• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

What is missing in civ6 that you would like in civ7?

'Gurkani' is an awkward term that only really applies to the Timurid and Mughal empires, and not to the Turco-Persian empires that preceded Timur. My preferred appellation would be 'Hindustan'.
Yep, is a good option also (AoE2 used it). Still I like Gurkani as an option to add some Timurid elements and leaders, even could be a way to avoid some bothersome nationalist from India and Pakistan, since Gurkani would point to the foreign element outside that specific region divided between these contemporary countries.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that's a classic example of Eurocentrism; not many people realise the Indian subcontinent is almost as large as Europe, and just as, if not more, ethno-linguistically diverse:
View attachment 662559
I don't know about linguistic diversity. Although I can't speak accurately for the Dravidian languagues, and the Turkic, Iranian, and Sino-Tibetan languages on the fringes of, and invading, South Asia, the Indo-Aryan branch of the Indo-European family (which has the majority of languages and speakers in South Asia, including the lingua francas of Hindi in India and Urdu in Pakistan), which, as a linguistic branch, are all derved from Ancient Sanskrit in Vedic times, as I understand it, from reading, and hearing from people from India, are much closer related to each other, by far, than the collective Indo-European languages of Europe, even if not to the point of mutual intelligibility. Cultural variation is, as it is always has been, a subjective judgement call at the end of the day.

If this point is leaning ot where I think it is leading - that South Asia should have as many civ slots as Europe, then I would just say that such a notion would be VERY contentious in the fan base - along with other choices of civ priority that would likely come with that - might be enough to sink an iteration of civ. Even the burgeoning player base in India statisitcally often play European civ's, apparently.
Wait a minute. I think @luca 83 is suggesting to have non-playable civs that are bigger than City States included ones that can be created from revolution/separatists movements. Names like Switzerland or Westphalia are just examples (though Poland-Lithuania was a big power for a while).

That is the reason for this.

After that the discussion was derailed by the rest of the post. But the orignal idea itself dont seem to be "scripted history", since the mechanic seems to be to have revolutions events not "THE American Revolution" event.

It was suggested before to have such events. I think the key is to allow them only under evident and justified circumstances like badly neglected cities, oppressive policies and foreing influences. This could add a challenge mostly at late game (that is usually already dominated in CIV6) justified by the historical spread of humanist and nationalist ideals around the world from the last couple of centuries.

For me a good design could be that players gets notifications of unrest, an average player would need to do some changes to manage that unrest likely preventing the start of the actual revolution, while a careless player (depending the difficulty) would have some nasty uprisings. This issues could be controled in different ways like more militar presence, changes in your civics, more amenities, or even the creation of free "linked" nations like the Bristish Commonwealth that turn to be diplomatically very supportive.
I believe it was him saying something like, "Poliand and Switzerland must survive," that sounded like the scripted views he was known for,
 
Yes, that's a classic example of Eurocentrism; not many people realise the Indian subcontinent is almost as large as Europe, and just as, if not more, ethno-linguistically diverse:
View attachment 662559
Also, why is there a gap in the Indo-Pakistanii border in this image? Though they've fought quite a few vicious wars since the end of the Raj, and have developed a culture of hate and emnity for each other, and have a bunch of nuclear weapons pointed at each other, they have no, "Demilitarized or Neiutral Zone," in their border areas.
 
I believe it was him saying something like, "Poliand and Switzerland must survive," that sounded like the scripted views he was known for,
I think what he was trying to say was that states like Poland and Switzerland should be able to survive, giving an example of a situation rather than a definite insistence on the Polish and Swiss civs surviving
If this point is leaning ot where I think it is leading - that South Asia should have as many civ slots as Europe, then I would just say that such a notion would be VERY contentious in the fan base - along with other choices of civ priority that would likely come with that - might be enough to sink an iteration of civ. Even the burgeoning player base in India statisitcally often play European civ's, apparently.
No, I was only commenting on how most people tend to perceive the world, from a Eurocentric viewpoint, which is why the idea of South Asia having as many civs as Europe would be contentious.
 
