Sid Meier's Civilization

I can understand not wanting Lincoln to represent America because he's overdone at this point, but any 'American" who is sick of Teddy Roosevelt should have their citizenship revoked on the spot. Andrew Jackson is a good pick though since I don't think he's ever represented the United States in any strategy game. James K. Polk could also be a good choice for an expansionist and faith-based playstyle however that may be too much of a "who" for the average person.

You have to remember that 90% of the people who play these games don't care beyond a basic-bitch surface level about the actual history behind every civilization's leaders. They rely on the developers to tell them who is important.
Polk is one of the most underrated American presidents in popular and academic consciousness. Many of the institutions and structures of America that we used to take for granted have an origin or refinement in his administration. Jefferson and Jackson would also be good choices in a less charged environment, and I personally have a soft spot for Coolidge.

That said, I don't want Lincoln to represent America because he's overdone, but because he's just an awful choice. Regardless of your opinion on the War between the States or whether he was a tyrant, if you suggested a leader for any other civilization whose ascension sparked the bloodiest war in its history, had his barely four-year administration entirely taken up by it, and then was assassinated before it could even be completely won, people would rightfully think you were trolling. Lincoln was a clever politician but any basic comparison between him and the sort of leaders who are usually chosen/proposed to represent civilizations is embarrassing. There's also the small matter that he only represents half of the civilization he's leading.

That's exactly the problem. In a very narrowly focused game (like a lot of mods, Napoleonic Era for Age of Empires III had Jefferson for America as it fit the timeframe) it can work, but a Civ candidate needs to be a Big Personality. Nobody knows what Polk was like. i'm his number one advocate (I think there should be a Polk Monument in Washington DC) and I couldn't tell you what he was like.
I disagree with this line of thought; games like these influence popular perception and awareness more than they are influenced by it. It's why there's such a big push to put female leaders and sub-saharan civilizations that had no alphabet, not even numerals, into them, and why there's a very large amount of people who now associate Gandhi with nuclear holocaust. If Civ VII chose to have Polk I guarantee you it would cause a small revival of popular interest in him both as a leader and as a person.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I disagree with this line of thought; games like these influence popular perception and awareness more than they are influenced by it. It's why there's such a big push to put female leaders and sub-saharan civilizations that had no alphabet, not even numerals, into them, and why there's a very large amount of people who now associate Gandhi with nuclear holocaust. If Civ VII chose to have Polk I guarantee you it would cause a small revival of popular interest in him both as a leader and as a person.
Excellent point.

And Polk very much deserves it. It's insane how that War conquered one quarter of our territory (home to one of our most famous states and some of our biggest cities), basically destroyed our imperial rival, and nobody gives a fuck. I honestly think it comes from racism. It's a condescending "oh, it was JUST Mexico" thing.


Now I'll tell you all a legit civ that never makes it into these games: Normans.
Probably because they so easily fall into your Viking/British civ, but the Normans had a distinct identity and were effectively a proto-colonial power in not just England but also Italy and the Holy Land.
They deserve recognition, AT LEAST as a unique civ in a Medieval era game. William the Conqueror BABYYYYYYY

Edit: Also, @Mayor Cody Travers , I think the Byzantines work great as both Greeks and Romans. They're literally the continuation of Roman govt and literally the continuation of the Greek culture. Honestly, I think Medieval Romans should be depicted as Venetians/other merchant republics, Greeks as Byzantines.
 
It looks like I'm stuck playing modded Civ IV & V for the foreseeable future or until the fans fix up VII themselves which is unlikely given the state of modern-day game modding being a fraction of what it used to be in the past.
What the heck happened to videogame modding? Was it just that the environments were culled? Did the modders finally die from NEETing too long? Do the modders all have jobs now? Is it a competence crisis thing?
 
What the heck happened to videogame modding? Was it just that the environments were culled? Did the modders finally die from NEETing too long? Do the modders all have jobs now? Is it a competence crisis thing?
In terms of strategy games, I think it's a mix of multiple factors. First, the increased reliance on licensed software in game creation; a lot of studios stopped making stuff entirely in-house and started relying on stuff that they couldn't actually give/get access to modders to use or that was just less flexible (this is, for example, what killed most mapmodding in new Total War titles). Highly moddable games also present challenges for new titles; if a game's lifespan and utility are extended greatly by free content then there's less incentive to buy the next title in a series and you'll have people asking why wasn't x or y included, so there are financial and PR incentives. There's also a human element; console gamers moving into the sphere had no expectation of mods, so there's less pressure for studios to accommodate them, while studios are becoming increasingly bloated with incompetents (especially in marketing, who don't care about whether a game they don't even play can be modded), nevermind the ego element some have of not wanting to get shown up by people doing it for free with your game.
 
