Ideas for Korea

We'll certainly always have the ability to form some approximate lines - but in Europe, there will be many possible ones. Some might think the proper English line is Britons-Norman-Britain. Other may prefer Saxon-Norman-Britain. Others yet may think Norse-Norman-Britain is where it's at. Or Roman-Norman-Britain as Ed Beach seems to think. Likewise, should it be Gaul-Carolingian-France? Franks-Carolingian-France? Rome-Carolingian-France? Or so eone else than Carolingian? There's a good case for each of them but no clear single line of descent. Just relations and exchange between civs.

That's the big difference with Europe - you can build reasonable history paths, but there's no single clear obvious path like China has, becsuse Europe is by and large distinctly separate civs that are interlinked together, not three dynasties of an emoire that claims (near) continuous existence,
 
We'll certainly always have the ability to form some approximate lines - but in Europe, there will be many possible ones. Some might think the proper English line is Britons-Norman-Britain. Other may prefer Saxon-Norman-Britain. Others yet may think Norse-Norman-Britain is where it's at. Or Roman-Norman-Britain as Ed Beach seems to think. Likewise, should it be Gaul-Carolingian-France? Franks-Carolingian-France? Rome-Carolingian-France? Or so eone else than Carolingian? There's a good case for each of them but no clear single line of descent. Just relations and exchange between civs.

That's the big difference with Europe - you can build reasonable history paths, but there's no single clear obvious path like China has, becsuse Europe is by and large distinctly separate civs that are interlinked together, not three dynasties of an emoire that claims (near) continuous existence,
China doesn’t have clear lines either
Qing at the end but

Xia
Zhou
Han
Shang
Qin
Song
Jin
Wu
Liang
Yan
Wei
Tang
Liao
Yuan*
Ming

in no particular order..could all be china (1/2 of all 20 Antiquity and Exploration civs could be China)
 
And they won't be. Franks, Gauls, Carolingians, etc, are all already in the game or are very likely to be. The vast majority of those Chinese dynasties haven,t got a snowball chance in hell and the rest are exceedingly unlikely.,
 
I don't understand why people say the "Only China" thing again and again, it need three conditions: #1, we will have very limited Civ list forever, #2, there is no more candidate who lived in a consistent land with a long lived national identity, and #3, the candidate is not an enoughly marketable choice for FXS.

We can't say anything about the condition #1 for now. The additional Civs can be released fast or slow, and the Civ 7 game can stand short or long time. The final Civ list can include only 39 at worst, or more than 100 if it's successful enough. Nothing is clear for now.

However, about the condition #2, I dare to say there are a lot more candidates in the world. Korea has the distinctly documented history about the Dynasties that inherited their national identity from the predecessors, so definitely can be one of them. (Did you know the Goryeo minister Seo Hui already discussed about it against the Khitan general at AD 993, and he succeed to make Khitan admit that Goryeo is the proper succeessor of both Silla and Goguryeo?)

Condition #3 will be different by the point of view. Someone will say Korea is enoughly marketable for 3 individual Civs while others say no. I don't know how FXS think about it. But I can say this also depends on the progress of the Civ 7 service. If the game lives long enough, FXS will need more new Civs, so they can lower the hurdle for them.

So if you want to say something like "China (+ India if you want) will be the only case of the stack with full 3 Civs", It would better to add the condition that "within the foreseeable near future".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: j51
Few civilizations can have a representative in each era for an immersive historical progression, and Korea is one of them. In my ideal world, I’d like Korea to have a representative in every era, such as Silla > Goryeo > Joseon. However, I’m not as confident that we’ll see this. That said, Joseon seems to be the most popular period in Korean history, so I definitely expect it at some point. And given the Emile Bell, I also anticipate Silla. I’m less convinced we’ll see Goryeo.

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 also think India will receive more civilizations in the future, but I wouldn’t fill one of the slots with modern India. I’d much prefer Gupta, Kushan, or a Sri Lankan kingdom. And perhaps, if feasible, Harappan. However, I do think Gandhi is quite likely to appear in the future.
 
