No Russia in the Base Game?

[Vitruvian Guar]

I'm starting to think there will be no Russia in the base game. Hear me out.

While trying to map possible evolution chains for Russia, the most direct that I got was this:

Slavs -> Kievan Rus -> Russia

I like the idea of Slavs as its own antiquity civ, it could also guve us

Slavs -> Poland

But with high likelihood they will be moddeled as independent people, considering the limited number of civs that will be on release. Can independent people form their own civ in the age switch, I wonder? That would be pretty nice.

Anyway, some other transitions:

Varangians-> Kievan Rus
Greece -> Kievan Rus
Byzantines -> Russia
Mongols -> Russia

While I think Byzantines are a must have on release because how good they fit in the culture switching mechanics, it's probable that they will be traditionally kept as a dlc. Mongols to Russia kind of works but pretty wonky. So it seems that only reasonable path to Russia includes

Kievan Rus -> Russia

Which is kind of problematic considering some recent political events. Maybe not very bad, considering that you don't have to change the capital on the age transition, but still. Trying to sidestep the controversy by having Vladimir-Suzdal instead of Kievan Rus would be even worse. So how can Firaxis get themselves out of this mess?

The answer may lie in the fact that Civilization 7 is not sold in Russia. Firaxis doesn't have to cater to this market anymore.

These two considerations point me towards the conclusion that base game will not include Russia at all. I'm not very confident in it, but it seems to be the best way how the Developpers can deal with the situation from their own point of view. Include Kievan Rus as exploration civ, but not Russia as a modern one.

But where will the Kievan Rus go in modern age? Thare are lots of possibilities. It can become one of the Scandinavian countries, returing to its Varangian roots. Or Osman Empire, or Austria or Prussia. And as historical path - Cossack Hetmanate or modern Ukraine. I'm actually digging the idea of Cossack Hetmanate. As a bonus, it seems to be working better than Russia as a possible path for Mongols.

And then, some time later, Firaxis can release Russian Empire as a DLC for those who want it. Frankly, I don't see any disadvantages in this strategy.

The counter-evidence to this theory, is that we have the visuals of T-34 tank which was immediately identified as Russian unique unit. But I don't think that this necessary has to be the case. Instead, it can be a unique unit associated with Communist government/ideology. I, actually, think this would be better implementation, regardless of whether Russia is available in base game or not.

 

[Siptah]

I doubt that Russia would not be present at all in the base game, despite not being sold there (initially). That’s not a convincing reason to leave out one of the big ones. There is also a very large Russian diaspora and fans of Russian history and culture out there that surely want to play as Russia (which doesn‘t mean that you have to like contemporary Russia).

A Cossack state would be a great addition nonetheless! It would be great to have an option to continue with a horse-centered civ into the modern age. And I think that Novgorod would be a great 2nd Age Russian civ. It‘s also a part of Russian history that civ never portrayed so far.

Realistically, I think we get nothing in Age 1, Kievan Rus in Age 2, and Imperial Russia in Age 3 at release/until September.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think Kievan Rus is a wrong ingredient here. I see Russia as Moskovia in exploration age (could be missed on release) to Russian Empire in modern age.

Moskovia was pretty large and fast growing, while fitting the exploration age timeline. It also ended its dynasty with a crisis at late 16th - early 17th age, fitting the age concept perfectly. Russian Empire emerged from the end of 17th age (while Peter I became emperor a bit later, I'd mark Russian Empire from the beginning of his reign) and lasted till 1917, fitting Civ7 modern age like a glove.

EDIT: Honestly, I don't believe Civ7 will be released without Russia in some form. It's one of the staples and have huge impact on history. America, Russia, England, Germany, France, India, China, Japan, Egypt, Greece and Rome are the civs without which it's hard to imagine the game.

 

[Vitruvian Guar]

And I think that Novgorod would be a great 2nd Age Russian civ. It‘s also a part of Russian history that civ never portrayed so far.

