We shouldn't expect all the "major" European civs to get modern era representation, and that's okay.

By my count, we probably are going to see most modern civs represented by a leader pathway. Even if what we used to think of as a "civ" doesn't get modern representation, it will likely have its legacy represented by a leader For reference:

Civ VII predictions.png


Here, in my speculation (where I have broken down a pretty likely list of civs, and made sure no leader (except Napoleon) uses the same two-civ start path), you can see "representation" via leaders for:

* Swahili
* Egypt
* Byzantium
* China
* Siam
* India
* Colombia (and vicariously the Isthmo-Colombian states of Venezuela, Ecuador, and Panama, and somewhat Peru and the Yucatan)
* Norway
* Iran/Persia
* Italy (!?)
* Japan
* Polynesia (specifically the Polynesian migration as represented by Samoa, Tonga, Maori, and Hawaii)
* Niger (Hausa), arguably Ghana and Mali representation
* Germany
* Mongolia
* Russia
* Turkey (Ottomans, what we only ever get)
* England/Britain
* Spain
* "Arabia"
* Tecumseh's Pan-Indian Alliance
* France

So in a way, you could think of the game as releasing with, more or less, 22 civs, and all of the expected "modern" civs are present and accounted for, plus some "civs" that were previously DLC: three civs into "Siam," three civs into "Gran Colombia," 3 civs into "Polynesia," Persia, Ottomans, and Mongolia; plus a couple new ones ones: Swahili (primarily Kenya/Uganda), Ghana/Mali/Niger, Italy, and a proper Native American civ at launch.

Actually, if you break this all down and compare, the only civs from VI base game we likely aren't getting representation for are:

* Kongo (replaced by Niger pathway)
* Nubia (replaced conceptually by Aksum and expanded)
* Aztecs (replaced by Maya -> Gran Colombia) (and really, if there has been any expansion on the roster since the screenshots we saw--albeit unlikely since the civs are releasing in alphabetical order followed by leaders if they have any, the Muisca/Aztecs/Mexico are the three civs that absolutely should be added)
* Greece (probably waiting on an Alexander expac)
* Brazil
* Scythia
* Sumeria

That's honestly pretty solid representation to start.
 
It's going to be just a tad more than that for Europe it seems, by my estimates:

* Antiquity (3) : Rome, Greece, Norse.
* Exploration (4): Byzantium, Normans, Spain, probably Teutons or instead HRE or Poland.
* Modern (5-6): Britain, France, Prussia/Germany, Russia, Italy, and maybe Sweden.
It's bold but I like it. I honestly predict instead of the Norse in Anitqiuity, we'd get the Goths. The Goths just make more sense right now to progress into Spain and Teutons/HRE right now.
I think Norse, Denmark, Sweden etc. will be saved for later DLC. I would love to see Italy, but I'm not convinced it will be here for base game. Poland makes sense in the Modern Era, as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, also known as the Polish Republic. That civ, Russia, and Prussia could come easily from a Teutonc civ.
There is, of course, another issue. Assuming only one civ will be able to switch to a specific later era civ in any current game, the lines will be even more broken.

Imo there is no way this civ progression feature won't cause game-breaking issues. Then again, mods may solve them, but even with mods we are looking at each earlier era civ needing a multiple of potential routes due to other civs choosing the more fitting one(s) first. Ultimately, when taken to the extreme, this will just mean you are playing as the same civ you started with=>the fix will be practically a negation of the feature.
I'm sure the developers did design it to where there will be at least 2 "historical" choices for civs to progress. It still might be not ideal, but that will hopefully come with DLC and expansions.
 
It's bold but I like it. I honestly predict instead of the Norse in Anitqiuity, we'd get the Goths. The Goths just make more sense right now to progress into Spain and Teutons/HRE right now.
I think Norse, Denmark, Sweden etc. will be saved for later DLC. I would love to see Italy, but I'm not convinced it will be here for base game. Poland makes sense in the Modern Era, as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, also known as the Polish Republic. That civ, Russia, and Prussia could come easily from a Teutonc civ.

