New Civ Game Guide - Qajar (Right to Rule)

[Eagle Pursuit]

God I am such a “I can’t say the mean option to the NPC” person that razing cities I tend to do rarely so I hope this is done well. I’ll give it a shot I guess but probably need to be in a razing mood.

There are still diplomacy bonuses too, so I think you can play peacefully as well. The diplomacy components just don't lend themselves to a specific victory type like the Tall City Burner stuff does.

 

[Brutus2]

Probably won't be a good civ to pivot to for anyone that was aggressively settling Distant Lands in Exploration, which I feel like the game design sort of necessitates to a point but that's another discussion.

There are a couple civs that can generate Homeland treasure convoys so they don't really need Distant Land settlements.

 

[uppi]

View attachment 743449
Safe to say you cant play this with a "no settlement limit" mod fairly, considering those mods just add a flat 999+ to your settlement limit...

just something to think about before you get a human player with a hypothetical ~950x modifier Qajar in modded multiplayer...

Maybe a better mod would be to just erase the penalties?

interesting play as I usually stop at around 14-15 settlements into modern (unless going military win) and the limit often goes up to 22/24, could lead to interesting bonuses...

Do I understand correctly from comments that razing settlements counts toward victory score in modern ? I really thought you had to keep the cities for the count to add up

Yes, you get points in Modern for conquering settlements, not for keeping them (you can even give them up later, they still count).

Between Xerxes, Corona Civica and the Mongols, you can get settlement limit up to mid-forties at least. So if you start at 20 settlements at the beginning of modern (which is a bit low for Mongols, though), you would be looking at something like +25 or so, if it was +1 per unused settlement limit (which I bet it will be). That is not bad. And then you raze everything to stay there (it is not like the settlements you conquer will give you that much anyway). But I fear that this is buried deep in the civic tree, so it will come too late, to really make a difference.

 

[Leucarum]

But I fear that this is buried deep in the civic tree, so it will come too late, to really make a difference

It's in modern so it probably doesn't make a real difference...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Seelingcat’s digging has revealed enough things that aren’t specifically Qajar to warrant it worthwhile to rename them Iran. I like that.

Makes me wonder why they went with the name Qajar in the first place, if they were going to include things from other dynasties?

EDIT: At this point, it seems to specifically involve Antiquity wonders. When Great Britain joined, they got Battersea instead of Oxford. So we might eventually see Babylon get Hanging Gardens, Tongo get Maui, Goths get Theodoric, etc.

I'm hoping that Babylon just gets Etemenanki when the time comes, so Hanging Gardens can stay unassociated.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Makes me wonder why they went with the name Qajar in the first place, if they were going to include things from other dynasties?

They went with Qajar because it's meant to be low-key Iran without outright saying it's Iran. Just like Russia has USSR bits and Prussia has the Stuka from 1940s Germany, and the Qing are pre-Communist China without being the Republic of China. It's a way to include them in the Modern Age while avoiding controversy.

 

[ehecatzin]

Makes me wonder why they went with the name Qajar in the first place, if they were going to include things from other dynasties?

Ah the Castille/Spain problem rears It's ugly head again.

 

[Bootstrapbilly]

Looks interesting, the bonuses need to be pretty high to offset the opportunity cost of additional settlements and to also be inpactful in Modern.

The wonder feels a bit weak, but I guess helps with only having a small number of cities. But it's the same effect as Angkor Wat in the Ancient era which feels the best of the three that increase limits.

Maybe it'll increase specialist limit by more than 1? Would have felt it to be more linked to the Qajars if it increased settlement limits by an amount.

 

[Krikkit1]

There are a couple civs that can generate Homeland treasure convoys so they don't really need Distant Land settlements.

Also you can get some interesting Dark Age bonuses….
And if you have 5 Homeland and 5 Distant Land…that’s the same as 10 Homeland.

 

[Luxerne]

Our very first diplomatic-expansionist civ! And an expansionist civ who's about playing tall!

The only other "obvious" choice to me for that pairing would have been Austria (or Austria-Hungary )

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

They went with Qajar because it's meant to be low-key Iran without outright saying it's Iran. Just like Russia has USSR bits and Prussia has the Stuka from 1940s Germany,

I understand why they wouldn't want to use the name Iran, however I have a problem with them calling it Qajar if not everything is part of them and have to be taken from other Iranian dynasties. Same thing with the others mentioned above. As far as I'm aware Qing is fine as all of its uniques came from the Qing Dynasty.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Note that RtR is specifically stated as having 4 (new) Civs and 4 new) Wonders, so if Silla is getting an existing Wonder, that means there will be at least one 'loose' Wonder in the package. Basically, assuming they stick to their own story, we will be getting the right number of Wonders, but they may shift older loose Wonders to Civ-specific status, which appears to be what they did with Silla. That also means there is no telling what Wonders will be included in RtR, either as to Age or Civ, since at least one (maybe more) will be unattached to any Civ - at least for now.

