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

[RedCourtJester]

I don't understand this at all. Why would you do that to yourself?

You didn't try the slightly wonky civs like Maori or Mali or Gaul or Vietnam or Babylon? Or what about the builder / adjacency game civs like Inca and Khmer? You didn't ever try a random game just to see what you could do with whatever you were given? I find this all so strange.

I think for a lot of games and sections of the gaming market, there are roughly two kinds of players.

There are players who identify with a particular character or playstyle and just stick with it. They are the Captain Falcon mains in Smash, the Gruul (red-green) players in MtG, etc. Some games are entirely designed around this idea, like Call of Duty, where although they often have a few different nations and campaigns built around them, America is always at the forefront and who players predominantly will play as. I think these kind of players can be very identity-driven, and explain such things as why my bodybuilder roommate was really into playing God of War but just couldn't get into Bayonetta, despite both games being extremely similar across most axes except gender expression. But also sometimes players just really settle into how they want to play a game and don't try anything else: I only "identify" as a Black-White-Green (the "tankiest" archetype) player in casual MtG because that just happens to be my comfort zone in how I play games generally--mage tanks in Diablo/GW2/FFXIV, and "turtle/defense" civs like Vietnam, Inca, Gaul, and Canada in Civ VI.

And then there are players that just really get into trying out all of the permutations of a game, which is also just great, but I think for a lot of people to enjoy that method, they need to become very into and knowledgeable about all of the intricacies of that game's systems. Which many casual players often don't, and just stick to their comfortable entry points.

I can see a sort of throughline between USA and Australia both being frontier civs that stay interesting late game where other civs kind of fall off into genericism. Both are also kind of terrain-focused in different ways without being terrain-limited. So maybe they are better for replayability for a certain person's playstyle. I think if @Voidwalkin likes switching things up with Arabia religious victories, Russia hits an interesting balance between USA/Australia terrain-grabbing and a religious victory. And I think the Maori might be that equivalent for Norway's violence, with their Haka Pa forts but kind of terrain preservation vibe. And then, just to have a third recommendation, maybe set aside literally everything warmongering, everything religious, and do the exact polar opposite of everything in the game with Eleanor.

 

[sTAPler27]

This is valid, that being said there should've been the ability to prestige your culture at least because it feels so weird that some cultures just artificially collapse when the game says so while others can more naturally transcend into a fitting successor.

 

[Evolena]

I can see a sort of throughline between USA and Australia both being frontier civs that stay interesting late game where other civs kind of fall off into genericism. Both are also kind of terrain-focused in different ways without being terrain-limited. So maybe they are better for replayability for a certain person's playstyle. I think if @Voidwalkin likes switching things up with Arabia religious victories, Russia hits an interesting balance between USA/Australia terrain-grabbing and a religious victory. And I think the Maori might be that equivalent for Norway's violence, with their Haka Pa forts but kind of terrain preservation vibe. And then, just to have a third recommendation, maybe set aside literally everything warmongering, everything religious, and do the exact polar opposite of everything in the game with Eleanor.

Now we need a thread for the first type of players to ask for recommendation to the second type of players about what civ outside their usual ones could match their preferred playstyle

 

[Voidwalkin]

I don't understand this at all. Why would you do that to yourself?

You didn't try the slightly wonky civs like Maori or Mali or Gaul or Vietnam or Babylon? Or what about the builder / adjacency game civs like Inca and Khmer? You didn't ever try a random game just to see what you could do with whatever you were given? I find this all so strange.

Nope. Never felt the need to. I understand the theory of their bonuses, well enough I could probably estimate with rough accuracy the increased win speed relative to replacement.

But I never felt the need to actually test any of it, because slingers>archers will dominate the AI regardless of civ or difficulty, and do so in the ancient era, where ROI is highest. Any speed bonus is consequently marginal, with the exception of the Aztecs. Norway too, because I played on marathon, where the pillage ROI is much higher, and where Norways unique bonuses and units can therefore be used to really clear outstanding effect. Extremely fast wins, even if the player isn't committed wholly, simply comfortably committed.

Gameplay wise I had it pretty well covered. What was left was narrative, and for that purpose, USA was most impactful for emotional reasons. Norway sorta was? I liked the variation in the exploration narratives, at least, though in a similar pattern - I, the devoted fighter, show up and absolutely ruin whatever the peaceful builders have managed to cobble together for my own benefit.

