To Prussia might not be as bad I imagine.
Possibilities for Poland?
- Thread starter Bast
- Start date
GoneFishingX
Chieftain
Funny thought, you could have the huns or magyars or sycthians in the ancient age that can become Poland in the exploration age. That also gives an ancient civ for the Mongols and an ancient civ for exploration age russia as well. It's pretty goofy, but honestly works for me considering how the connections are very broad. I feel like we're going to get just one ancient horse culture.
I just don't think they are going to use ancient civ slots on european culture blobs like Slavs, Britons, or Germans. We might get Celts eventually, but I think that'd be it. Cause celts can basically branch into nearly every western European civ.
I just don't think they are going to use ancient civ slots on european culture blobs like Slavs, Britons, or Germans. We might get Celts eventually, but I think that'd be it. Cause celts can basically branch into nearly every western European civ.
After Civ6 deblobbed the Celts, I'd be disappointed to get blobby Celts back instead of the Gauls. Celtiberians, Gallaecians, Cisalpine Gauls, Lepontians, Galatians, and Britons are good candidates for Independent Peoples.
Scythians are probably a decent enough compromise that'd satisfy both me wanting Sarmatians, and people who think they're too wacky of a predecessor
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Concur with Zaarin ; I doubt we're getting the Celt-blob back. We are probably getting other ancient European non-Classical civs (the "barbarians") as the Greeks and Romans would put it), in the long run, and I fully expec tmore than one Celtic civ, multiple germanic civs, and so forth.
Ultimately, the idea that "they won't waste antique slots on Europe" seems to me a poor understanding of the devs' approach. They want to keep the number of choices unlocked automatically (ie, civ unlocks) limited to avoid overwhelming the player (they have acutally told us so) ; so they cannot just plop the celts leading to most of Western Europe - if they want a lot of Exploration European civilizations, they will need a solid amount of Antique European civilizations leading that way. In reverse, having a half dozen antique mesopotamiam civ, but they all become Arabia in Exploration, you end up with a lot of civilization that feel much more similar to one another than they otherwise could have.
I would more than expect the regional breakdown to stay relatively similar across the eras.
Ultimately, the idea that "they won't waste antique slots on Europe" seems to me a poor understanding of the devs' approach. They want to keep the number of choices unlocked automatically (ie, civ unlocks) limited to avoid overwhelming the player (they have acutally told us so) ; so they cannot just plop the celts leading to most of Western Europe - if they want a lot of Exploration European civilizations, they will need a solid amount of Antique European civilizations leading that way. In reverse, having a half dozen antique mesopotamiam civ, but they all become Arabia in Exploration, you end up with a lot of civilization that feel much more similar to one another than they otherwise could have.
I would more than expect the regional breakdown to stay relatively similar across the eras.
Antiquity Norse also feels justifiable starting a Scandinavian line or branching to the Normans. I'd also love Anglo-Saxons, but they might be a long shot. The Iceni, or another Celtic group on the British Isles, might be more probable.
If "Celtic" was the flavor they were shooting for with Scotland, they missed badly. The civ feels more British than England (especially pre-NFP England), and its leader speaks Middle English. Scotland definitely emphasized the Anglo-Norman element in Scottish history over the Gaelic.
Leucarum
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 2,681
Fair though weirdly I think Scotland may have been the civ in 6 which could most easily have been dropped in 7 with minimal changes. The devs clearly loved their "happiness matters" theme so much that a third of 7's civs and leaders play into it, and the focus on great people us crying out for 7's system.
Ugh... I just realised you also have two districts, the green and the clubhouse which combine to make the golf course quarter. I don't want to live in that timeline...
I seriously hope we don’t get more than one Celtic and definitely not more than 2 Gemanic (standard Germanic +a Norse might be ok) for Antiquity
5 civs is almost too much for Antiquity Europe already (some Eurasian +N African Mediterranean civs might be ok to branch into Europe)
The European civs most are interested in
1. are mostly Exploration and Modern
2. don’t need their own unique pathways (Gauls->Spain is fine for representation of Celtiberians)
I get the appeal of Exploration Kalmar Denmark, but given that the Norse seem to be part of the justification for pushing Exploration back into the Middle Ages, I'd be very surprised to see them in Antiquity. (Then again, London has been their frequently cited model for "history in layers," yet it looks like Britain may not be in the base game. So who knows.)
I think that was the original intent. I mean the Celts capital in Civ 5 was Edinburgh, so I would say it was "Celt-like/lite".
But obviously there was room for Gaul later down the line, so they rectified that situation.
I'd be fine with this specifically the Goths, Norse, and Gaul.
Then again, I feel like Norse>Normans also makes sense, if we're going off the idea that Antiquity Age civs are the progenitor civs for their respective regions. At least in my mind that's similar to the situation that the Khmer and Mississippians are in.
I think it was, too, which means it was hilariously miscalculated. It was intended as the Celtic civ, but they forgot to include anything Celtic in it...
Yes, I think there are two angles they can take. "The Norse are predecessors to the Normans" puts them in Antiquity; "the Norse are all about exploring the ocean" puts them in Exploration Age. (Ironically, that makes the Phoenicians feel like an Exploration Age civ, too--after all, they probably circumnavigated Africa, were probably the first Mediterranean culture to sail the Atlantic, and definitely made it as far as the Canaries and Azores--but I think we can safely say they'll be Antiquity.