Mods aren't about developer design, plenty of games aren't designed to be modded but still have a thriving mod community in spite of the dev's intentions. The thing is that games are just more complicated these days, and often built on poorly-coded stuff that nobody understands, even the devs themselves. Adding in new content needs more skills and more work, and is more likely to break something through no fault of your own. Just like games themselves take more money and time to make, so too do the mods.
 
Mods aren't about developer design, plenty of games aren't designed to be modded but still have a thriving mod community in spite of the dev's intentions.
Mods might not be about developer design, but a thriving mod scene is very much dependent on whether or not the devs design their games with it in mind. Think of how long it took for Civ V to get any decent mod support compared to Civ IV; Civ V didn't even have decent community-built modding tools until years after BNW, whereas they not only existed for Civ IV when BtS launched, BtS launched with some of the most ambitious mods at the time built into it as scenarios.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kane Lives
Excellent point.

And Polk very much deserves it. It's insane how that War conquered one quarter of our territory (home to one of our most famous states and some of our biggest cities), basically destroyed our imperial rival, and nobody gives a fuck. I honestly think it comes from racism. It's a condescending "oh, it was JUST Mexico" thing.


Now I'll tell you all a legit civ that never makes it into these games: Normans.
Probably because they so easily fall into your Viking/British civ, but the Normans had a distinct identity and were effectively a proto-colonial power in not just England but also Italy and the Holy Land.
They deserve recognition, AT LEAST as a unique civ in a Medieval era game. William the Conqueror BABYYYYYYY

Edit: Also, @Mayor Cody Travers , I think the Byzantines work great as both Greeks and Romans. They're literally the continuation of Roman govt and literally the continuation of the Greek culture. Honestly, I think Medieval Romans should be depicted as Venetians/other merchant republics, Greeks as Byzantines.
Mexico is interesting to think on in that regard, because I also think a Mexico that actually kept all that territory lost, or even just the Hispanic-majority parts then and now (California from Monterey southward, Las Vegas, Arizona and New Mexico, Colorado below the CO and AK Rivers, Texas/Oklahoma/Kansas west of the 100th meridian...) would still be a genuine mess. It's still loosey-goosey at times on the Yucatan and parts closest to Central America and even its current-northern borders have issues with it up to separatism as the Republic of Rio Grande or filibuster Republic of Sonora.

I don't doubt Mexico's potential like a lot of people do, but a world where it keeps everything or merely my prattled-off list of Hispanic-majority lands now in the USA, feels like it'd be a northern Brazil - "a country of the future and always will be" situation. Meanwhile America'll truck on fairly similar to real life even without the Mexican War gains, or essentially the same if it has NorCal, the Utah Territory equivalent, and at least the Anglo-majority eastern half of Texas. Hell, sometimes I wonder if we'd be more tightly-woven and governable in everything from ethnicity to culture to simple expanse if we didn't have the Hispanic-majority parts I mentioned, loathe as I am to suggest we should be smaller in size or people living in said places haven't acclimated and Americanized yet.

------

It's weird how I know so much on the Normans yet don't quite know how to define them in simple terms like Byzantium in my head (see below). Yes, they're Gallicized Vikings, and even began their conquests a couple generations post-Rollo to where I can say they really were conquering bands of Frenchies and nothing "more".... yet they still have a sort-of separate feeling to them in culture versus what I normally thinks of as "French' then and now.

