Speculating on (Historical) Civ Progression
- Thread starter thecrazyscot
- Start date
I‘m not sure civ VII (or any civ game really) is the right game for you if you expect such things. Have you tried any of the Paradox Grand Strategy Games or Old World? They might cater your liking more.
This may have been mentioned already, but where will the Germanic civs come from? Do you think they have an antiquity era civ (Goths?) or will they have to go via Rome/Greece? I hope those two aren't the only starting points for anyone who wants to play Germany in the modern era and still go down a historical path.
CrackerJack45
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2024
- Messages
- 42
I think with the Mausoleum of Theodoric as a wonder the Goths are all but confirmed
mitsho
Deity
The Celts (or Gauls) are also another option for the Teutons / Germanics / German / Holy Romans. If they name it the latter, the Romans should certainly unlock them. But Goths for sure. And the playstyle unlock will be having lots of wood. Or having a very decentralized empire. 
On that note, I'm kinda surprised they are keeping the infos there a bit on the backburner, Germany is a rather big market with lots of gaming media and lots of interest in strategy games. I feel, correct me if I'm wrong.
On that note, I'm kinda surprised they are keeping the infos there a bit on the backburner, Germany is a rather big market with lots of gaming media and lots of interest in strategy games. I feel, correct me if I'm wrong.
Any game that aims to simulate even a fictional civilisation must take into account the circumstances, history, births, deaths, and events, even if simulated and fictional, still create a history of a fictional nation. Making lists of civilisations without a historical process. Simulated events with causes, effects, revolutions, wars, etc. are useless, harmful and ridiculous.
That's why Siptah suggests Civ may not be the game for you; Civ does not aim to be a simulation, nor has it ever done so.
An ambitious and modern game with a strong ai must overcome the limitations of the first civ and aim for pure non-historical simulation of history
j51
Blue Star Cadet
Seriously. Try EU4. Soon there will be an EU5.
j51
Blue Star Cadet
untitledjuan
Warlord
That's an awesome looking chart. Great work! May I ask what font are you using for the text of the chart?
As a side note, It would be great to have a Rome>Castile>Spain option in the game at some point. Spain, legally speaking, became a unified Kingdom of Spain, in 1714. Before that, it was a personal union of the Crowns of Castile and Aragon (and Navarre, Sicily, New Spain, etc.). It was not until the absolutist Bourbons came to power in the 1700's that Spain became, in a legal sense, a unified kingdom.
That would allow for an "Exploration Era" Castile Civ focused on, well, exploration, conquest and colonization. Then, for the "Modern Era", Castile can switch into Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, maybe even into the USA (due to California, Texas, Florida, etc.) or into a culture and tourism Spain Civ, considering the artists and writers that Spain has had during the 19th and 20th century, such as Picasso, Dali, Goya, etc., as well as the fact that is one of the most visited countries to this day.
El Castellano
Warlord
In addition, Castile has other potential alternative aspects that could also develop. Such as trade with cities and towns of other continents, advantages related to religion, or even relationated with diplomatic aspects. I hope that the Iberian civilization that they put in the age of exploration will be fun to play, flexible (I do not like rigid civilizations that force you to play yes or yes in a certain way), and refreshing with respect to what was seen in other civilizations games (but with a reasonable base, of course).
fira vuoleis wants to make a narrative game it must necessarily simulate events and revolutions to justify the change of eras. Yes the end of antiquity and historically the 476 AD but it is not so for. India the beginning of the modern era and 1492 but in the Vatican states they condemned Giordano bruno and Moderna retract galileo . In the Muslim world 1492 is less important than in the West . Epochs are just names that historians create china india, they were not at the technological level of the west
I really, really dislike Mughals being somehow era 3 civ. Does anybody have any idea why on Earth would Firaxis do this?
Mughal empire lasted from the early 16th century till the first years of the 18th century when they completely collapsed in all but name. It's a quintessential gunpowder empire from the exploration era - Mughal fantasy is wielding huge armies with gunpowder, cannons and elepehants, and then building magnificent architecture. Mughal rivals are Marathas, Sikhs, and other early modern Indian empires.
And we get them for the modern industrial era, which covers the period 1800 - 2050(?) - instead of simply getting modern Indian state. What?
What are they supposed to do with industry and modern military, they lost their empire almost 100 years before that era and more than 200 before India started indepenently industrialising!
The only argument I can think of is Firaxis somehow getting invested in the idea of this enabling alt hist of Mughals surviving till the 21st century which is like, what? It's like making era 3 civs Prussia, Sardinia-Piedmont, Ottomans, Wallachia and Qing, instead of Germany, Italy, Turkey, Romania and China. Though they'd all be much more sensible choices as those were actually significant states in the 19th century, unlike... Mughals.
Mughal empire lasted from the early 16th century till the first years of the 18th century when they completely collapsed in all but name. It's a quintessential gunpowder empire from the exploration era - Mughal fantasy is wielding huge armies with gunpowder, cannons and elepehants, and then building magnificent architecture. Mughal rivals are Marathas, Sikhs, and other early modern Indian empires.
And we get them for the modern industrial era, which covers the period 1800 - 2050(?) - instead of simply getting modern Indian state. What?
What are they supposed to do with industry and modern military, they lost their empire almost 100 years before that era and more than 200 before India started indepenently industrialising!
The only argument I can think of is Firaxis somehow getting invested in the idea of this enabling alt hist of Mughals surviving till the 21st century which is like, what? It's like making era 3 civs Prussia, Sardinia-Piedmont, Ottomans, Wallachia and Qing, instead of Germany, Italy, Turkey, Romania and China. Though they'd all be much more sensible choices as those were actually significant states in the 19th century, unlike... Mughals.
Last edited:
moysturfurmer
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2010
- Messages
- 1,463
I’m firmly part of the camp that they’re saving some of our contemporary nations for a 4th Age. India (vs Mughal), Germany (vs Prussia), China (vs Qing), United States (vs a more colonial focused America) etc. I feel like it’s quite telling the modern version of France is “French Empire” and not simply “France.”
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2017
- Messages
- 3,871
Well, a few things. One, I think the modern age actually encompasses a wider time period than you think. Even the early 1700s represents a peak of Mughal power though. Two, an age of modern nation states would be really boring. It’s cooler to have these historical entities, and the set up of the Modern Age in turn facilitates more choices and continuity in the Exploration Age (meaning instead of just Maurya and Mughals, now we get Chola in between).
Overall this setup creates fewer stark jumps in time and cooler historical faction choices.
I agree with Pokiehl. They seem to be avoiding modern nation-states where possible, and I'm 100% behind that. Indeed, it allays a major fear of mine that I just wouldn't want to play the final third of the game when all the interesting civs were gone.
As with others said above, they seem to be avoiding the name of modern countries, when applicable. This is further given the fact that modern Japan is referred to Meiji Japan, and according to reports modern China is Qing China. I wouldn't be surprised if Ottomans, Safavid Persia are Modern as well if the timeline of the start of the Modern Age seems to be closer to 1700.
The Khmer are also all but confirmed to be Antiquity, due to Angor Wat being built by the Maurya, so the timeline is already stretched.
You may have a point with it being called the "French Empire." It would coincide with Meiji Japan, and presumably the British being based off of Victorian Era Great Britian.
I still don't think that means it's likely that a Contemporary 4th Age. I know many people wouldn't want to play with Republic of India, PRC, Soviets, Australia etc. all as endgame options. I also think there will just be one America.
Similar threads
