News article: "Civilization 7 makers work with Shawnee to bring sincere representation of the tribe to the game"

Mississippians, just like the Shawnee. We are talking about a game that has such very historic options as Egypt > Songhai. :crazyeye: Put another way, you have much more confidence that historical pathways will make sense, especially on release, than I do, though I hope most at least broadly make sense after a few rounds of DLC. (Though I'm willing to buy Mississippians to Haudenosaunee. We have no clue where the Iroquoian peoples came from; they show up in the Great Lakes around the 12th century. Also at least one Iroquoian people, the Cherokee, practiced a Mississippian lifestyle. The Tuscarora, Meherrin, and Nottaway may have as well, though I don't believe that's the case. If the Haudenosaunee are modern, I'd also happily buy Mississippian > Powhatan > Haudenosaunee...though as much as the Powhatan are actually a top pick for me, I'm not sure they fit well with the Shawnee being Exploration as well--they share a design space and a language family, and I'd rather spread the love around, even if the Algic languages spread from coast to coast.)

Remember when Egypt -> Songhai turned out to just be hiding Egypt -> Abassid, which makes a lot more sense?

Do we really think the progression at launch will be Egypt -> Songhai -> Hausa when Numidia -> Songhai -> Hausa establishes a much stronger historical throughline? Moreover, if SEA gets a "narrative" of exactly three civs (Khmer -> Majapahit -> Siam), Polynesia is likely to get exactly three civs (Tonga -> Maori -> Hawaii), East Africa is likely to get exactly three civs (Aksum -> Swahili -> Buganda), Mesoamerica is likely to get exactly three civs (Maya -> Inca -> ???)...at some point we just need to accept that maybe West Africa also is planned to get a narrative of exactly three civs. And similarly for the Tecumseh path.

I will grant that we could probably stretch Mississippians into Iroquois. That may happen. But I think standing next to a Tecumseh throughline, especially if it ends in Anishinaabe, would just feel like the "bargain" version of trying to connect together three civs under a theory of "tribal unity." In part Brant doesn't quite represent the same degree of pan-Native optimism that Tecumseh does. I see what you are going for, it could indeed happen if the devs want the Iroquois in. But I suspect that pathway might skip the Powhatan and just move Mississippian -> Haudenosaunee -> Anishinaabe again.

With respect to the Cherokee, the fact that Tecumseh allied with the Muscogeans, the Cherokee are Mississippian, and all of them are now kind of unified under the Five Civilized Tribes, does I believe make the Five Tribes a potential pivot for the Tecumseh line, probably even more appropriate than the Lakota if we are viewing the line as being centered around Tecumseh's heritage and not the Mississippians. So I do think you're not wrong for looking their way as an option. ACTUALLY, come to think of it, if you really wanted to end up in Iroquoian modern, Missisippian -> Cherokee -> Iroquois would be half-decent, albeit not quite as well-glued together as Tecumseh -> Anishinaabe. Thoughts.
 
Do we really think the progression at launch will be Egypt -> Songhai -> Hausa when Numidia -> Songhai -> Hausa establishes a much stronger historical throughline?
There's no evidence for Numidia or Hausa on launch, though. Maybe eventually. I'm doubtful we'll ever see the Hausa, sadly, unless there's a lot of popular demand, but I think Numidia is a strong contender for the future--especially if we get Phoenicia instead of Carthage (which would be my preference). Numidia could pivot to Songhai but also open up a line like Numidia > Umayyad (or al-Andalus or Cordoba or Grenada) > Morocco or Numidia > Tuareg > Morocco.
 
There's no evidence for Numidia or Hausa on launch, though. Maybe eventually. I'm doubtful we'll ever see the Hausa, sadly, unless there's a lot of popular demand, but I think Numidia is a strong contender for the future--especially if we get Phoenicia instead of Carthage (which would be my preference). Numidia could pivot to Songhai but also open up a line like Numidia > Umayyad (or al-Andalus or Cordoba or Grenada) > Morocco or Numidia > Tuareg > Morocco.
The evidence for Numidia and Hausa is Amina herself. If it were a path about the Songhai, we would have seen Askia. But it's not about the Songhai. It's about the Hausa/Niger and likely always has been. And I think part of the reason why we are starting with Numidia -> Hausa is because (a) the pathing flows a lot smoother from Numidia -> Songhai and Songhai -> Hausa, plus Amina kind of brands the Hausa a little more around building trade routes and warhorses to better fit in with that heritage, whereas it is a lot harder to draw interrelationships between the Akan/Yoruba kingdoms; (b) Numidia is not only a lot more attested than the Nok, but will geographically prove to be a lot more flexible to draw relationships with surrounding civs, not to mention will be the starting point for an eventual Morocco civ path; and (c) the Hausa will serve as a great endpoint "magnet" for Guinea coast and central African civs to progress toward if necessary. I do think we will ultimately see Numidia -> Songhai -> Morocco or even likely Numidia -> Almoravid -> "Morocco," but I think Numidia will be there from the start. One civ path to start, built out into two with DLC.

