Speculating on (Historical) Civ Progression

[Australopithecine]

An historical path for Mayas beyond Mexico could be Guatemala you know

Still, I don't believe that Firaxis would made civ switiching obligatory, that's such weird and polemic decision...

I think the current design forces civ switching. Each civ has a set of assets created per era. Unless they create sharable, or more generic asset sets, then there won't be anything to use in the next era. Can't stay in huts in the modern era, or have skyscrapers in the ancient. Having unique assets per civs add to the look and feel a lot, but also detracts from modding, and civ retention.

Perhaps they can find a balance in the end, between generic reusable asset sets, and specific flavour.

 

[Jkchart]

This is more of a wishlist but I would love to see three stages of Armenia since you can get the Ancient Kingdom of Armenia, Cilician Armenia, and a more modern one now, we’ve also never gotten them and it’s a fascinating civilization imo

 

[Xandinho]

Still, I don't believe that Firaxis would made civ switiching obligatory, that's such weird and polemic decision...

There should be an option where, if a civilization successfully manages the crises at the end of an Age, switching to a new civ isn't mandatory. Changing civilizations should only be required if the current one "collapses" at the Age's end due to poorly handling the crises.

 

[Krikkit1]

There should be an option where, if a civilization successfully manages the crises at the end of an Age, switching to a new civ isn't mandatory. Changing civilizations should only be required if the current one "collapses" at the Age's end due to poorly handling the crises.

Batter to have an option to keep the Civ's Name/flag/city list regardless of whether you do well/poorly in the crisis

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Sparta, Athens, Mycene, Macedonia, Acheian, Aeolians, all of these are pre-decessors to both Byzantium, Magna Grecia (South Italy future Borbonic Norman Empire of the two sicilie) , without even mentioning Crete and Rhode, which were also their own kind of micro-states, but included many of the upper afore mentioned Hellenenistic cultures, and Pelasgians, and Dananites, as well. Aeolians were expulsed from Greece by Acheian league and some re-settled in Etruria, assimilating with the Etruscan civ, which was already there, if we are to listen to Herodotus. Armenia also were expulsed from Turkey and later re-settled in modern Greece. This Just for Greece....

If I have to start to think about Egypt, or China... I'm worried this is going to be way more complex... maybe not so much for Egypt as for China, but still...
Upper and Lower Egypt, Nubia, Medi, Persia, Alexander, Rome, Khem, Ottomans, Arabs, Ummayids, etc... It's a complex hystory... All of which can not be just resumed in one or two choices per civ... It feels like every civ should have a lot more choices available... otherwise no matter the similarities, it will be unccurate.

Japan pre Meiji restoration, just another examples... it had Han districts or regions, about 150 of them... If Civ 7 wants to reflects the complexities of games like EU4... really this all about speculation so everything is still possible right??? Like having 150 different choices for the Tokugawa period alone would not be a far cry.... I meanIt looks way better tyo me than just have likeRome to have to choose between Normans or Byzantium...Etruria (Italy) also split in about 50 micro states..

This Civ change crisis split was a bold move, It should follow a complex route, or just stick to a simplistic view for the sake of gameplay and devs sanity?

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Almost all paths are going to be absurd, and basically tangentially related via geography at best.

There’s literally no way to satisfy historical purists with this system—and I dare say it’s 100% impossible in a videogame spanning all of human history in general. It’s just not meant to do that.

Exactly, or they add a enormous amount of choices, reputably acceptable, or almost every decision they will make, will be kinda inappropriate, bc in reality very few civs had a clear path, I can think of Japan, as being one of the very few that had almost zero outside contamination, but having split in the Tokugawawa period in 150 Hans... I feel a minimum of 8-10 choices would be the bare minimum... and out of 10, maybe 1 could involve Mongols, China, or Korea, if during gameplay, one of these civs, or precursor civs ( Mongols precursor civ? Anyone?) had made contact with Japan...

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Ok let me ask you guys a thing that may happen in Civ7 considering the implications of not happening, the fact is that much of the timeframe of what Antiquity will cover, most of the world has "nothing" going on or is poorly understood. That include most of Sub-saharan Africa, non-Andean South America, Southeast Asia, Oceania... I those cases, what would be your reaction if Firaxis decides to go with Bantu, Na-Dene, Jê or Pama-Nyungan as civ options?

Hire an Historian, because as with South America, North America, Africa, and Asia, there are thousands of kingdoms and tribes that anyone that has not a PHD or just has a passion for History of a particular region, can't just do. As I have a passion for Ancient Mediterranean cultures, but only general about the other 75% of the globe and even Medieval European is not just an easy task like riding a bike or something I can do out of plain memory...

Aka, more complex routes and interlocking choices is a plus, but has to be done with accuracy. I'd love to learn new names and banners of Ancient-Medieval tribes from outside Europe.

 

[Jabberwockxeno]

An historical path for Mayas beyond Mexico could be Guatemala you know

Still, I don't believe that Firaxis would made civ switiching obligatory, that's such weird and polemic decision...

I suggested the Zapatistas because the Maya were a significant part of it and because I imagine Maya > Guatemala holds a similar postcolonial sentiment as Shawnee > United States. TBH I don't expect to see Guatemala or the Zapatistas.

