Should There Be More Dynastic Civs?

[InsidiousMage]

The Ottoman's have been the game for a while now but there are other dynasties that could be the game. The Hapsburgs are another obvious choice. There would also be the ability to represent a region multiple times and allowing more concepts into the game, like dividing Persia into the Achaemenid, Parthian and Sasanian Empires or China into it's various dynasties.

Is it something Firaxis should consider or would it have to many possible downsides and what would you consider those to be.

 

[Henri Christophe]

from Suméria to Iraque., from Aztecs to México.

I also would like! maybe civ7 can have an ethinic unity more strong, some civs can have more than just 2 unique features, but way more.

 

[rwmjlally]

England: Tudors, Stuarts etc
China: Qin, Han etc

It is something of an anomaly that Turkey gets referred to by dynasty when other countries are not.

 

[The Civs 6]

Why would Civ have a dynastic component, when it doesn't even presume that you have a monarchy or an aristocracy? IE if in 6 I go from Classical Republic -> Merchant Republic, I would never have a dynasty.

And secondly, clearly dynasties have different meanings across different times. Civ tries to represent ruling coalitions by the government form and policy cards.

Ultimately, representing dynasties would require a fundamentally different style of game.

 

[Henri Christophe]

representing dynasties would require a fundamentally different style of game.

maybe choice 4 leaders for each civ and put they cronological

 

[InsidiousMage]

Why would Civ have a dynastic component, when it doesn't even presume that you have a monarchy or an aristocracy? IE if in 6 I go from Classical Republic -> Merchant Republic, I would never have a dynasty.

And secondly, clearly dynasties have different meanings across different times. Civ tries to represent ruling coalitions by the government form and policy cards.

Ultimately, representing dynasties would require a fundamentally different style of game.

You're misunderstanding what I'm talking about. The Ottomans is a dynastic designation not a regional or cultural one. Going by the standard regional (Spain, Japan, Gran Colombia) or cultural (Cree, Maori) designation used they should be called the Turkish Empire but are not. Like I mentioned above, in Civ6 Persia could be called the Achaemenid Empire(all of their stuff is from then) and then you could have a separate Sasanian Empire, which ruled over Persia but is a different ruling dynasty. So in game the Achaemenids and Sasanids would be treated as different civs despite being from the same region.

 

[The Civs 6]

You're misunderstanding what I'm talking about. The Ottomans is a dynastic designation not a regional or cultural one. Going by the standard regional (Spain, Japan, Gran Colombia) or cultural (Cree, Maori) designation used they should be called the Turkish Empire but are not. Like I mentioned above, in Civ6 Persia could be called the Achaemenid Empire(all of their stuff is from then) and then you could have a separate Sasanian Empire, which ruled over Persia but is a different ruling dynasty. So in game the Achaemenids and Sasanids would be treated as different civs despite being from the same region.

It's a simple misunderstanding. The Turkish empire that existed from the 14th (?) century to the 20th century is conventionally called the Ottoman Empire irrespective of the precise dynasty that ruled it. Calling that entity the "Turkish empire" would be imprecise, because the Turks are a much larger cultural group with history that has arguably nothing to do with the "Ottomans" (see the Turkish empires of the Crusading era). Unless you mean you want a truly Turkish empire, which would mean much more than the Turkish baths, janissaries and bombards that we conventionally associate with the Ottomans. But even then, do you differentiate between the Turks, the Scyhians, the Mongols and the Huns? Doing so would depend on serious opinions about the ethnicities of those people which I think require analyses beyond the powers of Civ designers.

I think the Persian issue is a simple oversight from the game designer, because the Sassanids (and their late antiquity stage in general) just don't get a lot of love from westerners. I would favor a separate Zoroastrian Sassanid empire represented in Civ, but only because we already have the Romans AND the Byzantines. But that is a bit larger of an issue than a dynastic one. After all, few people would say that the difference between the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire is merely dynastic.

And finally, this line of inquiry if applied to other nations suggests that Civ designers just aren't going to deal in dynastic phases of the same civilization. The exemplary case is China, which has had very different dynasties that certainly could be represented as different civs over time. But Civ has never even contemplated a separate Song/Han/CCP civilization. Would you call the difference between the Empire of Russia and the USSR dynastic? If so, is it just as deserving of separate treatment as a dynasty? What about different administrations in democratically elected governments? Should pre-Lincoln America be the same civ as post-Lincoln America?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think representing different dynasties of certain civs should be reserved for alternate leaders. Of course it already exists in the form of Qin Shi Huang and Kublai Khan currently.