 

[RedCourtJester]

This is valid, that being said there should've been the ability to prestige your culture at least because it feels so weird that some cultures just artificially collapse when the game says so while others can more naturally transcend into a fitting successor.

I think the fairest way of designing this is to primarily, if not exclusively, choose civs which (a) are defined in a sort of dynastic or imperial manner and (b) absolutely did not survive a particular era. We see this quite comfortably with the India and China civs, but also with a lot of other civ choices. Egypt, Rome, Greece absolutely do not survive past the antiquity era and in no way resemble their modern counterparts. Same thing with the Normans, Songhai, and Spanish Empire.

There will still be some fudging and disappointment, depending on what pathways are chosen, but I think some pathways will be totally culturally acceptable at launch. In rough order from least to most offensive:

* Maurya -> Chola -> Mughals and Han -> Ming -> Qing. Not offensive at all. Except maybe if we consider Tamil/Muslim secessionist movements in India, or any residual resentment toward the Manchurians, but overall these track very much with modern identity consensus. Now, if we try to connect Maurya to Qing with Tibet at some point, possibly offensive depending on whether we view any inclusion, even one being taken over by the Qing, better than none; I personally think it might be in the case of Tibet, a little act of defiance that will persist with little Tibetan temples breaking up the Chinese landscape. But I digress.

* None of the European/Middle Eastern pathways are going to be super offensive. Greece ->Byzantium/Abassids makes sense. Rome -> Normans/Byzantium makes sense. Norse -> Normans would make sense. Normans -> France/England/Italy makes sense. Byzantium -> Prussia/Russia makes sense. Egypt/Sasanid/Sumeria -> Abassid -> Ottomans makes sense. Sasanid -> Timurids -> Mughals will make sense. Etc.

* I don't think Polynesians will at all be disappointed by a pathway of Tonga -> Maori -> Hawaii led by a Samoan leader, as Polynesians are generally quite proud of their shared heritage which all sprouted forth from the Samoan empire, and each people hit a peak in different eras.

* Similarly, I do not think the Shawnee will be offended if they naturally progress into the Anishinaabe, because they have very positive relations with the Anishinaabe, who also happen to be perhaps the best modern representation of Tecumseh's vision of intertribal unity. And the Mississippians don't exist anymore so are very up for grabs.

* I don't think the people of Niger will be offended by Numidia -> Songhai -> Hausa, as their cultural history is well-defined by both the Songhai and the Hausa. Whereas by contrast it would have been weirder for modern day Malians to progress from Mali into a civ primarily in Niger. And I don't think Amazigh/Moroccans will be offended by Numidia -> Songhai -> Morocco because that pathway will likely be united by a cultural Moroccan/Berber figure like Diyha or Sayyida Al Hurra and contain both ancient Numidian/Berber and modern Moroccan/Algerian heritage much like the region holds today.

* The Aksum -> ??? -> Buganda path is going to be weird, but to sum up a lot of vetting of options is probably connected by Kilwa as representation of the Swahili coast. There is a good chance Ethiopia will be in the game at launch (or ultimately in DLC) just to give Kilwa a second option to progress toward, so I don't think modern Ethiopians will be offended (plus, Aksum rides a weird line where it can be "claimed" by both modern Ethiopians and modern Eritreans, which in a way avoids conflict for now). Similarly, modern Swahili people can't be too offended because Kilwa covered a range of modern regions and is settling on perhaps the best modern representation of Swahili semi-autonomy, Buganda. And Buganda can't be offended by this roundabout path through the antiquity and exploration eras because its probably predecessor, Kitara, is so poorly attested that we really can't make a Kitara civ for it to proceed from.

* Khmer to Siam by way of Majapahit is stretching a tad, but under Rama V all three can be connected by the Mandala state philosophy and some overlap with Funan and Srivijaya heritage. Modern Indonesia is very different from Majapahit Indonesia after both the advent of Islam and the Dutch, so I don't think Indonesians will be very offended that the Majapahit don't persist. And further DLC will likely bring in Burma, maybe Malaysia, and most importantly a likely Funan leader in Soma, that will help coalesce the shared cultural heritage better. I could see Indonesia wanting some better treatment at some point with maybe Srivijaya and Brunei in DLC (which would be awesome), but so far that's only one potentially mildly slighted "modern" culture.

