Historical paths problem

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I say again, if you want to represent the history of Britain/England in a Civ game, without simply having England exist from 4000 BC, what is wrong with Rome > Normans > Britain? The Romans and Normans were both a significant part of our history. It's not odd or stupid just because you don't like it.

 

[bv98132454]

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

It's the Disney Star Wars defense. "Well, Star Wars had some unrealistic things before, so that means we can shove as much rule-breaking nonsense into our new shows as we want, and you'll just have to accept it."

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

It's the Disney Star Wars defense. "Well, Star Wars had some unrealistic things before, so that means we can shove as much rule-breaking nonsense into our new shows as we want, and you'll just have to accept it."

"rule-breaking"

What rules are being broken, exactly?

 

[Thormodr]

I say again, if you want to represent the history of Britain/England in a Civ game, without simply having England exist from 4000 BC, what is wrong with Rome > Normans > Britain? The Romans and Normans were both a significant part of our history. It's not odd or stupid just because you don't like it.

Because they have little or a very tenuous connection with each other.

It would be like saying the Turks/Ottomans are the natural successors to the Hittites.

 

[bv98132454]

I literally just explained how that's exactly not the argument being made here. If you don't want to engage fine. But pretending to engage only to strawman is not becoming.

Maybe that's not the argument you're making, but it's being spouted pretty often just about everywhere this issue is being discussed. Perhaps get your friends on the same page.

 

[bv98132454]

"rule-breaking"

What rules are being broken, exactly?

Every fictional universe needs rules in order to stay consistent. The rule we always accepted with Civilization is that you were one civ and one leader for the duration of the game. That was the fiction we accepted as part of the game.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Because they have little or a very tenuous connection with each other.

And?

It still makes perfect sense to represent the history of Britain as Rome > Norman > Britain.

It's not stupid just because you don't like it.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I say again, if you want to represent the history of Britain/England in a Civ game, without simply having England exist from 4000 BC, what is wrong with Rome > Normans > Britain? The Romans and Normans were both a significant part of our history. It's not odd or stupid just because you don't like it.

It's probably easier seeing that from an English or British perspective because London, and many of the surrounding cities, did begin as Roman settlements. Where the possible absurdity comes in is when an Italian person sees the city of Rome, and other Roman cities, turning into Norman and British cities.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Every fictional universe needs rules in order to stay consistent. The rule we always accepted with Civilization is that you were one civ and one leader for the duration of the game. That was the fiction we accepted as part of the game.

Ok. Well, they've changed the "rule" of their fictional universe. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it stupid.

 

[Thormodr]

I literally just explained how that's exactly not the argument being made here. If you don't want to engage fine. But pretending to engage only to strawman is not becoming.

I think I'll wash down the word salad with a cool tall glass of circular reasoning. Mmm mmm!
Moderator Action: Please be civil in discussion.leif

And?

It still makes perfect sense to represent the history of Britain as Rome > Norman > Britain.

It's not stupid just because you don't like it.

Lol. A Scandinavian tribe that made a deal to settle in a small portion of Frankish lands (a Germanic Tribe) that had ceased to be Roman territory for well over 400 years makes perfect sense?

Then for them to justify this very tenuous connection with London? The Normans under William the Conqueror invaded England well over 600 years after the Romans had left England.

That's a bit much, sorry.

 

[bv98132454]

Ok. Well, they've changed the "rule" of their fictional universe. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it stupid.

No, see, that's the problem. You don't just get to change the rules. They are ironclad. When creators just start changing/breaking rules when it's convenient, you get Game of Thrones season 8.

 

[Krikkit1]

It's probably easier seeing that from an English or British perspective because London, and many of the surrounding cities, did begin as Roman settlements. Where the possible absurdity comes in is when an Italian person sees the city of Rome, and other Roman cities, turning into Norman and British cities.

Assuming the empire holds on to its capital through the crisis, that may be reasonable…

In any case when There Is a modern Italian civ, It will have a pathway from Rome as well. (Through Normans, HRE, or other civs..Papal states Venice, Byzantium, etc.)

Even though modern Italian cities are just as much conquest and subjugation of Roman cities as modern British/French cities.

A British Roma is no more strange than an Italian Londinium.

 

[Atlas627]

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'm not sure exactly what logic has governed the development of the game, but I'm a disappointed that when they decided to make Civ progression such a central part of the game, that they haven't focused more on choosing Civs based on what's logical progression. Maybe I'm being unfair based on a few weird examples (Egypt > Songhai, Rome > Normans) but they are not making it easy to accept this game feature.

Actually, isn't the point that your civ is rising/taking over from the old civ? So of course the power base wouldn't necessarily be the same core empire. Sometimes it will be (Egypt -> Abbasids) and sometimes it won't (Rome -> Normans). The Normans themselves are representing an outsider group conquering and settling in your lands, then assimilating and eventually surpassing the importance of the old civ, and for whatever reason the old civ declined. So wouldn't it be weirder if they had the same core? You don't have to keep the same core, gameplay-wise, as far as we know.

 

[Mudokon Pop]

Because they have little or a very tenuous connection with each other.

It would be like saying the Turks/Ottomans are the natural successors to the Hittites.

If you want to play from the Italian perspective then yes it's a tenuous connection. If you want to play as the English then it is a tangible connection. Most English cities were once Roman cities.
It's as much about as playing a geographical region as it about playing as an ethnic group.

