• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

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

As an academic myself, I have no problem ribbing academics for having their heads stuck in their ivory towers. :p
I wasn't getting "friendly ribbing" vibes from Krajzen's original post, but that's individual mileage for me :D

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.
This all seems very sensible, it just seems pretty mountain out of a molehill. Erring on the side of caution is exactly what academics are doing when they warn that Firaxis' time might be wasted.

For the record, I'm super glad that Firaxis persisted, and got a warm reception. It's great for everybody involved.
 
This all seems very sensible, it just seems pretty mountain out of a molehill. Erring on the side of caution is exactly what academics are doing when they warn that Firaxis' time might be wasted.

For the record, I'm super glad that Firaxis persisted, and got a warm reception. It's great for everybody involved.

I meant err on the side of caution as in, if you aren't 100% sure it's indeed stupid stuff, don't make light of it.

As for the academics, I disagree. To err on the side of caution would be to say "we don't think they will be okay with it, but you should talk to them just to make sure". That's the cautious approach, after all - explore the entire range of options even if your estimate is that it won't lead to anything.
 
This is a bit of my own fault for using that term in the interview, and I don't really want to go into the process here too much. Part of the pushback came from, I think, a lack of faith in our capabilities to do the job right, part of it is a skepticism towards private industry, part of it is the long history of misrepresentation that media industries have done towards indigenous people.

In a mild defense of academics - I've been a professor various places for almost 15 years now, and was a grad student for nearly a decade before that. Academics are people that I am very familiar with, and I use that term for myself (because I worry "professor" is off-putting). But where there needs to be better work is the liaison between the university and media - professors gain little from collaboration with industry (the prestige doesn't transfer over), and media often doesn't know whom to contact, or whose work is good.

And, of course, just going directly to the group is almost always the right strategy.

In short, the problem is not "academics," it's:
- No incentive for full-time academics to make it work, and plenty of disincentives (your long-term contacts in a group might have a bad experience and then blame you for sending the company to them).
- No real knowledge of the field on the industry side.
- A wide group of people in between, looking to find a niche for themselves.

I think 2K and Firaxis did a good job here with the Shawnee, avoiding these pitfalls, and I'm really proud of it.
 
Last edited:
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.
Is there a particular reason that you're expecting there to be 3 civs for only northern american indigenous nations, but 3 others for all of Latin America? I'd feel pretty comfortable in saying that the Aztec triple alliance, the Mayans, and the Incas are more famous than any NA nations - if I had to pick between those for development budget, I'd be more comfortable trying to squeeze a connection between Mesoamerica and the nations of the US south-west than Mesoamerica to Andean cultures. Given what we know now - Maya, Aztec, Shawnee, and presumably the Inca have to be in there, I'm not seeing any particularly easy path for 6 civs to fit here in a historically cohesive manner, to be honest.
 
Is there a particular reason that you're expecting there to be 3 civs for only northern american indigenous nations, but 3 others for all of Latin America? I'd feel pretty comfortable in saying that the Aztec triple alliance, the Mayans, and the Incas are more famous than any NA nations - if I had to pick between those for development budget, I'd be more comfortable trying to squeeze a connection between Mesoamerica and the nations of the US south-west than Mesoamerica to Andean cultures. Given what we know now - Maya, Aztec, Shawnee, and presumably the Inca have to be in there, I'm not seeing any particularly easy path for 6 civs to fit here in a historically cohesive manner, to be honest.

For three reasons, really.

1. The most recent information we have with the Rome -> Normans live video highly suggests the Aztecs are not an exploration era civ.

2. Although Civ VI did ultimately flesh out South America quite a bit with DLC, at launch it was just Brazil (and arguably Aztecs). You can make arguments as to whether that should equal 3 civs, 4 civs, 5 civs, 6 civs on launch, but we could very easily be looking at another case of Latin America getting the bare minimum at launch.

