Possibilities for Poland?

[Siptah]

It might turn out a giant reach, but before we’ve seen the first techs of the Modern Age tech and civic trees, we don‘t know. Will it start with Enlightenment? Humanism? Baroque?

The year count might start with 1600 to 1800, but that’s completely irrelevant, given that the Exploration age starts in 400 but with ~ year 1000 techs.

 

[Geminus Leonem]

It might turn out a giant reach, but before we’ve seen the first techs of the Modern Age tech and civic trees, we don‘t know. Will it start with Enlightenment? Humanism? Baroque?

The year count might start with 1600 to 1800, but that’s completely irrelevant, given that the Exploration age starts in 400 but with ~ year 1000 techs.

Enlightenment is the scientific victory condition's name for the Exploration Era, so it should be right as that is going on, aka: the Napoleonic-Victorian era.

 

[LastSword]

I think you are all missing the opportunity to put Poland in antiquity age. It kind of ticks all criteria they listed for Khmer.

And seriously stop with those silly date frames. Whatever logic you try to apply it is obvious that Firaxis does not care. Heck, they even proudly claimed they do not want mediterranean calendar.

Netherlands is also a civilization that technically (by silly frames) is on the edge of exploration/modern. However we can interpolate that they will share Spain's fate because of gameplay reasons (strong naval colonial empire) and it would be nice path to Germany. OR not - maybe one developer will have the moment of brilliance and make a gameplay angle for modern era.

Actually one cool thing about Poland is 1000 years of recorded history, with rises and falls. It is easy to take 1550-1700 and focus on golden liberty and cook a cultural modern civilization. 1300-1500 and some generic medieval exploration civilization is plausible. 900-1100 and you can make an antiquity one. After all civilizations are just clothes in which you strip gameplay ideas.

I can't stop thinking about exploration Phoenicia. It would be such a Gigasid Meier's moment and they would earn my respect.

 

[Siptah]

Enlightenment is the scientific victory condition's name for the Exploration Era, so it should be right as that is going on, aka: the Napoleonic-Victorian era.

The enlightenment started way before the Napoleonic-Victorian era though, there's lots of ground to cover in-between. I'd say it starts with Descartes. And then there would still be a gap between the end of the Exploration era tech tree (1450?) to the Enlightenment in 1650.

 

[Evie]

The enlightenment started way before the Napoleonic-Victorian era though. That's actually what happened after it was over. I'd say it starts with Descartes. And then there would still be a gap between the end of the Exploration era tech tree (1450?) to the Enlightenment in 1650.

That's what the other poster said: Enlightenment is a victory condition for *Exploration*, so *Modern* (which is after exploration) should begin with Napoleonic/Victorian which came after Enlightenment.

There is at this point a lot that point at Modern being essentially 1750/1800, and only the Mughal that sort of point any other way

(And we have seen extensive evidence of galleon-type ships - a unit that begins to appear in 1550 and most associated with the late 1500s and 1600s in exploration, so allow me to raise an eyebrow at the "last exploration tier is 1450" theory)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I can't stop thinking about exploration Phoenicia. It would be such a Gigasid Meier's moment and they would earn my respect.

Weirdly enough, Exploration Carthage seems more plausible.

(And we have seen extensive evidence of galleon-type ships - a unit that begins to appear in 1550 and most associated with the late 1500s and 1600s in exploration, so allow me to raise an eyebrow at the "last exploration tier is 1450" theory)

It probably is closer to 1550. But if the PLC didn't exist until 1569 where else would they go? I don't see any reason why 1569-1795 wouldn't count as Modern, personally?

 

[Evie]

If the last tier of units in the Exploration age cover units that began to appear in the 1500s and were most common in the 1500s-1600s, then one would expect that the exploration age last late into the 1600s, when those units were still most common.

Like, at this point, we have the following:

-Every piece of Modern unit art to date excluding possibly one UU has depicted 1800s-1900s material.
-There is solid evidence of 1500s-1600s material being depicted in Exploration era unit art.
-One of the victory conditions for Exploration is Enlightenment (early 1700s).
-Early description of the Modern era that specifically refered to the Industrial revolution.

