Future Update - Speculation Thread

I like the idea of more governors for sure, at least 2. I wish I knew why no one ever considers the Lakota for a civ. Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse are very significant.

 

The Souix were in Civ II with Sitting Bull and (it was the 90s) Sacagawea according to my notes. Sitting Bull led "Native Americans" in Civ IV.

 

How is this not contradicting? It's not plain nuts. You said it yourself. Mussolini and Italians aren't Roman regardless of how much nationalist Italians may wish they are. Greek nationalism constantly holds claims to Ancient Greece. And didn't some Nazis even use the myth of Atlantis, a culture and land that doesn't even exist?

The way a people might perceive themselves is of anthropological value only as far as the mythology and identity of that group is concerned. What I mean is, an anthropologist could say "People A perceive themselves as descendants of Atlantians and despise people B. People A, however, share the same ancestry as People B and are in fact very closely related as far as social practices and beliefs are concerned. They are in fact very much the same culture, only differing in that they perceive themselves to be different and hate each other for those perceived differences."

As for continuity, the continuity of a polity/bureaucracy says nothing of the cultural continuity of the people living under it. Rome and Byzantium were different cultures.

TLDR: It doesn't matter how the Byzantine leadership chose to perceive itself.

 

HRE under Charlemagne occupied a significant chunk of the erstwhile Western Empire. It preserved a good number of the Empire's administrative divisions. It spoke a descendant of Latin. No one polity can claim to be latter day Rome, but some--the Catholic Church, the HRE--have better arguments than others--Imperial Russia, the Sultanate of Rum...And yes, to be clear, when I say the HRE has a legitimate claim, I am talking about Charlemagne's HRE, i.e. Francia, not the latter-day Hapsburg Empire nor the loose band of principalities that claimed the title in the interim. Sorry for not being clear on that before. (Also I don't think democracy has anything to do with Roman-ness. The Romans despised democracy almost as much as they despised kings. This seems to be an Indo-European trait, noting that what the Celts and Germanic peoples called "kings" would probably be better described as "chiefs.")

The Empire didn't tolerate monotheist religions like Judaism, Christianity, or Zoroastrianism--until it converted, at which point it persecuted pagans, Eastern Christians, gnostics, etc. If you want true religious tolerance in the Classical era you have to look at Achaemenid Persia or the Central Asian Silk Road kingdoms. Arsacid and Sassanian Persia persecuted non-Zoroastrians (until Rome started persecuting Eastern Christians--Persia had a pretty solid "any enemy of Rome is my friend" doctrine).

The Germanic tribes moved into Rome with the explicit intention of becoming Roman. I wouldn't say the Franks became "Roman" proper, but they certainly became Romanized--they adopted Latin, they adopted Roman (Catholic) religion (NB they were already Christian--Arian Christian), they adopted Roman law insofar as they understood it...

100% this.

 

"Rome and Byzantium were different cultures."
To a degree; and far moreso were the Indians under the Mughals, and the Chinese under the Yuan. So what? Do you think they deserve their own Civ atm? The main difference -as pertains to our discussion- is that no historian became so enamored (in the West at least) with those representations of India and China as to give them a unique name, that no one alive in that time would recognise! Should we add Mexico as it isn't at all like Aztec culture?

"As for continuity, the continuity of a polity/bureaucracy says nothing of the cultural continuity of the people living under it. Rome and Byzantium were different cultures."
If I weren't mistaken...you're suggesting that even if the U.S. retains all it's civic arrangements, but "WASP's" are gradually replaced by others as the dominant population it would no longer be the U.S.

TLDR: Italy has never been represented in game because the pinnacle of representation from the peninsula (in a game where there is limited Civs) is... Rome.

 

Yeah! I remember the idle animation of the Dog Soldier's dance.

 

If the Mughals ever show up in Civ, of course they should be their own civ. They were Persianized Turks, not even Indians. The Yuan are more complicated: should Kublai be a Chinese or Mongol ruler? Civ6's answer might well be "yes," but if forced to give a definitive answer I'd probably say China: the Yuan were accepted as a native dynasty, just like the Nubian, Libyan, and Semitic pharaohs of Egypt (and unlike the Ptolemies, which is why I'm not fond of Cleopatra leading Egypt).

No, because we already have a glut of postcolonial nation-states; the Aztecs have nothing to do with it. A Mexican leader as an alternate leader for the Aztecs (or Motecuzoma leading Mexico) makes as much sense as Chief Powhatan as an alternate US leader.

 

Personally, I think that since there's already English-speaking post-colonial civs, one semi-Francophone post-colonial civ, and a Portuguese-speaking post-colonial civ, they might as well round it out with one Spanish-speaking post-colonial civ. Unpopular opinion, I know.