I did not say only. I said it would be rare. Even if we get 2 dlc of 4 civs and one expansion of 12 civs every year (20 civs per year), which is substantially more than we got in Civ VI, and so an optimistic (very much so) scenario, we'll have 51 civs after one year, 71 after two, 91 after three, and it's going to take a whole four years to get to above 100 civs.

And even then, 111 civs, which we'd have here, means 37 civs per era (ie, less civs you can pick as your starting civ than in VI ). 37 civs is going to melt away really fast if you start insisting on Korea, and Japan, and China, and India (worse, multiple Indias), and Siam, and Italy, and Ethiopia and the Maya and Arabia all having one civ in every age. Before long, you don't have much room for anything else. Sure, the number of three-age stacks will grow the more you add new civs, but that number I predict will remain a fairly small minority of all civs proportionally, and most civs will continue not having the three way stack.

And again, it's quite clear from the devs that "full stacks" isn't the design intent. Mix and match is.
 
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. :crazyeye:

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.
We've seen modern Buganda units with spears, and civ is infamously known for fighting spears with tanks. :mischief:
I don't see any problem with it. You said it yourself that Korea did not use iron, or build dreadnaughts or large battleships, so it could be reflected this way. If not the Turtleship then it would be the Hwacha, but to me that feels like it would fit in the Exploration Age more.
 
The whole "it's an ironclad" thing is such a grossly misstated exxageration.

Yes, it's an armored ship. An oar-powered, steam-less armored ship with 16th century firearms. It has nothing to do with an ironclad beyond the armoring (and the armoring of the turtle ship was against the weapon of its time, would be useless against an ironclad,, it was not used at the same time as Ironclads, and it would not be used at the same time as ironclad.

Putting it as a modern unit is an absolute fantasy based on nothing more than misunderstsnding what people means when they compare the ship to an ironclad.
 
I did not say only. I said it would be rare. Even if we get 2 dlc of 4 civs and one expansion of 12 civs every year (20 civs per year), which is substantially more than we got in Civ VI, and so an optimistic (very much so) scenario, we'll have 51 civs after one year, 71 after two, 91 after three, and it's going to take a whole four years to get to above 100 civs.
Few gamers expected Civ 6 will stand 9 years, including the last 3 years releasing more DLC passes.

And even then, 111 civs, which we'd have here, means 37 civs per era (ie, less civs you can pick as your starting civ than in VI ). 37 civs is going to melt away really fast if you start insisting on Korea, and Japan, and China, and India (worse, multiple Indias), and Siam, and Italy, and Ethiopia and the Maya and Arabia all having one civ in every age. Before long, you don't have much room for anything else. Sure, the number of three-age stacks will grow the more you add new civs, but that number I predict will remain a fairly small minority of all civs proportionally, and most civs will continue not having the three way stack.
After the very first phase of the Civ 7 development, now FXS already have modeling assets for many cultural groups enough. So the effort needed to make each new Civ can be extremely lowered than the pre-release development. And it can decline even further when the Civs are the stackable which means they can share the unique modeling assets. And of course, the potential customers who didn't buy the Civ 7 yet will likely prefer the traditional full-time Civ (especially the Civ is related with them), the Civs that have the obvious pathway for own will be more marketable as time goes by in this reason. So I'll bet the ratio of stackable Civs will rather increase at the later phase of Civ 7.