 

[InsidiousMage]

But even then, do you differentiate between the Turks, the Scyhians, the Mongols and the Huns? Doing so would depend on serious opinions about the ethnicities of those people which I think require analyses beyond the powers of Civ designers.

I mean, the game already does so I don't see a problem with doing that.

And finally, this line of inquiry if applied to other nations suggests that Civ designers just aren't going to deal in dynastic phases of the same civilization. The exemplary case is China, which has had very different dynasties that certainly could be represented as different civs over time. But Civ has never even contemplated a separate Song/Han/CCP civilization. Would you call the difference between the Empire of Russia and the USSR dynastic? If so, is it just as deserving of separate treatment as a dynasty? What about different administrations in democratically elected governments? Should pre-Lincoln America be the same civ as post-Lincoln America?

I guess dynastic was a bit imprecise as a term but yeah, I would like to see more versions of a region across different times periods and before the modern period that division is often times dynastic. Cramming thousands of years into one civilization seems like a massive waste of potential. So I'm totally fine with both Imperial Russia and the USSR being in the game or with the Holy Roman Empire and Germany as long as there is enough distinction between them. Civ6 Russia is currently a faith and culture civ so a science and production focused USSR is totally fine by me.

 

[The Civs 6]

I mean, the game already does so I don't see a problem with doing that.



I guess dynastic was a bit imprecise as a term but yeah, I would like to see more versions of a region across different times periods and before the modern period that division is often times dynastic. Cramming thousands of years into one civilization seems like a massive waste of potential. So I'm totally fine with both Imperial Russia and the USSR being in the game or with the Holy Roman Empire and Germany as long as there is enough distinction between them. Civ6 Russia is currently a faith and culture civ so a science and production focused USSR is totally fine by me.

I ultimately agree with that, especially seeing that we basically have 4 anglo civs (not even including Scotland). But there are two issues. First, it isn't necessarily wasted potential - the USSR isn't in the game per se, but it you can adopt a communist government and have the 5 year plan policy card. So it's in the game as a generic feature available for anyone to use. Instead of setting up the USSR as some fundamentally unique and different entity, Civ sees it as a civilization "choosing" to collectivize and all that. And that might be the right approach, since the USSR did not really stand the test of time.

Second, there is a simple practical problem - we all pretty much know that early game advantages are more important and probably more fun than late game advantages. It's just hard to me to have a context-appropriate Soviet bonus in the ancient era. Indeed, in general, it seems kind of funky to have a Soviet civilization in the ancient era. I wonder if a disaggregation of the "same" civ by era would lead to unwelcome results where their earlier incarnations are always a better option than their later incarnation. Again, you could have a CCP bonus for the ancient era, but how would it make sense?

I think the Civ challenge is to show continuity between HRE Germany and the Germany of the EU. It's a hard challenge and inevitably they designers will miss a lot of good material, but I think that is what makes Civ interesting.

 

[InsidiousMage]

It's just hard to me to have a context-appropriate Soviet bonus in the ancient era. Indeed, in general, it seems kind of funky to have a Soviet civilization in the ancient era.

Some kind of science and production boost is useful in any era, like extra production on adjacent farms or something which could then be boosted by Feudalism and Replaceable Parts. Kind of curious why you think Ancient Era USSR is weird but the US isn't?

I think the Civ challenge is to show continuity between HRE Germany and the Germany of the EU. It's a hard challenge and inevitably they designers will miss a lot of good material, but I think that is what makes Civ interesting.

Maybe I'm being weird but Germany having Free Imperial Cities and the U-Boat is just strange to me. They seem so disconnected in time that it feels like a weird mash up to me.

 

[The Civs 6]

Some kind of science and production boost is useful in any era, like extra production on adjacent farms or something which could then be boosted by Feudalism and Replaceable Parts. Kind of curious why you think Ancient Era USSR is weird but the US isn't?



Maybe I'm being weird but Germany having Free Imperial Cities and the U-Boat is just strange to me. They seem so disconnected in time that it feels like a weird mash up to me.

Because the US has a pioneer/frontier element to our history that makes it work, to me.

As to your point about Germany, yeah I concede that - but is that because creating continuity itself is bad, or because the game designers were ineffective at it? Now that I think about it, it's kind of hard to think of an example where Civ did this effectively. Maybe China?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Second, there is a simple practical problem - we all pretty much know that early game advantages are more important and probably more fun than late game advantages. It's just hard to me to have a context-appropriate Soviet bonus in the ancient era. Indeed, in general, it seems kind of funky to have a Soviet civilization in the ancient era. I wonder if a disaggregation of the "same" civ by era would lead to unwelcome results where their earlier incarnations are always a better option than their later incarnation. Again, you could have a CCP bonus for the ancient era, but how would it make sense?