 

Totally agree. I think we need to go backward time-wise for some deep cultural cuts.

 

Roman Empire was an Empire which mean a state made up of many various people or countries which make it easy to claim being its successor, also it existed for quite a long while and changed alot in terms of Culture and Everything else and this simply did not disappear than the empire feel since the successor states took over much of the Culture, government system and so on and developed on it and even spreading it.

Mughals/Timurids or something like that could be quite interesting, like maybe a Culture focused warmonger civilization as the current warmongers tend to be quite simplistic so maybe giving them combat strength for each wonder they have built or something could add a more interesting take on the warmonger archtype.

 

There's a handful of better choices, in my opinion, for another Native American Civ. If I'd had to pick a returning one I'd pick the Iroquois over them anyway.
They are also primarily a nomadic people so finding a city-list will be hard, or not look so great.
Others will say that they are the stereotypical tribe that a general audience looks to when they think of Native Americans in general. I don't care too much about the third argument but it's the other points above that I think maybe is why others and I don't necessarily consider them.

 

Yes. It's a point I've seen often made around here and one of the reasons so many in Civfanatics like the direction Amplitude Studios is taking with Humankind.

Why would it no longer be the US?

The US is a state with a set of institutions, recognised as a state by other states. It can cease to exist in a short period of time as occurred with the Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary the Soviet Union and many other states. So the US could in theory cease to exist even without fundamental cultural changes in its population.

On the other hand the US polity/bureaucracy could persist with many of its current institutions while the culture of the population living under those institutions changes. This is not only not unusual, it's the norm. The average modern American does not share the same values and worldviews of the late 18th century American.

However, the differences between Byzantium and Rome or Mughal Empire and India are so considerable as to preferably have them represented by their own Civ, whereas one can more easily get away with representing Napoleon France vs Valois France or 18th century vs modern America by using different leaders. The latter examples are acceptable whereas the former are just weird.

 

Indeed. The Iroquois managed to maintain an unparalleled level of autonomy by playing the American colonists, the English, and the French against each other. The Creek/Choctaw/Chickasaw were wealthy and stable (and represent a late period of the Mississippian culture, which itself would be difficult to include). The Powhatan managed to form a powerful confederacy of ~40 tribes within a single generation. The Comanche managed to exact tribute from the US and Mexico. The Tlingit or Haida would represent the most sophisticated culture in North America. There are just too many good options to resort to the Lakota, whose primary significance came from opposing (and losing to) the United States. Even as a representative of the Plains there are better choices than the Lakota, who were newcomers on the Plains, pushed out of the Great Lakes by the Iroquois. (They do have a super-cool language, though.)

 

Speculation:

We get a new deluxe DLC bundle tba soon and a final expansion between November/February.

May - DLC
June - DLC
September - DLC
November - DLC
February - Expansion

The DLC would likely have to be alts for vanilla Civs + a couple new Civs which had already been considered for vanilla/GS.

The expansion would add 8 leaders focused on new mechanics.

#wishfulthinking

 

You are quite optimistic . I don't think we will have a third expansion, although I would very much wish it would.

 

That'd be a great depiction, but Justinian or his wife have been represented for three generations in a row, which is why I'm shilling Constantine (and by Constantine's time Eastern Rome was not a different civilisation from classical Rome).

Another great choice, but this generation is optimally positioned to depict Constantine, so maybe leave medieval Byzantines for Civ 7?

I just think Constantine the Great oughta have some representation at least once in the Civ franchise, and this seems to be the most fitting time. It's not a desire to tie the two together, it's a desire for a specific great leader that's doomed to always fall under the cracks between these two civs.

Yeah, give us Cuba, Fidel's dead now, he fits perfectly as a great personality!

 

Speculation:
We may have a new spin off and DLC sooner, before july (maybe that's related to the mistery launcher), and an EXP (and maybe more DLC's) late year/early 21.

 

I agree. Constantine would only make sense as an alt. leader of Rome.
If Firaxis does decide to go that route it's a possibility that they could make his ability be some sort of "Byzantine legacy" to tie everything together. It would be strange, but then again, we got a "Founder of Carthage" ability for the leader of Phoenicia so anything is possible.

I'd settle for either Argentina, (Gran) Colombia, or even Mexico before Cuba.
Besides he'd be too recent and therefore controversial.

 

So what's the stuff going on Debot thread? Seems like the "d" file has had plenty of updates recently and some launcher stuff?

 

Not sure if i remembered correctly what has been said on the forums. But the d version might be something bigger then the rest of them. More like a small expansion (big patch) instead of 2 leaders or a scenario 5 euro dlc package. A dlc simular from what we have seen after launch up till the first expansion.