LOW number of civilizations at launch

[Evie]

Not disagreeing (or agreeing, the debate as a whole is not one I want to intervene in) with your general point, but the claim that the USA "renamed half its states with native name once it had solved the natives problem. Without thyme or reason" is questionable - most Native state names in the US were associated with the territory or its prominent geographic features well ahead of full-scale colonization (and removal of natives). And certainly few enough of them *changed* their names from a non-native one to a native one.

There are a few weird cases out in the Northwest of pseudo-Native names, and there's Wyoming which was originally the (not at all random) name of a valley in Pennsylvania, then transfered by settlers from that region to the new territory they settled.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Oh god this tangent again. Yes, the Franks were a minority (I'd ask for a source on those numbers though) and one of several Germanic tribes/peoples to migrate into Gaul during and after the collapse of the Roman empire, assimilating into a mostly Gallo-Roman population, which they ruled over directly. I wasn't trying to imply that France is predominately Frankish today but rather point out why we don't refer to the modern nation-state of France as a "Roman Colony" today despite Gaul's ancient history as a Roman province where they built colonies.

We do not depict Mexico as an European colony either.

It would be insulting.

If you mean the picture you attached somewhere, we could say the same for most European countries :

"For centuries, Rome extracted from the Ancient World natural resources and the wealth of past empires. But Following the Fall of Rome, many saw an Opportunity to create a new, free society in all those past empires. They succeeded in their struggle for conquest, and new states emerged - blablabla."

So this speech do not mean that Mexico was an European colony, it depicts its general History that we Europeans know of.

Now why not to choose to depict France and other European countries the way I did it ? Because why start from here when there is a before and an after ?

The depiction of Mexico here is just Euro-centered.

 

[notNamed]

Not disagreeing (or agreeing, the debate as a whole is not one I want to intervene in) with your general point, but the claim that the USA "renamed half its states with native name once it had solved the natives problem. Without thyme or reason" is questionable - most Native state names in the US were associated with the territory or its prominent geographic features well ahead of full-scale colonization (and removal of natives). And certainly few enough of them *changed* their names from a non-native one to a native one.

There are a few weird cases out in the Northwest of pseudo-Native names, and there's Wyoming which was originally the (not at all random) name of a valley in Pennsylvania, then transfered by settlers from that region to the new territory they settled.

Yeah, sorry for confusing the events here. I was going off of memory from

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/delrcc/native_american_names_like_wyoming_miami_and

which indeed talks about this later fashion for cities and counties not necessarily related to the geographic features/native names or words they took on, not states.

 

[thecrazyscot]

What in the holy strawman...... Literally no one is arguing that there's anything "wrong" with modern civilizations with colonial rooots.. The United States is one of my favorite countries to play.... Do you think people are arguing to exclude countries from Brazil, US, and Mexico from Civilization games?

Like I said, I was at the trampoline park when I was catching up on this thread so I sincerely apologize if I misinterpreted a bunch of posts.

No its not... at all....

Do you not see the implications of forcing people who want to play indigenious civilizations to inevitable become European colonial states in a series where we've historically been able to take a country/people through all of time and the tagline is "build an empire to stand the test of time". Come on... this argument is so uncharitable it's bordering on insulting

Look, I just don't view this the same way as you do. I don't see any bad or nefarious implications. I don't see any social or political commentary. What I do see is offense being taken on behalf of others and constantly shifting goalposts for what constitutes making this acceptable. For example:

"The Shawnee were consulted and are happy with their representation in-game."
"Only one tribe was consulted, they can't speak for all Shawnee."

What, exactly, is the magic ratio of indigenous people who need to be consulted to make sure no toes are getting stepped on? If two tribes were consulted, would that be enough? Four? Twenty? You'll always respond with "but you didn't get approval from this group!"

