Speculating on (Historical) Civ Progression

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

we will definitely get a exploration russia in some capacity. The question is will it be the Rus, Novgorod, or Tsarist Russia.

They also might go with Tsarist russia modern, based on the China and India trends—this opens the opportunity for something like an Alexander II leader for the first time, he fits into the timeline well, though we could just see Catherine again too.

Assuming that the Modern Age is being pushed back to about 1700, I'd be surprised if it's not just called Russia. And since the Hermitage looks to be the associated wonder it will be purely Tsarist based.

I also wouldn't be surprised if we got a whole Third Rome path that went Rome>Byzantines> Russia. As for outside the Greek or Rome path, I could see it as easily as just getting a pantheon.

Also because of the whole India and China trends, my vote is going to go for Modern Siam for SEA, since they are avoiding modern names of countries.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Assuming that the Modern Age is being pushed back to about 1700, I'd be surprised if it's not just called Russia. And since the Hermitage looks to be the associated wonder it will be purely Tsarist based.

I also wouldn't be surprised if we got a whole Third Rome path that went Rome>Byzantines> Russia. As for outside the Greek or Rome path, I could see it as easily as just getting a pantheon.

Also because of the whole India and China trends, my vote is going to go for Modern Siam for SEA, since they are avoiding modern names of countries.

which is a little bit of a shame. i would’ve liked the soviet union in some capacity—a generic USSR or one led by Lenin wouldn’t be nearly as controversial as Stalin or later leaders. Any modern era should have that cold war dynamic imo.

not having tsarist russia would also be a big oversight though, and modern allows for an older russia to be highlighted. perhaps if one is in the base game the other will be DLC

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

which is a little bit of a shame. i would’ve liked the soviet union in some capacity—a generic USSR or one led by Lenin wouldn’t be nearly as controversial as Stalin or later leaders. Any modern era should have that cold war dynamic imo.

We've seen a T-34 style tank right? I suppose it could just be a unique graphic for a regular tank. I've suggested before that could be a UU before if they wanted to represent something other than the Cossacks appearing again, and have something Soviet related.

 

[Krikkit1]

Do we know, if we have the possibility to unlock every possible civ we can switch too, or does each startin civ has only like 2 possible transformations or could stay the same.
Because alone thinking of Rome, and what possible follow up civs could be, there are plenty of possibilities. Rome had a lot of influence in nearly all european civilizations.
Maybe it all depends on what you do gameplay wise. (Keep in mind, I made some reasons why you could change to that civ up, no bad blood here please) - So lets say:
(I hope it is understandable what I'm thinking, sometimes putting your thoughts into words isn't that easy)

Antiquity	Exploration	Modern
classic route: Rome	Venice	Italy
		Austria (If you have a lot of culture or coffee)
possible branch 1 (you working 3 iron tiles)	Holy Roman Empire	France (If you have been the target of multiple war declarations)
		Germany (If you have a lot of production)
		any Balkan civ?
possible branch 2 (you conquered another civ)	Byzantium	Ottomans
		Romania?

Egypt has a ability to shift to Songhai and the Abassids with no prerequisites besides being Egypt.

I don't think there will be Civ-specific Gameplay requirements foe unlocks so for example
America:
Ben Franklin Leader
OR
Norman Civ*
OR
3 Cities on "New World"*

(So Mongols or Songhai or Shawnee could become America if they put 3 cities on the "New World"... Normans could choose America Even if they only had their capital in the middle of the Jungle)

*These are examples of possible requirements, not actual ones


So if Byzantium is in, I expect Rome to be able to shift to it without any gameplay requirements. Maybe another civ can shift to it by the city with a higher pop than the Capital

 

[Josephias]

Do we know, if we have the possibility to unlock every possible civ we can switch too, or does each startin civ has only like 2 possible transformations or could stay the same.

As commented above me, it’s the other way around: you’ll get one-two-a few? Free no-locked choices based in your previous civ (and leader), and then you possibly can unlock any other civ in the rooster by meeting specific gameplay conditions.

 

[Krajzen]

random but I reminded of a certain controversy

Would Mexico, Peru etc "colonial" states be really offensive when following Aztec, Inca etc?

In real life they were born of conquest and cruel subjugation of Amerindians, but those cultures still survived within them and shaped those states, and today you have Nahua and Quechua people, as well as Mestizo, who feel attached to those countries (I even met one Mexican patriot, mostly Nahua by blood). And within the game context you don't have a conquest of Aztecs by the Spanish, just some sort of vague crisis and transformation, so your Aztecs go all the way to the verge of 1800s and then transform into Mexico. You may as well imagine it is more diverse culture as a result of assimilating say *white immigrants by the Aztec state*.

Of course I get why some people don't like the optic of Aztec being replaced by "Mexico" but I tried to offer charitable interpretation.

 

[Zaarin]

random but I reminded of a certain controversy

Would Mexico, Peru etc "colonial" states be really offensive when following Aztec, Inca etc?

