Is it really Rome -> Normans?

[I was NC]

I get that the various nations in the area now known as France had connections to the Roman Empire. However the same is true of many others, so why then pick the Normans as the successor?

Seems like Byzantium would make a lot more sense. Even the Holy Roman Empire, such as it was, is a better fit. Have to wonder if the motivation is "We haven't included the Normans before, but Theodora was in V and VI, so let's change it up."

Or is my admittedly limited, entirely amateur understanding of history mistaken? As for my reason to ask, I like to play Rome (frankly don't want to switch at all), and am not excited about it becoming what feels like a fairly minor civ.

 

[Krikkit1]

I get that the various nations in the area now known as France had connections to the Roman Empire. However the same is true of many others, so why then pick the Normans as the successor?

Seems like Byzantium would make a lot more sense. Even the Holy Roman Empire, such as it was, is a better fit. Have to wonder if the motivation is "We haven't included the Normans before, but Theodora was in V and VI, so let's change it up."

Or is my admittedly limited, entirely amateur understanding of history mistaken? As for my reason to ask, I like to play Rome (frankly don't want to switch at all), and am not excited about it becoming what feels like a fairly minor civ.

Normans are A successor to Rome
Spain is also one, and some other civs may be as well.

(plus any civ that you can unlock with gameplay could be a successor to Rome in a particular game)

 

[moysturfurmer]

Normans aren’t the successor civ, they’re a successor civ. If Byzantium isn’t in the base game they’re almost certainly a candidate for a DLC down the line. Too popular not to be.

 

[I was NC]

Normans aren’t the successor civ, they’re a successor civ. If Byzantium isn’t in the base game they’re almost certainly a candidate for a DLC down the line. Too popular not to be.

Ah, thank you! This website only lists the Normans, good to know there will be others.

Civilization VII – Features Post

In this thread we will be documenting all the new additions for Civilization VII. This Features Thread is being complied for Civfanatics, head on over to the forums for all your Civilizat…

tldrmoviereviews.com

 

[Arcaian]

I get that the various nations in the area now known as France had connections to the Roman Empire.

It's also worth noting that the area of Norman conquests was significantly larger than just parts of France, and included parts of modern-day Italy, Turkey, Syria, Libya, and Tunisia - all of which have significant overlap with Roman territories:

 

[RedCourtJester]

Based on my predictions, the "Rome" path (namely, the "idea" of Rome as represented by a leader) will be Augustus leading Rome -> Spain -> Italy. The territory best represents the Western Roman Empire (I think representing the full extent of the Roman Empire proved to be too difficult with three civs and only one leader, and/or felt a bit too "blobby" and lacking character). And Augustus was selected because he conquered Spain, which better ties Spain into that progression. I think this progression, and not three Italian states, was selected specifically because Spain makes more sense as the idea of "Rome" than Venice or Florence, and we will likely get a Rome/Latins -> Venice -> Italy civ led by Lorenzo in an expansion/DLC.

For now, though, Normans are not really being depicted a part of "Rome" so much as "one of Rome's options." They are, more properly, defined as "Norse" (or "North Sea") in what I predict will be a Norse -> Normans -> Britain path led by Cnut. They just happen to play into America's path from Rome, and maybe Napoleon's (who we still don't know if he has a preferred path or several to choose from as a kind of special "pan-European" modern leader).

I would say sit on this disappointment for a week or two, because I am expecting the Norse to be revealed next Tuesday, or the following Tuesday if the Mississippian site announcement is pushed back that far.

 

[Takfloyd]

Those are some hyper-specific predictions that make you sound either insane or like you know something.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Those are some hyper-specific predictions that make you sound either insane or like you know something.

Porque no los dos?

I think Civ VII is going to look a lot closer to Civ VI at launch than people are expecting. I think we will still have, at launch:

"China," "Japan," "India," "Persia," "Egypt," "Rome," "America," "Mexico," "Norse," "Arabia," "Greece/Byzantium," "Mongolia," Teutonic/Prussian "Germany/Prussia," as well as "Mali/Songhai," "Swahili," "Samoa/Polynesia," "Mississippians/Shawnee" and, probably the loosest, "Khmer/Siam" and "Gran Colombia."

