New Civ Guide: Chola

[The Fanatical]

Is the South East Asian look on buildings a faithful historical depiction of Indian Chola architecture? I expected an Indonesian Exploration Age civilization to have such a look.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Is the South East Asian look on buildings a faithful historical depiction of Indian Chola architecture? I expected an Indonesian Exploration Age civilization to have such a look.
View attachment 706838View attachment 706839View attachment 706840View attachment 706842View attachment 706841

Andrew commented on that in one of the threads.

 

[chaosprophet]

As you posted earlier, though, they are apparently avoiding the use of either General or Admiral, using the much more generic 'Army/Fleet Commander'. Those terms also have the advantage that they are English translations of words in other languages used before 'General' and 'Admiral' were commonly used for either.

I can think of several reasons for doing that not related to the etymology or timeline of word use: saving the words for a set of people associated with an as-yet-unseen Civ or Leader (having a set of Great Generals or just Generals for a Modern Age Imperial Germany or Exploration Age Brandenburg Prussia, for instance), or using the words only in the Modern Age, of which we know very little at this point, to indicate some change in combat mechanics or army/fleet formation related to 'modern war'. Despie all we have learned about Civs and Leaders, there's still so much we don't know about specific mechanics for the different ages, except that they've said that the Ages will be 'different'.

I frankly doubt that the etymology of the word 'admiral' had much to do with it, but it does reinforce the (again, apparent at this point) whatever reason they did have for, so far, not using the word in places where it would appear appropriate.

I think the main reason they use it, is to make it pretty intuitive for the player, considering many who will be playing won't have previous knowledge by checking info like we do here, that unit is just like the army commander but for naval units. As in works pretty much the same in pack and unpacking, how it gains xps and the like, even if it's upgrades are different.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Andrew commented on that in one of the threads.

You may have been thinking about this post?

Civ VII Weekly Reveal Guessing Thread

Right moment:

forums.civfanatics.com

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

You may have been thinking about this post?

Civ VII Weekly Reveal Guessing Thread

Right moment:

forums.civfanatics.com

Correct.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think the main reason they use it, is to make it pretty intuitive for the player, considering many who will be playing won't have previous knowledge by checking info like we do here, that unit is just like the army commander but for naval units. As in works pretty much the same in pack and unpacking, how it gains xps and the like, even if it's upgrades are different.

Agree completely: they are going as 'generic' as they can for the military/combat Leaders both to avoid confusion and (a much lesser consideration) avoid using words not associated with the Ages or contemporary with the Civs they are being applied to: generic by definition (and, as posted, Generic English) applies to everybody.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

Is the South East Asian look on buildings a faithful historical depiction of Indian Chola architecture? I expected an Indonesian Exploration Age civilization to have such a look.
View attachment 706838View attachment 706839View attachment 706840View attachment 706842View attachment 706841

Don’t forget that here we’ve got a bias toward stone in that stone survives! In a city made of mostly wooden buildings, it’s the four or five stone ones that later archaeologists will see!

 

[RedCourtJester]

Don’t forget that here we’ve got a bias toward stone in that stone survives! In a city made of mostly wooden buildings, it’s the four or five stone ones that later archaeologists will see!

I was half thinking that as I was researching various wonders or uniques civs could have. A stone outhouse has better chances of being deemed a "wonder" by a later culture than the most elaborate wooden structure, simply for its durability. (not that I think the Firaxis team would resort to that)

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

What yield would an outhouse give? Culture? Happiness? Science?

But yes, this is a perennial problem with buildings and tools etc.

 

[Krikkit1]

What yield would an outhouse give? Culture? Happiness? Science?

But yes, this is a perennial problem with buildings and tools etc.

Definitely all of those…. deep thoughts are thought there (and sometimes written down on the walls)

 

[RedCourtJester]

What yield would an outhouse give? Culture? Happiness? Science?

But yes, this is a perennial problem with buildings and tools etc.

Diplomatic favor.

 

[notNamed]

Don’t forget that here we’ve got a bias toward stone in that stone survives! In a city made of mostly wooden buildings, it’s the four or five stone ones that later archaeologists will see!

That and plain stone because colors get lost if not actively maintained and European culture has a strong Classicist preference for bare stone.

For the colors of the modern temples:


Remains of historic colors (though I can't tell what exact time scale we're talking about) in more protected places:


Though how precisely the Cholas of that era painted their temples I'll leave to the experts. After all, the Chola-influenced SEA mostly ran white temples with accents (and lots of golden foil) like at Angkor Watt AFAIK.



Also, one more observation regarding Chola's architecture set. Does Thailand/Laos have some local tradition of pailou-ish arches or is this just an extrapolation of more typically Thai building elements on top of Chinese precedents to fit the necessary shape set by other Academies?

 

[Evolena]

Agree completely: they are going as 'generic' as they can for the military/combat Leaders both to avoid confusion and (a much lesser consideration) avoid using words not associated with the Ages or contemporary with the Civs they are being applied to: generic by definition (and, as posted, Generic English) applies to everybody.

+ They need a name for the modern age one (presumably air-based).

 

[gdr_willter]

+ They need a name for the modern age one (presumably air-based).

The word "Air Commander" reminds me of Starscream

 

[JNR13]

Got a nice short with some Chola music. Sounds good!

