Possibilities for Tibet in civ 7

[timmychompchomp]

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.

Good point. I don’t know though. I still think it’s zero probability. A hugely popular franchise made in the USA vs a niche(although not as niche as it once was) game made in Sweden. I understand your point and I think it’s a good point, but I, based on experience, would say it’s actually more apples and oranges than your point suggests.

 

[Bast]

Now that I think about it, the only civilization that makes sense to start as antiquity and go to Mongols in exploration is Tibet in antiquity. That makes sense from the perspective of the Tibetan empire dissolution and the Mongol conquest of the Tibetan plateau. In fact, no other civilization makes more sense. Persia to Mongols is meh. It's a terrible link. Plus, if we have Burma in exploration, it would also make sense to go from Tibet to Burma.

 

[moondog385]

I would love to see the Tibetan Empire in the game. Based on the time period, I would say it fits in Exploration, but the Khmer Empire was founded later and it’s in Antiquity so who knows.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Tibet could be like like Lahore in Civ6 DLC (can't remember when, but this City State grants player a unique infantry with its own promotion tree called 'Nihang') or independent power (Civ7). Playable Civ? not sure but could be Age II. Since in Civ7, Religion started in that Age.

Now that I think about it, the only civilization that makes sense to start as antiquity and go to Mongols in exploration is Tibet in antiquity. That makes sense from the perspective of the Tibetan empire dissolution and the Mongol conquest of the Tibetan plateau. In fact, no other civilization makes more sense. Persia to Mongols is meh. It's a terrible link. Plus, if we have Burma in exploration, it would also make sense to go from Tibet to Burma.

If Burma joined Civ7 in Age II, so should Ayutthaya.
Both of which are elephant civs. and later gunpowder empires.

 

[Geminus Leonem]

This poll feels a tad weird since we are likely to get an Exploration Tibetan civ but not a leader (can't see the PRC agreeing to a Tibetan leader being able to rule Chinese dynasties) and that option is not in.

I mean the whole Eras split thing feels like it was done in part to avoid current geopolitical situations affecting civ picks. Hence, Ancient Judeah and Exploration Tibet are much more likely to appear now.

 

[Bast]

This poll feels a tad weird since we are likely to get an Exploration Tibetan civ but not a leader (can't see the PRC agreeing to a Tibetan leader being able to rule Chinese dynasties) and that option is not in.

I mean the whole Eras split thing feels like it was done in part to avoid current geopolitical situations affecting civ picks. Hence, Ancient Judeah and Exploration Tibet are much more likely to appear now.

Why would it be exploration? There are barely any civs from that area for antiquity so far, we only have Han China, Maurya India and Khmer. Tibet is the perfect location and history for paths into Ming China, Mongols or Chola India. I would rather see a link from Tibet > Mongol than anything else as that makes a lot of sense.

 

[Siptah]

When I made the poll, I had the argumentation in the OP in mind: decoupled leaders for everybody may finally make Tibet easy to have. The rationale was that if everybody can lead everybody, a Tibetan leading Ming isn‘t an offense. In contrast, ages haven‘t changed anything here in my opinion. You would still have Tibet compete with Ming, which I consider more problematic, as it clashes with official PRC history.

 

[Geminus Leonem]

Why would it be exploration? There are barely any civs from that area for antiquity so far, we only have Han China, Maurya India and Khmer. Tibet is the perfect location and history for paths into Ming China, Mongols or Chola India. I would rather see a link from Tibet > Mongol than anything else as that makes a lot of sense.

You could have an Ancient Tibetan Empire too but seeing as Exploration is the Era of religion it only makes sense that Tibet is prioritized there. The civ pretty much makes itself - cultural adjacencies from mountains, unique religious units, Dzongs as either the unique quarter or unique improvement and a heavily armoured horse archer with bonuses fighting around mountains and hills. PS: OH! And the Potala Palace is also from the era so it would be the perfect associated wonder

When I made the poll, I had the argumentation in the OP in mind: decoupled leaders for everybody may finally make Tibet easy to have. The rationale was that if everybody can lead everybody, a Tibetan leading Ming isn‘t an offense. In contrast, ages haven‘t changed anything here in my opinion. You would still have Tibet compete with Ming, which I consider more problematic, as it clashes with official PRC history.

Yeah, it might just be a me thing, but I feel like the PRC would be much more willing to have a non-modern Tibetan civ than a Tibetan leader. A Chinese leader ruling over tibet should be ok for them but not the other way around.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Why would it be exploration? There are barely any civs from that area for antiquity so far, we only have Han China, Maurya India and Khmer. Tibet is the perfect location and history for paths into Ming China, Mongols or Chola India. I would rather see a link from Tibet > Mongol than anything else as that makes a lot of sense.

I'd argue that both Maurya and Han China could also easily progress into Tibet as well. Tibet could then progress into Qing China.

 

[Bast]

I just think that if we're going to have Khmer in antiquity and cover that area, we should also have Tibet in antiquity and cover that area. Meaning the broad Central Asia Plateau regions. Especially given that peak Tibetan Empire was 7th-9th centuries. It's up to the game to try to expand religion to antiquity also especially with interplay between traditional faiths like animism and in Tibet's case - Bon - into other religions of the exploration age. I mean you could argue that Maurya India was very defined by religion also as Ashoka is one of the most important kings in Buddhist history but here they are in antiquity.