------

Re: Byzantium. I still tend to think of "civs" as nations and ethnocultural peoples despite the literal name of the game, and in that regard they are definitely Greek in everything outside their Roman continuance of government as you said - though I would even argue Constantine set the style for "Roman" governance to become more "Asiatic/Despotic" as westerners accused the Greeks of being, since Greece tended to look to the Middle East a lot in antiquity (especially post-Alexander the Great). However, I am definitely game for medieval Venice and other Italic states outside (ironically) the Papal States to represent a Medieval Rome and not just because of ethnicity. People forget Rome conquered for trade and wealth as much as for nominal security by taking over and/or destroying a rival power. Medieval Italian trade and colonization is an excellent representation of how that can continue past antiquity.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Willie B. Hardigan
It's weird how I know so much on the Normans yet don't quite know how to define them in simple terms like Byzantium in my head (see below). Yes, they're Gallicized Vikings, and even began their conquests a couple generations post-Rollo to where I can say they really were conquering bands of Frenchies and nothing "more".... yet they still have a sort-of separate feeling to them in culture versus what I normally thinks of as "French' then and now.
I think the Normans are worth their own civ or representation of some kind. Going from the vanguards of Norse culture to the vanguards of Frankish culture they created England as it's commonly understood and then made it into a continental power, and also created a Mediterranean empire capable of challenging Byzantium and even carved out outposts across Syria and North Africa. They left behind enough institutions there's more than enough material to work with at any rate, unlike, say, the Huns or Goths.
 
Mexico is interesting to think on in that regard, because I also think a Mexico that actually kept all that territory lost, or even just the Hispanic-majority parts then and now (California from Monterey southward, Las Vegas, Arizona and New Mexico, Colorado below the CO and AK Rivers, Texas/Oklahoma/Kansas west of the 100th meridian...) would still be a genuine mess. It's still loosey-goosey at times on the Yucatan and parts closest to Central America and even its current-northern borders have issues with it up to separatism as the Republic of Rio Grande or filibuster Republic of Sonora.

I don't doubt Mexico's potential like a lot of people do, but a world where it keeps everything or merely my prattled-off list of Hispanic-majority lands now in the USA, feels like it'd be a northern Brazil - "a country of the future and always will be" situation. Meanwhile America'll truck on fairly similar to real life even without the Mexican War gains, or essentially the same if it has NorCal, the Utah Territory equivalent, and at least the Anglo-majority eastern half of Texas. Hell, sometimes I wonder if we'd be more tightly-woven and governable in everything from ethnicity to culture to simple expanse if we didn't have the Hispanic-majority parts I mentioned, loathe as I am to suggest we should be smaller in size or people living in said places haven't acclimated and Americanized yet.
I think it's fair to present Mexico as an imperial rival in that it mattered, at least on a map, who got all that land. But I agree that Mexico winning doesn't unfuck them. That they lost was itself largely a consequence of being unable to manage a country that was collapsing (only one you missed: also unable to prevent Mormon infiltration and very deep Comanche penetration).

I guess I'd say, it doesn't change the fates of the countries much, but I think it's inherently interesting who winds up controlling half a continent, all hinging around two wars (Texas and Mexican-American). That's something that just seems lost in the American consciousness. I only ever hear talk of the wars nowadays as part of some story about how eeeevil ANGLOS raped Mexico to spread slavery or as an origin story for the Civil War commanders that served in it.

That said, I don't want Lincoln to represent America because he's overdone, but because he's just an awful choice. Regardless of your opinion on the War between the States or whether he was a tyrant, if you suggested a leader for any other civilization whose ascension sparked the bloodiest war in its history, had his barely four-year administration entirely taken up by it, and then was assassinated before it could even be completely won, people would rightfully think you were trolling. Lincoln was a clever politician but any basic comparison between him and the sort of leaders who are usually chosen/proposed to represent civilizations is embarrassing. There's also the small matter that he only represents half of the civilization he's leading.
I get your argument but I think you're looking at it in somewhat of the wrong way. Lincoln is presented in traditional American mythology (incorrectly, but it's more about how we remember people than anything else) as the savior of the country and effectively as a sort of second founder with a cult of personality that even exceeds Washington. He can be thought of as a unifier in that he forced through a centralization of power and the rise of a nationalism; in a way he acts like American Otto von Bismarck, American Garibaldi, American Tokugawa. And that was how he was seen in his own day. He ultimately became associated with an ideology and was in his own life emblematic of the American ideal of a pioneer citizen.

It's not just that he presided over a massive national catastrophe; it's that the catastrophe ended up becoming as much of a major defining event in his nations history as the Revolution itself. And while this often goes overlooked, he was a Kentuckian by birth and had the support of Southern Unionists that were numerous in many places. He's not really Northern so much as Western.

He makes tons of sense to me as a civilization. I just get tired of seeing him all the time.
 