Yeah, I'd absolutely love to see Novgorod Republic. It's one of my favorite historical what ifs: what if it was Novgorod who triumphed over Moscow, not vice versa.

I doubt that Russia would not be present at all in the base game, despite not being sold there (initially). That’s not a convincing reason to leave out one of the big ones. There is also a very large Russian diaspora and fans of Russian history and culture out there that surely want to play as Russia (which doesn‘t mean that you have to like contemporary Russia).

Well, that's the beauty of the ages system and history being build in layers approach. Fans of Russian history and culture would enjoy the inclusion of Kievan Rus. I certanly would. Firaxis can even make a special scenario about Mongol invasion to cater to this audience.

And yet Modern Russia can be abscent in the base game. And then it can be in one of the first DLCs, to satisfy those who would like to have it.

I agree that it's far from certain, but I feel that it is a very real possibility nonetheless. I think I'm at least 30% confident that there will be no age 3 Russia in the base game.

 

[Vitruvian Guar]

Honestly, I don't believe Civ7 will be released without Russia in some form. It's one of the staples and have huge impact on history. America, Russia, England, Germany, France, India, China, Japan, Egypt, Greece and Rome are the civs without which it's hard to imagine the game.

No disagreement here. After all, Kievan Rus is Russia in some form.

Moskovia was pretty large and fast growing, while fitting the exploration age timeline. It also ended its dynasty with a crisis at late 16th - early 17th age, fitting the age concept perfectly. Russian Empire emerged from the end of 17th age (while Peter I became emperor a bit later, I'd mark Russian Empire from the beginning of his reign) and lasted till 1917, fitting Civ7 modern age like a glove.

Including Moskovia or Vladimir-Suzdal but not Kiev would be a such a politically horrible blunder that I really don't expect Firaxis to make it. I'd give it less than 5% probability.

 

[dagriggstar]

I wouldn’t be surprised if we got Normans into Russia as a “historical” choice, given the wonkyness of say Greece into Normans is already.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Including Moskovia or Vladimir-Suzdal but not Kiev would be a such a politically horrible blunder that I really don't expect Firaxis to make it. I'd give it less than 5% probability.

While I would like to see Kievan Rus as well, I disagree with this statement:

1. Kievan Rus age position is awkward in Civ7 terms. They are too late for antiquity and too early for exploration.
2. In terms of historical effect, while Kievan Rus controlled significant territory, it was pretty weak control through vassal relations and Kievan vassals often moved to other centers of power. Kievan Dutchy itself was quite small. In contrast, Moskovia had real centralized power and real control over it's large territory
3. Moskovia has well-known and iconic unit, Streltsy, while it's hard to pin any Kievan Rus specifics known in popular culture

 

[Siptah]

Well, that's the beauty of the ages system and history being build in layers approach. Fans of Russian history and culture would enjoy the inclusion of Kievan Rus.

As an addition, yes, but not as a replacement. It would be as if we got Mycenaeans or Minoans instead of Greece.

 

[Nic@Melbourne]

We won’t see ‘slavs’ as Civ moved away from blob-generic Civs in civ 6
Celts became Gaul

Agree the game will likely start with Kievian Rus > Russia
Or maybe a rough regional path like Huns> Kievian Rus > Russia

Poland will likely be an expansion Civ

 

[humble serf]

We won’t see ‘slavs’ as Civ moved away from blob-generic Civs in civ 6
Celts became Gaul

I actually predict that blob Celts will be back in Civ 7, as it's actually a pretty good way to represent the Hallstatt, La Tene and British Iron Age cultures in Antiquity, and it disappears from the game in Exploration when the blobbiness would become problematic. However, I don't expect to see Slavs in Antiquity even as DLC.

