New First Look: Trưng Trắc

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

What I'm reading? Khmers and Daiviets were arch nemesis for most of medieval history.

Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge's anti-Vietnamese sentiment traced its origins to medieval Khmer-Viet rivalry.

I think grouping Khmer with Vietnamese is similar to grouping Turks with Greeks as the same civilization.

I understand where you are coming from but the only other solution if a Dai Viet civ weren't to come from Khmer, it would probably be Han China which is a whole other rivalry in itself, in the game. Regardless Trung Trac seems to be a designated leader for Southeast Asia, possibly the only one in base game.

 

[cristobalushebrew]

They aren't the same, one succeeds over the other.

Khmers and Daiviets were established independently and by the end they were annexed by French Indo China. No one succeeds over the other. Cambodia still there and it didn't become Viet. Otherwise devs wanna piss off both nations by grouping them together.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I understand where you are coming from but the only other solution if a Dai Viet civ weren't to come from Khmer, it would probably be Han China which is a whole other rivalry in itself, in the game. Regardless Trung Trac seems to be a designated leader for Southeast Asia, possibly the only one in base game.

I mean other options would be Van Xuan (antiquity Vietnam) or even the Cham, but in absence of either of those facilitating distinct or clear civ designs, I do agree that the general proto-Mon-Khmer identity as represented by "Khmer-reaching-backward" is the next best option, and waayyyyyyy better than China.

The convenient thing about Khmer as a "wellfont" for SEA is that quite literally no civ in that region can claim to have not sprung forth shared origins if you go back far enough. They can quibble about wars between later peoples, but at the end of the day, it's all (well, predominantly) Mon-Khmer.

 

[Zaarin]

at the end of the day, it's all (well, predominantly) Mon-Khmer.

Kra-Dai and a handful of Sino-Tibetan languages would like a literal word.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Kra-Dai and a handful of Sino-Tibetan languages would like a literal word.

I was very carefully avoiding specifying language there, as I think even the Burmese and Thai would have difficultly claiming their history wasn't defined, at some point, by the Funan and Khmer (Mon-Khmer) polities/cultures.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I mean other options would be Van Xuan (antiquity Vietnam) or even the Cham, but in absence of either of those facilitating distinct or clear civ designs, I do agree that the general proto-Mon-Khmer identity as represented by "Khmer-reaching-backward" is the next best option, and waayyyyyyy better than China.

If Dai Viet appears, I don't see why it wouldn't come from Han China as well considering it's the only SEA nation in the Sinosphere.
The Cham also have had a historic rivalry with both the Khmer and Vietnamese, so either way SEA and age switching isn't going to be pretty no matter who you are.

 

[RedCourtJester]

If Dai Viet appears, I don't see why it wouldn't come from Han China as well considering it's the only SEA nation in the Sinosphere.
The Cham also have had a historic rivalry with both the Khmer and Vietnamese, so either way SEA and age switching isn't going to be pretty no matter who you are.

I think Dai Viet could have had the option of branching politically/culturally off Han (and perhaps could even see a leader with a different path from Han, especially if any pro-Chinese-culture Vietnamese leader exist that I'm unaware of). However, given that so much of Vietnam's entire identity across two milennia has been "we refuse to be Chinese," I just don't think that would be a very honest depiction of Vietnam.

I think Cham are one of those civs that could become a second start point for Vietnam in the same way the Ainu could for Japan (who were also not-so-peacefully "coerced" into being Japanese). And it's really a consequence of balancing interests. Would we rather erase practically an entire half of a nation/culture's historical identity to avoid offending them by excluding them altogether from a heritage path? Or would we rather we let them "reclaim" their cultural identity by giving them a civ and a leader who then controls the modern polity later (so, say a Cham King leading "Vietnam" in modern era or Okikurmi leading "Japan").

I think it's a bit too early to tell which way the devs swung on that idea, but I wouldn't rule it out.

 

[Zaarin]

I was very carefully avoiding specifying language there, as I think even the Burmese and Thai would have difficultly claiming their history wasn't defined, at some point, by the Funan and Khmer (Mon-Khmer) polities/cultures.

Okay. You said Mon-Khmer so I heard language family.

SEA and age switching isn't going to be pretty no matter who you are.

Imagine the modern Balkans...

