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

[Verified_Confection_Being]

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.

Civ implicitly does this every time they choose to add to their roster. I wouldn't describe it as a moral judgement (though sometimes it might be) as much as a value judgement (or in the case of omissions like tibet, a political judgement)

Sealand clearly isn't deserving for instance (except as a joke mod), and there are several civs which have featured in every iteration that clearly are.

It may not be popular here or politically correct, but there is clearly a rough hierarchy of deserving civilizations, with factors affecting their place on that hierarchy that have shifted with the values of the society the developers are operating in, and with the mechanics they are implementing for the civs to operate to.

 

[Evie]

I most empathically do not want exploration France and England.

I might have liked to have England instead of the Normans, but this is a rare case where, to contradict the famous Road to Eldorado quote, both is not good, and the Normans are here to stay, and they absolutely *are* Exploration Era England. Nor do I want France, because I feel there is no satisfying naming scheme to have France twice in the game, unless we go as far back as the Carolingians. Using "Dynasty Name" kingdom for the later dynasties is profoundly unsatisfying, Ancien Régime is not a civilization name, and using transparent translation of France in other languages (Francia) is sheer sophistry.

That's not to say I wouldn't like to see an Exploration era civ from what became modern France, but I don,T want it to be France. There is more to the history of what became France than just France itself, and from those kingdoms that were absorbed into France late in the Exploration era, we have much stronger contenders that each bring something unique and different beyond being just another France - Brittany combine France's colonial legacy with Celtic-Gallic roots that are missing in the rest of France, Burgundy combines French and Dutch history, while tying into Spain, Austria and the Habsburg (not to mention ties to the oft-forgotten Middle Francia), and so forth. I would far prefer to see one of those than to have France all over again in the Exploration era. There are others, too, and they deserve inclusion as much if not more as a second France, while making for a much more diverse game experience overall than just repeating France across multiple eras.

There is so much more we can do with this game than just haplessly copying the same civ between ages, if we look beyond the obvious familiar names.

 

[CivKirk64]

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

Mad, or Cracked Magazine?

 

[Krikkit1]

Mad, or Cracked Magazine?

The Pax Atomica where the only wars that won’t make you lose the game are with independent powers.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

there is clearly a rough hierarchy of deserving civilizations, with factors affecting their place on that hierarchy that have shifted with the values of the society the developers are operating in, and with the mechanics they are implementing for the civs to operate to.

There certainly is. In fact, there's a hierarchy for every person with an opinion on the topic, each ranked according to subjective factors, none of which can be objectively proven to be better or worse than any other. At best, if every civ had an advocate who could put their best foot forward so that people could evaluate from the entire pool of possible civs with good information about each, then you could say that the weighted average of everyone's individual hierarchies would be a reasonably objective (or at least democratic) weighting.

Fortunately, we don't need to worry about this because we will get civs according to a carefully evaluated hierarchy, Ed Beach's hierarchy. Which will be as good as any, and better than most, because he'll be better informed than most people about many of the civs in the pool of possible civs.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

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.

First of all, as stated by others already, there is no 'line' to be drawn: in an ideal gaming world, every group, culture, politie, and Civ that has ever existed or can be proven to have existed, even if only in a writer's mind, would be included.

That, of course, is not possible.

My personal criteria is that unless there is some Playable game mechanic, bonus, activity, Unique, or some other in-game criteria that can be applied to differentiate one Civ/culture from another, they do not need to be included until we run out of all other alternatives. Some people might enjoy playing a game in which all their opponents are Achaemenid Persians by other names, but for most of us, it is the variety of opponents and necessary responses to that variety that is part of the game's attraction.

So, in this particular instance, Medes and (Achaemenid) Persians are so similar that it is very difficult to find in-game capabilities that would separate them into distinct Civs.

Likewise, as I've posted before, the central Asian pastoral 'Civs' are so similar in may of their basic aspects that it is hard to differentiate them: Scythians, Sarmatians, Xiongnu, Huns, Kushans - it is not impossible, but is is not easy either, to find distinctive attributes to assign to them without invoking Emblematic Leaders (which Civ VII no longer does) like Attila, Tomyris, or Modu Chanyu.

