Historical paths problem

[Trav'ling Canuck]

they haven't focused more on choosing Civs based on what's logical progression

I suspect they have, but that there will be odd fits initially that'll be filled in as DLCs and expansions are released. They're likely trying to balance brining in the Civ staples everyone expects with some level of geographic balance. There's no way they can do both in the initial launch and not have some default transitions that don't match the history books.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I suspect they have, but that there will be odd fits initially that'll be filled in as DLCs and expansions are released. They're likely trying to balance brining in the Civ staples everyone expects with some level of geographic balance. There's no way they can do both in the initial launch and not have some default transitions that don't match the history books.

Exactly. Clearly the intention with this mechanic is for multiple historical paths to be available.

I will eat my (rather splendid) hat if Rome > Norman is the only historical path for Rome by the end of Civ VII's lifecycle. I'm not even convinced it will be the only route available in the base game.

 

[Razpor]

Exactly. Clearly the intention with this mechanic is for multiple historical paths to be available.

I will eat my (rather splendid) hat if Rome > Norman is the only historical path for Rome by the end of Civ VII's lifecycle. I'm not even convinced it will be the only route available in the base game.

thats my feeling too,civ 7 is going to have more dlc content than any other previous civs.
Wether that's a good thing is upto debate...but it is shaping up to be that way.

 

[Krikkit1]

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.

The “nebulous crisis” are conquest/subjugation (barbarians, revolutions)…as are most of those switches IRL history.

What civ does is say, “what if”

The key point is the player can interpret the what if how they want.

It can be….
What if Rome->Norman was more like Rome->Byzantium
an internal development…adopting “Norman” practices helped them bounce back from the crisis …In my game maybe that’s how it worked.

or it can be
What if rebellious Asians sided with barbarians, destroyed Rome and founded Byzantium on the ashes. (if I want to say that’s what happened)

As far as I'm aware the term historical and regional paths are one in the same, correct? They are just alternate names for branching paths, whether Egypt goes into Songhai or the Abbasids naturally.

No I think historical path(s) are the most restrictive of the regional paths…
ie
Egypt->Songhai is a regional path
Egypt->Abbasids is the historical one

For some civs the historical path will be sort of weak(only regional)…Songhai was only shown to unlock Buganda…. but presumably that’s because its the best Age3 civ for Songhai now… but DLC could bring better contenders.

And I do imagine Some civs will have multiple “historic” paths….like Rome might unlock Normans, Byzantines, Abbasids…but only Normans and Byzantines are counted as “Historical”

 

[Kev1916]

thats my feeling too,civ 7 is going to have more dlc content than any other previous civs.
Wether that's a good thing is upto debate...but it is shaping up to be that way.

K and thats the dance more cash for 2K, dress it up as much as they want but the basic dance is Civ was always one Civ, play Rome to how how many X! they can sell to Y with a hard cap is well game over IMHO

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

No I think historical path(s) are the most restrictive of the regional paths…
ie
Egypt->Songhai is a regional path
Egypt->Abbasids is the historical one

For some civs the historical path will be sort of weak(only regional)…Songhai was only shown to unlock Buganda…. but presumably that’s because its the best Age3 civ for Songhai now… but DLC could bring better contenders.

And I do imagine Some civs will have multiple “historic” paths….like Rome might unlock Normans, Byzantines, Abbasids…but only Normans and Byzantines are counted as “Historical”

Still, it opens up the possibility of let's say Babylon is in the game, and you pick it and go down the historical path of presumably the Abbasids as well. That would mean that Egypt's next choice would be Songhai which then goes into Buganda. Even some of the "historical" paths such as Songhai going into Buganda, which are located on different sides of the continent, still feel off.

 

[Krikkit1]

Still, it opens up the possibility of let's say Babylon is in the game, and you pick it and go down the historical path of presumably the Abbasids as well. That would mean that Egypt's next choice would be Songhai which then goes into Buganda. Even some of the "historical" paths such as Songhai going into Buganda, which are located on different sides of the continent, still feel off.