Also, why is there a gap in the Indo-Pakistanii border in this image? Though they've fought quite a few vicious wars since the end of the Raj, and have developed a culture of hate and emnity for each other, and have a bunch of nuclear weapons pointed at each other, they have no, "Demilitarized or Neiutral Zone," in their border areas.
I don't get that either. If you look closely, in this image Pakistan's borders are more detailed whereas India's are relatively simpler, but they should be the same because they're the same borders! And when I tried putting them together, their territories overlapped, which is why I had to leave a little space (which is okay, becuase the European area they are covering also has spaces (sea)). You can try this yourself at https://thetruesize.com.
 
I think what he was trying to say was that states like Poland and Switzerland should be able to survive, giving an example of a situation rather than a definite insistence on the Polish and Swiss civs surviving

No, I was only commenting on how most people tend to perceive the world, from a Eurocentric viewpoint, which is why the idea of South Asia having as many civs as Europe would be contentious.
I think the word, "Eurocentric," has become a toxic word on the Civ6 subforums, certainly in it's application and usage - and the accusatory tones it's being used in. I am respectfully asking the community to drop the term from it's irresponsible and all-to-too common usage, for speciifc terms that address specific issues more accurately.
 
That border gap is just a technical issue from the arragement of each country's silhouette over the comparison map, it is more notorious when comparing big countries, you can even note how their forms are forced in some areas depending the latitude on the map.
 
I think the word, "Eurocentric," has become a toxic word on the Civ6 subforums, certainly in it's application and usage - and the accusatory tones it's being used in. I am respectfully asking the community to drop the term from it's irresponsible and all-to-too common usage, for speciifc terms that address specific issues more accurately.
I don't recall seeing that word used in a toxic manner (outside, perhaps, of the Ukraine War thread). There is nothing accusatory about my use of the term – I was only commenting on a bias, and it is not anyone's fault for labouring under one. No one is superior to bias – certainly not myself, for one – and there should be nothing contentious about addressing those biases so long as it is done civilly.
 
Sadly the iconic (meme like) figure of Gandhi in CIV series is a significative impediment to have more civs from the subcontinent, since Gandhi himself is a figure of Indian unification.

Personally I would be happy with at least these three civ from the region:
- MAGADHI civ, the northeastern classical Indo-Aryan empires based on Pataliputra like Nanda, Maurya and Pala. Covering the apogee of buddhism in what is now not just India but also Bangladesh.
- TAMIL civ, the southern medieval Dravidian empires like Chera, Chola and Pandya. Mostly devoted hinduists with a focus on naval trade expanded beyond India and Sri Lanka to SEA.
- GURKANI civ, the northwestern modern Turkic-Iranian empires with core on the Indus River Valley, mainly representing the Mughal but also the Tughlaq and Lodi dynasties. The period of the expansion of islamic dynasties from Central Asia, Iran and Afghanistan over the subcontinent, the reason now most of the river that give the name to India is currently in a different country, Pakistan.
Maybe Gandhi could be a Great Person strongly tied to South Asian civ's, instead.
 
I mean, that's also a result of actual geopolitics. India and China are, here, now, actual unified countres, and Europe is not (and has never been, and even partial unifications were mostly short-lived except the Romans), so there's an assumption that India and China are naturally unified civilization, and Europe is made up of a wide disparity of different people.

It's wrong, but it's a natural assumption given recency bias.

The Arab world is a bit of an exception, but the Arab World a)was famously united for a long, long, long time and b)is often lumped together in modern popular perception in a way almost no other part of the world is.
 
The Arab world is a bit of an exception, but the Arab World a)was famously united for a long, long, long time and b)is often lumped together in popular perception in a way almost no other part of the world is.
Well, Arabic is a lingua franca for the Arab world, and there is a significant amount of intelligibility between Arabic dialects in countries and regions as varied as Morocco, Somalia, the Levant, etc. As for being united for a very long time, I'm not so sure of that. Most of the now Arab world wasn't Arab at the time of the Islamic conquests, and was split at the time of the Abbasid usurpation of the Caliphate, and gradually disintegrated into interfighting realms by the time the Crusaders showed up.
 
I mean, that's also a result of actual geopolitics. India and China are, here, now, unified, and Europe is not, so there's an assumption that India and China are naturally unified civilization, and Europe is not.