Your argument about Portugal 'deserving' to be included seems to me to be based on the impact that a group had on history, which in Portugal's case was considerable (especially in relation to the size and population of the original country) BUT I would point out that it was also very limited in Time. Portugal's rise to explorational power, founding of colonies and trade routes and status as a major naval/trading nation lasted, basically, less than 200 years - a fraction of a single Age in Civ VII. That doesn't preclude them from the game by any means, but I suggest it places them slightly lower on the selection list using the 'Historical Importance' criteria than, say, Spain, England or France, all of whom had far more influence for far longer

Given the limitations in number of Civs that can be included, even stretching to include years of DLCs, compared to the total number of possibilities, choices have to be made. I believe those choices should be made in favor of Civs and groups that bring Something Different to the game rather than repeat what other Civs already have brought to the gaming table.

And although I agree that Portugal deserves a seat at the table, I would also argue that given Spain's importance as a colonizing, initial trade route and exploration Civ, both of them do not need to be included from the beginning when there are so many other areas, time frames, peoples, cultures and Civs to be represented, for Variety's sake if nothing else.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

There certainly is. In fact, there's a hierarchy for every person with an opinion on the topic, each ranked according to subjective factors, none of which can be objectively proven to be better or worse than any other. At best, if every civ had an advocate who could put their best foot forward so that people could evaluate from the entire pool of possible civs with good information about each, then you could say that the weighted average of everyone's individual hierarchies would be a reasonably objective (or at least democratic) weighting.

Fortunately, we don't need to worry about this because we will get civs according to a carefully evaluated hierarchy, Ed Beach's hierarchy. Which will be as good as any, and better than most, because he'll be better informed than most people about many of the civs in the pool of possible civs.

I was right with you up until the trust in Ed Beach part. I am worried about this. His hierarchy is not satisfactorily aligned with my own anymore

I am left wondering, was he so desperate to put the Normans in that changing the way the game functions by ages was simply a means to an end?

 

[gdr_willter]

I am left wondering, was he so desperate to put the Normans in that changing the way the game functions by ages was simply a means to an end?

Again, you are using the cynical words to blame someone. You don't have to belive that devs are good people, but at the same time, you don't have to suppose devs are such a selfish guys. You'd better treat the developers as developers, who try to make and sell a good game.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Again, you are using the cynical words to blame someone. You don't have to belive that devs are good people, but at the same time, you don't have to suppose devs are such a selfish guys. You'd better treat the developers as developers, who try to make and sell a good game.

I was being deliberately tongue in cheek there

 

[gdr_willter]

I was being deliberately tongue in cheek there

Oh well yeah, of coursely you did...

 

[Evie]

What we may have in 10 years is a whole other question. But 10 years is much too far in the future to project reasonably given all the impoderables of the video game market, and the world in general. For game development concerns, 10 years is very long term. I think worrying about where the game will be in 3-4, maybe 5 years is more sensible.

(But of we do get 10 years of full development and all those stacked civs? Stscks will still be a tiny minority.

 

[gdr_willter]

What we may have in 10 years is a whole other question. But 10 years is much too far in the future to project reasonably given all the impoderables of the video game market, and the world in general. For game development concerns, 10 years is very long term. I think worrying about where the game will be in 3-4, maybe 5 years is more sensible.

(But of we do get 10 years of full development and all those stacked civs? Stscks will still be a tiny minority.

I think you posted it on the wrong thread. Isn't it the reply for this post?

 

[Evie]

Uh, weird. You're right, of course.

 

[Uberfrog]

I think the challenge Firaxis has with contemporary history is largely the lack of an aspirational narrative.

In the second half of the 20th century, it appeared as though human civilisation would progress towards a glorious future among the stars, or a fiery nuclear destruction. Such clear options are excellent fodder for a 4X game. It’s not surprising that since its post-Cold War origins, Sid Meier’s Civilization has placed the space race at the optimistic forefront of its modern gameplay. Your choice of victory is either that, or else some utopian UN decree, or (of course) the option of planetary atomic conquest. Indeed, settling a new planet feels like the perfect end to a game which sees you settle that first lonely settler on Earth in 4000 BC.

One quarter of the way into the 21st century, however (and firmly in the Post-Modern Age), we have seen that unified world government is a fantasy, and space travel is now the preserve of only the most megalomaniac plutocrats rather than states themselves. Civ 6’s Gathering Storm expansion was the first real admission that humanity’s best hope was simply surviving its own self-induced climate apocalypse, but even that doubled down on the exoplanet expedition.

In short, I can see why Firaxis might choose to end the game with Saturn Vs…

Of course none of this precludes 20th century civs, but I think they would be an awkward fit alongside other Modern civs that have earlier origins. Then we are free to play with a more what-if version of the global ideological conflicts and industrial and scientific advancements that are likely to be the core gameplay of the last age:

 

[Zaarin]

space travel is now the preserve of only the most megalomaniac plutocrats rather than states themselves.