I get your argument but I think you're looking at it in somewhat of the wrong way. Lincoln is presented in traditional American mythology (incorrectly, but it's more about how we remember people than anything else) as the savior of the country and effectively as a sort of second founder with a cult of personality that even exceeds Washington. He can be thought of as a unifier in that he forced through a centralization of power and the rise of a nationalism; in a way he acts like American Otto von Bismarck, American Garibaldi, American Tokugawa. And that was how he was seen in his own day. He ultimately became associated with an ideology and was in his own life emblematic of the American ideal of a pioneer citizen.
Lincoln was a highly divisive figure in his own day; a hagiography very much developed after his assassination, and the Kentuckian by birth was part of it; prior to the presidency he was instead firmly associated by most with the rail lobby - there's a reason he didn't get a single electoral vote in the south, deep or border, and later had to rely on Andrew Johnson to appeal to that vote. Comparing him to Bismarck or Garibaldi is also a bit disingenuous; both emerged in countries that had been fractured for centuries and reunified them over the course of decades. Tokugawa might be a better comparison given Ieyasu also started needless wars for the sake of political consolidation, but unlike Lincoln those were deliberate instead of incidental and he also survived his would-be killers to see it through.

The centralization he ushered in was also incomplete; the South wound up winning the struggle over reconstruction, Johnson deliberately kept the radical republicans from filling the gap that Lincoln's death caused and Grant's admin later pissed away whatever momentum was left. If an American Caesar figure had to be represented Lincoln still isn't the person for it; it's FDR.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Willie B. Hardigan
If only the purple haired morons involved in this put as much thought into the civs as you lot have in the last 20 or so posts.

e: In my opinion Civ has been dead for a long time, at least since V and the 1 unit per tile rubbish thanks to the mentally ill Shafer. Now all we can have is DEI shit and board game mechanics.
 
I really like 6, I've always felt like Civ is a growing pain into the next game and by the first or second expansion it's surpassed the previous. So going into even thinking about 7 after they announced that 6 was a wrap, I was expecting the next game to upset me and have to drag myself into playing it's system. As I did with 6 and 5 before it.(I got 3 and 4 at the same time after not playing for a long while).

Even then, I am really apprehensive about where they are going with 7. There are some good things. Like Districts and Tile Wonders made city development a lot more interesting in 6, the army commanders being a way to make combat more manageable, as I found that to be the least interesting aspect in 6.

However, I really really don't like the Era system, and the Civs changing through the game. Having one leader and different civs through out all time is the ass backwards way this concept should be done. Your leader should change, while you drive your civilization through out time.

But I do have an idea why.

I think 2k is stepping on Firaxis' balls to make some money. Marvel's Midnight Suns was a really good game, but it looked expensive as fuck and it didn't do well. I doubt Chimera Squad as a big money maker either. You can see it already in the $129 version, day one exclusive DLC, announced DLC with the game, etc. I think that's why the Leader's are being pushed as the constant through out your game.

They are going to try to sell cosmetics for Leaders.
 
Civ 7 may very well end in 2000, or possibly 1950. There are going to be 31 civilizations spread across the three Ages. Each Age of Civilization 7 appears to be a smaller game of Civilization with two-to-three tech tiers per unit type.

They might not even have a Science Victory in this game, or perhaps they'll set the victory condition at "Put an ass on the Moon"; which, as you know, the USA achieved. America is the canon winner of Civilization 7. Heh.

Source: Civilization 7 unit showcase hints at the game ending shortly after World War 2
Everything we’ve seen from Civilization 7 so far points towards this entry into the series being its most beautiful one yet. Its landscapes and cities are visual stunners – and likewise for the units. It’s not just the attention to detail and the elaborate animations that make Civ 7’s units stand out, though: It’s variety. Civilization 6 already made some admirable advancements in this regard on which its successor seems to be building, as a recent developer livestream from PAX Australia has shown.



A total of nine cultural variations for every unit shared between civilizations has been confirmed so far:

  • Roman
  • Egyptian
  • Mediterranean
  • European
  • Middle Eastern
  • African
  • Asian
  • North American
  • South American
As two of the most iconic ancient civilizations in world history (and the Civilization series), Rome and Egypt seem to be getting the VIP treatment in the Antiquity Age with unique aesthetics for all units. The fact that all Asian civilizations seem to be sharing the same models isn’t the optimum, of course – Chinese, Indian, and Khmer swordsmen all looked very different, so there is room for improvement.


