pre-release info New Civ Guide: French Empire

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

This design of France does not strike me as very philosophical...

Especially with Jacobins chosen as UC.
Also I don't see E.J. Sieyes there.

 

[tedhebert]

Unique Ability:
Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité: You can select the Golden Age effects of any Government in the Modern Age.

This one confuses me a bit. Does Sarah mean during a celebration?

I thought golden age / dark age was linked to the legacy path
Sorry if asked before

Same here... I can't make head or tails about this one... Is it linked to ideology ? I'm confused about this one ! Help anyone ?

 

[8housesofelixir]

So, Ancien Régime Unique Buildings, First Republic Civilian UU, First Empire Military UU, Second Empire Unique Quarter, and Third Republic Wonder.

Really it does seem calling this civ "France" would have been simpler than stappling a confusing "Empire" in there.

It's also very funny how putting two Ancient Regime unique buildings together would create a Second Empire unique quarter.

I don't think Parisian Avenues are made up of French formal gardens and salons in real life. If anything, this combination sounds like a recipe for a "Palace" or "Palais" unique quarter rather than an "Avenue." Probably the strangest UB combinations we have seen at this point.

(And if FXS indeed wanted to stick with Avenues, it is a missed opportunity not to have Haussmanniens as a unique building.)

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Unique Ability:
Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité: You can select the Golden Age effects of any Government in the Modern Age.



Same here... I can't make head or tails about this one... Is it linked to ideology ? I'm confused about this one ! Help anyone ?

I suspect it's another error from the guide. Perhaps an out of date terminology. I interpret Golden Age to mean Celebration, as that's the only thing governments really do.

 

[tedhebert]

I suspect it's another error from the guide. Perhaps an out of date terminology. I interpret Golden Age to mean Celebration, as that's the only thing governments really do.

I was under the impression that full success (100%) on a specific legacy path opened up a golden age option upon age transition... but the wording for this makes no sense when linked to that interpretation

 

[8housesofelixir]

Also, regarding the "French Empire" and the 4th Age -

It is worth noting that the current "French Empire" design features various elements from the Ancient Regime to the Third Republic, covering the period from the 1750s to 1914 (the Belle Epoque ended in 1914).

Such design choices for the 3rd Age France left very little design space for a 4th Age France.

The only thing left will be the Fifth Republic (or Gaullism? really?) - which would be very hard to make a wholly unique design - and it is unlikely that FXS will touch contemporary politics.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

French Uniques!

Code Civil des Français	Civic	"Civil Code of the French"	More commonly referred to as the Napoleonic Code. The French Civil Code of law that serves as the basis for modern French law as well as in many other countries' legal systems. Served to make laws clearer and more accessible.

There are two camps in legal systems. In addition to Theocratic, and Customary laws, there are 'Common Laws' (British and American Systems), and Civil Laws.
Civil Laws went BEYOND the place where Napoleon's army goes. It was also used elsewhere due to itself being the product of The Enlightenment movements. I'm not sure if this is due to the fact that many countries modernized their legal system using French advisors?

Siam (Thailand) is one of many countries that use Civil Laws. And Law Schools here requires all students to study French. and Even Thammasart University put French language as a compulsory subject of study, all of their students are expected to be franchophone. this because Thammasart was the first Law School in Siam, with first lecturers being Sorbonne Graduates.

Thammasat University

มธ, มธ., ธรรมศาสตร์, มหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์, การเมือง, มหาวิทยาลัย, ธรรมศาสตร์และการเมือง, รังสิต, ท่าพระจันทร์, นิติ, นิติศาสตร์, e-learning, e-book, งิ้ว, TU, tu, Tu, Thammasat, thammasat, THAMMASAT, University, university, UNIVERSITY, Thammasat University, thammasat university, THAMMASAT...

tu.ac.th

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

-Eiffel Tower: Its construction lasted from 1887 to 1889, during the French Third Republic, not during the Second French Empire.

-The civilization icons is the Fleur de lis, an icon associated to the pre-revolutionary monarchy of the Kingdom of France and centuries older then the French First Empire.

You could use the word "empire" more broadly and cover a larger scope of regimes and forms of government (as in the term French Colonial Empire), but still, its weird to use the word only for one civilization of the game and not the others.

As this is not done with the other civilizations, one can understan that they are refering to the Napoleonic First and Second French Empires, but the unique features shown have elements from the Republican and Kingdom periods.

How did I miss this?
French Empire evolved from Republic, and their emblem is inspired by Republic of Rome. while Romans got Laurel already, France in this age should get Fasce instead.

And if there will be Medielal France. then ... Age II Kingdom of France should get Fleur de Lys emblem.

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

I know I'm a bit late. With the new Great People system, France feels exciting for the first time in ages. In Civ games, France always feels like a really blah meh whatever vanilla civ, but maybe this time it will be different.