* The problem with Korea and Japan, fundamentally, is that they both practically demand 3-era structures for being so isolationist (same issue Vietnam will have, although with more flexibility between the Champa and Philippines), but were in no way involved enough in other civs' business to really help flesh out and participate in alternate pathways. To have two or three Korea or Japan civs in the game at launch, with the number of 39-45 civs that we are looking at, would be parasitic. The Han -> Silla -> Meiji path will absolutely be fleshed out by DLC to include, at minimum, Joseon, probably Goguryeo leader, an Edo/Ainu civ, and probably a shared antiquity civ like the Yayoi which is the best, albeit imperfect, option. They will be fine and made whole quite soon enough, although I do think both Korea and Japan will not be fully satisfied at launch and maybe borderline offended. I fully, fully expect that, by the time the game launches, Firaxis will be advertising a Korea/Japan DLC pack on the horizon, possibly as soon as after the Right to Rule pack. It's even possible the Right to Rule pack is the Korea/Japan pack if it isn't an expected Goth/Gaul/Franks pack.

* And finally, we get to the worst. In some ways, Latin America is equally isolated from the rest of the world as Japan/Korea, but what it really wants is at least two pathways, one Mesoamerican and one South American. We have not seen any evidence for, and some evidence damning, the possibility of the Aztecs, or an antiquity era South American civ (which would most likely be the Muisca since we know the Inca need an Andean civ to progress from and other options are poorly documented), in the base game at launch. That may change. But I think, at launch, the entirety of Latin America is threatening to get a single three-civ line, just like every other region (West Africa, East Africa, Southeast Asia, Polynesia, and Korea-Japan). Absent seeing evidence of Aztecs shortly after the time exploration era is announced, we are not getting a Maya -> Aztec -> Mexico line; there is no reason to skip the Aztecs by jumping back and forth to the Inca. Meaning that at launch we would instead be getting Maya -> Inca -> Gran Columbia, which I think with a return of Simon Bolivar almost works as being united by the Isthmo-Columbian region and a history of resistance against Spanish colonial power. Brazil may come along too as a second option for the Inca to progress toward. Now, I hope this isn't the case. If we see evidence of Aztecs, we may instead get the proper three-act Mexico in addition to something like Maya -> Inca -> Brazil (which itself would be offensive but at least prevent Inca from jumping places even less sensible like America or Hawaii). Point being, South America is highly likely to offend people at launch in some way, and I think maybe Maya -> Inca -> Gran Colombia under Bolivar may be the least insulting pathway. Because even with Maya -> Aztec -> Mexico, unless the leader associated with it is Spear-Thrower owl as an attempt to unify bridge Mayan and Aztec heritage (and I think the time has passed for his reveal), it is offensive for the Maya to completely disappear under the Aztecs. Not even Benito Juarez, who in many respects is a very sensitive leader choice, can fix disappearing modern Mayan heritage that hard. So I think the fairest solution is Simon Bolivar leads the most resistant Spanish colonial powers (Maya and Inca), and we can then flesh things out with Aztecs, Mexico, Muisca, and hopefully some Guarani/Mapuche representation, in later DLC. But, honestly, by rights, this region should have been releasing with two full pathways: Maya -> Aztecs -> Mexico (Spear-thrower Owl); Muisca -> Inca -> Gran Colombia (Simon Bolivar); aside from a little jilting by the Mayans and Peruvians at not making it to modern era, at least they would have leaders representing their overall cultural/political heritage.

Grand summary of people would likely/might be offended at launch:

* Mayans/Yucatans (there will never be a modern Maya in civ, but being forced to be subsumed by Aztecs/Mexico would still be sore spot for modern Mayan heritage. And otherwise jumping to the Inca is equally as insensitive. Although maybe there will be a bit of pride in being treated as the "epicenter" of Latin America to counterbalance that?);
* Peruvians (there will never be a modern Peru in civ, so we can only do so much with Simon Bolivar, or really any civ);
* Colombians (in the event there is no Muisca, it will be weird for them to be represented by the Maya in antiquity) (I don't think Venezuelans, Ecuadorians, or Panamanians will care quite as much);
* Brazilians (I more and more think they might just skip Brazil at launch until they can properly develop the Portuguese legacy, the only reason I think it might be included is to give Inca a second progression option that isn't...Hawaii or America).
* Koreans (inevitable but likely placated with clear promise of DLC)
* Japan (inevitable but likely placated with clear promise of DLC)
* Mayyyybe Indonesians (likely to be remedied with at least Borneo, and maybe Srivaja in the future)