While most of the details on the models are great and authentic – like the “European” unit wearing pants, which were considered “barbaric” by the Romans and Greeks, or the different sword types on several of the examples – others certainly took some liberty. The Roman unit should not have fur on its helmet, for example, since that’s something only a legion’s standard bearers did in the depicted period, and the “European” unit not wearing a helmet despite the “Mediterranean” unit’s head protection being derived from a Gallic model is a bit silly as well. That may just be the ancient historian in me nitpicking, though.



Another unit-related reveal showed the division of Civilization 7’s Ages into sub-ages. What does that mean? Well, take the Age of Exploration – reading that name certainly evokes more of a connection with early colonizers like Spain and Portugal than the classic medieval civilizations. However, the examples for unit models from each sub-age very clearly shows that we will get out classic medieval experience as part of the Exploration Age.

On the shown image, we can see an early Italic swordsman, a classical Greek hoplite, and then the imperial Roman legionary we’ve already seen above.


Likewise, the Exploration Age has three distinct phases: We have a Norman foot soldier, then a fully-plated man-at-arms, and finally the first gunpowder unit in the form of an Arquebusier. So, yes, even though the second phase of the game falls under the moniker of Exploration Age, we still get our classic progression from knights to gunpowder. In fact, there is a good chance that this transition will get more attention with the way Civ 7 does its Ages.


Napoleonic era infantry will kick off the Modern Age, which will then progress into World War 1 and World War 2 style units – and, interestingly, things don’t seem to be getting more modern than WW2. Given that we haven’t seen any screenshots that seem to be set after WW2 in any other video or blog so far, this is another strong indicator towards the game ending at that point – so we may be getting some early Cold War-era stuff and the space race, but likely nothing any more modern.

Finally, the developers showed off the kind of variety we can expect inside units. When you build, say, a men-at-arms unit, you won’t get a company full of the same copy-pasted model, but one consisting of several different model types to add some visual flavor.


Civilization 7 will bring back a neat visual feature from Civ 3 and launch with 31 civilizations. Find all confirmed leaders and civs in Civilization 7 in our overview and read our interview with Civ 7’s Dennis Shirk to learn more about the game.

This article was originally published on www.videogames.si.com as Civilization 7 unit showcase hints at the game ending shortly after World War 2.
EDIT: Since there are ten Antiquity Civs confirmed so far, it appears that there will be 10-11 Exploration Age Civs and 10-11 Modern Age Civs. We know from Steam stuff that the player cap is 6 if you start in Antiquity, or 8 if you start later, but I have no clue how they're going to prevent players from picking the same civilization with the Age change.
 
Last edited:
"Lincoln was a highly divisive figure in his own day."

One of these days I'll have to make my own historical thread somewhere dedicated to past and present examples of LDS (Lincoln Derangement Syndrome) and LES (Lincoln Enslavement Syndrome) since every time he is brought up for discussion, it always leads back to people proclaiming him the ultimate American Jesus or Hitler. No offense to @Computer God Autism, it's just a general trend I've been noticing for the past decade now that the "history" side of the internet has become groups of radicals battling it out with pen, sword, and autism. I know it's always been that way, but it was harder to publish books in the '90s than it is to pump out pop-history YouTube videos today. The age of misinformation is truly a tiring one.

Civ 7 may very well end in 2000, or possibly 1950. There are going to be 31 civilizations spread across the three Ages. Each Age of Civilization 7 appears to be a smaller game of Civilization with two-to-three tech tiers per unit type.

They might not even have a Science Victory in this game, or perhaps they'll set the victory condition at "Put an ass on the Moon"; which, as you know, the USA achieved. America is the canon winner of Civilization 7. Heh.

This game is gonna be the "Victoria 3" of the franchise, isn't it? A mess of mechanics that ultimately boils down to a flavorless broth. At least this time I went in with zero expectations instead of the foolish optimism I had with Paradox and its developers.
 
One of these days I'll have to make my own historical thread somewhere dedicated to past and present examples of LDS (Lincoln Derangement Syndrome) and LES (Lincoln Enslavement Syndrome) since every time he is brought up for discussion, it always leads back to people proclaiming him the ultimate American Jesus or Hitler. No offense to @Computer God Autism, it's just a general trend I've been noticing for the past decade now that the "history" side of the internet has become groups of radicals battling it out with pen, sword, and autism. I know it's always been that way, but it was harder to publish books in the '90s than it is to pump out pop-history YouTube videos today. The age of misinformation is truly a tiring one.
The thing I find most bizarre about the Lincoln discussion is that the LES side is the only common ground I can think of for race communists and white normiecons (usually southern and evangelical at that), and both groups will reflexively defend his legacy despite it being against their otherwise stated interests. The former will complain about American imperialism and American identity, and may criticize Lincoln in a vacuum for being too conciliatory for their standards, but hate their contemporary ideological opponents so much that associating them with the CSA gives will make them patriotic. The latter have spent a century complaining about taxes, the growth of the federal government and executive overreach, and will constantly warn about the erosion of constitutional rights, but are so emotionally attached to the post-war consensus that they see any criticism of Lincoln as being by definition anti-American.

