India and China - Playable Through The Entire Game

[Krikkit1]

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.

and similarly to treat China (or especially India) as one civ is strange…especially once you start looking at different eras.

Ancient USAmerican civilization is primarily a combo of Rome, Germanics, some Celts…but that is the same for France

 

[Sagax]

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.

I think the argument being made here is that Maurya, Chola, and Mughal are significantly more different from each other than one may think - and so, the claim that one is playing a "continuous India" through all three ages is not that accurate.

 

[Zaarin]

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

But no one has suggested that...only that India is no more a single civilization than Europe is. Krikkit1's comment was a tongue-in-cheek reminder that Europe's regional paths are no different from Maurya > Chola > Mughals (or if anything are more coherent).

 

[evonannoredars]

to cheekily add onto what @Zaarin said;

throwing them together and making one Civ out of them

is more or less what the norman civ is

 

[Krikkit1]

to cheekily add onto what @Zaarin said;

is more or less what the norman civ is

And the Greek and Mayan civ as well

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

The geographic features of a mountain peak far in the distance will naturally be less distinct than the rocks and trees on the summit where on is standing. China and India may be tall mountains in their own right, but they’re way off in the background, and to try to paint them with the same level of detail as a leaf in the foreground will lead to an ugly painting.

I first fell in love with the Civ franchise circa IV & V. None of the discord around the game used the neologism “Eurocentric”, just as fish probably talk little about water.

Had the topic come up, we could have articulated that Civ was not merely a game about global history, but one made by westerners for a primarily western audience and from a implicitly western perspective - and no one would have taken any issue with that.

I dislike the direction which the modern fandom has pushed the franchise towards. I’m like a Hobbit in love with the Shire who has little interest in distant Rhûn or Far Harad. I’ll march to Mordor to defend my home, but I’m not interested in the genealogies of every clan of Easterlings to the same level as I am the lineages of Baggins, Tooks, and Proudfoots (or, if you prefer, Proudfeet).

 

[HktkNban]

"In India, there is a population of 1.4 billion and 122 languages, yet it should be regarded as a single civilization."
"In Europe, there is a population of 450 million and 24 languages, so it should not be regarded as a single civilization."

 

[Civinator]

"In India, there is a population of 1.4 billion and 122 languages, yet it should be regarded as a single civilization."
"In Europe, there is a population of 450 million and 24 languages, so it should not be regarded as a single civilization."

I think it has an influence, if you are looking on a civ from the perspective of a civ that is existing today, backwards to 4000 BC or if you are looking at a civ from the perspective from 4000 BC up to our present times. It is also very important what you define as a "civ" in the sense of a civ game.

 

[Siptah]

Even if it was a game made by western developers for only a western audience, that western includes a large percentage of people with non-western heritage. And of course many westerners that have interests beyond the west, see Andrew for an example and the dev side and someone like me on the player side.

I honestly expect a game that is about world history in 2025 to also cover large parts of the world in similar detail. It’s also fine not to do this if the game‘s scope is reduced, e.g. Old World or CK2 in its first years. But civ always had this global and 6000 years scope, hence, it should include civs from around the globe and the game‘s whole time frame. Obviously, it‘s a no-go to present some civs in more detail than others per se (although it can of course happen nonetheless). The de-blobbing of China and, even more so, India is a step in the right direction. In the long run, it doesn‘t mean that Europe will be presented in less detail than before. The separate ages will also lead to a more detailed Europe than ever before. It just needs more time and money as before to get to that.

 

[Kjimmet]

24 languages

Sorry for being a pedantic, but those are the official languages of EU. Europe has around 150 languages.
I do agree with the overall point, however.
EDIT: Changed number from 50 to 150, after finding a list with around that many.

 

[Krikkit1]

Sorry for being a pedantic, but those are the official languages of EU. Europe has around 150 languages.
I do agree with the overall point, however.
EDIT: Changed number from 50 to 150, after finding a list with around that many.

Pedantically India should be about 450-780 languages as well instead of 122.
(same source wikipedia has Europe at about 250, and China at about 300)

 

[UWHabs]

Even if it was a game made by western developers for only a western audience, that western includes a large percentage of people with non-western heritage. And of course many westerners that have interests beyond the west, see Andrew for an example and the dev side and someone like me on the player side.

I honestly expect a game that is about world history in 2025 to also cover large parts of the world in similar detail. It’s also fine not to do this if the game‘s scope is reduced, e.g. Old World or CK2 in its first years. But civ always had this global and 6000 years scope, hence, it should include civs from around the globe and the game‘s whole time frame. Obviously, it‘s a no-go to present some civs in more detail than others per se (although it can of course happen nonetheless). The de-blobbing of China and, even more so, India is a step in the right direction. In the long run, it doesn‘t mean that Europe will be presented in less detail than before. The separate ages will also lead to a more detailed Europe than ever before. It just needs more time and money as before to get to that.

