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

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

  • Yeah, a few more would be nice

    Votes: 28 25.7%
  • I don't have a strong opinion here

    Votes: 28 25.7%
  • No, 20th century civs are generally less interesting

    Votes: 46 42.2%
  • Other opinion (in the comment)

    Votes: 7 6.4%

  • Total voters
    109
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’s why ideologies should be available by the first third/ nukes by the first half of the modern tech tree.
 
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.
Usually I would agree with you, but it makes it harder in this iteration to not use dynastic names to refer different polities, such as Majapahit. Alternatively if Indonesia is too broad of a civ, and Majapahit is too limiting, I wouldn't mind going with the name Javanese.
Of course, then you'd be leaving out the Balinese, Sumatrans etc. :dunno:
It would be cool to have a 20th century/late 19th century leader for Brazil or Colombia. They have centred these two civ around a specific leader, Pedro II and Simón Bolívar, respectively. It would be great to see other areas of the history of Brazil and Colombia by having leaders that are a bit more contemporary. I'd stop at the 1940's or 1950's though, anything after that would make things complicated and can be seen more as current events.

I'd propose Rafael Núñez for Colombia and Juscelino Kubitschek fro Brazil.
I'm sure that when, if, Brazil comes back it will be represented by the Brazilian Empire again.
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".

You then could have aspects of Sassanid and Seljuk and timurid empires mixed in for an exploration "Persia".
I agree with you regarding Persia. Persia could have 3 separate civs across all ages.
 
Usually I would agree with you, but it makes it harder in this iteration to not use dynastic names to refer different polities, such as Majapahit. Alternatively if Indonesia is too broad of a civ, and Majapahit is too limiting, I wouldn't mind going with the name Javanese.
Of course, then you'd be leaving out the Balinese, Sumatrans etc. :dunno:

I agree with you regarding Persia. Persia could have 3 separate civs across all ages.
I don't know what your criteria is for too broad. Arguably Persia is too narrow to represent a lot of what this forum would ascribe to it, but a single word descriptor is always just going to point to a broad concept and not the specifics.

In the spirit of not getting bogged down, I like the relatableness of defining civilizations by the history taught in modern nations approach where Majapahit and Srivijaya and the kingdoms of Bali and Sumatra and Sulawesi etc all fall under "Indonesian precursors". And in that sense I'd be happy with a civ called simply "Indonesia" or "Persia" being choosable in each era with the civilopedia there to flesh out the specifics. Civ has never been a history lesson, it's more a toy box, and you aren't going to get the same level of detail and accuracy in those things
 
No. I'm already not interested in America as a Civ and they're not even *that* new of a Civ.

I would only accept a "modern" civ as a substitute for a series of smaller empires that are hard to justifiy on their own (e.g. Indonesia and Nigeria)
 
Last edited:
I don't know what your criteria is for too broad. Arguably Persia is too narrow to represent a lot of what this forum would ascribe to it, but a single word descriptor is always just going to point to a broad concept and not the specifics.

In the spirit of not getting bogged down, I like the relatableness of defining civilizations by the history taught in modern nations approach where Majapahit and Srivijaya and the kingdoms of Bali and Sumatra and Sulawesi etc all fall under "Indonesian precursors". And in that sense I'd be happy with a civ called simply "Indonesia" or "Persia" being choosable in each era with the civilopedia there to flesh out the specifics. Civ has never been a history lesson, it's more a toy box, and you aren't going to get the same level of detail and accuracy in those things
I don't necessarily like using the word "blob" as that's what many would have called Indonesia in the past, but what I mean is in this iteration just calling the civ Indonesia in the Exploration Age wouldn't fit right to me. Maybe if you named it Majapahit Indonesia, similar to how Han and Ming have China would be it would fine. Using just Indonesia in the Modern Age would work too, though not like that would be a high priority for me.
I would feel the same way about Persia as well. Achaemenid Persia, Sassanid Persia, and Safavid Persia.
 
