Speculating on (Historical) Civ Progression

[thecrazyscot]

So I'm interested in what the "historical" paths will be, and since we don't have all of the civ roster yet, how about some speculation?

I presume that some "historical" paths will be pretty direct, others kinda "in the general area", and other civs may be included as wildcards without any direct historical lineage or succession for player creativity.

Here's what we have officially - this table is meant to show what might be considered the direct path first, with a secondary path shown for a, ahem, tenuous historical connection.

Antiquity	Exploration	Modern
Aksum	Songhai	Buganda
(China)
Egypt	Abbasids Songhai	Buganda
Greece
Maurya
Maya
Persia*	Abbasids
Rome
	Mongolia
	Normans*	England*/France*
	Shawnee	America*
	Inca*

* "soft-confirmed", some via town center analysis
Direct historical path
Tenuous historical path

 

[pokiehl]

Some missing "soft-confirmed" Civs from this table are the Normans (Exploration), France (Modern?), England (Modern?), and America.

In the Japanese interview, Ed kind of intimated there could be 3 Japanese civs as well, but that may have just been an example.

 

[Siptah]

Rome -> Normans, Spain, Abbasids would all be very historical and all three exploration age civs are kinda confirmed.

As we have Napoleon, I think Normans -> France would also be historical enough to be a standard choice along with Britain/UK.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Since Byzantines are contemporaneous with the Abbasids and in fact outlived them by quite some centuries, I believe it's totally possible or even probable for Byzantium to be the Historical Progression civ for Greece

 

[Siptah]

Since Byzantines are contemporaneous with the Abbasids and in fact outlived them by quite some centuries, I believe it's totally possible or even probable for Byzantium to be the Historical Progression civ for Greece

If they make it into the base game... As long as the Ottomans aren't the go to civ for Greece...

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

If they make it into the base game... As long as the Ottomans aren't the go to civ for Greece...

Why not? How's that so different from Egypt going Abbasid?

(I'm not defending that, by the way, just pointing out that most "historical progression" pathways will inevitably be ridiculous and controversial)

 

[thecrazyscot]

I would love to see the Byzantines...they would make sense as a historical progression from either Greece or Rome. I wonder if civs which make sense for multiple preceding civs are going to be given a higher priority for release.

 

[Siptah]

Why not? How's that so different from Egypt going Abbasid?

(I'm not defending that, by the way, just pointing out that most "historical progression" pathways will inevitably be ridiculous and controversial)

Yeah, you are correct with that. And the present day still sometimes lingering conflict about islands and Cyprus is not due to the Ottomans and ancient Greece, but modern Greece (which for sure isn't the same culture as ancient Greece) and modern Turkey. So, yeah, I overthought this.

 

[thecrazyscot]

All of these make sense, for example:

Greece > Byzantines
Rome > Byzantines
Abbasids > Ottomans
Byzantines > Ottomans

 

[thecrazyscot]

Other potential paths:

Maya > Aztec? > Mexico?
Maurya > Mughal? > India?
Han? > Ming? > China?
Aksum > ??? > Ethiopia?
Aksum > Ethiopia? > ???

 

[kryat]

I think the fuzziness of who was a predecessor or who is a successor, that branching before and after is important to include

Byzantines->Ottomans
Byzantines->Russia
Rome->Byzantine
Rome->Normans
Celts->Normans
Normans->England
Norman’s->Australia
Māori->Australia
Normans->America
Shawnee->America
Ghana->America
Sweeden->America
Holy Roman Empire->America
Mughal India->America

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Maurya > Mughal? > India?
Han? > Ming? > China?

Was about to add those along with this:
Achaemenids>Safavids>Iran?

 

[Siptah]

Was about to add those along with this:
Achaemenids>Safavids>Iran?

I think Qajars would be a better fit for the modern era.

 

[Siptah]

Other potential paths:

Maya > Aztec? > Mexico?
Maurya > Mughal? > India?
Han? > Ming? > China?
Aksum > ??? > Ethiopia?
Aksum > Ethiopia? > ???

Han > Yuan > Qing would be the correct troll move.

Aksum > Ethiopia > Buganda is probably one of the intended paths, sadly.
I think for the Horn, Somali or Ajuraan would be interesting choices. But thinking what counts as historical here, it could easily be Aksum > Yemen > Saudi Arabia or Aksum > Oman > Qatar.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Aksum > ??? > Ethiopia?

Somali

 

[FishFishFish]

The problem with this is it assumes every civ is going to get a predecessor that makes sense. The correct predecessor for Buganda is Kitara, but are they actually going to use Kitara or are they going to take an unrelated civ from Africa and say "good enough"?

 

[Zaarin]

I think Qajars would be a better fit for the modern era.

It's an awkward fit, but I still want Achaemenid > Sassanid > Safavid, just to hit the most interesting beats IMO. However, I fully concede that Qajars are a better fit for Modern and that Sassanids really straddle the Antiquity/Exploration line.

 

[Siptah]

The problem with this is it assumes every civ is going to get a predecessor that makes sense. The correct predecessor for Buganda is Kitara, but are they actually going to use Kitara or are they going to take an unrelated civ from Africa and say "good enough"?

Pretty sure the latter.

 

[Krikkit1]

So I'm interested in what the "historical" paths will be, and since we don't have all of the civ roster yet, how about some speculation?

I presume that some "historical" paths will be pretty direct, others kinda "in the general area", and other civs may be included as wildcards without any direct historical lineage or succession for player creativity.

Here's what we have officially - this table is meant to show what might be considered the "direct" path, so if the path is not direct, I don't have it here (Egypt -> Songhai, for example).

Antiquity	Exploration	Modern
Aksum
(China)
Egypt	Abbasids
Greece
Maurya
Maya
Rome
	Mongolia
	Normans*	England*/France*
	Shawnee	America*
	Songhai
		Buganda

* "soft-confirmed"

Songhai AND Abbasids are "historical" for Egypt.
And Songhai is "historical" for BOTH Egypt and Aksum

I think the goal is for every civ to “history” unlock more than one other civ
AND
For every civ to be “history” unlocked by more than one other civ (or be “history” unlocked by no civ like the Mongols)

 

[Siptah]

It's an awkward fit, but I still want Achaemenid > Sassanid > Safavid, just to hit the most interesting beats IMO. However, I fully concede that Qajars are a better fit for Modern and that Sassanids really straddle the Antiquity/Exploration line.

Yeah, but when one of the points of era-dependent civs is that you have the contemporary civs competing in their great historical rivalries, Mughals, Ottomans and Safavid belong in the same time.