Ideas for Korea

Given that "all those" European civs means *three*, and that each of those three cover a wider area than Korea while each being more diverse from each other than Korea, Korea, Korea would be?

Yes, absolutely.

Don't get me wrong. I think Korea is one of the stronger contenders for getting multiple civs, perhaps even three. But people are taking Korea getting three for granted because China got three, and...well, no, sorry, not sorry. Korea is not China.
 
No room for 3 Korean Civs, but enough room for all of those European Civs... Okay.
I wouldn't say it won't ever happen, but we don't have proof that it will. I'm not quite sure that it is a high priority. Let's wait and see when Korea at least gets one, first.

Regarding civs that should get 3, I would argue that it should at least be China, India, and Persia.
 
Korea is so big for gaming amongst it's population, and Korean appreciation has such a high overlap with gaming outside of Korea, particularly in the anglosphere, I think it's inevitable. It's crossed the event horizon to become an integral part of western nerd fascination on a level with Japan and above anywhere else outside of the western world (which is the prime market for this game)

The core game and expansion rosters are all about getting a good spread. When it comes to the harsh capitalistic reality that is civ only DLC packs, Korea will absolutely kill it. A Korea triple pack would be easily be top 5 DLC for sales capability if it ever got released, and that's probably being conservative if I'm honest.
 
Don't get me wrong. I think Korea is one of the stronger contenders for getting multiple civs, perhaps even three. But people are taking Korea getting three for granted because China got three, and...well, no, sorry, not sorry. Korea is not China.
Well, considering you already said it is one of the reasons why you can justify "The China treatment" that there are "three dynasties of an empire that claims (near) continuous existence", Korea is fundamentally not so different with China. So it is basically the problem of representativeness and marketability. I'm saying that Korean history and gaming market are matters enough, not in the immediate possibility, but in long term point of view.
 
Possibly unpopular opinion, but I'd prioritize three Koreas well above three Japans. (Of course, if we get Exploration Japan > Modern Japan, I'll be less miffed about Antiquity Korea > Exploration Korea. But I'll find it weird if Japan gets three and Korea does not; for the better part of history until the past couple centuries, Korea has by far been the more influential player of the two.)
 
Korea is not so different, except for historical importance. China dwarfs Korea (and all other continuous empires) there. The only exception-ish is Persia, who actually does have a strong case for a three-civ stack.

But Korea? Yes, Korea deserves it, and they're one of the iconic civs of their region. But so is Japan. And so is Ethiopia. Arguably, given their last state fell only around 1700, so are the Mayans. And so are a good number of other candidates. It seems unlikely all those civs are getting three stacks, let alone getting them soon.

As always, deserve isn't the determining factor of whether a civ should be added. There will always be more civs that deserve added than spots to add them in. The determining factor, like always, is "of sll those deserving options, what's the most interesting one"?

(Marketable is one aspect of interesting, but only one).
 
Regarding civs that should get 3, I would argue that it should at least be China, India, and Persia.
I'm also the one who's very dissapointed from the blob Persia Civ stucked in the Antiquity Age. I hope it will become a proper Achaemenid Persia Civ and get proper successors.
 
Arguably, given their last state fell only around 1700, so are the Mayans.
Maya are probably the strongest New World candidate to get the three-civ treatment, and I'm sad that it's unlikely to happen. (That being said, without modded leaders, I think I'll be more open to using high-quality modded civs in Civ7 so maybe some kind modder will give us Mayapan and Yucatec or whatever you want to call Modern Maya.)
 
@Evie I think we can stop this argument by agreeing the difference between our point of views: You think there will be only a few stackable Civs, while I do not. Actually the stackable Civs idea is not a point about Korea in question from this thread, so we fought in wrong place IMO. I'll draw a conclusion as: If there will be only a few stackable Civs, Korea will not be one of them. If there are more, of course Korea can be one of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: j51
Possibly unpopular opinion, but I'd prioritize three Koreas well above three Japans. (Of course, if we get Exploration Japan > Modern Japan, I'll be less miffed about Antiquity Korea > Exploration Korea. But I'll find it weird if Japan gets three and Korea does not; for the better part of history until the past couple centuries, Korea has by far been the more influential player of the two.)
Not sure if I'd prioritize more Koreas over Japan, but I do agree that I don't necessarily need 3 Japan's either. As long as we get some form of Shogunate Japan as well, I'm fine.
 
