LOW number of civilizations at launch

[TheGrayFox]

At the risk of being repetitive, you asked a question, and I provided an answer. Both are in this post. If you disagree with the answer, that's fine, but that doesn't make it not an answer. Nor have you asked me any other question. You've asked other posters, but not me. Unless you're referring to my first post here, in which case the same logic applies (except I wasn't asked, personally).

Feel free to send me a PM in the event the thread is going in too many directions. I've been there before.

You didn't answer either of my questions though. You didn't answer what motives are being put in the devs mouths and you didn't answer where I argued that conflict was the ONLY means for a civilization to change..

You can keep saying you did but you really didn't, all you did was point out two non-contradictory posts and try to present them as inherent answers to my question when they were not and I'm not the only person who has pointed this out to you. We don't need to PM about it, the conversation can die right here. It was a rather pointless tangent anyway

 

[Gorbles]

You didn't answer either of my questions though. You didn't answer what motives are being put in the devs mouths and you didn't answer where I argued that conflict was the ONLY means for a civilization to change..

You can keep saying you did but you really didn't, all you did was point out two non-contradictory posts and try to present them as inherent answers to my question when they were not and I'm not the only person who has pointed this out to you. We don't need to PM about it, the conversation can die right here. It was a rather pointless tangent anyway

shrugs

I felt they were answer enough. Agree to disagree

 

[gdr_willter]

I think the temperature could do with being lowered here.

There is clearly some feeling amongst detractors of civ switching that this forum has become a difficult place to have a genuine discussion on the topic without being misrepresented. Thats leading people to get frustrated and get heated in their tone.

What is not helping is terse and/or smarmy responses from other users who disagree with a dissenting opinion, thats what's ramping up the heat IMO. There are much better ways to disagree, but for some reason every thread against civ switching seems to get brigaded by people insistant upon proselytising about how great it is and why the reasons for disliking it are hypocritical, which drowns and shut down discussion around why things aren't clicking for people

I expect better particularly from the mods here. And I hope going forwards a bit more space can be left for people to explore why they don't like this without being jumped on for hyperbole or perceived inconsistency. This is an Internet forum, not an academic paper, people aren't always going to be explaining themselves fully satisfactorily, so responding as if they are isn't helpful from either side. I know I can be as guilty of this as anyone else but I think its worth saying given we are all hear to discuss something we collectively have a passion for so we can continue to do so nicely.

Well, I see you guys in every "This Civ 7 Feature looks good" thread as the opponent - Why not for the reversed case?

 

[PauI]

Trying to discuss your subjective viewpoints with others will just give you a headache, as you can't control their perception of "how things should be interpreted" anyway.

Discussing topics from a gameplay or theorycrafting perspective, based on gathered information, seems less stressful and healthier to me. However, this could also derail into the same issue if one tries to control the narrative (e.g., claiming one thing is definitively better than another).


We have no control over what other people think, and accepting that fact is the first step toward having more enjoyable discussions.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

You didn't answer what motives are being put in the devs mouths

putting Native Americans civs into colonial civs. Not sure if that was you saying that but the accusation is out there. I know I’m saying it’s not true and the devs are not saying or doing it.

 

[TheGrayFox]

putting Native Americans civs into colonial civs. Not sure if that was you saying that but the accusation is out there. I know I’m saying it’s not true and the devs are not saying or doing it.

They're already revealed all of the modern civs besides what 2 slots? We are either going to get Native Americans civ swapping into colonial civs like US or Mexico at launch or in the unlikely chance there is a modern Native American civ path, we'll see the equally terrible alternative which is something like the Shawnee or Maya becoming Cherokee.

It's a lose lose situation for many of the people complaining, and we know enough about the game through promotional releases to come to that conclusion without putting words in the dev's mouths.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

There is clearly some feeling amongst detractors of civ switching that this forum has become a difficult place to have a genuine discussion on the topic without being misrepresented.

This forum has never been an echo chamber. It’s similar to when the anti Harriet Tubman crowd got pushback here.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Mexico

It’s Mexico. You are the one saying it’s not a native civ. That’s not coming from the devs. It’s you putting your words in the mouth of the devs.

 

[AD1730]

It’s Mexico. You are the one saying it’s not a native civ. That’s not coming from the devs. It’s you putting your words in the mouth of the devs.

Why isn’t Mexico a colonial civ?

 

[TheGrayFox]

It’s Mexico. You are the one saying it’s not a native civ. That’s not coming from the devs. It’s you putting your words in the mouth of the devs.

