Possibilities for Tibet in civ 7

[Siptah]

In the past, suggestions to include Tibet have always been discarded in these forums as impossible due to Chinese censorship. I always considered this unconvincing, as a single DLC civ could have been added, but not sold in China. I'm not convinced it would create huge uproar or would lead to civ 7 being banned completely in China. Tibetan history is also quite popular in China from my very limited experience. The "big cities" are overrun by Chinese tourists and tourism to the Autonomous Region of Tibet is encouraged in the mainland. (Whether the stuff that's narrated in the Tibet Museum is accurate is another question)

But I wonder if the decoupling of civs and leaders made things easier anyway: instead of a Tibetan civ (which I would still love to have at some point), we could have a Tibetan leader. Who could argue that a Tibetan leading Ming is worse than Ashoka or Himiko leading Han?The 5th Dalai Lama, Ngawang Lobsang Gyatso, is maybe the best choice for a historical leader of Tibet regardless of circumstances. But given his accomplishments and connections to the Mongols and the Qing dynasty, he would actually be a good fit for both of these civs. I guess some people would complain if China has two associated leaders but none of them was an actual Chinese emperor.

Alternatively, Songtsen Gampo is also a very good pick for a Tibetan leader, but he wouldn't really have an obvious civ to lead without Tibet in the game.

So, what do you think? Could the Great 5th together we with new mechanics have a shot to finally bring some Tibet into Sid Meier's Civilization?

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I'd like a Tibetan civ, not necessarily a leader (though I wouldn't mind)

 

[Siptah]

I'd like a Tibetan civ, not necessarily a leader (though I wouldn't mind)

I knew someone would say exactly that when I left this out as an option the poll

 

[Voidwalkin]

Odds Chinese ban civ even if the DLC is unavailable in China seem pretty high.

Voted OK but low priority.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I think people tend to exaggerate the PRC's reaction to Tibet appearing in video games. EU4 has Tibet as a country, Civ5 had Hong Kong as independent city-state, neither of them have run so far as I know into any trouble in China. (HoI is banned in China though, allegedly due to its portrayal of the Chinese Civil War)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Aside from modern political considerations, I think the more important question is what, in purely game terms does a Tibetan Civilization and/or Leader bring to the game?

I am by no means an expert in Tibetan history and culture, but from what I have read the Civ would have attributes based on:

Mountain terrain
Religion
Expansionist only in certain early periods.
Some interesting early multi-armed heavy cavalry (I remember seeing an illustration showing an armored horseman with bow, lance, sword, lasso, javelins, with the comment that the warrior probably wore a belt, suspenders, and carried extra rope to be completely prepared for everything!)
Adaptation to high altitude, extreme weather and terrain for the economy - heavy emphasis on herding adaptive beats like Yaks and high-altitude sheep/goats rather than cattle as well as adapted agriculture.

So, how does the game differentiate Tibet from, say, Inca?

I suggest that Religion is the key to Tibet's exclusiveness, but that makes Tibet in Civ VII an Exploration Age Civ.

So then, what are its predecessor and successor Civs?

IF it succeeds to a Modern Age China. I could see where that might miff the Chinese, but Civ VII proposes to do worse and already seems to provide a straight Chinese 3-Age progression, so I don't think that is a major break-point.

The only in-game predecessors at the moment seem to be either Han China or Maurya India, and again, the game has already proposed worse progressions, so they are doable. I suggest Maurya as the better choice because it speaks to the spread of Buddhism into Tibet, which ended up largely defining the Civ ever since. Quite possibly Tibet also unlocks if you have X tiles of Mountains in your Civ borders at the end of the Antiquity Age - just to keep it interesting.

So, the final question: what kind of Civ Design can we come up with for an Exploration Age Tibet that provides a distinctive set of attributes and potential playing opportunities in that Age compared to what has already been shown fr that Age?

Start your creative engines . . .

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Odds Chinese ban civ even if the DLC is unavailable in China seem pretty high.

Voted OK but low priority.

Correct. It's not just the Chinese government throttling internal awareness of Tibetan independence. They'd like to dictate international perspectives as well, and they can do that by using access to their market as a cudgel.

 

[FinnWilson]

IF it succeeds to a Modern Age China. I could see where that might miff the Chinese, but Civ VII proposes to do worse and already seems to provide a straight Chinese 3-Age progression, so I don't think that is a major break-point.

If there's an exploration Tibet civ, I think they'd like it to progress to a modern China civ. They'd certainly like that better than it progressing to some other civ that's independent of China.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I voted for I'd like to have some sort of Tibetan content, but it's not neccesarily a priority. I don't really care what it would be. Even as an independent power that's more than it got in Civ 6.