If we're going to have an era split with a new civ every era, then repeating teh same name civ would be a cumbersome and poor naming scheme. Even if you qualify them as Ancient Indonesia, Exploration Indonesia, that'S still cumbersome., Not to mentiont that it creates an expectation that each vilvilization will have its Ancient, Exploration and Modern version, which grossly limit potential design.

No. A unique name, avoiding obvious repetition, clear synonyms, and translation switcheroos (Greece and Hellas are not two unique name: they're the same unique name in two languages. Likewise Francia and France) and avoiding distinction based only on misplaced adjectives (no,. Hellenic Republic is not an improvement, and Ancien Régime also doesn't work). Usiung slightly more obscure civilizations to get there just make the game more varied and the world feel wider.

As for complaints that these name may sound unreal: if things that aren'T familiar to you feel unreal, that might be something for you to work on, not something for the rest of the world to adapt to.
 
I don't necessarily like using the word "blob" as that's what many would have called Indonesia in the past, but what I mean is in this iteration just calling the civ Indonesia in the Exploration Age wouldn't fit right to me. Maybe if you named it Majapahit Indonesia, similar to how Han and Ming have China would be it would fine. Using just Indonesia in the Modern Age would work too, though not like that would be a high priority for me.
I would feel the same way about Persia as well. Achaemenid Persia, Sassanid Persia, and Safavid Persia.
I think you're missing my point - I'm not saying I'd prefer what they have implemented this iteration to be called just Persia or just Indonesia. I'm saying the way they've implemented the age split has artificially reduced the historical input to a single dynasty in a limiting way, where instead they could represent multiple dynasties that track the civ through the whole era (aspects of Medes & Parthians and Archaemenids as a single antiquity Persia civ or aspects of Tang and Ming and Song for a single exploration China). I think I would prefer that to what we have as it gives a greater sense of continuity within and across ages. Effectively that would be what we had before in previous iterations of civ partitioned into (up to) 3 by age.
 
aspects of Medes & Parthians and Archaemenids as a single antiquity Persia
I'd say any depiction of Achaemenid Persia contains elements of Media and that the Median elements are virtually impossible to separate. We know from various ancient sources that the Achaemenids thought of their empire as being made up of Medes and Persians, we know there was a brief Median Empire that preceded the Achaemenids, and we know linguistically that some Old Persian words are loans from Median on phonological grounds (e.g., the Old Persian word for horse should be asa, but Median aspa is what is attested). But I don't think we know enough about the Medes to distinguish them from the Achaemenids in any meaningful way mechanically or even in flavor beyond the inherent influence they left on the Achaemenids.
 
I’m a “the game should end before or at the year 2000” person. Honestly the space race and/or nukes to me have always seemed like the most natural end points of the game, as these are two big historical developments that could make for an interesting final 20-30 turns of a game. Nothing that has happened since, to me in my opinion, has been on that level of historical magnitude. Predicting the future has never been a satisfying way to end a civ game….

With that in mind, I can go about as late as JFK for the US or basically a leader that was an adult when he was assassinated.
 
I'd say any depiction of Achaemenid Persia contains elements of Media and that the Median elements are virtually impossible to separate. We know from various ancient sources that the Achaemenids thought of their empire as being made up of Medes and Persians, we know there was a brief Median Empire that preceded the Achaemenids, and we know linguistically that some Old Persian words are loans from Median on phonological grounds (e.g., the Old Persian word for horse should be asa, but Median aspa is what is attested). But I don't think we know enough about the Medes to distinguish them from the Achaemenids in any meaningful way mechanically or even in flavor beyond the inherent influence they left on the Achaemenids.
In fact there is strong evidence that the Achaemenid Persians even adopted many items of Median costume/clothing, so that it would be hard to distinguish between Mede and Persian Unit graphics.

And the bigger problem, if they are hard to distinguish in actions and attributes, why have both in the game? It is the same problem with central Asian pastoral 'Civs': they all had similar clothing styles, the same horse archer-based armies, and were heavily involved in log-distance land trade. Being so similar, how/why does the game distinguish them? - And, for that matter, distinguish them not only from each other (Scythians, Sarmatians, Kushans, Xiongnu, et al) but also from the similar-in-activities later North American natives like the Sioux or Commanche?

