Would you like to see more 20th century leaders and civs in Civ7?

[Krajzen]

One thing which I have noticed in the selection of civs and leaders shown so far is that civ7 is seemingly going out of its way to include 20th century nation states and leaders. Of like 15 leaders shown so far the latest are Napoleon and Tecumseh who ended their careers in 1815 and 1813; meanwhile instead of modern India we shall get Mughals, instead of modern Japan - Meiji Japan, instead of PRC China (according to some vague leak?) we shall get Qing, and not Thailand but Siam, not Ethiopia but precolonial Buganda as modern African civ etc. I assume it's because they are viewed as more interesting and less controversial than say post ww2 states, which is a take I can understand.

I don't have huge problem with that and I actually like this game's far lesser emphasis on the modern eras and the refreshing lack of damn Gandhi meme (in case of India and China I agree they deserve more emphasis given to their earlier eras, not 20th cent), but I have noticed this clear tendency and I wonder if I didn't personally prefer if we got like one or two 20th century leaders and some modern state after all. I was definitely a fan of Dwight Eisenhower and Konrad Adenauer as civ7 leaders though (and I'm pretty sure both me and German players would love to see non-agressive non-militarist German civ for once ). Also, it would be nice to see Jakarta-based modern Indonesian civ at some point, or modern Egypt, or even postcolonial African state such as Kenya.
I was curious what are your preferences in this regard.

 

[Evie]

I voted less interesting, but it’s not quite right - it’s more that 20th civs are much harder to get right because far more people have far stronger opinions about those civs and leaders, being recent history.

 

[Krikkit1]

I want to see more 20th/21st century mechanics
MAD
Cold War
Decolonization
Drones
Disinformation
etc.

 

[Potworny]

The civ selection we've seen so far made me realise how much more interesting I find states from before 20th century. I hope we get Prussia instead of Germany too. Also late modern Mughals and maybe Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth are just such a cool concept.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

This might just be a me thing, but something about names that aren’t shared with currently existing countries has such a great vibe that really contributes to the feel of the period they seem to be going for for Modern. I’m also less likely to recognize them, which makes me more likely to google them, which means more potential to learn about parts of history I wasn’t familiar with previously. So, yeah, all in all, I’m loving Meiji, Buganda, and Mughal, and I hope we get Prussia, Qing, and more.

 

[Xandinho]

I believe the game is focusing on leaders and civilizations that existed up to the 19th century at most. Could there be some from beyond that time? I think so, but not many. I still believe Gandhi will be added at some point.

Most leaders and civilizations from post-19th century are quite controversial. I also agree that they are not as compelling as historical empires.

I don’t think they’ll include any African colonial state. Perhaps we won’t even get Germany or Italy in their modern forms, but instead Prussia and Sardinia. The only 20th-century colonial states I could see them adding are perhaps Australia and Indonesia.

 

[The Fanatical]

If I could actually force my desires upon the game's development, I would forbid the Modern Age along with any accompanying modern civilizations and leaders, thus the game's ending date would be in 1500 AD.
Alas, that can't happen, so I'm at least happy that most of the leaders and civilizations are from the Medieval and Ancient eras.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Even though they might not explicitly have any civilizations that started in the 20th century, they will have some that lasted into the 20th century such as presumably the Ottomans, Qing, Ethiopian Empire, even Siam. And of course, Meiji Japan went into the early 20th century as well.

 

[Zaarin]

My interest in history begins to decline in the mid 18th century and plummets to non-existent after about 1920 so I definitely prefer avoiding 20th century leaders and states. I'm willing to make occasional exceptions; e.g., I enjoyed Wilhelmina and TR in Civ6.

 

[moondog385]

I don't think they're less interesting, but I would definitely not choose any of them if it was up to me, just because I feel that they're too recent. There are a select few I would be fine with.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Having spent the last 15 years or so researching and writing about 20th century Civs in their archives (German and Russian, specifically) I don't want to see them because:
a. I've already seen more of them than is healthy
b. It's very unlikely that any design team would get them right. Too much of what made them is too recent, too much of the material that would allow a thorough reconstruction is too buried, and too many people already think they know too much about them to be comfortable with anyone else's version. The line between Current Events and History gets far too blurred and smudged with 20th century Civs or more accurately, Civs still existing in their 20th century forms.

