Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by acluewithout, Dec 11, 2018.
I wouldn't be too sure of that if I were you.
I think it's okay to have them as long as historical civilizations are always priorities.
But I do not think they will cut them because they have big markets to attend now. So yes, most likely we will see Brazil, Canada and Australia in civ7 again. I would only put Brazil in the first expansion and Canada/Australia in the second or third expansion. Maybe not having another modern nation in the base game besides America would calm a lot of people.
My thinking with colonial civs is... we just have to have them, really.
I’ve played Australia. They are fun. I think Brazil is also a great design and are fairly powerful. I’ve expressed views about America before. Overall, I’m never that excited about them, but they fill a niche in the game and in the playerbase. And the options for implementing them - without radically changing the game - are very limited.
So, yeah, let’s have colonial Civs.
I’d just like a little more control over colonial Civs in my game (I.e.the power to exclude them), I’d like the game to do colonialism better overall (I.e new world lands, with unique resources and technologically more primitive people; colonies and more complex loyalty issues; emergence of “new” powers (maybe), and I’d really, really like a proper scenario focusing on colonization.
That said. There are probably enough colonial Civs in the game that you could probably have a Mechanic where one or two “colonial” Civs appear late game and rapidly develop, and start causing... trouble. That would work really well with the new World Congress mechanics and the current allies mechanics. But maybe that’s a bit much to ask for.
I'm a bit biased, but I think Mexico should have been the next colonial civ over Canada. More interesting, longer history, etc.
Firstly I’d say hate is too strong a word, I dislike Colonial Civs in the game. For me the game is about following the journey of a people from ancient times to the modern era. In the case Civs like the French and Russians even Romans, the ancient people are their ancestors that become French etc. This doesn’t quite fit for the colonies, as for me they are part of the motherland civ, in saying this I don’t mean to devalue the contribution these modern nations have made to the world. It’s just the way I feel. People will like to dislike Colonial Civs for other reasons and those feelings are just as valid.
Will have to disagree there. By that token ancient civs don't have a place because they're not around today.
Also if that were the case America never would have been in the first civ game
I think there needs to be a time/size and impact ratio that matters: the later you civilization emerged, the more it needs to have had a major impact on world events (or regional, if its a large region) and be prominent geographically. I think it can be presumed that the older the civ, the longer its actions have had time to reverberate and shape history. So Babylon, Judea and Persia would be more formative and "civ-worthy" than modern incarnations of Israel, Iraq or Iran.
So, the question is who's impact/newness ratio thrusts it overboard, and the only immediate obvious choice is America. America as a world powerhouse and exporter of its culture can't be reasonably question. Also, I think if there had been a Soviet Union civilization separate from Russia, that could also have been a candidate. Brazil, Mexico, Australia, Argentina and Canada have not to me achieved that level of prominence since their relatively short existence.
I could see an argument for Colombia, because even though it was short lived it was massive and had such a profound, lasting legacy impact on nearly third of the world. But that's kind of it.
I really think that Civ VII should be a return to blob civs with competing bonuses that you can play for over time to shape your civ. But you can't do everything, there's different social policies/techs for each civ group that let you shape yourself. So you start as something like the Bretons generically with a handful of special abilities, and if you develop naval bonuses you're England or you can get Hills-related and herding bonuses to become Scotland. Later in the game if you go cultural/air power you morph into America, if you play peaceful and invest in railways you're Canadian, or if you've settled mostly on coasts and pump up your pasture bonuses you end as Australia.
I can think of a more obvious four.
We have 3 former British colonies now, yet 0 Spanish ones. If there is another expansion I'd welcome a Hispanophone former colony just to "balance" that.
Yeah I know the ancients aren't around but in my game it's "What If". And even though America has been a Civ from the start doesn't mean I like them in it. For me they are the same as the other Colonials. I'm a Kiwi of British and American descent and I don't want New Zealand in either.
> Complains game is too eurocentric
> Oh nos that civ was a colony
I'm honestly sick of people decreeing whether a country is important enough to appear in a video game. I'd rather there be more new choices.
So it's "what if," but only what if on your terms? If that's what you wish I guess. If you want to play to the extremes, there are only a handful of them are "ancient" civilizations--all others are derivatives. Everyone's from somewhere else, and took their ideas and identities from someone else. That didn't start in the 1600s.
I don't really have an issue with it, but I can see how the "sameness" in history can start to grate on people (not to the extent it seems to).
I dislike the designs of the 4 colonial Civs. They don't seem completely well researched or just plain don't make sense.
No offense to the colonial Civ lovers!
Besides the obvious statement that players are totally entitled to their preferences... it doesn't seem to me that these questions around "who gets to be a civ" pan out well. I've read elsewhere on these forums, there are only a very few (China, India...?) civs that span the whole 4000BC to 21st century game. Does mainstay "Germany" have a longer history than the United States, Mexico, or Canada? Is it the same civilization that spans Arminius to Bismarck, and is it different from Austria? Lots questions... little consensus.
Australia is kind of fun. The rest are kind of "blah" for now.
I do enjoy their culture bombs!
I don't mind having colonial civs in the slightest, so long as they're interesting.
Though Canada is bland, IMO, that's what mods are for. I doubt it will take long for somebody to do a more interesting rework of them.
As for colonial inclusions in general, I say let Firaxis do it. It's their game, and their income. Let them target markets, and let modders handle some of the more obscure civs.
I think Australia is well represented, and America is not so bad, I agree on the other two.
I haven't seen a Maya mod for Civ6 yet. Sukritact's Ethiopia mod is great though.
Do we actually get more choices, though? FXS stated themselves on the stream that once you hit ~40 civs, you reach a point of saturation that makes further civ design a challenge. Assuming the same model as Civ 5, you will be limited to ~40 official civs, and that's it.
If the pool was potentially infinite, then no one would object to adding colonial civs. Sadly, the number of slots is limited.
Separate names with a comma.