It is Definitely Obligatory. It flows out of the whole “Ages” mechanic.

Best I can see is hopefully they have the ability to preserve the old civs name (and city names, flags)
say you get the option of
Maya->Aztec(Maya) or Maya (Aztec)
and then
Aztec(Maya)->Mexico (Aztec, Maya) or Aztec (Mexico, Maya)
or
Maya (Aztec)->Mexico (Aztec, Maya) or Maya (Mexico, Aztec)

With custom civ name’s also being an option.
So That way Maya can into space (or Rome, Babylon, Poland, Mongols, Smurfs, Gondor, etc.)

I think the least-bad Modern option for the Maya (and to a lesser extent other Mesoamerican civs) would be Chan Santa Cruz, which was a Neo-Maya state that got British recognition in the 19th century: It had that for a period of around 40 years, and treaties weren't signed between it's leadership and Mexico till the 1930s, so it was around for a few decades to arguably almost a century.

I still don't think it's *great*, because it would presumably still use the same asset set that Mexico or Guatemala or Peru would use, so it still carries the implication that you got colonized even if you were in the lead, but it's the least bad option aside from changing the mechanic so you don't have to switch civs, or inventing a hypothetical modern civilization.

There should really ideally also be a Exploration Era version of the Maya, since they were very much still around during that period. Could primarily be based on the League of Mayapan. That being said, i'd pick the Purepecha Empire or probably even the Mixtec (still hoping they can maybe get promoted out of being an Indepedent People in DLC) over Mayapan if I had to pick between one or the other. (I really hope that North America, Mesoamerica, and the Andes *each* get 2-3 civs for each the Antiquity and Exploration eras for the base game)

 

[Nic@Melbourne]

Yes, Ottomans - Turkey Republic and Tsarist Rusia - Soviets are two plausible Exploration to Modern choices.

Ironically both share some historic claims to be "succesors" to the Antiquity Roman Empire. Altough both claims being flimsy due to similarity of cultures, they are probably even stronger (historically) than the commented Rome->Normans

Based on what we have seen so far with Meji Japan and The Mughals being modern civs. Think it’s unlikely we will see many current national states. Ottomans will likely be modern.
Nationalism and ideologies will likely be later game mechanics.

Greece or Rome > Byzantium > Ottomans
Huns or Scythia > Bulgaria or Kievian Rus > Russian Empire
Goths > Norse > Sweden or Denmark

 

[Nic@Melbourne]

Carthage > Kingdom of Castile > Spain and Mexico
Build 3 Harbors* > Portugal > Brazil

Will Civ VI’s Dido’s move capital be a standard ability in new eras?

 

[Krajzen]

Spain is one of those civs who have a lot of sensible pathways, so it's going to get quite exciting once we get some modded civs

In the first age it can start from Celts, Iberians, Carthage, Rome, matbe even Goths (Visigoths) if you stretch it

And in the second age it can go as said Visigoths, Asturias, Castille, Aragon, hell even Navarra or Islamic civs

 

[Krajzen]

It is worth noting that with the transition system certain civs get very important argument regarding adding them to the game - when they act like crucial transition steps for other civs

For example
- ancient Slavs (I would love such civ anyway)
- ancient Germanics (really any tribe, Goths would probably feel the coolest)
- Celts/Gauls
- "Nordic" civ (Germanic -> Nordic -> modern countries)
- Scythians again, for steppe peoples?
- Bantu would help a lot and be another very interesting civ (Humankind has Bantu as a culture)

Honestly big brain move and also awesome civs would be Indo-Europeans, Indo-Aryans, Indo-Iranians etc as they would be wonderfully flexible to transition to a lot of civs, while also being super interesting on their own - and we couldn't get them in any previous game due to lacking leader figure.

 

[Uberfrog]

Honestly big brain move and also awesome civs would be Indo-Europeans, Indo-Aryans, Indo-Iranians etc as they would be wonderfully flexible to transition to a lot of civs, while also being super interesting on their own - and we couldn't get them in any previous game due to lacking leader figure.

I think they should steer clear of such proto-linguistic groups. There’s very little remaining evidence of material culture to develop into a distinct and meaningful civ. Just look at Humankind’s Bantu culture - city names that are various translations of the word “village” and unique units and infrastructure that can be summed up as “they sure liked to eat and move around a lot”.

 

[Josephias]

Spain is one of those civs who have a lot of sensible pathways, so it's going to get quite exciting once we get some modded civs

In the first age it can start from Celts, Iberians, Carthage, Rome, matbe even Goths (Visigoths) if you stretch it

Goths (Visigoths), is not even a stretch. List of Goth kings of Hispania was a recurring meme as some of the pointless things to learn in old Spanish history textbooks, but proves the high regard in which they were considered for Spanish history. Still in modern times, the basis for a “unified” Spain (besides Catholic Kings and so on) is traced back to Leovigild-Recared unification of the peninsula and conversion to Catholic faith (from Arrianism). So, goths are pretty central on Spanish history.

