Meiji, Qajar, Siam, Prussia, 18th cent Russia and Buganda
Devs went out of their way to avoid using post ww2 (or hell even ww2 to some degree) civs as much as possible, even if it could be an obvious part of the modern civ's design (Japan and electronics, modern Chinese and German economy, Thai tourism and diplomacy etc)
I expext for next 3rd age civs to be like Joseon, Ottomans, Muhammad Ali's Egypt, Sardinia-Piedmont, Aceh etc just to avoid using South Korea, Turkey, Egypt, Italy and Indonesia etc
Which does sound bizarre for me regarding several crucial civs - Britain, France and freakin USA - not appearing after ww2 this way lol, so maybe (I hope) the 4th age does have changed ruleset and you can retain 3rd age civ? The notion of playing cold war and information age without USA sounds utterly ridiculous
But I don't think it's accidental that instead of India, China, Japan, Iran, Thailand, Germany and let's say Soviets and Ethiopia we got Mughals (lol), Qing, Meiji, Qajar, Siam, Prussia, 18th cent Russia and Buganda
Devs went out of their way to avoid using post ww2 (or hell even ww2 to some degree) civs as much as possible, even if it could be an obvious part of the modern civ's design (Japan and electronics, modern Chinese and German economy, Thai tourism and diplomacy etc)
I expext for next 3rd age civs to be like Joseon, Ottomans, Muhammad Ali's Egypt, Sardinia-Piedmont, Aceh etc just to avoid using South Korea, Turkey, Egypt, Italy and Indonesia etc
Last edited:
Yeah, they're definitely opting for a slightly more "early modern" setup for those civs. Prussia, rather than Imperial Germany. Even the civs which have the same modern connection, going "French Empire" and not simply France. America's bonuses are more about exploration and the industrial revolution, other than the Marine. I mean, it fits the age, as more of the age is Industrial Revolution time, rather than the World Wars. But other than a unit here or there (Russia's rocket launcher), the bonuses do tend to be pre-WW2 for nearly every civ in the era.
Looking at it more, I think they will end up with an Information Age eventually. As you say, there's plenty of modern variations, and even in all the naming to date, you can easily create a modern variation of almost all the major civs without even re-naming the older version. America can seamlessly move into the United States, Russia could morph into the USSR, Great Britain could transition into the United Kingdom, French Empire into France (and obviously Qing China into Modern China, Meiji Japan into Modern Japan, etc..). Arguably Mexico might be a little struggle to denote a modern version of them, since they've had a number of more recent internal problems. But even there, I'm sure if you think about it, you can just be a little stereotypical and give them a Lucha Libre unique unit and resort hotel UI /s
But if anything like that comes, it would only be in a full expansion pack, which is probably 2 years out from now, at the earliest.
Wait, France really is not "France" but "French Empire"? Damn, this would strengthen my theory even more 
Britain also fits the bill, because you could easily name 3rd era's civ "Great Britain" or "British Empire" and 4th "United Kingdom" or whatever, so now we'd have almost the entire roster of modern era civs mysteriously carefully avoiding being named the same as post ww2 states.
So basically it could go like
3rd age (1750-1950) ---> 4th age (1950-2050)
Britain also fits the bill, because you could easily name 3rd era's civ "Great Britain" or "British Empire" and 4th "United Kingdom" or whatever, so now we'd have almost the entire roster of modern era civs mysteriously carefully avoiding being named the same as post ww2 states.
So basically it could go like
3rd age (1750-1950) ---> 4th age (1950-2050)
Spoiler :
Willie5000
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2016
- Messages
- 186
Because 4th age would have to be a major expansion.
Isengardtom
Prince
That’s my theory tooWait, France really is not "France" but "French Empire"? Damn, this would strengthen my theory even more
Britain also fits the bill, because you could easily name 3rd era's civ "Great Britain" or "British Empire" and 4th "United Kingdom" or whatever, so now we'd have almost the entire roster of modern era civs mysteriously carefully avoiding being named the same as post ww2 states.
So basically it could go like
3rd age (1750-1950) ---> 4th age (1950-2050)
Spoiler :
America >> United States for example
Professor Phobo
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 289
I feel like they absolutely could justify a 4th Age given the apparent stopping point of the 3rd. Some kind of cold war/nuclear deterrence system, satellite networks and advanced spaceflight, information technology, all that seems like a viable set of victory mechanics and potential crises (climate change, pandemic, nuclear war seem like the obvious three).
It is a stretch to say that the civ being called America (as indeed it has always been known in the series) is proof they are planning a later “USA”. In English the terms are equivalent (what is the A in USA?). The independent state has always been called the United States of America. The idea of the USA being a post-WW2 successor state to “America” is absurd.