For the Anatolian region, I've read that Turks are still largely descendant from Anatolian neolithic farmers. The ruling class of the Ottomans were newcomers but the broader population are not.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

No, see, that's the problem. You don't just get to change the rules. They are ironclad. When creators just start changing/breaking rules when it's convenient, you get Game of Thrones season 8.

This makes no sense in relation to a videogame that has no narrative connection with any other videogame.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

It's probably easier seeing that from an English or British perspective because London, and many of the surrounding cities, did begin as Roman settlements. Where the possible absurdity comes in is when an Italian person sees the city of Rome, and other Roman cities, turning into Norman and British cities.

I can accept that, although it basically comes down to the question of whether there are other historical paths for Rome, right? If Florence and modern Italy are in the game, for example, is there still an issue?

 

[brick623]

This game shouldn't be designed around the history of England, which was particularly conquest driven. A more accurate in game representation in Civ VII of that country would be would be starting as Celts (Player 1), getting aqueducted by Romans (Player 2), who then collapse/withdraw about 80 turns later, resettled as Germanics (Player 1 or 3), then bulldozed by the Normans (Player 4?) (Normans themselves of Scandinavian origin), then evolving into what we think of as Britain (but also being conquered in 1688 by the Dutch -Player 5- in what totally wasn't a successful invasion... Rule Britannia). Our history is basically a monster fueled multiplayer game of civ.

What was really good news is Dennis Shirk's answer that the AI prefers the historical evolution. Next I would really like to know how cities are passed over (or not) to the new civ at the era change, and how city naming works in particular. "Rome the capital of the Normans" or "Babylon the capital of Kievan Rus" (I'm speculating) is quite jarring. I'm not sure what a good solution to this is. There's a fantastic Civ 6 mod which addresses this, but I'm not sure whether Firaxis would implement something like that.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

When creators just start changing/breaking rules when it's convenient, you get Game of Thrones season 8.

Does that mean I should like this game, since I liked Season 8?
Nah, I'll stick to GoT Season 8 over Civ 7. I don't think it was that different, though I admit I am probably in the minority.

I can accept that, although it basically comes down to the question of whether there are other historical paths for Rome, right? If Florence and modern Italy are in the game, for example, is there still an issue?

I'm sure there will be, but who knows if it's for the base game. Either way I'm not surprised about the contention based off of the initial reveals, even if Ed himself loved the idea and thought it was great. I'm sure there would be less pushback they went Anglo-Saxons>Normans>Britain's instead of trying to connect them to the Romans on the other side of Europe.

 

[Thormodr]

If you want to play from the Italian perspective then yes it's a tenuous connection. If you want to play as the English then it is a tangible connection. Most English cities were once Roman cities.
It's as much about as playing a geographical region as it about playing as an ethnic group.

For the Anatolian region, I've read that Turks are still largely descendant from Anatolian neolithic farmers. The ruling class of the Ottomans were newcomers but the broader population are not.

I suppose if you went Norway//Angles/Saxons-> Normandy -> England, I could be on board with that.

Yes, that's fair about the Italian perspective being tenuous.

-------

Replace Turks with Armenians and you'd be on to something.

Genetic evidence for an origin of the Armenians from Bronze Age mixing of multiple populations - European Journal of Human Genetics

The Armenians are a culturally isolated population who historically inhabited a region in the Near East bounded by the Mediterranean and Black seas and the Caucasus, but remain under-represented in genetic studies and have a complex history including a major geographic displacement during World...

www.nature.com

Recent studies have shown that Armenians are indigenous to the Armenian Highlands and form a distinct genetic isolate in the region.[5] Analyses of mitochondrial ancient DNA of skeletons from Armenia and Artsakh spanning 7,800 years, including DNA from Neolithic, Bronze Age, Urartian, classical and medieval Armenian skeletons,[6] have revealed that modern Armenians have the least genetic distance to them compared to neighboring peoples such as Turks and Azerbaijani Turks, but followed closely by Georgians. Armenians are also one of the genetic isolates of the Near East who share affinity with the Neolithic farmers who expanded into Europe beginning around 8,000 years ago. There are signs of considerable genetic admixture in Armenians between 3000 BC and 2000 BC but they subside to insignificant levels since 1200 BC, remaining stable until today.

Origin of the Armenians - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Krikkit1]

This game shouldn't be designed around the history of England, which was particularly conquest driven. A more accurate in game representation in Civ VII of that country would be would be starting as Celts (Player 1), getting aqueducted by Romans (Player 2), who then collapse/withdraw about 80 turns later, resettled as Germanics (Player 1 or 3), then bulldozed by the Normans (Player 4?) (Normans themselves of Scandinavian origin), then evolving into what we think of as Britain (but also being conquered in 1688 by the Dutch -Player 5- in what totally wasn't a successful invasion... Rule Britannia). Our history is basically a monster fueled multiplayer game of civ.

What was really good news is Dennis Shirk's answer that the AI prefers the historical evolution. Next I would really like to know how cities are passed over (or not) to the new civ at the era change, and how city naming works in particular. "Rome the capital of the Normans" or "Babylon the capital of Kievan Rus" (I'm speculating) is quite jarring. I'm not sure what a good solution to this is. There's a fantastic Civ 6 mod which addresses this, but I'm not sure whether Firaxis would implement something like that.

They talked about moving your capital. I imagine in the transition you get a free move of the capital and a “do you want to rename it”

So maybe Rome gets Renamed to London, or maybe Cumae does, or maybe they jeep their name as British capitals (player choice, AI should probably default change the new capital name)