Everything we have except Mughal point to a cutoff point between 1700 and 1800. And Mughal, again, can easily be explained by the lack of recognizable Indian modern civ options, thank to the Marathas being fairly obscure and India being a post-1945 result of colonial meddling. After all, the Khmer more than spectacularly make the point that civ eras are going to be dictated by what make sense for the game.

I don't know. To me it point a very clear cut picture that put the early 1600s - and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth's golden age, which was early in that century - firmly in Exploration. You can have Poland alone in Modern - and you might have to, because it's hard to think of another non-Russian slavic Modern civs (like...Serbia?), so the Khmer-Mughal rule might apply to them too. But it won't fit their golden age.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Everything we have except Mughal point to a cutoff point between 1700 and 1800. And Mughal, again, can easily be explained by the lack of recognizable Indian modern civ options, thank to the Marathas being fairly obscure and India being a post-1945 result of colonial meddling. After all, the Khmer more than spectacularly make the point that civ eras are going to be dictated by what make sense for the game.

I don't know. To me it point a very clear cut picture that put the early 1600s - and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth's golden age, which was early in that century - firmly in Exploration. You can have Poland alone in Modern - and you might have to, because it's hard to think of another non-Russian slavic Modern civs (like...Serbia?), so the Khmer-Mughal rule might apply to them too. But it won't fit their golden age.

I feel like we agree on this, at least. Poland probably is the best non-Russian Slavic civ in the Modern Age and the best timeframe to depict them would be the Commonwealth, even if the timeframes don't evenly match up.
They could easily do what they did with the Mughals and move their golden age forward in time by a century.

 

[Evie]

I suppose seen that way it would make sense, though I fear that (as the Tercio thread show) many people will be bothered having Hussars and 19th or 20th century infantry together (Cavalry belongs on those battlefields, hussars do not). So perhaps losing the wings would be a good idea - at least as the modern era progress.

 

[Potworny]

I suppose seen that way it would make sense, though I fear that (as the Tercio thread show) many people will be bothered having Hussars and 19th or 20th century infantry together (Cavalry belongs on those battlefields, hussars do not). So perhaps losing the wings would be a good idea - at least as the modern era progress.

I think that Uhlans fit the idea of UUs progressing throughout the era better anyway. Also, if you need more persuasion, we have more songs about Uhlans than Winged Hussars. Can we even have Poland without the Hussars though?

The discussion of UUs made me think about other uniques for Poland and what ages whey'd fit. While the choice of UU should be simple (exploration=hussar modern=uhlan), I have a harder time coming up with the unique civilian. Perhaps it would be easiest to have a Great Person type of unit (and I imagine it's the same with most civs) and modern age seems to me like it has more options (which is also probably true with other civs). It also depends on what civilians modern age has to replace, because I don't know if there are compelling ones in exploration. I dunno, maybe some kind of trader? Maybe a some kind of magnate settler? Missionary would probably not work (golden age Poland was more about many religions rather than one), and a "hetman" land commander maybe would, but the most notorious and interesting of hetmans were possibly more associated with history of Ukraine than Poland.

The unique infrastructure is way easier to came up with for exploration, it could reference the organisation of rural areas by the nobility, and we could simply have an unique infrastructure called Folwark. If we'd like to give our alt-historical Polish peasantry a break from working 8 days a week and go with something urban, the unique quarter could be based on Old Towns found in various Polish cities (even though "Starówka" or "Stare Miasto" name would be anachronistic upon building it, as "stary" means "old"). UBs found in it could include a Fara (a parish church), Sukiennice (a cloth hall), or a Crown Tribunal (there were two in Poland and also a ducal one in Vilnus).
Considering we already have a city as a wonder (Dur-Sharrukin) I also have to mention that the most wondrous place in Poland is to me the town of Kazimierz Dolny. I may be biased though A salt mine as a wonder might be more unique though. And for modern Krajzen's idea of Manufaktura in Łódź is still my favourite.

