Historical paths problem

[Patine]

Also, they ruled Sicily and Southern Italy.

But, the Sicilian Normans had no political continuity with the English Normans - they were two completely separate kngdoms with litlle direct contact - and cultural fusion with Sicilian subjects produced a very different realm than cultural fusion with Anglo-Saxon subjects.

 

[pokiehl]

Imagine if Europe was
Greece->England->Russia

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

I don’t understand what you’re saying, sorry. Can you clarify?

 

[8housesofelixir]

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

There are people from India who dislike the fact that "a foreign Islamic invader" represents India, and they may view this configuration as "offensive."

Come to think about it, Chola was Tamil, and some Hindu nationalists might also dislike that.

 

[AntSou]

Imagine if Europe was
Greece->England->Russia

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

But again, this argument ignores the history of the Civ franchise itself.

And besides, whether through dlc or mods, we'll get a more expansive representation of the Indian subcontinent. These are just three options at release, which is more representation than India has ever had in the game.

 

[pokiehl]

There are people from India who dislike the fact that "a foreign Islamic invader" represents India, and they may view this configuration as "offensive."

Come to think about it, Chola was Tamil, and some Hindu nationalists might also dislike that.

Anyone “may” view any configuration as offensive. It seems like a lot of people are actively looking for reasons to get upset.

India is a multicultural and multireligious society. Excluding everyone except for northern Hindu cultures would then be offensive to the rest.

Anecdotally, my civ group includes my Indian friend and he is 100% completely hyped about the 3 Indias.

 

[Krikkit1]

But again, this argument ignores the history of the Civ franchise itself.

And besides, whether through dlc or mods, we'll get a more expansive representation of the Indian subcontinent. These are just three options at release, which is more representation than India has ever had in the game.

I agree, that it is better. But I could see how it would be offensive. (same as all the Shawnee-> America being offensive makes sense)

Which is why you should be able to rename your civ, and even AI civ names should default display their history.

I am encouraged that the Norman city graphics included some remaining Roman houses mixed in with the Norman ones.

 

[AntSou]

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.

They gave the example of the Franks or the HRE developing into France at PAX yesterday.

There could be one default historical option for the AI at release, maybe? But it wouldn't make sense for them to limit the AI choice of paths in such a way in the long run and I don't expect them to. Even just a coin flip design between two historical paths for the AI is better than a single default path.

 

[Razpor]

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?

This whole civ changing mechanic has some serious immersion breaking baked in,and that definitely makes it worse for me and many others. For me immersion>>> historical accuracy

Some are hailing it as a more Historically accurate way , which it obviously isn't especially when Egypt's historical path is Songhai,so that can't be the argument in it's defence.

 

[Krikkit1]

This whole civ changing mechanic has some serious immersion breaking baked in,and that definitely makes it worse for me and many others. For me immersion>>> historical accuracy

Some are hailing it as a more Historically accurate way , which it obviously isn't especially when Egypt's historical path is Songhai,so that can't be the argument in it's defence.

Egypt’s Historical path is not Songhai
Egypt unlocks Songhai as a Regional possibility. The Historical path Egypt unlocks would be Abassids.

 

[Razpor]

There are people from India who dislike the fact that "a foreign Islamic invader" represents India, and they may view this configuration as "offensive."

Come to think about it, Chola was Tamil, and some Hindu nationalists might also dislike that.

Cholas were hindus,they considered Vishnu as the first king of their lineage and built countless Hindu temples ,many of which still exist today.

 

[Krikkit1]

Cholas were hindus ,so that is a baseless assumption

Hindu nationalists wouldn’t only be concerned about religion. That said, any transition is potentially offensive for multiple reasons.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

For example, Rome's historical path is Normans, not Byzantium

we don’t know this, and we also don’t know if rome don’t have 2-3 historical paths

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

This whole civ changing mechanic has some serious immersion breaking baked in,and that definitely makes it worse for me and many others. For me immersion>>> historical accuracy

Some are hailing it as a more Historically accurate way , which it obviously isn't especially when Egypt's historical path is Songhai,so that can't be the argument in it's defence.

I can fully understand that some progressions currently feel weird. But on the flip side, do you not think that this is a more interesting way of representing the diverse histories of India, China, Russia, Germany, England/Britain, etc.?

 

[Razpor]

I can fully understand that some progressions currently feel weird. But on the flip side, do you not think that this is a more interesting way of representing the diverse histories of India, China, Russia, Germany, England/Britain, etc.?

It might be, if done well ,but I don't feel it is possible to do civ changing well without breaking immersion

So far from what i have seen with the age and crisis mechanic ,followed by immediate change of architecture,it doesn't seem Civ will pull it off either.

 

[Razpor]

Hindu nationalists wouldn’t only be concerned about religion. That said, any transition is potentially offensive for multiple reasons.

I don't know man ,i am a hindu and i don't find any issue with it ,you are just injecting useless political discourse in topic that doesn't need it.

Better save it for some political forums, really no need for all that here.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Anyone “may” view any configuration as offensive. It seems like a lot of people are actively looking for reasons to get upset.

India is a multicultural and multireligious society. Excluding everyone except for northern Hindu cultures would then be offensive to the rest.

Anecdotally, my civ group includes my Indian friend and he is 100% completely hyped about the 3 Indias.

as a tamil person, nothing has got me more hype than the 3 indias. mughals are super cool too. i don’t remember them being so politicized when i grew up, it’s a new thing bcs of how polarized india is atm. Akbar and Birbal were children’s stories for us. the Mughals were largely seen as better than previous conquerers (like the delhi sultanate) because they often were more tolerant and intermarried with hindu kingdoms

 

[Razpor]

we don’t know this, and we also don’t know if rome don’t have 2-3 historical paths

I think they have mentioned each civ will have only one historical path,no?

 

[Krikkit1]

Just because someone is offended by something, doesn't make that thing offensive. A little like beauty, sometimes offense lives in the eye of the beholder.

As you point out, someone being offended by something is the only thing that makes something offensive.

The issue is, how offensive do how many people find it and how much should others care.

Civ will never be completely accurate, and people can be offended by accurate things anyways.

Right now the trade off for not too many civs (dev time/art time) is Maurya-Chola-Mughal. Will be offensive, but hopefully not much more than the Normans.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I think they have mentioned each civ will have only one historical path,no?

have they? i might have missed that. they’ve already mentioned normans to england and france as “historic paths”

 

[Razpor]

as a tamil person, nothing has got me more hype than the 3 indias. mughals are super cool too. i don’t remember them being so politicized when i grew up, it’s a new thing bcs of how polarized india is atm. Akbar and Birbal were children’s stories for us. the Mughals were largely seen as better than previous conquerers (like the delhi sultanate) because they often were more tolerant and intermarried with hindu kingdoms

Mughals definitely tried to integrate better with Indian rulers and thats the reason they survived for longer ,one of the major reason's for their fall can also be attributed to Aurangzeb 's unreasonable religious zeal which eventually turned many nobles against him over time.