 

[RedCourtJester]

Okay. You said Mon-Khmer so I heard language family.


Imagine the modern Balkans...

I think "massive domination" is going to factor to some degree into political/cultural heritage, where appropriate. Like Mamluks being a good ending point for Egypt, Arabia, Assyria, and Babylon, or Maya will very likely factor into a modern Mexican leader's path.

Two really strong illustrations I've come up with in brainstorming likelihoods of this kind of "big domination period" include Denmark and England. I think Sweden and Norway are both going to likely "move through Denmark" to get to their modern selves, just for how domineering the Kalmar Union and successors were to that region in exploration era. And I think, in order to avoid having to figure out "exploration Ireland" on top of "modern-era Ireland" and "Gaels-Scoti," Ireland is incredibly likely to just "move through England," given a long period of English dominance in "exploration era" that affected their modern identity. Stuff like that.

Imagine the modern Balkans...

That's going to be fun when they do it, because there is no best way to represent it. Do we go with Dusan leading Serbia or Simeon leading Bulgaria for best exploration civ? Do we want a modern Bulgaria, do we want Skanderberg and Albania? I do doubt both Dusan and Simeon appearing in the same game, if only because their dress code makes them look like twins.

I do think it would be neat/cool if they all just started out of Dacia though, instead of pulling from existing civs in the game. Get some very token Romanian representation in there as well.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

Alexander the Great

Tiny nitpick here- Alexander had no relation to the modern country of North Macedonia, whose flag you used here. The Slavic Macedonians and the Greek Macedonians are two different things.

I’ve seen many a comment section lay claim to this long-dead man for their nationalist ambitions and I don’t want to let that happen here.

I’m not accusing you of this specifically, but it’s a pet peeve of mine.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Tiny nitpick here- Alexander had no relation to the modern country of North Macedonia, whose flag you used here. The Slavic Macedonians and the Greek Macedonians are two different things.

I’ve seen many a comment section lay claim to this long-dead man for their nationalist ambitions and I don’t want to let that happen here.

I’m not accusing you of this specifically, but it’s a pet peeve of mine.

I'm giving it a pass, because the Alexander civ in VI was very clearly an aesthetic blob of antiquity Macedon and modern Macedonia. The icon used definitely evokes that, and Knorr is on record in a podcast stating that he decided to have fun with Macedon's soundtrack and make it very "South Slavic."

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

Imagine the modern Balkans...

Firaxis must come to terms with the fact that no matter what they choose, they’ll upset nationalists.

The solution?

Include Yugoslavia, the USSR, Austro-Hungary, and any other multi-ethnic polities that completely fail to independently represent each people.

That way, you’re upsetting everyone equally!

 

[Zaarin]

Firaxis must come to terms with the fact that no matter what they choose, they’ll upset nationalists.

The solution?

Include Yugoslavia, the USSR, Austro-Hungary, and any other multi-ethnic polities that completely fail to independently represent each people.

That way, you’re upsetting everyone equally!

"Maria Theresa leads all of Central and Eastern Europe As a Single Civ in Sid Meier's Civilization VII. Whatever you build, build something you believe in."

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

Knorr is on record in a podcast stating that he decided to have fun with Macedon's soundtrack and make it very "South Slavic."

This is true, though I sort of despise the decision. The Civ design and heritage is solely based on the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon, while the music is solely based on North Macedonian folk music. This results in a mish-mash that does nothing but open the door to nationalist revisionisms.

He was in a difficult situation, though, seeing as there was already an Ancient Greek Civ competing with Macedon for a limited amount of written music. I can understand not wanting to repeat yourself in that way. And truth be told, I really enjoy what he did. The arrangements are fantastic and introduced me to some interesting music.

I still disapprove of the rationale behind it, especially when on a music theory level there were actually Greek choices that match the Slavic choices in time signature, tempo, and mood. It’s a little frustrating.

Disclaimer: I am not actually Macedonian in the Greek or Slavic sense IRL. This is just a pet interest of mine which I get nitpicky about. Let no one make accusations of bias!

 

[RedCourtJester]

Firaxis must come to terms with the fact that no matter what they choose, they’ll upset nationalists.

The solution?

Include Yugoslavia, the USSR, Austro-Hungary, and any other multi-ethnic polities that completely fail to independently represent each people.

