Mapping Peoples and States onto Civs

[Bonyduck Campersang]

The solution in that case would be to have as many civs as is necessary to portray everyone that you think is important. You start with the must-haves like Egypt and then china… and Persia, and Mongolia… and, and, and you keep going until you get to the Ilkhanate. Based on your previous statements I would guess you would prioritize a 2nd Turkic and a 2nd Persian civ before you reach the Ilkhanate, so I’m guessing you will wind up with at least 75 civs before you reach them.

The only way I could see them getting some higher priority is if you had a Gameplay reason to add the Ilkhanate specifically. Like maybe you came up with a really cool and thematic unique ability for the Ilkhanate, and it wouldn’t be appropriate on some other civ that would normally take higher cultural priority.

P.S. personally, I think the Yuan and the Golden Horde would both be a higher priority to include in some way over the Ilkhanate, but different strokes I guess.

As I said, I only gave the example of the Ilkhanate to illustrate the issue I am talking about, not because I they are high-priority for me.

 

[Evie]

I mean, it's a solution for theoretical thinking, but actually building a civ for the game requires resources (graphic creation, music writing, etc) that are not unlimited, and that Firaxis has to balance against when they want to release the game, and how much profit their dhareholders and corporate masters expect to make.

 

[BuchiTaton]

In creating this thread, one of my primary motives was to carve out some general schema for the mapping of historical states and peoples to in-game factions that would allow a greater degree of representation ; not just for peoples, but for certain states that don't seem to fit in with the current s/p-to-civ mapping convention.

For example, the Ottomans are the Turkish civ in the game. But there have historically been many other important Turkish states in history, most notably the early Turkic Khaganates, the Seljuqs, the Tatar states etc. And because post-Khaganate Turkish history is inextricably linked with Persian, there are also other states similarly limited by the existence of the Persian and Ottoman civs: Ilkhanate (also related to Mongolia), the Ghaznavids, the Ghurids, the Khwarezmian, the Uzbek and Kazakh khanates, the Emirate of Bukhara, the Karakhanids... all these states just get elbowed out of the candidature due to the current restrictive schema.

Consider as an example the Ilkhanate. One might riposte that there already is a Mongolian civ in the game, but I would reply that the Ilkhanate is not satisfactorily represented by that faction. The same riposter (after the dogged, straightforward fashion of riposters) would then point to the Persian civ, but I could also point out that the Persian civ does not satisfactorily represent the Ilkhanate either (and has precious little room to do so either, considering it has to include Achaemenid, Sassanian, Safavid and Afsharid elements at the same time).

Now, the Ilkhanate might not be a high-priority civ for many, but I chose it as an example to illustrate the problems arising due to the exclusionary nature of the way civs are represented in the game. I am looking for a solution so that there is more room for states like the Ilkhanate to have at least a chance to get into the game.

My own attempts to get more playable Turkic and Iranian civs take me to the next selection:
The MUST traditional options:
- Ottoman (Turkey) civ, the traditional fans favorite Modern Muslim Oghuz in Anatolia.
- Persian (Achaemenid) civ, the most popular Classical western Iranian civ at proper Persia.
Then I have a couple of pairs as "secondary" Turkic-Iranian civs...
A) "Past and Future" couple:
- Khazar (Khazaria) civ, the early Medieval Tengri-Jewish Oghur in the Ponto-Caspian area.
- Afghan (Durrani) civ, the Industrial* Muslim eastern Iranian civ in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
B) "Mixed legacy" couple:
- Hunna (Hephthalite) civ, late Classical mostly Bactrian speaking mix of Buddhism, Manichaeism and Nestorian populations in Sogdiana, Bactria and Tocharia.
- Gurkani (Timurid-Mughal) civ, the Modern Persianized Muslim dynasties of Chagatai origin at both sides of the Hindu Kush.

So with these options we can cover different regions, periods, religions, ways of life and some interesting thematic gameplay mechanics.

 

[Evie]

I would thoroughly enjoy Khazar/Afghan as new additions.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

What do you think of the Spanish civilization being led by non-Castilian leaders such as James I of Aragon?

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Could the Visigoths and Ostrogoths be represented by a single Gothic civ or should they be split up?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Could the Visigoths and Ostrogoths be represented by a single Gothic civ or should they be split up?

I don't see any reason to split them. I decided to add the Goths to my Civ 7 wish list.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Could the Visigoths and Ostrogoths be represented by a single Gothic civ or should they be split up?

It depends on when you want to model the 'Goths'. Even the Roman observers didn't differentiate among them until after numbers of them had entered the Roman Empire as Feoderatii. Attempts to record separate 'origin myths' and 'ethnic histories' are all Roman attempts projecting backwards from the 6th century CE and they include so many mythological elements they are virtually worthless as historical documents.

So 'Visigoths' and 'Ostrogoths' are largely the product of interactions with the Imperial Romans, not any innate 'Gothic' history - and there is no way to differentiate various 'Gothic Cultures' from archeological evidence - grave goods are simply not different enough, or are too different within a single group, to give any real indicators of separate Gothic identity.

On the other hand, the game has never limited itself to actual historically-attested homogenous groups, as witness Greek, Phoenician, Sumerian city-states and Gallic 'tribes' that were all politically disparate, and by the time they settled down and formed Post-Roman Kingdoms in western Europe Ostro- and Visi-Goths were distinctly different in politics, Leaders, and much of their military methodology, so could easily be used to form in-game separate Civs no less artificial than many in the game already.

 

[pineappledan]

Neither are tribal groups. Both are confederations of various gothic and non-gothic people, better thought of as 2 different waves of immigration from the same general area.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Could the Visigoths and Ostrogoths be represented by a single Gothic civ or should they be split up?

Represented as a single civ imo