More of a stretch, but still plausible, would be an historic path from an Islamic polity (as they for sure did leave as well a relevant footprint in Spanish culture, even if nowadays is not fashionable to recognize it). Abbasids could not be, though - besides age, Al-Andalus stayed proudly Ummayad when the Abbasids took power in the rest of islamic world.

Age, as I don’t see Spain moving from exploration age to modern, being such a power on that age and strong in its major objectives (exploration, colonization, movement of goods), while for many centuries weaker in modern ages and modern age objectives (industrialization, applied science,...). So unfortunately I think we are not likely to see Castille or Aragon (which, btw, is a minor but has remarkable Uniques that could be nice to see, but is difficilt to fit)

Based on what we have seen so far with Meji Japan and The Mughals being modern civs. Think it’s unlikely we will see many current national states. Ottomans will likely be modern.

Same reason why i think Spain will remain in exploration age, is the same I don’t think Ottoman empire will be Modern either (Existing or not a modern Turkey in modern era). Strengthts and remarkable feats of ottoman empire are expansion and control of the trade in the Silk route, which I feel more suited for exploration Age, while falling behind in Modern age until being the "sick man of Europe".

On the other hand the same argument (in part) validates the efforts of Russian Empire for being Modern (altough this makes the Soviets fall out of place, as they won't make the cut for a post-WW era), with maybe Muscovy (or Kievan Rus, although it might bee too erly and touchy nowadays) as predecessor in Exploration Age.

 

[AntSou]

There should be an option where, if a civilization successfully manages the crises at the end of an Age, switching to a new civ isn't mandatory. Changing civilizations should only be required if the current one "collapses" at the Age's end due to poorly handling the crises.

How do you handle it in practice?

Civs are designed with their era in mind. And they have specific buildings and units, appropriate to their era. Just buffing the buildings and units sounds a bit lame.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Question for everyone: Is you opinion Civ Progression effected by where you are from? I'm from the USA so it makes sense historically and will not force the design be era appropriate.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Question for everyone: Is you opinion Civ Progression effected by where you are from? I'm from the USA so it makes sense historically and will not force the design be era appropriate.

Not sure about that. I'm German and I'm perfectly aware that there has not always been the same Germany as we know of today (as a matter of fact, it is a "younger" country than the US, being founded under Bismarck in the late 19th century). I don't have a problem having a historically justifiable switch between peoples, but having switches like Rome -> Mongolia because some (from my point of view) random achievements have been made. I'm aware that other people have different opinions on that, but I don't think that has anything to do with the country you are from.

 

[Mudokon Pop]

I think they should steer clear of such proto-linguistic groups. There’s very little remaining evidence of material culture to develop into a distinct and meaningful civ. Just look at Humankind’s Bantu culture - city names that are various translations of the word “village” and unique units and infrastructure that can be summed up as “they sure liked to eat and move around a lot”.

I get what your saying but I'm not sure how much scope there is for representing antiquity for some regions. The Civ7 team might do a better job than the Humankind team. At the very least they could find a way to represent the Bantu period iron working - metal working and other polluting industries (leather tanning ect..) were usually not done within Bantu towns/cities but rather in it's own district.

 

[El Castellano]

Spain is one of those civs who have a lot of sensible pathways, so it's going to get quite exciting once we get some modded civs

In the first age it can start from Celts, Iberians, Carthage, Rome, matbe even Goths (Visigoths) if you stretch it

And in the second age it can go as said Visigoths, Asturias, Castille, Aragon, hell even Navarra or Islamic civs

Without a doubt, the Iberian Peninsula is quite interesting to include civilizations.
In the ancient age you can put: Carthage, Rome, Celts, Iberians (Tartessos), and Visigoths.
In the age of exploration you can put: Castile, Aragon, Portugal, Al-Andalus.
And in the modern age to Spain.

Some example paths could be:
Goths-> Castile-> Spain
Mauritania-> al-Andalus-> Morocco
Rome-> Aragon-> Italy
Carthage-> Portugal-> Brazil

Age, as I don’t see Spain moving from exploration age to modern, being such a power on that age and strong in its major objectives (exploration, colonization, movement of goods), while for many centuries weaker in modern ages and modern age objectives (industrialization, applied science,...). So unfortunately I think we are not likely to see Castille or Aragon (which, btw, is a minor but has remarkable Uniques that could be nice to see, but is difficilt to fit)

It must be recognized that if Spain had not reached the present, the world would not have mops.

Mop - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The truth is that being an important actor in geopolitics is not as relevant to appear as a civilization in the Civilization saga. There are several civilizations that could not have representation if that rule was followed, such as American natives, Georgia or Buganda. So, I think it could be. The key is if the developers find a fun, interesting and different gameplay to that civilization. And if that civilization is popular or not to the public.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

besides age, Al-Andalus stayed proudly Ummayad when the Abbasids took power in the rest of islamic world.

On a pedantic note, they didn't "stay Umayyad"; as the Umayyad Caliphate succumbed to chaos the Fihrids took over their Iberian possessions. After Damascus fell to the Abbasids, an Umayyad prince fled to North Africa, where he mustered an army of loyalists and set off to Iberia, defeating the local Fihrid rulers and establishing his own independent state