Khmer - Antiquity Age Civilization Discussion

I have to say, after hearing Andrew's rationale for making Khmer ancient amd sleeping with this knowledge :p I'm fine with it as an exception due to the misery of finding alternate convincing ancient civ for SEA. Especially if we assume Khmer to embody Funan and Chenla, first incarnations of Khmer culture, which lasted since 1st century AD. After all, Funan *was* the first major civilization in the region, with massive progenitor importance, but as I have personally experienced, it's just enough obscure for there being no sensible way to turn it into a civ while also making Khmer its own separate civ.

And given that this Khmer civ deliberately covers some Funan-Chenla ancient aspects in its flavour and policies, if you simply make the choice to rename it to "Funan" it makes sense - I think it's way simpler than moving Khmer to the era 2 ;)

Even if Khmer isn't fully reaching back into Funan, if we are getting a Funan leader then I consider the decision to be fairly sound, not only for Khmer but for setting up all pathways deriving from Khmer. I could reasonably believe that Soma leading Khmer through Burma/Vietnam/(Majapahit) into Siam fairly represents the cultural legacy of that region.

Leader choices are going to help a lot in grounding these historical paths, which I think is why the devs have been framing the progression direction in terms of leaders and not civs. It's not that Ashoka is leading the Maurya; it's that his legacy forms a strong cultural throughline from Maurya all the way to the modern Indian flag. It's not that Confucius is representing Zhou or China, so much as he is representing the Confucian zeitgeist that shaped much of Chinese culture across many Chinese dynasties. Himiko represents the Yamatai and Shinto legacy that shaped the Japanese shogunates. These are the best "person" encompassing the regions, cultures, and polities of "India," "China," and "Japan" across all three eras; the civs, in effect, represent the leaders' legacies. Soma would do the same thing for Southeast Asia, as one could very comfortably view Khmer and everything that followed as her legacy.

If I am correct, it is a very efficient manner for selecting and creating fewer leaders than one-per-civ, as on average leaders are representing the legacy and interconnectivity between at least two and possibly three or more civs. Obviously exploration and modern leaders are held to different standards than antiquity civs, but I think still reaching backward if they are able to.
 
I do understand people who are unhappy with this decision for sake of principles. Though I think Khmer are one of the least painful civs possible to treat this way due to very limited interaction with other (possibly) ingame civs. If for some crazy reason Byzantium went to the ancient era it would be disaster e.g. due to it not being able to face its historical rivals and frenemies, but Khmer lose direct interactions with whom exactly beyond shared moment with Majapahit? Early Sukhothai and Champa, both of who are unlikely to get in the game?

Ancient Khmer half masquerading as Funan at least definitely solves the headache of well documented ancient civ in the SEA region, one way or another.
Sukhothai was actually Louvopur's colony, later the Kingdom itself grew into a kind of 'superpower' but not THAT powerful, the very reason Sukhothai grew is because of Yuan China used land based trade routes primarily. Sukhothai was the continental southeastern node that hooked to The Silk Road network.

even at its peak, Sukhothai wasn't really powerful enough. what King Ramkhamhaeng's stele said referring to his 'territory' was actually referred to those kingdoms (or principalities) in his league 'who he could count upon'. yet I don't think King of Louvopur would simply cowtow to King Ramkhamhaeng since Louvopur was considered itself equal or even superior.

And the Fall of Yuan also dragged Sukhothai down with it. with Ming Empire chose sea trade routes over land, wealths the kingdom once had also dried up (The very same reason that also ruiled Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt after Portugal found sea trade routes to Asia without going through Mamluk domain.)
 
This pic in reddit is very off to me. While i'm quite patriotic on this matter, Green is NOT favorite roof color here. Red is.
Did FXis crew ever visit Inner Bangkok or anywhere else in Thailand to see King Chulalongkon Era's buildings? like Palace, Royal Residency in key provinces, and many government office buildings like ministorial offices especially Ministry of Defence Building just opposite the Grand Palace?

and most 'modern' buildings were very much based on Italian designs, this because a good numbers of Italian archetects were employed here since 1870-1945 (The last, and most famous even earn Thai citizenship, the Victory Monument in Bangkok is very much based on Obelisks in Rome).
I think certain building colors match the player color (which stays constant throughout the game and so is unrelated to the civ being played)
 
This is all the blobbing justification of the civ structure previous to the age/civil split in 7. Why stop with Khmer? Why not extend the Khmer culture into the modern nation state of Cambodia?

