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

[Voidwalkin]

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.

 

[RedCourtJester]

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.

 

[JNR13]

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.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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.

 

[JNR13]

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).

 

[BuchiTaton]

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.

 

[agonistes]

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.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

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

You have terrible schools if that's what children in your area are being taught. What my child is being taught now is that people (not "white people", people) sometimes did bad things as well as good things in the past, even the people who helped create Canada. As opposed to what I was taught in school, that our history was full of good guys who never did any of the bad things that those terrible Americans who lived south of us did (slavery, oppression of Native Americans, etc.)

 

[RedCourtJester]

You have terrible schools if that's what children in your area are being taught. What my child is being taught now is that people (not "white people", people) sometimes did bad things as well as good things in the past, even the people who helped create Canada. As opposed to what I was taught in school, that our history was full of good guys who never did any of the bad things that those terrible Americans who lived south of us did (slavery, oppression of Native Americans, etc.)

Eh I do sometimes encounter liberal rhetoric that seems a bit too oversimplified and threatens to be technically incorrect (or at least under-supported/ill-structured).

But, broad brush, ethnic exceptionalism is very much a continuous problem in most cultures. Just happens ours is white.

 

[Siptah]

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.

Just because others do it doesn‘t make it right - neither legally nor morally. Doesn‘t matter if you are Roman, Chinese, Kongolese, or American. Imperialism always came with horrible crimes, and the people who committed them might be heroes, but shouldn‘t be praised without talking about their misdoings - especially if those include genocide.

And to the last point, I don’t think land ownership is a concept that has sense to it once you think about it.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

And to the last point, I don’t think land ownership is a concept that has sense to it once you think about it.

"You cannot sell the earth upon which the people walk"

- Tashunke Witko (Crazy Horse) of the Oglala Lakota

 

[Zaarin]

Moderator Action: Please return to the topic of European civs in Civ7. Thanks.

 

[Arcaian]

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.

Moderator Action: Snipped off topic discussion--Zaarin

EDIT: started writing before the moderator action above, my apologies for continuing it. To pull the point back to European civs in Civ 7, I do think the progression system requires that the civs we release with to either be diverse enough that some european civs miss out that probably should make it in, or we have uncomfortable changes. I'd rather the former than the latter - if Germany or Russia isn't included, it won't be long at all until they're in.

 

[Xandinho]

EDIT: started writing before the moderator action above, my apologies for continuing it. To pull the point back to European civs in Civ 7, I do think the progression system requires that the civs we release with to either be diverse enough that some european civs miss out that probably should make it in, or we have uncomfortable changes. I'd rather the former than the latter - if Germany or Russia isn't included, it won't be long at all until they're in.

Or the British.
As hard as it is to believe they’re left out, some speculate that the Normans are the English representation in the base game. Also, Big Ben hasn’t been seen anywhere yet, and if there’s anything that truly represents the British Empire, it’s that.

 

[Zaarin]

Moderator Action: If you want to discuss colonialism, human violence, or other topics, please take it to OT or PMs.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Or the British.
As hard as it is to believe they’re left out, some speculate that the Normans are the English representation in the base game. Also, Big Ben hasn’t been seen anywhere yet, and if there’s anything that truly represents the British Empire, it’s that.

I do wonder about Oxford University. It was an Industrial Era wonder in Civ 6, and if they base it off of the foundations of the modern Royal Society and the first museum located in the U.K. they could easily tie it into being British.
But you are right about Big Ben, and I would associate that more with the British than Oxford. Exploration Age England will need a wonder.

 

[Zaarin]

Exploration Age England will need a wonder.

The Globe Theatre. After all, "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players."

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The Globe Theatre. After all, "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players."

Was thinking about editing that in, but you beat me to it.

 

[RedCourtJester]

The Globe Theatre. After all, "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players."

I am totally expecting "England" to make it in the game in the inevitable Brittannia expansion. Partly because it works so well to give Ireland a solid three-civ path. Plus, we gotta get our staple Lizzie back in the game somehow.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I do wonder about Oxford University. It was an Industrial Era wonder in Civ 6, and if they base it off of the foundations of the modern Royal Society and the first museum located in the U.K. they could easily tie it into being British.
But you are right about Big Ben, and I would associate that more with the British than Oxford. Exploration Age England will need a wonder.

I think either could be the associated British wonder, and the other could show up as universal.

As I was speculating elsewhere, I think "associated" wonders are more likely to reflect cultural layering, wherever possible.

Whereas universal wonders are more likely to represent more "universal" achievements specific to the era: architectural achievements in antiquity; religious or trade achievements in exploration (ala Notre Dame or Casa de Contracion); technology or diplomacy achievements in modern (ala Biosphere or Amundsen Scott).

Oxford obviously represents a sort of technological wonder more than a cultural wonder, being one of the oldest universities in Europe. And I think Big Ben, even moreso, represents both a technological and diplomatic wonder, namely the establishment of universal Greenwich time.