LOW number of civilizations at launch

[Gori the Grey]

I would like to point out that, even after the Civilization's name is changed to America or Mexico, Tecumseh will still be the face and representative of the nation. I think leaders might make these transitions feel less like "replacements."

To the extent that I think some players are going to call their civ Tecumsehland, in game if there's a mechanism for that, or in their minds if not.

With Egypt, Shawnee, America as three periods into which the history of the Tecumsic peoples can be divided.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

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

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

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.

 

[TheGrayFox]

What argument am I obviously trying to imply?

Well considering that neither of your two most recent posts actually answered the questions being ask and you've already stated that you weren't trying to imply what almost any sensible reading of your posts would suggest, I'll let you explain why you keep quoting two non-contradictory passages and presenting them as arguments.

 

[Gorbles]

Well considering that neither of your two most recent posts actually answered the questions being ask and you've already stated that you weren't trying to imply what almost any sensible reading of your posts would suggest, I'll let you explain why you keep quoting two non-contradictory passages and presenting them as arguments.

That's not an answer I'm afraid. I'll ask again: what argument am I trying obviously trying to imply?

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.

I think this is part and parcel of any discussion, for better and for worse. People get entrenched, dig in, and off it goes. It also depends what people want out of the discussion. For example, for me personally, a genuine discussion is an exchange of views, however frank. If someone doesn't want to participate, or doesn't want to continue, that's fine.

If someone obviously wants to, continues to post, but fails to engage with posts made, or questions asked, then it becomes a bit more tedious. I appreciate that. Old forum habits die hard. But I don't think anyone is being "shut down", personally (and this very quickly becomes off-topic, which is what PMs tend to be for. This is something I often offer, but am rarely taken up on).

 

[TheGrayFox]

That's not an answer I'm afraid. I'll ask again: what argument am I trying obviously trying to imply?

Considering you've answered none of the questions I've asked you, I don't think I need to answer you

Folks can read into this however they please. Paraphrase, too, if they want.

 

[Gorbles]

Considering you've answered none of the questions I've asked you, I don't think I need to answer you

Folks can read into this however they please. Paraphrase, too, if they want.

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.

 

[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)