Missed Opportunity - Prussia

[stealth_nsk]

See I feel the complete opposite, and I'm sure others agree. I'd rather they stick to designing the civ based off of Prussia, then Germany up through WWII. Prussia existed within the German Empire as a separate Kingdom until 1918, so I could live with uniques up until that timeframe. I don't think the Tsarist Russian Empire should have had any Soviet representation personally.
As for Meiji Japan, I feel like is just a renamed Japanese Empire and the Meiji era was the first half, so the Zero is fine.

You may not like it, but what are the other options?

Look at this from developers' perspective. You are designing a modern age with strong focus on ideological conflicts, with 3 ideologies being Democracy, Communism and Fascism. You don't want to add USSR or Nazi Germany, both because they are controversial and because they touch only the end of the age. But at the same time, it would look weird to not have any representations of civilizations with those ideologies.

Also, this trick Firaxis did with WW2 units may be the best solution, or not, that's not what I'm arguing about. I'm arguing that it's a deliberate solution and I see too clear pattern of which civilization received it (Russia, Germany and Japan) for it to be mere a coincidence.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I'm pretty sure there's no merge. All modern age civs are based on their strong 19th century presence. We've also discussed their choice of modern Persian dynasty dor RtR and the most reasonable reason for the choice seem to be their time frame. All gameplay is also built around ending the game in the middle of 20th century.

If we'll see 4th age, there are plenty of themes, which aren't covered in current implementation of modern age - satellites, global corporations with their brands, internet, AI, etc. With all those things I wouldn't expect anything borrowed from the current modern age.

Hard disagree

They could easily move the end part of the tree and move it to Modern.

Ideology and Space Race gets moved to the new Modern Age with 2 new replacement legacy path.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Hard disagree

They could easily move the end part of the tree and move it to Modern.

Ideology and Space Race gets moved to the new Modern Age with 2 new replacement legacy path.

But why?

As I see it:
1. Current legacy paths really belong to modern age as it is.
2. Current victories belong to modern age if it's set as final one.
3. If Atomic age is set as final one (default), it will have its own victory condition, including totally different kind of space race, ending with Alpha Centaury as tradition.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Look at this from developers' perspective. You are designed a modern age with strong focus on ideological conflicts, with 3 ideologies being Democracy, Communism and Fascism. You don't want to add USSR or Nazi Germany, both because they are controversial and because they touch only the end of the age. But at the same time, it would look weird to not have any representations of civilizations with those ideologies.

If I was a developer I probably wouldn't have focused the age on ideological conflicts, especially if the majority of the age doesn't deal with the 20th century. Revolutionary wars were big in this era, so they could have done something with that and saved ideologies for a later age.
I'd also not call the civ Prussia, when it's design is essentially the whole of the German Empire from uniques to the city list etc.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

Many of the Modern Civ designs are simply not cohesive enough for me to staunchly believe there wasn't some shifting things around. The current Modern Age suffers from being too focused on the Early Modern and Industrial eras in Civ choice, but too focused on the 20th century in Techs and Civics. So you get this weird mish-mash where the Mughals (who co-existed with Shakespeare, by the way) are fighting people with jezails while they work to complete Operation Ivy to launch thermonuclear bombs.

Then there's also this timidness where Civs refuse to belong to any one period in their history. Imperial Russia has a rocket launcher as a unique unit. Prussia has a Nazi German bomber. America has music based on the revolutionary period, has a Founding Father as one of their related leaders (yes he qualifies as a related leader, the game points out America as his "historical choice!"), and yet their bonuses are firmly focused on Westward expansion and industrialization.

Much of the game is like this, claiming to only focus on one thing but trying to cast a wider net anyhow. The Exploration Age should be exclusively Early Modern, yes? Colonial empires taking root, the blooming of the Renaissance, the Islamic gunpowder empires? No, instead it is half Age of Exploration and half Late Medieval because we want players to have the opportunity to build castles and lead knights into battle. But this backfires, because the game is so narrow in some aspects that it creates a strong contrast.

Here I am, playing as Charlemagne of the Normans conquering the New World for its valuable luxury resources. That sentence spans 700 years of history. It's hard for me to get immersed when the game doesn't let you do things in their native era.

(I'm not even a Civ VII hater. I see the value in their decisions, and I see all of the opportunities where this new format could increase immersion. But they just didn't do it right!)

 

[stealth_nsk]

If I was a developer I probably wouldn't have focused the age on ideological conflicts, especially if the majority of the age doesn't deal with the 20th century. Revolutionary wars were big in this era, so they could have done something with that and saved ideologies for a later age.
I'd also not call the civ Prussia, when it's design is essentially the whole of the German Empire from uniques to the city list etc.

