Ideas for Korea

[JaeChunDaeSung]

At the bare minimum, before digging too deep, I've been speculating how Korea could be represented, and this is what I have.

For Antiquity, Unified Silla. For Exploration, either Goryeo, or Joseon. Here's where it gets tricky. Assuming that not all major countries are going to get cultures for each era, my original theory was that the Joseon (Yi) Dynasty would be an Exploration or Modern Era culture.

Exploration would make sense for the time frame in which the dynasty came into being, and its seminal event, the Imjin Wars. On the other hand, the fact the dynasty lasted through rough times only to be annexed in 1910, would give me credence to the possibility of being a Modern Era culture, especially to stand alongside Meiji Period Japan and Qing Dynasty China.

The other reason I speculate Modern representation as Joseon is because the game is giving players agency to shape civs in a way different from actual history. Hence why India and China are not represented ingame by their "modern name," but by their prominent peak eras before historic events (colonization, conquest, subjugation, etc.) influenced and molded them into the countries we know them as in the real world, giving Civ7 creative license to identify and build their cultural and national identity without real life politics, ideology, and circumstance clouding or determining how they exist and can be represented ingame.

 

[Evie]

Your expectations is probably correct: not all major countries are going to get cultures for each era. The China treatment is almost certainly going to be the exception, not the rule ; I personally expect it to remain really rare. (As in, I think Persia might get three eventually. Japan probably will get at least two because western video gamers like samurai and Meiji is not known for having Samurai, and Roime will likely have Byzantium eventually, But I would not expect any other particular civilization to have more than one age in the game.

Given Korean isolation and decline in the later timeline I think there is a strong case for Korea appearing only in Exploration, or if they get two then in Ancient and Exploration though determining which civilizations can replace it for the final age is a delicate question - I would rather imagine that Joseon becoming Meiji Japan would not go down too well.

I do agree with your assessment however that if Korea *were* to have three civilizations, then Joseon has to be in the last spot, leaving Goryeo to take the exploration spot. I'm not satisfied with that - Admiral Yi feels like he belongs in the Exploration era! - but I don'T see how else to do it.

 

[BK_PEARL]

I wonder if starting age starts from China, then later age move to Korea and Japan?

 

[notNamed]

You're discussing these as if it really mattered what they called them.
It's "the science civ". The naming is not important and the age is decided by which point of the game you feel like putting the dedicated science civ into.
Everything else will be hammered out as necessary to fit into that mold. Like Civ6's Hwarang, a science bonus.

East Asia in Civ is currently China, Japan, Science and Fortunate Son. And I don't expect we'll see this changing in 7.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I personally think Korea, or at least Joseon Korea, will be Modern Age no matter what.
Yes, it was founded in what would be the Exploration Age in game, but I don't really see the "Hermit Kingdom" fitting that theme.
As far as the Imjin Wars go, the Geobukseon are compared to being an early form of the ironclad. Considering an ironclad would most likely be in the Modern Age, that's where I'd put it.

 

[notNamed]

As far as the Imjin Wars go, the Geobukseon are compared to being an early form of the ironclad. Considering an ironclad would most likely be in the Modern Age, that's where I'd put it.

Chu-ko-nu has also been compared to a machine gun, should Han be Modern Age as well?
Turtle ships of Joseon had no iron plating. It gets even sillier because the main Japanese ships invading them did.

The obvious problem is that ironclads are just an early graphic of a battleship. You can't have Iowas exchanging fire with a wooden, oar-powered vessel. Korea did not build any dreadnaughts or large battery battleships during the time these things were in vogue as they were a part of the Japanese Empire. And the modern state has more of a Coast Guard equivalent than an expensive (and to South Korea, completely useless) navy with all the bells and whistles.

 

[gdr_willter]

Here is my previous post about the idea for the Korean Civs:

Korean Civs and Leaders in Civ VII

Hi, I'm a Korean Civ Fan who looking forward to see more informations about upcoming Civ 7. I heared a rumor that there is the Emile Bell wonder in the game, and I also heared some concern that the Antiquity Silla may have its historical route toward Japan, China, or Mongolia. I'm hoping Silla...

forums.civfanatics.com

In very biased point of view from my home country ( Korea ), I think the Korean history has much potential to be enjoyable Civs in the game. Silla-Goryeo-Joseon histories are well documented, and it allows them to be enoughly unique with their own in-game concepts.