And again, it's quite clear from the devs that "full stacks" isn't the design intent. Mix and match is.
FXS mainly used the term "Mix and Match" for justifying the separation of the Civ and Leader, not for denying the "Stack". Instead, they told they originally considered the "Full Stack" way to align the Civ candidates but replaced it with the "Pathways". Civs will have multiple pathways, but nobody officially denied the value of more obvious pathways.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: j51
We've seen modern Buganda units with spears, and civ is infamously known for fighting spears with tanks. :mischief:
I don't see any problem with it. You said it yourself that Korea did not use iron, or build dreadnaughts or large battleships, so it could be reflected this way. If not the Turtleship then it would be the Hwacha, but to me that feels like it would fit in the Exploration Age more.
The Turtle Ship itself is way too overstated in its importance. Admiral Yi surely used it well as an assault ship against the Japanese fleet, but it was basically just a variation of the normal Joseon warship, Panokseon. Admiral Yi won the hardest Battle of Myeongnyang without any Turtle Ship, and even rebuilding it is not a high priority for him after the battle. The main power of the Joseon navy was came from the Panokseon fleet.
 
Last edited:
I'm well aware of what Civ VI got: 50 civs in 9 years. And yes, it was unexpected.

111 civs in 4 years as I suggested as an optimistic scenario is already a massive increase in the pace at which they would be rolling out new civs. "It's going to be easy to roll out a lot so number doesn't matter" is not an argument for more; it's wishful clinging to the past by people who are unwilling to accept that playing the same civ throughout the game is *not* the Devs' plan.

"Everybody gets a stack" is neither faithful to what older Civs used to be, nor faithful to what is clearly the design vision for Civ VII. It's a worst-of-both worlds compromise that will fail to satisfy those who prefered the old ways and fail to live up to what those who like the new ways want.
 
The whole "it's an ironclad" thing is such a grossly misstated exxageration.

Yes, it's an armored ship. An oar-powered, steam-less armored ship with 16th century firearms. It has nothing to do with an ironclad beyond the armoring (and the armoring of the turtle ship was against the weapon of its time, would be useless against an ironclad,, it was not used at the same time as Ironclads, and it would not be used at the same time as ironclad.

Putting it as a modern unit is an absolute fantasy based on nothing more than misunderstsnding what people means when they compare the ship to an ironclad.
Yes, I understand all of this. But from a gameplay perspective if Joseon is in the Modern Age, and it's the UU it would have to work and be the equivalent of it. I guess they could go for the Hwacha again, as that replaced a field cannon in Civ 6, and that would fit the Modern Age in this game, but either way one of these possible units might not fully fit the timeframe of the Modern Age.

Of course, we still aren't exactly sure when the Modern Age is supposed to start. If it's closer to 1600, then I don't see the problem with either one of these.
 
  • Like
Reactions: j51
Or alternatively, you put Joseon in exploration, which is the better fit, and you don't have modern Korea. A hermit kingdsom entering a state of autarcy where it is completely cut off from the world (until getting annexed) is nto actually a great basis for a civ, and certainky not great enough to ignore the golden age of the same kingdom for centuries beforehand.
 
I would like to see Balhae in Antiquity
Not worth the nationalist wars between Korea and China. "They were Korean!" "No, they were Chinese!" "No, they were Korean!" Shut up; they were probably Jurchens with a Korean substrate so you're both wrong. :p Anyway, they'd make a nice IP, though.

On the "what ages should we put Korea in?" debate, I have a soft spot for Korea, having lived there a couple years, and would enjoy seeing Silla > Goryeo > Joseon, especially since Joseon has been ridiculously overrepresented to the exclusion of the rest of Korean history (even Seondeok and Wang Geon were basically leading Joseon). However, I also agree with those who say that Civ7 would be diminished for having too many through-lines and I'm already stanning for a Persian through-line, so having two Koreas would be fine...though who they lead into would be tricky. Joseon > Meiji Japan would not be popular.
 
I'm well aware of what Civ VI got: 50 civs in 9 years. And yes, it was unexpected.
Based on the Leader-Identifies-Civ way of Civ 6, according to the Civ select screen, it was 77. Or you can say it was 50 Civs and 67 Leaders. Of course it can't be directly compared with Civ 7's Leader-Civ Mix and Match, but the list is huge enough to foresee the plan of Civ 7 in more optimistic way.