I just don't think the signs point to Phoenicia at launch. They feel more like connective tissue and I give them great odds at being in the "Crossroads of the World" pack (alongside prossibly Hittites, Georgia, maybe Assyria, maybe Scythia, maybe Armenia). Their odds especially go up if we happen to get a full Sasania -> Timurids -> Safavid path at launch which will open up a slot or two, because those would be obvious needed choices to get in the game early with Crossroads if they weren't in there already.
 
But, there's far too many cultures they don't, or haven't reached out to, but have been quite cliched, even bad stereotyping, of, or allowing a tiny number that may not be as representative as they should, kaibosh representation, or key features, arbitrarily. Such praise seems a wee bit tokenist, given the whole hit-and-miss record of Firaxis.
Native tribes have always has been tokenist, and likely will be for a while. But there are definite arguments to be made for misrepresentation versus outright erasure from history in pop edutainment media. And, on the whole, the efforts put forth by the Civ team and their relationship building with the native tribes has become increasingly better since Civ V. It was very heartwarming to hear about Knorr's relationship with the Poundmaker singers. It's not perfect, and especially we can point fingers at higher ups for wanting to exploit history for a commericial product anyway (acknowledged elsewhere by Andrew Johnson in an article that it still ultimately is what Civ is), but I have come to realize there are some very genuine and empathetic artists in the team guiding these relationships.
 
Surely if Amina implies Numidia as an Age 1 civ, they would have been among the 4 revealed from the very first gameplay footage. Not sure why they’d go with Aksum instead, and open themselves up to accusations of whatever. And if we understand Leaders to be tied 1:1 to a civ across the 3 ages, then wouldn’t Zhou have made it in instead of Han?
 
I think Civ7 will be quite amenable to "close enough" leaders (like Amina) and even leaders without civs (Zenobia and Charlemagne are prime candidates).


I don't either.


We already know Achaemenid is Antiquity.
We know a Persia civ is in Antiquity. The palace looks Achaemenid; the Middle Eastern buildings do not. Also, I really don't know if Hatshepsut's palace looks New Kingdom versus Middle or Old Kingdom. Also, again, we've been progressing alphabetically in reveals for four weeks and the Achaemenids have not appeared. Wonder why.

I think as the bigger picture is revealed, leaders will be less "close enough" and more like "aha, I understand why those civs were paired with that leader." I think we will get close-enough leaders down the line, but likely when the game starts hitting leader pack DLC.

Surely if Amina implies Numidia as an Age 1 civ, they would have been among the 4 revealed from the very first gameplay footage. Not sure why they’d go with Aksum instead, and open themselves up to accusations of whatever. And if we understand Leaders to be tied 1:1 to a civ across the 3 ages, then wouldn’t Zhou have made it in instead of Han?

1. They wanted to reveal more than just Rome/Egypt/China/India, in a way that showed off some of their exciting Africa work.
2. They wanted to keep some of the new exciting things secret to have genuine things to reveal and keep players excited.
2. They were manufacturing a mini-trauma bond so players will have more trust and acceptance of the team's capabilities after the reveals.
 
I think as the bigger picture is revealed, leaders will be less "close enough" and more like "aha, I understand why those civs were paired with that leader."
I think you'll be disappointed, but we'll see.
 
I think you'll be disappointed, but we'll see.
That's also a possibility! I think I may actually be fairly satisfied, though, if these predictions are correct. And if, by some chance, I turn out to be wrong, then I just won't buy the game until it makes more sense to me. No real stress for me either way. :)
 
Native tribes have always has been tokenist, and likely will be for a while. But there are definite arguments to be made for misrepresentation versus outright erasure from history in pop edutainment media. And, on the whole, the efforts put forth by the Civ team and their relationship building with the native tribes has become increasingly better since Civ V. It was very heartwarming to hear about Knorr's relationship with the Poundmaker singers. It's not perfect, and especially we can point fingers at higher ups for wanting to exploit history for a commericial product anyway (acknowledged elsewhere by Andrew Johnson in an article that it still ultimately is what Civ is), but I have come to realize there are some very genuine and empathetic artists in the team guiding these relationships.
The post you're quoting was self-deleted shortly after being posted because it came out in a much more negative and harsh way than I had intended for the original core point.
 
