Historical paths problem

[bv98132454]

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?

I don't believe their plan is to say, "Hey, you were invaded in the few hundred years we took control away from you. Now your Egyptian civilization is Songhai, enjoy." No, they're selling it as some sort of transition as the result of a nebulous "crisis."

If the goal was to simulate history in any way, Egypt -> Songhai would not be the historical option.

Just admit that this is no more historically accurate than the previous system (which worked for three decades) and perhaps is less accurate in many ways.

 

[pokiehl]

If the goal was to simulate history in any way, Egypt -> Songhai would not be the historical option.

They never said it was.

 

[8housesofelixir]

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?

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?

 

[aieeegrunt]

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.

It’s no longer a Civ game in my view because the core identity is gone, like Fallout 76 taking a single player RPG and making it an online PvP, or Halo Infinite taking a story driven corridor shooter and making it an open world “We have Far Cry at home”

It basicall a scenario generator. I mean it might buck the trend of “not staying in your lane = train wreck” and be a good game.

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?

I’d greatly preferr this happening organically as part of a sandbox, but that takes a lot more work than Dev Ex Machina hitting an apocalypse button.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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.

So far by "regional pathways" it seems to cover most of Africa. If a "regional pathway" was more along the lines of Ghana>Mali>Songhai as West Africa it would be a lot clearer.

 

[The_J]

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

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

Maybe later expansion can add that

1724188274270.png

• TheMarshmallowBear
• Aug 20, 2024

So.... there is at least in one case more than one "historical" path .
Nobody says though that everyone will get 2, everyone will get more than 1, or that this will be equal and balanced for everyone.
Many civs might only have one historical choice, some might have 2, and only a few might have 3 (or whatever number). Totally a possibility.

 

[bv98132454]

They never said it was.

Read his comment that I was responding to.

 

[pokiehl]

So far by "regional pathways" it seems to cover most of Africa. If a "regional pathway" was more along the lines of Ghana>Mali>Songhai as West Africa it would be a lot clearer.

Yeah but those would be the credible historical pathways…which kind of makes the entire idea of regional pathways moot.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

I don't believe their plan is to say, "Hey, you were invaded in the few hundred years we took control away from you. Now your Egyptian civilization is Songhai, enjoy." No, they're selling it as some sort of transition as the result of a nebulous "crisis."

If the goal was to simulate history in any way, Egypt -> Songhai would not be the historical option.

Just admit that this is no more historically accurate than the previous system (which worked for three decades) and perhaps is less accurate in many ways.

I agree, it's no less historically accurate. It's just another way to play the game. If switching had been a thing since Civ I and then they decided it was better idea to stand the test of time we would still be having this debate.

 

[Razpor]

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 unified India until the independence movement.

And “Bhar

Then why was it mentioned in Rig veda,not to forget Mahabharata,and later used in mauryan era. Bharatvarsha >> bharat,maybe you are confusing these two,to suggest Bharat is a contemporary concept is obviously untrue.

उत्तरं यत्समुद्रस्य हिमाद्रेश्चैव दक्षिणम् । वर्षं तद् भारतं नाम भारती यत्र संततिः ।।

(Vishnu Purana – II, 3.1)
'The Country that lies north of the ocean and south of the Himālaya is called Bhārata, there dwell the descendants of Bharata ”
-------
this is from vishnu purana

“India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” is literally in the indian constitution.

You are Mixing modern polictics with the history which is understandable after all thats what always happens,but at the same time blanket statements like "its a modern word with no links to antiquity" is obviously untrue.

 

[bv98132454]

I agree, it's no less historically accurate. It's just another way to play the game. If switching had been a thing since Civ I and then they decided it was better idea to stand the test of time we would still be having this debate.

Yes, because it would be changing the core identity of the game like they are doing here.

 

[Razpor]

1724188274270.png

• TheMarshmallowBear
• Aug 20, 2024

So.... there is at least in one case more than one "historical" path .
Nobody says though that everyone will get 2, everyone will get more than 1, or that this will be equal and balanced for everyone.
Many civs might only have one historical choice, some might have 2, and only a few might have 3 (or whatever number). Totally a possibility.

That opens up possibilities for a lot of dlcs

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yeah but those would be the credible historical pathways…which kind of makes the entire idea of regional pathways moot.

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.

 

[The_J]

That opens up possibilities for a lot of dlcs

You may bet your grandma on that.
Pretty sure we'll get an interesting selection, and potentially very nicely themed packs.

 

[Razpor]

I don't believe their plan is to say, "Hey, you were invaded in the few hundred years we took control away from you. Now your Egyptian civilization is Songhai, enjoy." No, they're selling it as some sort of transition as the result of a nebulous "crisis."

If the goal was to simulate history in any way, Egypt -> Songhai would not be the historical option.

Just admit that this is no more historically accurate than the previous system (which worked for three decades) and perhaps is less accurate in many ways.

agreed its obviously just as historically inaccurate as the last games while being more immersion breaking. This mechanic solves little.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

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.

I particularly like the regional pathways.
America is definitely going to be a Modern Age Civ. Who knows what Exploration Age Civ will be its historical antecedent in the base game? Normans? Anglo-Saxons? Not the English, who will likely be Modern Age themselves.

Regardless of which Western European civ is the main path to America, it will leave America and most of its main cities on the Old World continent. Evolving America from the Mississippi and Shawnee, despite Amerindian civs having negligible influence and impact on modern American culture, places America properly on the New World

 

[bv98132454]

agreed its obviously just as historically inaccurate as the last games while being more immersion breaking. This mechanic solves little.

It creates more problems than it's worth, and everything it "solves" could have been done in far more inoffensive ways.

 

[pokiehl]

Then why was it mentioned in Rig veda,not to forget Mahabharata,and later used in mauryan era. Bharatvarsha >> bharat,maybe you are confusing these two,to suggest Bharat is a contemporary concept is obviously untrue.

उत्तरं यत्समुद्रस्य हिमाद्रेश्चैव दक्षिणम् । वर्षं तद् भारतं नाम भारती यत्र संततिः ।।

(Vishnu Purana – II, 3.1)
'The Country that lies north of the ocean and south of the Himālaya is called Bhārata, there dwell the descendants of Bharata ”
-------
this is from vishnu purana

“India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” is literally in the indian constitution.

You are Mixing modern polictics with the history which is understandable after all thats what always happens,but at the same time blanket statements like "its a modern word with no links to antiquity" is obviously untrue.

I think you may have misunderstood me. Yes, "Bharat" is an old Sanskrit word.

But "Bharat" was never used to describe this overarching concept of a culturally and politically unified Indian subcontinent, especially by non-Hindus or speakers of languages not derived from Sanskrit. This idea didn't exist until the time of British colonial rule and the drive for independence. "Bharat" emerges as a political concept in the 1800s. It was even perceived as divisive then. And yes, you're right, today it's extremely divisive and politically charged. It shouldn't be used in Civ.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

Yes, because it would be changing the core identity of the game like they are doing here.

How would you propose solving the "problem" that most play throughs aren't completed and make the game more engaging?

 

[pokiehl]

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.

My understanding is they were separate. On the Q&A panel they definitely mentioned 3 general pathways and then got into historical and regional. I interpreted it as:

Historical
Regional
Gameplay (like "Get 3 horses for Mongolia")