Ideas for Korea

[gdr_willter]

Some of those ideas are really good, but aren't some of those terms mistranslated? I don't know Korean, but I did read about Seodangs (서당들) being rural schools not military troops. I think I read about it due to some civ mod making a similar mistake.

That's the homonym. Unified Silla established the new army system named Gu Seodang (구서당, 九誓幢), that means "Nine flags armies". Those troops were grouped by their home tribes. So there were each Seodang organized with Silla soldiers, Goguryeo soldiers, Baekje soldiers and so on. What you said is 서당(書堂), that means "Hall of books/learning".

But yeah, your list kinda showcases how Joseon really fits into Exploration. Hwacha in modern age would be more than weird after all, and the Seowons were abolished by the XIX century.

We don't know well about the Modern Age itself even yet. I wrote it based on the information that Qing and Mughal will be the Modern Civs. With this clue, I consider the Modern Age in Civ 7 is rather the Age of industry and nationalism that includes the very last stage of the pre-modern history. Hwacha (invented in early days but mainly utilized later) and Seowon is the typical feature of the later period of Joseon dynasty, so they technically fit well. Actually, the East Asian history was way more progressed than Europe untill the 15c, and then stalled while Modern Europe had grown and been developed so fast. It causes the mismatch of timeline. If you really want to pick Asian Civs which have "Modern" nature, you'll get Meiji Japan, ROC, PRC and the contemporary countries independent after WW2. The Civ 7 game idea cannot work with that sort of list.

Btw, regarding Seowons, they would actually fit much better as the Joseon unique Quarter with the Confucian Temple and the Confucian School that make up the Seowons as the unique buildings.

You can find the Munmyo (Shrine of Confucius) in Seowon indeed, but actually this is the main function of Seowon itself so you can't seperate it. Seowon is a kind of temple that enshrine the great teachers of Confucianism, include Kong himself. The regional noble education thing was the following of that: teach the ideas from those sages. And Hyanggyo is not the part of Seowon, it was the rural counterpart of it which served as the ideological education institute for locals.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

We don't know well about the Modern Age itself even yet. I wrote it based on the information that Qing and Mughal will be the Modern Civs. With this clue, I consider the Modern Age in Civ 7 is rather the Age of industry and nationalism that includes the very last stage of the pre-modern history. Hwacha (invented in early days but mainly utilized later) and Seowon is the typical feature of the later period of Joseon dynasty, so they technically fit well.

That's sort of the reason why I went with the Turtleship as the UU, because I thought that would fit the Modern Age better. But I guess either one can work.

 

[gdr_willter]

That's sort of the reason why I went with the Turtleship as the UU, because I thought that would fit the Modern Age better. But I guess either one can work.

I consider Joseon as the defender rather than the naval power. I agree with that both are good, especially in the defender pov, but warship UU for Joseon was the biggest irony that I felt in Civ 5.

 

[Evie]

The problem is, Mughal (about 130 years) and Qing (about 250 years) were created long after Joseon. It'S true that if you look at how much of the nineteenth century they existed for, they all could be Modern ; but on the reverse, out of the three of them, only Joseon can be exploration, too. Qing basically missed out on the entire Exploration period ; Mughal only existed for the last decades of it. But Joseon spent much more time in the Exploration period than in the Modern one, and is best known for events in that period.

I don't think the same logic that applies to Qing and Mughal can apply to Joseon as a result. The more I think of it, the more I think that using the term Korea for modern, well, Korea is the appropriate move here. It was used even in-period (the Joseon state marked its stamps Corea and Korea postal service from the 1880s), and the Empire of Korea was proclaimed locally, by the Joseon king, in the nineteenth century, even if it was short-lived. Using the term to represent late Joseon and the Empire of Korea would seem fairly appropriate. The problems with India (that it is a colonial construct) does not apply here, either.

Not that I would be upset if Joseon were to be in Modern ; I just don,t think it's the best fit for it.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I consider Joseon as the defender rather than the naval power. I agree with that both are good, especially in the defender pov, but warship UU for Joseon was the biggest irony that I felt in Civ 5.

To me the "Turtle ship" would still fit the idea of being a defender. It has "turtle" in its name after all and was used to fight invaders.

