Germany/Prussia, Holy Roman Empire, and Goths will likely be DLC civs

[uppi]

The concept of a nation is probably as old as humankind. The concept of a nation-state is a few centuries old. A nation is simply a group of people who are ethnically and linguistically related; classic example is the Hellenes understood themselves to be a nation, even if their political allegiance was to Athens, Sparta, Corinth, etc.

Of course there was always the dichotomy of "us" versus "them", in which the "us" was usually defined in a way that was politically convenient. You can retrofit the "nation" concept onto that, but until the emergence of nationalism that is an ill-defined concept.

I don't know guys, for me it is quiet simple. There are 3 possible unlocks: Gameplay (for players who do not care a lot about historic accuarcy); Leader (for players who identify with Leaders mostly, not the Civs) and a Civ Unlock (which, at least according to my interpreation, means exactly what I have stated before: "The modern civ should identify with its precursor state"). Obviously it is very difficult to implement the latter, but that's at least what I would expect, and I guess I'm not the only one (see the various discussions in the Content Spreadsheet Thread).

Still don't understand how you would define a Civ Unlock then?

A civ unlock is just a next-age civ which is in some way related to the current civ. If you look at the current civs, the only civs that are real precursors to their unlocks are the Chinese ones.

 

[ColtSeavers]

A civ that unlocks another civ. Just like Egypt unlocks Abbasids, Persia unlocks Mongolia, Maya unlocks Inca unlocks Mexico, and Greece unlocks Normans. There's no prerequisite for one civ to identify with another. It's still not clear who unlocks Hawai'i or whom Hawai'i unlocks, but in either case I can bet modern Hawai'ians don't identify with either of them.

That is a tautology, obviously existing Civ Unlocks are Civ Unlocks... I was asking for a general definiton of that word, since you think, my defintion is wrong and makes a "mockery of the design of the game"?

 

[Evie]

It's any sort of geographic, demographic, memetic, cultural or historical link the dev wants between two countries, up to and including "they live on the same continent (and the Americas count as one continent)".

 

[ColtSeavers]

A civ unlock is just a next-age civ which is in some way related to the current civ. If you look at the current civs, the only civs that are real precursors to their unlocks are the Chinese ones.

Yes, and people criticise that, and lot of people argue, that they think/ hope the DLCs will solve that for some Civ Unlocks like Spain/ Mexico etc.

 

[Zaarin]

Of course there was always the dichotomy of "us" versus "them", in which the "us" was usually defined in a way that was politically convenient. You can retrofit the "nation" concept onto that, but until the emergence of nationalism that is an ill-defined concept.

No one was talking about nationalism. Nationalism didn't create the concept of ethnic identity, only the concept of the nation-state.

That is a tautology, obviously existing Civ Unlocks are Civ Unlocks... I was asking for a general definiton of that word, since you think, my defintion is wrong and makes a "mockery of the design of the game"?

No, you said that Civ Unlocks are based on "modern civs identifying with the civ that came before"; I pointed out that that was clearly not a definition that informed the design process.

the DLCs will solve that for some Civ Unlocks like Spain/ Mexico etc.

I'm not sure what people hope will be solved for Spain--any alternative honestly sounds no better to me, like Spain > Morocco or Spain > France or Spain > Argentina/Brazil/some other Latin American nation-state. I really can't see modern Spain in the running at any point, and Portugal should be Exploration, not Modern, given how quickly its colonial empire collapsed.

 

[ColtSeavers]

It's any sort of geographic, demographic, memetic, cultural or historical link the dev wants between two countries, up to and including "they live on the same continent (and the Americas count as one continent)".

Well we could argue about what "any sort" means here exactly all night long, but I don't think this will get us anywhere. Agree to disagree.

 

[Evie]

If the sun rise, some fans will be be unhappy.
If the sun does not rise, some fans will be unhappy.
If the sun pull a Schroedinger on us, twice as many fans will be unhappy.

Fans are entitled creatures who vastly overestimate their grasp of the reality of game design, and thus unhappy fans are an inevitability of life, not proof of mistake or bad design.

I'm concerned with what the game is, not what a handful of people still clinging to "play one civ the whole game" think it should be.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I'm not sure what people hope will be solved for Spain--any alternative honestly sounds no better to me, like Spain > Morocco or Spain > France or Spain > Argentina/Brazil/some other Latin American nation-state. I really can't see modern Spain in the running at any point, and Portugal should be Exploration, not Modern, given how quickly its colonial empire collapsed.

Spain is one of the largest countries in Europe as of today, however the game suggests it doesn't exist anymore in the modern age, and that its people have become Mexicans by now. For me that's just absurd, but again, agree to disagree. People obviously have different opinions about that.

 

[Evie]

That is not what the game suggests at all.

What it suggests is that not every country can be in every era it existed in, and that cilizations that played less of a role in an era (like, say, sitting out out both World Wars, FOR EXAMPLE) may not be playable in that era.

Nationalist prattling is neither sound basis for game design, nor valid game criticism.

 

[uppi]

Yes, and people criticise that, and lot of people argue, that they think/ hope the DLCs will solve that for some Civ Unlocks like Spain/ Mexico etc.

DLCs won't solve that. The way Civ7 is designed, civ unlocks will never be limited strictly to precursors. I think the unlocks will only be added upon, not removed, so the unlocks we get in the base game are here to stay. There may be more options in the future which players might like better than the current ones, but those will be just additional options.

