Modern civilizations bet

[Krikkit1]

One of the 'problems' with the Modern Age is that there are far fewer variations available, because fewer and fewer Civs had the capability to build their on.

To take Dreadnaught Battleships and medium tanks for two prime examples, between 1906 and 1945 only 9 countries built any Battleships: Britain, Germany, USA, Russia, France, Austria, Italy, Japan, and Spain. Between 1935 and 1945 only 5 countries built any medium tanks: Britain, Germany, USA, Soviet Union, and Argentina. Using the standard definition of a tank weighing over 20 tons and mounting at least a 75mm gun, neither Japan nor Italy deployed any production medium tanks before their defeat. Australia and Canada both produced medium tanks, but they were largely produced with armament, machinery and designs from Britain or the USA.

Even extending the timeline to the advent of Main Battle Tanks around 1960 (Civ's "Modern Armor" units) only adds France, Switzerland and Sweden to the list: 8 medium tank-capable Civs at a time when, IRL, there were over 100 countries (Civs or IPs) in the world.

And, at least in the designs of Battleships, there isn't that much to choose from. After the initial rather bizaare designs with main turrets offset to either side, they boil down to symmetrical main gun turrets fore an aft, like the British Queen Elizabeth class with 4 2-gun turrets with 15" (375mm) guns or the similar German Bismarck class, or asymmetrical designs, usually with 2 turrets forward and 1 aft with 3 guns each, like the US Iowa and immediately preceding classes, the Japanese Yamato class or the French Jean Bart or Italian Roma classes. That doesn't give a lot of distinctive graphical differences to play with unless you plan to zoom in a lot for the details of superstructures, stacks and masts, and such zooming in and out frankly just gives me a headache after a short time.

That seems like it work well for "cultural groups"
Americas.. the US model
Europe(-Russia) UK/France/Austria/etc.
Asia Japan/China/Russia depending on which thing
Africa?? (some UK/ some France)
Oceania?? (UK?)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

That seems like it work well for "cultural groups"
Americas.. the US model
Europe(-Russia) UK/France/Austria/etc.
Asia Japan/China/Russia depending on which thing
Africa?? (some UK/ some France)
Oceania?? (UK?)

Historically, a few countries built Battleships (or medium tanks) for a lot of other countries.

Brazil's famous Minas Gerais ship and her sister ship were both built in Britain. Likewise, Chile tried to get battleships built in Britain, but they were confiscated by the British government to add to its Grand Fleet in WWI. Turkey, Ireland both tried to get battleships built for them by Britain, and Turkey ended up with a 'loaned' Battlecruiser from Germany in WWI. Netherlands tried to have several battleships built in Germany for them, but WWII shut down that deal. And so on. Technical and industrial aid was a major part of how many nations got battleships.

However, one hole in the system is that no independent African country during the 'battleship era' (1906 - 1945, roughly) ever had the money or political clout to get any battleship built for them, so there is no 'real' model for an 'African region battleship' - or medium tank, for that matter, unless you go to post-1945 when both The USA and USSR flooded the world with second-hand M4 Shermans and T-34-85s.

- And by no accident, both of those tanks have been shown in Civ VII screenshots, which leads me to believe they are going for some kind of 'Lend Lease'/Cold War effect in spreading the graphic differences around.

 

[Wohlauf]

One of the 'problems' with the Modern Age is that there are far fewer variations available, because fewer and fewer Civs had the capability to build their on.

I acknowledge that, I'm not going to argue that Buganda had a much better alternative to using the T-34, for example.

they boil down to symmetrical main gun turrets fore an aft, like the British Queen Elizabeth class with 4 2-gun turrets with 15" (375mm) guns or the similar German Bismarck class, or asymmetrical designs, usually with 2 turrets forward and 1 aft with 3 guns each, like the US Iowa and immediately preceding classes, the Japanese Yamato class or the French Jean Bart or Italian Roma classes. That doesn't give a lot of distinctive graphical differences to play with

I'm confused by what your point is here. Is it that battleships are too visually similar/uninteresting to warrant the limited cultural variance they could include using some of those battleships you listed?

Even as battleships are hulking masses of gray metal, noticable distinction can be included without sacrificing recognizability of the units as battleships. And is that not the point of including cultural variance? If unit markers tell you everything that a unit's appearance could, then is the only non-redundant purpose of unit cultural variation to be eye candy? I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting a more even spread of historical cultural variance for the sake of having more fun things to look at.

- And by no accident, both of those tanks have been shown in Civ VII screenshots, which leads me to believe they are going for some kind of 'Lend Lease'/Cold War effect in spreading the graphic differences around

The panzer's inclusion would indicate 3 way split based on 20th century ideology: communism, democracy, and fascism, or something along those lines. I agree that lend-lease makes sense especially for Siam, Buganda, and Mexico.

