pre-release info New Civ Guide: French Empire

[ehecatzin]

They should only call it France and leave it there. Have the Normans, Franks, Burgundians and/or Aquitanians as their predecessors in the Exploration Era and hope that no contemporary or future eras ever happen in the game nor in future DLCs

Maybe the disctinction is needed if they want to add "France" as an exploration civ later.


EDIT. Or as you say Aquitania, Burgundy, Franks for exploration, and save just plain "France" for information era.

 

[evonannoredars]

Diplomatic is also tied to Happiness, Celebrations, and Policy Slots. I think "Political" would get that across better.

The diplomatic attribute is weird in name and what you need to be counted as a diplomatic civ, e.g. the Maya with their unique militaristic units/abilities but because they've got happiness-granting traditions I guess they're diplomatic instead?

 

[untitledjuan]

Maybe the disctinction is needed if they want to add "France" as an exploration civ later.


EDIT. Or as you say Aquitania, Burgundy, Franks for exploration, and save just plain "France" for information era.

I'm of the opinion that they shouldn't add any other era after the Modern Era, considering they smashed the Medieval and Renaissance/Early Modern Eras into a single Exploration Era.

They should probably add anothe Era betwwen Ancient and Exploration, though.

The Modern Era should be stretched long enough to reach into and up to our present. If we could have 21st century Sumerians, Phoenicians, Scythians, etc. in previous games, I don't see a problem in having 21st century Mughals or Qing Chinese.

Regarding France, I would suppose the following progression could work well enough and avoid the use of the weird "French Empire" name:

(Rome/Gaul) > (Normandy/Brittany/Burgundy/Franks or Francia/Aquitaine) > France

 

[Potworny]

Oh, so we CAN get named commanders... Would that it could apply to every civ...

The name "French Empire" can imply many things. Maybe 4th age France, maybe "Kingdom of France" or the Franks. But it can also mean we'll get a "French Republic" persona

 

[Evie]

There shouldn't be any new era (at least not one with its own civs). Dividing the civ in three is plenty enough ; adding a whole other 200-turn era with its own civ just result in making it even harder to get a decent amount of civ in each era.

(Plus, a new era between Ancient and Exploration would make it almost impossible to properly fill up some regions of the world where pre-contact information is scarcer.)

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Oh, so we CAN get named commanders... Would that it could apply to every civ...

No, it doesn't look that way. The Archangel of Terror appears to be a secret 3rd UU for the French Empire with only a single one per game and you convert an existing commander into it.

 

[untitledjuan]

There shouldn't be any new era (at least not one with its own civs). Dividing the civ in three is plenty enough ; adding a whole other 200-turn era with its own civ just result in making it even harder to get a decent amount of civ in each era.

If they ever added a new Era, it should definitely be between Ancient and Exploration, not at the end of the game.

Though the three era system as it is shouldn't change.

 

[Evie]

I disagree. If we REALLY have to have a fourth era, it would do the least harm at the end of the game, because putting it between Ancient and Exploration means having to come up with two eras worth of pre-contact civilization in Africa, the Americas, South East Asia where local documentation is scarce and hard to follow. At least at game end the only problem (though bad enough) is having to reuse some names from Modern civilizations.

But please in the name of all that is good and beautiful, no fourth era (at least not one with its own civs).

 

[Acid.Crash]

What if they add fourth era but without civ switching (continue playing the same Civs from Modern Era)?
Maybe a simple civ rename (to match current nation names) + a building style update (same way it is done in civ6 for future era)...

 

[Lord Lakely]

I disagree. If we REALLY have to have a fourth era, it would do the least harm at the end of the game, because putting it between Ancient and Exploration means having to come up with two eras worth of pre-contact civilization in Africa, the Americas, South East Asia where local documentation is scarce and hard to follow. At least at game end the only problem (though bad enough) is having to reuse some names from Modern civilizations.

Not necessarily. Both of these new hypothetical second and third ages can have Distant Lands as a mechanic.

The Exploration Civs can also be divided between these two Era's:
Majapahit, Normans, Abbasids, Chola and Mongolia go into the new Era 2. Which has Relics and Religion.
Inca, Shawnee, Ming, Hawaii, Spain and Songhai "promote" to Era 3. Which adds Treasure Fleets and Artworks, and retains Religion and Relics.

The Modern Age as it exists now becomes the 4th era.

The reason why I like this split is because Exploration Civs can include both early Feudal empires and Renaissance era empires, and that's awkward. If you split up exploration into a Medieval part and an Early Modern part though, you kind of alleviate the roster a bit.

I believe you were thinking of a completely NEW era shoved between Antiquity and Exploration without any change to Antiquity OR Exploration. That's not what I had in mind.