Do we really think the progression at launch will be Egypt -> Songhai -> Hausa when Numidia -> Songhai -> Hausa establishes a much stronger historical throughline? Moreover, if SEA gets a "narrative" of exactly three civs (Khmer -> Majapahit -> Siam), Polynesia is likely to get exactly three civs (Tonga -> Maori -> Hawaii), East Africa is likely to get exactly three civs (Aksum -> Swahili -> Buganda), Mesoamerica is likely to get exactly three civs (Maya -> Inca -> ???)...at some point we just need to accept that maybe West Africa also is planned to get a narrative of exactly three civs. And similarly for the Tecumseh path.
I do find exact trifecta like that to be unlikely.
Even in your example you merged Mesoamerica with an unrelated Inca culture. You would need an obvious and full Andean line instead. Or at least a South American one. And it’s honestly one of the more unlikely candidates for an Ancient civ. Unless Inca are used as one.
 
I do find exact trifecta like that to be unlikely.
Even in your example you merged Mesoamerica with an unrelated Inca culture. You would need an obvious and full Andean line instead. Or at least a South American one. And it’s honestly one of the more unlikely candidates for an Ancient civ. Unless Inca are used as one.
The Muisca are in the Andes. That's why they only just barely work as an antiquity civ for Inca.

I agree, at launch, Mesoamerica should launch with both a Mexico line, and a South America line. Just like we ultimately want a full Korea and Japan line, a full Berber line separate from Hausa, a full Funan and full Indonesian line. But it seems like, at launch, what should be and will ultimately built out into two lines will start, condensed, as one.

So, we start with Silla -> Edo -> Meiji, that is split into Silla -> Goryeo -> Joseon and Yamatai -> Edo -> Meiji with DLC (exactly four civs). We start with Khmer -> Majapahit -> Siam, that is split into Khmer -> Burma -> Siam and Srivijaya -> Majapahit -> Brunei with DLC (likely split across two DLCs with Cham, Dai Viet, Nguyen, and something Philippine/Malay). We start with Numidia -> Songhai -> Hausa, and that is ultimately split into Numidia -> Almoravid -> Morocco, and Wagadu/??? -> Songhai -> Hausa.

But it is fairly unlikely that Inca will not any sort of perfect antiquity civ like Nazca or Norte Chico because all of the other Andean civs are so poorly attested, and will have to stretch through the "idea" of Gran Columbia and Bolivar to tie back to the Maya or Muisca.
 
Another would be Tecumseh's mentor and predecessor, Joseph Brant, who also created a league of nations in the Old Northwest--though Brant's confederacy was not a union of equals but an association in league with the Mohawk. (On which note, I expect we'll see the Haudenosaunee sooner or later, and I hope Joseph Brant comes with them.)
I'm hopeful that the base game will start with something like Mississippians>Iroquois>Lakota and the Shawnee will just add another option for the line.
The evidence for Numidia and Hausa is Amina herself. If it were a path about the Songhai, we would have seen Askia. But it's not about the Songhai. It's about the Hausa/Niger and likely always has been. And I think part of the reason why we are starting with Numidia -> Hausa is because (a) the pathing flows a lot smoother from Numidia -> Songhai and Songhai -> Hausa, plus Amina kind of brands the Hausa a little more around building trade routes and warhorses to better fit in with that heritage, whereas it is a lot harder to draw interrelationships between the Akan/Yoruba kingdoms; (b) Numidia is not only a lot more attested than the Nok, but will geographically prove to be a lot more flexible to draw relationships with surrounding civs, not to mention will be the starting point for an eventual Morocco civ path; and (c) the Hausa will serve as a great endpoint "magnet" for Guinea coast and central African civs to progress toward if necessary. I do think we will ultimately see Numidia -> Songhai -> Morocco or even likely Numidia -> Almoravid -> "Morocco," but I think Numidia will be there from the start. One civ path to start, built out into two with DLC.
Even though I would love a proper Berber/Amazigh civ I'm not quite sure how Amina herself confirms one? But maybe it's best to talk about it on another thread.
 
The Muisca are in the Andes. That's why they only just barely work as an antiquity civ for Inca.