It's arbitrary which is frustrating. It's forcing civs into a model they don't fit.
 
It's not that Confucius is representing Zhou or China, so much as he is representing the Confucian zeitgeist that shaped much of Chinese culture across many Chinese dynasties.

Keep in mind Confucius interpreted like that is also the leader of the Koreans and Vietnamese. Less so Japanese, but ironically he's still much more of a leader of the Japanese civilisation than Himiko ever was. :mischief:

Himiko represents the Yamatai and Shinto legacy that shaped the Japanese shogunates.
Himiko definitely represents the invented origin of Japanese spiritualism and exceptionalism, buuuut....

Shogunates were Buddhist (Kamakura and Muromachi are hardcore Buddhist, Edo is Neo-Confucian). It was the imperial line that formularised and canonised certain local rituals using Taoist and Buddhist thought to uphold a legitimising principle.
 
Shoges were Buddhist (Kamakura and Muromachi are hardcore Buddhist, Edo is Neo-Confucian). It was the imperial line that formularised and canonised certain local rituals using Taoist and Buddhist thought to uphold a legitimising principle.
To be precise, Kamakura and Muromachi followed Japanese Zen Buddhism (imported from Song China), mainly the Rinzai Branch, to the point of employing Rinzai monks as their bureaucrats (as monks equal to the intelligentsia at the time). Edo Shogunate had a much more syncretized ideology, in that they began to employ Shushi-Gaku (Neo-Confucian) scholars as their bureaucrats and advisors, but in terms of religion, the ruling class still followed Buddhism (note that Confucianism is never a religion but a political ideology with a strong ethical aspect; the Tokugawa Shoguns generally agreed with the Confucianism ideology while following the Buddhism religious beliefs).
 
Leader choices are going to help a lot in grounding these historical paths, which I think is why the devs have been framing the progression direction in terms of leaders and not civs. It's not that Ashoka is leading the Maurya; it's that his legacy forms a strong cultural throughline from Maurya all the way to the modern Indian flag. It's not that Confucius is representing Zhou or China, so much as he is representing the Confucian zeitgeist that shaped much of Chinese culture across many Chinese dynasties. Himiko represents the Yamatai and Shinto legacy that shaped the Japanese shogunates. These are the best "person" encompassing the regions, cultures, and polities of "India," "China," and "Japan" across all three eras; the civs, in effect, represent the leaders' legacies. Soma would do the same thing for Southeast Asia, as one could very comfortably view Khmer and everything that followed as her legacy.

If I am correct, it is a very efficient manner for selecting and creating fewer leaders than one-per-civ, as on average leaders are representing the legacy and interconnectivity between at least two and possibly three or more civs. Obviously exploration and modern leaders are held to different standards than antiquity civs, but I think still reaching backward if they are able to.

Very interesting idea, I haven't thought of that! It would be interesting exercise to think of different leaders fitting this notion.

another for India - unfortunately damn Gandhi fits it perfectly, though I'd love India not having either India having neither Gandhi nor or Maurya emperor as a leader.
Persia - Ferdowsi please; 11th AD poet who wrote Shahnameh, epic of titanic importance for Persian countries. Bonus for Persian leader who is not just from Islamic Iran but from medieval Iran, which tends to get sidelined with its gigantic cultural achievements dur to the lack of longstanding empires.
 
Himiko and her Yamatai kingdom is so poorly documented she may as well not exist. By far my least favourite leader while looking at the game with a history hat on.
 
Himiko and her Yamatai kingdom is so poorly documented she may as well not exist. By far my least favourite leader while looking at the game with a history hat on.
To be fair, she and her kingdom were rather well-documented by pre-modern standards, detailed to the names of officials and major political figures (that can be reconstructed in Japanese). The only issue we have with her is that there aren't corresponding archaeological records - the absence of which does not necessarily mean we should throw away all the historical narratives.