EDIT: Also, part of the reason why I'd prefer Exploration to be split into two era's is because the idea of Contemporary Age doesn't appeal to me in the slightest. Push the Modern Era further down the timeline into the present day if you must have four Era's. DO NOT add future fanfiction if you can avoid it.

 

[Xandinho]

I’m not a fan of adding more eras for one main reason: it reduces my connection with each civilization due to more frequent transitions and shortens the duration of each era. If an era currently lasts around 150 turns, it could drop to 100 or even less.

I’m perfectly fine with the way it is now.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I’m not a fan of adding more eras for one main reason: it reduces my connection with each civilization due to more frequent transitions and shortens the duration of each era. If an era currently lasts around 150 turns, it could drop to 100 or even less.

I’m perfectly fine with the way it is now.

What if they made the game longer instead of shortening existing ages?

 

[AriochIV]

Maybe the disctinction is needed if they want to add "France" as an exploration civ later.


EDIT. Or as you say Aquitania, Burgundy, Franks for exploration, and save just plain "France" for information era.

Having both "France" and "French Empire" in the same game would be beyond absurd.

 

[ehecatzin]

Having both "France" and "French Empire" in the same game would be beyond absurd.

Do you have another idea as to why wasn't it simply "France" then? I'm just specualting based on the naming scheme.

from the looks of it we might even get "America" and "The United States" as well if the 4th age is a thing.

 

[Xandinho]

What if they made the game longer instead of shortening existing ages?

I'd solve one of the issues, but I would still feel less connected to each civilization. Not all historical paths are as continuous as those of China or India. Most paths would still have significant cultural leaps.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Having both "France" and "French Empire" in the same game would be beyond absurd.

Well, the main reason why I think the Kingdom of France is going to be added is because the first DLC adds 4 Civs, but no new Wonders. Which implicates that all Wonders for those Civs are already included in the base.

There are only 2 unassociated wonders for Exploration: the Shwedagon Paya (Burma) and Notre Dame (France).

It's a 50% chance, and the exact wording of the French Empire Civ implies that there's room for the Capetian Kingdom in Exploration, either via DLC or via mods.

 

[Zaarin]

Well, the main reason why I think the Kingdom of France is going to be added is because the first DLC adds 4 Civs, but no new Wonders. Which implicates that all Wonders for those Civs are already included in the base.

There are only 2 unassociated wonders for Exploration: the Shwedagon Paya (Burma) and Notre Dame (France).

It's a 50% chance, and the exact wording of the French Empire Civ implies that there's room for the Capetian Kingdom in Exploration, either via DLC or via mods.

It's also possible there will be no Exploration civ in Crossroads and two in Right to Rule. We do have an abundance of unclaimed Antiquity wonders, after all.

 

[Lord Lakely]

It's also possible there will be no Exploration civ in Crossroads and two in Right to Rule. We do have an abundance of unclaimed Antiquity wonders, after all.

I considered that possibility too, but not everyone will have the Shawnee DLC to pad out the numbers in Exploration.

We are LIKELY heading towards a 13 / 13 / 13 split between the three ages after the first two DLCs, so not all Civs in Rise to Rule can be in Antiquity.

 

[Zaarin]

I considered that possibility too, but not everyone will have the Shawnee DLC to pad out the numbers in Exploration.

We are LIKELY heading towards a 13 / 13 / 13 split between the three ages after the first two DLCs, so not all Civs in Rise to Rule can be in Antiquity.

I agree with the split, though I think Shawnee will be counted, and there are a number of ways they can divide up the packs to reach that number. I'm sort of expecting 3 Antiquity + 1 Modern (the one of Russia/Germany/Britain not in the base game, probably Britain) in Crossroads and 2 Exploration/2 Modern in Right to Rule. That's just a hunch, but it tracks with the sheer number of unassociated wonders in Antiquity (some of which would still be unassociated). I tend to expect Silla OR Tonga, Goths, and Assyria, but we'll see.

 

[gdr_willter]

Little late to this party - got my COVID shot this morning, so was out of the loop: and if side-effects kick in, may be back loopless by this afternoon . . .

The only thing I would debate regarding France as modeled is the Jacobins, a Terrorist organization if there ever was one. I notice that they did not include Jean-Baptiste Carrier among them: look up "vertical deportation" for a potentially ISIS-approved method of removing undesirables.

On the other hand, they could have used Philosophe for their Special Characters for France, a group that could have included:
Voltaire
Montesquieu
Rousseau
d'Alembert
Condorcet
Diderot
Saint-Simon
Fourier
- and even some prominent foreigners, like Locke, Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, Mary Wollstonecraft and Spinoza.

A more eclectic group for certainj. On the other hand, the attributes given to the Jacobins indicate that the names are just that and need have no real connection to the aspects they want in the game.

I don't want to see the naming method like this. Because in this way, every kind of unique great person can be named as just "Philosopher" in their language. Sounds boring.