If it does become a full-fledged civ, then it would have to go into Exploration Age. I mean that's the only age religion will be a main factor so I can't see it going anywhere else. That of course means Tibet>Qing would be the most likely progression option.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

So then, what are its predecessor and successor Civs?

It doesn't need any, but Nepal would make sense as a successor

 

[stealth_nsk]

Correct. It's not just the Chinese government throttling internal awareness of Tibetan independence. They'd like to dictate international perspectives as well, and they can do that by using access to their market as a cudgel.

Yep, and it works.

 

[Xandinho]

I’d love to have Tibet as a civ with its own leader, but I think it’s pretty unlikely because I don’t think they’d want to risk the game being banned in China. Besides, I don’t see Tibet as commercially viable enough to be released as a DLC and not sold in the world’s second-largest gaming market. I get that it would be interesting, but I don’t think it’s feasible for them.

That said, Nepal might be a good alternative to Tibet. They’re quite similar and would likely have a similar playstyle. Nepal could add a nice flavor to the Indian subcontinent historial path, in any case.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

It doesn't need any, but Nepal would make sense as a successor

My question was posed in the context of what they've announced in the game so far.

Throw it open to potential Future Civs, and I suggest that the Much Needed Antiquity central Asia pastoral Civ, like (in my order of preference) Xiong-Nu, Kushans, Sogdians, Scythians (pushing back Kushans and Sogdians a bit, but that seems to be acceptable to Civ VII) would be a useful potential ancestor/influence on Mongols, Chinese, Indian, or Tibetan Civs. Buddhism, after all, was spread along the 'silk road' routes by the pastoralists to both China and northern Tibet and the militaries of India, China and Tibet were all heavily influenced by pastoral mounted tactics and techniques (see the illustration I mentioned earlier, which showed essentially a Tibetan version of a pastorial Cataphract).

As mentioned, that could give a Primary succession of:
Pastorial Civ To Be Determined Later - Tibet OR Mongol - Qing China ,

With a 'secondary progression' of:
Antiquity: have X Mountain tiles within your Civ borders - Tibet OR Inca

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

With a 'secondary progression' of:
Antiquity: have X Mountain tiles within your Civ borders - Tibet OR Inca

Considering the heavy association with Tibet and religion, maybe gameplay wise it could be founding a pantheon in the Antiquity Age?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Considering the heavy association with Tibet and religion, maybe gameplay wise it could be founding a pantheon in the Antiquity Age?

I think 'Tibet' has two definitive associations to most gamers: Mountains and Religion. Ideal would be to combine the two as pre-requisites for advancing to Tibet, as in:

Have X Altars in Districts next to Mountains - since Altars are necessary to get a Pantheon in the first place, this would combine the two 'assumed attributes' of a Tibet Civ.

 

[Siptah]

Aside from modern political considerations, I think the more important question is what, in purely game terms does a Tibetan Civilization and/or Leader bring to the game?

I am by no means an expert in Tibetan history and culture, but from what I have read the Civ would have attributes based on:

Mountain terrain
Religion
Expansionist only in certain early periods.
Some interesting early multi-armed heavy cavalry (I remember seeing an illustration showing an armored horseman with bow, lance, sword, lasso, javelins, with the comment that the warrior probably wore a belt, suspenders, and carried extra rope to be completely prepared for everything!)
Adaptation to high altitude, extreme weather and terrain for the economy - heavy emphasis on herding adaptive beats like Yaks and high-altitude sheep/goats rather than cattle as well as adapted agriculture.

So, how does the game differentiate Tibet from, say, Inca?

I suggest that Religion is the key to Tibet's exclusiveness, but that makes Tibet in Civ VII an Exploration Age Civ.

So then, what are its predecessor and successor Civs?

IF it succeeds to a Modern Age China. I could see where that might miff the Chinese, but Civ VII proposes to do worse and already seems to provide a straight Chinese 3-Age progression, so I don't think that is a major break-point.

The only in-game predecessors at the moment seem to be either Han China or Maurya India, and again, the game has already proposed worse progressions, so they are doable. I suggest Maurya as the better choice because it speaks to the spread of Buddhism into Tibet, which ended up largely defining the Civ ever since. Quite possibly Tibet also unlocks if you have X tiles of Mountains in your Civ borders at the end of the Antiquity Age - just to keep it interesting.

So, the final question: what kind of Civ Design can we come up with for an Exploration Age Tibet that provides a distinctive set of attributes and potential playing opportunities in that Age compared to what has already been shown fr that Age?

Start your creative engines . . .

A Tibet civ would work best in Exploration Age, yes. Maurya and Qing are good options for predecessors and successors. Nepal, I don't think so. Nepal would best be an exploration civ itself (based on the Malla dynasty in Kathmandu Valley).