 

[moondog385]

There are a couple civs that can generate Homeland treasure convoys so they don't really need Distant Land settlements.

So I guess Songhai and Inca to Qajar are two of the more viable transitions lol.

 

[uppi]

Note that RtR is specifically stated as having 4 (new) Civs and 4 new) Wonders, so if Silla is getting an existing Wonder, that means there will be at least one 'loose' Wonder in the package. Basically, assuming they stick to their own story, we will be getting the right number of Wonders, but they may shift older loose Wonders to Civ-specific status, which appears to be what they did with Silla. That also means there is no telling what Wonders will be included in RtR, either as to Age or Civ, since at least one (maybe more) will be unattached to any Civ - at least for now.

The 4 new wonders are specifically listed as those 4 unassociated ones we already got. So it seems like, we get 6 new wonders in total. I don't really see the logic in that, but I assume this is the way it is going to be.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The 4 new wonders are specifically listed as those 4 unassociated ones we already got. So it seems like, we get 6 new wonders in total. I don't really see the logic in that, but I assume this is the way it is going to be.

I suspect the logic, if we can call it that, is that it gives them more flexibility in Wonder production: they are not constrained by having to produce Civ-specific new Wonders for every new Civ they introduce, if they can 'repurpose' older Wonders to new Civs and even shuffle Wonders around to different Civs with every DLC.

Given some of the - to me, at least - rather dubious 'Wonders' they have contorted themselves to produce for some of the Civs, that may not be an overall Bad Thing if it allows them to cast a wider net for Wonders to include.

 

[queenpea]

They went with Qajar because it's meant to be low-key Iran without outright saying it's Iran. Just like Russia has USSR bits and Prussia has the Stuka from 1940s Germany, and the Qing are pre-Communist China without being the Republic of China. It's a way to include them in the Modern Age while avoiding controversy.

I don’t think Persia became Iran until the Pahlavi dynasty and after the Qajars?

 

[Rac]

Qajar's Background Art

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I don’t think Persia became Iran until the Pahlavi dynasty and after the Qajars?

The earlier Persian Dynasties going back to the Achaemenids were all called "Persia" or "Persian", but the Mongolian Il-Khans or Ilkhanid 'Dynasty' (1256 - 1335 CE) was officially known as the "Land of Iran".

In 1935 the first Pahlavi Shah changed the name of his state from the Imperial State of Persia to Iran, and then in 1959 his son decreed that either Persia or Iran could be used in official correspondence. The current state is officially known as the Islamic Republic of Iran.

"Iran" as a term derives from a word meaning "Land of the Aryans" found in the Avesta, also used in the term "Airyana Vaejah", meaning (Home)Land of Zoroaster, In Greek it was rendered as "Ariane".

Which simply means that various forms of "Iran" have been in use to refer to the land and the people since at least 400 BCE, although apparently not officially to the Persian/Aryan State.

 

[queenpea]

The earlier Persian Dynasties going back to the Achaemenids were all called "Persia" or "Persian", but the Mongolian Il-Khans or Ilkhanid 'Dynasty' (1256 - 1335 CE) was officially known as the "Land of Iran".

In 1935 the first Pahlavi Shah changed the name of his state from the Imperial State of Persia to Iran, and then in 1959 his son decreed that either Persia or Iran could be used in official correspondence. The current state is officially known as the Islamic Republic of Iran.

"Iran" as a term derives from a word meaning "Land of the Aryans" found in the Avesta, also used in the term "Airyana Vaejah", meaning (Home)Land of Zoroaster, In Greek it was rendered as "Ariane".

Which simply means that various forms of "Iran" have been in use to refer to the land and the people since at least 400 BCE, although apparently not officially to the Persian/Aryan State.

Yes, I just don't think the Qajars are the first dynasty to be associated with "Iran."

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Yes, I just don't think the Qajars are the first dynasty to be associated with "Iran."

As said, everybody from the time the first Persian tribes arrived in the area was associated with Iran as the name of the people and the area, but before the 20th century only the Ilkanids officially used it as part of the title of the State.

In addition, the term "Greater Iran" refers to the area occupied by numerous non- or semi-Persian States in central Asia all the way to the borders of India, but again, as far as I know none of them used 'Iran' as part of the title of their State, tribe or dynasty.

Frankly, given that Civ VII's Modern 'Russia' includes elements from Romanov Tsarist Russia and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and "Prussia' refers as much to aspects of the German Empire as the German State that was part of it, I don't think the game is being too precise in its use of titles and names and whether they relate to the peoples, states, governments, dynasties or peoples as precisely as perhaps a protocol officer in an embassy might require.