In terms of historical effect, while Kievan Rus controlled significant territory, it was pretty weak control through vassal relations and Kievan vassals often moved to other centers of power. Kievan Dutchy itself was quite small. In contrast, Moskovia had real centralized power and real control over it's large territory

This could make for fun Exploration gameplay, though. Greece -> Kievan Rus becomes a "historical" pathway which also lets you keep the ball rolling with a diplomacy / vassalage / independent power oriented strategy. But I agree Muscovy and Novgorod are also likely candidates, and I doubt the devs will give us more than one Exploration Era Russian civ.

My predictions for the guaranteed pathways into Russia are:

• Greeks, Goths and Scythians -> [Kievan Rus, Muscovy or Novgorod] -> Russia
• Greeks and Romans -> Byzantines -> Russia
• Han and Scythians -> Mongols -> Russia

 

[Vitruvian Guar]

While I would like to see Kievan Rus as well, I disagree with this statement:

1. Kievan Rus age position is awkward in Civ7 terms. They are too late for antiquity and too early for exploration.
2. In terms of historical effect, while Kievan Rus controlled significant territory, it was pretty weak control through vassal relations and Kievan vassals often moved to other centers of power. Kievan Dutchy itself was quite small. In contrast, Moskovia had real centralized power and real control over it's large territory
3. Moskovia has well-known and iconic unit, Streltsy, while it's hard to pin any Kievan Rus specifics known in popular culture

How are they too early for exploration? I though exploration starts somewhere around the fall of Western Roman Empire which is hundreds of years before than the formation of Kievan Rus.

 

[stealth_nsk]

How are they too early for exploration? I though exploration starts somewhere around the fall of Western Roman Empire which is hundreds of years before than the formation of Kievan Rus.

I wouldn't say exploration age starts immediately on WRE fall as it's still time of the crisis. So both in timeline and technology, Kievan Rus covers only the beginning of exploration age.

 

[humble serf]

I wouldn't say exploration age starts immediately on WRE fall as it's still time of the crisis. So both in timeline and technology, Kievan Rus covers only the beginning of exploration age.

The Abbasid, Chola, Mongol and Norman empires were all over long before 1492 -- according to the civ wiki, that's 50% of the Exploration Era civs we know so far. Personally I'm not crazy about it, but clearly the devs don't see it as a problem.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The Abbasid, Chola, Mongol and Norman empires were all over long before 1492 -- according to the civ wiki, that's 50% of the Exploration Era civs we know so far. Personally I'm not crazy about it, but clearly the devs don't see it as a problem.

Yeah, I'm not against inclusion of Kievan Rus as exploration age civ, I'd actually like to see it. My point was what Moskovia fits better.

 

[Krikkit1]

Mongol*->Russia
Byzantines->Russia
Poland->Russia
Norse->Russia
Muscovy->Russia

Would All work just fine (some people may not like some of the paths but they would be regional/Historical
* this civ is confirmed

 

[Nic@Melbourne]

The Abbasid, Chola, Mongol and Norman empires were all over long before 1492 -- according to the civ wiki, that's 50% of the Exploration Era civs we know so far. Personally I'm not crazy about it, but clearly the devs don't see it as a problem.

Surely what is in what era is fluid to a degree.
History and development are not even.
Surely notoriety has some influence in what is picked.

 

[Nic@Melbourne]

Then again, who do the Mongols become if not Russia

 

[Vitruvian Guar]

Then again, who do the Mongols become if not Russia

Third age China, obviously.

But yeah, as I said, Mongols to Cossack Hetmanate looks pretty tempting just based on vibes.

 

[humble serf]

Surely what is in what era is fluid to a degree.
History and development are not even.
Surely notoriety has some influence in what is picked.

True, plus Abbasid and Mongol are pretty much mandatory in Exploration, and Chola is a cool pick for India. I would even like the concept of a Norman civ if it was year 2 DLC or something, I just hate the idea of excluding England and France from the *Age of Exploration*.

 

[Nic@Melbourne]

Third age China, obviously.

But yeah, as I said, Mongols to Cossack Hetmanate looks pretty tempting just based on vibes.

In real history
In the game China becomes China, so that slot is taken and leaves Mongolia needing an option….
Mongolia to Russia