LOW number of civilizations at launch

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

We've seen the unit models and cities now are tailored to the civ you have. So if you go Shawnee to USA, you're going to go from Native American buildings, clothing styles and ethnically Native American units to European buildings clothing styles and units.

Everyone is clear, including the developers, what America actually is. You could pretend Germany was populated by a massive Songhai migration in the 1700s too if you wanted, but for some people, like Shawnee to America, it suspends disbelief too much and doesn't feel like a continuation anymore.

America is clearly inspired by the modern European colonised nation, that is what it is in game, and the question becomes why force America, a loaded concept of a civilization, on a player who wants to continue playing as a native American nation?

It may be good enough for you, but it's clearly not good enough for some of the playerbase no matter how you try and proselytise it. It is a problem, even if it's not for you.

I don't want to get into another long debate about the pros and cons of switching, which is where this is heading. Been there, done that! "Why are the Shawnee not allowed to coexist alongside the US?", "why force America, a loaded concept of a civilization, on a player who wants to continue playing as a native American nation?"; I understand that many people are not happy about it, but that's how Civ VII works, what is left to be said?

The original point that I wanted to counter was this idea that we shouldn't "send the message that indigenous people are inevitably going extinct at the hands of European colonizers".

I simply contend that this isn't the message, since each civ game is a unique alternate history with its own narrative. Sure, everyone knows what America are based on, but you write a new history for America every time you play a game, and isn't that why we play at all? Suspension of disbelief is bread and butter for Civ.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I don't want to get into another long debate about the pros and cons of switching, which is where this is heading. Been there, done that! "Why are the Shawnee not allowed to coexist alongside the US?", "why force America, a loaded concept of a civilization, on a player who wants to continue playing as a native American nation?"; I understand that many people are not happy about it, but that's how Civ VII works, what is left to be said?

The original point that I wanted to counter was this idea that we shouldn't "send the message that indigenous people are inevitably going extinct at the hands of European colonizers".

I simply contend that this isn't the message, since each civ game is a unique alternate history with its own narrative. Sure, everyone knows what America are based on, but you write a new history for America every time you play a game, and isn't that why we play at all? Suspension of disbelief is bread and butter for Civ.

And I respectfully disagree, as I believe this is the implicit message based on their implementation, even if it isn't intended. They've just cheaped out and made it the de factory case IMO

But as you say, plenty has been said on it and we aren't going to change each others minds!

 

[Krikkit1]

We've seen the unit models and cities now are tailored to the civ you have. So if you go Shawnee to USA, you're going to go from Native American buildings, clothing styles and ethnically Native American units to European buildings clothing styles and units.

Everyone is clear, including the developers, what America actually is. You could pretend Germany was populated by a massive Songhai migration in the 1700s too if you wanted, but for some people, like Shawnee to America, it suspends disbelief too much and doesn't feel like a continuation anymore.

America is clearly inspired by the modern European colonised nation, that is what it is in game, and the question becomes why force America, a loaded concept of a civilization, on a player who wants to continue playing as a native American nation?

It may be good enough for you, but it's clearly not good enough for some of the playerbase no matter how you try and proselytise it. It is a problem, even if it's not for you.

there isn’t one America civ in game (unless you do advanced start)

Instead, in game America can have Norman and Roman Traditions+Unique Infrastructure or Songhai and Han Traditions + Unique Infrastructure

The transition from one civ to another can be imagined in many different ways.

You can assume diseases killed most of your people, hostile invaders came, killed most of the rest, burned your cities, and rebuilt on the ashes

Or you can assume new ideas were introduced for a new age (and maybe enough migrants came in to change the skin tone of the infantry units with their numbers….or maybe the new population just is over represented in the military)

Civ 7 game mechanics work far better with the second assumption than the first.


That said, they REALLY REALLY need to let you keep your civ name/city list/generic unit graphics.
It would be far better if the Shawnee could go to Shawnee…just with a Shawnee industrial park (that doesn’t quite graphically match the others) and white Marines and Prospectors (but native cavalry and cannons)….and new civics of Shawnee Yankee Ingenuity and Shawnee Captains of Industry
and Shawnee Wartime Manufacturing (since that is how the Shawnee in this alt history decided to approach the modern world)

 

[Willie5000]

Isn't this only a "problem" if you somehow view the America civ as an exact historical replica of the real USA? But how can that ever be the case, when each individual Civ game is a unique alternate history? Isn't that the entire point of Civ? If you play a game where the Shawnee becomes America, why would you assume a forced colonization narrative rather than accepting the narrative of your actual game, i.e. a narrative in which modern America is built on native American foundations, rather than European?

