Historical paths problem

[Razpor]

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

I think so , i doubt they are going to go through making multiple historical paths atleast on launch .

Maybe later expansion can add that

 

[Razpor]

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.

Chola as exploration era then??

 

[Thenewwwguy]

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.

for sure—aurengzeb (and a lot of his successors) were a huge part of why the mughals fell, but his predecessors (and even some of the successors) were extremely popular. like i said, akbar and birbal are a component of pop culture and kids stories in india/the indian diaspora. Akbar has got to be one of the biggest slam dunks for an expansion leader too, though my wishlist would be topped by Rajaraja or Rajendra Chola.

It’s also worth noting that the Mughals are very well regarded in Pakistan and a large part of the national myth there, so including them helps include a market that hasn’t seen much representation in the past. Plus if we get the Timurids as an expansion civ, there’s a direct historical path from them to the Mughals just waiting for us.

Another thing I’ve noticed that’s worth noting is that Ashoka is a historical figure where we don’t know much about how he looked, and he’s dressed pretty generically (much like Chandragupta Maurya in Civ 6). This is big cuz he can reasonably also look like those other leaders that ppl would want to see (besides the Mughal ones, who obviously didn’t walk around without a kurta on)

 

[Thenewwwguy]

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.

i don’t even think it’s offensive. The chola are well loved in the south and even southeast asia to this day.

the mughals are a key part of Indian history and also generally well considered in both India and Pakistan. only ppl who want to rewrite that history will be offended

 

[Mudokon Pop]

So the roman civilization from southern Europe somehow becomes Normans who have their origin from the Viking tribes of Scandinavia? The origin of Normans is even in the name "Norsemen". Does Firaxis historical expert smoke crack?

It's less that the Normans succeed Rome but rather that from the French perspective both the Romans and Normans are part of their heritage.

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

Each of those kingdoms spoke different languages, practiced different religions and were subjugated by the other kingdoms. Consider India as a country made up of several nations (ethnic groups) each with their own unique history. Some groups in India have been discriminated by the other groups. Nationalism is also a factor - Hindu Nationalists, Dravidian and Tamil Nationalists etc...

The Official Language of the Mughal Court was the Persian language for example. The Mughal dynasty were invaders from Iran. However I'd read they were quite tolerant of other traditions in their nation.

Edit - personally I'm on board with the concept. I don't think Fireaxis should kowtow to nationalists from any nation. They tend to be too - well nationalistic.

 

[CosmicKiwi]

I think so , i doubt they are going to go through making multiple historical paths atleast on launch .

Maybe later expansion can add that

When they give the example of Rome -> Normans -> French Empire, they did not specify that it was THE historical path starting from Rome or going to French Empire or correct me if I'm wrong. It was also never specified that there is a single path.

There is a lot to discover about the game before really judging. Regardless, some people will still find the civ switch jarring and other will like the diversity of games you can have.

My opinion about Civ changes is pretty positive.

Sometimes, you start with a Civ with the idea of the playstyle you are gonna have and maybe the map or the other civ pushes you to play differently. I think the Civ switch adds an interesting layer to adapt the game in an interesting way from a gameplay design.

Last game I played, I was alone in a big mass of land. What if I had the opportunity to switch to isolationism and my Civ then evolved into Japan for example to optimize internal trade routes ? Sure, it would make no sense historically or geographically but it would make sense in terms of behavior of how my Civ would evolve.

It disrupts the historical accuracy but Civilization wasn't about that for me. It was about making scenarios for each of my games. it doesn't disrupt my own storytelling so I'm fine with it but I understand that some people are playing with a different idea of what the game is.

 

[stealth_nsk]

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.

Yes, it's possible, but for human players. AI always goes from Normans to France, unless human player takes away France.

If Rome -> Byzantium -> Russia isn't an option in the game (aka, 1st Rome, 2nd Rome, 3rd Rome), then I doubt know what FXS is thinking... Yes, I know Byzantium is more a continuation of Rome than a successor. Yes, I know Russia as the 3rd Rome is religious propaganda more than anything else. But it fits the spirit of what the game is going for perfectly, and that's more important.

Again, it's an option for human players.

I believe the best solution would be to unable multiple historical routes for each civilization. That potentially both problems, but raises new ones about cultural representation, etc. If you have path Maya - Aztec - Mexico, it's a bit weird, but ok. If you have to fill more options to go modern Aztec, that's much more complex. And doing so for each of civilizations, taking into account potential colonization issues, is quite a task.

 

[Razpor]

It's less that the Normans succeed Rome but rather that from the French perspective both the Romans and Normans are part of their heritage.

Each of those kingdoms spoke different languages, practiced different religions and were subjugated by the other kingdoms. Consider India as a country made up of several nations (ethnic groups) each with their own unique history. Some groups in India have been discriminated by the other groups. Nationalism is also a factor - Hindu Nationalists, Dravidian and Tamil Nationalists etc...

The Official Language of the Mughal Court was the Persian language for example. The Mughal dynasty were invaders from Iran. However I'd read they were quite tolerant of other traditions in their nation.

Edit - personally I'm on board with the concept. I don't think Fireaxis should kowtow to nationalists from any nation. They tend to be too - well nationalistic.

i wont go as far as calling different indian ethnic groups as different nations,nation state itself is a very euro centric term ,i feel which had no concept in India.
The overarching civilizational concept of Bharat has always been a somewhat of a uniting factor here ,unlike in Europe.

also mughals weren't Iranians.

