Speculating on (Historical) Civ Progression

[Krajzen]

As with others said above, they seem to be avoiding the name of modern countries, when applicable.

Why do you think are they doing that?

 

[Fummy]

A lot of people are debating what counts as "Modern Age" civs and the more I think of it the more I see the problem. The problem is them calling the Medieval-Renaissance "Exploration Age" for some bizarre reason. If they just called it the Medieval or "Middle Ages" then there would be no doubt as to whether Mughals or Buganda counted as Modern or not.

Personally it feels like they chose to skip the Medieval for some reason to do with "not every civilization in the world has an equivalent to the middle ages or a 3 age model of history". Then why did you divide it into 3 at all?

 

[Zaarin]

Why do you think are they doing that?

Probably to avoid controversy (I mean...how many people want the Islamic Republic of Iran or the PRC in the game?), with the added benefit for people who don't find modern politics interesting.

A lot of people are debating what counts as "Modern Age" civs and the more I think of it the more I see the problem. The problem is them calling the Medieval-Renaissance "Exploration Age" for some bizarre reason. If they just called it the Medieval or "Middle Ages" then there would be no doubt as to whether Mughals or Buganda counted as Modern or not.

Personally it feels like they chose to skip the Medieval for some reason to do with "not every civilization in the world has an equivalent to the middle ages or a 3 age model of history". Then why did you divide it into 3 at all?

I think it's more likely that, as Paisley_Trees points out in her video, that they're interpreting the age of exploration as beginning with the Norse and Polynesian expeditions starting in the 10th century.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Why do you think are they doing that?

Because if you look at the game being primarily alt history, I assume most people want to still play with historical cultures, and not modern-nation states. That would mean Ottomans over Turkey, Mughals over India, Safavids over Iran, Qing over PRC etc. Also note that France in game is specifically referred as the (First) French Empire.

 

[moysturfurmer]

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.

I mean, this is the same series that featured Mao & Stalin in some of the pre-V games, and featured Australia in the most recent one. I’m not sure modern nations are as big a political minefield as some here claim. It’s possible they could try to distance those civ’s abilities from the more sensitive aspects of modern nations, but given how Firaxis has represented China and Russia in the past, it’s difficult to say it’s a nonstarter for them. I wouldn’t expect them to go “The People’s Republic of China” when “China” is such a less loaded way to refer to it (and, again, a name that Firaxis seems to have left out of the base game, if leaks are to be believed)

Suppose it remains to be seen when exactly the Modern Age ends. But I don’t see them completely ignoring the past 40 years of technological and cultural development, and the gameplay mechanics they can bring.

 

[moysturfurmer]

Probably to avoid controversy (I mean...how many people want the Islamic Republic of Iran or the PRC in the game?), with the added benefit for people who don't find modern politics interesting.

Re: Iran, they could still find their way into a 4th age with representation by a pre-1978 Revolution. Joseon could be (South) Korea, Russian Empire could be represented by a Gorbachev era Russia, etc etc. The conflicts and sensitivities of today don’t necessarily need to color the representation of some of the more delicate nations in a theoretical 4th age.

 

[Krikkit1]

I mean, this is the same series that featured Mao & Stalin in some of the pre-V games, and featured Australia in the most recent one. I’m not sure modern nations are as big a political minefield as some here claim. It’s possible they could try to distance those civ’s abilities from the more sensitive aspects of modern nations, but given how Firaxis has represented China and Russia in the past, it’s difficult to say it’s a nonstarter for them. I wouldn’t expect them to go “The People’s Republic of China” when “China” is such a less loaded way to refer to it (and, again, a name that Firaxis seems to have left out of the base game, if leaks are to be believed)

Suppose it remains to be seen when exactly the Modern Age ends. But I don’t see them completely ignoring the past 40 years of technological and cultural development, and the gameplay mechanics they can bring.

Especially with all the modern nation states that established a post colonial Identity different from the local precolonial one.

I don't think they would release the base game with only up to say 1970s tech tree (Where the US gets the space victory win of the Space Race by returning people from the moon)

I also don't think it would be a good idea to go past 3 Ages, except in a mod/scenario

But the idea that wouldn't have China or India in the Modern Age... instead we might get the Qing Republic (or People's Republic), and newly independent Mughals does seem a bit wierd.

Letting people rename/keep civ names and city list could help that (if someone wants to play Stone->Space Iran... they can start with Antiquity Persia, Rename it Iran and just keep the name while they get new civs)... If I get the Qing, I can rename it China.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I mean, this is the same series that featured Mao & Stalin in some of the pre-V games, and featured Australia in the most recent one.

I mean I'm in the minority considering Australia is one of my favorite civs to play as, so I don't have a problem with them either. Regarding the other two, there's a reason why they haven't been portrayed since Civ 4.