I agree, particularly in low sales numbers parts of the world, the best Regional link will be sort of weak, (I wouldn’t be surprised at Inca ->Brazil). But as DLC come there can be better links put in ie Songhai->Buganda or Fulani (Fulani being the more historical)

 

[Mudokon Pop]

I can certainly see a Ghana-Songhai progression, although this leaves the question of what Songhai will lead to in the 3rd Age. The Tuaregs?

Now that the Mughals are confirmed as 'Modern' then I think we've a broad scope for choosing successors. Bornu would be an interesting choice - but like the Mughals their peak was in the exploration era time frame. They were still a significant power in the 19th century however.

The Bamana Empire (1712-1851) is probably the most stable successor to the Songhai. Toucouleur (1852-1893)- and Sokoto (1804-1904) empires are other alternatives.

Wow, lots of things being discussed in this thread. A lot of people not pleased with Rome > Normans, and I also think it's very odd. The main argument for my opinion I don't see discussed a lot, however. My main issue is that the area that Normans overlapped w. Rome isn't really what I'd call the core of the Roman empire, i.e. the city of Rome. Based on that, I agree with others that the most (only?) logical progression would be Rome > Papal States > Italy.

I think you need to remember that some players are playing in order to play as France or Britain in the later eras rather than to play as Rome. I'm sure Rome also has a Mediterranean option. It's not the the Normans succeed the Roman core territory but they certainly shaped an important period of French & British history.

 

[Arent11]

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

Be thankful they don't force you to transition to the Polynesians.

Or just hope for modders creating Rome Exploration and Rome Modern.

 

[kaspergm]

I suspect they have, but that there will be odd fits initially that'll be filled in as DLCs and expansions are released. They're likely trying to balance brining in the Civ staples everyone expects with some level of geographic balance. There's no way they can do both in the initial launch and not have some default transitions that don't match the history books.

Perhaps you are right. I guess time will show. I just wonder why they are choosing to present the odd outliers, if what you are saying is true.

 

[bv98132454]

Perhaps you are right. I guess time will show. I just wonder why they are choosing to present the odd outliers, if what you are saying is true.

I have brought this issue up and have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation.

 

[leif erikson]

Perhaps it is because no one knows yet. The information has not yet been released?

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I genuinely don't understand why Roman > Norman should be considered an odd outlier?

If it was the only path for Rome, then I understand, but I really don't see any reason to believe it will be.

If it's just one of several paths for Rome, what is odd about it? Think backwards from the Modern Age. I prefer to speak about Britain because I know more about it, can anyone tell me what is odd about representing Britain with Rome > Norman > Britain? Sure, there are other ways you could do it, but this is completely fine, there is nothing odd about it as far as I can see.

 

[Thormodr]

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

Yep. Because we suspended reality a little bit before, that gives us an excuse to really double down on the stupidity?

Rome into Normans is stupid but that's ok because we had immortal leaders before or the USA in 4000 BC. What's next?

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Yep. Because we suspended reality a little bit before, that gives us an excuse to really double down on the stupidity?

Rome into Normans is stupid but that's ok because we had immortal leaders before or the USA in 4000 BC. What's next?

Rome into Normans is clearly not as stupid as the USA in 4000 BC?

I totally get why people don't want to see Egypt into Mongolia but some of the criticism of this just seems so weird to me.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

I have brought this issue up and have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation.

It's because they are saving some of the major civs for DLCs. The odd outliers don't sell on their own.

 

[bv98132454]

It's because they are saving some of the major civs for DLCs. The odd outliers don't sell on their own.

Ah, pack the stupidity in the main release so they can have you pay to fix it later.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

Ah, pack the stupidity in the main release so they can have you pay to fix it later.

Capitalism is a wonderful thing

 

[bv98132454]

Capitalism is a wonderful thing

No, this isn't capitalism, but it is corporatism.

 

[Thormodr]

I'm seeing this same slippery slope argument everywhere and it doesn't hold to up to me. The argument isn't "absurdity is bad, but we've got some already, so we can add more". That would be a bad argument. But the argument is more "Absurdity isn't bad in and of itself, as can be shown by how much people love the game despite it absurdity". In other words, it's a rejection of the argument that calling something absurd is enough to show that it's a bad idea for a civ game.

Word salad. Thanks, that reminds me I have to go have lunch.