I'm sure the developers did design it to where there will be at least 2 "historical" choices for civs to progress. It still might be not ideal, but that will hopefully come with DLC and expansions.
I'm taking back Sweden after some thought. There's no reason for it to be there when Cnut goes Norse -> Normans -> Britain. But otherwise everything else still holds.

Again, alphabet antiquity theory, Goths' time has passed if they were in the base game. Plus, can I sell you on Henry of Leon leading the Saxons (known as "Vikings") through Norse -> Teuton -> Germany?
 
Tldr, the idea that anyone could become anyone else, given some decisions, is deeply unhistoric.
I honestly would argue that it is substantially more historic than a civilization somehow spanning the time period from 4000 BCE to 2000 CE. The changes will be more than a little painful to look at on release, hopefully helped by later content, but if we're arguing historicity, I don't think it's particularly close. One can argue how much Egypt turned into the Abbasids versus how much they were conquered by them, but it's definitely closer to reality than Egypt somehow still existing unchanged from its original culture by the time the internet was invented, which is functionally impossible.
 
I feel like the concept flows better if you think of it less like the path of a single nation state and more like tracing the history of your Modern Age civ. Don't think that idea is popular or liked, though.
 
I feel like the concept flows better if you think of it less like the path of a single nation state and more like tracing the history of your Modern Age civ. Don't think that idea is popular or liked, though.
it is exactly how Ed Beach described it though, so it makes sense to look at civ progression backwards. Personally, I like both ways and think both should be considered to make fun and versatile transitions possible.
 
I'm taking back Sweden after some thought. There's no reason for it to be there when Cnut goes Norse -> Normans -> Britain. But otherwise everything else still holds.

Again, alphabet antiquity theory, Goths' time has passed if they were in the base game. Plus, can I sell you on Henry of Leon leading the Saxons (known as "Vikings") through Norse -> Teuton -> Germany?
I'm not quite sure those blurry icons were all the Antiquity civs, just the ones for that build. We've seen hints towards Goths, Assyrians, and Achaemenids (there is Sassanid architecture but that might be generic Persian architecture across all the ages because they clearly have an Achamenid Palace and wonder), so I'm not ruling them out yet. I don't think Rome will be the only historical progression to Spain in the base game.
 
You guys have convinced me that, even if we don't
I'm not quite sure those blurry icons were all the Antiquity civs, just the ones for that build. We've seen hints towards Goths, Assyrians, and Achaemenids (there is Sassanid architecture but that might be generic Persian architecture across all the ages because they clearly have an Achamenid Palace and wonder), so I'm not ruling them out yet. I don't think Rome will be the only historical progression to Spain in the base game.
I am now convinced that it's just "Persia." Before the Timurids, which kind of break up the semantic chain for the Persian/Iranian line. It also allows antiquity Persia to be a little blobbier with the Lamassu symbol.

Beyond that, I still think we are looking at Goths and Assyrians being kicked down the road a bit. The base roster I have does lean just a tad on Rome as a starting point (three leader paths for Rome/Italy, America, and Russia, plus a fourth for Napoleon), but the Goths wouldn't really ease that up at all because, while they could make a fantastic throughline for Spain to Italy, Rome is doing that specifically to get to Italy. Rome -> Italy is just a more important narrative the devs probably want to tell. And for mechanical reasons I do think no leader is going to use the same two first civs as any other leader, at least not until we get into redundant leader DLC.
 
And even Maya -> Inca -> Gran Colombia under Bolivar would work as "how Mesoamerica rejected colonialism," albeit by far the least culturally sensitive grouping.
As a Colombian, I don't find it particularly crazy to think about a Inca>(Gran) Colombia progression. After all, the Inca controlled almost all of Ecuador and some southwestern parts of modern-day Colombia.

However, I do think that the Muisca and maybe even the Arawak/Taíno would be better options than the Inca to be "predecessors" of Gran Colombia/Colombia, specially the Muisca. I mentioned the Arawak/Taíno because the language of the Wayuu native people of Colombia and Venezuela is the closest language to Old Taíno that still exists and is kind of widely used to the present-day.