The problem is, Mughal (about 130 years) and Qing (about 250 years) were created long after Joseon. It'S true that if you look at how much of the nineteenth century they existed for, they all could be Modern ; but on the reverse, out of the three of them, only Joseon can be exploration, too. Qing basically missed out on the entire Exploration period ; Mughal only existed for the last decades of it. But Joseon spent much more time in the Exploration period than in the Modern one, and is best known for events in that period.

I don't think the same logic that applies to Qing and Mughal can apply to Joseon as a result. The more I think of it, the more I think that using the term Korea for modern, well, Korea is the appropriate move here. It was used even in-period (the Joseon state marked its stamps Corea and Korea postal service from the 1880s), and the Empire of Korea was proclaimed locally, by the Joseon king, in the nineteenth century, even if it was short-lived. Using the term to represent late Joseon and the Empire of Korea would seem fairly appropriate. The problems with India (that it is a colonial construct) does not apply here, either.

I'm not disagreeing that Joseon could fit in the Exploration Age either. I just feel like it would feel best in the Modern Age. I also don't think they would call a Modern civ "Korea" based off of what we've seen. I would think they would go with the name "Joseon Korea".

 

[Evie]

What we've seen is basically India and China. And as I just explained in the post you quoted, India (name India is a colonial construct; Mughal wouldn't really fit anywhere else) and China (Qing is the absolute obvious choice for a 1800-1950 Chinese civ, and really doesn't belong anywhere else; there's no obvious time period where the name China alone fits better than the other)

Turning flimsy observations into patterns that become rules is something this community does entirely too much of - decisions by all appearance are made on a case by case basis (Andrew pretty much explained as such in a discussion on the name of Majapahit), based on the need to have distinct names, recognizable names, and marketable names.

 

[gdr_willter]

The problem is, Mughal (about 130 years) and Qing (about 250 years) were created long after Joseon. It'S true that if you look at how much of the nineteenth century they existed for, they all could be Modern ; but on the reverse, out of the three of them, only Joseon can be exploration, too. Qing basically missed out on the entire Exploration period ; Mughal only existed for the last decades of it. But Joseon spent much more time in the Exploration period than in the Modern one, and is best known for events in that period.

I don't think the same logic that applies to Qing and Mughal can apply to Joseon as a result. The more I think of it, the more I think that using the term Korea for modern, well, Korea is the appropriate move here. It was used even in-period (the Joseon state marked its stamps Corea and Korea postal service from the 1880s), and the Empire of Korea was proclaimed locally, by the Joseon king, in the nineteenth century, even if it was short-lived. Using the term to represent late Joseon and the Empire of Korea would seem fairly appropriate. The problems with India (that it is a colonial construct) does not apply here, either.

Well, They didn't used the name Korea in that period so simply and willingly. they actually wanted to be called as 조선(Joseon) and 대한(Dai-Han) properly, because the name Korea was originally come from the previous dynasty: Goryeo. But every diplomatic partners ignored that demand, so the emperor finally just... gave up and accepted the name. Black comedy of the history.

The point is, Joseon dynasty is the largest part of pre-republic history of Korea, and the almost of Korean people regard the Empire of Korea as the continuos part of Joseon: we recite the Joseon Kings include even Sunjong who technically never was the king of Joseon because he accede as the emperor at first. Joseon dynasty is the big chunk of Korean history that lay over the transition from pre-modern to modern era, so it obviously can be placed in Modern Age. I belive this is the social consensus in Korea, I couldn't found literally any Korean who expect Joseon not as the Modern Civ in Civ 7.

And to make it sure, I didn't just simply placed Joseon in Modern Age following the case of Quing and Mughal. Three Kingdoms - Goryeo - Joseon is very, very common and obvious way to see Korean history in parts.

 

[Evie]

How much of that consensus is based on people looking at Mughal and Qing and making very ill-informed guesses (the entire fanbase is doing that) about what they mean about the modern age, though?

I don't think the indormation we have available, right now, supports the idea that "Modern" represent the 1600s or 1700s, as people take for granted.

 

[gdr_willter]

How much of that consensus is based on people looking at Mughal and Qing and making very ill-informed guesses (the entire fanbase is doing that) about what they mean about the modern age, though?