So, if we must have Russia, make it Imperial Russia, and if we must have Germany, make it one of the German states like Prussia, Saxony or Bavaria. And if anybody wants Churchill as a Leader, make it John Churchill, not Winnie.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Having spent the last 15 years or so researching and writing about 20th century Civs in their archives (German and Russian, specifically) I don't want to see them because:
a. I've already seen more of them than is healthy
b. It's very unlikely that any design team would get them right. Too much of what made them is too recent, too much of the material that would allow a thorough reconstruction is too buried, and too many people already think they know too much about them to be comfortable with anyone else's version. The line between Current Events and History gets far too blurred and smudged with 20th century Civs or more accurately, Civs still existing in their 20th century forms.

So, if we must have Russia, make it Imperial Russia, and if we must have Germany, make it one of the German states like Prussia, Saxony or Bavaria. And if anybody wants Churchill as a Leader, make it John Churchill, not Winnie.

I think if we did get Germany, it would at least be the German Empire, making it up to at the earliest WWI. But considering Brandenburg Gate is a wonder it might be more likely that it will be Prussia.
Technically the Kingdom of Prussia technically lasted until 1918, so it would still fit in the timeline of the unified German Empire as well.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

There are a few 20th century leaders I would like to see. JFK (for the Brinksmanship agenda, mostly), Mannerheim, and Helmut Kohl come to mind.

 

[Olleus]

I don't mind 20th century states, but states that only existed post WW2 aren't to my liking. I'd place the bar about there for leaders too. After ~1950 it feels more contemporary than history, which means it loses a lot of the weight that make historically inspired civilizations more impactful. It's hard to feel like you're playing as a vessel that spans all of human history (or, in Civ7, 1/3 of it) if you're playing as a civilization that's only been around a few decades.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Given infinite resources there would be a 4th era for the 20th century with sub-one year turns.

Leaders the challenge is giving them abilities that don't feel anachronistic .

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

It's hard to feel like you're playing as a vessel that spans all of human history (or, in Civ7, 1/3 of it) if you're playing as a civilization that's only been around a few decades.

This is why really modern states with modern abilities like Canada and Australia have always felt a tad weird to me… though if there’s a civ game in which they make sense, it’d be the one with Ages.

 

[gdr_willter]

What I want is the 20th century Civ not based on the contemporary history IRL, BUT based on your whole playthrough of the match. It would be hard to deal with this game design, but I consider this idea has extremely high potential to make the game perfect.

At the last stage of the Modern Age (or the beginning of the 4th Age), players will face the last Crisis and it will push them into the final Civ-switching. But unlike with the previous 2 choices, the options are not given as the whole new Civ list of the new Age. The options will come from the 3 Civs you played. If you played Egypt -> Abbasid -> Mughal, you'll get the Civ name list: Egypt, Arabia, India. If you played Han -> Ming -> Qing(maybe), you'll get the Civ name list: China!

And if we have the full 4th Age for them, these final Civs will contain the modernized old unique features that randomly/manually selected from the all 3 past Civs, instead of their own uniques from the IRL contemporary nation. Your Egypt/Arabia/India may have the uniques like Tjaty Engineering School, Mamluk MBT, and whatever came from Mughal. Your China may have the uniques like Chu-Ko-Nu Self-propelled Artillery, Mandarin trade center, and whatever came from Qing.

It will allow you to feel more connected with all Civs you played through the Ages, and allow FXS to describe the contemporary Civs avoiding a lot of disputatious points of them IRL.

 

[Krajzen]

It's hard to feel like you're playing as a vessel that spans all of human history (or, in Civ7, 1/3 of it) if you're playing as a civilization that's only been around a few decades.

Counterpoint: it's hard to feel like you are participating in the display of all of human history if it doesn't include people of all major eras of human history

Counterpoint 2: Huns and Gran Colombia (honestly Inca and Zulu as well, their states lasted less than a century)

But I would focus on the counterpoint 1: history is history, past is past, my faculty's professors when asked start counting events older than 10-20 years ago as history, and people of as massively important and colourful era as Cold War deserve being present in a game by definiton covering "all of history". I also wonder how old people in this thread are, to be blunt, because for me early 90s are already fascinating and exotic alien realm of long gone never seen past

 

[Leyrann]

I'd want to see a few. Not many, but also not zero. And preferably from the first half of the 20th century in order to avoid touching too close on current events instead of history.

Teddy Roosevelt is a good example, although obviously we already had him in the last game.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Me.

Kukrit Pramos. is my top pick.