I played the [pick 30+1 civs mindgame] ... and it made me forgive the developers a bit for some of their choices

[Evie]

I think in fairness it was less Spain specifically and more the idea that existing European nations may not be in modern that upset certain fans of European civs. Spain was just the point where they discovered the possibility.

 

[j51]

Got it. Yeah I think they should call it Castile for accuracy, but I also don’t think Spain should be a modern era civ unless there are like 50+ civs in the modern era. Modern Spain is more an IP imo. I thought you meant like people on Reddit or YouTube were flipping out for some reason lol.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

It's probably for the better that they refer themselves only to properly moderated spaces for feedback; I saw the youtube live chat when the first gameplay trailer premiered, and those comments were utterly vile.

Also no, I don't think players who want more inclusiveness & diversity are over-represented in the voices the devs listen to, at least not enough that it matters. And I wasn't suggesting the devs aren't listening to "patriotic" players enough. In case you couldn't tell, I don't have particularly positive opinions about nationalism as a concept (even when it's called "patriotism", it's still tribalism at an institutional level), and I would honestly love to see a 4X game that properly explores the themes of nationalism and its potential consequences. The game I can think of that probably has gotten closest to that, must be Stellaris; I've seen very few games be so frank about how the logical extreme of "loving your country" basically means the enslavement and/or genocide of anyone considered not belonging to said country.

Anyway, my complaint isn't that there's too much focus on "new diverse options" like the Mississippians. My complaint is that there's too much focus on the leaders. I'm of the minority opinion that leaders should've been ditched altogether, that each civ should've been identified through its architecture, music, cuisine etc, rather than a political and/or spiritual figurehead, whose inclusion I think only reinforces the tired old myth about history supposedly being shaped solely by a small number of individuals at the top of the food chain

Totally agreed on the leaders. Functionally useless IMO, I skip the leader screen animation wherever possible and would prefer much more diversity of appearance on the map screen you interact with the most

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

I agree with both this and Firaxis' opinion that the old civ design was too focussed on one age, leading to awkward design.

I wonder how the community would have responded if they instead went for the "alternative history" route of adding fully fledgling each civ to work from antiquity to modern time. Like adding some unique antique units to modern civs, and some modern units to ancient ones. Like a unique jet fighter for Aztecs.

Although, maybe an easier way to proceed would be to reduce the impact of unique units/buildings, and instead focus on giving to each civ a different unique ability for each age.

That's a cool idea! But do think about the work involved about how many units would have to be done. You're asking now not for one model or a variety of models but now x number (where x = the numbers of civs total in the game, regardless of time period).

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

That's a cool idea! But do think about the work involved about how many units would have to be done. You're asking now not for one model or a variety of models but now x number (where x = the numbers of civs total in the game, regardless of time period).

But that's just the same as the equivalent number of era specific civs. If you made 10 all era civs, how would that be resourced different to the current 30 individual ones?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think in fairness it was less Spain specifically and more the idea that existing European nations may not be in modern that upset certain fans of European civs. Spain was just the point where they discovered the possibility.

It was bound to happen eventually, especially when Portugal will be inevitably shown. I can't see them going with Modern Portugal. The Dutch, however, I could see arguments for being in both ages.

Got it. Yeah I think they should call it Castile for accuracy, but I also don’t think Spain should be a modern era civ unless there are like 50+ civs in the modern era. Modern Spain is more an IP imo. I thought you meant like people on Reddit or YouTube were flipping out for some reason lol.

I don't mind using the name Spain at all, considering that's how it's been portrayed and called every other game. I also wouldn't care for Modern Spain either, so I wouldn't necessarily see the point in renaming it to Castille, if Modern Spain wouldn't even exist.

 

[gdr_willter]

But that's just the same as the equivalent number of era specific civs. If you made 10 all era civs, how would that be resourced different to the current 30 individual ones?

I'm sure about that 10 all-age civs are even worse than 3x10 age-dependent civs for replayability. Age-dependent civs are the base idea of Civ 7, so it's useless to deny it unless you deny Civ 7 itself... Well I remember you did it in the other thread. Why are you so argueing so hard about the game you gived up? just let Civ 7 go from your mind.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

But that's just the same as the equivalent number of era specific civs. If you made 10 all era civs, how would that be resourced different to the current 30 individual ones?

True, if we only had 10 civs in the game and did not have age transition, then the workload would be roughly the same. But you'd only get 10 civs!

 

[Xandinho]

They might still rename Spain to Castile somehow and add a modern Spain. But honestly, I don’t think that will happen. I’m not even confident that France or England will get more versions of themselves either.

