Speculating on (Historical) Civ Progression

[Xandinho]

Modern Russia is where the problem really lies. Assuming Modern Age starts around 1800 with Industrialization and all the Social/Political problems associated, then the 225 or so years since have been 118 years of Imperial Russia, 71 years of the Soviet Union, and about 33 years of the current Russian State. That last has the problem that all of its leaders are too recent and the other problem is that neither the Soviet Union nor the post-Soviet Russian State leave a good feeling behind when contemplating them.
On the other hand, Imperial Russia post 1800 doesn't provide a lot of historically-accurate decent Leaders either. They could use some distinctly Off The Wall leaders, though: Rasputin springs to mind, or Bakunin the Anarchist. What the heck, if they can have Napoleon the Corsican Ogre as a Leader, why not the Mad Monk or a Leader who was steadfastly against any form of government? Think of the attributes either one could get . . .

It seems like they're going to add Great People who weren't exactly historical leaders as leaders in Civ (see Confucius). Then they can solve this leader problem by adding Tolstoy or Dostoevsky as Russian leader of Age 3. Well, I love Russian literature, so I wouldn't complain.
Just kidding, I still prefer an emperor, even if he wasn't very iconic.

 

[Zaarin]

Then they can solve this leader problem by adding Tolstoy or Dostoevsky as Russian leader of Age 3. Well, I love Russian literature, so I wouldn't complain.

I was actually going to suggest Tolstoy, who wasn't a politician but was a political theorist, but both Tolstoy and Dostoevsky had political philosophies that were quite contrary to the Russian Empire, even though both loved their Russian heritage deeply. (Though they wouldn't be the first Civ leader who was mechanically or thematically an odd fit for their civ.) If Civ7 chose to really fixate on Russia's Orthodoxy (like Civ6 did), then Dostoevsky might at least be a decent fit.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Rasputin springs to mind,

Fine, you convinced me. Sorry Catherine, but I guess I'll take Modern Age Imperial Russia as long as Rasputin is their designated leader.

 

[Mudokon Pop]

Catherine the Great was a contemporary of Benjamin Franklin. I think she could lead a modern era Russia.

Unless Fireaxis are going to pull a wildcard and have an Age of Discovery '13 Colonies Civ'.

 

[Zaarin]

Catherine the Great was a contemporary of Benjamin Franklin. I think she could lead a modern era Russia.

Unless Fireaxis are going to pull a wildcard and have an Age of Discovery '13 Colonies Civ'.

Having the United States in two Ages wouldn't shock me just because the US is such an enormous market and the devs are American. However, given that civs and leaders are no longer directly tied, it's equally possible Exploration Age Ben Franklin leads Modern Age United States.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Having the United States in two Ages wouldn't shock me just because the US is such an enormous market and the devs are American. However, given that civs and leaders are no longer directly tied, it's equally possible Exploration Age Ben Franklin leads Modern Age United States.

As well as Exploration Age Samuel de Champlain leading Modern Age Canada.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

They could opt for Novgorod as Age 2 Russia if Kievan Rus' isn't feasible, or even Muscovy.

Right after I wrote that last post I sat down to dinner and immediately realized the possibilities I'd left out:

Exploration Russia grew politically out of Moscow, because Moscow was the one central Russian city-state that had access to all the major rivers: Dvinia to the northeast, Dnestr/Don to the south, Dnepr to the west, Volga to the east. That meant Moscow had access to everywhere from China to London by river or sea, a major advantage over the other cities.

But since, short of TSL maps, Civ never puts the same starting city in the same place, that doesn't matter. So, Exploration Age Russia could be:

Merchant-Republic of Novgorod with Leader: Aleksandr Nevskii - plenty of name recognition, and a different mercantile/economic basis for the Civ instead of religious or industrial or militaristic.

City-State of Vladimir with Leader: Dmitrii Donskoi - who was Grand Prince of Vladimir while also Grand Prince of Moscow, and is also a Saint of the Orthodox church as well as the victor over the Tatars at Kulikovo: potentially, then, a Leader with Religious/Cultural as well as military chops. Vladimir happened to be on the Volga, but otherwise could get the same kind of attributes given to Muscovy: location and its consequences was practically the only difference between them.

And if we are looking for non-political Leaders for Modern Russia, may I suggest:

Aleksandr Sergeivich Pushkin: not only widely considered the greatest poet and master of the Russian language, but also a revolutionary dissident.