To me it would be weird having a separate Soviet civ that is separate from Russia, considering most of Soviet history is centered around Russia.

Sure Russia in the game is centered around it's Imperial phase and it does make it harder. However I think if Russia was designed differently there is no reason why it couldn't get a Soviet era leader alongside Peter the Great.

 

[The Civs 6]

To me it would be weird having a separate Soviet civ that is separate from Russia, considering most of Soviet history is centered around Russia.

Sure Russia in the game is centered around it's Imperial phase and it does make it harder. However I think if Russia was designed differently there is no reason why it couldn't get a Soviet era leader alongside Peter the Great.

It's like two different issues. One is whether the Soviets are actually their own civ, which I don't think they are. The second is whether the game has enough Soviet Russia material in it for the Russians. I think the answer to that question is no - just like there isn't enough Sassanid material for the Persians.

 

[InsidiousMage]

As to your point about Germany, yeah I concede that - but is that because creating continuity itself is bad, or because the game designers were ineffective at it? Now that I think about it, it's kind of hard to think of an example where Civ did this effectively. Maybe China?

Get rid of the U-boat and give Germany a Knight replacement and you have the HRE. Maybe a different leader would help since Frederick is a HR Emperor. It's just so one-sided to the HRE part of German history that the U-Boat feels out of place. Same with Persia, it's basically the Achaemenids and nothing else so giving them a Sasanid or alt leader from a later period would feel weird.

 

[InsidiousMage]

Sure Russia in the game is centered around it's Imperial phase and it does make it harder. However I think if Russia was designed differently there is no reason why it couldn't get a Soviet era leader alongside Peter the Great.

My problem with any kind of Russian alt leader is the Lavra since it is basically demands you play a culture and faith heavy game. I can't personally see someone from the Rurik dynasty, Ivan IV (aka The Terrible) or a Soviet leader for Russia right now.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Get rid of the U-boat and give Germany a Knight replacement and you have the HRE. Maybe a different leader would help since Frederick is a HR Emperor. It's just so one-sided to the HRE part of German history that the U-Boat feels out of place. Same with Persia, it's basically the Achaemenids and nothing else so giving them a Sasanid or alt leader from a later period would feel weird.

I can see how that feels out of place, but to me it's not a big deal. You could have Bismarck as a leader choice, instead of Barbarossa, and everything would feel coherent.
I would say Barbarossa could have had a unique knight replacement, as leader, but we have too much of those right now.

My problem with any kind of Russian alt leader is the Lavra since it is basically demands you play a culture and faith heavy game. I can't personally see someone from the Rurik dynasty, Ivan IV (aka the terrible) or a Soviet leader for Russia right now.

I agree with the Lavra as the UD it would be kind of weird. Then again Kublai can now build the Great Wall for China so maybe it could be possible.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Soviet leader for Russia right now.

why they stop do communist leader in Civ 6?
Just think how amazing it should be play Tito as Yugoslavia? Ho Chi min as Vietnã, Mao Ze Dong as China, Stalin as Russia and Fidel Castro as Cuba in an communist expansion

 

[InsidiousMage]

I can see how that feels out of place, but to me it's not a big deal.

I'm the kind of guy who thinks Trajan's Column is a horrible leader ability because Trajan was the great conqueror of the Roman Empire, not the infrastructure guy, which was Hadrian. Not to say it's isn't a good ability, because it is, but the developers gave it to the wrong leader.

I agree with the Lavra as the UD it would be kind of weird. Then again Kublai can now build the Great Wall for China so maybe it could be possible.

Which kind of what I'm talking about. Have one civ represent hundreds to thousands of years of history is just going to create some weird mash ups of leaders, units and abilities.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm the kind of guy who thinks Trajan's Column is a horrible leader ability because Trajan was the great conqueror of the Roman Empire, not the infrastructure guy, which was Hadrian. Not to say it's isn't a good ability, because it is, but the developers gave it to the wrong leader.

I mean Trajan's forum and the Baths of Trajan were built during his reign too so I don't see it as out of place as some other leader abilities.

Which kind of what I'm talking about. Have one civ represent hundreds to thousands of years of history is just going to create some weird mash ups of leaders, units and abilities.

If we were to get more than 40 to 60 different civs I can see the possibility of splitting up some of them starting with a separate Mughal civ from India. But that probably won't happen until at least Civ 8 if the games continue to go on that long. But currently the idea of splitting up civs like China, Russia, Persia etc. would make it to where there would be less slots for other areas.
I'm perfectly fine with splitting up Germany and HRE though as they can be separate. HRE inspired Austria has existed alongside modern Germany in Civ 5, which I'm on board with.