@Zaarin Itza is a strong name candidate too for exploration Maya. It has...as much recognizability as anything Maya does (being asociated with their most famous city), and it is the dynasty associated with both the most iconic post-classic Mayan state and the last Mayan independant state.
 
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’d say any representation of the 3 East Asian nations should have a modern civ before any other. Because “coming out of” a different ‘nation’ seems better than “going into” one.
(Hence Japan..Modern in base game, exploration later…Maybe antiquity at some point or not)

Korea I would see the same
DLC Joseon+Goryeo or just Joseon, and then later DLCs backfilling)
 
I’d say any representation of the 3 East Asian nations should have a modern civ before any other. Because “coming out of” a different ‘nation’ seems better than “going into” one.
You catched a fair enough point. My concern I told in previous post was originally started from the evidence of the Emile Bell in Civ 7. Antiquity Silla without Korean successors will be a massive problem in Korean Civ fanbase.
 
Antiquity Silla without Korean successors will be a massive problem in Korean Civ fanbase.
Ignoring the Emile Bell, what do the Korean fans think of including Goguryeo over Silla?

I agree that just Antiquity Korea makes no sense whatsoever.
 
You catched a fair enough point. My concern I told in previous post was originally started from the evidence of the Emile Bell in Civ 7. Antiquity Silla without Korean successors will be a massive problem in Korean Civ fanbase.
I can see that viewpoint. I'm not confident enough to say that Antiquity Silla will be one of the first DLC civs, so that might not be a problem.
I would argue Assyria/Babylon, Goths, and Tonga might be more probable right now.
 
But why Emile Bell if not to add Silla? I've just taken a look at its Wikipedia page (no 1 place for historical research of course) because I'd never heard of it before this game, and it's only number 29 on Koreas list of nationally important monuments, it's a good example of one of many bronze bells produced.

It's not even associated with any particular event as far as I can tell? The most unique thing about it seems to be the claim that it didn't make any noise until someone had a dream that it would work if they through a child in the forge, and then it made pretty sounds after that...

What? How does this make any sense without Silla? (But equally, how does Silla make any sense as the first civ for Korea?)

There are a lot of questionable civ and wonder prioritisations in this game for me
 
Ignoring the Emile Bell, what do the Korean fans think of including Goguryeo over Silla?
It depends on the way how the game treats it. If Civ 7 Goguryeo is dealt with as the Korean history (as like its name written in Korean), Koreans will rather go wild about it. (I know, it is such a nationalistic point of view, but I want to make an excuse for it. Think about being Korean who is sandwiched between the global powers, remember the near past that be colonized by the one of them, and face the denial of existence as the independent nation at all from the other of them...)

But considering not only the Emile Bell but also the international historical conflict on Goguryeo, I don't think FXS will go through this way instead of well known and deserved Silla.

But why Emile Bell if not to add Silla?
I think T4C7 just asked it as the supposition. I also think it is exactly readied for Silla, but just not for the very next DLC.
 
But equally, how does Silla make any sense as the first civ for Korea?
Because they wanted another Antiquity East Asian civ, and Silla was the most powerful of the Three Kingdoms and ultimately the first one to unite most of the peninsula. To me it makes perfect sense. I do agree about the wonder, though; I probably would have chosen Hwangnyongsa myself.
 
Regarding civs that should get 3, I would argue that it should at least be China, India, and Persia.
I believe Japan is the third most likely option due to its large market. And since they referred to ancient Persia as "Persia" instead of "Achaemenids," it doesn’t give me much hope for more Persian civs, unfortunately.

Speaking for myself, as an immersive player, the more civilizations with complete historical progressions, the better. Obviously, we don’t need a complete Korean historical path right now, but I'd like to see it at some point in the future.

The 'Chinese treatment' doesn’t mean it will be exclusive to China (and India). China received its complete historical path at launch for several reasons: it makes sense historically, as China has always been highly significant throughout history; if there’s a system of changing civs by eras, China is the top candidate to benefit from it; and, of course, there’s the huge Chinese market.
 
I've just taken a look at its Wikipedia page (no 1 place for historical research of course) because I'd never heard of it before this game, and it's only number 29 on Koreas list of nationally important monuments, it's a good example of one of many bronze bells produced.
Just in case, I want to say the Korea Heritage Service only number the treasures in the order of registration.
And the 116 items were registrated in the first day the system founded, so the number 1 ~ 116 actually have the same meaning: the first list of the Korea Heritage Service.

I can also mention about the Bell, it is the oldest existing bronze bell of Korea, and the first monument that celebrating the royal authority of the unified Korea (except Balhae, you know).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom