India and China - Playable Through The Entire Game

[Zaarin]

By contrast, for Europe, I do know the answer is not just no for basically all

The problem is that there is no civilization in Europe that has lasted from Antiquity to the Modern Age, not even in as debatable a sense as Persia or China. (The reality is that no civilization has existed since Antiquity; the ones that claim it are generally working with nationalist foundation myths, including China and Persia, not history. But Europe has had repeated periods of ethnogenesis that have completely repaved the cultural and political landscape. The best you can hope for in Europe is geographically and loose cultural associations. Rome > Normans > France is about as good as it gets in Europe.)

 

[ColtSeavers]

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.

In my humble opinion, the British Empire had a far larger footprint on mankind's history than any of the Chinese empires.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

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.

Couldn't someone could make the same argument about the inclusion of the Mississippians? Not me though, I like having them in.

 

[Zaarin]

In my humble opinion, the British Empire had a far larger footprint on mankind's history than the Chinese empires.

Is it really that difficult to parse that my post was referring to the Britons and Anglo-Saxons?

Couldn't someone could make the same argument about the inclusion of the Mississippians? Not me though, I like having them in.

Different argument. The argument I was rebutting was that Great Britain is the foremost civ "deserving" representation in three eras, even though it was a fairly irrelevant backwater in the Exploration Age (recalling that Civ7's Exploration Age is chiefly Medieval) and the backest of backwaters in Antiquity (not to mention the Britons are less culturally relevant to Modern England than Rome or Greece is). Yes, if the Mississippians had gotten a three era civilization before China, that would indeed have been strange.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Is it really that difficult to parse that my post was referring to the Britons and Anglo-Saxons?

For me the Britons and the British Empire is the same thing. Furthermore it looks like, that the British Empire might not be included, whereas several Chinese Empires are. I find that pretty obsucre, that's all I'm trying to say.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Different argument. The argument I was rebutting was that Great Britain is the foremost civ "deserving" representation in three eras

Fair enough, but I'd say Mississippian -> Shawnee -> Mexico should be considered a three era civ, by the rules of civ 7 (not RL).

In my humble opinion, the British Empire had a far larger footprint on mankind's history than any of the Chinese empires.

Now if you could just point me the direction of the British section of any Museum like you can a Chinese section.

 

[I was NC]

The problem is that there is no civilization in Europe that has lasted from Antiquity to the Modern Age...

Totally agree. So another way to make the point of this thread might be as follows: "Despite the developers' decision to mandate switching with each era, those who consider themselves to be Chinese and Indians can play through." Again, the statement may not be accurate (recall learning something about not everyone in China is Han?), but if it is, then those of other nationalities are missing out by comparison. Also again, whether that matters is debatable.

The solution would be to not mandate civ switching, but that's an entirely different topic.

 

[Zaarin]

For me the Britons and the British Empire is the same thing.

They're very much not. The Britons were the native Celtic inhabitants of Great Britain and the ancestors of the Welsh, Cornish, and Bretons.

Fair enough, but I'd say Mississippian -> Shawnee -> Mexico should be considered a three era civ, by the rules of civ 7 (not RL).

Yes, though I don't consider the Shawnee base game and Mississippians > Choctaw > Cherokee would have been closer to the Chinese lineup.

 

[Guandao]

They're saving all the "popular" European Civs for DLCs or Expansions. Civs like the Mississippians, Hawaii, Khmer, Songhai probably wouldn't sell as much.

Honestly, imperial British history is boring for me. After Elizabeth I, English/British history is boring. Domination! Conquering! Genocide! With the horrendous anthropology that accompanied it.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Now if you could just point me the direction of the British section of any Museum like you can a Chinese section.

Sure, we all know that some historical artifacts count so much more than the Westminster Parliamentary System, the Revolution of Manufacturing or the English language, which is the lingua franca, we are literally communicating in right now. And for the record, I have no connection to Britain whatsoever, I just find the degradation of the arguably most influential Empire in human history pretty absurd.

 

[Krikkit1]

Sure, we all know that some historical artifacts count so much more than the Westminster Parliamentary System, the Revolution of Manufacturing or the English language, which is the lingua franca, we are literally communicating in right now. And for the record, I have no connection to Britain whatsoever, I just find the degradation of the arguably most influential Empire in human history pretty absurd.

All non ancient things…and none have anything to do with the Britons. (The British yes…but they are norman, roman, and some anglo saxon)

 

[ColtSeavers]

All non ancient things…and none have anything to do with the Britons. (The British yes…but they are norman, roman, and some anglo saxon)

At least for the Exploration Age and the Modern Age, the British Empire or Britain or however you wanna call it, would be a "must" for me.

