Speculating on (Historical) Civ Progression

[Lord Lakely]

Let's be honest. Most Civs will have been chosen for their diversity and historical relevance and the (pseudo)-historical decision of who can be developed into what is just a question of what is the least nonsensical geographically. Like a very loaded game of Connecting the Dots.

Ideally, we'll end up with enough Civs in every Era so that we have a logical transition for everyone.

but if we want to guess who can turn into what, perhaps we should work backwards, with the Age 2/3 options first?

Byzantium via Rome or Greece
Kievan Rus via Norse
France via the Normans
Germany via the HRE/Teutons via the Romans or Goths.

 

[thecrazyscot]

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"?

I think you are absolutely right - I just wanted to try and capture what would be the progressions that make sense. Maybe I can rejigger the table to show a primary (direct) historical choice and a secondary ("good enough") progression.

Plus, I expect the progression table to make a lot more sense after DLC and expansions flesh things out - I fully expect there are intentional holes left for future releases to fill.

 

[Xandinho]

Aksum > Ethiopia > Buganda is probably one of the intended paths, sadly.

This is one of the most nonsense paths. I hope they improve this with DLCs adding new civs. It would be more appropriate if they put Zagwe as age 2 in the Ethiopian path, or even Somali.

 

[pokiehl]

This is one of the most nonsense paths. I hope they improve this with DLCs adding new civs. It would be more appropriate if they put Zagwe as age 2 in the Ethiopian path, or even Somali.

Almost all paths are going to be absurd, and basically tangentially related via geography at best.

There’s literally no way to satisfy historical purists with this system—and I dare say it’s 100% impossible in a videogame spanning all of human history in general. It’s just not meant to do that.

 

[Zaarin]

be “history” unlocked by no civ like the Mongols

That remains to be seen.

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.

True, but the edges of the ages seem very blurry. There seems to be wiggle room.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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

I went with the more familiar name, but I figured gameplay wise it would be the same.

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.

Could Aksum>Abyssinia>Ethiopia work?

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.

I considered that too, but then I realized Sassanids wouldn't have made the cut for Exploration age.

Kievan Rus via Norse

Wouldn't they be the same age?

 

[thecrazyscot]

Mongolia could go in several directions...

Mongolia > Russia?
Mongolia > Ottomans?
Mongolia > China?

 

[Bosque]

We may have many more options for civ progression.

I am thinking there may be many more civilizations in the base game than in past Civ iterations, since there won't be a need to spend a lot of time to produce a leader animation for each and every civ. And it will be so much easier to add civs, through official releases or through modding. The hard part is coming up with all of the necessary uniques for each civ.

The leaders themselves will take more work. But since civs can choose leaders from another civilization, there is not a necessity for each and every civ to have a leader at release (though that would certainly be ideal).

 

[Zaarin]

I went with the more familiar name, but I figured gameplay wise it would be the same.

I cannot imagine them opting for the Islamic Republic of Iran.

I considered that too, but then I realized Sassanids wouldn't have made the cut for Exploration age.

I was taking advantage of the blurry lines, but I definitely acknowledge the Sassanids fit better in Antiquity and the Safavids in Exploration.

Mongolia > Ottomans?

Mongolia and Ottomans should both be Exploration.

 

[Siptah]

I went with the more familiar name, but I figured gameplay wise it would be the same.

Sorry, I thought you meant modern Iran.

Could Aksum>Abyssinia>Ethiopia work?

Wouldn't Abyssinia and Ethiopia be the same thing? And actually, I think it would be nice to have other horn civs for once, now that we don't need leaders.

 

[Zaarin]

As a name, strictly speaking, "Iran" goes all the way back to the Achaemenids.

 

[Siptah]

Mongolia could go in several directions...

Mongolia > Russia?
Mongolia > Ottomans?
Mongolia > China?

I wonder who they will include this time as natural precursor to Mongolia.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Mongolia could go in several directions...

Mongolia > Russia?
Mongolia > Ottomans?
Mongolia > China?

Dzungars or Kalmyks

 

[Zaarin]

I wonder who they will include this time as natural precursor to Mongolia.

Scythia seems like a popular inclusion in Civ6 and could return again. Or they could bring the Huns back--they might fit better in Civ7 than Civ5. Or they could really surprise us with the Rouran or Yuezhi or Xianbei or Xiongnu since they don't necessarily need a leader.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I wonder who they will include this time as natural precursor to Mongolia.

They could go for the Uighur, but PRC would say no, despite the fact that modern Uyghurs are most probably related to the Karluks

 

[Zaarin]

They could go for the Uighur, but PRC would say no, despite the fact that modern Uyghurs are most probably related to the Karluks

The Uyghur Khanate would have been Exploration Age, though, which doesn't help with a Mongol predecessor. (Related: They're probably not prime civ candidate, but I'd love to see the Tocharians as an Independent People.)

 

[Siptah]

Scythia seems like a popular inclusion in Civ6 and could return again. Or they could bring the Huns back--they might fit better in Civ7 than Civ5. Or they could really surprise us with the Rouran or Yuezhi or Xianbei or Xiongnu since they don't necessarily need a leader.

They could go for the Uighur, but PRC would say no, despite the fact that modern Uyghurs are most probably related to the Karluks

That sounds fine. But I dread Achaemenids / Maurya / Han > Mongols for Vanilla...

I would wish for Margiana or Bactria (or simply BMAC?) > Mongols and Ottomans, even if it is quite whacky.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Mongolia and Ottomans should both be Exploration.

Probably - but everything is so messy, so who knows?

 

[Australopithecine]

i would love a path that somewhat accommodates the general history of Great Britain:

Celtic Tribes ==> Roman ==> Anglo-Saxon ==> Viking ==> Norman ==> English ==> GB

 

[thecrazyscot]

Updated the OP with a direct choice and a generously termed tenuous choice.