Three other points:

• You're not "forced" into anything - you have a choice of civs to evolve into.
• Modern post-colonial civs are more than just European successor states. They are an amalgamation of European and indigenous culture. It's just not "indigenous civ -> colonial civ". That's overly reductive and dismissive, meaning it's just not a solid argument against the mechanic.
• I stand by my argument that playing as a whitewashed colonial civ from the dawn of time is just as problematic as switching into a colonial civ. That is, if you find that sort of thing problematic. I don't. My point is that it's not a great argument, but one goes with the other.

Most of this has already been adressed. I'm not the one who made up devs idea of "layered history" and used Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Norman London forged almost entirely by conflict, conquest as an example of this history.. I'm not the one who designed era defining crisises that lead into a unavoidable civilization change. Civilization evolution can change without conflict, but the civilization changes the devs are trying to modeling with its "layering" happens through conflict, conquest, and collapse.

The time gap between ages means the circumstances of the civ switching are not defined. I think this is intentional - it's up to you on how you want to narratively frame it! And the fact that each new age explicitly celebrates your previous civs (via architecture, tradition, city names, etc) is pretty clear evidence that the devs are taking a pretty positive and optimistic approach to it. But again, it's up to you on how to write the story, and I think that's part of the disagreement here. You can't seem to see it as anything but a violent transition, while a lot of the others on this forum aren't interpreting it that way.

 

[Evie]

Yeah, that sounds more like it. With the triple caveats as follow:

1)In some cases, settlers moving westward brought the name of their hometown/home region with them - it wasn't about romanticism, but about naming things after what they once knew.

2)In some cases (like Miami) it really is just an accident of two separate words from two spearste native people tjat end up written the same in Colonial English.

3)They did the same thing with European and Biblical names. Like, a LOT. (See all the Paris, Berlin, Madrid, Rome, Toledo, Jerusalem (and Salem), Bethlehem, etc).

 

[Gori the Grey]

And the fact that each new age explicitly celebrates your previous civs (via architecture, tradition, city names, etc) is pretty clear evidence that the devs are taking a pretty positive and optimistic approach to it.

Also, I think there will be a psychological dynamic that plays into this "optimism" or "celebration." As I understand it, the very first thing you get to do in the new age is spend points accumulated in the previous age on things you think will be of benefit going forward. There's nothing more satisfying in games than spending your points on kewl lute.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

Also, I think there will be a psychological dynamic that plays into this "optimism" or "celebration." As I understand it, the very first thing you get to do in the new age is spend points accumulated in the previous age on things you think will be of benefit going forward. There's nothing more satisfying in games than spending your points on kewl lute.

I admit that I am rather excited for this part of the game myself. I've been playing Fallout: New Vegas recently, and I always find myself really looking forward to the next even-numbered level up so that I get to pick a new Perk (fun ability) along with the regular stat upgrades. I think it will be really fun to allocate all of your hard-earned Legacy points into bonuses after the work of weathering a Crisis.

 

[Zaarin]

I admit that I am rather excited for this part of the game myself. I've been playing Fallout: New Vegas recently, and I always find myself really looking forward to the next even-numbered level up so that I get to pick a new Perk (fun ability) along with the regular stat upgrades. I think it will be really fun to allocate all of your hard-earned Legacy points into bonuses after the work of weathering a Crisis.

I always play with a mod that gives you a perk every level. It's not balanced, but it's fun.

 

[TheGrayFox]

We do not depict Mexico as an European colony either

It would be insulting.

Why would it be insulting?

the modern nation state of Mexico is quite literally a European colonial state in the Americas, which got its independence from a colonial struggle against its overseas master. Basic Historical fact shouldn't be insulting

If you mean the picture you attached somewhere, we could say the same for most European countries :

"For centuries, Rome extracted from the Ancient World natural resources and the wealth of past empires. But Following the Fall of Rome, many saw an Opportunity to create a new, free society in all those past empires. They succeeded in their struggle for conquest, and new states emerged - blablabla."