 

[ColtSeavers]

All non ancient things…and none have anything to do with the Britons. (The British yes…but they are norman, roman, and some anglo saxon)

Well then I apparently confused the Britons with the British, pardon me, but I'm not a native speaker.

 

[untitledjuan]

At least for the Exploration Age and the Modern Age, the British Empire or Britain or however you wanna call it, would be a "must" for me.

You're mixing up various different groups of people.

The Britons are the "Ancient Era" Celtic peoples that were "indigenous" to the island of Great Britain. Their "direct" descendants are the Welsh, Cornish, Bretons. They were there before the Roman, Anglo-Saxon or Norman invasions.

The British are the subjects of the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland, since the Acts of Union of 1707. There was no political, let alone cultural, British identity before that. Thus, the British, or the British Empire, would classify as a "Modern Era" civ in Civ7 terms.

Before that, the Kingdoms of England and Scotland were separate entities that existed in Great Britain. Therefore, the English and/or Scottish could work as an "Exploration Era" civ in Civ7's purely gameplay centric and arbitrary classification.

Do we really need a Britons>English>British line in the base game? Maybe not, with either one of those in the base game it would be enough. (The Normans don't count). The others could appear as future DLCs

 

[Zaarin]

The Normans don't count

TBH I was the prime target for a Tudor England civ, but the Norman civ as it's designed is so English that I really don't need another English civ in Exploration Age. It's a little disappointing, but it's the design the devs chose to make. Still, I doubt we'll be without Britain longer than March.

 

[Krikkit1]

Well then I apparently confused the Britons with the British, pardon me, but I'm not a native speaker.

No problem makes sense.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I think the pragmatic choice is to go for direct representation in at least 2 era's for all major civilizations. China and India are two of the few Civs that can support one in every era due to their general area's being continually habituated (with the caveat for india being that's massive and that the three different empires chosen hail from three different regions). The others are what.... Japan, Italy and Scandinavia?

So Normans in the Exploration Era is fine, IF an England or Britain Civ is added in Modern

The same applies to France (which can be Franks into French Empire), Germany (Teutons into Prussia), Russia (Kievan Rus/Ruthenia into Russian Empire), and so on.

And because the Exploration and Modern Era's span a smaller section of the timeline compared to Antiquity, it makes sense that the Antiquity Civs are distinct, non-linear precursors to the more streamlined paths in Exploration and Modern. No one is bat a lash if the Hittites are added as a pseudo-third party in a Turkish Civilization line with the Seljuks and Ottomans, while they can also be a valid starting point for the Arabian line (which starts with Abbassids in Exploration and could end with Saudi or Oman in Modern).

 

[Xandinho]

I think the pragmatic choice is to go for direct representation in at least 2 era's for all major civilizations. China and India are two of the few Civs that can support one in every era due to their general area's being continually habituated (with the caveat for india being that's massive and that the three different empires chosen hail from three different regions). The others are what.... Japan, Italy and Scandinavia?

Persia, Korea and Ethiopia. Maybe Maya too?

 

[Krikkit1]

I think the pragmatic choice is to go for direct representation in at least 2 era's for all major civilizations. China and India are two of the few Civs that can support one in every era due to their general area's being continually habituated (with the caveat for india being that's massive and that the three different empires chosen hail from three different regions). The others are what.... Japan, Italy and Scandinavia?

So Normans in the Exploration Era is fine, IF an England or Britain Civ is added in Modern

The same applies to France (which can be Franks into French Empire), Germany (Teutons into Prussia), Russia (Kievan Rus/Ruthenia into Russian Empire), and so on.

And because the Exploration and Modern Era's span a smaller section of the timeline compared to Antiquity, it makes sense that the Antiquity Civs are distinct, non-linear precursors to the more streamlined paths in Exploration and Modern. No one is bat a lash if the Hittites are added as a pseudo-third party in a Turkish Civilization line with the Seljuks and Ottomans, while they can also be a valid starting point for the Arabian line (which starts with Abbassids in Exploration and could end with Saudi or Oman in Modern).

Almost every part of the world has been continuously habitated for the past 10,000 years. The issue is
1 groups that move in (or out) from areas
2 some very important* “civs” have tiny areas currently

*both in terms of impact on history and how much people want to play them

So if a currently tiny area(Britain, France, Germany) had a big impact in some age, they should probably be in that age….but their Civ 7 predecessors don’t need to be their limited area predecessors. (Britons, Gauls, etc)

 

[Isengardtom]

For Germany they could have the Holy Roman Empire as sn exploration civ and the Frankish empire for France with Rome an easy antiquity civ

Or Gaul, the Vandals,…

Personally I want to see more Antiquity middle eastern Civs
Assyria, Babylonia, Parthia, Sassanid, Hittites