The issue here stems from the fact that there are still Quechua, Chibchan and Arawak speakers in Colombia and elsewhere in South America. Them being replaced by a post-colonial Mestizo/White dominated Civ such as Colombia/Gran Colombia would be a bit problematic in that sense. They are still living cultures, in some sense, they didn't completely fused with the dominant Mestizo/White culture of Colombia, which derives heavily from Renaissance Spanish culture.

Also, regarding Simón Bolívar representing the "anti-colonial" struggle of that specific Mestizo/White Gran Colombian populations against European born Spanish people, he never represented the natives and most of them, specially in Ecuador and Southern Colombia, fought against Simón Bolívar and were later brutally repressed by the post-colonial Colombian troops of Simón Bolívar, due to their support of the Spanish loyalists. That would be like having George Washington representing the "anti-colonial" struggles against the English of a Powhatan>Iroquois>USA progression, it wouldn't make much sense.

With that in mind, Colombia/Gran Colombia still "inherited" many cultural traits from the native cultures that have lived in that territory. For this reason, I thing that progressions from native civs into Colombia/Gran Colombia could work, but a progression from Spain should be taken by the AI first. This would be my ranking in order of "acceptability", so to speak, of progressions into a Gran Colombia civs, from "least insensitive" to "a bit more controversial but doable":

Rome>Castile/Spain>Colombia/Gran Colombia
Any other ancient era predecessor of Spain>Castile/Spain>Colombia/Gran Colombia
Muisca>Spain>Colombia/Gran Colombia (the stereotypical Colombian history school text book experience)
Arawak/Taíno>Muisca>Colombia/Gran Colombia
Muisca>Arawak/Taíno>Colombia/Gran Colombia
Muisca>Inca>Colombia/Gran Colombia

It would be preferrable to have Modern Era Native South American civs so that the Inca, Muisca, Arawak, Mapuche, etc. don't have any other option than to transition into post-colonial or even colonial civs such as Spain or Portugal, and do so only if the Modern Era Native nations are already taken by the AI or other players.
 
As a Colombian, I don't find it particularly crazy to think about a Inca>(Gran) Colombia progression. After all, the Inca controlled almost all of Ecuador and some southwestern parts of modern-day Colombia.

However, I do think that the Muisca and maybe even the Arawak/Taíno would be better options than the Inca to be "predecessors" of Gran Colombia/Colombia, specially the Muisca. I mentioned the Arawak/Taíno because the language of the Wayuu native people of Colombia and Venezuela is the closest language to Old Taíno that still exists and is kind of widely used to the present-day.

The issue here stems from the fact that there are still Quechua, Chibchan and Arawak speakers in Colombia and elsewhere in South America. Them being replaced by a post-colonial Mestizo/White dominated Civ such as Colombia/Gran Colombia would be a bit problematic in that sense. They are still living cultures, in some sense, they didn't completely fused with the dominant Mestizo/White culture of Colombia, which derives heavily from Renaissance Spanish culture.

Also, regarding Simón Bolívar representing the "anti-colonial" struggle of that specific Mestizo/White Gran Colombian populations against European born Spanish people, he never represented the natives and most of them, specially in Ecuador and Southern Colombia, fought against Simón Bolívar and were later brutally repressed by the post-colonial Colombian troops of Simón Bolívar, due to their support of the Spanish loyalists. That would be like having George Washington representing the "anti-colonial" struggles against the English of a Powhatan>Iroquois>USA progression, it wouldn't make much sense.

With that in mind, Colombia/Gran Colombia still "inherited" many cultural traits from the native cultures that have lived in that territory. For this reason, I thing that progressions from native civs into Colombia/Gran Colombia could work, but a progression from Spain should be taken by the AI first. This would be my ranking in order of "acceptability", so to speak, of progressions into a Gran Colombia civs, from "least insensitive" to "a bit more controversial but doable":

Rome>Castile/Spain>Colombia/Gran Colombia
Any other ancient era predecessor of Spain>Castile/Spain>Colombia/Gran Colombia
Muisca>Spain>Colombia/Gran Colombia (the stereotypical Colombian history school text book experience)
Arawak/Taíno>Muisca>Colombia/Gran Colombia
Muisca>Arawak/Taíno>Colombia/Gran Colombia
Muisca>Inca>Colombia/Gran Colombia

It would be preferrable to have Modern Era Native South American civs so that the Inca, Muisca, Arawak, Mapuche, etc. don't have any other option than to transition into post-colonial or even colonial civs such as Spain or Portugal, and do so only if the Modern Era Native nations are already taken by the AI or other players.
I think at launch we are looking at Maya -> Inca -> Gran Colombia and, if we get more confirmation, Maya -> Aztec -> Mexico. Maya are being treated as the "cradle of civilization" for Latin America at launch, which is fine.