 

[Zaarin]

Re: Iran, they could still find their way into a 4th age with representation by a pre-1978 Revolution. Joseon could be (South) Korea, Russian Empire could be represented by a Gorbachev era Russia, etc etc. The conflicts and sensitivities of today don’t necessarily need to color the representation of some of the more delicate nations in a theoretical 4th age.

I think the third age will go into the near-future, just like it always has; I don't see the value of 200 turns of the past half-century--or even the past half-century plus a few decades.

 

[luca 83]

Every epoch should have its correspondents tsarist russia, nicolas I alexander II nicolasII communism lenin, stalin, krushev, brezhnev, gorbachev, there can be no stalin in the tsarist epoch

 

[Krajzen]

The other problem with naming modern states explicitly "x people's republic" is that, well, that country may have a different government in game

 

[Fummy]

The other problem with naming modern states explicitly "x people's republic" is that, well, that country may have a different government in game

I thought about that. The best way to do it would be to change the civs name like how leader titles changed in previous games based on gov type. chiefdom = United Tribes of America, autocracy = American Empire, classical republic = Republic of America, democracy = United States of America, communism = American People's Republic.

This would be controversial as to what each of the names should be, but would simply require a look-up table to implement. Even a mod maker could add this (along with leader titles changing again as they should)

 

[Josephias]

A lot of people are debating what counts as "Modern Age" civs and the more I think of it the more I see the problem. The problem is them calling the Medieval-Renaissance "Exploration Age" for some bizarre reason. If they just called it the Medieval or "Middle Ages" then there would be no doubt as to whether Mughals or Buganda counted as Modern or not.

Personally it feels like they chose to skip the Medieval for some reason to do with "not every civilization in the world has an equivalent to the middle ages or a 3 age model of history". Then why did you divide it into 3 at all?

The easier explanation is thinking it the way around: they did not set-up the ages and planned the game around them, but planned the gameplay and then made up the ages to fit it, even if some historical deviations are hit: just pretend everithing fits.

Gameplay wise, don't take me too seriously , but I'm starting to think it is an attempt to actually match the 3/4X...

> Xplore: Ancient age (yep, even with the name of the second age ): get to know the world around you, set-up your way to interact with it, define your direction
> Xpand: Exploration age: Reach all the corners of the map, be there before others, go wide
> Xploit: Modern age: with most of the map already claimed, make up the most of your cities with scientific, cultural and industrial progress...
*

Civs are set temathically-wise in these concepts. Mughals are Modern as they focused on exploiting the wealth of India, Spain is probably Exploration because it focused more in claiming new land than in building up its core, and so on...

*wonder if this means a 4th age theme would be actually Xterminate... not politically correct, but might be fitting actual history nevertheless

 

[luca 83]

I thought about that. The best way to do it would be to change the civs name like how leader titles changed in previous games based on gov type. chiefdom = United Tribes of America, autocracy = American Empire, classical republic = Republic of America, democracy = United States of America, communism = American People's Republic.

This would be controversial as to what each of the names should be, but would simply require a look-up table to implement. Even a mod maker could add this (along with leader titles changing again as they should)

Yes, and leaders should also change in nasen epochs: a modern ai should be able to do so

 

[Rac]

That's an awesome looking chart. Great work! May I ask what font are you using for the text of the chart?

I used Roboto Mono my beloved, now on the Castile/Spain thing, the main proff we have is a screenshot of a Norman unit (with the Norman flag) fighting against a unit with the flag of the Spanish Empire (the Cross of Burgundy)... Unless that is lit. Bungundy (that would be funny), we are dealing with Spain and not Castile here I think.

I really, really dislike Mughals being somehow era 3 civ. Does anybody have any idea why on Earth would Firaxis do this?

This also gave me a lot of itch. Of course, the Mughals are incredibly fundamental to modern India, but for the sake of periodization, why didn't they include them as an alternative to the Cholas in the 2nd Age? After all, India IS diverse and having it represented with multiple options instead of a single path is the best way to get rid of the impression of it being a monolithic thing. But to be more honest, I think the Mughals are in Modern simply because of a lack of slots in Exploration. I'll use Humankind just as a reference.

Spoiler The comparisson using the current know roster :

You would expect that the Civ 7 system would have a periodization similar to HK but with each Age being equivalent to 2 HK's Eras... In theory. By the choices of civs done/speculated they probably are considering their Modern starting in what would be half-Early Modern in HK I think, and this might have been done to "try" solving the overcongestion that Exploration is; picture this, before the launch of HK a ton of people asked why didn't Medieval where splited in since it covers too much time (it's about one millennium, but no one talks about Ancient and Classical millennial sizes, but details) and the reason is that too much important and relevant stuff happens in that period, you couldn't do a theorical Norsemen > Rus > Mongolia, or Tang > Song > Mongolia, or Göktürk > Uyghur > Kyrgys > Liao > Mongolia, or a Sassanid > Umayyad > Abbasid > Seljuk > Mongolia... Lot's of Mongolia huh, but anyways you get the point, you can only do one of these at a time and have an weird centenary gap between your choices. Civ 7 Exploration Age has this same problem but worst since it also put the 1500's in the mix, so you can literally have +1000 years gap between the civs you chose... So it doesn't surprise me they went with Mughals in Modern, I don't like it but it's a solution of the overcrowding of Exploration, personaly I would have them saved for DLC and picked Maratha instead, but the Mughals ARE the big name in India history.
Speaking of it, why not just our contemporary India? Welp, you know pretty well that a DLC being Gandhi & India would sell like CRAZY, so my bet is that, they just wanted to be DLC. I don't think theyr are avoiding current nation states, that would be so silly considering the Age mechanic IMO