Conclusion: Not many people actually will be offended by these particular civ progressions. Korea/Japan will be dealt with swiftly. And Maya -> Inca -> Gran Colombia offends all three cultures equally. And I have suspicions that if we are going to see any "changes" in the roster leaks we've seen prior to launch, this is by far the biggest target for improvement. The devs would push Aztecs and Mexico forward, and release with Maya -> Aztecs -> Mexico in addition to Maya -> Inca -> Gran Colombia, with possibly Muisca squeezing in as well fully split off the SA line. They might not change any plans to have Benito be the leader instead of Spear-Thrower Owl, but he's the second-best option as a native Zapotec president, so it comes pretty close to the best they can do (and they can/should still give us Spear-Thrower Owl later).

 

[Voidwalkin]

It's not so much that someone plays 90% of their games as the same 2 civilizations that surprises me. It's that they play ~500 games as each of those civs! Conservatively, that's 10,000h of playing the game! Which is not only a lot in itself, but to not be curious and try something else out just baffles me. If you've "got it pretty well covered gameplay wise" why keep playing so many more games afterwards? Sure, there's some tell-your-own-story narrative in Civ that you can get enjoyment from, but after 500 repetitions?!? I would be bored to death by that point. There are so many other games, and so much other entertainment beyond games out there, and so many other ways of playing civ than rushing slingers-archers to zerg the AI, then I can't get the mindset that makes someone do the same thing over and over again so many times. Personally, my curiosity would absolutely make me try something else way before that point.

Most of these were not played to victory, but abandoned, often relatively quickly. Victory was already assured, but narrative was not satisfying. I'd start a new game in search of a better one. I probably had a 2/5 hit rate on finding an appealing narrative.

Often the narrative was a derivative of playing the map. I'd imagine my civilization as developing a different culture more or less each time. If on the plains, America would behave comparably to a steppe pastoralist empire. If in the taiga, it might instead act as source of frequent barbarian invasions of more temperate lands.

It could be fairly said that I did vary the playstyle, just... through adaptation to climate and terrain effecting what I'd imagine American culture to be. You can do all that from within a civ, you don't really need to venture outside it. You don't strictly speaking need Tomyris or Ghengis to be a successful horse lord.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think the fairest way of designing this is to primarily, if not exclusively, choose civs which (a) are defined in a sort of dynastic or imperial manner and (b) absolutely did not survive a particular era. We see this quite comfortably with the India and China civs, but also with a lot of other civ choices. Egypt, Rome, Greece absolutely do not survive past the antiquity era and in no way resemble their modern counterparts. Same thing with the Normans, Songhai, and Spanish Empire.

There will still be some fudging and disappointment, depending on what pathways are chosen, but I think some pathways will be totally culturally acceptable at launch. In rough order from least to most offensive:

* Maurya -> Chola -> Mughals and Han -> Ming -> Qing. Not offensive at all. Now, if we try to connect Maurya to Qing with Tibet at some point, possibly offensive depending on whether we view any inclusion, even one being taken over by the Qing, better than none; I personally think it might be in the case of Tibet, a little act of defiance that will persist with little Tibetan temples breaking up the Chinese landscape. But I digress.

* None of the European/Middle Eastern pathways are going to be super offensive. Greece ->Byzantium/Abassids makes sense. Rome -> Normans/Byzantium makes sense. Norse -> Normans would make sense. Normans -> France/England/Italy makes sense. Byzantium -> Prussia/Russia makes sense. Egypt/Sasanid/Sumeria -> Abassid -> Ottomans makes sense. Sasanid -> Timurids -> Mughals will make sense. Etc.

* I don't think Polynesians will at all be disappointed by a pathway of Tonga -> Maori -> Hawaii led by a Samoan leader, as Polynesians are generally quite proud of their shared heritage which all sprouted forth from the Samoan empire, and each people hit a peak in different eras.

* Similarly, I do not think the Shawnee will be offended if they naturally progress into the Anishinaabe, because they have very positive relations with the Anishinaabe, who also happen to be perhaps the best modern representation of Tecumseh's vision of intertribal unity. And the Mississippians don't exist anymore so are very up for grabs.