It's Mexico. The civilization based on the very real country of Mexico, which is nation-state that is objectively a product of European Colonialism, a former European colony who revolted against their European colonial overlord, led predominately by pure blooded Spanish born in the Americas who often found themselves at political odds with Spainards born in Spain who held higher colonial offices and social status.

Again the usage of these countries for flavor comes with historical baggage. The Mexico Firaxis is representing was a European colonial state, If you don't believe me, you can go read their description of the civilization on the website. Having a Native American civ suffer a crisis and then morph into Mexico comes with implications.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Why isn’t Mexico a colonial civ?

No. No more the France is a Roman colony. People just say Mexico is because it fits a narrative and France doesn’t fit the narrative. American, as in the USA is colonial because the native population was decimated but that’s not the case in Mexico or France

 

[TheGrayFox]

No. No more the France is a Roman colony. People just say Mexico is because it fits a narrative and France doesn’t fit the narrative. American, as in the USA is colonial because the native population was decimated but that’s not the case in Mexico or France

This argument has already been adressed. You wouldn't be incorrect to call Gaul a Roman colony but no one views France as a Roman Colony because Rome collapsed in 5th century and then Gaul was conquered by Germanic tribes and later consolidated by the Franks, the Germanic tribe that gives the Medieval kingdom of France its name.

That is a completely different situation than the creation of the Mexican state which only gained its independence from a Civil war of disgruntled Spanish colonial subjects demanding political seperation from an empire which had ruled it from overseas for centuries . The fact that the Spanish intermingled with the natives left behind in their conquered empire after disease killed near 90% of them does not change the objective historical fact that New Spain, which would later rebel and declare itself Mexico, was a European colonial state just like the United States.

You're arguing against basic history

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

f Mexico, was a European colonial state just like the United States.

Just like? In my eyes the only way that’s true is so simplistic that it fits with a lot of civs.

You're arguing against basic history

That’s the same argument the anti Harriet Tubman crowd said. Let’s look at the real world and not same basic narrative

 

[TheGrayFox]

Just like? In my eyes the only way that’s true is so simplistic that it fits with a lot of civs.

Yes, they were both European colonial states. No that does not mean I'm implying they're have had the same exact history or outcomes. I don't want to be dismissive but this has nothing to do with what your see or subjectivity. We're talking about basic historical fact. New Spain was European colony ruled from overseas and the modern nation-state of Mexico's history is that of a state born of results of that European colonialism.

That’s the same argument the anti Harriet Tubman crowd said. Let’s look at the real world and not same basic narrative

I don't care what the "antiHarriet Tubman" crowd said (they're right btw, she's a poor choice for a Civilization leader), I am looking at the real world quite objectively. You can too if you look at any history book on the subject of colonialism or crack open a book on the history of Mexico.

New Spain was a European colonial state and Mexico was founded from a rebellion of European colonial subjects born in the Americas rebelling against the crown that ruled them from overseas. Just like the Thirteen Colonies. Both nation-states are objectively products of European colonialism, regardless of whether Mexico state itself engaged in colonial expansion after independence (which is the argument I think you're actually trying to make here, which is also not entirely true as Mexican state tried to populate Texas and California with settlers of European descent in an attempt to exerpt control over the regions at the expense of indigenious peoples living there)

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Yes, they were both European colonial states. No that does not mean I'm implying they're have had the same exact history or outcomes.

What I'm saying the classification of "European colonial states" is so simplistic a narrative that you are implying they have the same history. Like I've said it's a simplistic narrative that could fit France.

 

[tedhebert]

What is not helping is terse and/or smarmy responses from other users who disagree with a dissenting opinion, thats what's ramping up the heat IMO. There are much better ways to disagree, but for some reason every thread against civ switching seems to get brigaded by people insistant upon proselytising about how great it is and why the reasons for disliking it are hypocritical, which drowns and shut down discussion around why things aren't clicking for people

I think what is not helping is the fact that it seems that each and every thread in the forum is being taken over with the same arguments on the same two or three subjects by the same 5 or 6 people...

So you hate it... So we know... So we don't mind it... So you know...

Could we PLEASE now move on to OTHER subjects ? This is becoming so tiresome...

In fact, what we need most is NEW INFO... The holidays are over, let's get going for the final month of reveals and give us all something ELSE to talk about

 

[TheGrayFox]

What I'm saying the classification of "European colonial states" is so simplistic a narrative that you are implying they have the same history. Like I've said it's a simplistic narrative that could fit France.

and what I'm trying to tell you is that you are largely talking nonsense (I don't mean this as an insult) and arguing against basic historical fact and that no matter how hard you try to handwave it away, European colonialism existed and the modern nation-state of Mexico is a product of that colonialism . My pointing out that the United States and Mexico both share a history as former European colonies is not arguing that they have had the same exact history. That's just a silly strawman you've created.