No one is denying that Gual was a Roman colony at one point or that France's population has mostly descended from that population. I wouldn't object against France's in game description mentioning Roman Gual because that IS part France's history. It's not an insult.

The thing some seem to be struggling with is that we don't call Modern nation-state of France a "Roman Colony" because Rome's conquest and settlement happened in in antiquity and following the Fall of Rome "many didn't see a oppurtunity to create a new, free society" they were literally conquered by migrating Germanic tribes, one of which ruled over them directly and also play a key role in the formation of a later "French" national and ethnic identity.

Where as Mexico state is the result of Spanish imperialism and colonialism of the Americas, and Mexico's independence is the result of a colonial indpendence war fought by Spaniards in the Americas.

So this speech do not mean that Mexico was an European colony, it depicts its general History that we Europeans know of.

Except Mexico quite literally is a European colony. Whose state spent decades, if not a whole century, trying to settle Europeans to exert its political control over indigenious territories, engaged in trying to wipe out native langauges, and which adopted a racial caste system from its colonial overlords, which put indiegnious people at the bottom rungs of society. Which is exactly why all it's great people Firaxis decided to represent are of predominately European descent and have very Spanish names. You can't take something like the modern US and Mexico and strip them of their colonial history.

Now why not to choose to depict France and other European countries the way I did it ? Because why start from here when there is a before and an after ?

The depiction of Mexico here is just Euro-centered.

This has already addressed. Mexico here is Euro-centered, because Mexican history is euro-centered after conquest of the Aztecs. (because Mexico is a post-colonial American state) . This is just reality.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Like I said, I was at the trampoline park when I was catching up on this thread so I sincerely apologize if I misinterpreted a bunch of posts.

Look, I just don't view this the same way as you do. I don't see any bad or nefarious implications. I don't see any social or political commentary. What I do see is offense being taken on behalf of others and constantly shifting goalposts for what constitutes making this acceptable. For example:

Just because you don't see something the way I and several others in the topic do, doesn't mean there isn't any validity to what we're complaining about. Several of us have pointed out, we don't think the devs have done anything nefariously on purpose. This is just the outcome of poorly thoughtout design. No goal posts have been moved and no one is taking offense on the behalf of others.

"The Shawnee were consulted and are happy with their representation in-game."
"Only one tribe was consulted, they can't speak for all Shawnee."

What, exactly, is the magic ratio of indigenous people who need to be consulted to make sure no toes are getting stepped on? If two tribes were consulted, would that be enough? Four? Twenty? You'll always respond with "but you didn't get approval from this group!"

Listen I'm not the one trying to hold the opinions of one tribal head up as a hive mind to justify my position. Those tribal heads don't speak for every single member of the tribe and personally I don't care if Ben Barnes is offended or not. I still don't want to forced to have my hypothetical Shawnees morph into Americans. I'm not taking offense on his behalf, i'm giving you MY opinion.

Three other points:

• You're not "forced" into anything - you have a choice of civs to evolve into.
• Modern post-colonial civs are more than just European successor states. They are an amalgamation of European and indigenous culture. It's just not "indigenous civ -> colonial civ". That's overly reductive and dismissive, meaning it's just not a solid argument against the mechanic.
• I stand by my argument that playing as a whitewashed colonial civ from the dawn of time is just as problematic as switching into a colonial civ. That is, if you find that sort of thing problematic. I don't. My point is that it's not a great argument, but one goes with the other.

1) You are absolutely forced into changing your civilization because of arbitrary decision that the round is ending. Saying "you have a choice of what civ you evolve into" falls on deaf ears when the historical choices (which is what I'd play, I have no interest otherwise) are so terribly designed. Not much of a choice when my options are to go from the Abbasids to Sub-saharan Africans. You speak of choice but where is my choice to just remain the same civ?

2) Modern post-colonial civs in America are predominately European, both ethnically and culturally.. Colonial states like the United States and Mexico are not indigenious paradises and have not been particularly welcoming to indigenious people for the majority of their recorded histories.