If you have to make a diligent search to find ways to distinguish between two potential Civs, at least one of them is probably redundant.
 
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.
Exactly, it sucks because their abilities are so fun but for the majority of the game you can't even use them
 
The H person would've been interesting, but I guess that will never happen anytime short of the next 200 years, probably in CIV 39.
 
Although the game is becoming Leader focused as opposed to Civ focused(with Leaders doing best with Civs that synergize with their strengths or mitigates their weaknesses), I don’t really care too much on who they add. Yet I think fresh new faces for Leaders would be welcomed. With USA in mind specifically, I’d like to see either Jefferson(Manifest Destiny & Louisiana Purchase), Madison(architect of Constitution & War of 1812) or Monroe(Monroe Doctrine) with respect to Presidents. Jefferson’s strength would be border expansion and using Gold to expand it if necessary. Madison could be a strong Culture producer or have strong Government buffs. Finally, Monroe could be a Diplomatic Leader with a strong ability towards protecting City States or other nations in their continent or hemisphere(latter of which I wouldn’t mind seeing for soft power projection).
 
In fact there is strong evidence that the Achaemenid Persians even adopted many items of Median costume/clothing, so that it would be hard to distinguish between Mede and Persian Unit graphics.

And the bigger problem, if they are hard to distinguish in actions and attributes, why have both in the game? It is the same problem with central Asian pastoral 'Civs': they all had similar clothing styles, the same horse archer-based armies, and were heavily involved in log-distance land trade. Being so similar, how/why does the game distinguish them? - And, for that matter, distinguish them not only from each other (Scythians, Sarmatians, Kushans, Xiongnu, et al) but also from the similar-in-activities later North American natives like the Sioux or Commanche?

If you have to make a diligent search to find ways to distinguish between two potential Civs, at least one of them is probably redundant.
Where do you draw the line. European civs are incredibly similar in style and culture as well.

It would be ridiculous to say Serbia shouldn't be in civ because they're too similar to [insert inner European, Slavic, Christian state here].

I'm sad Portugal is missing at launch yet again, even if it is similar to [European colonial naval power that spread its language to new regions and made a lot of money off the exploitation of people and places]. I don't care that Portugal is similar, they deserve to be in civ.

They picked "Abassids" instead of "Arabia". It would be fun to eventually have all the other main caliphates as well. Would they be similar? Sure. Are they similar irl? If course. Can the devs come up with fun ways to differentiate them? I'm sure they can.
 
Where do you draw the line. European civs are incredibly similar in style and culture as well.

It would be ridiculous to say Serbia shouldn't be in civ because they're too similar to [insert inner European, Slavic, Christian state here].

I'm sad Portugal is missing at launch yet again, even if it is similar to [European colonial naval power that spread its language to new regions and made a lot of money off the exploitation of people and places]. I don't care that Portugal is similar, they deserve to be in civ.

They picked "Abassids" instead of "Arabia". It would be fun to eventually have all the other main caliphates as well. Would they be similar? Sure. Are they similar irl? If course. Can the devs come up with fun ways to differentiate them? I'm sure they can.

I would disagree to a point.
The more similar a civ is to one already in the game. the lower it is on the priority list.

Now if civs are in different eras (Exploration Mongols v Modern Sioux or Antiquity Scythians)
That is a relevant difference

It can also be relevant if they are unlocked by different other sets of civs (Mongols Unlocked by Han+Persia v Exploration Plains Natives Unlocked by Mississippi+Maya)…and are part of different culture group graphics.
 
Deserve? What do moral value judgements have to do with any of this? Civ isn't there to decide which nations are deserving and which are not.
Most if not all nations deserve to be in civ.

I simply dislike how some users say things akin to "this nation is too similar/unknown/small/short-lived to be in the game". I love crazy picks like Georgia in Civ VI, and I'd say that Georgia absolutely deserves to be in civ, in the same way any other historical nation deserves to be.
 
Where do you draw the line. European civs are incredibly similar in style and culture as well.

It would be ridiculous to say Serbia shouldn't be in civ because they're too similar to [insert inner European, Slavic, Christian state here].