* I don't think the people of Niger will be offended by Numidia -> Songhai -> Hausa, as their cultural history is well-defined by both the Songhai and the Hausa. Whereas by contrast it would have been weirder for modern day Malians to progress from Mali into a civ primarily in Niger. And I don't think Amazigh/Moroccans will be offended by Numidia -> Songhai -> Morocco because that pathway will likely be united by a cultural Moroccan/Berber figure like Diyha or Sayyida Al Hurra and contain both ancient Numidian/Berber and modern Moroccan/Algerian heritage much like the region holds today.

* The Aksum -> ??? -> Buganda path is going to be weird, but to sum up a lot of vetting of options is probably connected by Kilwa as representation of the Swahili coast. There is a good chance Ethiopia will be in the game at launch (or ultimately in DLC) just to give Kilwa a second option to progress toward, so I don't think modern Ethiopians will be offended (plus, Aksum rides a weird line where it can be "claimed" by both modern Ethiopians and modern Eritreans, which in a way avoids conflict for now). Similarly, modern Swahili people can't be too offended because Kilwa covered a range of modern regions and is settling on perhaps the best modern representation of Swahili semi-autonomy, Buganda. And Buganda can't be offended by this roundabout path through the antiquity and exploration eras because its probably predecessor, Kitara, is so poorly attested that we really can't make a Kitara civ for it to proceed from.

* Khmer to Siam by way of Majapahit is stretching a tad, but under Rama V all three can be connected by the Mandala state philosophy and some overlap with Funan and Srivijaya heritage. Modern Indonesia is very different from Majapahit Indonesia after both the advent of Islam and the Dutch, so I don't think Indonesians will be very offended that the Majapahit don't persist. And further DLC will likely bring in Burma, maybe Malaysia, and most importantly a likely Funan leader in Soma, that will help coalesce the shared cultural heritage better. I could see Indonesia wanting some better treatment at some point with maybe Srivijaya and Brunei in DLC (which would be awesome), but so far that's only one potentially mildly slighted "modern" culture.

* The problem with Korea and Japan, fundamentally, is that they both practically demand 3-era structures for being so isolationist (same issue Vietnam will have, although with more flexibility between the Champa and Philippines), but were in no way involved enough in other civs' business to really help flesh out and participate in alternate pathways. To have two or three Korea or Japan civs in the game at launch, with the number of 39-45 civs that we are looking at, would be parasitic. The Han -> Silla -> Meiji path will absolutely be fleshed out by DLC to include, at minimum, Joseon, probably Goguryeo leader, an Edo/Ainu civ, and probably a shared antiquity civ like the Yayoi which is the best, albeit imperfect, option. They will be fine and made whole quite soon enough, although I do think both Korea and Japan will not be fully satisfied at launch and maybe borderline offended. I fully, fully expect that, by the time the game launches, Firaxis will be advertising a Korea/Japan DLC pack on the horizon, possibly as soon as after the Right to Rule pack. It's even possible the Right to Rule pack is the Korea/Japan pack if it isn't an expected Goth/Gaul/Franks pack.

* And finally, we get to the worst. In some ways, Latin America is equally isolated from the rest of the world as Japan/Korea, but what it really wants is at least two pathways, one Mesoamerican and one South American. We have not seen any evidence for, and some evidence damning, the possibility of the Aztecs, or an antiquity era South American civ (which would most likely be the Muisca since we know the Inca need an Andean civ to progress from and other options are poorly documented), in the base game at launch. That may change. But I think, at launch, the entirety of Latin America is threatening to get a single three-civ line, just like every other region (West Africa, East Africa, Southeast Asia, Polynesia, and Korea-Japan). Absent seeing evidence of Aztecs shortly after the time exploration era is announced, we are not getting a Maya -> Aztec -> Mexico line; there is no reason to skip the Aztecs by jumping back and forth to the Inca. Meaning that at launch we would instead be getting Maya -> Inca -> Gran Columbia, which I think with a return of Simon Bolivar almost works as being united by the Isthmo-Columbian region and a history of resistance against Spanish colonial power. Brazil may come along too as a second option for the Inca to progress toward. Now, I hope this isn't the case. If we see evidence of Aztecs, we may instead get the proper three-act Mexico in addition to something like Maya -> Inca -> Brazil (which itself would be offensive but at least prevent Inca from jumping places even less sensible like America or Hawaii). Point being, South America is highly likely to offend people at launch in some way, and I think maybe Maya -> Inca -> Gran Colombia under Bolivar may be the least insulting pathway. Because even with Maya -> Aztec -> Mexico, unless the leader associated with it is Spear-Thrower owl as an attempt to unify bridge Mayan and Aztec heritage (and I think the time has passed for his reveal), it is offensive for the Maya to completely disappear under the Aztecs. Not even Benito Juarez, who in many respects is a very sensitive leader choice, can fix disappearing modern Mayan heritage that hard. So I think the fairest solution is Simon Bolivar leads the most resistant Spanish colonial powers (Maya and Inca), and we can then flesh things out with Aztecs, Mexico, Muisca, and hopefully some Guarani/Mapuche representation, in later DLC. But, honestly, by rights, this region should have been releasing with two full pathways: Maya -> Aztecs -> Mexico (Spear-thrower Owl); Muisca -> Inca -> Gran Colombia (Simon Bolivar); aside from a little jilting by the Mayans and Peruvians at not making it to modern era, at least they would have leaders representing their overall cultural/political heritage.