Because if it’s not meant to be a historical replica then what’s the point of calling them the “Americans” or “Mongols” and not “horse culture” and “developed western democracy”.

 

[Potworny]

Your exploration age buildings will remain Shawnee in this case. Unfortunately, in the latest streamed build at least, the style for buildings from the previous age depends on your current civ, not on which civ you actually were back then. I.e. America's exploration age buildings will always have the Shawnee look, even if you came from another civ (this can be seen on stream where the explo civ was Songhai).

Oh no. Really? This, along with cities changing immediately upon conquest is going to my pet peeve. This is very bad for the feeling of progression they talked about. I dislike it immensely. I'm genuinely perplexed as to why they configured some things the way they are.

 

[Willie5000]

there isn’t one America civ in game (unless you do advanced start)

Instead, in game America can have Norman and Roman Traditions+Unique Infrastructure or Songhai and Han Traditions + Unique Infrastructure

The transition from one civ to another can be imagined in many different ways.

You can assume diseases killed most of your people, hostile invaders came, killed most of the rest, burned your cities, and rebuilt on the ashes

Or you can assume new ideas were introduced for a new age (and maybe enough migrants came in to change the skin tone of the infantry units with their numbers….or maybe the new population just is over represented in the military)

Civ 7 game mechanics work far better with the second assumption than the first.


That said, they REALLY REALLY need to let you keep your civ name/city list/generic unit graphics.
It would be far better if the Shawnee could go to Shawnee…just with a Shawnee industrial park (that doesn’t quite graphically match the others) and white Marines and Prospectors (but native cavalry and cannons)….and new civics of Shawnee Yankee Ingenuity and Shawnee Captains of Industry
and Shawnee Wartime Manufacturing (since that is how the Shawnee in this alt history decided to approach the modern world)

There *is* just one America civ, what changed is that you were playing as the Songhai before that and Persians before that. Those aren’t different permutations of the same America those are different civilization combos you made with the same base number of civs.

Your civ is still America if you picked them. It may be descended from the Songhai but it’s still America. You aren’t just an entity that just happens to be called the United States of America, you are the literal U.S. culture and civilization and everything that entails.

Nevermind that the reason Shawnee > America happened in real if is because the real world United States committed genocide against the real world Shawnee and conquered their ancestral lands. Forcing people down that implicit path is a bad look, if not outright painful, considering how many real Native American people today are still burdened with the consequences of colonialism, conquest, and genocidal expansion across the North American continent.

 

[pokiehl]

Oh no. Really? This, along with cities changing immediately upon conquest is going to my pet peeve. This is very bad for the feeling of progression they talked about. I dislike it immensely. I'm genuinely perplexed as to why they configured some things the way they are.

Agreed. That’s a huge bummer.

I hope they’ll keep working on these visual touches. Your cities should absolutely keep the buildings of the last culture you had when you changed civs, not some arbitrary predefined precursor.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

I'm genuinely perplexed as to why they configured some things the way they are.

I bet the game doesn't track what 'palette' of individual building but instead by civ. There's never been a reason to until now. There's a lot of features added in 7 that turned out to be a lot of work.

 

[Zaarin]

Because if it’s not meant to be a historical replica then what’s the point of calling them the “Americans” or “Mongols” and not “horse culture” and “developed western democracy”.

You're mistaking a historically-flavored strategy game for a historical simulator, which is never what Civ has been.

 

[Potworny]

I bet the game doesn't track what 'palette' of individual building but instead by civ. There's never been a reason to until now. There's a lot of features added in 7 that turned out to be a lot of work.

Evidently you're right. I didn't mean to sound whiny, but the exclusion of a lot of (seemingly obvious?) things is weird and I think that it can only be explained reasonably by "the devs got too little time". And this quite possibly relates to some more systemic issues behind game development. Of course, tracking this kind of a "palette" is a very minor issue, but there are plenty of more significant ones along with it.

 

[Krikkit1]

Because if it’s not meant to be a historical replica then what’s the point of calling them the “Americans” or “Mongols” and not “horse culture” and “developed western democracy”.

It’s not an exact replica because its a Civ Game where America can become communist and build the Eiffel Tower, and the Mongols can found Hinduism and conquer the New World. (like every civ game)

Also because the Americans could have a history of Egyptian and Mongol traditions (as opposed to Norman and Roman)

TLDR: Zaarin’s response above

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Because if it’s not meant to be a historical replica then what’s the point of calling them the “Americans” or “Mongols” and not “horse culture” and “developed western democracy”.

Hm... Well I certainly agree that the theme is very important. I like having a Civ called America that is based on the real USA, I wouldn't like something entirely generic. But I also like creating a new history for that America, rather than pretending that I can ever replicate the real history. I don't see the conflict?

