LOW number of civilizations at launch

[TheGrayFox]

That's not true, though. Culture changes, with or without outside conflict. Cultural change, like linguistic change, is inevitable. England hasn't been conquered in about 800 years, but England today is very different from what it was when Chaucer wrote The Canterbury Tales--and that's only 600 years. Conflict can cause change, but it's far from the only factor in culture change.

Here we go with another strawman. Has anyone argued that conflict is the only means for cultures changing in history? No they haven't.

Of course cultures can change without conflict but many of those changes were already modelled in previous civilizations. From adoption of new ideologies, civics, religion, technologies, etc.

The very specific model of "layered history" that the devs are using to justify their model of "rises and falls" in Civ however is absolutely one that shaped by conflict (which is exactly why these swaps are preceded by era defining crises)

That the Shawnee developed a constitutional form of government (they already had one, in fact) and industrialized.

And why would those things cause the Shawnee to become the United States of America...? Also who to say that the Shawnee ingame devoloped a constitutional form of government? Does being the US in Civ 7 now mean you have to have a constitutional government?

That and the Maya > Inca are my least favorite transitions in the game; I'll be glad when both of those are smoothed out. Since the Maya and Shawnee were first introduced I've been suggesting a three-era Maya civ of Maya > Mayapan (or Itza) > Yucatec and a Modern Age Native American civ. But there's no need to impute malice to the developers or read in a worst-case-scenario. You can if you want to, but that doesn't mean it's the only plausible interpretation or that others are under some compulsion to accept your cynical reading.

Personally Abbasids > Buganda upsets me more than Aztecs > Mexico but I think they're both issues created by a wholly unnessecary change to the formula.

Again like that other user pointed out, intent doesn't matter. You don't have to defend Firaxis from accusations no one is making against them., I don't think the devs purposefully intended malice in their design but that doesn't change the implications of what they have created and how they justified those changes.

 

[Zaarin]

Here we go with another strawman.

There is no strawman; I was responding to your exact words. However, I'm not going to continue with this discussion; I'm too familiar with your tactics to fall for them at this point.

 

[Gedemon]

The very specific model of "layered history" that the devs are using to justify their model of "rises and falls" in Civ however is absolutely one that shaped by conflict (which is exactly why these swaps are preceded by era defining crises)

no.

 

[Gorbles]

Let's see, then.

Here we go with another strawman. Has anyone argued that conflict is the only means for cultures changing in history? No they haven't.

You can't model a layered history without also implying conquest or collapse caused by crisis.

???

 

[TheGrayFox]

There is no strawman; I was responding to your exact words. However, I'm not going to continue with this discussion; I'm too familiar with your tactics to fall for them at this point.

Please quote where I said "conflict is the only means for a civlization to change". I'd love to see where in my post I made or even implied that argument. This is exactly what was being awknowledged when another user pointed to bad faith argumentation that constantly happens here.

Surely i'm the problem and its my nefarious "tactics" that have caused you to retreat from this discussion. How dare I disagree with you and provide solid reasons why without insult on a public forum.

 

[TheGrayFox]

no.

yes.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Let's see, then.


???

There is no contradiction here

You keep finding contradictions that don't exist and which other users have even explained aren't there. I'm not the on who created the devs interpretation of "layered history", I'm not the one who modeled era crises and conflicts that lead to civs collapsing and/or evolving into different culture groups using London as an example.

 

[Gorbles]

There is no contradiction here

Again, nobody said there was a contradiction. You asked a question, and an answer was provided.

 

[Gedemon]

yes.

no, as in "no, I disagree with your interpretation", not as in "no, you're wrong"

or do you mean you don't post opinions and interpretations but an absolute truth we should not contest ?

well, sorry, but I do disagree.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Again, nobody said there was a contradiction. You asked a question, and an answer was provided.

You didn't answer my question though, either of them

you just quoted two unrelated excerpts from my post that don't contradict each other in any way and don't make the argument you're obviously trying to make/imply.

 

[TheGrayFox]

no, as in "no, I disagree with your interpretation", not as in "no, you're wrong"

or do you mean you don't post opinions and interpretations but an absolute truth we should not contest ?

well, sorry, but I do disagree.

Oh you are welcome to disagree with my interpretation. You gave me your one word opinion on my interpretation and I gave you my opinion on your interpretation back in return.

unless are you saying that your opinion is an absolute truth which cannot be contested....?

 

[Gedemon]

Oh you are welcome to disagree with my interpretation. You gave me your one word opinion on my interpretation and I gave your mine back in return.

unless are you saying that your opinion is an absolute truth which cannot be contested....?

no.

 

[Gorbles]

You didn't answer my question though, either of them

you just quoted two unrelated excerpts from my post that don't contradict each other in any way and don't make the argument you're obviously trying to make/imply.

What argument am I obviously trying to imply?

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

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."

 

[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.