It actually looks less offensive at launch when the Maya branch into both Mexico and Gran Colombia, since it makes them feel neither wholly part of the Aztec/Mexico legacy nor Inca/Colombia legacy. It's thoroughly serviceable at launch.

But I do agree we will see the Muisca replace the Maya as a proper antiquity civ for Inca/GC in a DLC pack. For time I was debating if Taino would be there on launch if it were only Maya -> Inca -> GC (and no Mexico path), because I think Maya though either Inca or Taino feels like it "pinsirs" the idea of Gran Colombia better (between Andean and Arawakan heritage). But I don't think that's the case anymore and that Taino is also going to be a likely DLC civ (because it really does make more sense to come alongside Muisca and a modern civ like Haiti/Cuba).

I see what you mean about Spain paths, and while I agree that it would be nice to have the AI go through Spain, at launch we probably aren't going to have more than one antiquity -> exploration Spain path, it will always be Rome -> Spain. And I'm seeing signs that every leader, be it a Spanish leader, Bolivar, or Juarez, will need their separate two-civ combination to prevent overcompeting for exploration era options. I think the AI pathways will just be Maya -> Aztec -> Mexico and Maya (later Muisca) -> Inca -> Gran Colombia.
 
I honestly would argue that it is substantially more historic than a civilization somehow spanning the time period from 4000 BCE to 2000 CE. The changes will be more than a little painful to look at on release, hopefully helped by later content, but if we're arguing historicity, I don't think it's particularly close. One can argue how much Egypt turned into the Abbasids versus how much they were conquered by them, but it's definitely closer to reality than Egypt somehow still existing unchanged from its original culture by the time the internet was invented, which is functionally impossible.

They are both incredibly unhistorical ways of abstracting history

I'll spoil it, Ancient Eygpt did not turn into the Abbasids. They were conquered by Persians, Greeks, Romans and eventually Arabs. History books also do not tell of the Abbasids becoming Buganda because of a crisis at the same exact time as every other major nation on the planet.
 
They are both incredibly unhistorical ways of abstracting history

I'll spoil it, Ancient Eygpt did not turn into the Abbasids. They were conquered by Persians, Greeks, Romans and eventually Arabs. History books also do not tell of the Abbasids becoming Buganda because of a crisis at the same exact time as every other major nation on the planet.
Persians are antiquity, can't move into them. Greeks are antiquity, can't move into them. Romans are antiquity, can't move into them. Ah! Arabs are exploration. And they roughly define the same territory at times? AND they represent an Islamic/Arabic legacy that continued through the Mamluks, and survived the Ottomans into modern Egypt?

There's our path. It tracks. We are not going to get absolute, pedantic accuracy in a game with only three eras. But we can do a lot better than prior historical games.
 
Sure, you don't need to. But you also don't need to be the USA to be a successful horse lord. If you want to vary gameplay by going for different meta strategies, why not do that while also varying the civ / leader you're playing as? Once I got comfortable beating emperor / immortal difficulty, most of my games became "How can I make the most of this civ's UU / UB / UA?" Which is a blend of role-playing as that civ, playing strategically by trying to maximise the use of something, and going for a different trajectory in game. From what you said, I'd have thought you'd enjoy that approach too.
For the past six months, my dinner has been an odd wrap of pepperoni and Swiss cheese with relish. There have been only 3 exceptions. Just sorta what I do; find a groove and stick to it.