Despite how bizarre the sides can get I don't think it would actually be that good of a thread. Sure, both LDS and LES can get as emotionally charged as they can about Trump and Biden, but I don't think there's been anything done that's particularly cowish or at least comparable to the stuff people regularly do and say to own Trump/Biden. At most you'd have critiques of books on the subject by people who may or may not have even read them, or have the thread rapidly derail into Shermanposting.

To make clear my own opinion, I think Lincoln was a very cunning politician but was a subpar wartime leader and the actions of his administration made things worse for Americans in general, both Dixie and Yankee. Certainly an important part in post-WWII American mythos for what it represents, but I think a lot of that is more of a result of FDR and the Brain Trust's need for post-hoc rationalization of New Deal policies and nation-building than anything Lincoln's administration earned by itself. Certainly not Jesus or Hitler; his contemporary supporters were probably less enthused about him than his current defenders and I suspect that some libertarians and Dixieboos hate him more than John Wilkes Booth did when he pulled the trigger.

This game is gonna be the "Victoria 3" of the franchise, isn't it? A mess of mechanics that ultimately boils down to a flavorless broth. At least this time I went in with zero expectations instead of the foolish optimism I had with Paradox and its developers.
I would be genuinely shocked if Civ 7 is received well. Sure it will probably sell well, which I think is all that matters for Firaxis and Activision right now, but I don't see that much enthusiasm for it. I remember how with Civ 6 people were rightfully constantly complaining about the art direction in the lead up to release but there was still genuine optimism for it mechanically, and I don't even see that for 7. It also took 6 a few years to blow through its post-launch optimism but I don't think Firaxis will have that cushion here given how much people are already comparing it to Humankind.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Super Hans v2
This is definitely a thought tilting towards the hard-coded player-character limitations of earlier games, but are there any nations or peoples you think work better as Barbarians/City-States/"Minor Civs?" IE nations or peoples that are absolutely worth a mention in the sweeping panorama of history Civilization tries to represent, but really don't have enough "meat" to justify being a mainstay or even occasional playable civ be it in a small amount of cities, influence in regional or global history, etc.?

I'd think:

-historic nomadic steppe tribes and empires like the Huns,
-most of modern-day steppe/Central Asia,
-most New World settler nations,
-most North American Amerindian tribes outside the settled Iroquois and Cherokees,
-most southern cone South American Amerindian tribes,
-most ancient and modern Middle Eastern nations outside Egypt, Babylonia, and Assyria.

Some of these are naturally more suited to just being "Barbarians" (Huns, natch, or some Great Plains Amerindians) and some definitely as City-State or Minor Civ equivalents (Phoenicia and Sumer in the ancient Middle East, Algieria in the Modern Middle East, most of the New World colonial nations outside the big n' traditional ones like Mexico and Brazil) - depending on things, of course. I also stress I have zero qualms if some of these nations pop up here and there every so often as playable civs! Just not as part of the usual core civs we should expect every game.

My hot take based on this thought is that the Mongols, beloved as they are, really feel like they should be a barbarian horde tribe or entire event the way the oldest Civ games had "Atilla" as the Barbarian's leader deep in the code. If like in later games the Zulus got replaced for a more properly settled and expansive empire like the Malinese, we could see the Mongols perhaps become some sort of ultimate barbarian horde event and in turn focus on more traditionally-settled Asian nations/empires like Vietnam, Thailand, and so forth.
 