 

[pokiehl]

The overarching civilizational concept of Bharat has always been a somewhat of a uniting factor here

That isn’t really true. “Bharat” itself is a divisive term perceived as exclusionary to non-Hindus.

 

[Razpor]

That isn’t really true. “Bharat” itself is a divisive term perceived as exclusionary to non-Hindus.

no it really isn't,maybe it has been made so in modern era due to polictical discourse but historically no.
You need to look at it from a historical perspective,not modern politics.

 

[bv98132454]

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.

There is no historical backing for many of the changes they made (despite the fact that they claim there is). Their only defense is "but 4000 BC Americans." Obviously neither is historically accurate. The difference is one is just acknowledged as the fiction you have to accept with Civilization going back to 1991. The other is something they just decided to implement.

I got a good laugh out of Ed Beach attempting to use different maps of London under various different nations as a justification for this change. All of the examples (Romans, Normans, British) he gave were the result of conquest/subjugation, not some nebulous crisis. Ed, just say you wanted to do this and there isn't more historical backing for this than the previous system. At least that would be honest.

 

[pokiehl]

no it really isn't,maybe it has been made so in modern era due to polictical discourse but historically no.

Yes it is. “Bharat” is divisive to anyone not Hindu or speaking a non-Sanskrit derived language of which India has many. It gained popularity only in the past couple hundred years (as the concept of a modern nation state formed). Prior to that there are many historical different names for India.

There has never been an overarching concept of a politically and culturally unified subcontinent until the independence movement.

 

[Patine]

The overarching civilizational concept of Bharat has always been a somewhat of a uniting factor here ,unlike in Europe.

Well, thought they didn't traditionally use the term, the Chinese Empire and the Great Mongol Nation, as well as Korea from the late 14h Century, and a fair number of other examples, show a seeming convergent evolution. Thus, I wouldn't say the notion of, "nation-states," is strictly European-originated (the term, "Euro-centric," is too socio-politically loaded and used too generically) - just specific terms and applications.

 

[aieeegrunt]

The Romans becoming Normans is just bizarre. Byzantium is the glaringly obvious choice but cases, albeit strained, could also be made for France, Spain, Italy, Romanians etc. Instead, Firaxis choose francified Vikings to represent the next era of Rome, who would then presumably evolve into Britain. Truly bizarre choices.

Just about all of the civ switching paths are going to be this weird or worse. And some of the possibilities are…problematic.

Zulus into Boers springs to mind.

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.

It’s a Civilization presumably because it helped sell a DLC. I’m a Canadian and I laughed pretty hard when I saw that it was going to be a Civ.

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.

The real problem here is that Civ has been a sandbox game for decades, and now it’s a forced narrative

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

I’m seeing the term “Civ:Colonizer Edition” popping up.

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

That is not even remotely a “successor” state to Rome

It looks exactly like what I would expect a “Viking” civ that started in Scandinavia to look like in a properly made sandbox.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

Seems to me the problem is that people are are looking at this as one civilization evolving into another. It will always be immersion breaking if people have this view. Civilizations didn't really evolve. They were either conquered or displaced or forced to assimilate. The game needs to be viewed as 3 separate stories. Civ switching is simply determined by a few prerequisites, historical or otherwise, which is fine for the purposes of gameplay. I don't see it as being any more complicated than this.

 

[bv98132454]

Seems to me the problem is that people are are looking at this as one civilization evolving into another. It will always be immersion breaking if people have this view. Civilizations didn't really evolve. They were either conquered or displaced or forced to assimilate. The game needs to be viewed as 3 separate stories. Civ switching is simply determined by a few prerequisites, historical or otherwise, which is fine for the purposes of gameplay. I don't see it as being any more complicated than this.

You're so close to getting the issue here. Yes, the issue is that these changes were the result of conquest/subjugation, not the result of some nebulous crisis.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Just about all of the civ switching paths are going to be this weird or worse. And some of the possibilities are…problematic.

Zulus into Boers springs to mind.

Not if they are in the same Age.

I do find it funny that with this pathway mechanic that they seem to have fixed some "problems" like the India and China as one civ, but have also seemingly created several more. The main one is all Sub-Saharan civs, so far, can go into each other. One can hope that it gets better as more civs come out. Maybe they secretly have Antiquity Ghana Empire that can go into Songhai?

 

[pokiehl]

The main one is all Sub-Saharan civs, so far, can go into each other.

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.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

You're so close to getting the issue here. Yes, the issue is that these changes were the result of conquest/subjugation, not the result of some nebulous crisis.

Being conquered isn't a crisis? Romans being continuously invaded by barbarians wasn't a crisis? France's revolutions weren't a crisis? Of course crisis happened throughout history. And I'm sure conquering will be one way to eliminate civs in the game. How would you simulate history and at the same time allow players to choose another civilization after their first one had fallen?

 

[bv98132454]

Not if they are in the same Age.

I do find it funny that with this pathway mechanic that they seem to have fixed some "problems" like the India and China as one civ, but have also seemingly created several more. The main one is all Sub-Saharan civs, so far, can go into each other. One can hope that it gets better as more civs come out. Maybe they secretly have Antiquity Ghana Empire that can go into Songhai?

For many, it's far easier to accept the fiction of China, India, etc. as one civ than it is to accept Egypt ->Songhai/Mongols and other nonsense we will likely see.