I still think Rasputin or Bakunin would be more fun, though: and for an outrageous combo, Imperial Russia in the Modern Age with Trotsky as Leader would be a hoot. If nothing else, Trotsky is full of tremendous potential Quotes:

"You may not be interested in War, but War is interested in You."

"The quickest way to demoralize the enemy is to kill him in large numbers."

 

[Siptah]

So I started a little puzzle and thought experiment for myself for the civs and progressions. I assume that all civs lead to at least two others and each civ has at least two leading to them. It may be a results of these thoughts that I believe we will have more civs in the later ages than in the first. I also assume 15 max per age. It's clearly not finished, but I'm not sure when I'll have more time to continue, so I thought I'd share the WIP.

Some comments:
- I tried to include any civ that we have confirmed or heavily hinted at. I'm unsure about Russia's placement, so I didn't include it yet.
- some connections are far fetched or only possible with a certain quirky viewpoint on it (Han > Majapahit, Greece > Netherlands)
- some civ choices are completely left field for no good reason (Turkey, Algeria)
- some are without any hints or precedents but seem likely to me (Argentina instead of Brazil)
- some are just there because I would like to have them and they would make good options to later transition onto others or the other way round (Caral, Champa, Safavids)
- I haven't put any arrows from Age 2 to 3 because it looks so messy and I would probably need to reorganize the whole thing accordingly and/or use combined arrows or a circular diagram. But these can be filled in thought.

Spoiler :

View attachment civ_7_civs.jpg

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

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.

When I was maybe seven or so my whole extended family was playing a game of Trivial Pursuit. One of the questions was something to the effect of “Which country has the most house fires?” All of the adults were speculating that it must be Africa. Even at that age I knew Africa was a continent and not a country, but despite saying so out loud, I was ignored and a group which contained two school teachers, a history buff, and multiple college graduates (wrongly) guessed “Africa”.

The point being, despite the fact that a few folks on this forum might see “African” as a tenuous connection for civilizations, the overwhelmingly vast majority of folk would find that association obvious.

 

[Mudokon Pop]

When I was maybe seven or so my whole extended family was playing a game of Trivial Pursuit. One of the questions was something to the effect of “Which country has the most house fires?” All of the adults were speculating that it must be Africa. Even at that age I knew Africa was a continent and not a country, but despite saying so out loud, I was ignored and a group which contained two school teachers, a history buff, and multiple college graduates (wrongly) guessed “Africa”.

The point being, despite the fact that a few folks on this forum might see “African” as a tenuous connection for civilizations, the overwhelmingly vast majority of folk would find that association obvious.

Sadly I'm not surprised. Your absolutely right that most people won't care - largely because they don't know anything about Africa.

While on the topic of Africa - I still hope there's a West African Antiquity civ. The kingdom of Wagadu (also called Ghana - not to be confused with modern Ghana) has it's origins from the 4th or 5th century (perhaps even earlier) according to archaeologists. However it's peak was clearly in the middle ages.

 

[Rac]

Sadly I'm not surprised. Your absolutely right that most people won't care - largely because they don't know anything about Africa.

While on the topic of Africa - I still hope there's a West African Antiquity civ. The kingdom of Wagadu (also called Ghana - not to be confused with modern Ghana) has it's origins from the 4th or 5th century (perhaps even earlier) according to archaeologists. However it's peak was clearly in the middle ages.

The options for Antiquity West Africa civ would either go most likely to the Nok culture (central Nigeria) or Djenné-Djenno (surprise, near modern Djenné in Mali), you could go with Dhar Tichitt if really to go deep... Sao culture in Chad is also an option, you could go the route Humankind made and pick the Bantu since they originated between Nigeria and Cameroon.
About the Wagadu / Ghana / Soninke, have been already shown as an independent power with Koumbi Saleh as their city, so at least on release they aren't a option

 

[Mudokon Pop]

About the Wagadu / Ghana / Soninke, have been already shown as an independent power with Koumbi Saleh as their city, so at least on release they aren't a option

I missed Koumbi Saleh as an independent power. Thanks for the info.

The Tichitt culture would be my preference - even if they are quite obscure. Sadly most online images claiming to be from Dhar Tichitt are of much later ruins.

I think it'd be very hard to create a unique units/buildings for archaeological cultures. The more I think about it - I don't think any of the above cultures are likely.