 

[Evie]

I'm not even sure about including Portugal at all, with Spain firmly occuoying the colonial superpower slot in the Exploration age, and Spain/Portugal basically wanting all the same ancient civs as in-paths (if the Goths have to cover both of these, not so many options left). I'm still working on figuring that one.

Brazil in modern is a pretty necessary one, though..

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm not even sure about including Portugal at all, with Spain firmly occuoying the colonial superpower slot in the Exploration age, and Spain/Portugal basically wanting all the same ancient civs as in-paths.

Brazil in modern is a pretty unnnacoidable one, though..

It will probably be late game DLC/expansion material, but I'd be surprised if it doesn't eventually get in. I feel like they've made Feitorias unique enough in past games that they could make them unique again in this game, such as only being to build them in Distant lands etc.
And yes, Brazil will presumably need some civ to come from.

 

[Siptah]

It will probably be late game DLC/expansion material, but I'd be surprised if it doesn't eventually get in. I feel like they've made Feitorias unique enough in past games that they could make them unique again in this game, such as only being to build them in Distant lands etc.
And yes, Brazil will presumably need some civ to go into.

Brazil will be modern, no?
It will come from the Inca, maybe Caribs if we ever get such a civ. I don‘t see Tupi or Guarani, honestly. And of course, it cloud plausibly come from Portugal or the Dutch.

 

[Xandinho]

I think it’s almost impossible for them not to include Portugal at some point. It’s always a very popular fan request and highly iconic for the Age of Exploration. Portugal and Spain have never had redundant designs; they’ve always played quite distinctly.

Without Portugal, Brazil would have to come from the Incas (as much as I’d love to see them, I don’t think Guarani, Tupi, or Xingus are likely). I believe Brazil will appear before Portugal anyway, so we’d have Inca > Brazil, as strange as that might seem.

 

[Evie]

Yeah, desiggn could be made different, it's mostly the in-path problem that has me tearing hair - do I just have multiple germanic tribes so the Goths can be both Spain and Portugal? What aboiut the Gaul/Celt/Iberian? Carthage? The Romans? There are zero civs that only fit one of them, and nearly all the civs that fit both of them also want tomoead to half a dozen other civs.

And yeah, with Mexico in the game for Spanish colonials, I fully anticipate Inca>Brazil will happen. Hopefully we'll also have a late game SA native civ so something like Inca>Mapuche is also possible.

 

[Evolena]

I think to some extent, Firaxis and civ players (or at least, a vocal portion of the fanbase) have very different ideas of what the game series' core principles are. Most important in this discussion, I feel is the conception of exactly who you play as; do you play as the nation-state, or the head of state? FXS constantly talk about the games and market them as if you're playing as Gandhi, Lincoln or Napoleon, but I'm certain most players approach the game to play as India, America or France.

Indeed, and in Civ 6 saves are named after the leader too.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think both exploration age Portugal and modern age Brazil will be in the game eventually. Brazil could even come in Right to Rule.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Brazil will be modern, no?

Yes. I fixed it. I meant to say, it needs a civ to "come from".

 

[Siptah]

Yeah, desiggn could be made different, it's mostly the in-path problem that has me tearing hair - do I just have multiple germanic tribes so the Goths can be both Spain and Portugal? What aboiut the Gaul/Celt/Iberian? Carthage? The Romans? There are zero civs that only fit one of them, and nearly all the civs that fit both of them also want tomoead to half a dozen other civs.

And yeah, with Mexico in the game for Spanish colonials, I fully anticipate Inca>Brazil will happen. Hopefully we'll also have a late game SA native civ so something like Inca>Mapuche is also possible.

I think both Spain and a potential Portugal will often come from Aksum or a potential Phoenicia. Or Tonga, if it ever happens.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

True, if we only had 10 civs in the game and did not have age transition, then the workload would be roughly the same. But you'd only get 10 civs!

We already only have 10 civs - in your words, the work that has been done is equivalent to that.

The real question is why your team has decided that's an appropriate resource allocation when work wise its equivalent to, in your own words, "only 10 civs"

Apologies for my directness, but I do find it quite falling that you can say this and simultaneously your colleague at the PAX stream can boast about the "most civs ever". This is politician word mincing to have your cake and eat it

 

[Xandinho]

It will come from the Inca, maybe Caribs if we ever get such a civ. I don‘t see Tupi or Guarani, honestly. And of course, it cloud plausibly come from Portugal or the Dutch.

Thinking about it, I don't think it's absurd for Brazil to come from Spain too, until Portugal is included. Dutch also make some sense.