In 6, I suppose I felt little need to change. America is the strongest emotional connection. On marathon, Norway is unparalleled, imo. Even Monte does not surpass Harald. Pillaging is so powerful that even as Monte a force of cavalry ravagers will get you to victory faster, via pillage, than translating builders to districts via EW(partly because your pillage yields are so excessive simply hardbuying builders is really easy). Harald can maintain that force, while simultaneously using the world's coastline for... more pillage yields. It comes online faster than cavalry without any opposition whatsoever.

I could have explored other strategies, but they'd all have been worse, reducing incentive to try. Norway when going on all cylinders is unparalleled on my preferred speed.
Not being able to get into a narrative when playing as a civ that isn't linked to you personally through heritage is... kind of sad to me? I'm not trying to sound condescending here, but I do think it's a shame when people are so tied up with their own personal identity that they can't enjoy playing as a character which is different to them. Isn't (at least part of) the point of fiction, and gaming especially, escapism? Experiencing something different and from a different viewpoint than ourselves? I mean, I enjoyed House of the Dragon even if I'm not a sauropod riding princess. I do get that it's harder to "buy into" a narrative the more removed it is from our personal experience (which is why good fiction always has universal emotional hooks we can relate to), but I think it's definitely worth trying. It gets easier with practice, and widens both the range of fiction we can enjoy and our perspective on the real world. Anyway, sorry for being preachy and sounding all new-agey, I couldn't find a better way to phrase it.
I never actually tried Tomy because I don't like the music. That instrument...nah. That was actually true of quite a few civs. I doubt I'd have played USA more than Australia if their rendition of hard times come again no more wasn't only slightly beneath the rendition of Waltzing Matilda.

I was able to RP other leaders. It was just beneath replacement. I probably could have gotten into Spain for RP reasons comparable to Norway, but they'd still be beneath Norway in terms of actual game ability. Could have probably done Macedonia, just never tried it. America worked well enough, Norway worked well enough. I was tempted to try Bolivar, but my game interest by then had waned.

I do pretty frequently in other games.

Arabia made for some fun games. I kinda like Saladin, both as a historical personage and a game leader. I didn't like Poundmaker. I dunno why Tecumseh took this long to make an appearance in civ, he is to my mind the most able leader to come forth from the American frontier in that era, and I expect Shawnee to be amongst my handful in 7.
 
I never actually tried Tomy because I don't like the music. That instrument...nah. That was actually true of quite a few civs. I doubt I'd have played USA more than Australia if their rendition of hard times come again no more wasn't only slightly beneath the rendition of Waltzing Matilda.

I just find it so charmingly funny that you love Waltzing Matilda, it personally drives me batty lol. Too lyrical, too peppy, too distracting. But I guess it does a have a didgeridoo. Digeridooooooooo.

But don't you dare slander the duduk, my friend. Duuuuuuduuuuuuuuk. Fun factoid, had we known then what Geoff Knorr later revealed in a podcast, the only reason Scythia's music featured the duduk (which is very much an instrument tied mostly to Armenia, nowhere near Scythian territories), is that he had effectively confirmed that Armenia was not happening in the game at all. And since the duduk traces its lineage back a bit through older Indo-Iranian cultures, he felt justified in using it there just to get some of that cool sound in. He did the same thing with featuring south Slavic music in Macedonia's theme, presumably because we weren't going to get any civs like that. Fun stuff.
 
Just realized about European representation that Normans, Spain, Bulgaria/Byz would be a clean split into the rough denominational-cultural regions, fitting an era about religious conflict. Normans for the later-Protestant north/northwest, Spain for the Catholic Mediterranean, and Bulgaria/Byz for the Orthodox east. This covers Europe sufficiently to put each modern nation into one of these three baskets to have a predecessor or even two (what I'm guessing for France). A central European (doesn't even have to be Teutons or Franks, I think Bohemia or Poland would work well, too) would be nice ofc but with slots so limited, I have my doubts. I guess it comes down to "how many unlocks are too many for the Normans?" although with a Norman leader, they can at least "outsource" one of these paths.
 
