Tercios, evolving UUs, and anachronism

[AriochIV]

Civilization has always (since Civ5 at least) been problematic in this sense, ever since they got rid of multiple tech inheritances. We've long had Caravels shooting cannons completely independently of whether we have technology for gunpowder.

The issue, I think, is that the more realistic the depictions of units become, the more glaring the inherent contradictions seem. When it was just one icon bonking into another one, nobody cared. I think maybe it's time to un-dumb the tech tree.

 

[UWHabs]

It would be cool to have units get UI upgrades when they get tech upgrades - even in civ 6, it would have been neat to have like a default GDR unit, and each tech that unlocks an upgrade, maybe one of them would add a rocket pack on its back, another would add a rocket launcher over its shoulder, etc... (obviously that would be hard, since you can unlock them in varying order). But for units needing linear upgrades, it would be neat to have them change the unit model. So maybe the Legion starts plainer, and then when you unlock the tier 3 upgrade they add armor to the unit. Maybe the devs will be able to add that functionality in later in the dev cycle

 

[Krajzen]

I am mystified as to how they're going to do it. Buganda would probably have a spearman or war canoe UU, while Meiji Japan would probably have a fighter jet or a battleship

Maybe they'll figure out some small elite unit of Bugandan soldiers armed with modern (for their day) armaments and tactics, or go for some Bugandan military unit within colonial Ugandan army of ww1 or ww2... I hope so, at least

OR maybe modern era does begin way before 19th century after all (remember, Mughals) and they will be very early unit for that era, dedicated to fight cavalry charges? Bugandan spearmen would be passable as a functional military unit in the 17th century.

 

[gdr_willter]

OR maybe modern era does begin way before 19th century after all (remember, Mughals) and they will be very early unit for that era, dedicated to fight cavalry charges? Bugandan spearmen would be passable as a functional military unit in the 17th century.

The only problem will be the name of the unit. Unless it, the idea of the upgradable Modern UU from spearmen to riflemen sounds good enough.

 

[Uberfrog]

I am mystified as to how they're going to do it. Buganda would probably have a spearman or war canoe UU, while Meiji Japan would probably have a fighter jet or a battleship

We have seen a modern infantry unit that could be a Bugandan unique, a mixed unit with riflemen and javelineers.

From Arioch’s site:

 

[Zaarin]

Civ games don't take place on Earth (unless you're playing on a premade Earth map, of course) and don't follow real history, so I don't really care whether cultures are accurately represented. Stereotyped or caricatures are just fine - as a Norwegian I enjoyed the "Viking" civ in Civ IV even though there was never a "Viking civilization" and the representation was just a generic mishmash of Norse cultures.

I do however care whether the game makes historical sense as a fictionalized history on a fictional planet. And that's where things like units using guns before their invention bother me. And the way tech trees after Civ IV don't adhere to any kind of cause and effect or logical progression.

I guess we care about different parts of history. I care that the civs are well-researched and portrayed in a manner that's both interesting and historical; I don't really care about unit lines since as a peaceful player I build as few as I can get away with anyway. That being said, there is a gaping chasm between "could be better researched" and "patently offensive"; Civ4's Vikings were in the first category, Native Americans were in the second. It was roughly the equivalent of having an "Africa" civ led by Mansa Musa with an Impi unique unit and a Mastaba unique building or an "Asian" civ led by Tokugawa with a Madrasa unique building and Keshig unique unit. (I won't even use Europe as an example because by comparison European cultures are closely related, which is not to say I'd be fond of a "Europe" civ, either.)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I guess we care about different parts of history. I care that the civs are well-researched and portrayed in a manner that's both interesting and historical; I don't really care about unit lines since as a peaceful player I build as few as I can get away with anyway. That being said, there is a gaping chasm between "could be better researched" and "patently offensive"; Civ4's Vikings were in the first category, Native Americans were in the second. It was roughly the equivalent of having an "Africa" civ led by Mansa Musa with an Impi unique unit and a Mastaba unique building or an "Asian" civ led by Tokugawa with a Madrasa unique building and Keshig unique unit. (I won't even use Europe as an example because by comparison European cultures are closely related, which is not to say I'd be fond of a "Europe" civ, either.)

No question, ignorance of the reality makes a lot of gaming much more palatable. Not knowing very much about Southeast Asian developments in history and historical technology, I am not put off personally by some sailing ship from somewhere in the region having the wrong sailing rig. On the other hand, having a background in European and Classical Hellenistic military history makes me far more sensitive to apparent mis-steps in their depiction - probably far more than they deserve, come to that.