Yes, the most likely options are religion, mountains, and militaristic (expansionist not so much, as they didn't grow that large cities). Tibet's area of control changed a lot, they conquered and lost territories rather often, mostly in the west and in the north (conquering parts of China during the Tang for example).

Religiously, Tibetans were very successful in converting and that's a thing that the Incas don't really have as a main theme. This can be combined with mountains. Prayer Hall (Happiness, missionary charge) and Stupa (gold, relic) UB forming a monastery UD that gets adjacency from mountains would feel thematic.

No idea about the UU, actually. Some kind of armored horsemen or spearman. Maybe with the possibility to enter mountain tiles.

Associated wonder: Kumbum Chörten, Tashilunpo, Ganden, or Samye monastery. Or, as a reference to their actual predecessor in the historical exploration era (Guge): Tsaparang.

That said, Nepal might be a good alternative to Tibet. They’re quite similar and would likely have a similar playstyle. Nepal could add a nice flavor to the Indian subcontinent historial path, in any case.

Nepal is most similar to Tibet in some remote, but famous areas, e.g., Sagarmatha National Park (Everest region) or Mustang*. In the population centers, it's much closer to India than Tibet, culturally. Yet, also quite different, and a very, very diverse country/nation. I would wish for both to be included at some point, obviously But you are insofar correct that Nepal in a civ game would also be about mountains, but probably militaristic instead of religious.

*which are right at the Himalaya main ridge or actually already on the north side. The climatic and geographical conditions south and north of the Himalaya main ridge are very different. Nepal is mountainous (including villages in the mountains), with a lot of lush vegetation and wildlife, water everywhere (at least up until ~ 3000m altitude). Tibet's main land is much flatter, more soft hills (and rarely villages directly in the mountains), few but large rivers, otherwise dry, not much forest, limited wildlife (and rarely if at all below 3000m altitude). Hence, the customs, habits, cuisine, clothing, architecture, etc. developed very different between the two in most parts.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Religiously, Tibetans were very successful in converting and that's a thing that the Incas don't really have as a main theme. This can be combined with mountains. Prayer Hall (Happiness, missionary charge) and Stupa (gold, relic) UB forming a monastery UD that gets adjacency from mountains would feel thematic.

Stupa is already taken by the Maurya. Though I suppose they could just use the Tibetan name Chorten. Gompa is the word used for monastery, and could be used for the unique quarter.

Associated wonder: Kumbum Chörten, Tashilunpo, Ganden, or Samye monastery. Or, as a reference to their actual predecessor in the historical exploration era (Guge): Tsaparang.

I know it was built after the Tibetan Empire, but the Potala Palace is also a great symbol of Tibetan architecture, and I associate that wonder most with Tibet. Probably a similar thing will happen with Borobudur predating the Majapahit.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I know it was built after the Tibetan Empire, but the Potala Palace is also a great symbol of Tibetan architecture, and I associate that wonder most with Tibet. Probably a similar thing will happen with Borobudur predating the Majapahit.

The game tends to like UNESCO World Heritage sites as Wonders, and Potala has been one since 1994. One thing that Civ VI failed to model in its portrayal of Potala Palace was that it contained a 100,000+ volume religious library before it was looted, and could therefore get possibly some kind of special Religious Heritage attributes, such as being able to 'roll over' more of its religious bonuses into the Modern Age, which would nicely tie Tibet closer to its modern encarnation (and Potala to its actual construction date, which was in the 17th century.)

 

[Siptah]

Stupa is already taken by the Maurya. Though I suppose they could just use the Tibetan name Chorten. Gompa is the word used for monastery, and could be used for the unique quarter.

Yes, of course, native names are always better anyway.

I know it was built after the Tibetan Empire, but the Potala Palace is also a great symbol of Tibetan architecture, and I associate that wonder most with Tibet. Probably a similar thing will happen with Borobudur predating the Majapahit.

Potala is fine, it was actually built be the leader I suggested in the OP. I just don't like repetitions that much*. I think the civ would be based on the Lama period anyway, and not the empire. The empire is much less about religion, Tibetan buddhism as we understand it only came through the restoration afterwards.

*Like, why always the Colosseum, Pyramids, and Notre Dame. Pantheon, Karnak Temple, Chartres or Cluny for once?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

*Like, why always the Colosseum, Pyramids, and Notre Dame. Pantheon, Karnak Temple, Chartres or Cluny for once?

Well, I feel like there would be riots if the Pyramids were left out of the game. That's the first thing that comes to mind when you think of "World Wonders". As for Notre Dame, well it surprisingly wasn't in Civ 6 so it's nice that it made a comeback, especially after that fire it had a few years ago.

As for the Colosseum, I don't have any strong preferences for it. But it's unique in the fact that it's an arena/stadium wonder as opposed to another temple, like the Pantheon would be.