Just realized about European representation that Normans, Spain, Bulgaria/Byz would be a clean split into the rough denominational-cultural regions, fitting an era about religious conflict. Normans for the later-Protestant north/northwest, Spain for the Catholic Mediterranean, and Bulgaria/Byz for the Orthodox east. This covers Europe sufficiently to put each modern nation into one of these three baskets to have a predecessor or even two (what I'm guessing for France). A central European (doesn't even have to be Teutons or Franks, I think Bohemia or Poland would work well, too) would be nice ofc but with slots so limited, I have my doubts. I guess it comes down to "how many unlocks are too many for the Normans?" although with a Norman leader, they can at least "outsource" one of these paths.
Bohemia would work. I'm still iffy on Poland and have been thinking that they might make more sense for the Modern Age. Poland was at it's greatest power when it was officially united with Lithuania from 1569-1795.
Granted that could still put them in the Exploration Age and it could lead to Prussia and Russia, but I could see a lot of people having problems with that.
 
Bohemia would work. I'm still iffy on Poland and have been thinking that they might make more sense for the Modern Age. Poland was at it's greatest power when it was officially united with Lithuania from 1569-1795.
Granted that could still put them in the Exploration Age and it could lead to Prussia and Russia, but I could see a lot of people having problems with that.
Oh personally I'm totally on board with modern Poland, coming from exploration Lithuania (which might be a better lead into Russia).
 
I honestly would argue that it is substantially more historic than a civilization somehow spanning the time period from 4000 BCE to 2000 CE. The changes will be more than a little painful to look at on release, hopefully helped by later content, but if we're arguing historicity, I don't think it's particularly close. One can argue how much Egypt turned into the Abbasids versus how much they were conquered by them, but it's definitely closer to reality than Egypt somehow still existing unchanged from its original culture by the time the internet was invented, which is functionally impossible.
So when were we supposed to play an unchanged Egypt before?
Previous CIV games allowed players to develop new technologies, adopt civics, change governments, reform religions and annex populations. Many of these elements are in fact the ones that made the difference between things like England to Great Britain, also for the game they provided a good way to evolve our civilization under the narrative that we the players as a "god-like" force could lead an empire beyond the failures of the mere mortal rulers. CIV players were supposed to do better than Rome or at least at the level of China or Persia with thousand of years of history that despite their historical crisis are mostly seen by themselves and the world as the continuation of the same identities.

The civ sucession system in CIV7 create as many narrative problems as the ones that is supposed to solve:
* Now you dont need to deal with ancient America! Too bad neither can see a contemporary Spain.
* Look so nice we can see the evolution of the isolated Japan along three ages under the supposed to be same millennial divine imperial dynasty! But no the Assyrians cant even make it to the next era despite the Assyrians still exist under that identiy.
* Wow modern France is so different from the medieval France! Lets pair that at the same level of the Aztec to Mexico transition.
* Static identities is bad history. We can replace that with world wide synchronized catastrophes were you must change either to a railroaded option or a superfluos deterministic option.
So the problem is not the oportunity to change identity/culture/civilization, the problem is the forced and shallow way CIV7 seems to be doing it.
 
Which is fine.

But it should be possible to be proud and understand/acknowledge that those are outcomes of major colonial crimes that not everybody agrees to ignore. Especially if these people are on the 'losing' side of those colonial/imperialistic deeds.
Colonial crimes?

Excluding small isolated tribes that had no outside contact with other civilizations, how many civilizations can you name that didn't take land from another? That didn't practice some form of slavery? That didn't harvest resources from a neighboring location?

People don't seem to realize that this 'criminal' behavior is part of the natural evolution of societies.

If you think your particular culture, or the Native Americans, did not conduct themselves in this way at any point in time you are mistaken.

But apparently the schools are teaching the kids these days : 'if a white guy did it, it wasn't okay.'

Natives raided. They stole land, women, and children. They butchered. They slaughtered.

How many peoples on the planet are possibly still living in the same location they originated from? At what point does a land belong to one particular people? The history of civilization is one of war and conquest (even for Native Americans). At what point can one justly say: 'that land is now theirs, and any who takes it is a criminal.'

What if the land is given to them? Or sold to them? Like the Ottomans giving land to the Jews? Or the Louisiana Purchase? Still criminal colonization?

If you can correctly point out which land belongs to which tribe, and why it is theirs and not the tribe they pushed off or wiped out or enslaved, I'd love to hear it.
 
Back
Top Bottom