In real life they were born of conquest and cruel subjugation of Amerindians, but those cultures still survived within them and shaped those states, and today you have Nahua and Quechua people, as well as Mestizo, who feel attached to those countries (I even met one Mexican patriot, mostly Nahua by blood). And within the game context you don't have a conquest of Aztecs by the Spanish, just some sort of vague crisis and transformation, so your Aztecs go all the way to the verge of 1800s and then transform into Mexico. You may as well imagine it is more diverse culture as a result of assimilating say *white immigrants by the Aztec state*.

Of course I get why some people don't like the optic of Aztec being replaced by "Mexico" but I tried to offer charitable interpretation.

Aztec > Mexico and Inca > Peru are definitely less uncomfortable than Shawnee > United States. It would still be nice if there were and Indigenous alternative. (E.g., I mentioned Maya > Mayapan > Yucatec before, and with the pushback of the Modern Age to the 18th century that feels even more viable than before.)

 

[moysturfurmer]

Do we know, if we have the possibility to unlock every possible civ we can switch too, or does each startin civ has only like 2 possible transformations or could stay the same.

We dont know for sure, but I’m guessing yes. Seems like inconsistent game design if anyone had the option of becoming the Mongols, but not the Chola.

 

[Krikkit1]

random but I reminded of a certain controversy

Would Mexico, Peru etc "colonial" states be really offensive when following Aztec, Inca etc?

In real life they were born of conquest and cruel subjugation of Amerindians, but those cultures still survived within them and shaped those states, and today you have Nahua and Quechua people, as well as Mestizo, who feel attached to those countries (I even met one Mexican patriot, mostly Nahua by blood). And within the game context you don't have a conquest of Aztecs by the Spanish, just some sort of vague crisis and transformation, so your Aztecs go all the way to the verge of 1800s and then transform into Mexico. You may as well imagine it is more diverse culture as a result of assimilating say *white immigrants by the Aztec state*.

Of course I get why some people don't like the optic of Aztec being replaced by "Mexico" but I tried to offer charitable interpretation.

I would agree that Aztec->Mexico is closer to Egypt->Abbasids than Shawnee->America because even though it was foreign conquest and cultural subjugation, it wasn’t as total* (plus the Aztecs have that PR issue with human sacrifice and general warmongering)

*No subjugation is total, and the US has some native influences (lots of place names and others). but the native Mesoamericans probably have a bigger cultural impact on Mexico than the Native Americans have on the US.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Aztec > Mexico and Inca > Peru are definitely less uncomfortable than Shawnee > United States. It would still be nice if there were and Indigenous alternative. (E.g., I mentioned Maya > Mayapan > Yucatec before, and with the pushback of the Modern Age to the 18th century that feels even more viable than before.)

also depends on the specific people and the specific country i suppose. aztec to mexico probably isn’t as bad as maya to mexico or purépecha to mexico, for example. Though to me, the biggest criteria is “did they oppose colonization or integrate themselves into the colonial society”. So inca to peru or bolivia is prob not terrible, especially bolivia. mapuche to argentina would prob be somewhat uncomfy, as well as most us and canadian options. Guarani to Paraguay is prob among the best, considering to this day Paraguay speaks majority Guarani.

 

[Xandinho]

also depends on the specific people and the specific country i suppose. aztec to mexico probably isn’t as bad as maya to mexico or purépecha to mexico, for example. Though to me, the biggest criteria is “did they oppose colonization or integrate themselves into the colonial society”. So inca to peru or bolivia is prob not terrible, especially bolivia. mapuche to argentina would prob be somewhat uncomfy, as well as most us and canadian options. Guarani to Paraguay is prob among the best, considering to this day Paraguay speaks majority Guarani.

Guarani to Paraguay is perhaps the best case of transitioning from an indigenous nation to a colonial nation. Unfortunately, however, Paraguay is not a big enough gaming market to warrant inclusion. I would be surprised if they at least made Guarani.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Guarani to Paraguay is perhaps the best case of transitioning from an indigenous nation to a colonial nation. Unfortunately, however, Paraguay is not a big enough gaming market to warrant inclusion. I would be surprised if they at least made Guarani.

i know reality is one thing and ideals are another, but my hope is that “will it sell” isn’t the only major criteria that defines whether a civ will be added.

paraguay obviously isn’t much anymore but it was a regional power at a point (triple alliance, anyone?), and it’s not like it’s any less relevant than a number of civs that have appeared in the past.

It also has a unique historical niche (colonial country which has retained a number of its pre-colombian traits), which can be easily gamified, especially with the new civ switching mechanic.

 

[Zaarin]

i know reality is one thing and ideals are another, but my hope is that “will it sell” isn’t the only major criteria that defines whether a civ will be added.

