Would only modern Civ's be fun?

Bobolove

Chieftain
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
64
(Don't know where to post this so putting it here. Mods welcome to move thread)

In a civ like game, would it be fun to just have modern nations? (Roaster of 195 current nation) Or are old civilizations essential for flavor? It kinda feel wierd fighting with England vs Maya.

Grand strategy games usualy have only modern nations and specific time they play in. But 4x civ likes are kinda all over the place.
 
Depends if by modern you mean countries as they are today or as they are/were in modern history.

For the latter, I think it'd be fine - the modern era of civ 7 does exactly that and although I generally find older civilisations more interesting, the historical elements keep me more interested in the 'modern' age civs (and I feel allow for more varied civs as globalisation hasn't watered down unique cultures). If it was just contemporary civs I don't think it'd work as well though.
 
Depends if by modern you mean countries as they are today or as they are/were in modern history.

For the latter, I think it'd be fine - the modern era of civ 7 does exactly that and although I generally find older civilisations more interesting, the historical elements keep me more interested in the 'modern' age civs (and I feel allow for more varied civs as globalisation hasn't watered down unique cultures). If it was just contemporary civs I don't think it'd work as well though.
By modern I mean current nations in 2025. (no city states, small states, or states without any significant military or economic power) This creates a roaster of around 140 nations.

I feel like this could work well. Any time I play civ like games I always pick the big ones; china, usa, england, germany etc and maybe some other current civs. I allways try to remove old civilizations, because I feel this gives the best immersion when playing.
 
For me personally, much less. I consider my interest in history very wide. It goes from prehistory to the early modern age, and (of course selectively) spans many regions of the globe at certain ages. With Peace of Westphalia and the following nationalism, my interested vanes a lot. Sure, there are topics from later points in time about which I read the odd interesting book. But in general, the closer we get to the modern day, the less interesting it becomes for me. Playing with modern nations on a modern world map would be the most boring way to play civ for me. You also have the problem that the world got a whole lot more similar in recent decades. Obviously, cultural differences between countries and within countries still persist, but you kind of rob 70% of diversity from the game if you stick to the modern world.
 
It also comes down to how you portray civilization in civ like games.

Do you play Roman Empire or Italy.
Do you play Aztec Empire or Mexico.

A lot of modern nations have connections to these old empires.
 
It also comes down to how you portray civilization in civ like games.

Do you play Roman Empire or Italy.
Do you play Aztec Empire or Mexico.

A lot of modern nations have connections to these old empires.
But Italy doesn't come with legions and Mexico doesn't come with tribute systems (they had the lake-bound capital thing going for a bit, but then they drained it...) Themes inform gameplay mechanics, and more homogenous modern theming would lead to less unique gameplay mechanics.
 
That sounds incredibly boring and gets rid of the point of the entire series. This is not a war game. This is a game about developing civs from all of time into what they could have been. People want to play as Rome, Aztecs, Carthage etc. How many modern countries do you think people care enough about and how many are unique enough to actually warrant gameplay? Its a pretty small list, certainly smaller than the number of total nations.
 
Back
Top Bottom