The problem is when the mis-step includes changes in actual game-play that introduce Fantasy into a game that, no matter how poorly, bills itself as historically-based. If that Southeast Asian sail depiction includes making the ship cross open ocean far earlier than they did, it is simply Wrong unless they have other evidence that the capability was there. Spanish Tercios that exist a 1000 years before they actually did - no problem, it's just a graphic glitch - unless they also get the factors of early muskets 1000 years before anybody actually had them, then it becomes a Fantasy unit hiding under a historical graphic, and is both wrong and, frankly, dishonest.

The Spanish civilization may be well-researched and portrayed in a manner that's both interesting and historical - I like the depiction shown so far in Civ VII as emblematic of Spain in the great Age of Expansion 1450 - 1650. But I cannot play that civ with a unit that, if the graphics are matched by the factors, is 1000 years too early and therefore warps the capabilities of Spain throughout the entire Age: to me that is OP unless I make the conscious decision to play an utterly pacifist Spain throughout the first 90% of the Age. That might be interesting, but it warps most of the other attributes given to Spain in the Age and makes playing the Civ a non-starter - there are other Civs far better designed for pacifistic, non-expansionist Play styles.

 

[Zaarin]

No question, ignorance of the reality makes a lot of gaming much more palatable. Not knowing very much about Southeast Asian developments in history and historical technology, I am not put off personally by some sailing ship from somewhere in the region having the wrong sailing rig. On the other hand, having a background in European and Classical Hellenistic military history makes me far more sensitive to apparent mis-steps in their depiction - probably far more than they deserve, come to that.

The problem is when the mis-step includes changes in actual game-play that introduce Fantasy into a game that, no matter how poorly, bills itself as historically-based. If that Southeast Asian sail depiction includes making the ship cross open ocean far earlier than they did, it is simply Wrong unless they have other evidence that the capability was there. Spanish Tercios that exist a 1000 years before they actually did - no problem, it's just a graphic glitch - unless they also get the factors of early muskets 1000 years before anybody actually had them, then it becomes a Fantasy unit hiding under a historical graphic, and is both wrong and, frankly, dishonest.

The Spanish civilization may be well-researched and portrayed in a manner that's both interesting and historical - I like the depiction shown so far in Civ VII as emblematic of Spain in the great Age of Expansion 1450 - 1650. But I cannot play that civ with a unit that, if the graphics are matched by the factors, is 1000 years too early and therefore warps the capabilities of Spain throughout the entire Age: to me that is OP unless I make the conscious decision to play an utterly pacifist Spain throughout the first 90% of the Age. That might be interesting, but it warps most of the other attributes given to Spain in the Age and makes playing the Civ a non-starter - there are other Civs far better designed for pacifistic, non-expansionist Play styles.

Yes, I certainly wasn't defending Spain having muskets in the 5th century; that bothers me as well. I was simply pushing back against the notion that Civ4 was more historical; from my perspective, the franchise was very flippant and casual about its historical trappings until Civ6 and to a less extent Civ5. I'm heartily on board with an overhaul of the tech tree, which in a multitude of ways could be both more interesting, more complex, and more historical, and I suspect that would create more interesting situations for the people more interested in units than I am, as well.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

We haven't really seen much about units to determine if a gunpowder infantry fights any different than a melee weapon infantry. In Civ 5 and 6, there was no difference. We aren't even sure if the Spearman at Bronzeworking has any kind of anti-cavalry factor and it sure seems to be an infantry class unit.

If there's no real difference between a Man-at-Arms and a Musketman except strength, then I don't really care that much that the Tercio has an anachronistic appearance of too early guns. It will be weird, but only in a way that makes me roll my eyes and keep playing rather than be tempted to fling my computer down the stairs.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

We haven't really seen much about units to determine if a gunpowder infantry fights any different than a melee weapon infantry. In Civ 5 and 6, there was no difference. We aren't even sure if the Spearman at Bronzeworking has any kind of anti-cavalry factor and it sure seems to be an infantry class unit.

If there's no real difference between a Man-at-Arms and a Musketman except strength, then I don't really care that much that the Tercio has an anachronistic appearance of too early guns. It will be weird, but only in a way that makes me roll my eyes and keep playing rather than be tempted to fling my computer down the stairs.

Exactly. Without any information on the factors and effects regarding each unit, we are whistling in the dark and complaining about what may be inconsequentialities.

I can put up with inaccurate graphics (Dog Knows, I put up with club-wielding 'Warriors' and ballet-leaping swordsmen for years in Civ VI!) as long as the Units have effects that are appropriate, and those are so far largely hidden from us.

Tercios, the unit in question, could simply be treated as a slightly better bunch of Spearmen until a 3rd Tier 'Upgrade' gives it a pre-melee Ranged Factor ('volley of musketry') with the advent of Gunpowder: simple, appropriate, and a fairly accurate representation of the early Tercio's 'extra' effectiveness.