In terms of information we know of, Himiko was about on par with Gilgamesh (if he was based on a real king) and Kupe. Tomyris and Dido had much less materials.
 
Himiko and her Yamatai kingdom is so poorly documented she may as well not exist. By far my least favourite leader while looking at the game with a history hat on.
Her only known records came from Cao Wei Kingdom sources. and no doubt part of Three Kingdoms era.
She tends to be mythic characters some Mangakas uses from time to time.
1. Go Nagai; Steel Jeeg- A female leader named Himika is a leader of Yamatai Kingdom, a kingdom of an undead race best known for the use of magic (later revealed to be extraterrestrial people), and they're evil who waged war against humanity. only Shiba Business Empire and a cyborg dude from that family stood to stop the Empire.
2. Leiji Matsumoto; Queen Millennia (Animated Movie 1981), Queen Himiko is one of 'Queen Millennia', also extraterrestrial humanoid, though not a main character.
 
If it’s wrong to choose a legendary figure of dubious historicity to be my immortal avatar in a video game, then I don’t want to be right.
Again, Himiko’s historicity is not in question. Her ties to Japan-Japan is since Japanese themselves, once they acquire literacy, never mention her even when reaching back into the past. All despite being aware of the account she appears in by virtue of having access to the historical account in question and also still using the names contained within it like State of Wa or Yamato-ish names.
Of course the reason could simply be pragmatic politics (history written by the victors and the polity she is from was destroyed by the one from modern Kansai region which formed the Imperial power in Japan), or she’s mentioned but as a figure using a different name by that point (hence the theories trying to tie her into female notables of the royal family line).
 
I generally like the idea of each faction has two “historical” paths it can take at the end of each age.
With that in mind Khmer to SEA okay sure. I guess Maurya into SEA is the second choice ? Then Khmer into Chola as its second choice ?
That all feels better to me than Greece into Normans.
It all gets messy with Japan though…
 
I generally like the idea of each faction has two “historical” paths it can take at the end of each age.
With that in mind Khmer to SEA okay sure. I guess Maurya into SEA is the second choice ? Then Khmer into Chola as its second choice ?
That all feels better to me than Greece into Normans.
It all gets messy with Japan though…

Well once we flesh out the SEA civs, I think the natural Indochine spectrum will afford some reasonable pathways. Maurya through Burma into Siam. Han into Vietnam and maybe into Siam. I think that will turn out fine for optional historical pathways. And similarly I do think once the HRE/Carolingians and Byzantium are added a lot more of Europe will coalesce.

However, I think a lot of these likely planned civs will not be in the base game, and we will have to settle for Greece into weird directions.
 
Last edited:
I generally like the idea of each faction has two “historical” paths it can take at the end of each age.
With that in mind Khmer to SEA okay sure. I guess Maurya into SEA is the second choice ? Then Khmer into Chola as its second choice ?
That all feels better to me than Greece into Normans.
It all gets messy with Japan though…
Khmer into Chola seems backwards though i guess it is 'better' than some paths. A lot of classical Greek colonies would later (via other kingdoms) become Norman territories even if the Greek mainland did not. I didn't realise the Normans had this much reach in the Mediterranaean. A Norman principality in Northern Anatolia was the biggest surprise.

I think it was essential for each faction to have at least two historical paths - otherwise the game will be repetitive. We haven't seen the routes to Japan yet.
 

Attachments

  • Greek_Colonization_Archaic_Period.png
    Greek_Colonization_Archaic_Period.png
    112.8 KB · Views: 17
  • Norman_Conquests_copy_(1).jpg
    Norman_Conquests_copy_(1).jpg
    150.2 KB · Views: 18
Khmer into Chola seems backwards though i guess it is 'better' than some paths. A lot of classical Greek colonies would later (via other kingdoms) become Norman territories even if the Greek mainland did not. I didn't realise the Normans had this much reach in the Mediterranaean. A Norman principality in Northern Anatolia was the biggest surprise.

