If Siam to be a full civ in Civ7

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Siam in civ5 was medieval, so it would make sense to see that again, but the Gatling elephant does sound cool.
Siam representing the 1700s would be a cultural powerhouse, so that would fit for the Asian cultural civ that we usually get

The 'First' Siamese Empire was Ayutthaya since the reign of King 'Rajadhiraj II' --which he successfully finished off Khmer Empire of Yasothorn for good.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Unique civs and leaders incoming in Civ7... maybe even uniques per era a la Humankind... from what it looks.

 

[Zaarin]

Unique civs and leaders incoming in Civ7

So, in other words, we can expect Sid Meier's Civilization VII to be a game in the Civilization franchise. I'm sure no one saw that coming.

maybe even uniques per era a la Humankind... from what it looks.

Source?

 

[Naokaukodem]

Source?

From my reading and personal interpretation between some words I could have seen here and there in that very thread.

 

[Zaarin]

From my reading and personal interpretation between some words I could have seen here and there in that very thread.

So just speculation. I find it unlikely. It fits the Civ model poorly, it would narrow the list of possible civs to about five if we're generous, and even in Humankind it's received a very mixed response.

 

[Naokaukodem]

and even in Humankind it's received a very mixed response.

Speculation based on wording from some kind of source. When i say "a la Humankind", it's to give a direction, but I do believe in Civ7 it will be more done with more tightness within the civ you choose at start. (i.e. change of leaders per era)

 

[Zaarin]

Speculation based on wording from some kind of source.

Which, since you won't name said source, we just have to take your word for it.

When i say "a la Humankind", it's to give a direction, but I do believe in Civ7 it will be more done with more tightness within the civ you choose at start. (i.e. change of leaders per era)

Well, I look forward to Civ7 having the most nationalist interpretation of Persia, China, and India for playable civs--or will we get one civ per expansion, with China in the base game, saving Persia for XP1 and India for XP2? Civ3 showed that just changing leader costumes by era was a bad idea; changing leaders entirely per era is a train wreck in the making. I can appreciate that history is more flavor than substance in Civ, but I won't buy a game that indulges nationalist fantasies like "Babylon is ancient Iraq" (or "Iraq is modern Babylon"). I can appreciate that the marketing department insists on some level of pandering, but there are lines that shouldn't be crossed.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Too bad for you then.

Leaders as they are usually conceived in Civ are actually a problem for that sort of take. I don't know anymore. Can you remind me why costumes changes in Civ3 were a problem ? Also, why Irak couldn't be modern Babylon ? After all, the ones are more or less the descendants of the others. If we talk about people, I do believe most people are attached to their lands, and unless there's a Jew diaspora, population movements are more or less limited. Heck, Jews are so attached to their lands that they even created Israël centuries later. Plus leaders are immortal, so it wouldn't more of a fantasy, call it nationalist if you will. But that discussion is becoming useless, you pretty much convinced me there will be only one (or two like in Civ6) leader per civ, only related to the hard work is Civ6 leaders taking over the development process.

 

[Zaarin]

Can you remind me why costumes changes in Civ3 were a problem ?

A variety of reasons. One is that Firaxis showed itself incapable of being mature about it (e.g., Lincoln in a loincloth, Joan of Arc as a Neo-Nazi). An even bigger one is that it assumed that Westernization is inevitable with all modern leaders in Western-style suits.

Also, why Irak couldn't be modern Babylon ?

I mean, Saddam Hussein would certainly have liked you to believe so, with his rhetoric of being the new Nebuchadnezzar II and the second coming of Sargon the Great and his attempt to rebuild his private palace on the site of Babylon. But the reality is that Babylon fell over 2,000 years ago. There have been millennia of cultural shifts since then; there is no remnant of Babylonian culture or Babylonian people in Iraq. (Even the people we now call "Assyrians" only started calling themselves that and latching onto "Assyrian nationalism" after a French Catholic priest misunderstood their ethnonym in the early 20th century.) They were Persianized, Hellenized, Romanized, Christianized, Islamicized, and Arabicized over successive centuries; they're not the same people anymore. Or let me put it in terms that are more explicit in how this kind of thinking is both insidious and offensive: if Saddam Hussein can lead Babylon, then Andrew Jackson can lead the Cherokee. After all, they inhabited the same land.

tl;dr: Treating Iraq as the same civilization as Babylon is essentially making a statement in support of hypernationalists like Hussein; it's a hair's breadth away from outright endorsing fascism (Mussolini and Hitler put forward the same kind of outrageous ethnonationalist narratives).

Plus leaders are immortal, so it wouldn't more of a fantasy, call it nationalist if you will.

It is indulging nationalist rhetoric, but the "immortal leaders" are only a fantasy if you believe that a literal immortal godhead is leading the civ for 6,000 years. Leaders are a face for the civilization. Nothing more, nothing less. Also, there's a difference between a vaguely fantastic element for the sake of game play and using that same fantasy (because even if leaders change by era they're still effectively immortal, living for thousands or hundreds of years) to make a political statement. I'd rather see leaders eliminated entirely than see them used to endorse hypernationalist and fascist fantasies.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Better not answering that. :it'stimetostopposting:

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

So just speculation. I find it unlikely. It fits the Civ model poorly, it would narrow the list of possible civs to about five if we're generous, and even in Humankind it's received a very mixed response.

To be fair, each civ having a unique component per era seems like a pretty vague statement to begin with.

It could be similar to what Civ Rev did like have America start the game off with a random great person, or Egypt with a random Ancient Era wonder in the first city you found.

Of course it should all be taken with a grain of salt, until we hear anything official.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

So just speculation. I find it unlikely. It fits the Civ model poorly, it would narrow the list of possible civs to about five if we're generous, and even in Humankind it's received a very mixed response.

I haven't review it yet but I did play it. it took me about a month to figure out what to do in each era and how to be successful.

 

[Zaarin]

I haven't review it yet but I did play it. it took me about a month to figure out what to do in each era and how to be successful.

I like Humankind, but I don't really want it to be a model for the future of Civ.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I like Humankind, but I don't really want it to be a model for the future of Civ.

Indeed. I had been craving a historical 4x game where the bonuses change/evolve/accumulate era to era and to start as neolithic nomads, and Humankind satiates that hunger pretty well. But I don't really want to see Civ undergo a wholesale paradigm shift to adopt those features.

 

[awesome]

Which, since you won't name said source, we just have to take your word for it.


Well, I look forward to Civ7 having the most nationalist interpretation of Persia, China, and India for playable civs--or will we get one civ per expansion, with China in the base game, saving Persia for XP1 and India for XP2? Civ3 showed that just changing leader costumes by era was a bad idea; changing leaders entirely per era is a train wreck in the making. I can appreciate that history is more flavor than substance in Civ, but I won't buy a game that indulges nationalist fantasies like "Babylon is ancient Iraq" (or "Iraq is modern Babylon"). I can appreciate that the marketing department insists on some level of pandering, but there are lines that shouldn't be crossed.

Source: trust me, bro