I wrote that idea thread way before than when the Exploration Age streaming was released so I want to fix some points for now, but the main ideas for each Civ are still available. Based on the defensive features through the all Ages, I set Silla as the early expansionnist and tradition unlocker, Goryeo as the diplomat and trader, and Joseon as the farmer and specialist lover. The last one is rather the tribute for the Korean Civs from the previous Civ franchise tho, but I think it’s a good way to make Joseon fit in the Modern Age.



Anyway, my biggest concern is the possibility of the partial release of one or two Korean Civ(s). You know, in Korea, the Japanese colonial era is the national trauma and nobody think the problem of it does ended yet, and the attempt of China to make Korean history to Chinese one is the huge historical/diplomatic issue that cause the significant hatred for China. These all are the live issues.

So if FXS decides to make Joseon as the only Korean Civ, and place it on the Exploration Age as the partner of Ming... it is technically reasonable choice, but it will be the disaster for the Korean gamers. It's extremely unacceptable way that the Korean Civ comes out from the Antiquity China Civ and heads toward the Modern Meiji Japan Civ, unless they are just possible alternative routes beside the proper Korean Civs. This China-Korea-Japan structure directly reminds the historical issues IRL I told above.

I personally will play it if the game is fun, but I don't want to be a literal spy who have to hide what game I play for my friends to avoid their nationalistic wrath. And I think Korean history deserves enough to expect 3 Civs, but in the long term point of view.

I consider (rather hope) Civ 7 will finally have the largest Civ list for each Age and the most of Civs in there will get more various routes (including the pathway regarded as the most national one) than the base game. I hope Korean Civs will be released late enough to have a room for 3 at the same time.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I would like to see Balhae in Antiquity

 

[Geminus Leonem]

Your expectations is probably correct: not all major countries are going to get cultures for each era. The China treatment is almost certainly going to be the exception, not the rule ; I personally expect it to remain really rare. (As in, I think Persia might get three eventually. Japan probably will get at least two because western video gamers like samurai and Meiji is not known for having Samurai, and Roime will likely have Byzantium eventually, But I would not expect any other particular civilization to have more than one age in the game.

Given Korean isolation and decline in the later timeline I think there is a strong case for Korea appearing only in Exploration, or if they get two then in Ancient and Exploration though determining which civilizations can replace it for the final age is a delicate question - I would rather imagine that Joseon becoming Meiji Japan would not go down too well.

I do agree with your assessment however that if Korea *were* to have three civilizations, then Joseon has to be in the last spot, leaving Goryeo to take the exploration spot. I'm not satisfied with that - Admiral Yi feels like he belongs in the Exploration era! - but I don'T see how else to do it.

I don't really get where this idea that the China/India treatment being somehow special has spread from but I still find it a bit mental. There's only so many civs to make dlcs of when you are making 4 civs per leader before you have the inevitable Yamato-Edo-Meiji line.

Regarding Korea, it would depend on how Firaxis deals with the modern period. Silla-Joseon-Korea could work depending on how things pan out.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think
Silla->Goryeo/Ming
(diplomacy/culture/expansion)
Silla/Han->Goryeo->Joseon/Meijii
(trade/religion/conquest)
Goryeo/Mongol->Joseon
(culture/science/isolation)

 

[HktkNban]

It makes sense for the Han to evolve and turn into the Goryeo or Yi dynasty.
The Han dynasty (ancient China) is the East Asian version of the Roman Empire.

Just as all modern European countries are culturally influenced by the Roman Empire and can be considered successors to ancient Roman civilization, all modern East Asian countries are similarly influenced by the Han dynasty and can be seen as successors to ancient Chinese civilization.

 

[Krajzen]

Your expectations is probably correct: not all major countries are going to get cultures for each era. The China treatment is almost certainly going to be the exception, not the rule ; I personally expect it to remain really rare. (As in, I think Persia might get three eventually. Japan probably will get at least two because western video gamers like samurai and Meiji is not known for having Samurai, and Roime will likely have Byzantium eventually, But I would not expect any other particular civilization to have more than one age in the game.

Hmm... I think it depends on the country - how rich and diverse its history was, and the "coolness" factor. China and India obviously had to get splits due to their size, and actually I wouldn't be surprised if they got even more civs in the future - honestly their gargantuan histories justify that. In particular I expect to see modern India with Gandhi (sigh, though at least he'd fit civ7 leader system) as some very late DLC.

