Speculating on (Historical) Civ Progression

[Zaarin]

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

I'm not expecting them to; I was making a comparison.

 

[Josephias]

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.

And, rather than years (except for obvious reasons of who fights who - and regarding that, i still have the resonance in my mind of the shock of seeing knights norman lions vs burgundy cross conquistadors), I think the key point here is fitting the Age mechanics. 1st age is early civilization (both building infrastructure and set-up of a cultural identity). 2nd age favours wide play/stories expansion, resource trade, and probably religion as well. 3rd afe then goes mostly tall, science, economy (and potentially culture-tourism) development.

Not really sure if the aource was eight, but I read Buganda made a difference by negotiating with the British colonial powers and setting up its own structure lo take advantage of what they could learn from them for theirbown benefit. This sounded me very fitting for the Modern age (more than jst being a military/religious power in the area). I’m sure there is plenty of peoples in other areas of the world that also fit, in their own way, this “modernity” focus. Let’s see the choices.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Taino

my understanding is very much that the self-identification as taino is still relatively in tact and especially in puerto rico, there’s a lot of initiative to restore and recover lost culture and language for this reason. i may be mistaken, though.

 

[Zaarin]

my understanding is very much that the self-identification as taino is still relatively in tact and especially in puerto rico, there’s a lot of initiative to restore and recover lost culture and language for this reason. i may be mistaken, though.

I'm not sure about Taíno identity in the Caribbean, but I'm very doubtful there are enough records of the language to revive it.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I'm not sure about Taíno identity in the Caribbean, but I'm very doubtful there are enough records of the language to revive it.

godspeed to those who are trying, then, i suppose (assuming im not mistaken)

 

[The_J]

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 have a Spanish friend who's studying history on the side, and we talked about this before (unrelated to civ; as as Spanish he's probably biased there though).
He explained that the Spanish in Southern America didn't really do the systematic enslavement and repression as the English did in Northern America. Well.... I guess probably not to the same extent. I don't believe it was all unicorns down there either. But what is verifiable is that the indigenous population was at the time definitely better integrated into the society than anywhere ever in the English dominated parts of the continent. They also played a crucial role in overthrowing the colonial administration and establishing indipendent states. While the colonization was definitely a crime caused by the Spanish, the decolonization was definitely also caused and supported by the indigenous people in these places.
So... they probably do mind a lot less, because (some) of these states are as much or maybe even more the states of the indigineous people as one of the colonizers. And that definitely cannot be said about the US. (or Canada)

EDIT: Modern India might be a better comparison here. Caused by the colonizers, but definitely a state of the Indian people.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I have a Spanish friend who's studying history on the side, and we talked about this before (unrelated to civ; as as Spanish he's probably biased there though).
He explained that the Spanish in Southern America didn't really do the systematic enslavement and repression as the English did in Northern America. Well.... I guess probably not to the same extent. I don't believe it was all unicorns down there either. But what is verifiable is that the indigenous population was at the time definitely better integrated into the society than anywhere ever in the English dominated parts of the continent. They also played a crucial role in overthrowing the colonial administration and establishing indipendent states. While the colonization was definitely a crime caused by the Spanish, the decolonization was definitely also caused and supported by the indigenous people in these places.
So... they probably do mind a lot less, because (some) of these states are as much or maybe even more the states of the indigineous people as one of the colonizers. And that definitely cannot be said about the US. (or Canada)

EDIT: Modern India might be a better comparison here. Caused by the colonizers, but definitely a state of the Indian people.

it’s a much more complicated relationship. i don’t really call the spanish post-colonial states “settler-colonies” the way the british ones (america, canada, australia, new zealand and kind of south africa) are. they definitely also participated in very different reactions to the indigenous peoples depending on where it was—the taino of hispaniola were the first people in the americas to truly be enslaved and put to hard labor (my understanding is that the lack of immunity to old world diseases of the indigenous peoples is a large part in why the North Atlantic Slave Trade grew so large). They were nearly (or totally, depending on the academics in question) eradicated by Columbus and the spanish colony there.

In Mexico, the level of integration depended on the favor of the spanish upon that nation and the isolation they experienced—hence why the maya simultaneously retained more of their culture and remain marginalized to this day. Nahuatl-speaking peoples that didn’t integrate *seem* to fall into this camp today as well, though that’s just based off my surface-level understanding.