I agree, at launch, Mesoamerica should launch with both a Mexico line, and a South America line. Just like we ultimately want a full Korea and Japan line, a full Berber line separate from Hausa, a full Funan and full Indonesian line. But it seems like, at launch, what should be and will ultimately built out into two lines will start, condensed, as one.
That’s what I’m referring to, though.
Korea and Japan are both Sinitic civilizations. Mesoamerican (Middle American) civilization stops at the Yucatán peninsula.
Inca civilisation is an entirely separate and unrelated civilisation like Romans and Indus Valley.
They don’t share a continent, language, people, technology, foods, nothing. It is a separate cradle of civilisation altogether.
 
That’s what I’m referring to, though.
Korea and Japan are both Sinitic civilizations. Mesoamerican (Middle American) civilization stops at the Yucatán peninsula.
Inca civilisation is an entirely separate and unrelated civilisation like Romans and Indus Valley.
They don’t share a continent, language, people, technology, foods, nothing. It is a separate cradle of civilisation altogether.
It is. But also the Chibchi and Isthmo cultures are nothing like the Quechua or Mayan heritages/languages.

So, I ask you, if the entirety of Latin America were only to get a single three-civ line, antiquity -> exploration -> modern, because that is all you have room for in the development budget because every other major region needs three civs. And you wanted that three-civ line to represent both Mesoamerica and South America as a unified "idea" of the Latin American experience, which three would you pick? Only three. Only three... Only three... *vanishes*
 
I'm hopeful that the base game will start with something like Mississippians>Iroquois>Lakota and the Shawnee will just add another option for the line.

Even though I would love a proper Berber/Amazigh civ I'm not quite sure how Amina herself confirms one? But maybe it's best to talk about it on another thread.

It's an example of what will likely happen. Really, for sake of argument, you can substitute any antiquity civ in/around Songhai/Hausa that reasonably creates a thematic throughline to Amina. I just think Numidia is the obvious choice. I suppose it could be Wagadu, but imo if you were to choose between the two based on which will sustain better pathways to other civs, I think Numidia just makes a lot of sense.

Sorry, I realize my defense of these ideas is getting a little off-topic, but it all is in service of shaping why I think the Shawnee pack will have three civs and not just one.
 
Last edited:
We know a Persia civ is in Antiquity. The palace looks Achaemenid; the Middle Eastern buildings do not. Also, I really don't know if Hatshepsut's palace looks New Kingdom versus Middle or Old Kingdom. Also, again, we've been progressing alphabetically in reveals for four weeks and the Achaemenids have not appeared. Wonder why.
Hatshepsut's palace is so stylized/fantastic that the architecture isn't dateable. It also doesn't evoke the image of an Egyptian palace at all, it's much closer to a temple. Yet, the statues of deceased pharaohs in front of the pylon-like main building are reminiscent of New Kingdom buildings, as do the windows out front (although I don't remember if they existed pre-Akhenaten or whether he invented the related "government" style). The obelisk, while of course being older as a concept, is a nice connection with Hatshepsut and her famous obelisks.

I wouldn't read anything from generic MENA architecture into civs. The generic Egyptian city buildings have nothing at all to do with Egyptian cities, neither architecture nor city layout. Hence, a dome on a generic building likely has no indication of what civs are included.

The double protome column in front of the Persian palace tie it clearly to the Achaemenids - that's the one part that isn't stylized and fantastical there. It's a very famous style of Achaemenid architecture and it would be quite strange to use it for Sassanians. To scream Sassanians, I would expect an arch like the one in Ktesiphon for the main building and a little fire temple in front in the civ symbol spot instead of the double protome column.

But this is all OT to this thread.
 
I'm not Krajzen, but I understood him to be mocking the academics who said, "No, don't contact the indigenes! They wouldn't understand!"
Except that really doesn't seem to be what was said in the article. "you won't get sign-off" is nowhere near "they wouldn't understand".

Making light of academics is a very real and Politicised™ (e.g. off-topic) thing that happens these days. Given that Andrew Johnson is an academic themselves, it's a pretty weird line to try and split.
 
Except that really doesn't seem to be what was said in the article. "you won't get sign-off" is nowhere near "they wouldn't understand".

Making light of academics is a very real and Politicised™ (e.g. off-topic) thing that happens these days. Given that Andrew Johnson is an academic themselves, it's a pretty weird line to try and split.
As an academic myself, I have no problem ribbing academics for having their heads stuck in their ivory towers. :p
 
Making light of academics is a very real and Politicised™ (e.g. off-topic) thing that happens these days. Given that Andrew Johnson is an academic themselves, it's a pretty weird line to try and split.

Some of them don't deserve it at all.

Others do.

Don't put it all on one pile. In fact, don't look at the academics at all. Look at the words. Make light of stupid stuff being said, respect sensible stuff being said. And err on the side of caution, of course.
 
Top Bottom