3) I stand by my argument, that this argument is kind of silly especially when you could play several major native Americans groups similarily from antiquity to the atomic era in past Civilization games.

The time gap between ages means the circumstances of the civ switching are not defined. I think this is intentional - it's up to you on how you want to narratively frame it! And the fact that each new age explicitly celebrates your previous civs (via architecture, tradition, city names, etc) is pretty clear evidence that the devs are taking a pretty positive and optimistic approach to it. But again, it's up to you on how to write the story, and I think that's part of the disagreement here. You can't seem to see it as anything but a violent transition, while a lot of the others on this forum aren't interpreting it that way.

Except the direct examples they gave for their "layered history" approach were ones shaped in conflict, collapse, and conquest. that these "circumstances for civ switching" are hardcorded to occur after era-defining crisis......

Sure I can write a head canon where this crisis caused everyone in my empire to lick lolipops and gumdrops together until they become a completely different cultural group half way across the continent but that doesn't make much sense especially with the layered approach to history that the devs explained and I'm obviously not the only person who feels this way.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Why would it be insulting?

Because Mexicans did their revolution to separate themselves from Europe or Spain first, and second because all the natives or native descendants there would be offended to be seen like vassalized by both Europe or Spain and Spaniards ruling the country, according to you.

the modern nation state of Mexico is quite literally a European colonial state in the Americas, which got its independence from a colonial struggle against its overseas master. Basic Historical fact shouldn't be insulting

Repeating the same sentence over and over doesn't make it more true for as much... it's History, I agree, but it's not the nowadays Mexico that might want to re-affirm its pre-colonial roots only by its tourism when people visit their ancient monuments, and a whole part of Science that studies its native culture. All this causes or is the cause of interest. Things change. Mexico is first seen as a geographical region that has deep History and where everything didn't start with Christophe Colomb.

No one is denying that Gual was a Roman colony at one point or that France's population has mostly descended from that population. I wouldn't object against France's in game description mentioning Roman Gual because that IS part France's history. It's not an insult.

No, it's part of its History, but qualifying Modern France of Roman Colony would be totally odd and out of place, if not insulting, in the same way I do think it's odd to qualify Mexico of European Colony. It's denying completely the part before Christophe Colomb, that many people try hard to clarify and are passionate with. It's just not in the mood of the time. I'd say you're late by some decades.

The thing some seem to be struggling with is that we don't call Modern nation-state of France a "Roman Colony" because Rome's conquest and settlement happened in in antiquity and following the Fall of Rome "many didn't see a oppurtunity to create a new, free society" they were literally conquered by and assimilated a host of Germanic tribes, who also play a key role in the formation of a later "French" national and ethnic identity.

lol no, primitive Franks didn't assimilate anything, they were assimilated by Latin and Christianism, both Roman institutions. And yet we don't call France a Roman colony nor a Frank colony. Beside, what we "call" this "that" or "this" is vastly vague.

Where as Mexico state is the result of Spanish imperialism and colonialism of the Americas, and Mexico's independence is the result of a colonial indpendence war fought by Spaniards in the Americas.

How many times will you repeat this ? That doesn't change the perception YOU or ME have of Mexico now. Well apparently it's enough to make yours what it is... I simply don't share this point of view.

Except Mexico quite literally is a European colony.

Nope...

Whose state spent decades, if not a whole century, trying to settle Europeans to exert its political control over indigenious territories, engaged in trying to wipe out native langauges, and which adopted a racial caste system from its colonial overlords, which put indiegnious people at the bottom rungs of society. Which is exactly why all it's great people Firaxis decided to represent are of predominately European descent and have very Spanish names. You can't take something like the modern US and Mexico and strip them of their colonial history.

And then... ? Is Palestine an Israelian colony ? Nope.