And then Bolivia has become a state that primarily represents its indigenous audience. In paraguay, settlers adopted indigenous language than the other way around. Argentina genocided its indigenous peoples to near totality. In Peru, the spanish seemed to just adapt the existing Incan class systems.

 

[Guandao]

If the Inca are in the game. Do they just become Mexico in the last era? I'll be surprised if Peru made it to the vanilla game. Inca becoming Brazil makes little sense too.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

If the Inca are in the game. Do they just become Mexico in the last era? I'll be surprised if Peru made it to the vanilla game. Inca becoming Brazil makes little sense too.

They’ve already proven they’re including civs they prob otherwise wouldn’t to complete lines (chola, buganda). Peru/Bolivia/Ecuador should be in the game modern era, surely. Real question is do they include the Nazca or something similar (Muisca could be finagled into antiquity, i think, but they don’t feel the most apt evolution into the inca) in the earlier era

 

[Guandao]

They’ve already proven they’re including civs they prob otherwise wouldn’t to complete lines (chola, buganda). Peru/Bolivia/Ecuador should be in the game modern era, surely. Real question is do they include the Nazca or something similar (Muisca could be finagled into antiquity, i think, but they don’t feel the most apt evolution into the inca) in the earlier era

Caralans? Chavin? Moche? Tiwanaku? Wari/Huari?

 

[Xandinho]

Moche is the most sensible choice. Nazca is the most popular choice.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Moche is the most sensible choice. Nazca is the most popular choice.

knowing the geographic position seems to matter more and the nazca have a level of name brand, i would foresee them being the added civ

 

[Plains-Cow]

Roman Empire>Kingdom of Jerusalem>Modern Israel

You know, because it's all Jerusalem, right?

 

[Siptah]

Roman Empire>Kingdom of Jerusalem>Modern Israel

You know, because it's all Jerusalem, right?

Hopefully, it would be Outremer instead of just Jerusalem. But I find it highly unlikely. The game should give you the mechanics to do what the Crusaders did with any civ, not have one focused on it. It would be a bit like having New Spain as a civ next to Spain…

Modern Israel is probably too recent and a pick that many potential players wouldn’t like to have represented. I don‘t think we‘ll ever see it unless it comes paired with a Palestine civ in the same age.

 

[moondog385]

Modern Israel not making it into the game is something I can say with >99% confidence.

I do wonder if the age system kind of crowds out the chance for ancient Judea/Israel though.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Modern Israel not making it into the game is something I can say with >99% confidence.

I do wonder if the age system kind of crowds out the chance for ancient Judea/Israel though.

Only a suspicion, but based on the limited Civ slots/Age and some of the minor states/powers that have been seen, Judea might better be represented as one of the Minor States/City States in Antiquity.

 

[Zaarin]

Only a suspicion, but based on the limited Civ slots/Age and some of the minor states/powers that have been seen, Judea might better be represented as one of the Minor States/City States in Antiquity.

I tend to agree. The major powers in Canaan were, at all times the region was independent, Philistia and Phoenicia. Phoenicia waxed as Philistia waned. On which note, I'd happily accept a Philistine civ (but not at the expense of a Phoenician civ--and I would prefer the civ be called Phoenicia rather than Carthage).

 

[Krikkit1]

I tend to agree. The major powers in Canaan were, at all times the region was independent, Philistia and Phoenicia. Phoenicia waxed as Philistia waned. On which note, I'd happily accept a Philistine civ (but not at the expense of a Phoenician civ--and I would prefer the civ be called Phoenicia rather than Carthage).

That might be interesting…have the Age2 major religions start in former/current city states

So no holy city in the capital mega city.

 

[moondog385]

Only a suspicion, but based on the limited Civ slots/Age and some of the minor states/powers that have been seen, Judea might better be represented as one of the Minor States/City States in Antiquity.

I forgot about independent people. You’re right — that would be a great way to implement them.

 

[j51]

I forgot about independent people. You’re right — that would be a great way to implement them.

It would be cool if by interacting enough with an IP you could then have the option to progress to their successor civ in the next era. For example Egypt buying mercenaries from, or annexing Koumbi Saleh (Soninke) could unlock Songhai. That would certainly make more sense than “well, they’re both African.”

PS: Did someone else say this before? I can’t remember.