Generally the trend has been to mix "it's interesting" civs in with "major market" civs. After the Mapuche in Civ6, I wouldn't completely count out the Guaraní in Civ7.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Generally the trend has been to mix "it's interesting" civs in with "major market" civs. After the Mapuche in Civ6, I wouldn't completely count out the Guaraní in Civ7.

question is would they give us both the guarani AND paraguay. the guarani also are present in argentina and brazil, so totally possible they don’t include paraguay at all and give us the path to either of the other two, who are undoubtedly more powerful. argentina, however, considering its horrendous history with its indigenous people would feel a bit icky. Brazil might be more ok.

that being said, if ever there was a time for both, it would be now

 

[Xandinho]

question is would they give us both the guarani AND paraguay. the guarani also are present in argentina and brazil, so totally possible they don’t include paraguay at all and give us the path to either of the other two, who are undoubtedly more powerful. argentina, however, considering its horrendous history with its indigenous people would feel a bit icky. Brazil might be more ok.

that being said, if ever there was a time for both, it would be now

Guarani had a much greater influence in Brazil than in Argentina, so Brazil could work, but Paraguay remains the perfect transition.

Argentina is quite unviable for a transition from an indigenous nation. Due to its current culture is very European, Argentina might only work if it comes from Spain.

Honestly, I would be a little bothered if the associated wonder Guarani was a Mission, but on the other hand, I don't think there are many options to choose from.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Guarani to Paraguay is perhaps the best case of transitioning from an indigenous nation to a colonial nation. Unfortunately, however, Paraguay is not a big enough gaming market to warrant inclusion. I would be surprised if they at least made Guarani.

I wouldn't necessarily count them out. I don't thing Uganda is a big market, and Buganda got in.

Argentina is quite unviable for a transition from an indigenous nation. Due to its current culture is very European, Argentina might only work if it comes from Spain.

I think that a possible Exploration Italian city-state civ could work too, due to the massive Italian diaspora.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Argentina is quite unviable for a transition from an indigenous nation. Due to its current culture is very European, Argentina might only work if it comes from Spain.

Italy, Germany, Wales also had big migrations to Argentina. Germany obviously overstated for meme reasons so i wouldn’t support a transition for that, but italy or wales leading to argentina would be interesting to me (though as i understand it the welsh-argentinian population isn’t large. they have, however, retained the language, apparently. Argentina is one of the places where welsh is still spoken relatively fluently.)

Side note, but if we’re talking spanish speaking new world colonies, i’d like to see Chile, lead by Bernardo O’Higgins. Falls into the niche of Bolivar and Gran Colombia in Civ 6 (though i’m a big fan of Bolivar and would love to see him and Colombia again)

 

[Krajzen]

Aztec > Mexico and Inca > Peru are definitely less uncomfortable than Shawnee > United States. It would still be nice if there were and Indigenous alternative. (E.g., I mentioned Maya > Mayapan > Yucatec before, and with the pushback of the Modern Age to the 18th century that feels even more viable than before.)

But North American Indians don't need to transition to US at all - since most of them were independent well into 19th century, which means they qualify as modern civs on their own unless Firaxis really drops the ball here and falls into obvious and unnecessary trap.

Same with Canada, Australia, NZ, Argentina and almost all of Africa - all of their native peoples were actively fighting till the end of the 19th century, which means they could qualify as modern civs. As for unique units, you can give then the fighters they used in 1800s or go more creative and adapt their ww1/ww2/modern era regiments as alt history independent armed forces.

So in case of Mesoamerica and Andes we can, as I argued, lead Precolombian civs into Mexico and Peru etc with not that much controversy, whereas in all cases above we may end up simply with native peoples being perfectly fine modern era civs.

The problematic exceptions would be mainly Brazil and Caribbean civs, since their natives (Taino, Tupi etc) got actually wiped out, so we can't really make them modern civs nor stretch it and imagine the modern state as indigenous.

 

[Krikkit1]

But North American Indians don't need to transition to US at all - since most of them were independent well into 19th century, which means they qualify as modern civs on their own unless Firaxis really drops the ball here and falls into obvious and unnecessary trap.

Same with Canada, Australia, NZ, Argentina and almost all of Africa - all of their native peoples were actively fighting till the end of the 19th century, which means they could qualify as modern civs. As for unique units, you can give then the fighters they used in 1800s or go more creative and adapt their ww1/ww2/modern era regiments as alt history independent armed forces.

Exploration Natives probably would unlock America, but as a “Regional” rather than “Historical” path. They should definitely have a Modern Native to transition to as well.

 

[Rac]

The problematic exceptions would be mainly Brazil and Caribbean civs, since their natives (Taino, Tupi etc) got actually wiped out, so we can't really make them modern civs nor stretch it and imagine the modern state as indigenous.

Speaking on the case of Brazil, indeed if you look at today's Brazilian heartland the original Tupi, Guarani and Jé cultures no longer exist or are at minuscule communities sizes; but a vast chunk of Brazilians do have ancestry to these peoples, by a good ammount of time we did not only speak Portuguese but also the Lingua Geral (Meridional and Setentrional) and integration of these communities with the Portuguese did occur in a lot of cases. I'm not saying that there were no crimes committed against the natives, far from it, but rather that as a miscegenated nation we are descendants of Tupis, Guaranis, as well as the Portuguese, Italians, Yorubas, Ambundus and other nations that came here.