Mr Jon of Cheam
Emperor
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,229
Sure, why not? But not as a priority. If we end up with a huge roster by the end of Civ VII's life then I'd be quite happy for more modern leaders and civs to be included.
Youve demonstrated quite well a good reason for avoiding it: politics.I absolutely do not understand the vitriol which so many on this forum have for 20th Century / post-WWII nation-states.
In many ways the periods of history most impactful on the present are of course the eras immediately preceding ours. The decades of the ‘80s or ‘90s are likely to be more relevant and better documented - literally having more history in the form of sources - than any random decade from prior centuries.
They even serve as a better bridge between the past and present in some cases. “Indonesia” means something to those of us living in the Anglophone world. “Majapahit” sounds like a made up name out of some second-rate Tolkien knockoff with the worst world building ever to grace the fantasy genre. If all civs got similar treatment, the game would lose its flavor as a historical game, much more so than if it actually included fantasy civs like Narnia, Gondor, or Westeros.
The one caveat I’d include is that villainous civs which continue into the current day should be excluded. The Soviet Union would potentially be permissible since it has a historical terminus, having collapsed in ‘91. So long as it isn’t portrayed in a positive light, it could allow players to play out their Cold War fantasies and crush the commies.
CCP-occupied mainland China, on the other hand, would be an absolute dealbreaker. They’re currently engaged in genocide, apartheid, Orwellian surveillance, and a long litany of other atrocities.
Note for you for the future: This phrase does not mean what you thought it means. You are saying here that Civ 7 is "trying as hard as possible to include 20th century nations/leaders", which is the opposite of what you meant.civ7 is seemingly going out of its way to include 20th century nation states and leaders.
That depends on the tech progressionMy main problem with this is what those things come into play quite late in the modern age (since it starts with industrial revolution). So, it would look like in previous games there it doesn't fit well with the overall age mechanics. That's why we're speculating about the potential contemporary age.
Technically, "Gran Colombia" never stopped existing, the official name of what we call "Gran Colombia" today was the Republic of Colombia, which is the same country/society/culture(s) that still exists today and that, arguably, goes all the way back to 1538, when the Spanish settled in New Granada.Counterpoint 2: Huns and Gran Colombia (honestly Inca and Zulu as well, their states lasted less than a century)
Yeah, I’ve pointed this out in another thread myself. I don’t get why every poll that is posted in this forum has to be muddied with overly specific, leading additions to the options.Your poll's options could've simply be "yes" "no" "maybe" "I don't know" and "other",
The designers of civ should spend no time thinking about this. The goal should be a fun game.civilizations arent really a recognisable or agreed upon concept by the fanbase anymore
Yeah, I’ve pointed this out in another thread myself. I don’t get why every poll that is posted in this forum has to be muddied with overly specific, leading additions to the options.
Maybe people are trying to make the options resonate more with the reader but I think it often has the opposite effect.
Simple “yes” “no” etc. options are best, and then people can elaborate on their choices here in the comments.
Using dynasties makes total sense for Civ7's approach. If you want a fully Majapahit civilization that existed during the medieval period, calling it Indonesia would be completely inappropriate. It might have worked to some extent for Civ5 and Civ6, where civilizations encompassed much broader periods of time, but it doesn’t align with Civ7’s proposal.But I agree with you on Indonesia Vs majapahit. I'm disappointed by the movement towards dynasties and away from civilizations. We've always had a bit of it with the inclusions of the Ottomans for instance instead of the Turkic. But now it's got to a point where civilizations arent really a recognisable or agreed upon concept by the fanbase anymore, and any political entity seemingly counts as its own thing.
The one caveat I’d include is that villainous civs which continue into the current day should be excluded. The Soviet Union would potentially be permissible since it has a historical terminus, having collapsed in ‘91. So long as it isn’t portrayed in a positive light, it could allow players to play out their Cold War fantasies and crush the commies.
I disagree. I was thinking about this in the context of Persia - the antiquity era covers so many eras of Persian history, why are the Devs limiting themselves to 1 dynasty? They could have taken aspect of the Medes, the Parthians and the Archaemenids and still had a coherent Antiquity "Persia".Using dynasties makes total sense for Civ7's approach. If you want a fully Majapahit civilization that existed during the medieval period, calling it Indonesia would be completely inappropriate. It might have worked to some extent for Civ5 and Civ6, where civilizations encompassed much broader periods of time, but it doesn’t align with Civ7’s proposal.
The head of the History Department at my university used to say about events less than about 30 years old: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![]()
Not really. History is not the event; it is the interpretation of the event. Interpretation takes time; otherwise, every news article would be a history text. (A news article may become a historical text, in time, but a news article purporting to report current events as history is misleading its readership.) This is also why "seeing history in the making" is very boring unless you really enjoy standing over someone's shoulder and watching them write.As for when history begins, opinions differ, you could say it's yesterday.
“Majapahit” sounds like a made up name out of some second-rate Tolkien knockoff with the worst world building ever to grace the fantasy genre. If all civs got similar treatment, the game would lose its flavor as a historical game, much more so than if it actually included fantasy civs like Narnia, Gondor, or Westeros.
It's not about tech progression, it's about change of rules, which is allowed with age progression. If all contemporary features are in the latest third part of the tech tree, you can't set up rules based on them for the modern age.That depends on the tech progression
You could easily have a tech/civic tree of
Column 0 (late 1700s-early 1800s) early industrialization, steam power
Column 1 (1800s) full industrialization, RR, artillery, machine guns, mass colonization (scramble)
Column 2 (~1900-1940) WW techs, ideologies, combustion, electrification, radio, flight, fertilizer, "UN/League of Nations"
Column 3 (~1940-1970) nukes, computers, rockets, MAD, mass media, decolonization, green revolution
Column 4 (~1970-2000) space travel, renewables, stealth, environmentalism, part 1 science victory
Column 5 (~2000-2030) AI, online society, genetic medicine, part 2 science victory (space bases)
Column 6 (~2030-2060) fusion, drone warfare, Science Victory Finishing techs (space colonies)
Column 7 (2060+) repeatables [techs boost warfare or science victory, civics boost leader attributes]
My main problem with this is what those things come into play quite late in the modern age (since it starts with industrial revolution). So, it would look like in previous games there it doesn't fit well with the overall age mechanics. That's why we're speculating about the potential contemporary age.
This is my take as well. Even putting aside my lack of interest in latter 20th century history, I really don't need 200 turns added to my game--and I play on Epic. Even if they added something I'm more interested in like the Bronze Age, I just don't feel like making the game longer is a great way to "improve" the game. (See also, Gathering Storm, whose added turns weren't even mandatory...)They're also talking about ~200 turns/era right now, and it'll be much harder to win the full set of eras in the sort of speed that are possible in previous civ games - the sub-turn-100-victories of Civ 6 would need you to somehow win an era in 30-40 turns, for example. Adding a fourth era would take that up to ~800 turns, and even if you're going really fast through the eras it seems unlikely it'll be less than 400 turns. I'm not confident that the fun of any interesting mechanics they could add exclusive to a contemporary era would be worth the problems Evie mentioned and the lengthening of the game.