 

[Evie]

And, at least in the designs of Battleships, there isn't that much to choose from. After the initial rather bizaare designs with main turrets offset to either side, they boil down to symmetrical main gun turrets fore an aft, like the British Queen Elizabeth class with 4 2-gun turrets with 15" (375mm) guns or the similar German Bismarck class, or asymmetrical designs, usually with 2 turrets forward and 1 aft with 3 guns each, like the US Iowa and immediately preceding classes, the Japanese Yamato class or the French Jean Bart or Italian Roma classes. That doesn't give a lot of distinctive graphical differences to play with unless you plan to zoom in a lot for the details of superstructures, stacks and masts, and such zooming in and out frankly just gives me a headache after a short time.

Well now that's not quite true. You can have some marked variety between two ships of the same gun configuration if you pick them right - Yamato and Iowa may both be 3x3 two fore one aft, but they're quite visually distinct from one another.

But even aside that, weird layout remained common among capital ship (Battleships and Battlecruisers) in the interwar period. Germany can have a three double, two fore one aft design (Scharnhorsts), Britain can have a three triple all fore one (Rodneys) France a two quadruple all fore (Dunkerques), and you can still have a four double, two fore two aft for whoever else. And that'S a period where so very few battleships were built!

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Well now that's not quite true. You can have some marked variety between two ships of the same gun configuration if you pick them right - Yamato and Iowa may both be 3x3 two fore one aft, but they're quite visually distinct from one another.

But even aside that, weird layout remained common among capital ship (Battleships and Battlecruisers) in the interwar period. Germany can have a three double, two fore one aft design (Scharnhorsts), Britain can have a three triple all fore one (Rodneys) France a two quadruple all fore (Dunkerques), and you can still have a four double, two fore two aft for whoever else. And that'S a period where so very few battleships were built!

Very true, but except for the Japanese ships, all are European/North American. There are no battleships built by anyone in Southeast Asia, Africa, or (except for those built for them by Europeans/USA) South America. The problem remains that all the models are from a very small sampling of regions and states, especially compared to the rich variety of naval units in pre-19th century.

Ideally (at least from my point of view) they could provide a sampling of , say, up to a dozen each of graphical machinery for the Modern Age: fighter/bomber aircraft, medium tanks, battleships at least. They wouldn't have to be from all the desired regions - because that is simply impossible - but, as you say, there is plenty of variety in battleship designs (the British alone have at least 3 distinctively different models in the Queen Elizabeth, Rodney and King George V classes) and medium tank designs (1939 to 1945 the USA alone has 5, including types that never made it into mass production) so that a gamer could be allowed to choose a distinctive design for each and be fairly certain it would not be copied by any AI player in the same game..

 

[notNamed]

especially compared to the rich variety of naval units in pre-19th century.

Well Civ 7 goes with a dichotomy of European and non-European for ship unit designs (Shawnee build caravels, Inca build junks, IIRC? ) so we're not breaking any rules if everyone who's not European gets the Japanese ships. Albeit there's always that thin line one needs to be aware of regarding the perception of IJN in the states in question, could always trigger an unwanted reaction. The ships look cool, the silly pagoda masts are very identifiable but you might just be better off with the American/German/Russian trio instead as with tanks.

 

[Wohlauf]

Well Civ 7 goes with a dichotomy of European and non-European for ship unit designs (Shawnee build caravels, Inca build junks, IIRC? ) so we're not breaking any rules if everyone who's not European gets the Japanese ships. Albeit there's always that thin line one needs to be aware of regarding the perception of IJN in the states in question, could always trigger an unwanted reaction. The ships look cool, the silly pagoda masts are very identifiable but you might just be better off with the American/German/Russian trio instead as with tanks.

Yeah, the Euro vs non-Euro dichotomy while not ideal, I think is understandable given Civ VII's need to fill in historical gaps so to speak. And I can appreciate the inclusion of non-Euro appearances as an upgrade from Civ 6's almost exclusive Eurocentric appearances for every class of unit, barring uniques.

Disagree that the mere inclusion of Yamato as a unit appearance would spark any notable controversy. Certainly no more so than the Zero as a fighter which they've already shown off, and I have seen zero controversy regarding that.
Also Russia doesn't exactly have a great candidate for a modern battleship appearance. Sovetsky Soyuz class would be cool, but those ships were never finished. So if not those, a British or American ship would work best.

 

[Evie]

The Sovetsky Soyuz is a much closer resemblance to the Iowa (the main difference is the hull shape, which Firaxis designs that overemphasize guns at the expanse of hull shape may struggle to convey) than the Yamato, so drawing them as two distinct designs would be a lot harder.

