Speculating on (Historical) Civ Progression

[Republic of San Montuoso]

Egypt into Songhai is insulting on so many levels. They have just been lumped together with no logical reason other than an ignorant thought process that all africans are the same.

Apparently, Romans will be able to evolve into Normans. What's the logical reason behind that other than a thought that all Europeans are the same? Normans conquered some periphereal parts of the Roman Empire at best, and resisted even christianization long after the Western Roman Empire would fall. What would be the reason behind it, then?

A vague geographical proximity is OK, I think, for a "historical" pathway. After all, Abbassids are just a "natural" successor because they invaded the same plot of land, but behind that, culturally, religiously, politically, I kinda fail to see the connection between the old kemetic kingdoms and the islamic caliphates. Justifying continuity by sheer geographic happenstance, especially in a game where the map might and often will have nothing to do with our real world, is weak in my opinion.

Dunno. This has been said for decades. But games like Europa Universalis and Crusader Kings always got away with having Tibet. They would make a nice Age of Exploration civ for sure. In worst case, it could be a DLC that's not available in PRC.

Those games kinda have to have Tibet, as they are representing the real world map, so if Tibet wasn't there, what would they put in there place? Just a swap of unsettlable land? That would be even more jaring.

However, including Tibet as a civ is an entirely different concept, as you perfectly can have a civ game without Tibet (as shown with the six first iterations). Adding Tibet in EUIV is kinda inevitable; adding Tibet in a civ game is a clear, voluntary choice.

 

[ButtBillionaire]

As someone interested in playing as Sweden, if I understand the age system correctly, Sweden will only be available as a civilization in the modern age, assuming Sweden is included at all.

Could the Vikings be the exploration-age civilization that eventually transitions into Sweden? So: ? > Vikings > Sweden?

What could the antiquity-age civilizations be that transition into the Vikings?

Denmark, Norway and Sweden could all viably be Exploration Age or Modern Age civs, seeing as they all existed as kingdoms during medieval times (which is when the Exploration Age begins) and, though with various interruptions (even though the thrones never ceased to exist), obviously still exist today.

Personally, I'm hoping the "Vikings" don't return. It was a job description, not a people. I'd prefer "Norsemen" if an Exploration Age civ for Denmark, Norway and/or Sweden to transition into is needed and assuming that they would be placed in the Modern Age, even though I'd slightly grit my teeth at it. The Icelandic sagas I've read seemed careful to distinguish themselves from "eastmen" (Norwegians) and other Germanic peoples, and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle distinguishes between Danes and Norwegians.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

A vague geographical proximity is OK, I think, for a "historical" pathway. After all, Abbassids are just a "natural" successor because they invaded the same plot of land, but behind that, culturally, religiously, politically, I kinda fail to see the connection between the old kemetic kingdoms and the islamic caliphates. Justifying continuity by sheer geographic happenstance, especially in a game where the map might and often will have nothing to do with our real world, is weak in my opinion.

Well, Egypt has to transform into someone else in the Exploration Age, so whom would you recommend?

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

I think the game needed a Medieval Age before the Exploration Age. Four Ages total would feel better.

I'm expecting that to happen in an expansion. No way they will leave this at 3 ages.

 

[Pedro P]

I'm expecting that to happen in an expansion. No way they will leave this at 3 ages.

It would be pretty hard to add a new age if a lot of the Exploration Age civs are already medieval entities. Would those just be removed from that age and used in the new age? Same thing with technology, early exploration age is all dark ages to feudal tech.
If there is a new age, I could see it being an Age 4, with Age 3 ending in Climate Disaster and Nuclear War crisis, and age 4 being a higher tech age. And even that seems unlikely.

 

[pokiehl]

It would be pretty hard to add a new age if a lot of the Exploration Age civs are already medieval entities. Would those just be removed from that age and used in the new age? Same thing with technology, early exploration age is all dark ages to feudal tech.
If there is a new age, I could see it being an Age 4, with Age 3 ending in Climate Disaster and Nuclear War crisis, and age 4 being a higher tech age. And even that seems unlikely.

I agree. The entire game seems built around this idea of 3 ages. Seems farfetched and at odds with many fundamental design choices to add more.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

Adding new ages just seems like a great way for Firaxis to sell expansions. I'm sure they could reconfigure Civ progression and make everything work

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I think they will add more Ages later on. From the BBC article:

Moving between ages seems to be linked to crises - like barbarian invasions, civil wars and plagues - though exactly how this will work is unclear.

Mr Beach said it develops a "cool cycle that you go through three times in the game that we're releasing here at launch" - a sentence I told him sounded suspiciously like Firaxis might be considering adding further cycles and empires in the future.

He wouldn't be drawn on it.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

I think they will add more Ages later on. From the BBC article:

Just seems like low hanging fruit to me. Especially if they will be developing this game for years. The Middle Ages being missing from the game is so glaring. The 3 age system just looks very basic to me

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

The Middle Ages being missing from the game is so glaring.

I believe it's there, it's just mashed up with the Renaissance in the Exploration Age. I'm basing this on the fact that the Abbasids are an Exploration civ, despite definitely being a Medieval one. If I'm right, when they release the Medieval Age, they'll just break it off from the Exploration

 

[Arcaian]

A vague geographical proximity is OK, I think, for a "historical" pathway. After all, Abbassids are just a "natural" successor because they invaded the same plot of land, but behind that, culturally, religiously, politically, I kinda fail to see the connection between the old kemetic kingdoms and the islamic caliphates. Justifying continuity by sheer geographic happenstance, especially in a game where the map might and often will have nothing to do with our real world, is weak in my opinion.