This has already addressed. Mexico here is Euro-centered, because Mexican history is euro-centered after conquest of the Aztecs. (because Mexico is a post-colonial American state) . This is just reality.

Mexico is Euro-centered because before the age of exploration we didn't know of it. In other words, if there was no Science disciplines trying to dig out, it couldn't be else.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Because Mexicans did their revolution to separate themselves from Europe or Spain first,

Yes, just like Americans did their revolution to seperate themselves from Europe and Britain... Spaniards born in the Americas led a predominately European population in revolting against their colonial overlords. That's what makes them a European post-colonial state. Again, you're arguing against basic historical fact.

and second because all the natives or native descendants there would be offended to be seen like vassalized by both Europe or Spain and Spaniards ruling the country, according to you.

The natives and native descendants you keep talking about weren't accepted in post-independence Mexico and US society, a near majority of indiegnious people still cite overt racial discrimimation and many exist on the fringes of Mexican society in poverty today. Do you think New Spain or even modern Mexico is a paradise for natives ruled by Natives? It wasn't and still isn't.....

Repeating the same sentence over and over doesn't make it more true for as much... it's History, I agree, but it's not the nowadays Mexico that might want to re-affirm its pre-colonial roots only by its tourism when people visit their ancient monuments, and a whole part of Science that studies its native culture. All this causes or is the cause of interest. Things change. Mexico is first seen as a geographical region that has deep History and where everything didn't start with Christophe Colomb.

Most Mexicans are of predominately European descent. The fact that you could go visit Cahokia in Illinois and American historians study Native Americans today does not change the fact that the United States was a European colonial state. You say things change and then continue to ignore that today a near majority of indiegnious people cite explicit discrimination in modern Mexico.....

No, it's part of its History, but qualifying Modern France of Roman Colony would be totally odd and out of place, if not insulting, in the same way I do think it's odd to qualify Mexico of European Colony. It's denying completely the part before Christophe Colomb, that many people try hard to clarify and are passionate with. It's just not in the mood of the time. I'd say you're late by some decades.

Incorrect and the differences have already been explained repeatedly. You want to ignore those reasoning feel free but modern state of Mexico represented by Firaxis was a European colony and its history as a modern nation-state is inseperable from its colonial history. That's simply undeniable.

lol no, primitive Franks didn't assimilate anything, they were assimilated by Latin and Christianism, both Roman institutions. And yet we don't call France a Roman colony nor a Frank colony. Beside, what we "call" this "that" or "this" is vastly vague.

You're misreading. I didn't say the Franks assimilated anyone, the Franks and other migrating Germanic tribes assimilated into Gallo-Roman culture they conquered and played a pivotal role in the formation of a later "French" national idenity. Which is simply objective historical fact and why we don't call modern nation-state of France a "Roman colony" today despite Gaul's history as a colony in antiquity. Something that has already been directly addressed almost 5 times now. We're just arguing basic historical facts at this point

How many times will you repeat this ? That doesn't change the perception YOU or ME have of Mexico now. Well apparently it's enough to make yours what it is... I simply don't share this point of view.

I'll keep repeating it, until you accept basic historical fact

Nope...

And then... ? Is Palestine an Israelian colony ? Nope.

Mexico is Euro-centered because before the age of exploration we didn't know of it. In other words, if there was no Science disciplines trying to dig out, it couldn't be else.

I hate to be dismissive, but this argument is just nonsense.

Mexico is euro-centered because the modern nation-state of Mexico that Firaxis has decided to represent was a European colonial state, born of Spanish conquest of the Aztec empire and a later colonial independence war. The end

PS: Yes, parts of Palestine are being colonized by Israelis today. Did you actually think this was some sort of gotcha?