 

[Takfloyd]

That being said, there is a gaping chasm between "could be better researched" and "patently offensive"; Civ4's Vikings were in the first category, Native Americans were in the second. It was roughly the equivalent of having an "Africa" civ led by Mansa Musa with an Impi unique unit and a Mastaba unique building or an "Asian" civ led by Tokugawa with a Madrasa unique building and Keshig unique unit. (I won't even use Europe as an example because by comparison European cultures are closely related, which is not to say I'd be fond of a "Europe" civ, either.)

There really wasn't much of a difference between those examples, the Vikings had a semi-legendary Swedish and Danish king in front of a Norwegian stave church that wouldn't be invented until several centuries later, with caricatured horns on his helmet of course (and the unique units had them too, and were called Berserkers which certainly could be construed as rather offensive).

People just tend to be very eager to be offended on behalf of cultures that are deemed to be "less accomplished" compared to the cultures that led to modern Western civilization. Which I think in itself is kind of condescending towards those cultures in a way, as if they need our "protection" against misrepresentation.

 

[Zaarin]

There really wasn't much of a difference between those examples, the Vikings had a semi-legendary Swedish and Danish king in front of a Norwegian stave church that wouldn't be invented until several centuries later, with caricatured horns on his helmet of course (and the unique units had them too, and were called Berserkers which certainly could be construed as rather offensive).

People just tend to be very eager to be offended on behalf of cultures that are deemed to be "less accomplished" compared to the cultures that led to modern Western civilization. Which I think in itself is kind of condescending towards those cultures in a way, as if they need our "protection" against misrepresentation.

You completely warped what I said to fit your narrative, which is probably as good a sign as any that nothing productive can come from continuing the discussion.

 

[gdr_willter]

There really wasn't much of a difference between those examples, the Vikings had a semi-legendary Swedish and Danish king in front of a Norwegian stave church that wouldn't be invented until several centuries later, with caricatured horns on his helmet of course (and the unique units had them too, and were called Berserkers which certainly could be construed as rather offensive).

People just tend to be very eager to be offended on behalf of cultures that are deemed to be "less accomplished" compared to the cultures that led to modern Western civilization. Which I think in itself is kind of condescending towards those cultures in a way, as if they need our "protection" against misrepresentation.

Please protect us :/

 

[chaosprophet]

We haven't really seen much about units to determine if a gunpowder infantry fights any different than a melee weapon infantry. In Civ 5 and 6, there was no difference. We aren't even sure if the Spearman at Bronzeworking has any kind of anti-cavalry factor and it sure seems to be an infantry class unit.

If there's no real difference between a Man-at-Arms and a Musketman except strength, then I don't really care that much that the Tercio has an anachronistic appearance of too early guns. It will be weird, but only in a way that makes me roll my eyes and keep playing rather than be tempted to fling my computer down the stairs.

I agree with you in that it wouldn't bother me, but would be nice if they eventually add visual difference to those unit tiers to make them more in line with the tech level in which you unlock each tier.

 

[Uberfrog]

I agree with you in that it wouldn't bother me, but would be nice if they eventually add visual difference to those unit tiers to make them more in line with the tech level in which you unlock each tier.

Yeah, perhaps it’s too much to expect and harms unit readability, but it would be cool to see units evolve over the Age.

 

[chaosprophet]

Yeah, perhaps it’s too much to expect and harms unit readability, but it would be cool to see units evolve over the Age.

Agreed, albeit with them giving lots of variations for buildings and units based on things like the civ and region, I think they already not giving unit readability much care anyway, and give things like more cultures representation on the art priority over it.

 

[Siptah]

Yeah, perhaps it’s too much to expect and harms unit readability, but it would be cool to see units evolve over the Age.

If other games get away with customizable equipment for units, civ should be able to get away with swords/pikes/arquebuses and have the units be discernible . I assume that the culturally diverse units already mean that they have a standard unit and animation, and just attach clothing and weapons.

 

[Arcaian]

There really wasn't much of a difference between those examples, the Vikings had a semi-legendary Swedish and Danish king in front of a Norwegian stave church that wouldn't be invented until several centuries later, with caricatured horns on his helmet of course (and the unique units had them too, and were called Berserkers which certainly could be construed as rather offensive).

People just tend to be very eager to be offended on behalf of cultures that are deemed to be "less accomplished" compared to the cultures that led to modern Western civilization. Which I think in itself is kind of condescending towards those cultures in a way, as if they need our "protection" against misrepresentation.

Just to be clear, your statement here is that there isn't "much of a difference" between the cultural homogeneity of 9th century Norse cultures and all of Asia, Africa, or North America?

 

[j51]

They should really give the Tercio more buffs and make it only build at the middle of the Exploration age if they’re not gonna give it crossbows instead of guns at first.

Maybe in general they should remove gunpowder as a technology on the tree and replace it with something called like Musketry? Considering how many special units with gunpowder come before the tech.