Possibilities for Tibet in civ 7

[Siptah]

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.

We can have more than 3 wonders from Egypt Pyramids, Karnak, Great Library, and Pharos
Didn't remember Notre Dame wasn't in 6. Still... there's no shortage of marvelous French cathedrals, chapels, and monasteries.

 

[BenMads]

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 . . .

I have had this idea of giving Tibet a Tulku Great Person that goes back into the available pool when expended.

 

[Krikkit1]

The idea of it going
?Han? and Maurya->Tibet->Qing and ?Mughal?

Makes it an additional India/China connection which it was

 

[Inhalaattori]

I would like have a Tibetan civ, but I dont think we need Tibetan leader necessarily. There is no option fot that though.

 

[UnknownHuman]

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 . . .

As suggested by some, Maurya India (Antiquity) > Tibet (Exploration) > Nepal (Modern) would be a somewhat natural and not too offensive progression.

As for their mechanics they would definitely have something interacting with Relics, and maybe Codices if they're still a thing in the exploration age, and with hills and mountains.

 

[Bast]

I will suggest this based on history of the Tibeto-Burman peoples.

Antiquity: Tibet. The Tibetan empire existed at its height in the 1st millennium, it is one of the largest empires in history.
Exploration: Burma. The Burmese people migrated from Yunnan in what was part of the Tibetan Empire as it was splitting up. It suits the theme of exploration and continuity. It had several empires in the 2nd millennium.
Modern: Bhutan. The modern nation of Kingdom of Bhutan is the most successful country of Tibeto-Burman peoples right now. A country who originated the idea of Gross National Happiness.

These people who speak or spoke Tibetan, Burmese and Dzongkha respectively which are Tibeto-Burman languages, closely related but not mutually intelligible. And all are strongly Buddhist people. That's my suggestion.

 

[bbbt]

Eh, with the age system, I dunno that it would be a huge issue for the PRC. Modern age Tibet certainly would.

An ancient age Tibet would presumably be fine because that doesn't conflict with their timeline version.

Exploration age, I dunno. They might be unhappy with them existing along side the Ming Dynasty, which they were apart of in the PRC version. But given the Mongols are also there, who were gone by the time of the Ming Dynasty, you could just argue it represents the Pre-Yuan Tibetian Empire.

I think it's Taiwan that's the sensitive subject for the PRC moreso. Lhasa (and Hong Kong) have both been city states. Taipei hasn't been.

 

[fantsu]

Maybe better not to touch these subjects in a video game? Otherwise Firaxis should go in all the way and release other controversial civs as well. Maybe Palestine, Donetsk and Luhansk too.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Maybe better not to touch these subjects in a video game? Otherwise Firaxis should go in all the way and release other controversial civs as well. Maybe Palestine, Donetsk and Luhansk too.

That would only make sense if Firaxis were releasing Tibet for controversy's sake only

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think including antiquity Tibetian empire could be done without much controversy from China. If we stay with 2 historical routes, Ming and Mongols could fit pretty nicely.

 

[UnknownHuman]

Maybe better not to touch these subjects in a video game? Otherwise Firaxis should go in all the way and release other controversial civs as well. Maybe Palestine, Donetsk and Luhansk too.

That's not really the same thing, Donetsk and Luhansk are regions in Ukraine contested by Russia, and Palestine is a region that has been controlled by a wide variety of people throughout history, but they never formed what you could call a unified "civilization".
Unlike Tibet which has existed for centuries around a particular group of people with their own culture and history, and while it's currently under the control of China, and has been under the control/influence of others in its past, it also ruled over its own territory for a large amount of its existence.
Civilization has always been a celebration of history, and Tibet as any rights as anybody to be represented in the game.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Exploration age, I dunno. They might be unhappy with them existing along side the Ming Dynasty, which they were apart of in the PRC version. But given the Mongols are also there, who were gone by the time of the Ming Dynasty, you could just argue it represents the Pre-Yuan Tibetian Empire.