We also have Mexico (and soon, Nepal) as an example of an in-game modern civ with exactly the same name as today. I also don’t think Firaxis is deliberately making the distinction between Great Britain and the United Kingdom, which I remind you formally came into being in 1801 and thus covers a large portion of what will be depicted in game, whatever they choose to call it. So having GB evolve into the UK in 1950 is bizarre.
But based on the fact Ed literally said that “Great Britain” is one of his favourite countries to visit, I’m pretty sure he (like many others) is using the term interchangeably with “the UK”.
We also have Mexico (and soon, Nepal) as an example of an in-game modern civ with exactly the same name as today. I also don’t think Firaxis is deliberately making the distinction between Great Britain and the United Kingdom, which I remind you formally came into being in 1801 and thus covers a large portion of what will be depicted in game, whatever they choose to call it. So having GB evolve into the UK in 1950 is bizarre.
But based on the fact Ed literally said that “Great Britain” is one of his favourite countries to visit, I’m pretty sure he (like many others) is using the term interchangeably with “the UK”.
As I said before Britain could fit into multiple category's with the new age system. Ideally it would go England -> Great Britain/British Empire -> United Kingdom for all 3 ages or i guess work UK into a 4th age. Ed Beach said lots more to come for England/Great Britain, so we have hope.Wait, France really is not "France" but "French Empire"? Damn, this would strengthen my theory even more
Britain also fits the bill, because you could easily name 3rd era's civ "Great Britain" or "British Empire" and 4th "United Kingdom" or whatever, so now we'd have almost the entire roster of modern era civs mysteriously carefully avoiding being named the same as post ww2 states.
So basically it could go like
3rd age (1750-1950) ---> 4th age (1950-2050)
Spoiler :
England Antiquity age
Mind you England was not really formed when Boudica was there and King Alfred the Great is touching the lines but would still be cool imo.
- King Alfred the Great
- Boudica of the Iceni tribe
- Harold Godwinson (pair with William the Conquer for Normans)
- King Richard the Lionheart
- Henry V
- Victoria
- Churchill
- Any of the Elizabeth's
- King Henry the 8th
- Nelson
You just call it United States
and the UK has a different feel than Great Britain (ie GB for pre WWII British Empire, UK for cause of the most Independence days around the world)
ehecatzin
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,827
And oddly enough, absolutely no mention of the reconquista anywhere in It's design
Castille and Spain sit in a weird place within the eras Firxais put in place, Spanish dominance was such that, between Castille and Spain it covers the whole Era from medieval to the War of Spanish succesion, calling either Spain or Castille without splitting it will be odd either way.
I do find it odd that there's no mention of the Reconquista anywhere in Spain's design, I hope that means we are getting El Cid eventually, and that's where that flavour is going.
Portugal, Spain, Al-Andalus would be the minimium civ VII should be aiming for. (Aragon I'd love to see but It's a long shot)
Maybe if we get the mythical 4th Age Spain can make a comback with a cultural focus, because, somebody's got to finish the Sagrada Familia.
TheGhostEnthusiast
King
Technically, there is one reference: doing a reconquista at any point in Antiquity unlocks Spain for the Exploration Age. I guess the design is intended to be vaguely post-reconquista, hence the later name in addition? I have little knowledge of Spanish history and thus cannot say whether they succeeded in that (was the Siglo de Oro post-reconquista, again?) and I can't even say that that was the right direction to take (especially with an associated leader who was a part of the reconquista), but that might be the thought process.
The naming conventions have been all over the place honestly. We have Antiquity Persia, but then we're getting Modern Qajar? I'd rather them either stick to dynasty names, Achaemenids, or at least call it Achaemenid Persia in terms of progression.
And that's not even mentioning Prussia which essentially the German Empire except for the name and icon.
… of Whatever?!
I fear this is more of an imagined distinction! After all, it is the UK of GB and NI, and British has always been the adjective associated with it. The British Empire ended, but the UK persisted, and the exact status of (Northern) Ireland within that is exactly what Firaxis will want to avoid.
I was quite surprised that they weren't going with the name British, or the British Empire. Especially considering I don't necessarily see a Modern Ireland popping up either because it was part of them for most of that time period.
exactly… of Whatever?!
I fear this is more of an imagined distinction! After all, it is the UK of GB and NI, and British has always been the adjective associated with it. The British Empire ended, but the UK persisted, and the exact status of (Northern) Ireland within that is exactly what Firaxis will want to avoid.
Noun and Adjective : United States (US for short)…
The United States is attacking us
Those are United States Infantry units
same for UK
Similar threads
- Locked