This is definitely a thought tilting towards the hard-coded player-character limitations of earlier games, but are there any nations or peoples you think work better as Barbarians/City-States/"Minor Civs?" IE nations or peoples that are absolutely worth a mention in the sweeping panorama of history Civilization tries to represent, but really don't have enough "meat" to justify being a mainstay or even occasional playable civ be it in a small amount of cities, influence in regional or global history, etc.?
As long as civilizations remain functionally interchangable and Civ remains a sandbox, I don't think there's much purpose to trying to restrict representation of some civs to only City-States/Barbarians (if there's not enough records to even support the incredibly low bar of a single unit/building/leader like Cahokia, they shouldn't even be included to begin with). The need for city states could even be resolved dynamically by having the capitals of civs not present on a map be possibilities for city-states with their own abilities.

I personally would like to see a game that does try to organize cultures more along civilizational categories with associated mechanical limitations. E.g. Venice should not be capable of doing everything France can but get some different stuff to do instead that France can't. Civ would be weirdly better at representing stuff like this than a paradox game too; you could see inklings of it in RFC derivatives like RFCE and Sword of Islam, but that also requires a specific historical context.
 
Despite how bizarre the sides can get I don't think it would actually be that good of a thread. Sure, both LDS and LES can get as emotionally charged as they can about Trump and Biden, but I don't think there's been anything done that's particularly cowish or at least comparable to the stuff people regularly do and say to own Trump/Biden. At most you'd have critiques of books on the subject by people who may or may not have even read them, or have the thread rapidly derail into Shermanposting.

I suppose the HistoryTube thread in multimedia acts as the general place for history talk on this site but it usually relies on waiting for the same four charlatans on YouTube to start making fools of themselves in order to spark a dedicated conversation. If the "LDS/LES" thread were to actually be fleshed out in reality, it would most likely become the "Mainstream Historical Conscientious" or "Myth" discussion outlet for people on the site to argue about the many flawed interpretations of the past previously and currently being promoted because of culture war politics or plain national ignorance. A heaven for effort posters essentially.

Hell, sometimes I wonder if we'd be more tightly-woven and governable in everything from ethnicity to culture to simple expanse if we didn't have the Hispanic-majority parts I mentioned, loathe as I am to suggest we should be smaller in size or people living in said places haven't acclimated and Americanized yet.

Very unlikely if I'm being honest, the cultural divide between the Northern, Middle, and Southern United States was clear and established even before the Revolution and only strengthened during the decades before the Mexican-American War. The spirit of "Manifest Destiny" was probably one of the few unifying ideals beyond the constitution that a person from Ohio and Mississippi shared. If foreign integration and expansion were such an issue to the integrity of the US then one would think the Louisiana Purchase and the Creoles living in the new territory would have deathly destabilized the nation which it didn't. All it did was strengthen our material and strategic position. It would be gimping the potential of the nation for little reason beyond maybe postponing the Civil War to the 1870s while also giving England, France, or Russia a nice Western resource-rich coast to settle into before us, hampering our growth in the process while ensuring they would continue to heavily mess with our North American affairs.

The United States only annexed the sparsely populated sections despite having the opportunity to take the entire Northern section of modern-day Mexico which is where the actual population centers were. Now it has an infinitely smaller border to manage than the one it had before 1846. I mean could you imagine the amount of revolutionary bandits and cartels that would be roaming the Western regions next to places like Wyoming, Montana, and even Kansas while having California gold mines continually funding them? It was better to rip the band-aid off while we had the chance than let things fester with potentially more disastrous results.
 
Normans.
Probably because they so easily fall into your Viking/British civ, but the Normans had a distinct identity and were effectively a proto-colonial power in not just England but also Italy and the Holy Land.
Hell i just want an english leader that isn't Elizabeth/Victoria/Churchill.

There isnt a saxon rep yet (Alfred the Great is basically the best rep for that but i did have an idea for Ethelred the Unready as a Civ V mod I never made)
and there's plenty of other english leaders who have enough notoriety

>Henry VIII, complete with a religious schism mechanic
>Cromwell or James II to represent English Civil War
>as you said, William I
 
  • Like
Reactions: Unicorn Fairie
Hell i just want an english leader that isn't Elizabeth/Victoria/Churchill.

There isnt a saxon rep yet (Alfred the Great is basically the best rep for that but i did have an idea for Ethelred the Unready as a Civ V mod I never made)
and there's plenty of other english leaders who have enough notoriety

>Henry VIII, complete with a religious schism mechanic
>Cromwell or James II to represent English Civil War
>as you said, William I
Maybe William & Mary as a leader together, I feel there's probably quite a few gimmicks you could play with which leader/personality you get when; William in peacetime, Mary in wartime (with William away leading the armies) maybe
 
Back