 

[Nikolai II]

Moderator Action: Please leave the discussion on Palestine out of the game forum and get back on topic, which is the number of civilizations in the game.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Okay back to the topic on hand, which is the number of civilizations in the game... no more tangents

The game doesn't have a low number of civilizations, the problem is entirely with the game being split into a 3 act structure and forcing civs into specific eras with civ swapping. Which leads to us having what feels like an incredibly low number of different civs per era, possibile the lowest we've ever seen in the series. Now if you change how view civilizations and consider each mix and match something unique and/or identity with the leader before the civilization you get a lot more options but many, if not most, familiar with traditional civilization titles are not going to view civilizations like that. Meaning many will get tired of seeing the same few civs every era.

 

[Gedemon]

Moderator Action: there are other threads to discuss "the game being split into a 3 act structure", so please keep this thread about the number of civs one think would be acceptable/required for civ7 with civ switching on 3 ages.

 

[thecrazyscot]

At release you will see repeated civilizations quite often if you look at each age in isolation. That's pretty incontrovertible.

If you choose to view your opponents as leader+antiquity civ+exploration civ+modern civ the number of unique opponents is staggeringly far beyond any previous game.

I suppose we will just have to see how different these combinations feel in practice, because it could go either way I suppose.

EDIT: It's also worth mentioning that loads of these combinations won't feel different for large portions of the game - i.e. if everything's the same until the modern age then for most of the game your opponent is functionally a repeat.

 

[Zaarin]

At release you will see repeated civilizations quite often if you look at each age in isolation. That's pretty incontrovertible.

Also worth noting that this isn't a new problem. Early in Civ6, I felt like Tomyris showed up in every game I played (and worse, always had the Ideologue hidden agenda so she always hated me), and I felt like I was seeing Gandhi and Pericles pretty often, too. Some of that is perception bias, but the reality is that on release the pool of your opponents will always be somewhat limited, especially after being used to the fully expanded previous game.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Also worth noting that this isn't a new problem. Early in Civ6, I felt like Tomyris showed up in every game I played (and worse, always had the Ideologue hidden agenda so she always hated me), and I felt like I was seeing Gandhi and Pericles pretty often, too. Some of that is perception bias, but the reality is that on release the pool of your opponents will always be somewhat limited, especially after being used to the fully expanded previous game.

Yeah the pool of opponents is always somewhat limited at launch until they add more and flesh out the roster but certainly there is an objective difference between having the choice of only 11 civs all locked per era and having the choice to play 19 for the entire game at launch.

If your perception bias saw you playing against the same few civs in 6 at launch. Imagine how much worse its going to feel when you lock civs to specific eras and reduce the options down iby nearly half. Of course, for those who are able to view leaders before civs and those who are able to buy into the "mix and match" aspect of VII, this will be less of a problem but for everyone else?

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

Yeah the pool of opponents is always somewhat limited at launch until they add more and flesh out the roster but certainly there is an objective difference between having the choice of only 11 civs all locked per era and having the choice to play 19 for the entire game at launch.

If your perception bias saw you playing against the same few civs in 6 at launch. Imagine how much worse its going to feel when you lock civs to specific eras and reduce the options down iby nearly half. Of course, for those who are able to view leaders before civs and those who are able to buy into the "mix and match" aspect of VII, this will be less of a problem but for everyone else?

Personally, I don't feel like I've played against the same Civ twice in a row in VI if I have Catherine in one game and Eleanor in the next. It's a different face with a different personality and different abilities to keep in mind. I don't see why it would be different in VII.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Yeah the pool of opponents is always somewhat limited at launch until they add more and flesh out the roster but certainly there is an objective difference between having the choice of only 11 civs all locked per era and having the choice to play 19 for the entire game at launch.

If your perception bias saw you playing against the same few civs in 6 at launch. Imagine how much worse its going to feel when you lock civs to specific eras and reduce the options down iby nearly half. Of course, for those who are able to view leaders before civs and those who are able to buy into the "mix and match" aspect of VII, this will be less of a problem but for everyone else?

Yeah, I suspect how much variety you see in this case will be strongly correlated to you perception of the mechanic in the first place and will do little to change your mind.