Or alternatively, you put Joseon in exploration, which is the better fit, and you don't have modern Korea. A hermit kingdsom entering a state of autarcy where it is completely cut off from the world (until getting annexed) is nto actually a great basis for a civ, and certainky not great enough to ignore the golden age of the same kingdom for centuries beforehand.
Oh come on. The frame about *hermit kingdom* is not even close to describe Korean history. We always have been the main player in East Asia. If you're not estimating the whole East Asian history as the meaningless edge of the world, you can't say that about Joseon and Korea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: j51
And they won't be. Franks, Gauls, Carolingians, etc, are all already in the game or are very likely to be. The vast majority of those Chinese dynasties haven,t got a snowball chance in hell and the rest are exceedingly unlikely.,
Franks/Gauls/Carolingans should never all 3 be in the game 2 max (and HRE/Goths/Celts would take some of those 2 slots)

(and neither should more than~3 or 4 of those premodern Chinese dynasties)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: j51
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

You missed Sri Lanka.

Your general point stands, though, that the political state of India covering the majority of the Indian subcontinent masks the incredible cultural and historical diversity inside that political state.

On the other hand, for players who want to identify with their current state - and there are many of them - modern India can serve that role for most Indians, whereas being able to play as modern France definitely does not satisfy that for most Europeans. As a result, there's always going to be an economic pull for Firaxis to include more of Europe.
 
If we get one additional Chinese dynasty (by which I mean the Tang) that would be it. I cannot imagine more. Maybe non-cynastic chinese civs might get a place in too. Of course, we might get civilizations that invaded China and founded dynasties, too. We're not seeing Liao, but we might get the Khitan.

Whereas most of the listed European civs will be in. And I would say Gaul, Frank and Carolingian together are far more likely than even the Tang being added - because, contrary to what one might believe, none of them is just "older France". Gaul covers the Netherlands and serve as a Celtic precursor nation - which Franks and Carolingian do not. Franks serve as an ancient precursos to all northern Germanic people, representing the Barbarian Migrations into the Rhine region, which Gaul does not (not Germanic) and Carolingian does not (not Ancient). And Carolingian would be a medieval precursos to France and Germany both. They overlap in the French civ path(s), but they aren't the path.

That's not to say I *want* those in the game. I'd much rather have Brittany, Burgundy, Bohemia and all those other European realms that existed in the liminal space around the big name modern nations.
 
Didn't the Devs talk about civ 7 as a long term support project with a vision to keep plugging out content for 10 years or so?

I may be amongst the biggest critic of the approach to this games civ selection and methodology on the forum, but, perhaps cynically, I fully expect that every major old world market (Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia, Scandis, Japan, Korea, Arabia) will have at least 1 recognisable and unique from one another full stack representing them by the end of this games lifespan. I suspect China and India will have multiple, and I suspect many others will overlap and have multiple ages of unique representation themselves (Portugal, Netherlands, Poland, Greece, SE Asia)

That is clearly how you print money with this model.
 
If we get one additional Chinese dynasty (by which I mean the Tang) that would be it. I cannot imagine more. Maybe non-cynastic chinese civs might get a place in too. Of course, we might get civilizations that invaded China and founded dynasties, too. We're not seeing Liao, but we might get the Khitan.

Whereas most of the listed European civs will be in. And I would say Gaul, Frank and Carolingian together are far more likely than even the Tang being added - because, contrary to what one might believe, none of them is just "older France". Gaul covers the Netherlands and serve as a Celtic precursor nation - which Franks and Carolingian do not. Franks serve as an ancient precursos to all northern Germanic people, representing the Barbarian Migrations into the Rhine region, which Gaul does not (not Germanic) and Carolingian does not (not Ancient). And Carolingian would be a medieval precursos to France and Germany both. They overlap in the French civ path(s), but they aren't the path.

That's not to say I *want* those in the game. I'd much rather have Brittany, Burgundy, Bohemia and all those other European realms that existed in the liminal space around the big name modern nations.
No room for 3 Korean Civs, but enough room for all of those European Civs... Okay.
 
Top Bottom