Grand summary of people would likely/might be offended at launch:

* Mayans/Yucatans (there will never be a modern Maya in civ, but being forced to be subsumed by Aztecs/Mexico would still be sore spot for modern Mayan heritage. And otherwise jumping to the Inca is equally as insensitive. Although maybe there will be a bit of pride in being treated as the "epicenter" of Latin America to counterbalance that?);
* Peruvians (there will never be a modern Peru in civ, so we can only do so much with Simon Bolivar, or really any civ);
* Colombians (in the event there is no Muisca, it will be weird for them to be represented by the Maya in antiquity) (I don't think Venezuelans, Ecuadorians, or Panamanians will care quite as much);
* Brazilians (I more and more think they might just skip Brazil at launch until they can properly develop the Portuguese legacy, the only reason I think it might be included is to give Inca a second progression option that isn't...Hawaii or America).
* Koreans (inevitable but likely placated with clear promise of DLC)
* Japan (inevitable but likely placated with clear promise of DLC)
* Mayyyybe Indonesians (likely to be remedied with at least Borneo, and maybe Srivaja in the future)

Conclusion: Not many people actually will be offended by these particular civ progressions. Korea/Japan will be dealt with swiftly. And Maya -> Inca -> Gran Colombia offends all three cultures equally. And I have suspicions that if we are going to see any "changes" in the roster leaks we've seen prior to launch, this is by far the biggest target for improvement. The devs would push Aztecs and Mexico forward, and release with Maya -> Aztecs -> Mexico in addition to Maya -> Inca -> Gran Colombia, with possibly Muisca squeezing in as well fully split off the SA line. They might not change any plans to have Benito be the leader instead of Spear-Thrower Owl, but he's the second-best option as a native Zapotec president, so it comes pretty close to the best they can do (and they can/should still give us Spear-Thrower Owl later).

A certain amount of the offense could be avoided if they had the adoption of a new civ give a narrative event with your name.

“In this new age, our culture has changed, how should we and our cities be named?”

-Change civ name and city name list (gives +5? culture to the 3 cheapest unique civics)
-Keep our civ name and city name list (gives +15? happiness toward the next celebration)

You could also have this for when you promote a town ->city if it doesn’t match your current city name list (either because it’s from a previous age or you conquered it)

 

[RedCourtJester]

A certain amount of the offense could be avoided if they had the adoption of a new civ give a narrative event with your name.

“In this new age, our culture has changed, how should we and our cities be named?”

-Change civ name and city name list (gives +5? culture to the 3 cheapest unique civics)
-Keep our civ name and city name list (gives +15? happiness toward the next celebration)

You could also have this for when you promote a town ->city if it doesn’t match your current city name list (either because it’s from a previous age or you conquered it)

I do agree with this, for the most part.

I personally don't think I will be (academically) offended by any of the pathways except what is risking to happen in Latin America, especially if they are accompanied by smart leader choices. Aksum -> Swahili/Kilwa -> Buganda pulls together surprisingly well if you view it as "the Fumo Liyongo pathway" and not "how we got to Buganda" or "where Aksum went." Khmer -> Majapahit -> Siam works great as "what came forth from Soma's Funan" or "how we got to Rama V's Siam." Tonga -> Maori -> Hawaii works great as "Nafanua's (or some random Tu'i Manua's) Polynesian legacy." Numidia -> Songhai -> Hausa works as "why Amina built so many roads and was kind of a badass." And even Maya -> Inca -> Gran Colombia under Bolivar would work as "how Mesoamerica rejected colonialism," albeit by far the least culturally sensitive grouping.