I mainly heard those thinking from the people even don't know any upcoming Civs in Civ 7. We can't think of any other way for it, I told it, TK-Goryeo-Joseon is the common sense in Korea.
The only exception I heard was Gojoseon-Baekje-Joseon, even more radical idea.

I don't think the indormation we have available, right now, supports the idea that "Modern" represent the 1600s or 1700s, as people take for granted.

I'm even not considering the specific year of dividing. I already told that I'm regarding "Modern" in Civ 7 as "the Age of industry and nationalism that includes the very last stage of the pre-modern history."

If you don't agree with this, that's all. We can't go further without any more clue about in-game Modern.

 

[Evie]

We do have clues: we have units seen in a number of video that seem to indicate that, at sea and on land, the early units of the modern period correspond to the 1800s, and the late ones appear to correlate to the 1950s.

There is very little indication for any pre-1800 history being included in modern, and every indication that the era corresponds to the historiographical era known as the late modern period. It may be wrong, but it's a lot more solid than speculation largely based on Ming and Qing.

As for Korean expectations: they say little about what the game will, won't, should or shouldn't be. The game, to the extent it's concerned about player expectstions, is concerned with player expectations at large, not those of fans in a single country,

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

What we've seen is basically India and China. And as I just explained in the post you quoted, India (name India is a colonial construct; Mughal wouldn't really fit anywhere else) and China (Qing is the absolute obvious choice for a 1800-1950 Chinese civ, and really doesn't belong anywhere else; there's no obvious time period where the name China alone fits better than the other)

We've seen Siam too instead of Thailand, Buganda instead of Uganda, Meiji Japan instead of just Japan, and several of them aren't colonial constructs either. I'm not saying it's impossible, it just doesn't appear to be the way they are doing it.

Granted I think they will have to treat the European and American civs differently in that regard: America, French Empire, Russian Empire, Mexican Empire, Brazilian Empire

 

[gdr_willter]

We do have clues: we have units seen in a number of video that seem to indicate that, at sea and on land, the early units of the modern period correspond to the 1800s, and the late ones appear to correlate to the 1950s.

There is very little indication for any pre-1800 history being included in modern, and every indication that the era corresponds to the historiographical era known as the late modern period. It may be wrong, but it's a lot more solid than speculation largely based on Ming and Qing.

You are just selecting the clues that you like to see, aren't you? FXS told that they consider the Age for each Civ not based on exact global timeline IRL but the role in the regional hitory.

 

[Evie]

Assuming, as all evidence point, that modern ends roughly in the 1950-70 period, why would they use Thailand, a name adopted in 1939 that's only applicable to a tiny bit of the period? And they didn't use Japan for Meiji because having a civ called Japan (alone) that doesn't have Samurai would set off no end of confusion. Meiji, Qing and Mughal are also all highky recognizable names - in a way Joseon just isn't,

They aren't naming civ according to strict estsblished rules. They're doing case by case basis.

You are just selecting the clues that you like to see, aren't you? FXS told that they consider the Age for each Civ not based on exact global timeline IRL but the role in the regional hitory.

Yes, role in general history *based on what the age represent*. Which units are in which age tells us a long sight more about this than which civs. Which technology would tell us even more, but we don't have that yet. Unit is our best alternative in the meantime.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Assuming, as all evidence point, that modern ends roughly in the 1950-70 period, why would they use Thailand, a name adopted in 1939 that's only applicable to a tiny bit of the period? And they didn't use Japan for Meiji because having a civ called Japan (alone) that doesn't have Samurai would set off no end of confusion. Meiji, Qing and Mughal are also all highky recognizable names - in a way Joseon just isn't,

I also stated that they could call the civ Joseon Korea, similar to the way they did with Meiji Japan.

 

[Evie]

Sure, but that's still clinging to your "rules", ie, an attempt at finding patterns between decisions that were made by all long-stsnding evidence on case by case basis. The decisions you point as evidence make perfect sense when you look at them individually, as case by case decisions, without any need for a "no modern name" rule. And occam's razor says if we don't need a rule to arrive at a reasonable explanation, we shouldn't assume that rule,

It's like everyone claiming "rules" that civs had to be politically united countries, or "rules" that leaders had to be political rulers in the older games. Those rules never existed in the older games, and these rules don't exist in this one either. Rules are our shapes in the clouds.