 

[El Castellano]

I used Roboto Mono my beloved, now on the Castile/Spain thing, the main proff we have is a screenshot of a Norman unit (with the Norman flag) fighting against a unit with the flag of the Spanish Empire (the Cross of Burgundy)... Unless that is lit. Bungundy (that would be funny), we are dealing with Spain and not Castile here I think.

The Tercios had the obligation to carry the Burgundy cross by order of the Habsburgs of Castile, so it is not uncommon for them to appear with that flag. Even so, the Burgundy cross is an inheritance of Burgundy that arrived in Castile with the arrival of the Habsburgs to the Castilian throne. At that time, the Hispanic Monarchy was a crown with multiple independent kingdoms led by the Habsburgs of Castile.

So the use of that flag does not imply that it is Spain and not Castile.

The most logical thing would be that the Tercios were a unit of Castile. Leaving to the Spain of the Bourbons period for the Modern Age. Another thing is that they do not want to do that, and they put Spain in the Age of Exploration without more. What would be a shame.

 

[luca 83]

Re: Iran, they could still find their way into a 4th age with representation by a pre-1978 Revolution. Joseon could be (South) Korea, Russian Empire could be represented by a Gorbachev era Russia, etc etc. The conflicts and sensitivities of today don’t necessarily need to color the representation of some of the more delicate nations in a theoretical 4th age.

The change of epoch, even if it would be better if it did not extend to the whole world, should also include a change of ideology, but the change of epoch and ideology comes from revolutions and ideologies: the Romance civil wars from Marius to Silla, to Caesar, and Pompey, and finally the Roman empire, the Russian revolution, France from monarchy to the directoire to Napoleon

 

[queenpea]

I thought about that. The best way to do it would be to change the civs name like how leader titles changed in previous games based on gov type. chiefdom = United Tribes of America, autocracy = American Empire, classical republic = Republic of America, democracy = United States of America, communism = American People's Republic.

This would be controversial as to what each of the names should be, but would simply require a look-up table to implement. Even a mod maker could add this (along with leader titles changing again as they should)

This is how countries are represented in Victoria III for the most part. I would love to see this in Civ 7. However, I think Modern Age France has already been dubbed the "French Empire", though I'm sure this can be changed.

 

[Trengilly]

The easier explanation is thinking it the way around: they did not set-up the ages and planned the game around them, but planned the gameplay and then made up the ages to fit it, even if some historical deviations are hit: just pretend everithing fits.

Gameplay wise, don't take me too seriously , but I'm starting to think it is an attempt to actually match the 3/4X...

> Xplore: Ancient age (yep, even with the name of the second age ): get to know the world around you, set-up your way to interact with it, define your direction
> Xpand: Exploration age: Reach all the corners of the map, be there before others, go wide
> Xploit: Modern age: with most of the map already claimed, make up the most of your cities with scientific, cultural and industrial progress...
*

Civs are set temathically-wise in these concepts. Mughals are Modern as they focused on exploiting the wealth of India, Spain is probably Exploration because it focused more in claiming new land than in building up its core, and so on...

*wonder if this means a 4th age theme would be actually Xterminate... not politically correct, but might be fitting actual history nevertheless

I agree . . . their decision was ALL about gameplay.

A beginning, middle, and final Act. Each with enough time to fully experience the chapter and without making the overall game too long.

This is why I'm 99% certain there won't be any additional acts added (before, in between, or after). More acts would make the game too long, make the Civ evaluation process a complete mess, or would require whole new victory conditions (for a Future Age).

They are already going to be pushing the limits of game length, 450 to 600 turns where you can't just snowball early an then quit while you are ahead.

I suspect there will be a lot of attention put on Single Age games. Each single age game will be a fun short Civ experience and fit in really well with what a lot of players will enjoy. Many people are time limited, multiplayer benefits shorter games, and single age games let you focus on the civilizations that fit that age.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Why oh why is Buganda a choice unlocked by the Abbasids? What are they even trying to do here?

It's a placeholder. Buganda is one of a few revealed Modern Era Civs, and they don't want to spoil too much at once.

If Abbasids truly becomes Buganda via any means pther than "Start as Hatshepsut" i want it retconned out IMMEDIATELY.