Historical paths problem

[Siptah]

I think it will be important to have many civs that have good routes to quite a lot of other civs to keep the switching interesting. If an Indian civ always leads to Indian civ, and Chinese always leads to the next Chinese dynasty, the mechanic and possibilities are wasted. Hence, I think Mughals are great, because they are also a logical follow up for any Persians or Mongols (or a hypothetical Timurid or other central Asian civ). I guess Chola can branch off to SEA easily, and can be chosen from Khmer in vanilla. The biggest mistake, at least from my perspective, would be to allude to a monolithic cultural or regional concept, and allow any purely linear paths that never branch off or can be joined from the side. It would also make the game much, much more boring and repetitive.

 

[Razpor]

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. 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.

i literally just gave you a qoute from vishnu purana describing the extent of the region and its features ,so obviously the civilizational idea existed ,you are welcome to read up a bit on it. If you are trying to think of it from a european nation state lens,that obviosly wont hold up,cause nation state is not really an Indian concept.

also i rather not mix historical terms with modern contemporary polictics ,and as u can see from my reply i have only used historical concept.

 

[moondog385]

I see no reason Rome couldn’t evolve into Byzantium or some civ other than the Normans later on down the line. Everything isn’t going to be perfect in the base game.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

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'd say it's both an attempt to solve a number of lingering gameplay issues with Civ (fun start to the game / boring endgame, explosion of micromanagement as your empire expands, etc.) and to implement a rise-and-fall mechanic. How "nebulous" the crisis system will be and fun it will be to play is yet to be seen.

The actual empires/cultures represented by "civilizations" did not, not any of them, last from the dawn of history to the space age. To me, that's mostly what the civ-switching offers, a chance to recognize the evolution of human cultures and empires, and how new ones arise that build upon, and incorporate aspects of, the ones that came before them.

To my mind, the goal should not be to simulate history, but to offer historically-realistic options that reflect the alternate history unfolding each time you play. So I, personally, dislike the shoe-horning that Chola can always lead to Mughals, but I get it from a marketing perspective. Over time, we'll have so many DLCs that I suspect, 5 years from now, anyone who wants to play only real world maps and see only real world historical transitions will be able to play that way. Personally, I'd prefer to see the new civ each age be a reflection of what happened to your prior civ rather than a historically-determined choice, but that's just me.

And no, in no way shape or form is this system less historically accurate than Civ games that had zero new human cultures/civilizations arise over the course of history.

 

[bv98132454]

The actual empires/cultures represented by "civilizations" did not, not any of them, last from the dawn of history to the space age.

Yes, because they were invaded/subjugated. That's my point.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

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

I just completely disagree.

And that's fine, it obviously won't be for everyone. If Civ VII is too much of a departure for some of the fanbase, that is the price of change. I'm just glad they're doing something different.

 

[bv98132454]

I just completely disagree.

And that's fine, it obviously won't be for everyone. If Civ VII is too much of a departure for some of the fanbase, that is the price of change. I'm just glad they're doing something different.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that this game won't be for me. I fundamentally disagree with about 90% of the the new changes I've seen.

 

[Leyrann]

Yes, because they were invaded/subjugated. That's my point.

Like what happens in the crises?

We already know that barbarian invasions are one possible crisis. I wouldn't be surprised if conquest by a foreign power is another, or perhaps even a civilization being conquered in one age might return in the next, with the conquest being their crisis. And then there's other crises, such as disease (look at how the Black Death ravaged Europe... that caused a ton of power changes, some immediate, some over time), decentralization leading to empires falling apart (e.g. the Holy Roman Empire as direct or indirect predecessor of modern France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Switzerland), and so on.

Crisis is literally just the general term Firaxis is using for the various ways in which civilizations end that you're talking about.

 

[bv98132454]

Like what happens in the crises?

We already know that barbarian invasions are one possible crisis. I wouldn't be surprised if conquest by a foreign power is another, or perhaps even a civilization being conquered in one age might return in the next, with the conquest being their crisis. And then there's other crises, such as disease (look at how the Black Death ravaged Europe... that caused a ton of power changes, some immediate, some over time), decentralization leading to empires falling apart (e.g. the Holy Roman Empire as direct or indirect predecessor of modern France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Switzerland), and so on.