The Arab world is a bit of an exception, but the Arab World a)was famously united for a long, long, long time and b)is often lumped together in popular perception in a way almost no other part of the world is.
But China, unlike India, Europe, or the Islamic World, has a long history of an inertia toward unity, even in periods of sharp division. The Mandate of Heaven from 221 BC to AD 1911 has always gravitated the nation back toward unity - a unity that became politically and cultrually natural, and was a cornerstone of Classical Confucianism. Even when Puyi, the Last Emperor of China, abdicated in 1911, and Sun Yat-sen, Li Anhui, and Yuan Shikai declared the Republic of China in 1912, and formally abolished the Mandate of Heaven (though Yuan declared his own putative Imperial dynasty for eight months between 1915-1916, and Puyi and was made a puppet Emperor of the Japanese proxy state of Manchukuo from 1931-1945, and also declared the revival of the Mandate of Heaven, but these two, what are called in Monarchial circles, acts of pretense). The Republic of China, under Sun, Li, Yuan, and later Chiang Kai-shek, declared, nonetheless, even without a Mandate, all of China as a unity, singular, and indivisible nation - and even though none of those leaders ever de facto controlled Tibet, Xinjiang, or Mongolia, (or Tuva, which is now part of Russia), which had been vassals to the Qing Dynasty of China, they viewed them as integrall parts of the new Republic, and planned on, "subduing," them when wars with Warlords, Japanese, and Communists. However, in the end, the Communsits won, on the mainland, in 1949, and Chiang's party and government, the Kuomintang (or Nationalists), fled to Taiwan, where there descendents, and the same government (even if it's become democratized from a former brutal military dictatorship) still remain to this day. Mao Zedong also viewed China as united, singular, and indivisible, also even without a Mandate. And, both Beijing and Taipei (though the latter a LOT less vocally, today, but it's still OFFICALLY there, ON PAPER), claim to be the legitimate government of all of China, as a unified, singular, and indivisible whole. Thus, the gravitating theme of unity is much stronger in Chinese history than in European, Indian, or Islamic history.
 
Well, Arabic is a lingua franca for the Arab world, and there is a significant amount of intelligibility between Arabic dialects in countries and regions as varied as Morocco, Somalia, the Levant, etc. As for being united for a very long time, I'm not so sure of that. Most of the now Arab world wasn't Arab at the time of the Islamic conquests, and was split at the time of the Abbasid usurpation of the Caliphate, and gradually disintegrated into interfighting realms by the time the Crusaders showed up.
And the Ummayyad and Abbasid Caliphates were managed by Iranian buraeucrats.
 
Why are Nepal and Sri Lanka not included in that map overlay though?
Because @Bonyduck Campersang put those countries in the overlay, and he is rather a dunce in these matters.

In any case, I think people do think of Nepal and Sri Lanka as separate entities from the mainland. Consider that neither of them were ever considered as part of the 'unified' India that was supposed to emerge from independence from the British Empire.
 
I thought the comparison was Europe and South Asia, and those 2 definitely count. Oh well. They’re not major landmasses that really alter the perception
 
Perhaps a long time was the wrong word, but it was unified long enough to leave a deep mark on popular perception history (and keep resurfacing as a future boogeyman as a result).
 
Because @Bonyduck Campersang put those countries in the overlay, and he is rather a dunce in these matters.

In any case, I think people do think of Nepal and Sri Lanka as separate entities from the mainland. Consider that neither of them were ever considered as part of the 'unified' India that was supposed to emerge from independence from the British Empire.
They were administered as part of the broader Raj colonial system at it's height, along with Burma (now called Myanmar), the Maldives, Singapore and the other Staits Settlements, Bhutan, the City of Aden WAY over in Modern Yemen, and briefly Afghanistan. But, yes, none of those nations joined the Indian Independence Movement - they all became independent under other circumstances, and do regard themselves as part of the India-Pakistan-Bangladesh complex.
 
Patine - the point isn't whether those conclusions are wrong or right. The point is that what the world is like in recent time largely dominates how people perceive the world, whether that's historically accurate (Unified China and Splintered Europe) or not (India).
 
Top Bottom