But, I do think that the pathing has been loose enough that I think players might be able to coalesce these ideas better in their heads if the names could be removed. I do have some reservations about this becoming an issue down the line when we get more civs using the same architecture styles, inasmuch as the names do at least some role in differentiating civs that often don't look that different from each other outside of palaces and unique infrastructures. But I'm not totally against it, especially if it encourages more specifically designed art assets. Plus, when viewed through the light of "leaders" defining pathways of three civs, in some ways you can view each of them as "Himiko's Han," "Himiko's Silla," etc. which in turn encourages each civ to be thought of as simply the leader's antiquity/exploration/modern civ, "Himiko's antiquity civ," "Himiko's exploration civ." If you can get to that line of semantic thinking, there really isn't much difference in calling any part, or all of it, "Himiko's ____."

 

[TheGrayFox]

I don't understand this at all. Why would you do that to yourself?

You didn't try the slightly wonky civs like Maori or Mali or Gaul or Vietnam or Babylon? Or what about the builder / adjacency game civs like Inca and Khmer? You didn't ever try a random game just to see what you could do with whatever you were given? I find this all so strange.

I don't think I've played a single game in my decades of playing Civilization with random civs

I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of players only use the same handful of civs.

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't see how Byzantine Empire-->Prussia makes any sense. Byz Empire-->Russia... well, Russia is slav, so at best makes very little sense.
It's just that Byzantine-->Ottoman is offensive apart from not making sense ^^

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't think I've played a single game in my decades of playing Civilization with random civs

I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of players only use the same handful of civs.

I think I never played a random civ as well. I always play against random civs, that's true, but for me I have some ideas what I want to play and I pick a civilization which fits.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I think I never played a random civ as well. I always play against random civs, that's true, but for me I have some ideas what I want to play and I pick a civilization which fits.

See I usually pick the Civs of the AI I'm playing against based on their historical connection to the Civ I'm playing.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I don't think I've played a single game in my decades of playing Civilization with random civs

I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of players only use the same handful of civs.

You're missing out, random is fun! Especially in multiplayer.

But I never felt the need to actually test any of it, because slingers>archers will dominate the AI regardless of civ or difficulty, and do so in the ancient era, where ROI is highest.

To each their own! For me, this is precisely the reason why I couldn't be the same Civ so many times. The game itself is easy, so I found a lot more mileage in making my own restrictions or roleplaying different civs. E.g. as Inca, my goal would be to make the biggest cities I possibly could, plus making lots of mountain passes, and I didn't care that this wasn't actually a good strategy.

 

[Krikkit1]

I don't see how Byzantine Empire-->Prussia makes any sense. Byz Empire-->Russia... well, Russia is slav, so at best makes very little sense.
It's just that Byzantine-->Ottoman is offensive apart from not making sense ^^

Byz->Russia and Byz->Ottoman are the two sides
one has some sense of religiocultural connection (center of Orthodoxy)
the other has the territorial connection (this territory is now controlled by this new culture/ people / polity)

I agree Byz->Prussia is like Egypt->Songhai…no real connection other than proximity.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I don't see how Byzantine Empire-->Prussia makes any sense. Byz Empire-->Russia... well, Russia is slav, so at best makes very little sense.
It's just that Byzantine-->Ottoman is offensive apart from not making sense ^^

In some senses I think the European pathways are going to be even more illogical than most of the non-European pathways, because of how much we are cutting out of transitions of power prior to DLC. I think ultimately Prussia will not be so offensively bad once we get Franks/HRE in the DLC, but we needed to get Germany into the game somehow at launch. Both the HRE and Russia literally claimed to be the "next Rome," which I think is enough to crudely proceed from Byzantium.

I think this is also precisely why we are getting the DLC packs that we are. Crossroads of the World is going to serve as necessarily mechanical glue to allow better switch-offs across the Middle East, Europe, and Asia (think things like Timurids if they aren't in base game, Georgia, Scythia, Phoenicia, Hittites, etc.). And then Right to Rule is going to fix these ugly European pathways with things like Gaul, the Franks/HRE, Austria-Hungary, Goths, etc. I think Russia doesn't need fixing as much upfront, in time we will get a Slavic pack probably with Slavs and a Kievan Rus' leader (Olga?), maybe a Novgorod/Mucovy civ to tie things together better. For this same reason I think the next two fundamental priorities for DLC packs will be probably announced at launch to ease concerns about under/misrepresentation: Japan-Korea and Mesoamerica.