From gameplay perspective the ages are:
1. In Antiquity you settle your homelands
2. In Exploration you settle distant lands
3. In Modern you fight over already settled land
4. In Atomic it's a big question - they need to come up with something to make it interesting

So, from gameplay perspective, ideologies as basis for global war make total sense in Modern. Besides, that's an age, which hosted 2 World Wars, Napoleonic Wars and many other large-scale conflicts, so it fits pretty well. And it could be argued that ideological conflicts actually started from French revolution.

Besides, if we look at timing for 4th age, active ideology standout was probably for the first 20 years of it and in form of cold war, not global wars. So, the ideology as it's done in Civ7 clearly doesn't belong there.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

From gameplay perspective the ages are:
1. In Antiquity you settle your homelands
2. In Exploration you settle distant lands
3. In Modern you fight over already settled land
4. In Atomic it's a big question - they need to come up with something to make it interesting

So, from gameplay perspective, ideologies as basis for global war make total sense in Modern. Besides, that's an age, which hosted 2 World Wars, Napoleonic Wars and many other large-scale conflicts, so it fits pretty well. And it could be argued that ideological conflicts actually started from French revolution.

Besides, if we look at timing for 4th age, active ideology standout was probably for the first 20 years of it and in form of cold war, not global wars. So, the ideology as it's done in Civ7 clearly doesn't belong there.

You're right that it works in a 3 Age setting. But I agree with what @Hellenism Salesman said above that the ages are so broad that they had to fit in so much in terms of both civilization uniques and gameplay mechanics, and I wouldn't personally have done it this way. I'm not too sure about having an Industrial/Modern split so that Ideologies could go in the latter, but I would have at least wanted a separate Medieval Age to split from Exploration.

 

[stealth_nsk]

You're right that it works in a 3 Age setting. But I agree with what @Hellenism Salesman said above that the ages are so broad that they had to fit in so much in terms of both civilization uniques and gameplay mechanics, and I wouldn't personally have done it this way. I'm not too sure about having an Industrial/Modern split so that Ideologies could go in the latter, but I would have at least wanted a separate Medieval Age to split from Exploration.

Smaller ages have some problems:
1. Age transition is already an issue. More transitions - more problems
2. Currently ages has very distinctive gameplay features, if we squeeze more ages in between, the difference will be smaller. If Medieval age doesn't allow visiting distant lands, what significant gameplay difference it will have from antiquity?

I think in a game with much more smooth age transitions having more ages would work. Like in Civ6, where ages do exist and they are really short, but they don't affect anything other than dark/golden age mechanics.

 

[socratic]

Many of the Modern Civ designs are simply not cohesive enough for me to staunchly believe there wasn't some shifting things around. The current Modern Age suffers from being too focused on the Early Modern and Industrial eras in Civ choice, but too focused on the 20th century in Techs and Civics. So you get this weird mish-mash where the Mughals (who co-existed with Shakespeare, by the way) are fighting people with jezails while they work to complete Operation Ivy to launch thermonuclear bombs.

Then there's also this timidness where Civs refuse to belong to any one period in their history. Imperial Russia has a rocket launcher as a unique unit. Prussia has a Nazi German bomber. America has music based on the revolutionary period, has a Founding Father as one of their related leaders (yes he qualifies as a related leader, the game points out America as his "historical choice!"), and yet their bonuses are firmly focused on Westward expansion and industrialization.

Much of the game is like this, claiming to only focus on one thing but trying to cast a wider net anyhow. The Exploration Age should be exclusively Early Modern, yes? Colonial empires taking root, the blooming of the Renaissance, the Islamic gunpowder empires? No, instead it is half Age of Exploration and half Late Medieval because we want players to have the opportunity to build castles and lead knights into battle. But this backfires, because the game is so narrow in some aspects that it creates a strong contrast.

Here I am, playing as Charlemagne of the Normans conquering the New World for its valuable luxury resources. That sentence spans 700 years of history. It's hard for me to get immersed when the game doesn't let you do things in their native era.

(I'm not even a Civ VII hater. I see the value in their decisions, and I see all of the opportunities where this new format could increase immersion. But they just didn't do it right!)

I’m convinced the game originaly had an Antiquity > Medeival > Early Modern > Atomic lineup. The last three eras were frankensteined together some time in development (likely for gameplay reasons) and that’s why Exploration’s and Modern’s theming is so inconsistent.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I’m convinced the game originaly had an Antiquity > Medeival > Early Modern > Atomic lineup. The last three eras were frankensteined together some time in development (likely for gameplay reasons) and that’s why Exploration’s and Modern’s theming is so inconsistent.

I still fail to see any inconsistency. From gameplay perspective we have the most logical age split possible.

 

[socratic]

I still fail to see any inconsistency. From gameplay perspective we have the most logical age split possible.