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

You're mistaking a historically-flavored strategy game for a historical simulator, which is never what Civ has been.

No he's not. This isn't an argument for more historicity, this is an argument for flavour. The Devs have clearly flavoured civs based on their real world historicity, and this chap does not have a desire to pretend they are not something the Devs designed them to be.

That doesn't means he's arguing for a historical simulator. It means the Devs have not got the historical flavouring right for him. His whole argument over multiple posts has been about wanting to create an alternate history by taking a native American empire into the modern age and how the European inspired America doesn't scratch that itch, the information is all there for you.

Nobody in this thread has made any indication they want to simulate history, and I'm confident 99.99% of civ players don't want a historical simulator, and instead want to create their own historical alternate reality. We're debating the bounds of what "their own historical alternate reality" looks like, and it is dismissive to conflate a legitimate, and obvious by this point months into the debate, position with a position arguing for the game to be something we all know it's not. He is arguing for the game to be what it has previously been, not what it has never been, and that is abundantly clear. This is a lazy, dismissive and at this point verging on bad faith counter argument you are putting forward.

There's nothing added to discussion by making incorrect assumptions about someone's point of view you disagree with. Just don't engage if you don't like it, but don't put words in people's mouths, especially when this argument has been gone round so many times and you should know better.

 

[Willie5000]

You're mistaking a historically-flavored strategy game for a historical simulator, which is never what Civ has been.

I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying that if we're supposed to interpret them as "America-like but with different cultural heritage" then why are we calling it the US when it wouldn't be?

 

[j51]

Wait do the older buildings really not always reflect your previous in game culture choices but instead an arbitrary “ancestor”? That’s really unfortunate and hard to believe as it goes against everything they seem to be pitching their vision towards. I hope it’s not true and it was just that demo build. Can anyone from firaxis confirm this when they get back?

 

[Zaarin]

There's nothing added to discussion by making incorrect assumptions about someone's point of view you disagree with. Just don't engage if you don't like it, but don't put words in people's mouths, especially when this argument has been gone round so many times and you should know better.

If you're going to tell people not to put words in other people's mouths or make bad faith arguments, maybe start by taking your own advice and not building a straw argument around things I didn't say. You don't like the game. I get it. That's your prerogative. Twisting other people's arguments to suit your point of view, however, is not your prerogative.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

That doesn't means he's arguing for a historical simulator. It means the Devs have not got the historical flavouring right for him. His whole argument over multiple posts has been about wanting to create an alternate history by taking a native American empire into the modern age and how the European inspired America doesn't scratch that itch, the information is all there for you.

Well with one civilization per era rule in Civ VII this kind of alternate history will be very hard to implement if not impossible.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

If you're going to tell people not to put words in other people's mouths or make bad faith arguments, maybe start by taking your own advice and not building a straw argument around things I didn't say. You don't like the game. I get it. That's your prerogative. Twisting other people's arguments to suit your point of view, however, is not your prerogative.

I've twisted noones argument, that is evident by Willie5000's response showing that I am correct that you have misinterpreted him and twisted his words. All I've done is call out uncharitable posting which I'm reading as prioritising trying to win an internet argument over promoting open discussion. Not quite sure what straw argument you suppose I've conjured here, as I thought it was pretty plain what you were saying and how I interpreted it?

 

[Zaarin]

I've twisted noones argument, that is evident by Willie5000's response showing that I am correct that you have misinterpreted him and twisted his words. All I've done is call out uncharitable posting which I'm reading as prioritising trying to win an internet argument over promoting open discussion. Not quite sure what straw argument you suppose I've conjured here, as I thought it was pretty plain what you were saying and how I interpreted it?

There was nothing "uncharitable" about my post, nor am I interested in winning internet points, nor am I trying to close any discussion. I twisted no one's words, but you're certainly twisting mine. So with that, I will withdraw and let you find your own opponents; I have no interest in filling that role for you.

 

[Krikkit1]

There *is* just one America civ, what changed is that you were playing as the Songhai before that and Persians before that. Those aren’t different permutations of the same America those are different civilization combos you made with the same base number of civs.

But there are differences….
The American gameplay uniques don’t change….but the Traditions do, the unique buildings you built…
we call it America because the uniques are inspired by IRL America…but
a Catholic Fascist Bureaucratic Monarchy whose Capital in the vast desert holds the Pyramids and their closest neighbors are Buganda and the Mughals…has major differences with IRL America.

That is also true if America has a Han and Mongol tradition
(unlike the IRL America where most of the Traditions come from the Civ7 civs of Normans and Rome or Greece)

So we call it America because some aspects are similar…but in any given game That America will be different.