Historical paths problem

[Arent11]

First, the paths become weird. They are designed to be unique, which means if exploration age civilization is set as a historical path for one civ, it can't be normally used for another civ. For example, Rome's historical path is Normans, not Byzantium - the most likely reason is what Byzantium is a historical path for Greece. I think Egypt goes to Songhai not Arabia for the same reason - most likely Arabia is a historical path for Axum.

Rome -> Normans is still weird, but probably acceptable.

Second is bigger problem. If AI always chooses historical path civilizations when available, you'll almost never play against civilizations which aren't part of the historical path. Your only hope is to take away someone's historical path and hope they'll chose one of the rare civs. We know 100% Shawnee are not part of historical path (as they are optional, they can't continue any default civ). So, you get cool civ as preorder bonus and could play as them, but you'll never play against them. It's possible where other civs which aren't part of historical paths as well, like Mongolia.

So, unless I miss something here, the feature of AI civilizations always following their historical paths looks really bad to me. I'd probably prefer seeing weird civ transitions by AI, but have Byzantium open for Rome and Shawnee appearing in the game.

Simply make an option "AI civs follow the historical path" or not. Shouldn't be difficult.

For me, having an AI start as Cleopatra/Egypt and then suddenly being Cleopatra of Songhai is much worse.

 

[AntSou]

The "historical" options for India are just as immersion breaking, if not downright offensive.

How? How is it any worse than the blobbed India Civ we always had?

Are you comparing Civ 7 to previous titles, or to some idealistic notion of what Civ should be and that has never existed?

 

[Nikolai II]

Now we have Gandhi in 4000 BC building the pyramids and then evolving into Japan. It's even MORE immersion breaking.

Civ as a series in that case is immersion breaking. Still, we love them.

 

[Krikkit1]

In what sense is Canada a "Civilization" then? It stretches the meaning of the word. It is a country, like many others that were in the game.

You're getting down a path that is not worth arguing over and that is disproven by the choices available in previous games.

The point is there is really no requirement for some group of humans to be a “civilization” in the game.
political unity/type of polity

I guess the group does have to have some part of the world the are more common in, and have somethings that are more common among that group than among outgroups (for uniques) but thats it.


So Britain “not being a country” is as completely irrelevant as saying, Canada doesn’t have it’s own language so it can’t be a civ, or etc.

 

[zaint]

Again, what makes you think that Rome will only have one historical path?

And I think you can frame it differently. Yes, the Normans and Romans have different origins. But the Normans did rule plenty of land that was once ruled by the Romans; in the game itself, you become a new civilization in control of the settlements and land that was once ruled by another civilization.

Normans ruled plenty of land that once ruled by the Romans?? Eh.. No? Why making up something that's not correct? Normans ruled pars of modern France and later on they invaded Britain. That is not "plenty of lands" That's like 2% of the former roman empire.
And that happen 400 years AFTER the roman empire fell. The areas that the norsemen invaded was frankish normandy.

vs

 

[Josephias]

. If a multiple paths exists or could exist then Egypt should definitely get an extra historical path as well.

Already commented by @Siptah , but to make it stand out: we know egypt has an additional historical path (abbasids) that probably is the AI priority. Songhai is just another preferred path due to geographical/gameplay-cultre similarity, but I doubt it will the firt AI priority (can be needed,” and used, nevertheless, as you can imagine multiple fertile crescent ancient civs having a natural evolution to Abbasids)

 

[Nikolai II]

Normans ruled plenty of land that once ruled by the Romans?? Eh.. No? Why making up something that's not correct? Normans ruled pars of modern France and later on they invaded Britain. That is not "plenty of lands" That's like 2% of the former roman empire.
And that happen 400 years AFTER the roman empire fell. The areas that the norsemen invaded was frankish normandy.

View attachment 701710 vs View attachment 701711

Also, they ruled Sicily and Southern Italy.

 

[AntSou]

Normans ruled plenty of land that once ruled by the Romans?? Eh.. No? Why making up something that's not correct? Normans ruled pars of modern France and later on they invaded Britain. That is not "plenty of lands" That's like 2% of the former roman empire.

That doesn't make sense. There's clearly "plenty" of overlap in the pictures you show in Britain and Northern France.

If I drink six litres of water, that's a lot, regardless of how much there's still left in the oceans.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Normans ruled plenty of land that once ruled by the Romans?? Eh.. No? Why making up something that's not correct? Normans ruled pars of modern France and later on they invaded Britain. That is not "plenty of lands" That's like 2% of the former roman empire.
And that happen 400 years AFTER the roman empire fell. The areas that the norsemen invaded was frankish normandy.

View attachment 701710 vs View attachment 701711

You're thinking about this entirely incorrectly, imo. That is your choice, I really don't have the energy or interest in continuing this "discussion".

 

[zaint]

Also, they ruled Sicily and Southern Italy.

Also, they ruled Sicily and Southern Italy.

Yes they did and yet there wasn't a single roman nearby to greet them at the beaches because that empire had been dead for almost 600 years. When the Normans invaded the island of Sicily it belonged to the emirate of Sicily.