City Hall spotted right in the beginning. I get the creative liberties taken regarding wood structures and all but I'm still confused about all this roundness. The palace has a big rotunda tower in the center back, the city hall in the front, apparently. It's not just some wooden element on top, it extends to the stone foundation. But I don't think I ever saw even just ruins of foundations in the larger area that even just hinted at any sort of element like this (apart from the stupa domes).

 

[The Fanatical]

View attachment 706874
City Hall spotted right in the beginning. I get the creative liberties taken regarding wood structures and all. I'm still confused about all this roundness. The palace has a big rotunda tower in the center back, the city hall in the front, apparently. It's not just some wooden element on top, it extends to the stone foundation. But I don't think I ever saw even just ruins of foundations in the larger area that even just hinted at any sort of element like this (apart from the stupa domes).

That's my confusion as well. The regular wooden houses being more oriental due to the lack of archaeological finds and Indian portrayals is understandable, but the palace and the round academy(?) don't have that Indian look that someone would have expected from an Indian medieval empire. It is as if the artists wanted to portray a South East Asian civilization. I even confused the Chola palace for the Great Library of Alexandria when I first saw the building in the first gameplay showcase video.

There is also something else that needs to be considered, if depictions and mentions of unique buildings and units are absent for a civilization of the past, and reconstructive archeology can't help, then perhaps that civilization shouldn't have been chosen to be represented in the game.

 

[notNamed]

That's my confusion as well. The regular wooden houses being more oriental due to the lack of archaeological finds and Indian portrayals is understandable, but the palace and the round academy(?) don't have that Indian look that someone would have expected from an Indian medieval empire. It is as if the artists wanted to portray a South East Asian civilization. I even confused the Chola palace for the Great Library of Alexandria when I first saw the building in the first gameplay showcase video.

I'm sorry but that's really a you problem. The palace is fairly recognisably based on this thing which casually comes up every time I had to remind myself how that most stereotypical East Asian roof structure is called in English and then nitpick the fact it has no place in Han Dynasty and earlier (there are one or two examples of it the grave goods but it's so extremely rare I can't see it as anything more than a regional oddity during that period).

There is also something else that needs to be considered, if depictions and mentions of unique buildings and units are absent for a civilization of the past, and reconstructive archeology can't help, then perhaps that civilization shouldn't have been chosen to be represented in the game.

There's a counterpoint to be made that Civ 7 doesn't really pay much attention to details on buildings with superbly extensive amount of evidence and research (Romans, Chinese). Architecture that skirts thematic lines (unified SEA world) or is straight up invented (Shawnee public structures) in a what-if fashion isn't really that offensive in the grand scheme of things.
Civ 7 is just not a game for architecture students. Just like a train diorama is intended for kids and train nerds and the cityscape around really doesn't have to make sense to a civil engineer.

 

[The Fanatical]

I'm sorry but that's really a you problem. The palace is fairly recognisably based on this thing which casually comes up every time I had to remind myself how that most stereotypical East Asian roof structure is called in English and then nitpick the fact it has no place in Han Dynasty and earlier (there are one or two examples of it the grave goods but it's so extremely rare I can't see it as anything more than a regional oddity during that period).

The palace is recognizable of oriental architecture, but it doesn't appear Indian enough which is the whole point of my post, and a few structures (temples, shrines etc.) exist to this day on which the palace's appearance could have drawn inspiration from. If you built the Brihadisvara temple in-game, you will realise how intense the contrast is with the other buildings of the Cholas, which is a negative as the civilization's buildings and the associated World Wonder should have some uniformity between them.

There's a counterpoint to be made that Civ 7 doesn't really pay much attention to details on buildings with superbly extensive amount of evidence and research (Romans, Chinese). Architecture that skirts thematic lines (unified SEA world) or is straight up invented (Shawnee public structures) in a what-if fashion isn't really that offensive in the grand scheme of things.
Civ 7 is just not a game for architecture students. Just like a train diorama is intended for kids and train nerds and the cityscape around really doesn't have to make sense to a civil engineer.

Hm, for a franchise that is centered around real historical civilizations, and with one of its ultimate goals to be the education of people about these civilizations that existed in the past (the other is to provide entertainment in the genre of strategy games), Sid Meir's Civilization doesn't seem to do a good job, does it? But I think this was always the case with these games. Some like me dream that Civilization VII might be the historical strategy game we craved from always, but as more are revealed, I start to believe that this isn't the case, and my hope was false all along.

 

[notNamed]

The palace is recognizable of oriental architecture, but it isn't Indian which is the whole point of my post,

Maybe I should have posted this instead of rambling about how I've seen these many times before? Sorry for that.

Architecture of Kerala - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It is a genuine Indian architectural tradition within one of the southern subregions.

 

[The Fanatical]

Maybe I should have posted this instead of rambling about how I've seen these many times before? Sorry for that.

Architecture of Kerala - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It is a genuine Indian architectural tradition within one of the southern subregions.

Hm, then the palace was based on authentic Indian Keralan architecture that goes back to the 12th century after all. Did the Cholas use this architecture for their buildings, though? Anyhow, thank you for providing evidence. To me at least, the Cholas' look doesn't convey an Indian feeling.