 

[gdr_willter]

You are completely ignoring my comment that it is not the pattern thing but just the obvious choice for Korean history. I told it again and again, I think it was very enough to deliver the point to you.

 

[Evie]

Obvious to you, for sure, obvious to Koreans, perhaps (so you claim, anyway), but obvious to the players at large, obvious to Firaxis? And it's these last two, not what the Koreans think that are going to decide the question.

I find your evidence regarding what's obvious those last two non-existent. Hence, yes, me ignoring your claims that it's obvious. Because it brings nothing of much value to the discussion.

 

[gdr_willter]

Obvious to you, obvious to Koreans perhaps (so you claim), but obvious to the players at large, obvious to Firaxis? And it's these two, not what the Koreans think that are going to decide the question.

I find your evidence regarding those last two non-existent,

Oh well. I thought that you read my message before:

@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.

I'm always talking about three Korean Civs, so Silla-Goryeo-Korea will be the weirdest choice. If you see the only Korean Civ placed in the Modern Age, it can be Korea just like Persia in the Antiquity Age.
I don't want to go back that argument.

 

[Evie]

I'm also talking about three Korean civs here: Silla-Joseon-Korea. If you're going to have Goryeo in Exploration, then *yes* it's obvious Joseon should be in modern, because obviously you want to have Joseon somehwere. Not having Joseon at all if you have three Koreas would just be stupid.

I do agree there's no more point in debating one, two or three Korea.

There are two meaningful three-Korea options as far as I'm concerned: Silla-Goryeo-Joseon, or Silla-Joseon-Korea. It's all about whether Joseon and its potential uniques (Hwacha, Turtle ships, etc) better fit the Exploration of Modern eras, and that's where you and I disagree. I don't believe THAT question is obvious. Hackneyed attempts to turn the turtle ships into an equivalent of industrial ironclads really make the point of how poor that fit is.

 

[Geminus Leonem]

That's the homonym. Unified Silla established the new army system named Gu Seodang (구서당, 九誓幢), that means "Nine flags armies". Those troops were grouped by their home tribes. So there were each Seodang organized with Silla soldiers, Goguryeo soldiers, Baekje soldiers and so on. What you said is 서당(書堂), that means "Hall of books".


We don't know well about the Modern Age itself even yet. I wrote it based on the information that Qing and Mughal will be the Modern Civs. With this clue, I consider the Modern Age in Civ 7 is rather the Age of industry and nationalism that includes the very last stage of the pre-modern history. Hwacha (invented in early days but mainly utilized later) and Seowon is the typical feature of the later period of Joseon dynasty, so they technically fit well. Actually, the East Asian history was way more progressed than Europe untill the 15c, and then stalled while Modern Europe had grown and been developed so fast. It causes the mismatch of timeline. If you really want to pick Asian Civs which have "Modern" nature, you'll get Meiji Japan, ROC, PRC and the contemporary countries independent after WW2. The Civ 7 game idea cannot work with that sort of list.


You can find the Munmyo (Shrine of Confucius) in Seowon indeed, but actually this is the main function of Seowon itself so you can't seperate it. Seowon is a kind of temple that enshrine the great teachers of Confucianism, include Kong himself. The regional noble education thing was the following of that: teach the ideas from those sages. And Hyanggyo is not the part of Seowon, it was the rural counterpart of it which served as the ideological education institute for locals.

Thanks for the Seodang explanation! Learned something today!

Regarding the Seowon bit, and sorry for insisting on this as I know my knowledge about this is superficial at best, but I do feel that both gameplay-wise and aesthetics-wise, having a Hyanggyo as the unique building that gives bonuses from adjacent rural improvements and a Munmyo that gives bonuses from adjacent mountains that when on the same hex create a Seowon, that looks like a beautiful mock-up of a Seowon and gives some specialist bonuses from quarters or something would be amazing.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Admiral Yi ends up being a leader in the game that unlocks the Turtle ships in the exploration era or something