No Russia in the Base Game?

[Patine]

I think the best scenario would be to have Kyiv, or the Ukrainians, as an independent power.

Because having Kievan Rus transitioning into Russia, or even Ukraine as a civ, to me isn't going to help the situation.

Kyivan/Kievan 'Rus was not a, "Ukrainian," civ, but an, "Old East Slavic," civ. There were no separate Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Ruthenians, Carpathians, Gallycians, Rusyns, or any other such thing back then, and one modern Belarussian and several modern Russian cities were part of the city-state-based structure. Saying the Kyivan/Kievan 'Rus was specifically a, "Ukrainian," civ, and not a general ancestral, "East Slavic," is about as revisionist as Putin saying, "Ukraine never existed." Both Russia or Ukraine - or the Soviet Union - should be able to easily transform from the Kyivan/Kievan 'Rus.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Kyivan/Kievan 'Rus was not a, "Ukrainian," civ, but an, "Old East Slavic," civ. There were no separate Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Ruthenians, Carpathians, Gallycians, Rusyns, or any other such thing back then, and one modern Belarussian and several modern Russian cities were part of the city-state-based structure. Saying the Kyivan/Kievan 'Rus was specifically a, "Ukrainian," civ, and not a general ancestral, "East Slavic," is about as revisionist as Putin saying, "Ukraine never existed." Both Russia or Ukraine - or the Soviet Union - should be able to easily transform from the Kyivan/Kievan 'Rus.

The term "Ukrainians" was meant as a possible name for the Modern Age, not for the Exploration Age. Kyiv could still exist in the Exploration Age, maybe even under the name Rurikids. I do understand that Kyivan Rus was the progenitor East Slavic state, but honestly, I'd be surprised if they do make it a playable civilization or use the term "Rus".

 

[Fummy]

No Russia in the base game in any of the three eras is reason to not buy the game.

 

[Ordnael]

No Russia in the base game in any of the three eras is reason to not buy the game.

Why not?
I think there is a lot more to Slavic people and their culture than the Tsar empire, don't you think? How about Kievan Rus?

Kievan Rus' - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TheGrayFox]

Why not?
I think there is a lot more to Slavic people and their culture than the Tsar empire, don't you think? How about Kievan Rus?

Kievan Rus' - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Why not? Again because Russia was and still is one of the most important countries in modern human history and has been a base game civ for as long as anyone here can remember

Removing Russia for Kyivan Rus would be like removing France and Britain for the Celts and going "there's more to French and British people and their culture than medieval kingdoms and modern empires."

 

[Kyriakos]

Regardless, Kievan Rus isn't modern.
I wonder who was the mastermind who thought of this progression idea for a Civ game, and who were the other masterminds that thought it was good.

 

[Prester John 2]

My guess would be (at some point): Scythia - Kievan Russ or Tartars - Russia. I still think Muscovy would fit excellent in the exploration age with the conquest of Kazan and Siberia. But modern Russia is a must have, if not in the base game than in some DLC. If they make a DLC they could couple it with the Golden Horde or Poland.

 

[Kev1916]

Why not? Again because Russia was and still is one of the most important countries in modern human history and has been a base game civ for as long as anyone here can remember

Removing Russia for Kyivan Rus would be like removing France and Britain for the Celts and going "there's more to French and British people and their culture than medieval kingdoms and modern empires."

What version of Civ included Britain?

 

[RedCourtJester]

The term "Ukrainians" was meant as a possible name for the Modern Age, not for the Exploration Age. Kyiv could still exist in the Exploration Age, maybe even under the name Rurikids. I do understand that Kyivan Rus was the progenitor East Slavic state, but honestly, I'd be surprised if they do make it a playable civilization or use the term "Rus".

I actually think the Slavic DLC is quite likely to have Kievan Rus'. It just meshes so well in pathways to Poland-Lithuania and Russia. But I could see it called Kiev or Rurikids instead, I have no real preference as to that.

Since making my last post I think we have very good odds of just "getting Russia out there" in base game, with a Rome -> Byzantium -> Russia pathway led by Ivan III (which holds under the whole "Russia was third Rome" idea (an idea which only took hold in his time) in a way that I actually enjoy as a sort of passive-aggressive delegitimization of modern Russian imperialism.

The *real* Russian pathway will be DLC from Slavs. That will be probably Olga of Kiev via Slavs -> Kievan Rus -> Russia. It's actually a very clever way of suggesting to Russia "no, Ukraine made you, not the myth of third Rome."

 

[Patine]

What version of Civ included Britain?