I agree with you regarding Japan - especially as Meiji Japan is explicitly called Meiji Japan, not just "Japan". I expect Japan to get exactly two civs, with the historical progression of Han/Silla -> samurai Japan -> Meiji Japan - because as much as I'd enjoy to see the exotic entity of ancient Japan, it was admittedly fairly obscure and very weakly developed (writing only began in the early 6th century AD, for example), owing centuries of its initial development to the transfer of well everything from China via Korea, so it would save one slot for some other civ while being historical. That being said, I'd still get excited over ancient Yamato/Kofun Japan of shamans, mounds etc.

As for Korea, I have no idea. I'd certainly enjoy them having at least two civs. Similarly to Japan, I wanted to point out the possibility of us getting progression Han China -> Silla or Goryeo -> Joseon, as it saves one civ slot while being broadly historical and feeling ok, even though ancient Korean history was more complex than Japanese and would warrant full line of Silla -> Goryeo -> Joseon.

There is one more civilization (or rather "civilization") which I think is extremely likely to get split into many civs: Arabia. I mean, Arabs have two millenia of both pre-Islamic (say Nabateans) and Islamic history split over a ton of subcultures and nation states, so you can divide it ad infinitum into diverse and interesting civilizations. My personal favourites here are Nabateans, Umayyads (almost the only way to put Syria into the driver seat, with Damascus as the capital), and islamic Egypt from era II and era III (finally, after decades of only existing as ancient civ or Saladin's realm).

Other than that I think it is probable we get era II or era III Ethiopia, England or Anglo-Saxons as opposed to Britain, Franks/Carolingians, modern Italy and some random era II Italian state, because in those cases it is easy to brand those well liked civs as something very different from their other cousin.

I would also LOVE to see Persia split into two if not three civs (Achaemenids -> Samanids? -> Safavids, or Ach -> Sasanians -> Safavids) but here I'm worrying if we truly gonna get it, seeing how Firaxis not only missed opportunity to replace Achaemenids cliche with Arsacid or Sasanian ancient Persia but also named Xerxes' civ "Persia"

 

[gdr_willter]

Hmm... I think it depends on the country - how rich and diverse its history was, and the "coolness" factor. China and India obviously had to get splits due to their size, and actually I wouldn't be surprised if they got even more civs in the future - honestly their gargantuan histories justify that. In particular I expect to see modern India with Gandhi (sigh, though at least he'd fit civ7 leader system) as some very late DLC.

I agree with you regarding Japan - especially as Meiji Japan is explicitly called Meiji Japan, not just "Japan". I expect Japan to get exactly two civs, with the historical progression of Han/Silla -> samurai Japan -> Meiji Japan - because as much as I'd enjoy to see the exotic entity of ancient Japan, it was admittedly fairly obscure and very weakly developed (writing only began in the early 6th century AD, for example), owing centuries of its initial development to the transfer of well everything from China via Korea, so it would save one slot for some other civ while being historical. That being said, I'd still get excited over ancient Yamato/Kofun Japan of shamans, mounds etc.

As for Korea, I have no idea. I'd certainly enjoy them having at least two civs. Similarly to Japan, I wanted to point out the possibility of us getting progression Han China -> Silla or Goryeo -> Joseon, as it saves one civ slot while being broadly historical and feeling ok, even though ancient Korean history was more complex than Japanese and would warrant full line of Silla -> Goryeo -> Joseon.

There is one more civilization (or rather "civilization") which I think is extremely likely to get split into many civs: Arabia. I mean, Arabs have two millenia of both pre-Islamic (say Nabateans) and Islamic history split over a ton of subcultures and nation states, so you can divide it ad infinitum into diverse and interesting civilizations. My personal favourites here are Nabateans, Umayyads (almost the only way to put Syria into the driver seat, with Damascus as the capital), and islamic Egypt from era II and era III (finally, after decades of only existing as ancient civ or Saladin's realm).

Other than that I think it is probable we get era II or era III Ethiopia, England or Anglo-Saxons as opposed to Britain, Franks/Carolingians, modern Italy and some random era II Italian state, because in those cases it is easy to brand those well liked civs as something very different from their other cousin.

I would also LOVE to see Persia split into two if not three civs (Achaemenids -> Samanids? -> Safavids, or Ach -> Sasanians -> Safavids) but here I'm worrying if we truly gonna get it, seeing how Firaxis not only missed opportunity to replace Achaemenids cliche with Arsacid or Sasanian ancient Persia but also named Xerxes' civ "Persia"

You mainly got a good point in general, but I think Antiquity Han -> Exploration Silla can't be happened because we know there is thier Emile Bell as the Antiquity wonder.