And more than that, we're becoming increasingly aware that a Martian colony would be a monumental undertaking at our current tech level that will almost certainly be a death sentence for the colonists, and an extrasolar mission within human lifetimes even to the nearest star defies the laws of physics. (To be clear, I still like the starry eyed take on the science victory; as you said, it's very mid-20th century in a good way.)

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I think part of the problem is in the west at least, we're still stuck in this cold war era, post WW2 narrative of a triumphant battle between the free and good against the authoritarian and bad. It served the west well while it had that battle but then when it was won, it was left with introspection and in it's sad lonely state at the top of the pecking order, it decided it wasn't so good and free after all and made itself the enemy. Now the western conception of the flow of history is that we are eating ourselves and the end is nigh, but that's a uniquely western phenomenon.

The global south meanwhile is happily galloping up the development charts, reducing poverty and becoming economically and politically competitive with the depressed west, with new conceptions and ideologies forming. The 21st century is going to be a really interesting stage of a future civ game I feel as it really opens the door to a lot more civs and a once again widening map with low earth orbit and before long the start of solar system exploitation. We'll see a great deal of map change as the arctic melts and opens the door to both new territory to colonise and also new permanent trade routes that boost opportunities for trade in new dimensions that change the game in the same way the route west to the indies did in the 1500s

Civs will experience enormous shifts in how they visibly look as old cities are either defended successfully from the sea, adapt to being in it like a modern Venice, or retreat upland from it, offering opportunities for a new kind of settlement mechanic in the post modern era.

Cold war of the 20th century will be dull by comparison

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I was right with you up until the trust in Ed Beach part. I am worried about this. His hierarchy is not satisfactorily aligned with my own anymore

I am left wondering, was he so desperate to put the Normans in that changing the way the game functions by ages was simply a means to an end?

I'm not a fan of Ed's approach to game design, overall. The first thing I did when I heard that Civ 7 was coming was check to see who the lead was, hoping there had been a change, because his view of what makes for a good game is not satisfactorily aligned with my view of the types of games I enjoy playing.

But I do try to be fair, and while his list will include some that lean into his own interests (Normans) and some that are pure head scratchers (Buganda???), I still expect it to be well thought through and a better overall mix of civs than most of the wish lists I see posted on this forum.

 

[Evie]

As a counterpoint, victory conditions *should* be fantastical. No one has ever conquered the world, or even come close to it (Sorry Alex: it turns out there was more land to conquer). No one

Real history cannot be won. It makes sense that victory then requires doing things that, in reality, cannot be done.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

a monumental undertaking at our current tech level that will almost certainly be a death sentence for the colonists

*checks history books about colonies* Yup, that tracks.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

And more than that, we're becoming increasingly aware that a Martian colony would be a monumental undertaking at our current tech level that will almost certainly be a death sentence for the colonists, and an extrasolar mission within human lifetimes even to the nearest star defies the laws of physics. (To be clear, I still like the starry eyed take on the science victory; as you said, it's very mid-20th century in a good way.)

The key point here and in all such discussions is:

"at our current tech level . . ."

That is a very moving situation constraint, and one which, as has been proven time and again in the past 100 years, we cannot predict with anything like accuracy. My favorite examples:

The original Star Trek showed them using, essentially, Flip Phones, which is already considered a niche, quaint technology. 23rd century became very early 21st century.

Out of all the hundreds of stories about men going to the moon, not one ever assumed or forecast that the moon landing would be Televised.

As John Campbell pointed out decades ago, if a fairly simple reconnaissance drone from the Vietnam war was dropped onto a USAF base thirty-five years earlier, in 1936 - 39, it would be largely incomprehensible to them. It used a ram jet, which doesn't work unless the craft is already going over 500 miles per hour, which No Craft in 1938 can do. It used solid-state electronics, which are, to 1938 analysis, simply blocks of silicon with impurities, The airframe is built of titanium, an unknown material in 1938. The insignia looks a little like the then-current USAF roundel and star, and it has wings that imply that it flies - somehow, but nothing in 1938 can get it to fly.

Now fast forward to 2060 or so, 35 years from now. None of us can predict accurately, based on all our previous attempts and their lack of success, what "our current tech level" will be then. For all we know, Mars might be a weekend jaunt or we might be struggling to make it across the Atlantic Ocean in the face of storms that dwarf anything we've seen in the past 10,000 years. We simply do not know, and have a very bad record of predicting.