They will just be each represented by a leader stringing together three civs, instead of one whole civ like they used to be. And I think each throughline will make a lot of sense for the each leader chosen. Signs are reasonably pointing toward this.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Very off to me.
a dodgy civ at best. Because England and France DID Emerge at the High Middle Ages (Mid Age 2), around the same time Normans ceased to exists as distince civilization either as spinoffs from Vikings predecessor or as independent people. they became Englishmen or Frenchmen by that time already.

France can have TWO Eras iterations.
- Valois France (Fleurs de Lys): Age II
- French Empire OR French Republic (Fasce): Age III

Conveniently Spain as a name of Kingdom emerged sometimes after England and France became officially known as 'kingdoms' at the Late Middle Ages. by the time Columbus set sail, the country was then known as Castillia (and emblem SHOULD be Stone Tower and not Bullhead).

 

[RedCourtJester]

Very off to me.
a dodgy civ at best. Because England and France DID Emerge at the High Middle Ages (Mid Age 2), around the same time Normans ceased to exists as distince civilization either as spinoffs from Vikings predecessor or as independent people. they became Englishmen or Frenchmen by that time already.

France can have TWO Eras iterations.
- Valois France (Fleurs de Lys): Age II
- French Empire OR French Republic (Fasce): Age III

Conveniently Spain as a name of Kingdom emerged sometimes after England and France became officially known as 'kingdoms' at the Late Middle Ages. by the time Columbus set sail, the country was then known as Castillia (and emblem SHOULD be Stone Tower and not Bullhead).

I think Normans are the biggest hint in the game so far, other than the outright deception the devs have been playing with Songhai (with Egypt and Aksum), that leaders are going to be what string these civs together.

Because of the English/French options, the Normans deliberately suggest a connection back to the Norse. Why? Why would we do this in the base game for a civ progressing from Rome? Wouldn't the Angevins be perfect if we wanted a civ to move from Rome to England and France? They even start down in Aequitania, very good, strong Roman connection.

No, Normans are in the game because we have a Norse leader. And if we have a Norse leader, and one of their obvious progression choices is Normans, then Normans might in fact just be their preferred progression and not Rome's. And in fact are the perfect progression for a particular Norse leader, i.e. Cnut.

Ergo, Normans are pointing toward Norse and Cnut connecting the two.

(Also, totally pegging a return of Eleanor at some point with a Gaul -> Normans -> Britain path)

 

[dagriggstar]

Honestly like, the first thing that came to mind when we go into "the leader ties the path together logic" was Ragnar just because like vikings netflix series that was fairly popular. I could see them going for one of the sons like Bjorn Ironside or Ivar the Boneless since they kinda more strongly link to England and France. I could see the marketing department being like that's a big personality let's have them.

I don't mind Rome into Normans that much. I can buy the crisis being "a new peoples are migrating into the area disturbing the balance of power" as referring to both the decline of Rome and rise of the Normans. If we insist on direct connections too much like there just can't be that many choices available OR there are so many choices none are distinctive.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Honestly like, the first thing that came to mind when we go into "the leader ties the path together logic" was Ragnar just because like vikings netflix series that was fairly popular. I could see them going for one of the sons like Bjorn Ironside or Ivar the Boneless since they kinda more strongly link to England and France. I could see the marketing department being like that's a big personality let's have them.

I don't mind Rome into Normans that much. I can buy the crisis being "a new peoples are migrating into the area disturbing the balance of power" as referring to both the decline of Rome and rise of the Normans. If we insist on direct connections too much like there just can't be that many choices available OR there are so many choices none are distinctive.

Hm, interesting choice. I would only give Cnut the slight edge for unifying the North Seas path to Britain due to having actually been King of England. But Ragnar gets some better Swedish representation which I really like. Could see him in a Norse -...-> Sweden path very easily, even if I give better odds at Margaret for that path.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

I think a big part of why Rome -> Normans was chosen was working backwards from modern Britain; the devs initially got the idea to make a game about “history built in layers” from the Tower of London, a Norman building surrounded by a British wall containing a piece of a Roman wall from when the city was founded by Rome.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I think a big part of why Rome -> Normans was chosen was working backwards from modern Britain; the devs initially got the idea to make a game about “history built in layers” from the Tower of London, a Norman building surrounded by a British wall containing a piece of a Roman wall from when the city was founded by Rome.

I think we will definitely see some wonders like that in exploration/modern eras, which reflect back the history of one of that civ's throughlines. You can see Dogo Onsen as that for Meiji Japan already, relating back to the Yamatai period.