 

[Krikkit1]

In some senses I think the European pathways are going to be even more illogical than most of the non-European pathways, because of how much we are cutting out of transitions of power prior to DLC. I think ultimately Prussia will not be so offensively bad once we get Franks/HRE in the DLC, but we needed to get Germany into the game somehow at launch. Both the HRE and Russia literally claimed to be the "next Rome," which I think is enough to crudely proceed from Byzantium.

I think this is also precisely why we are getting the DLC packs that we are. Crossroads of the World is going to serve as necessarily mechanical glue to allow better switch-offs across the Middle East, Europe, and Asia (think things like Timurids if they aren't in base game, Georgia, Scythia, Phoenicia, Hittites, etc.). And then Right to Rule is going to fix these ugly European pathways with things like Gaul, the Franks/HRE, Austria-Hungary, Goths, etc. I think Russia doesn't need fixing as much upfront, in time we will get a Slavic pack probably with Slavs and a Kievan Rus' leader (Olga?), maybe a Novgorod/Mucovy civ to tie things together better. For this same reason I think the next two fundamental priorities for DLC packs will be probably announced at launch to ease concerns about under/misrepresentation: Japan-Korea and Mesoamerica.

Normans or even Spanish (hapsburgs-Austria-Germanic) would make more sense than Byz to Germany

 

[Voidwalkin]

It was what I was implying. Which adds to this expanding civs system being the opposite of fun game-wise.

It seems there may be as little as 15 civs per era. That seems like a big number compared to past games, but when you really look at the consequences, it gets more clear that it inevitably leads to some bizarre paths.

Ottomans make sense, given the extent of their influence in the time period. If you're choosing a state to represent the region in that time period, they're outstanding.

Greece makes the most sense for the era previous.

If represent region is the highest goal it's great. From any other perspective Greece to Ottomans makes no sense. It probably manages to actually offend both Greek and Turkish players simultaneously.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Normans or even Spanish (hapsburgs-Austria-Germanic) would make more sense than Byz to Germany

Spain represents Spain in this game. Not the Habsburgs. I am expecting that, until we move into leader-pack DLC, there will be better uses for leaders to demonstrate the Spanish cultural legacy than to string together France and Spain.

I don't really have a great rebuttal to the Normans other than they were really a dubious choice that can be easily overwrought into too many pathways. And for that fact, I can see the game only prioritizing a few options, like France, England and maybe Italy. They really don't work territorialy for Germany any better than they do leading Cnut back to Sweden.

Byzantium is fine for a few months until we get Franks/HRE. If Rome can jump to Normans, we can have that too.

It seems there may be as little as 15 civs per era. That seems like a big number compared to past games, but when you really look at the consequences, it gets more clear that it inevitably leads to some bizarre paths.

Ottomans make sense, given the extent of their influence in the time period. If you're choosing a state to represent the region in that time period, they're outstanding.

Greece makes the most sense for the era previous.

If represent region is the highest goal it's great. From any other perspective Greece to Ottomans makes no sense. It probably manages to actually offend both Greek and Turkish players simultaneously.

Yes, and we are actually looking at screenshots that indicate only 13 civs in antiquity and anywhere from 11 to 14 in exploration, so it is even less than 15. The good thing is, I do not think these include the Missisippians or Shawnee.

 

[Leucarum]

I think it's pretty common to play a civ you identify with far more than others. I do that, but one advantage of having been a bit of a nomad is identifying with multiple possible civs, so for me it's a rotating list rather than one civ to rule them all.

That said, this is maybe an argument in favour of new civs per era, as you have a lot of people who want to play late-blooming civs (like America) who are effectively playing a blank civ through most of civ6. If you can get over the fact that you'll be working towards your identity rather than starting with it, it might lead to a better play experience...

 

[sTAPler27]

And Maya -> Inca -> Gran Colombia offends all three cultures equally.

I was thinking they could pull a Humankind and have the Norte Chico and Nazca as their antiquity reps for the region. Only issue is a lot of their culture is shrouded in mystery. But civ has been known to take liberties from time to time to give civs fleshed out abilities.