The thing I don't like most is one of the French UBs has the exact same bonus as one of the Mexican UBs, and that bothers me. I know it has been discussed above that France and Mexico are different civs, but still, the thing is called a UNIQUE building for a reason, they can't be unique if they have the same effects. I just cannot seem to get over it

 

[Uberfrog]

I certainly don’t miss Châteaux. I always felt them a bit bland and a rather shallow touristic representation of French culture (also I am biased as I much prefer the castles in the UK ). Quite refreshing to see Revolutionaries as the unique units for a change.

 

[Evie]

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.

And who, praytell, go before the Inca in era 2 now? Who goes between the Shawnee and the Mississippian? If we have a medieval era, do we move Khmer there from Ancient, and who goes in Ancient in their place, seeing as most of their alleged precursors are of questionable existence? In much of the world we simply do not have the pre-early modern records to reliably fill in multiple tiers of civilization, at least not in any informed manner.

That's the problem I was highlighting, which you missed entirely. Yes, feudal and early modern together is a little awkward in Europe. But the era system working world-wide is more important than it not being awkward in Europe.

 

[Lord Lakely]

And who, praytell, go before the Inca in era 2 now? Who goes between the Shawnee and the Mississippian? If we have a medieval era, do we move Khmer there from Ancient, and who goes in Ancient in their place, seeing as most of their alleged precursors are of questionable existence? In much of the world we simply do not have the pre-early modern records to reliably fill in multiple tiers of civilization, at least not in any informed manner.

That's the problem I was highlighting, which you missed entirely. Yes, feudal and early modern together is a little awkward in Europe. But the era system working world-wide is more important than it not being awkward in Europe.

That's fair enough. I can answer some of your quieries though.

Meso-America have the Toltecs and Olmecs for Age 1 in a pinch and the Teotihuacan for Age 2.
Funan can be the precursor to Khmer.
The Nazca Civilization is the precursor the Inca.

The Mississipians is a very tough nut to - maybe Mississipians => Caddo => Shawnee??

With enough research and creativity you can fill out the gaps, surely. But you are correct in calling me out here - the consequences of non-European lines becoming messy is something I hadn't considered enough.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I was under the impression that full success (100%) on a specific legacy path opened up a golden age option upon age transition... but the wording for this makes no sense when linked to that interpretation

The civ guide has been revised. The ability says it's a choice of any Celebration effect, as I had suspected.

 

[8housesofelixir]

And who, praytell, go before the Inca in era 2 now? Who goes between the Shawnee and the Mississippian? If we have a medieval era, do we move Khmer there from Ancient, and who goes in Ancient in their place, seeing as most of their alleged precursors are of questionable existence? In much of the world we simply do not have the pre-early modern records to reliably fill in multiple tiers of civilization, at least not in any informed manner.

In a 4-Age system I would move Mississippian to Medieval (the new age between Ancient and Exploration), keep Shawnee to Exploration (or move it to Modern, and have something like the Haudenosaunees in the Exploration), and have Adena or Hopewell in the Ancient Age.

Many archaeological cultures existed before the Incas, with Tiwanaku and Wari being the two closest predecessors; both have rich remains that could fill up a decent design.

We can undoubtedly move Khmer from Ancient to Medieval and have an early Hindu-Buddhist culture in Ancient. Srivijaya is a popular choice, although some of its historicity is arguable (Dr. Johnson used to have long discussions about this in the Civ 6 forum). If Srivijaya is out of the picture, then Shailendra is also workable.

I would say for most of the world - Europe, MENA, East Asia, SAE, South Asia, Central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the two Americans - we actually could slot a well-informed Medieval culture and a fully-fledged Early Modern culture with no issue. Humankind's 6-Era is too much on the periodization, but a 4-Age system should work fine. (I think the only region that might get left behind is Australia, but it is also possible to group the entire Pacific as a whole.)

Yes, feudal and early modern together is a little awkward in Europe. But the era system working world-wide is more important than it not being awkward in Europe.

Having Medieval and Early Modern together is also a little awkward in many parts of the world, especially the entire Old World from Africa to Asia, as well as some parts of Meso- and South America. Many societies changed a lot between 500 CE and 1500 CE, and grouping this entire 1000-year gap into one would leave some strange combinations (such as Han directly forward to Ming) and insufficient coverage of many interesting pieces of history.

Edit: Added more choices for the Native North Americans.

 

[Evie]

One, archaeological civilization are *very* hard to get right, given how little we know about them, their languages, and so forth. Some are easier (Teotihuacan, Mississippian), others not (Adena...lol). The idea that we can just fill every gap with them wily nily is nonsense.

Two, Toltecs are (as very regularly discussed on these forums for the past three years or so) of extremely questionable existence : the only evidence we have that they were more than a single (and mostlly unremarkable against other mesoamerican cities) city is the Aztec codices, and none of the Aztec claims are subsantiated by arcaheology (even the supposed Chichen Itza - Feathered Serpent connection falls apart as more recent archaeology shows that Chichen Itza developed the feathered serpent motives *before* the supposed Toltecs). There is virtually no evidence to point to the Toltec empire actually existing, and even if they did, we know virtually nothing about them.