Crisis is literally just the general term Firaxis is using for the various ways in which civilizations end that you're talking about.

No, that's not how they're portraying it, and you'd know that if you had been paying attention to what Firaxis is saying, rather than trying to rationalize it. Just yesterday, they made it very clear that it's the result of the civ making choices (i.e. what if Egypt developed a strong horse culture, etc.).

 

[Leyrann]

No, that's not how they're portraying it, and you'd know that if you had been paying attention to what Firaxis is saying, rather than trying to rationalize it. Just yesterday, they made it very clear that it's the result of the civ making choices (i.e. what if Egypt developed a strong horse culture, etc.).

No, the civ transition is the result of the civ making choices. The crises are not a result of that. The civ transition is what happens after the crisis.

 

[bv98132454]

No, the civ transition is the result of the civ making choices. The crises are not a result of that. The civ transition is what happens after the crisis.

Ok, so that's even worse in my view. The civ doesn't even change as a result of a nebulous crisis, it just decided to transition.

Again, you can like this mechanic. I hate it. But let's not pretend it's more historical than what existed before and may be less so in many ways.

 

[leif erikson]

Like what happens in the crises?

We already know that barbarian invasions are one possible crisis. I wouldn't be surprised if conquest by a foreign power is another, or perhaps even a civilization being conquered in one age might return in the next, with the conquest being their crisis. And then there's other crises, such as disease (look at how the Black Death ravaged Europe... that caused a ton of power changes, some immediate, some over time), decentralization leading to empires falling apart (e.g. the Holy Roman Empire as direct or indirect predecessor of modern France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Switzerland), and so on.

Crisis is literally just the general term Firaxis is using for the various ways in which civilizations end that you're talking about.

No, the civ transition is the result of the civ making choices. The crises are not a result of that. The civ transition is what happens after the crisis.

This is what I heard as well.

 

[Leyrann]

Ok, so that's even worse in my view. The civ doesn't even change as a result of a nebulous crisis, it just decided to transition.

Again, you can like this mechanic. I hate it. But let's not pretend it's more historical than what existed before and may be less so in many ways.

You seem extremely determined to me to take the absolute worst interpretation you possibly can, without regard for the plausibility or validity of that interpretation.

The civ changes as a result of the crisis, which is one of various civilization-shaking events that you want to see, and it changes in a way influenced by it's past achievements.

 

[Razpor]

Yeah, it's pretty clear that this game won't be for me. I fundamentally disagree with about 90% of the the new changes I've seen.

Same .

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

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

Hm, I'm not sure this makes sense. Why would FXS tie themselves up in knots trying to determine "the most historical of the historical paths", rather than just allowing each AI civ to pick one of the available historical paths at random?

 

[Mudokon Pop]

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.

The word nation actually precedes the concept of a nation state - it originally referred to what we now call ethnic groups (ethnic group is a term which is very recent). Think of the First Nations in Canada for example. Over time the word nation becomes associated with a State (from the French Revolution onwards). I can see how my post came across but nation also refers to a people with a common language or culture. It's a fairly obscure meaning now so apologies for the confusion.

nation - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.wiktionary.org

As for the Mughals - I'm aware they are Turks but they migrated from what is now Iran (as far as I know) which is what I was referring to.

 

[Razpor]

Mughals in modern era really doesn't make sense since they were a fading power in 1700s,they would have made more sense as a exploration era civ,an option other than cholas.

Modern era has been expanded way too much & needs to be divided into atleast two.

 

[pokiehl]

Modern era Mughals is really exciting to me. The Maurya—> Chola —> Mughal path is cool and I’m excited for other historical powers like the Mughals in the modern age.

 

[Razpor]

Modern era Mughals is really exciting to me. The Maurya—> Chola —> Mughal path is cool and I’m excited for other historical powers like the Mughals in the modern age.

Yeah but historically they make more sense as an exploration era civ.
Modern era is stretched , there should be an early modern era from 1300-1700 and later modern era 1700 ---
This all feels off and not very engaging or accurate.

 

[kaspergm]

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.