The Novorossyisk/rebuilt Giulio Cesare with its very unique 13-guns layout would be an easier choice for a soviet battleship. And, unlike the Sovetsky Soyuz, it's a ship the Soviet Navy actually used.

 

[Wohlauf]

Guilio Cesare model would be great, just not something I would expect without an accompanying modern Italian civ. Not that I had any real hopes for Sovetsky Soyuz either.

Realistically, I wouldn't expect to see more than 2 other cultural variations (at least at launch): Yamato, Jean Bart, any British one, and Bismarck or Gneisenau ordered by decreasing likelyhood, especially considering the respective civs for those last two are not 100% confirmed.

Even if only 2 seperate appearances exist, I find that infinitely preferable to just 1, and that goes for any unit.

 

[Evie]

i suspect there is something to the idea of unit diversity being mostly ideological rather than national. Then democracies get Iowas, Fascists get Bismarcks, and Communists get some generic battleship design. British or French because something something left-wing socialist euros.

 

[Wohlauf]

Ideologically dependant units would go a long way for making a government/ideology system feel like it's more impactful than just giving you different bonuses or debuffs.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Ideologically dependant units would go a long way for making a government/ideology system feel like it's more impactful than just giving you different bonuses or debuffs.

I could possibly see ideology playing a big role in the military victory condition, so that might make sense.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

i suspect there is something to the idea of unit diversity being mostly ideological rather than national. Then democracies get Iowas, Fascists get Bismarcks, and Communists get some generic battleship design. British or French because something something left-wing socialist euros.

The British ship Royal Sovereign served under the Soviet flag as a substitute for an Italian 'spoils of war' battleship that couldn't be delivered, and was at least nominally more modern looking than the old Gangut class the Soviet Navy actually had. I believe the Soviets renamed it the Arkhangelsk

On the other hand, the French Richelieu class ships had 2 4-gun turrets forward, a unique configuration compared to anything in American or German arsenals, which would make a significantly-different graphic representation for a 'left wing' battleship:

 

[Evie]

Ohhhhh, I had forgotten the Richelieus carried on with the Dunkerque's twin quad forward layout. I mean, in lieu of having the man himself in the game, I suppose I would accept his battleship.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Some of the most peculiar configurations for Battleships, like the Rodney and Richelieus' all forward turrets, were in response to trying to keep the main armor belt as short as possible to keep total displacement/weight within the Washington Naval Treaty's 35,000 ton limit. I believe even with placing all the main guns forward, Richelieu still missed the mark by almost 3000 tons.

 

[pisku]

UPDATE:

My first guess was almost correct

AMERICA
USA *confirmed
MEXICO *confirmed
EUROPE
FRANCE *confirmed
AFRICA AND MIDDLE EAST
BUGANDA *confirmed
ASIA
JAPAN *confirmed
CHINA QING EMPIRE! *confirmed (my second guess was right)
SOUTH ASIA AND OCEANIA
MUGHAL *confirmed
SIAM *confirmed (was another of my bets)

So there are only two more slots lets see the posibilities:

I still think we will get the Ottoman Empire for the Abbasids and my second bet is the British Empire, seeing the exploration civs the wonders and the base game in general, there has to be a civ for the arab world, and the abbasid was some or less replaced by the ottomans, the british is also something too much in the face, the normans, oxford, the american civilization, etc.

 

[Maledict]

Not having the British Empire in the game at launch is just frankly bizarre. It would be like excluding the Romans or Greeks. It was one of the most significant empires in human history, it shaped pretty much the entirety of the modern world. There are very few other nations in history with that level of impact.

 

[Zaarin]

I still think we will get the Ottoman Empire for the Abbasids and my second bet is the British Empire, seeing the exploration civs the wonders and the base game in general, there has to be a civ for the arab world, and the abbasid was some or less replaced by the ottomans

In the Stream, Xerxes went into Mughals and Ashoka went unexpectedly into Siam (whether by preference or because Xerxes took Mughals is less clear).

 

[pisku]

In the Stream, Xerxes went into Mughals and Ashoka went unexpectedly into Siam (whether by preference or because Xerxes took Mughals is less clear).

Yes any leader can lead any nation, but evolution to another civilization needs some kind of congruence or similarity I dont see how the germans and russians are going to be if there are no teutons or kievan rus or something like that.

 

[Zaarin]

Yes any leader can lead any nation, but evolution to another civilization needs some kind of congruence or similarity I dont see how the germans and russians are going to be if there are no teutons or kievan rus or something like that.

Russians will almost certainly come from Mongols and possibly from Normans (suggesting, alas, a very militaristic take on Russia); if Germans are present they prrrrrobably come from Normans.