I'm sad Portugal is missing at launch yet again, even if it is similar to [European colonial naval power that spread its language to new regions and made a lot of money off the exploitation of people and places]. I don't care that Portugal is similar, they deserve to be in civ.

They picked "Abassids" instead of "Arabia". It would be fun to eventually have all the other main caliphates as well. Would they be similar? Sure. Are they similar irl? If course. Can the devs come up with fun ways to differentiate them? I'm sure they can.
The point being made (by Boris) is that there is strong cultural continuity between two dynasties of the same empire in the same era, and that we don't need each of those dynasties to receive a separate civilization.

Everyone deserve to be in Civ indeed, but when someone already *is* in civ as part of a wider grouping (eg, Persia instead of Medea), perhaps we should focus on adding people who aren't there at all than making a finer split of those who are already there. Those who aren't there at all deserve to be there too. And thus justifying two dynasties of the same empire in the same era should require some more significant difference than "Well, different dynasties" before we worry about adding them.

Ultimately, deserve is one thing, but there are never enough spots in the game for everyone who deserve them to get one, and choices must be made. Having another Arabic civilizations is worth considering (having the Umayyad to represent more the western side of the Arabian world, for example), but is it worth sacrificing, say, the Inca for? There is always a cost to adding a civilization to the game, and "deserve" isn't always good enough to justify that cost.

(That said, I will say that in my attempt to draw up my ultimate 30-per-era list, Umayyad, Serbia and Portugal have all come in for strong consideration).
 
Last edited:
Take a shot every time I say the word deserve.

@Olleus

I see people arguing that XYZ doesn't deserve to be in the game all the time. It's my impression that a lot of people think Russia or Germany DESERVE to be in the modern era over Mexico, for example. Check post comments under the Mississippi or Majapahit reveals in social media. A non-negligible amount of commenters deplore that we're getting them over more well-known polities. Hell, someone on this very forum was comparing Majapahit to some Tolkien fantasy race because the name sounded funny (!?!) Hence my comment. It's not a competition about who gets there first.

Of course this is a game. I'm not sure why you're bringing UNESCO to the conversation.

I did not use the word "DESERVE" to imply any moral value judgment. I specified in my next comment how all nations "DESERVE" to be in civ. It's not about who "DESERVES" , as they all do, because I agree, a video game is not an authority on what defines a DESERVING nation. Nevertheless, it still offers some commentary on how it chooses to present the world and world history, hence why I appreciate when they pick civs from across the world.

Making this about what nation DESERVES to be in the game highlights the ridiculous commentary some provide. The other commenter accused pastoral civs of being redundant, but they would never argue the same for the likes of European colonial powers. Why? Because in their eyes, Portugal, Spain, the UK, France, all DESERVE to be in the game, and of course I agree, why wouldn't I? All are important and have fascinating histories easily translated to gameplay elements. But pastoral civs also DESERVE to be in the game, which I'm not sure they would agree.

"Who do want to play as?", "who do want to play against?" , "which will have a fun play style?" , "which will widen the most the feeling of playing over the whole world for all of history?" are all valid topics. Having personal preferences is fine and expected. But these are not the prevailing discussion points I see.

"I want Germany in the modern era at launch because I like Germany, I want to play against Germany, I think I'll have fun as Germany" are reasons, good reasons, I can understand.

"Germany should be in the base game over Mexico or Buganda because Germany deserves to be in civ because I read about Germany in my school history books and that makes them more important than Buganda or Mexico" is not a point I can take, but it's one I read about often.

In essence, we seem to agree that the whole "DESERVE" discussion is not at all relevant, and I don't believe I'm the one who brought it up, I'm merely pointing it out.

@Evie

I'm not arguing that the Medes should be in Civ right away, I'm saying they should not be barred from the series for being similar, especially when a crowded region of the world with similar civs has usually been the case in previous civ titles.

People are iffy that the Normans will probably lead to America, which I understand, but come on, the Normans are "similar" to France and England, yet we all want want exploration France and England too. Thankfully, "thanks" to the DLC model, we probably will have them eventually.
 
Back
Top Bottom