I think it was essential for each faction to have at least two historical paths - otherwise the game will be repetitive. We haven't seen the routes to Japan yet.
One important thing to note is what you don't have to follow historical path. Between historical paths, regional paths, leader paths and unlockable civs you should be able to have a lot of variety (I still hope all Emploration+ civs are unlockable in one way or another).

AI civs will be more predictable, but this should be ok.
 
One important thing to note is what you don't have to follow historical path. Between historical paths, regional paths, leader paths and unlockable civs you should be able to have a lot of variety (I still hope all Emploration+ civs are unlockable in one way or another).

AI civs will be more predictable, but this should be ok.
That's very true. Picking a path best suited to the map at hand would make the most sense. It'll take some getting used to though. History buffs will have a harder time with it than the average player.
 
Khmer into Chola seems backwards though i guess it is 'better' than some paths. A lot of classical Greek colonies would later (via other kingdoms) become Norman territories even if the Greek mainland did not. I didn't realise the Normans had this much reach in the Mediterranaean. A Norman principality in Northern Anatolia was the biggest surprise.

I think it was essential for each faction to have at least two historical paths - otherwise the game will be repetitive. We haven't seen the routes to Japan yet.
I think people are conflating and/or confusing exactly what historical paths means with historical unlocks.

Historical paths seem to be a leader's preferred progression path as AI, which also is probably the default unlocked path when you play as that leader. It is:

* Hatshepsut auto-progresses to Abassid and presumably Ottomans.
* Augustus auto-progresses to Normans and France (which I think the only reason he does that is to give a Byzantine leader a different path)
* Amina (an exploration/modern era leader) auto-progresses to Songhai and Hausa (presumably starting from Numidia)
* Ben Franklin (a modern era leader) auto-progresses into America, and probably the Normans before that.

There does not seem to be any "unlocking" to do for historical paths; it is just how the game naturally progresses for both players and AI without the player choosing otherwise.

Historical unlocks seem to be tied to the civ, and not the leader. There do seem to be about three options for each civ in the antiquity era, but they are not each "historical paths" that are somehow preferred by the leader. They are simply the most geographically/culturally related civs that feel somewhat natural as unlockable progressions from that particular civ. We honestly do not know yet what the criteria are, but it seems things like "Egypt can unlock Mongolia with horses" may be a concession for civs that do not have a lot of available geographic options.

In particular, I am seeing some issues with natural modern era transitions for many regions at base launch. While Maya -> Inca -> Gran Colombia or Tonga -> Maori -> Hawaii may all be well and good for somewhat historical throughlines, there is literally nowhere else for them to progress. They are foregone conclusions, and that's not very fun as a game.

For this reason, I think we will see a few extra civs in the modern era to help "tie things up" by giving civs multiple options to progress to. Instead of Songhai always feeling like its only option is progressing to Hausa, maybe it can ALSO progress back north to Morocco, giving it two historical unlock options. Here are my predictions for "extra" modern civs we might see in base game:

* Maya -> Inca -> Gran Colombia can also progress to Brazil. (Maya will have Shawnee as an option with DLC)
* Tonga -> Maori -> Hawaii can also progress to Australia. (Tonga could also retreat to Majapahit)
* Khmer -> Majapahit -> Siam can also progress to Australia. (Khmer can also move to Chola, maybe Ming)
* Numidia -> Songhai -> Hausa can also progress back north to Morocco (Numidia can also go north to Spain)
* Aksum -> Swahili -> Buganda can also progress back north to Ethiopia or maybe south to the Zulu (Aksum can also move into Abassids)
* Han -> Silla -> Meiji can also progress back to Qing (Han can already progress to Ming and Mongolia)
* Norse -> Normans -> Britain can also progress back to Sweden (this I think is the least necessary example, because nowhere else really wants/needs to end up in Sweden)
* I also am still unsure how the Shawnee will be given options as a DLC. They could progress to Lakota, or Iroquois, or Anishinaabe, but without the Shawnee DLC what other civ would lead into them?
 
Top Bottom