I would find it weird if Tibet was Antiquity Age only, especially considering religion isn't a thing until Exploration Age. Maurya and Khmer not being able to play with religion is already weird.

 

[Bast]

I would find it weird if Tibet was Antiquity Age only, especially considering religion isn't a thing until Exploration Age. Maurya and Khmer not being able to play with religion is already weird.

That's the problem with trying to put history into 3 neat boxes. But given that's what we have Tibet makes the most sense in antiquity. I just can't see it any other way.

 

[cuc]

Nepal, I don't think so. Nepal would best be an exploration civ itself (based on the Malla dynasty in Kathmandu Valley).

Appreciate your detailed post! For this particular point, I think Nepal is fine for Modern Age, especially at Civ7's "Khmer in Age1" level of granularity.

As you know, Nepal fought some major wars in the early modern period against far larger foes.

List of wars involving Nepal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think for Civ7, you can do this for the Himalayas region:

Zhangzhung → Guge or Tufan (explicitly using the modern transliteration of the name transcribed in Middle Chinese, to keep its identification "anchored" on medieval history; the wonder can still be the Potala) → Nepal

 

[8housesofelixir]

Sukritact made a couple of mods of Tibet for Civ 6. I would say that is the ideal place to start for a Tibetan design.

Steam Workshop::Sukritact's Trisong Detsen (Tibet)

steamcommunity.com

Steam Workshop::Sukritact's Ngawang Lobsang Gyatso (Tibet)

steamcommunity.com

The Medieval Tibet, or Tibetan Empire, would be a good choice. Historically, Medieval Tibet was a powerful juggernaut, rivaling both Tang and the Abbasids - they even marched into Tang's capital once. Tibet never reached that high afterward (religiously, yes, but not as a hegemonic empire).

And such a "one-time" empire would fit into Civ 7's Age system very well - just slot them in one particular Age - although the current Civ roster did not leave any space for a Tang civ (I always argue that the Age system should have a "real" Medieval Age in between Antiquity and Exploration.)

I would say the issue with a Tibetan design is less about the Chinese censorship (I am not defending the censorship, but I want to point out that the actual censoring landscape in the PRC is very complex and far from a total, one-size-fits-all-style "ban") but how to be well-researched and make the Tibetan design unique and interesting. I hope a future Tibet design is not a representation for the representation's sake (the Han and Ming designs, to some degree, already have this issue) but backed with serious considerations. This is also why I used Sukritact's mods as an example, as I can see their mods harbor the necessary research and considerations.

 

[Nic@Melbourne]

Firaxis did not put in 3 China’s to just upset Chinese Nationalists with Tibet
Would be nice but lucky if the make Independent Peoples

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Firaxis did not put in 3 China’s to just upset Chinese Nationalists with Tibet
Would be nice but lucky if the make Independent Peoples

Again, Hong Kong and Lhasa were city-states in Civ5

 

[timmychompchomp]

0 chance Tibet makes the roster. Why would you discount the Chinese opposition to it? I have worked with the Chinese government. You’d be amazed with what goes on.

 

[Zaarin]

0 chance Tibet makes the roster. Why would you discount the Chinese opposition to it? I have worked with the Chinese government. You’d be amazed with what goes on.

Paradox gets away with it. The counterargument used to be that Crusader Kings only represents a moment in time, but that's exactly what we're talking about now in Civ7.

 

[Bast]

Paradox gets away with it. The counterargument used to be that Crusader Kings only represents a moment in time, but that's exactly what we're talking about now in Civ7.

Not to mention that you can have an independent Tibet in Victoria 3. And that the base game there actually shows Tibet is separate to Qing China like Finland to Russian Empire in 1836.

I agree that this argument never made sense. And if Civ wants to they can not have anything to do with China with Tibet. Make antiquity Tibet lead to Mongols or Burma as an example.