In my speculation thread, I think Italy is going to have Treni or Quatro Fiori Fountain to refer back to Rome, and Gran Colombia could have the Museo del Oro to tie back to Muiscan heritage. I also think that after we got confirmation in the livestream that the Serpent Mound ties back to the Hopewell culture, I think there are very good odds that the modern Shawnee civ will also have mounds to tie them all into moundbuilder cultural history; I'm predicting Norton Mounds and Anishinaabe, but could also be Effigy Mounds and Lakota or maybe another mound site I don't know of.

 

[Kev1916]

I think a big part of why Rome -> Normans was chosen was working backwards from modern Britain; the devs initially got the idea to make a game about “history built in layers” from the Tower of London, a Norman building surrounded by a British wall containing a piece of a Roman wall from when the city was founded by Rome.

In you and the devs version of "history" probs best replace modern "Britain" with England . Britain aint a country
And re the Norman conquest's they conquered England .

If people want to Civ Morphing try
Vikings who settled in Normandy and became French before conquering England and becoming English.

 

[RedCourtJester]

In you and the devs version of "history" probs best replace modern "Britain" with England . Britain aint a country
And re the Norman conquest's they conquered England .

If people want to Civ Morphing try
Vikings who settled in Normandy and became French before conquering England and becoming English.

"Britain" is likely an idea of "the British Empire" that will progress from Picts -> Scotland -> Britain (say, led by Robert the Bruce or James VI) and Mercia/Wessex -> England -> Britain (led by Aethelstan or Elizabeth) in a DLC pack. I would argue it's not even an endpoint for either of them, just where two very distinct halves of an island ended up as a kind of cultural blob for the past two centuries.

Trust, "Britain" works perfectly fine for what VII is doing. At launch, I am expecting no English or Scottish leaders, just Cnut from the Normans and DLC on the horizon.

 

[Kev1916]

"Britain" is likely an idea of "the British Empire" that will progress from Picts -> Scotland -> Britain (say, led by Robert the Bruce or James VI) and Mercia/Wessex -> England -> Britain (led by Aethelstan or Elizabeth) in a DLC pack. I would argue it's not even an endpoint for either of them, just where two very distinct halves of an island ended up as a kind of cultural blob for the past two centuries.

Trust, "Britain" works perfectly fine for what VII is doing. At launch, I am expecting no English or Scottish leaders, just Cnut from the Normans and DLC on the horizon.

To be fair never heard of Cnut, sounds raather rude and yea "Britain" in a game is a big no for me and good that there aint no Scottish leaders

 

[Black Gate]

If they pick him (I really doubt it) they can always use the alternative spelling of his name, Canute.

 

[TheGrayFox]

It's also worth noting that the area of Norman conquests was significantly larger than just parts of France, and included parts of modern-day Italy, Turkey, Syria, Libya, and Tunisia - all of which have significant overlap with Roman territories:

I still don't understand the devs line of reasoning. Is territorial proximity/overlap really the factor they're using to pick "successor" civs

By that logic, Arab caliphates would make better successors to Rome than the Normans.... and yet Rome goes into Viking conquerors centuries removed from themselves for some reason

 

[RedCourtJester]

I still don't understand the devs line of reasoning. Is territorial proximity/overlap really the factor they're using to pick "successor" civs

By that logic, Arab caliphates would make better successors to Rome than the Normans.... and yet Rome goes into Viking conquerors centuries removed from themselves for some reason

I still think people are getting too hung up on looking at only the data points revealed and not the obvious one being left out. Namely, that Normans point toward a Norse antiquity civ.

The stronger Norman pathway will be Norse -> Normans -> Britain. Beyond that, Normans don't play into Rome, except as just some vague geographic alternative. For now, they have nothing much else to really express, other than acting as the vaguest of connecting tissue to America which was always going to be wonky (but still makes sense with Ben, as he is the most French-English American leader option).

I do not foresee the Normans interacting with any other preferred leader pathways at launch. At launch, they will be the "Norse" pathway, not the "Roman" pathway, (and then also America). I think they will play into an Angevin leader's pathway down the line (Gaul -> Normans -> Britain), but I don't think they will ever be expected, by the devs, to represent "Rome through France/England" outside of America. A future path through France from Rome, if that ever happens (that could be Charlemagne?), will be Rome -> Franks/Carolingians, not Normans. We can stop worrying about the Rome -> Normans, they don't matter because they've already been assigned their leader (America).