You've tried this "Well why isn't France a Roman colony?" argument three times now and then proceeded to ignore every single time this point is addressed. France is not considered a Roman colony because Rome collapsed and Roman Gaul was conquered by German barbarians, who assimilated into formly Roman ruled populations and ruled over them directly.

It's quite ridiculous that I'm just repeating basic objective historical fact over and over again. So I'm just going to let Firaxis devs explain it to you at this point

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

European colonialism existed and the modern nation-state of Mexico is a product of that.

I simply don't agree that you put in "European Colonialism" (a term I view as being a vast simplification of many different forms of colonialism) and out the other side you get Mexico, or America. If the point is simply that Europeans came over to the americas then sure, that happened.

I don't see how that description is implying that the Mexico civ is some colonial thing that doesn't included culture from indigenous people. Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the argument is that the Mexico civ doesn't include indigenous people.

You've tried this "Well why isn't France a Roman colony?" argument three times now and then proceeded to ignore every single time the argument is addressed. France is not considered a Roman colony because Rome collapsed and Roman Gaul was conquered by German barbarians, who assimilated into a population and ruled over it directly.

France, or Gaul, was colonized by the Romans. The "European Colonizer" idea means that all France, or Gaul, or whatever it's called, will be is a Roman colony and anything that happened after the Romans colonized it doesn't matter. But to me it does matter what happened later if that place is France or Mexico.

P.S. Your much more fun then the anti-Harriets. They just came in to shout DEI and scamper away.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I simply don't agree that you put in "European Colonialism" (a term I view as being a vast simplification of many different forms of colonialism) and out the other side you get Mexico, or America. If the point is simply that Europeans came over to the americas then sure, that happened.

I don't see how that description is implying that the Mexico civ is some colonial thing that doesn't included culture from indigenous people. Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the argument is that the Mexico civ doesn't include indigenous people.

But what you view as simplification doesn't matter when we are talking about objective historical facts. No the argument was never that the Mexico civ doesn't include indegnious people, it was that Mexico is a nation-state born from European colonialism but even using this strawman argument you present.... you do know that most of the "Revolucionarios" great people Firaxis has decided to depict are of predominately European and/or Mestizo descent right? I don't think there is a single strictly indiginious figure among them. Most of their traditions and wonders/civics are in Spanish too, not indigenious langauges, you understand why right?

You seem to be under the impression that the post independence nation-state of Mexico that Firaxis is representing was some paradise for indigenious people when in reality, a majority of Mexicans are of predominately European descent and they inherited the same racial caste system practiced by the Spanish and treated indigenious like dirt for most of its history (a near majority of indigenious in Mexico today still report explicit discrimination)

France, or Gaul, was colonized by the Romans. The "European Colonizer" idea means that all France, or Gaul, or whatever it's called, will be is a Roman colony and anything that happened after the Romans colonized it doesn't matter. But to me it does matter what happened later if that place is France or Mexico.

Gaul was colonized by the Romans. Roman Gual was conquered by the Germanic Franks and Medieval Kingdom of the Franks/France was established by those Germans centuries later, not Romans.

France is not comparable to the European colonies of the Americas.

P.S. Your much more fun then the anti-Harriets. They just came in to shout DEI and scamper away.

I'm glad you're* having fun

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

This forum has never been an echo chamber. It’s similar to when the anti Harriet Tubman crowd got pushback here.

I think what is not helping is the fact that it seems that each and every thread in the forum is being taken over with the same arguments on the same two or three subjects by the same 5 or 6 people...

So you hate it... So we know... So we don't mind it... So you know...

Could we PLEASE now move on to OTHER subjects ? This is becoming so tiresome...

In fact, what we need most is NEW INFO... The holidays are over, let's get going for the final month of reveals and give us all something ELSE to talk about

Not an echo chamber, its just time for everyone who disagrees with the majority opinion to be quiet that's all. You clearly all know far better than I what is OK to discuss in this place that is not an echo chamber. Fine to keep discussing what you want over and over, but I've had my go and you don't want to tolerate my opinions anymore.

I don't know if anyone involved in this particular discussion is conscious of the environment that is being created here, but it is not a welcoming one to counter opinions, and that is a recipe for an echo chamber I'm afraid.

Moderator Action: PDMA removed
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

With that, have a good one, I've said my peace and clearly my opinion is not welcome here anymore, even on threads called "Low number of civilizations at launch"