It is better to abandon the fantasy of strict historical progression now, because it will never happen.

No one was talking about nationalism. Nationalism didn't create the concept of ethnic identity, only the concept of the nation-state.

Ethnic identity is something different than a nation, though.

 

[Zaarin]

Spain is one of the largest countries in Europe as of today, however the game suggests it doesn't exist anymore in the modern age, and that its people have become Mexicans by now. For me that's just absurd, but again, agree to disagree. People obviously have different opinions about that.

I'm not arguing about what the game should be, simply what it clearly is; it's obvious that "modern people identify with previous civs" is not a factor in the civ switching design. There's not really anything to argue.

Ethnic identity is something different than a nation, though.

No, it's not, at least not in anthropological or historical terms. Maybe in ideological terms, but IMO that's unhelpful.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Nationalist prattling is neither sound basis for game design, nor valid game criticism.

Sure, arguing that Spain still exists and stating the obvious that Spaniards have not become Mexicans in the Modern age is "Nationalist prattling"... Anyways, not interested in further discussions with you, have a good day.

 

[uppi]

No, it's not, at least not in anthropological or historical terms. Maybe in ideological terms, but IMO that's unhelpful.

I'll just point at Switzerland and leave it there.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Not sure why so many here are pushing for Saxony or Bavaria as a German Civ. The fact of the matter is, neither of these states even came close to dominate the German speaking kingdoms. Prussia controlled most of the German territory and people during its heydays (and I'm saying this as a Southerner where Prussia never was in charge! ). Frederick the Great is an iconic leader who would suit perfectly, too.

Oh, I personally prefer HRE => Prussia personally. But if you're going for a separate Germany state in Exploration, better go for the most powerful and important of the electorate states.

 

[Evie]

Arguing that Spain not being in the modern era means that Spain no longer exist is a bad faith, dishonest, nonsensical argument. That's what makes it nationalistic prattling.

And that does indeed mean we have exhausted this conversation.

 

[gdr_willter]

Sure, arguing that Spain still exists and stating the obvious that Spaniards have not become Mexicans in the Modern age is "Nationalist prattling"... Anyways, not interested in further discussions with you, have a good day.

If you want to say that Spain have to stand until the Modern Age because it did IRL, why don't you say the same thing to the hundreds of nations that never be shown in the Civ franchise? Everything is about the representation, not the historical accuracy. If FXS decides they have no room for Modern Spain beside Mexico, that's all. I mean, you can be upset about it, but it can be happen normally.

 

[Evie]

If you want to say that Spain have to stand until the Modern Age because it did IRL, why don't you say the same thing to the hundreds of nations that never be shown in the Civ franchise? Everything is about the representation, not the historical accuracy. If FXS decides they have no room for Modern Spain beside Mexico, that's all. I mean, you can be upset about it, but it can be happen normally.

Exactly. There are over 200 countries in the world right now. Does the fact that only five or so of them are in the Modern Era right now mean Firaxis think they don't exist? Did Firaxis think Canada exist only briefly during Gathering Storm design and then they forgot Canada is a thing again?

There is neither sense nor good faith in claiming that not having a modern era civ means firaxis think you don't exist anymore. It's an argument that never made sense and never will. It's just pure nonsensical appeal to emotion by people upset that they can't play their favorite civ to the end of the game.

 

[ColtSeavers]

If you want to say that Spain have to stand until the Modern Age because it did IRL, why don't you say the same thing to the hundreds of nations that never be shown in the Civ franchise? Everything is about the representation, not the historical accuracy. If FXS decides they have no room for Modern Spain beside Mexico, that's all. I mean, you can be upset about it, but it can be happen normally.

I would argue this way for any other nation who still exists, that if it shows up in the exploration age, it shouldn't disappear in the Modern Age. Whether it is Spain, Korea or any other country. Anyways, I agree with you on one thing, this whole Civ Switching stuff is not meant for me. I was just trying to give my input on some Germany related discussions here. Not interested in political bickering.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't think the Mughals identified much with the Chola or Siam with the Majapahit. I have no horse in the race of what German civs are included, but I agree with Evie that objecting Austria because modern Germans don't identify with them (which is a quirk of our own timeline--without Bismarck, modern Germans might not identify with Prussia) is applying a standard the game design is clearly not following.

It's definitely a tricky subject, especially considering the whole debate of whether it should be Qing vs. Republic of China in the other thread.

My main objection to having Austria into Germany, has nothing to do with nationalism or how they identify now, but just on how I would want them to be portrayed in game.
Whenever I think of Austria, I think of them in the 1700s under the reign of Maria Theresa and the era of Classical Music, which to me would put them in the Modern Age, alongside a Modern Germany or Prussian civ.

 

[Zaarin]

It's definitely a tricky subject, especially considering the whole debate of whether it should be Qing vs. Republic of China in the other thread.

My main objection to having Austria into Germany, has nothing to do with nationalism or how they identify now, but just on how I would want them to be portrayed in game.
Whenever I think of Austria, I think of them in the 1700s under the reign of Maria Theresa and the era of Classical Music, which to me would put them in the Modern Age, alongside a Modern Germany or Prussian civ.

Like I said, I have no horse in the race of which German civs are included. I agree Austria fits better in the Modern Age, but Austria > Germany would be one of the most unexceptionable civ changes I can think of in historic terms.