But what geographical proximity is present for the Egypt -> Songhai transition? To the best of my knowledge the closest parts of their borders were about 2,500-3,000km away from each other. If we're calling the geographical proximity, we can justify Egypt to Ukraine about as easily (and at least the geographical areas were vaguely in contact with each other in the form of the Cimmerian colonies (through a layer or two of neighbours).

(also the Abbassids as a state continued to include Egyptians - obviously the culture, religion, and political system changed significantly over time, but there's a continuity of people between the Egypt of the Antiquities and (parts of) the Abbassids in the Exploration to a meaningful degree)

 

[Siptah]

But what geographical proximity is present for the Egypt -> Songhai transition? To the best of my knowledge the closest parts of their borders were about 2,500-3,000km away from each other. If we're calling the geographical proximity, we can justify Egypt to Ukraine about as easily (and at least the geographical areas were vaguely in contact with each other in the form of the Cimmerian colonies (through a layer or two of neighbours).

(also the Abbassids as a state continued to include Egyptians - obviously the culture, religion, and political system changed significantly over time, but there's a continuity of people between the Egypt of the Antiquities and (parts of) the Abbassids in the Exploration to a meaningful degree)

Geography as in both flourished along big rivers in otherwise rather arid places! So... Babylon and Harappa could also turn into Songhai... yeah... That's not it.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

But what geographical proximity is present for the Egypt -> Songhai transition? To the best of my knowledge the closest parts of their borders were about 2,500-3,000km away from each other. If we're calling the geographical proximity, we can justify Egypt to Ukraine about as easily (and at least the geographical areas were vaguely in contact with each other in the form of the Cimmerian colonies (through a layer or two of neighbours).

Considering Songhai goes into Buganda I would assume the common denominator is Africa. Not that I agree with this sentiment, but this seems to be how many of the paths might go.

 

[moysturfurmer]

I think they will add more Ages later on. From the BBC article:

Yeah most people would hate this but I would be tickled pink if some really wild future scenario gets added as some stupid capstone DLC in a few years time. The Consolidated Nations of Europe vs Neo Abyssinia vs The Grand American Theocracy using GDRs and Genome Marines and Neuro-Cultists and Spidertanks to fight over potable water or morph all of humanity into the Machine-Legion.

 

[Mudokon Pop]

I believe it's there, it's just mashed up with the Renaissance in the Exploration Age. I'm basing this on the fact that the Abbasids are an Exploration civ, despite definitely being a Medieval one. If I'm right, when they release the Medieval Age, they'll just break it off from the Exploration

Given the explorations done by Arab geographers during the 9th - 14th centuries, I think Age of Exploration is quite fitting. There was a major expansion of Polynesian explorations at this time too.
The Middle Ages saw Arab, Norse & Polynesian explorations, followed by Chinese and European explorations from the 15th century onwards.

 

[Professor Phobo]

Yeah most people would hate this but I would be tickled pink if some really wild future scenario gets added as some stupid capstone DLC in a few years time. The Consolidated Nations of Europe vs Neo Abyssinia vs The Grand American Theocracy using GDRs and Genome Marines and Neuro-Cultists and Spidertanks to fight over potable water or morph all of humanity into the Machine-Legion.

yesss put it into my veins i need exactly this expansion pack

 

[Krikkit1]

But what geographical proximity is present for the Egypt -> Songhai transition? To the best of my knowledge the closest parts of their borders were about 2,500-3,000km away from each other. If we're calling the geographical proximity, we can justify Egypt to Ukraine about as easily (and at least the geographical areas were vaguely in contact with each other in the form of the Cimmerian colonies (through a layer or two of neighbours).

(also the Abbassids as a state continued to include Egyptians - obviously the culture, religion, and political system changed significantly over time, but there's a continuity of people between the Egypt of the Antiquities and (parts of) the Abbassids in the Exploration to a meaningful degree)

Egypt isn’t close to Songhai, but Egypt is one of the closest to Songhai. (especially traveling like people did in era 1 and not by plane)

If they added an Era1 Nok civ then Songhai would probably get unlocked by Aksum and Nok (and Egypt could unlock Abbassids and… some other civ)

 

[Mudokon Pop]

Egypt isn’t close to Songhai, but Egypt is one of the closest to Songhai. (especially traveling like people did in era 1 and not by plane)

If they added an Era1 Nok civ then Songhai would probably get unlocked by Aksum and Nok (and Egypt could unlock Abbassids and… some other civ)

If the Hausa are the modern era successors to the Songhai then Fireaxis should've picked Kanem-Bornu instead as the Kanuri diaspora were very influencial in Hausaland.

I also wonder if Buganda will be preceded by the Kitara Empire - a mythological Great Lakes Kingdom that has some archaeological historicity backing it. Interestingly the Lunda & Luba kingdoms from the Kongo region claim descend from the Great Lakes region as do the Zulu. I'm not saying they all descend from this kingdom but it's a link nonetheless.

 

[Xandinho]

Could "Iceni > Ireland > Scotland" make a good Celtic path?

 

[Mudokon Pop]

Could "Iceni > Ireland > Scotland" make a good Celtic path?

Irish person here - I'd say no. Iceni were a small British Celtic tribe. If you can have the Gauls as one civ in Civ6 then you can have the Britons as one civ too. The Britons can become the Welsh or the Bretons and maybe Scotland.

And if we're doing that - why not the Gaels as a Civ? The Gaels migrated from Ireland into Scotland in pre-history (there's no known date).

Scotland is an interesting one - they can descend from the Irish (Gaels), the Picts, the Britons, the Anglo-Saxons, the Normans etc..
Ireland is much more limited with this mechanic.
The medieval Scottish kings claimed descent from the Irish which gives you Ireland > Scotland > United Kingdom.

Or "Irish/Gaels > Normans > Scotland"