India and China - Playable Through The Entire Game
- Thread starter bahamut19
- Start date
Europe can be played through the entire game as well
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,243
I guess it is labelled "ancient China", "X Dynasty" and "Modern" ? And their attribute change through time ? However it's true, they can be played through all the game from what you are saying. It's good and unexpected for me. (eventhough I didn't see civ change as deal breaking)
@Krikkit1 : Europe is not a civilization, in Civilization games at least.
@Krikkit1 : Europe is not a civilization, in Civilization games at least.
Neither is China / India (in Civ7 at least)I guess it is labelled "ancient China", "X Dynasty" and "Modern" ? And their attribute change through time ? However it's true, they can be played through all the game from what you are saying. It's good and unexpected for me. (eventhough I didn't see civ change as deal breaking)
@Krikkit1 : Europe is not a civilization, in Civilization games at least.
the “China” the op is talking about is the 3/4 civs; Han, Ming/Mongol, Qing
the “India” the op is talking about is: Maurya, Chola, Mughal
the Europe I am talking about is the 5+ civs:
Greece/Rome, Norman/Spain, France/???
JaeChunDaeSung
Prince
Even then, the notion of either of these Civs being through the 'entire game' is only a stretch, since each culture of the area was like a different cultural and political phase throughout history.
Considering the Qing dynasty was a foreign, non-Han dynasty, or that the Mughal were a Muslim dynasty, both cultures are being represented by their apex or peak states before the factual historic downfalls or subjugation due to external as well as internal factors.
Not that we have to reconcile any of that, just to say that while these civs DO have a historic tie and connection to their respective countries, their growth and change through history is still being reflected in a way to show how far both come and go, as well as being 'built on layers'.
Considering the Qing dynasty was a foreign, non-Han dynasty, or that the Mughal were a Muslim dynasty, both cultures are being represented by their apex or peak states before the factual historic downfalls or subjugation due to external as well as internal factors.
Not that we have to reconcile any of that, just to say that while these civs DO have a historic tie and connection to their respective countries, their growth and change through history is still being reflected in a way to show how far both come and go, as well as being 'built on layers'.
ColtSeavers
Prince
The famous "country" of Europe as some Americans call it...
Last edited:
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,243
You can put Mongols off your list, they are a civ and whether they conquered China they never were Chinese. (got absorbed by Chinese culture) However Han, Ming and Qing were all Chinese, at different period of time. I just think that "China" should appear in their name at some point, to avoid any confusion. It would play with the game principles too, and show nothing is impossible.
The European countries you name, while having some heritage from one to the other, are still different civs and has always been in Civ games.
And yet the French, Spanish, and Normans are much more closely related (and much more closely located) than the Maurya, Chola, and Mughhals are to each other.
It’s not a “country” now and neither were India or China for much of history
The only reason we talk about India / China pre-Civ7 each as “one civ” and Europe as multiple-civs is strictly because
1.currently most of China and most of India are all controlled by one government (for Civ L…maybe Europe will be an expected civ)
2. most players and makers of the game live in a place with European history so the nuances of English v. French actually matter to them (they are more familiar with those minor differences)
Last edited:
TheSpaceCowboy
The Gangster of Love
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2013
- Messages
- 635
Europe is not a singular civilization, it’s neither linguistically nor politically unified, and has never been depicted as a single civ in prior games in the series.
Europe is *not* comparable to China or India, and it’s disingenuous to make the comparison.
At best one could claim that the disparate peoples of Europe twice found partial unity in the form of the Roman Empire (which never controlled all of Europe) and Christendom (which is too complicated to get into minutes away from my work shift ending).
Mortis say, but I’ve got Christmas dinner to get home to…
gdr_willter
Korean Civ Fan
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2024
- Messages
- 732
Well, in the term of Civilization IRL not in the game franchise, we easily call them "European Civilization" or "Western Civilization".
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,243
I must say that I'm not familiar even with the names you mention, and I assume many are like me. Is that their official names for the aforementioned Chinese dynasties ?
Anyway, China and India are more countries than Europe because there is a force that tends to unite them : "natural" borders. Be them by geography or by feeling of belonging, by some rulers that think so and wants to conquer by force the rest of the "kingdom". France has reached its "natural borders" only after WW2, and has a totally different language than Spain, Normans or Germany. Cultures are quite different too.
It might be the case for Maurya, Chola and Mughals, but who knows, maybe they shared the same approximate territory, or at least a center of a region that asked to be "united" ? At least the dynasties they represent is much more significant to me than those names.
EDIT : oh no, you must have spoken of India there... well, it's a real mess to me.
Last edited:
Bast
Protector of Cats
I think we should be using the word ethnicity a lot more here in relation to civilizations. If you look at Confucius as a leader and Han China, Ming China and Qing China, all of them are from Han ethnicity. You could say Qing China was led by a Manchu dynasty but no one's under the delusion that this civilization would represent the Manchus at any period in history, it's about the Han majority they ruled over and the a representation of the Qing dynasty era China. So in that sense, China is unique in that, it has a representation at all levels of the game for its majority ethnicity and culture.
dagriggstar
King
Technically speaking the first political state to control the entirety of the modern borders of India is the modern country of India. The Mughals (civ 7 modern faction) did not control the southern tip (incidentally where civ 7 exploration chola power base was) while during the Raj you have all the princely states. The next largest political unit from India is the Maurya (civ 7 ancient faction) who again did not conquer the South.
Even if you want to argue “cultural similarities” you have three different religions represented (Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism).
Even if you want to argue “cultural similarities” you have three different religions represented (Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism).
ColtSeavers
Prince
Well, but nowadays China and India are obviously unified countries, and we should treat them as such. And whether France and England have more in common than the respective Chinese peoples, is debatable, too. Anyways, I understand that some folks do worry a lot about "over representation" of the European countries. So I guess Firaxis addressed this issue with their respective Civ selection. That's fine with me, I have far bigger concerns with Civ 7 than which Civs are selected and I guess they will sell the other Civs with the upcoming DLCs, anyway.
Your in-group will always look more diverse to you than the out-group; that's just the nature of human perception. Nevertheless, English and French are closely related linguistically, and the English and French have a shared cultural and religious background. The Maurya spoke an Indo-Aryan language, lived in the north of India, and (under Ashoka) practiced Buddhism; the Chola spoke a Dravidic language, lived in the south of India, and practiced Hinduism; the Mughals spoke a Turkic language natively but Persian at court, came from Central Asia, and practiced Islam (or Din-i-llahi, a sort of Muslim heresy). China is different, as the various dynasties are obviously meant to represent the Han heritage, as @Bast said.
Country and civilization are not the same thing, in either direction.
Why?
Why shouldn’t we have 2 or 3 or 4 different “Chinese” civs in Exploration or Ancient?
(once there is enough total civs to justify it that is)
since they weren’t unified for long periods of time.
ColtSeavers
Prince
That's not what I mean, as a matter of fact, I would prefer if every Civ got its own Ancient, Exploration Age and Modern Version. I just find it strange to count Europe as one Civ, that's all.
ColtSeavers
Prince
Im not an linguist, but obviously France and England (or Germany for that matter) have a very unique history on their own, respectively. So throwing them together and making one Civ out of them, because their languages or cultures are apparently more closely related than the Cholas and the Mughals, doesn't make much sense to me. But anyways, as I stated before, this is not really a concern to me, since I certainly won't buy this game at the release date, so it doesn't really bother me, which Civs they include in the base game, or not.
Similar threads
- Poll