3. Currently, without Aztecs and Mexico, I have literally the most conservative civ roster at 45 civs (see below, please forgive the partial wonder speculation I'm halfway through). That is not including the Mississippians, Shawnee, or likely modern Tecumseh civ, which would bring the total to 48. Now, if I were to add two more civs to the roster to make it a round 50, I think Aztec and Mexico are the automatic next inclusions, no question about that. It would actually be very harmless too, since due to doubling up leader pathways I am not expecting a Spanish leader on launch, making the "choice" of whether for her to progress to Mexico or Gran Columbia a non-issue, as well as minimizing the issue of having two Spanish colonial leaders at launch (presumably at this point Simon Bolivar and Benito Juarez). So while yes, I think it might happen, I think we are so close to being able to confirm Maya -> Inca -> Gran Colombia and Maya -> Aztec -> Mexico, one Palace of Bella Artes is not quite enough to call that yet.

Civ VII predictions.png
 
That is not including the Mississippians, Shawnee, or likely modern Tecumseh civ,
I don’t see any reason to think Mississippians aren’t base game, and I definitely don’t think there’s a modern Native American civ. The developers already said that Shawnee is currently the only representation for current Native Americans in the game.
 
I don’t see any reason to think Mississippians aren’t base game, and I definitely don’t think there’s a modern Native American civ. The developers already said that Shawnee is currently the only representation for current Native Americans in the game.
You don't see any reason, but I do. I see two rather big ones. So we will have to disagree on that for now.

I would like to have that specific quote sourced, because there is a lot of room for interpretation as to exactly what they are saying. It could be interpreted as broadly as "the Shawnee civ path" or "Tecumseh's civ path," and if not worded precisely could be easily misinterpreted by players.
 
You don't see any reason, but I do. I see two rather big ones. So we will have to disagree on that for now.

I would like to have that specific quote sourced, because there is a lot of room for interpretation as to exactly what they are saying. It could be interpreted as broadly as "the Shawnee civ path" or "Tecumseh's civ path," and if not worded precisely could be easily misinterpreted by players.
They’ve not really framed civ inclusion in terms of pathways—I think some folks are giving far too much importance to that as a framework. It’s like fans are making up arbitrary rules for including civs. It’s fun to theorize but I doubt it will bear out.

The quote is from the developer panel at PAX. They were specifically asked about additional Native American inclusiveness in regards to Shawnee and said Shawnee is it for now. They never framed it as “paths.” I don’t know the timestamp but it was in the second half I think, maybe even towards the end during the Q&A.
 
They’ve not really framed civ inclusion in terms of pathways—I think some folks are giving far too much importance to that as a framework. It’s like fans are making up arbitrary rules for including civs.

The quote is from the developer panel at PAX. They were specifically asked about Native America. inclusiveness in regards to Shawnee and said Shawnee is it for now. They never framed it as “paths.”
And again, I disagree. I think some folks are giving far too much importance into the idea that "anything goes" or the dev process is "shrouded in mystery," and I don't think the signs are pointing toward that. We can revisit this in a few months, if you like.

I just rewatched it. They said they have "one indiginous civ, the Shawnee," which is clearly wrong if taken literally, because the Missisippians would also be "indiginous." So he is implying that the Mississippians are included under the Shawnee umbrella. He also describes them as "part of our preorder civ." They immediately started using India as an example for showing a civ "more in depth." Unless I am missing a different point they talked about that, that is being taken totally out of context, and they were just being very careful not to spoil the surprise that Shawnee come with associated antiquity/modern civs. Time stamp for anyone to watch:

 
For three reasons, really.

1. The most recent information we have with the Rome -> Normans live video highly suggests the Aztecs are not an exploration era civ.

2. Although Civ VI did ultimately flesh out South America quite a bit with DLC, at launch it was just Brazil (and arguably Aztecs). You can make arguments as to whether that should equal 3 civs, 4 civs, 5 civs, 6 civs on launch, but we could very easily be looking at another case of Latin America getting the bare minimum at launch.