Three, driving home the point about how hard it is to make out those legends and figure things out, even if we believe the traditional narrative, Teotihuacan was a contemporary of Ancient Rome (this one we know for a fact), while the Toltecs were contemporary with the Frankish Empire (if they existed at all). That you have Ancient Toltecs and Medieval Teotihuacan illustrate how obscure all these civs are *very* well. (Of course, in reality, there is a more than nil chance the "real" Toltecs ARE Teotihuacan, since Teotihuacan did achieve most of what the Aztecs claim the Toltec did).

Fourth, Funan has the same problem. We have a few travelers account from third party countries of there being some sort of kingdom that might have been called something like Funan there, and that's it. Are those account accurate? Are they Mandevilling the heck out of everything? Even if they're accurate, they tell us almost nothing about the actual civilization. They do not form a reasonable basis to design an entire civ around.

Fifth, okay, if you have the Nazca culture in era 2 (not very accurate for a civilization that is mostly associated with the early first millenium, but), who do you put in Era 1 instead, then?

No; a fourth era between Ancient and Exploration remain a terrible idea.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

A social club that met to discuss literature, philosophy, and the like. They were all the rage in Europe in the 18th through early 20th century based on French models. The most prestigious ladies hosted them, and anyone who was anyone jockeyed to be invited to them. Some were as intellectual as they ostensibly set out to be; others were just fashionable gossip clubs made respectable by "poetry."

But they help to spawn Jacobins in Civ 7, not Philophes.

It's also very funny how putting two Ancient Regime unique buildings together would create a Second Empire unique quarter.

I don't think Parisian Avenues are made up of French formal gardens and salons in real life. If anything, this combination sounds like a recipe for a "Palace" or "Palais" unique quarter rather than an "Avenue." Probably the strangest UB combinations we have seen at this point.

(And if FXS indeed wanted to stick with Avenues, it is a missed opportunity not to have Haussmanniens as a unique building.)

Yeah, these two buildings would fit a Chateau unique quarter better in my opinion. They could have easily replaced the Salon with a Cafe, for example, to fit with the Avenue theme.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Archaeological civilization are *very* hard to get right, given how little we know about them, their languages, and so forth. Some are easier (Teotihuacan, Mississippian), others not (Adena...lol). The idea that we can just fill every gap with them wily nily is nonsense.

And yet we still have Mississippians in Civ 7, which is totally unimaginable in Civ 6. It is entirely possible to expect Civ 8, or even a Civ 7 DLC down the roads, to have more archaeological civilizations.

The need to fill every gap with archaeological civilizations with not-so-well-informed remains is primarily a North American issue (South American cultures left much richer remains) and a Pacific issue (as organic objects cannot stay too long in tropical climates). Moving from "one civ from Bronze Age to Modern time" to an "Ancient-Exploration-Modern Age" system already requires FXS to use archaeology to fill the gaps in North America. In future DLC, more and more archaeological cultures are expected to appear.

And this is not just to fill gaps for the fill-the-gaps' sake. This is a global system aimed at giving every region adequate representation - the current 3-Age system means many fascinating Medieval or Early Modern cultures in the Old World will be left out of the picture.

I am not arguing that we need to push periodization to an extreme - I would say Humankind is too extreme, and having 6 Eras is too excessive and pedantic (and requires many not-so-well-informed archaeological cultures to fill every gap). But 4 Ages is a nice middle ground between too few and too much.

If anything, a fourth era between Ancient and Exploration would be an idea that FXS will certainly try in the future. That's a fantastic idea for many Old World medieval and early modern cultures, from the Khazars to Tang, Heian Japan, Goryeo, the Gupta dynasty, the Turkic Khanates, Sogdians, the Novgorod Republic, Swahillis, the Almoravid dynasty, and Timurid Empire ....... etc. that will be very hard to slot in the awkward "Exploration" Age.

 

[Evie]

We will certainly see more archeological civilizations, but the vast majority of them are simply too poorly known to form the basis of a civilization. Imagining that just because we know of an arcaheological civilization somewhere at some point we can have a civ is simply a flight from reality.

Adquate representation is not perfect representation. It's not a promise that every interesting civilization in a given region get represented. It just means that we get a wide array of cultures in each region.

This whole fourth era between 1 and 2 thing just stink of "English and Normans should be separate" all over again.

 

[Captain Lime]

And yet we still have Mississippians in Civ 7, which is totally unimaginable in Civ 6. It is entirely possible to expect Civ 8, or even a Civ 7 DLC down the roads, to have more archaeological civilizations.

I take issue with this. Why are Mississippians more unimaginable in civ 6 than in civ 7? They have a leader available - Tuskaloosa - for which the series has done more dubious leaders.

 

[Sagax]

This whole fourth era between 1 and 2 thing just stink of "English and Normans should be separate" all over again.

The entire Old World outside of Europe: “Are we a joke to you?”

I don’t mind if wedging in Medieval results in more granular representation of European mainstays - it’s not really about them specifically, but if they are one of many regions that could benefit from it, then all the merrier.