I'm sure if they wanted to launch with like 100 civs, they would have a "consistent" path to play any of the modern major powers through all the ages, and then the switching would arguably be a way to sort of transition. You'd have a Gaul-Franks/Normans-France chain, Maya-Aztec-Mexico, Rome-Italian States-Italy, etc... (forgive me I'm not an expert on which exact tribes/nations/empires were exactly in which eras and which regions). I do think we'll have more of those paths over time, but I can understand a little the need to space out some of the initial civs. As much as it's annoying to have one era of the Middle East be light on civs, if you kept it to 10 civs per era and kept them in a direct chain, you'd have some VERY empty parts of the map.

I do think they should have maybe cut down a little on civ uniques, but have aimed for like 12-15 civs per era at launch, that would probably have mitigated a bit of the arguments that have sprung up. Even with just a couple more options available, they could probably have made a few of the connections less of a leap to put together. But I'm sure if they did that, we'd still be complaining about some stuff, and wondering why they couldn't do 18-20...

 

[Siptah]

I didn‘t mean to criticize the civ choices with my post. Just wanted to point out that something like no African/SEA/South American civ isn‘t an option for civ imho.

 

[Stomper66]

Is the USA not playable throughout the entire game? The Mississippians, Shawnee, and modern US?

I was annoyed that individual nations like England, France, Spain and Germany don't have a full play through in each era but I've made my peace with it now.

I just hope every civ gets more padded out in future DLC so it turns more into leading a nation instead of a civilisation which can become too encompassing.

 

[j51]

Just wanted to point out that something like no African/SEA/South American civ isn‘t an option for civ imho.

Yeah they are in a kind of bind because they limited themselves to 10-11 civs per era at launch. It could have made more sense to forgo the currently isolated Hawaiians and Inca in favor of civs that connect better like the Aztecs, Edo Japan or the Byzantines but then I would have complained about the lack of South American representation. Instead I’m complaining about the historical paths not making sense. Man, there’s just no satisfying this guy, huh? (Seriously very excited to play this game.)

 

[Krikkit1]

Is the USA not playable throughout the entire game? The Mississippians, Shawnee, and modern US?

I was annoyed that individual nations like England, France, Spain and Germany don't have a full play through in each era but I've made my peace with it now.

I just hope every civ gets more padded out in future DLC so it turns more into leading a nation instead of a civilisation which can become too encompassing.

France does at least
Rome-Norman-France is as much or more of a France line as
Mississippi-Shawnee-America is a US line*

If you’re just looking at geography, then geographically small civs won’t be as well represented in all ages

if you broaden it a bit then there is an England line
Rome-Norman-America (first 2 cultural +current geographical and last previous geographical+cultural ie America was part of England and took significantly from its culture)

also a Spain line with the same setup (Rome-Spain-Mexico)

*also calling that a US line is like saying Han-Mongol-Qing is the China line… one of these mostly only shares geography with the others.

 

[GoneFishingX]

This thread is just exhuasting to read and honestly was prolly started as a bait. A bunch of people using their ignorance as a shield and a weapon. "I don't know about china/india so it's normal to be annoyed by them getting 6 civs in the new game when things I care more about aren't in." To then follow it up with the implication that since "I'm ingnorant of these cultures you should have put less of them in the game."

The game has 3 distinct eras where India and China both had era defining and globally important nations/cultires during those periods. It makes complete sense that they would be represented this way.

There are obvious gaps in the civ list, but most regions of the globe have a civ or two. They got pretty good coverage tbh.

Also on the Normans thing. They were a culture that ruled england, parts of france, and parts of italy. Plus they are viking adjacent as well. As a stop gap to fill the need for french and english medieval socieites it works pretty well.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

If we were to get just one true historical & geographical line, instead of India or China, it should have been Great Britain.
Britons -> Anglo-Saxons -> United Kingdom

It’s not that I’m ignorant of Chinese or Indian history and therefore disinterested in them. The opposite is true. They’re outside the range of my passions, and therefore I don’t study them as I would other peoples and places. As a China Hawk I’m interested in their current military capabilities, but less so the names of individual scholars from the Han dynasty.

And I don’t think I’m alone. If we’re going to have a mechanic where only one or two civs an era receive named Great People, Civ VII’s players probably would have preferred American entrepreneurs or English writers or Roman generals over some of the choices we’ve got (and there’s little hope for getting such in expansions even).

 

[Zaarin]

If we were to get just one true historical & geographical line, instead of India or China, it should have been Great Britain.
Britons -> Anglo-Saxons -> United Kingdom

Ah yes, two barbarian tribes who wouldn't receive so much as footnote in a general history if it weren't for their Modern Age empire are definitely more worthy of inclusion than some of the most important empires on Earth.

 

[I was NC]

I absolutely believe the three civs each for China and India are as different as any in Europe. However, arguably that is not the relevant framing. Instead of the technical accuracy of history, since this is a literal game (not an academic conference), what matters is the feeling.

Specifically, would someone from China or India feel like they are getting to play through their national/cultural history? I genuinely have no idea. If so, then that is a nice option for them.

By contrast, for Europe, I do know the answer is not just no for basically all, but in some cases hell no. Is that sentiment supported by a valid basis? Maybe not, but it ain't changing. As such, they're in an arguably worse position.

How much that matters, if at all, is entirely debatable.