 

[Professor Phobo]

It seems like they're going to add Great People who weren't exactly historical leaders as leaders in Civ (see Confucius). Then they can solve this leader problem by adding Tolstoy or Dostoevsky as Russian leader of Age 3. Well, I love Russian literature, so I wouldn't complain.
Just kidding, I still prefer an emperor, even if he wasn't very iconic.

I want a Franz Kafka leader, but only if, completely at random, every so often his model is replaced by a giant cockroach.

 

[ggalindo001]

If modern Russia is the Soviet Union, that would be super weird and uncomfortable IMO. (If it's Imperial Russia...it's a stretch, but I can think of worse stretches.)

I actually feel the opposite -- and this opens the door for the potential of multiple "modern" game civs that we think about as one civ. The beauty in this model being explored is that we could actually see Three (or more) Modern Age "Russian" Civs -- Czarist Russia, USSR, Post USSR Russia.

Same with China, Japan, Poland, France to name a few.

I know there are certain taboos here that won't be crossed (1933-1945 Germany, 1920-1945 Italy, 1861-1865 Southern US) -- I'm not of the view that the 1917-1991 USSR is in the same taboo category. Nor do I think that 1949-present China would be in that taboo category (or even Sun Yat-Sen China)

I'm sure such (if moddable) will be modded. This is where I really think that the model being explored by the Devs on "civilization changes" could really open mods and/or DLC choices that far expand what we see from the community with Civ 5 and Civ 6.

Now -- hopefully they can be modded......that is the big question mark.

 

[Zaarin]

I actually feel the opposite -- and this opens the door for the potential of multiple "modern" game civs that we think about as one civ. The beauty in this model being explored is that we could actually see Three (or more) Modern Age "Russian" Civs -- Czarist Russia, USSR, Post USSR Russia.

Same with China, Japan, Poland, France to name a few.

I know there are certain taboos here that won't be crossed (1933-1945 Germany, 1920-1945 Italy, 1861-1865 Southern US) -- I'm not of the view that the 1917-1991 USSR is in the same taboo category. Nor do I think that 1949-present China would be in that taboo category (or even Sun Yat-Sen China)

I'm sure such (if moddable) will be modded. This is where I really think that the model being explored by the Devs on "civilization changes" could really open mods and/or DLC choices that far expand what we see from the community with Civ 5 and Civ 6.

Now -- hopefully they can be modded......that is the big question mark.

I think you quoted me out of context. I wasn't objecting to the possible presence of Soviet Russia. I was saying Byzantines > Soviet Union would be a weird chain, given that the Soviet Union suppressed the Russian Orthodox Church.

 

[ggalindo001]

I think you quoted me out of context. I wasn't objecting to the possible presence of Soviet Russia. I was saying Byzantines > Soviet Union would be a weird chain, given that the Soviet Union suppressed the Russian Orthodox Church.

Zaarin -- my bad. Thanks, I initially read it differently, but now fully understand where you are going with it. And would agree -- that would be a bit of a weird chain.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I actually feel the opposite -- and this opens the door for the potential of multiple "modern" game civs that we think about as one civ. The beauty in this model being explored is that we could actually see Three (or more) Modern Age "Russian" Civs -- Czarist Russia, USSR, Post USSR Russia.

Post USSR Russia would probably be the worst thing possible, right now.

 

[CrackerJack45]

Hmm, I wonder what they'll follow the Abassids up with in the modern era? I dont imagine they'd put the Ottomans in modern over exploration.

 

[Vahnstad]

For Russia, exploration & modern era Russia is probably the easiest to decide. It has to be sovjet Russia for modern Russia. And tsarist Russia (preferrably maybe not a Romanov but a Rurikovich?) and potentially a varangian/kyiv Russia for exploration era. And i don't know enough about an antiquity slav civ to judge about that.

I want to note though that they don't require a leader and that sovjet Russia also is for most part controversial because of our western bias and also current events adding to more Russophobia.

Rasputin, Ivan The Terrible, Rurik etc. can all be great leaders i guess.

 

[Vahnstad]

Hmm, I wonder what they'll follow the Abassids up with in the modern era? I dont imagine they'd put the Ottomans in modern over exploration.

Probably into nothing or Atatürks Turkey at best? I guess there's an off chance for Saudi Arabia civ, and if not than likely a Maghreb one (like Morocco). Turkey has been a fan request though for quite some time, and some people (Turks often) ended up being mad because the Ottomans made it in over Turkey. Now there is a way to get both. Turkey would be one of the least controversial picks also for a modern civ in that area of the world.