3. Currently, without Aztecs and Mexico, I have literally the most conservative civ roster at 45 civs (see below, please forgive the partial wonder speculation I'm halfway through). That is not including the Mississippians, Shawnee, or likely modern Tecumseh civ, which would bring the total to 48. Now, if I were to add two more civs to the roster to make it a round 50, I think Aztec and Mexico are the automatic next inclusions, no question about that. It would actually be very harmless too, since due to doubling up leader pathways I am not expecting a Spanish leader on launch, making the "choice" of whether for her to progress to Mexico or Gran Columbia a non-issue, as well as minimizing the issue of having two Spanish colonial leaders at launch (presumably at this point Simon Bolivar and Benito Juarez). So while yes, I think it might happen, I think we are so close to being able to confirm Maya -> Inca -> Gran Colombia and Maya -> Aztec -> Mexico, one Palace of Bella Artes is not quite enough to call that yet.

View attachment 705397

I don't see how the lack of indigenous south american representation in Civ 6's launch roster is relevant here, because there were no north american groups represented either - in fact, with Montezuma being day-1 DLC, the launch technically had no indigenous american representation at all. That feels like it's pretty equally irrelevant either way, to me. I understand the logic you're using for these progressions, but I just don't think it's necessarily reflected in what we've seen so far - they're very historically reasonable pathways, but I think there's a decent chance we'll have much more messy pathways that get more well-known groups in at launch. Maya in Antiquity, Aztec in Antiquity/Exploration, Shawnee in Exploration, Inca in Exploration, and one modern era indigenous group with messy paths like Maya -> Shawnee -> [insert modern indigenous group] honestly seems more likely to me.
 
They’ve not really framed civ inclusion in terms of pathways—I think some folks are giving far too much importance to that as a framework. It’s like fans are making up arbitrary rules for including civs. It’s fun to theorize but I doubt it will bear out.

The quote is from the developer panel at PAX. They were specifically asked about additional Native American inclusiveness in regards to Shawnee and said Shawnee is it for now. They never framed it as “paths.” I don’t know the timestamp but it was in the second half I think, maybe even towards the end during the Q&A.
Saying there are no more Native Americans right now, when we've also seen very clear evidence of the Mississippians, seems like a contradictory statement. :think:
Of course, maybe they said that because they didn't want to give evidence of any more at that moment.
 
I don't see how the lack of indigenous south american representation in Civ 6's launch roster is relevant here, because there were no north american groups represented either - in fact, with Montezuma being day-1 DLC, the launch technically had no indigenous american representation at all. That feels like it's pretty equally irrelevant either way, to me. I understand the logic you're using for these progressions, but I just don't think it's necessarily reflected in what we've seen so far - they're very historically reasonable pathways, but I think there's a decent chance we'll have much more messy pathways that get more well-known groups in at launch. Maya in Antiquity, Aztec in Antiquity/Exploration, Shawnee in Exploration, Inca in Exploration, and one modern era indigenous group with messy paths like Maya -> Shawnee -> [insert modern indigenous group] honestly seems more likely to me.

I am coming around to the very likely possibility Maya are being given special treatment as the source of two different pathways, because they are serving as the cradle of civilization anchor for an entirely different set of continents. So I think you may be right that we could be getting both Aztec -> Mexico and Inca -> Gran Colombia at launch. Which would also let us stop speculating about the Mexican wonder. Unfortunately, I don't think we will know for sure, absent a leaked teaser, for...(1 Mississippian, 2 Mississippian, ah ah)...probably six weeks from tomorrow, at minimum. And that's assuming Aztec are revealed in lump like how we got Aksum, Egypt, Maya, Maurya, and Rome all at once. Otherwise, probably seven or even eight weeks depending on where the Abbasid reveal falls. Just in time for Christmas!
 
Saying there are no more Native Americans right now, when we've also seen very clear evidence of the Mississippians, seems like a contradictory statement. :think:
Of course, maybe they said that because they didn't want to give evidence of any more at that moment.
They were talking about inclusiveness and involving other Native American cultures or groups that are still around today. They didn’t say “there are no other native Americans.”

The answer to “is there more of that besides Shawnee?” is still “not right now” even with the addition of the Mississippians.
 