If having a clearly Tsarist Russia with Soviet units and an industrialized Mughal Empire isn’t inconsistent theming I don’t know what is.

 

[stealth_nsk]

If having a clearly Tsarist Russia with Soviet units and an industrialized Mughal Empire isn’t inconsistent theming I don’t know what is.

I described it above, why it's perfectly logical

 

[Jkchart]

See I feel the complete opposite, and I'm sure others agree. I'd rather they stick to designing the civ based off of Prussia, then Germany up through WWII. Prussia existed within the German Empire as a separate Kingdom until 1918, so I could live with uniques up until that timeframe. I don't think the Tsarist Russian Empire should have had any Soviet representation personally.
As for Meiji Japan, I feel like is just a renamed Japanese Empire and the Meiji era was the first half, so the Zero is fine.

Grenzer would have been a better choice for Austria in Civ 5 too. The only time I feel like they got the Hussar right was in Civ 6 when it was given to Hungary.

I think Prussia is just fine as a Modern civ for a number of reasons. The biggest reason I currently like it is because the German Empire of World War I was Prussian dominated with the sub-kingdoms and the Reich of World War II was heavily influenced by that same Prussian militarism which simply didn’t go away after World War I when the Empire was defeated. In fact it reached a fever pitch because of that defeat and, despite there being no sub-Kings anymore, became the dominant ideology in Germany. Not only that but Prussia still legally existed until 1947 as the Free State of Prussia and had more than 3/5 of the German population and land area. Therefore it can be thought that both Empires/Reichs were merely Prussian Empires under a different name.

Post WWII Germany is a much different state finally divorced from Prussian militarism that Civ has not explored until, well, Civilization 6. If the Atomic Age is a possibility for a fourth age (I will assume otherwise until proven wrong) it makes sense to me to discard the militarism at the end of this age when the civilization/state dramatically transformed. I don’t mind the Stuka merely because we did get the Panzer a number of times so doing something different is fine by me, even if it’s not my “favorite” choice. I still wish we got the Krupp Gun instead of the Hussars though (oh and I think the Staatseisenbahn needs a buff of some sort).

If we’re keeping the same timeline reasoning for all of the civs, then Japan makes sense as well. “Meiji” represents a post-feudal and industrialising/outwardly militaristic Japan that ends with World War II so I see no issue with the current Japanese design and find it more tight and thematic than the Prussian design.

Russia is a tad trickier because if we are assuming a fourth age then we’re stealing some Soviet space. I rather like most of the Russian design, but if we are having a Soviet Union civilization then we have to cut off somewhere (probably post-Stalin), but not sure how that will be handled at all. The problem with the word “civilization” is that it represents beyond states, and I think that’s worth taking into account for any civ design since a civilization is the culture and people too, not just the state.

And yes, the Grenzer is definitely a good Austrian unique unit choice and I’d like to see it if Austria shows up in the Modern Age.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think Prussia is just fine as a Modern civ for a number of reasons. The biggest reason I currently like it is because the German Empire of World War I was Prussian dominated with the sub-kingdoms and the Reich of World War II was heavily influenced by that same Prussian militarism which simply didn’t go away after World War I when the Empire was defeated. In fact it reached a fever pitch because of that defeat and, despite there being no sub-Kings anymore, became the dominant ideology in Germany. Not only that but Prussia still legally existed until 1947 as the Free State of Prussia and had more than 3/5 of the German population and land area. Therefore it can be thought that both Empires/Reichs were merely Prussian Empires under a different name.

Oh, I don't mind the idea of Prussia at all. In fact, think it's a welcome change. I just feel like the civ is having an identity crisis between what it wants to be.

I don’t mind the Stuka merely because we did get the Panzer a number of times so doing something different is fine by me, even if it’s not my “favorite” choice. I still wish we got the Krupp Gun instead of the Hussars though (oh and I think the Staatseisenbahn needs a buff of some sort).

Krupp Gun and Junker civilian UU would have been my choices.

 

[Jkchart]

Oh, I don't mind the idea of Prussia at all. In fact, think it's a welcome change. I just feel like the civ is having an identity crisis between what it wants to be.

Krupp Gun and Junker civilian UU would have been my choices.

Yep I think Junker was one of the forum’s many guesses (probably yours ) before we were proven wrong for the civilian existing

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yep I think Junker was one of the forum’s many guesses (probably yours ) before we were proven wrong for the civilian existing

I don't want to take credit for it. Someone else thought of it and I agreed it was a good idea.

 

[Jkchart]

I don't want to take credit for it. Someone else thought of it and I agreed it was a good idea.

You’re very humble while I still want to take credit for Tamar of Georgia but I think I was actually the second person to suggest/guess that one for the Civ 6 leader bingo