England is likely what he meant. "Britain," explicitly, has not been included, though Victoria has appeared as an, "English," leader a few times, and I THINK Churchill has, and both are BRITISH leaders.

 

[RedCourtJester]

England is likely what he meant. "Britain," explicitly, has not been included, though Victoria has appeared as an, "English," leader a few times, and I THINK Churchill has, and both are BRITISH leaders.

Plus Elizabeth, depending on where you choose to peg the beginning of the "British Empire."

Actually, we never had a Civ leader for England who didn't lead during British Empire times, prior to Elly in Civ VI. I do think Eleanor and Scotland were a large part in this whole "civs in layers" thing, because while I was expecting an "Eleanor" for both Scotland and England in a James VI dual leader, I now absolutely expect to have an English leader and Scottish leader both end up in "Britain" for their modern civ era, which accomplishes the same dual British legacy idea.

But probably in DLC, that's 4 civs and 2 leaders' worth of people (which, hey, look at how big the other DLC packs are?).

 

[Vitruvian Guar]

I actually think the Slavic DLC is quite likely to have Kievan Rus'. It just meshes so well in pathways to Poland-Lithuania and Russia. But I could see it called Kiev or Rurikids instead, I have no real preference as to that.

Since making my last post I think we have very good odds of just "getting Russia out there" in base game, with a Rome -> Byzantium -> Russia pathway led by Ivan III (which holds under the whole "Russia was third Rome" idea (an idea which only took hold in his time) in a way that I actually enjoy as a sort of passive-aggressive delegitimization of modern Russian imperialism.

The *real* Russian pathway will be DLC from Slavs. That will be probably Olga of Kiev via Slavs -> Kievan Rus -> Russia. It's actually a very clever way of suggesting to Russia "no, Ukraine made you, not the myth of third Rome."

Conditionally on Byzantium being in the base game Russia is indeed more likely. And I really want Byzantium in the base game - it just makes so much sense for the whole culture evolution thing.

On the other hand, we already have confirmed Rome -> Normans and Rome ->Spain. Are FRX going to add third route for Rome in the base game? I'm not so sure about it, the opportunity cost may be too high - they need to make reasonable evolution paths for all the other civs as well. I'm pretty positive it at least will be in one of the early DLCs, though.

 

[Evolena]

Augustus -> Spain rather than Rome -> Spain

 

[reddishrecue]

If Russia should be added then it should be added in as a late civ because of its power today.

 

[Gedemon]

USSR, then, maybe, but it feels to "late" for the game's third age.

 

[reddishrecue]

USSR, then, maybe, but it feels to "late" for the game's third age.

Right, USSR.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Conditionally on Byzantium being in the base game Russia is indeed more likely. And I really want Byzantium in the base game - it just makes so much sense for the whole culture evolution thing.

On the other hand, we already have confirmed Rome -> Normans and Rome ->Spain. Are FRX going to add third route for Rome in the base game? I'm not so sure about it, the opportunity cost may be too high - they need to make reasonable evolution paths for all the other civs as well. I'm pretty positive it at least will be in one of the early DLCs, though.

Rome is the one civ that I have with three paths in my predictions. It's a bit weird and lopsided, I agree, but I was kind of expecting the pathways to inadvertently favor a particular civ or two with an extra path. Before I settled on Iran getting three full civs, I had like four civs ending up in the Ottomans; three era Persia is kind of necessary just to give Egypt, Arabia, Persia, and Greece/Byzantium more distinction between each other.

But just think of it another way. Rome really only has one *good* pathway, its own (Rome -> Spain -> Italy). The other two are easily going to be the biggest stretches in the base game, reserved for the absolute two most bombastic modern states: America and Russia. There's a symmetry to it all.

 

[red_elk]

The *real* Russian pathway will be DLC from Slavs. That will be probably Olga of Kiev via Slavs -> Kievan Rus -> Russia. It's actually a very clever way of suggesting to Russia "no, Ukraine made you, not the myth of third Rome."

Kievan Rus ancestry is accepted and taught in schools in Russia.
Ukrainians may object to the idea that Kievan Rus was Russia's ancestor, though.

 

[Kev1916]

England is likely what he meant. "Britain," explicitly, has not been included, though Victoria has appeared as an, "English," leader a few times, and I THINK Churchill has, and both are BRITISH leaders.

Yea Civ switching will and can be confusing , also no sure about churchhill ? then again was Stalin not in one version

 

[Prester John 2]

USSR, then, maybe, but it feels to "late" for the game's third age.

But we will probably get the Russian Empire, started by Peter I. The USSR represents just a late-game government/ideology change while essentially keeping the territory, imperial ambition and cultural identity of the Russians.