They were talking about inclusiveness and involving other Native American cultures or groups that are still around today. They didn’t say “there are no other native Americans.”

The answer to “is there more of that besides Shawnee?” is still “not right now” even with the addition of the Mississippians.

Still easily interpreted as "the Shawnee civs."
 
Still easily interpreted as "the Shawnee civs."
That’s a huge reach, or as the kids today say, massive cope. You really have to twist the meaning to come to that conclusion, especially considering they’ve never once grouped civilizations together like that.

Occam’s razor tells us they mean what they’re saying, not that there’s some hidden “gotcha” based on a strained interpretation of a very simple statement. That’s never been how they communicate.
 
That’s a huge reach, or as the kids today say, massive cope. You really have to twist the meaning to come to that conclusion, especially considering they’ve never once grouped civilizations together like that.

Occam’s razor tells us they mean what they’re saying, not that there’s some hidden “gotcha” based on a strained interpretation of a very simple statement. That’s never been how they communicate.

Why do you constantly feel the need to put down my ideas as cope? Just say you disagree. Do I need to report for flaming?
 
Why do you constantly feel the need to put down my ideas as cope? Just say you disagree. Do I need to report for flaming?

There just isn't anything your speculations are based on other than "big civs like China have full pathways". Further, I'd invite you to come up with a progression scheme that doesn't require so many civs in exploration age. After all, if the alphabetic order in the Normans pick screen is your evidence that Aztecs are missing, then you'd also have to use 11 exploration civs (possibly 12 with Shawnee) as basis - not 15.

And you're really going all-in on the devs talking about Chinese, Japanese, and Indian pathways to generalize the principle while ignoring that they quite plainly said the Shawnee to be their single Native American rep. There is no need to take criticism personal when you are being this selective about your evidence. You're bending around lots of corners just to fit things into a design philosophy you made up and misrepresent as more likely and fact-based than it is - don't be surprised if people disagree.

Abbasids weren't some "hidden" pathway behind the Songhai, btw. Both were visible in reveal-day footage and most civs seem to have two possible "historic" successors. It's clear they just swapped out Buganda with Abbasids in the graphic because they got a lot of criticism and feedback that Abbasids as the highlighted Egyptian successor puts people's minds more at ease about the feature. But it's likely that both were the Egyptian successor civs from the start.
 
There just isn't anything your speculations are based on other than "big civs like China have full pathways". Further, I'd invite you to come up with a progression scheme that doesn't require so many civs in exploration age. After all, if the alphabetic order in the Normans pick screen is your evidence that Aztecs are missing, then you'd also have to use 11 exploration civs (possibly 12 with Shawnee) as basis - not 15.

And you're really going all-in on the devs talking about Chinese, Japanese, and Indian pathways to generalize the principle while ignoring that they quite plainly said the Shawnee to be their single Native American rep. There is no need to take criticism personal when you are being this selective about your evidence. You're bending around lots of corners just to fit things into a design philosophy you made up and misrepresent as more likely and fact-based than it is - don't be surprised if people disagree.

Fair point about the Normans pick screen. Although, to be clear, I am almost to the point of being a believer about the Aztecs, simply having ruminated on Latin America long enough. I actually have ended up being forced to dismiss that limitation because 12 exploration civs simply isn't enough at launch, even if we somehow replaced Timurids with Abbasids, I guess Teutons with Normans, both of which are extremely dissatisfying. And then from there, things only get worse with Aksum -> Songhai -> ??? if we cut Swahili, and then I don' think we really can cut anything unless we want Normans to represent all of exploration Europe. The Norman screen means nothing, there, I admit it. My mind can be changed with evidence and proper reasoning.

I am, however, getting really tired about people shutting down ideas that actually make a lot of sense from a holistic design perspective. So I am going to set this aside until Tuesday when we have more information. I am quite happy to be your Cassandra.
 
If the Shawnee are the sole indigenous representation in North America at launch I'd find that kind of icky to be honest given their likely default pathways. It's possible, but I do hope it's not the case.
 
Top Bottom