That way, you’re upsetting everyone equally!

I actually think modern polities are more likely to represent multi-ethnic polities in VII than we were ever likely to get in previous games, specifically because they evoke this idea of "history built in layers" and "multiple paths." Totally expecting Poland to be "Poland Lithuania" and Austria/Hungary to be "Austria-Hungary."

(And frankly, as one of substantial Polish heritage, DO IT Firaxis. Poland has never, ever been an interesting place. It is backwater, suspicious, hyper-conservative, Catholic nonsense, and the only time it has ever been interesting was when it was paired with Lithuania.)

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

they evoke this idea of "history built in layers" and "multiple paths."

Truth be told, it might be my Croatian heritage’s only ticket into Civ, so I’ll happily take a broad Hungarian or Austro-Hungarian Civ.

 

[RedCourtJester]

"Maria Theresa leads all of Central and Eastern Europe As a Single Civ in Sid Meier's Civilization VII. Whatever you build, build something you believe in."

I'm sorry, that's a weird way of spelling Napoleon.

This is true, though I sort of despise the decision. The Civ design and heritage is solely based on the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon, while the music is solely based on North Macedonian folk music. This results in a mish-mash that does nothing but open the door to nationalist revisionisms.

He was in a difficult situation, though, seeing as there was already an Ancient Greek Civ competing with Macedon for a limited amount of written music. I can understand not wanting to repeat yourself in that way. And truth be told, I really enjoy what he did. The arrangements are fantastic and introduced me to some interesting music.

I still disapprove of the rationale behind it, especially when on a music theory level there were actually Greek choices that match the Slavic choices in time signature, tempo, and mood. It’s a little frustrating.

I despised the decision to include Alexander and build an entire civ around him. I don't despise Macedon, like most of the other civs, for assembling a sort of cultural heritage for the region with music and uniques, and I don't despise Knorr for using it as an opportunity to get some cool music in the game like he did with Armenia/Scythia/duduk.

It's...fine. Civ is a franchise that is constantly growing alongside historical worldliness. We didn't even have Polynesian representation prior to V, or Southeast Asian representation or African representation outside of Egypt/Zulu prior to IV. Civ VI made reasonable efforts to improve the model that it inherited with V, and I highly respect what it was able to accomplish.

But, BUT...there were some growing pains, like still feeling obligated to include Alexander, when it should have been a Serbian or Bulgarian civ. THERE I SAID IT. Alexander and his stupid, punchable face should have just been in the leader DLC paired with Greece.

 

[Zaarin]

Poland has never, ever been an interesting place. It is backwater, suspicious, hyper-conservative, Catholic nonsense, and the only time it has ever been interesting was when it was paired with Lithuania.

I'd just like to point out that Poland was the only place in Europe you could be non-Trinitarian in the 16th century and not get burned for it*. It was actually quite fashionable among the aristocracy for a time, as was Reformed Protestantism. And Catholicism didn't revive in Poland because it was decreed from on high; it was because Protestants couldn't compete with Jesuit education. (And that's why I'm still hoping we see Sigismund II Augustus sooner or later.) I realize that was during the Commonwealth, just saying that Poland has not always been either hyper-conservative or hyper-Catholic.

*Briefly--very briefly--also Transylvania, but the HRE put an end to that.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Okay. You said Mon-Khmer so I heard language family.


Imagine the modern Balkans...

Also, before it's too late to get this joke in,

Aurun souci, mon chmoeur

 

[RedCourtJester]

I'd just like to point out that Poland was the only place in Europe you could be non-Trinitarian in the 16th century and not get burned for it*. It was actually quite fashionable among the aristocracy for a time, as was Reformed Protestantism. And Catholicism didn't revive in Poland because it was decreed from on high; it was because Protestants couldn't compete with Jesuit education. (And that's why I'm still hoping we see Sigismund II Augustus sooner or later.) I realize that was during the Commonwealth, just saying that Poland has not always been either hyper-conservative or hyper-Catholic.

*Briefly--very briefly--also Transylvania, but the HRE put an end to that.

No, it hasn't. But it didn't really shine much or for long, and was quickly assimilated into empires.

And, as a Jesuit-educated person, I can say that Jesuits are insidious. Frank Herbert had the right of it.