)
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
There's going to be a time in the game where five civilizations for antiquity Europe is the reasonable amount. That time is going to be pretty soon, around the time we hit, oh, say, 20 civs or so per era. Considering we're getting to 39 total (presumably around 13 per era) by september, that time should be pretty soon.
Considering further that we've been told the devs are looking at supporting this game with new content for years, Sims-style, it'S also pretty dang unlikely that time is gonna last.Past 20 civs per era, limiting Europe to "maybe even five civs is too much" (and the four civs to be included are pretty obviously the Greek (duh), Romans (duh), Gauls (because they sacked Rome and the most famous Roman wrote about defeating them) and the German (because they sacked Rome and brought the empire down) betray a pretty self-evident Greco-Roman centric perspective of European history that has more to do with the millenial European obsession with Rome fanboyism than with any accurate assessment of history.
Plus, again, if you start with four or five civs and go up to a lot more in Exploration "because the European civs I'm interested in are there", you end up with a handful of civs with a lot of unlocks. Which the devs have already said they did not want.
Considering further that we've been told the devs are looking at supporting this game with new content for years, Sims-style, it'S also pretty dang unlikely that time is gonna last.Past 20 civs per era, limiting Europe to "maybe even five civs is too much" (and the four civs to be included are pretty obviously the Greek (duh), Romans (duh), Gauls (because they sacked Rome and the most famous Roman wrote about defeating them) and the German (because they sacked Rome and brought the empire down) betray a pretty self-evident Greco-Roman centric perspective of European history that has more to do with the millenial European obsession with Rome fanboyism than with any accurate assessment of history.
Plus, again, if you start with four or five civs and go up to a lot more in Exploration "because the European civs I'm interested in are there", you end up with a handful of civs with a lot of unlocks. Which the devs have already said they did not want.
Funny enough, I'm currently reading Caroline Lopez-Ruiz's The Phoenicians and the Making of the Mediterranean, and she spends a considerable portion of her introduction and a couple chapters metaphorically shoving the Greeks out of the room. As she points out, Westerners consider themselves indebted to the Greeks and are uncomfortable with the notion that the Greeks themselves were indebted to other cultures ("Eastern" cultures, no less!) rather than single-handedly inventing culture as we know it. Ironically, the Greeks themselves would have been very confused by this perspective.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
In fact, the idea that Anything sprang full-blown from Greece or anywhere else on the Eurasian continent is laughable. There was always cross-fertilization (or 'contamination' if you like) between far-flung groups. The Greeks themselves were fairly late-comers, not arriving in Greece until (in game terms) half-way through the Antiquity Age, and absorbing such things as written language, agricultural techniques, and art forms from the people already there - who themselves had largely migrated out of Anatolia several thousand years earlier.
Especially in Europe, Nobody was isolated. The most lasting 'gift' from the Greeks was probably the concept of Democracy, but that sprang from a (at least) Neolithic Indo-European tradition of governance by consent of the governed that has remarkably similar versions among North American native groups as different as the Algonkian, Haudenosenee and Lakota - indicating that it may be far older than the Neolithic and far, far older than any recognizable 'Greeks'.
Lord Lakely
Idea Fountain
Antiquity Norse is also something I'd want, not from a historical perspective but a mechanical one. A lot of the potential Exploration Civs have direct Viking or Nordic ancestry.
3 Euro Civs in Antiquity per Era is a decent amountwith a roster of 39, but we have so many Euro leaders that we really should be having 4 Euro Civs per era.
Fortunately, there's room for more in Antiquity: The Gauls, Norse, Thracians and Dacians attested well enough to warrant inclusion as major Civs. Civs from Anatolia and the Levant (Hittites, Phoenicians, Armenians) can double as Asian and European starting points in a pinch as well.
I think the key in looking at Antiquity civs should always be the Exploration Civs they're tethered to. You want paths that feel representative and diverse. Dacia => Bulgaria => Yugoslavia is example of a path that can be implemented. Dacia => Bohemia => Poland is another.
The necessity for more Civs is largely tied to the amount of leaders. The more leaders you have in a certain region, the more Civs you'll need to facilitate them in games where leaders are selected randomly.
I really hadn't considered it before, but Civ7 is a great opportunity for one of Thracia, Dacia, or Illyria. Also a good opportunity for the Etruscans, who are certainly attested well enough but may be crowded out by Rome, alas.
Lord Lakely
Idea Fountain
I prefer Etruria and Illyria as minor Civs, but yes.
When I theorycrafted my Thracian design, I found plenty of information of the Dacians as well. There's definitely enough.
As I said in my previous post: Dacia => Bulgaria = Kingdom of Yugoslavia covers all of the Balkans across all three era's. (or alternatively: Dacia => Stefan Dushan's Serbia => Third Bulgarian Empire)
Disagree strongly…if leaders are selected randomly, then ones from a greater leader:civ ratio area just have an increased chance of being forced to branch out. If they go insane and decide to add 15 Roman Emperors, some of them may end up leading the Mayans or Khmer in a random game…and that should be ok. (unless you have an option for duplicate civs)