At least ideas and traditions should be easy to come up with whatever the design - there are so many various documented ideas from Polish history to base them upon.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The discussion of UUs made me think about other uniques for Poland and what ages whey'd fit. While the choice of UU should be simple (exploration=hussar modern=uhlan), I have a harder time coming up with the unique civilian. Perhaps it would be easiest to have a Great Person type of unit (and I imagine it's the same with most civs) and modern age seems to me like it has more options (which is also probably true with other civs). It also depends on what civilians modern age has to replace, because I don't know if there are compelling ones in exploration. I dunno, maybe some kind of trader? Maybe a some kind of magnate settler? Missionary would probably not work (golden age Poland was more about many religions rather than one), and a "hetman" land commander maybe would, but the most notorious and interesting of hetmans were possibly more associated with history of Ukraine than Poland.

The only thing I could come across is the Szlachta, which is what the magnate settler would be.

 

[Evie]

I don't need convinced about the Uhlans, I'm already on the Uhlans train XD

 

[gdr_willter]

And seriously stop with those silly date frames. Whatever logic you try to apply it is obvious that Firaxis does not care. Heck, they even proudly claimed they do not want mediterranean calendar.

I strongly agree with that.

 

[Zaarin]

I can't stop thinking about exploration Phoenicia. It would be such a Gigasid Meier's moment and they would earn my respect.

I'm dreaming of Antiquity Phoenicia > Exploration Carthage. It will never happen outside of mods, but I can dream.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth in the Exploration Age is a rather safe guess and will be in the game sooner or later.
I don't like the Sarmatians as ancestors. It is bull made up by the Polish nobility. The Slavs appeared much later, during the decline of the Roman Empire, which rather excludes them from the ancient era possible Civ. Moreover, they never formed a unified group. If so many people on this forum complained about the Celt blob, what else a single faction of the Slavs would be? Nevertheless, I would love to see a pagan Vieletians as an Ancient Era Civ, even if it makes some timeline inaccuracies.
Austria-Hungary as a modern-era successor works for me. Even Germany as a last resort. but Russia? Sorry, we are from a different cultural circle

 

[Evie]

I don' t think the timeline would be a problem for Pagan Vieletians or other early Slavic group (the timeline is not nearly that strict), but I think the bigger obstacle is that they are an obscure group even by the standard of late ancient/early medieval history. I'd suspect we're more likely to either see reasonably well known and more well-documented groups, even if that means more dubious connections, instead of more obscure groups that lead to more accurate connections.

But we'll see.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

I don' t think the timeline would be a problem for Pagan Vieletians or other early Slavic group (the timeline is not nearly that strict), but I think the bigger obstacle is that they are an obscure group even by the standard of late ancient/early medieval history. I'd suspect we're more likely to either see reasonably well known and more well-documented groups, even if that means more dubious connections, instead of more obscure groups that lead to more accurate connections.

But we'll see.

Unfortunately, you are probably right about the Vieletians

 

[stealth_nsk]

Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth in the Exploration Age is a rather safe guess and will be in the game sooner or later.
I don't like the Sarmatians as ancestors. It is bull made up by the Polish nobility. The Slavs appeared much later, during the decline of the Roman Empire, which rather excludes them from the ancient era possible Civ. Moreover, they never formed a unified group. If so many people on this forum complained about the Celt blob, what else a single faction of the Slavs would be? Nevertheless, I would love to see a pagan Vieletians as an Ancient Era Civ, even if it makes some timeline inaccuracies.
Austria-Hungary as a modern-era successor works for me. Even Germany as a last resort. but Russia? Sorry, we are from a different cultural circle

Well, proto-slavs are likely to be living in the modern territory of Ukraine, western Russia, Belorussia, etc. since first waves of Indo-European expansion. I don't think there could be direct antiquity predecessors, but cultural inheritance from some steppe people, Rome and/or Germans is quite easy to see.

 

[Xur]

There’s no logic regarding leaders, so why expect Firaxis to employ gameplay logic when choosing civilizations? The only logic is monetary.

I would expect the last civs to be obscure civs that Firaxis wouldn’t be able to sell as a DLC. They can sell Poland as a DLC.

Everything in civ7 is can be answered by “it’s coming later in a DLC”.

 

[Nic@Melbourne]

Would have a cultural/religious Poland in exploration lead to a culture and science modern Sweden.
Paths aren’t all literal historical paths.
Avoids the Germany - Russia issue although I would make Russia an alternative option. (Explicitly not to Germany)