 

[Krikkit1]

About 3 civ splits, I think that is not either some standard or exception.

I fully expect China to have a 4th or 5th civ (Song, Jin, etc.) (even if you don’t count Mongolia as a 4th Chinese civ already)
I wouldn’t be surprised for the same for India either.

Many DLC civs may come in packs of 2 where one unlocks the other.

 

[UWHabs]

I don't really get where this idea that the China/India treatment being somehow special has spread from but I still find it a bit mental. There's only so many civs to make dlcs of when you are making 4 civs per leader before you have the inevitable Yamato-Edo-Meiji line.

Regarding Korea, it would depend on how Firaxis deals with the modern period. Silla-Joseon-Korea could work depending on how things pan out.

China, India, and Japan are the only 3 civs I expect to have a true direct line spanning all 3 eras. There's enough empires and areas of the map without that much representation that I fully expect them to fill in some of those spots rather than add a 2nd or 3rd Korean civ, for example. There will be some exceptions - I'm sure if they found some nice unique way to handle the 2nd iteration of a civ, or if that second variation of Korea for example better rounds out the map in a specific era, sure.

But there's a lot of civs in the world, especially when you now get to some of the smaller civs whose "empires" lasted very short periods of time in history.

 

[Evie]

I really do honestly think that if - if - we get two Koreas, Ancient Silla/Exploration Joseon (with the Hermit kingdom being used as their "time off") is probably more likely than Exploration Goryeo, let alone Exploration Silla-Modern Joseon. And I empathically agree with the poster who said that Turtle ships have no business as modern era ironclads.

The China treatment being special is a natural extension of the fact that, even making a metric ton of DLCs - sure, you might end up with ninety civilizations total by the time we'Re done with DLCs (civ VI had 50), but that's only 30 civs if everyone gets three tier, which is *not* a lot. Morevoer, if they intended the treatment to be common, they would have done it more than one and a half time (India's set up is debatable) in the vanilla game. Last, it's very clear from the devs' presentations that the intent of the design is that you play multiple civs over the ages, not the same civ under three different names.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I think people tend to underestimate just how large and diverse India is, it's a miracle it exists as a single country at all (I know Pakistan and Bangladesh exist, but still).

India having 3 civs is like Western Europe having 3 civs: there is as much difference (if not more) between the Maurya and the Chola as Germany and the Netherlands

 

[Evie]

There's a reason I call it "The China treatment" and refer to one and a half civ getting it - there was good general agreement toward the end of our Indian discussions that India should be split in three civilizations *for the entire game* (Ganges valley, Northwest India and Southern Tamil). The three civs in Civ VII aren't a stack representing one of the three Indian civ : they're one civ from each of the three area.

Granted, finding recognizable Southern civs for Ancient and Modern is a challenge, and likewise for Gangetic civs after Ancient.

 

[Krikkit1]

There's a reason I call it "The China treatment" and refer to one and a half civ getting it - there was good general agreement toward the end of our Indian discussions that India should be split in three civilizations *for the entire game* (Ganges valley, Northwest India and Southern Tamil). The three civs in Civ VII aren't a stack representing one of the three Indian civ : they're one civ from each of the three area.

Granted, finding recognizable Southern civs for Ancient and Modern is a challenge, and likewise for Gangetic civs after Ancient.

That’s why the 6 for Europe also makes sense, with the “center of gravity” shifting from Mediterranean to Atlantic to Northern (assuming France/Russia or France/Germany as the two modern Europes)

 

[Geminus Leonem]

China, India, and Japan are the only 3 civs I expect to have a true direct line spanning all 3 eras. There's enough empires and areas of the map without that much representation that I fully expect them to fill in some of those spots rather than add a 2nd or 3rd Korean civ, for example. There will be some exceptions - I'm sure if they found some nice unique way to handle the 2nd iteration of a civ, or if that second variation of Korea for example better rounds out the map in a specific era, sure.

But there's a lot of civs in the world, especially when you now get to some of the smaller civs whose "empires" lasted very short periods of time in history.

Guess it does depend on what we consider a direct line. I can see us having Gauls-Franks-France and Goths-Renaissance Italy(Florence, Venice and the like)-Modern Italy or some other Scandinavian, West African, Iranian and Middle Eastern lines that are kinda not fully representing the same civ but still have a pretty straight-forward connection between them.

But yeah, I am only seeing a Modern Korea if they include the Cold War in the Modern Era or something.