 

[zaint]

You're thinking about this entirely incorrectly, imo. That is your choice, I really don't have the energy or interest in continuing this "discussion".

My view is from a historic point of view so i understand why you don't wan't to continue.

 

[user330977]

How? How is it any worse than the blobbed India Civ we always had?

Are you comparing Civ 7 to previous titles, or to some idealistic notion of what Civ should be and that has never existed?

I'm not comparing Civ 7 to anything, merely commenting on the given information so far. Nowhere have I mentioned 'Civ X did this better'.

I'd appreciate you cutting the snark out of your messages. It's rather unbecoming.

 

[Nikolai II]

Yes they did and yet there wasn't a single roman nearby to greet them at the beaches because that empire had been dead for almost 600 years. When the Normans invaded the island of Sicily it belonged to the emirate of Sicily.

And still, this being a game, it is how it has to be. Rome fell, changed and in the end parts of it continued, for a while, as Normans. It is a game inspired by history, and to be honest, this is much better than anything we've had before, immersion wise. But it is a game, and fun and balance is way more important than so called "realism". And I say that as a historian.

 

[Leyrann]

Here’s how AI civilization path progression should work.
In the Advanced Game Set-up, there should be multiple path progression options:

Historical - This is the default. Each civ has a ranked list of two or more civs from the next era which it relates to historically or, barring that, through geographic proximity. If these aren’t available, it picks the civ associated with its leader, with a last resort being any random civ it unlocked.
Leader - Civs will progress to the civ associated with their leader. If that’s unavailable, they go to their historical civs in order of ranking, with a last resort being any random civ it unlocked.
Random - Civs will progress to any available civ
Player choice (single player only) - The player picks the progression of each civ when moving to the next Age

This is something I can get behind.

Also, for 'random' I'd like to see a bias towards 'overshot' requirements. For example, say that you need to make 6 trade agreements to be able become the Netherlands (no clue if they're in the game, or even if trade agreements work that way, but it's about the idea).

If an AI makes 20 trade agreements and has 3 horse resources, both the Netherlands and Mongolia (requires 3 horse resources) are unlocked, but it should prioritize the Netherlands. Conversely, if the AI makes 6 trade agreements but has 5 horse resources, it should prioritize Mongolia, again even though both are unlocked.

I'm happy to wait and see it in practice before judging too harshly, but I really dislike the "you must evolve your civ now because we said so" approach. I like alt-history as much as anyone, but good alt-history still has roots in plausibility.

Did you miss everything they did to make it plausible? This is the entire reason for the crisis system. They also place priority on historical (or regional) choices, and unlocking non-historical (or non-regional) choices requires that your civilization is already biased towards the gameplay of that civ. If you've got a lot of horse resources in the Antiquity, that means you'll probably have a cavalry-focused civilization in Exploration. Which is then represented by becoming the Mongols.

 

[stealth_nsk]

What makes you think that there is only one historical path for Rome?

That's just one route leading into France. And I don't find it bizarre given how much they adopted. There's just sufficient overlap for me to work. It's easy to imagine them as late Normans speaking an offshoot of latin.

Rome will also lead into Bizantium, and other Northern European cultures will lead into Normans.

I expect several routes available to Rome at release, and at least one more route available as an antecedent to Normans.

All what developers said implies what there's one "default" historical route for each antiquity civilization. There are multiple quotes, like the one I've mentioned above, where Dennis uses singular case for the option.

 

[Krikkit1]

Normans ruled plenty of land that once ruled by the Romans?? Eh.. No? Why making up something that's not correct? Normans ruled pars of modern France and later on they invaded Britain. That is not "plenty of lands" That's like 2% of the former roman empire.
And that happen 400 years AFTER the roman empire fell. The areas that the norsemen invaded was frankish normandy.

View attachment 701710 vs View attachment 701711

“plenty” not “most” (as in more than the anglo saxons)

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

All what developers said implies what there's one "default" historical route for each antiquity civilization. There are multiple quotes, like the one I've mentioned above, where Dennis uses singular case for the option.

But don't we already know, from another interview, that the Normans can also become Britain? Not confirmed yet, I know, but it was mentioned by Ed, I think? Why would the Normans have two reasonable historical progressions but Rome only be given the Normans? And frankly, why would they even introduce a system like this and then limit themselves to one historical choice per Civ? I would be very surprised (not to say disappointed) if that was the case.

 

[pokiehl]

I don’t see how the 3 India options in Civ 7 are offensive at all…

 

[Patine]

In your game maybe but aye whatever you enjoy your day. o and "Northern Ireland " is Na Sé Chontae

And, there was an actual nation just called the Kingdom of Great Britain between the Act of Union 1707 and the Act of Union 1801.

 

[Krikkit1]

I don’t see how the 3 India options in Civ 7 are offensive at all…

Imagine if Europe was
Greece->England->Russia

But I think they chose Chola as a key to allow a india<->Indochina connection
(and just going with 1 India /Age in the base game)