Historical paths problem

[Siptah]

I'm not confident, it's just current evidence. In the sources we have, Egypt -> Songhai is considered a historical path and the rest of the paths mentioned are either regional or unlocked.

Still, as I said, Firaxis has enough free ground to create multiple historical paths for AI to follow. I just don't know how they are going to handle them outside of Europe/Mediterranean region.

It‘s an early build with not all civs though. Things might change until February, not least since so many people complain about it. Still, as I wrote earlier, I believe it‘s a path that makes some people happy, such as Afrocentrists and people that deny that Nilotic ethnicities are a thing.

 

[notNamed]

And to answer your problem…It seems that as a player you never ever to encounter that if you do not want to. Ai has programmed to go historic route (by default) and you are not forced to select it ever.

AI is programmed to go a historic route, details undefined.
They could implement it so that AI picks "I want to roleplay France" and so whatever happens in the game, it will always pick one of the civilisations which formed the modern French Empire (Rome/Gauls in Antiquity Normans/Franks/Burgundians/Bretons in Exploration). They could also implement the opposite approach where the AI gets Rome so it will always adjust based on its choices. Rome means Byzantines/Franks/Normans in Exploration, if Byzantine -> Greece/Ottoman in Modern; if Franks -> French/Germans in Modern if Normans -> British/French in Modern.
These two options could both work, but IMO it's going to be the former, since that allows the AI to select America, just to give an example of a civ that is not a natural pathway out of the Ancient civs, but is expected to appear somewhat frequently since it's kind of a big deal in the Modern world.

You could also think about some additional considerations like AI being Franklin -> tries to beeline America (or his alternate choice if player takes America). In turn adopting one of the strategies above based on where in time the leader existed. We do not know the details of this mechanism, only that it's tuned to satisfy reasonable roleplay by the AI.

And no, no matter what happens you will be seeing Hatshepsut leading something that is not Ancient Egypt. That is just a part of how the game works. If Franklin appears in the game, you can always shove him to play as Axum and woo the old ladies there.

 

[Riconatic]

And no, no matter what happens you will be seeing Hatshepsut leading something that is not Ancient Egypt. That is just a part of how the game works. If Franklin appears in the game, you can always shove him to play as Axum and woo the old ladies there.

And with these words we can conclude that as it has always been.

 

[chaosprophet]

Of course I‘m making things too complicated (I’m working as perception psychologist after all) and I’m fully aware of that and that any remark will not change anything. Still bugs me though. It‘s comparable to when someone would
come into the ages discussion and complain that they think it is a bad idea to have the third age based only on the 1920s (because that’s how they understand „modern“).
I can comprehend people’s problems with the switching, though. It‘s a valid complaint, just not so good to be explained with immersion.

I get you, I said something similar about immersion in another thread. It is used pretty similar to the term soul/souless when it is referred to games.

They talked about Regional paths while showing that.

Basically a civ/culture unlocks one (or more) Regional paths, and one (?or more?) of those Regional paths are “Historical” and the default for the AI.

I need to rewatch the newest video to confirm, but I only remember they talking about regional when talking about how, after you pick a leader and go to civilization selection screen, the game recommends or at least point out associated civs, albeit you can pick any. As in how when you pick Hatshepsut, the game points to Egypt as her historical association and Aksum as regional.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

But they clarified there are “regional pathways” for everyone. That isn’t unique to those civs. I don’t think it’s some insidious commentary.

i don’t think most other civs suffer from their “regional paths” being an entire continent.

it just feels a little half-assed to introduce this concept and then…not include enough civs that the regions are actually regional (versus egypt to songhai to buganda being a regional path versus something that would be slightly more reasonable)

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

i don’t think most other civs suffer from their “regional paths” being an entire continent.

it just feels a little half-assed to introduce this concept and then…not include enough civs that the regions are actually regional (versus egypt to songhai to buganda being a regional path versus something that would be slightly more reasonable)

It is half-assed, but from the perspective of the dev team, who only have time / resources to include a set number of civs in the base game, it's likely a necessary evil.

We already know that quite a few additional civs are queued up to come in the initial set of DLCs. Variety is likely to explode over time.

 

[AntSou]

Variety is likely to explode over time.

And not linearly.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

It is half-assed, but from the perspective of the dev team, who only have time / resources to include a set number of civs in the base game, it's likely a necessary evil.

We already know that quite a few additional civs are queued up to come in the initial set of DLCs. Variety is likely to explode over time.

we also do know that we are likely to see more civs than we ever have before in just this base game, let alone after who knows how many DLCs and 2-3 Expansions. There’s hope yet, but it just looks off at launch

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

There’s hope yet, but it just looks off at launch

Agreed, and that's a risk to Firaxis in terms of initial impressions here / Reddit / Steam.

The marketing roll out for Civ 7 has been ... hmmm, what's a good word here? Unoptimized, perhaps? Combine that with the consistent problem for sequels that the base game of the next iteration always has feature gaps compared to the prior version after multiple expansions, and you could have a rocky start for Civ 7. Which won't matter in the long run if the gameplay is engaging and influencers get behind it on release, but they'd best aim for a better initial launch than their initial reveals.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Agreed, and that's a risk to Firaxis in terms of initial impressions here / Reddit / Steam.

The marketing roll out for Civ 7 has been ... hmmm, what's a good word here? Unoptimized, perhaps? Combine that with the consistent problem for sequels that the base game of the next iteration always has feature gaps compared to the prior version after multiple expansions, and you could have a rocky start for Civ 7. Which won't matter in the long run if the gameplay is engaging and influencers get behind it on release, but they'd best aim for a better initial launch than their initial reveals.

Generally agree. I'm fairly sure that the historical and regional paths will feel limited and a bit empty at launch, but as long as FXS are clear about their long term intentions for this side of the game, then I am happy with the direction they are going.