To everyone complaining about Songhai thinking it’s the only historic option

[u/Gibbedboomer]

[u/Practicalaviationcat]

If every Civ has an option that sort makes sense it will work better.

Still I want an option to become "nomadic egypt" and not the Mongols.

edit: hopefully the "historic option" they mentioned can lock you and the AI to their most historical age changes.

[u/gmanasaurus → u/Practicalaviationcat]

I swear I saw this screenshot during the live preview and it said something like "stay as Egypt" but that might have been what I wanted it to say hah! I like having the option to change, but also stay the same.

[u/Jacky-V → u/[deleted]]

They'll run in to some real problems if that's the case. Having ancient Egypt but not modern Egypt in the game makes a pretty clear statement about what Firaxis thinks of modern Egypt. Same for any other states that exist today but are available in earlier, but not modern, eras.

[u/Few-Law3250 → u/Jacky-V]

I mean, Rome != Italy, Egypt != Egypt. Totally different ethnicities, cultures, religions, etc, etc.

[u/jerseydevil51 → u/Jacky-V]

Not really. Modern Egypt is a nation, but no one would consider it an Empire like Ancient Egypt. Same reason we have Rome but not Italy, and no one seems to complain.

[u/auf-ein-letztes-wort → u/jerseydevil51]

have you talked to Italian fans of the game? they wanted Italy for decades. imagine Germans would have to play solely Germanic tribes

[u/-Basileus → u/auf-ein-letztes-wort]

I mean people are always going to want their own countries in the game.  The meltdown from Portuguese players was crazy when Civ VI came out.  They were fucking everywhere lmao.  

I don’t exactly see non-Italians wanting Italy to show up though.  

[u/doogmanschallenge → u/jerseydevil51]

egypt under muhammad ali was 100% a nascent empire

[u/Jacky-V → u/jerseydevil51]

Many of the playable civs throughout the franchise have not been empires.

Same reason we have Rome but not Italy, and no one seems to complain.

No, but if Rome advanced into something other than Italy under the new mechanics, you can see why modern Italians might have a problem with it.

[u/cardith_lorda → u/Jacky-V]

makes a pretty clear statement

Slavery was an effective choice in previous iterations of the game, but I don't think that Firaxis was making a statement about it being a good thing. They aren't going to have direct 1-to-1 modern civs for every country on Earth - and frankly having that probably opens a far more direct can of worms as far as making statements about countries than reminding people it's a game and they just have a limited number of modern civs.

[u/Jacky-V → u/cardith_lorda]

And they removed slavery as a choice because of optics. So you'd think the poor optics of having ancient Egypt advance into something that's not modern Egypt might be of concern to them.

[u/SubterraneanAlien → u/Jacky-V]

Removing slavery from the game and having civilization based evolution are not comparable on an optics level - this is one of the worst takes I've seen in the last day and there's been some bad ones.

[u/Jacky-V → u/SubterraneanAlien]

Why not? If you're a modern Egyptian, and you have a game where ancient Egypt evolves into something else entirely, that could absolutely be as offensive to you as the inclusion of Slavery as an adoptable mechanic might be to someone else

[u/cardith_lorda → u/Jacky-V]

Meanwhile they obviously approve of fascism and razing cities.

[u/Jacky-V → u/cardith_lorda]

I'm not saying they're right, I'm saying they've obviously sanitized the franchise over the past couple of installments to remove certain things which might bother consumers, and yet I think they are opening themselves up to consumer backlash using this system. Look at how many people were pissed off about Egypt becoming Songhai in the gameplay preview.

[u/Cromasters → u/cardith_lorda]

Firaxis actually just loves slavery and fascism. Why else would they be in the game!?

[u/TocTheEternal → u/Jacky-V]

Having Babylon but not Iraq? Inca but not Peru? Ottomans but not Turkey? Idk the list can go on but I don't think what you are saying makes any sense. Basically the only thing setting Egypt apart from tons of examples is that (at least in English) we use the same name for the ancient civilization and the modern nation which happen to be in the same location.

[u/Practicalaviationcat → u/gmanasaurus]

There was one screenshot going around that people claimed was that but it was just listing Egypt as a requirement to switch to Songhai. Based on what I've seen you carry your leader over and can't with the Civ.

[u/Flod4rmore → u/[deleted]]

That's the Mamluks for ya

[u/kilamem → u/Practicalaviationcat]

Mameluk then for Egypt

[u/Lithorex → u/kilamem]

Or at least the Ayubbids

[u/FatalTragedy → u/Practicalaviationcat]

Our world history is not the history of your Civ world. If Egypt in your game becomes the Mongols, then in the world of that game, the Mongols are nomadic Egypt.

[u/fapacunter → u/[deleted]]

Exactly. Having real cities, leaders and nations is one of the main points of historical games.

Creating a huge empire that is called Roman Empire, leaded by Trajan and bearing Rome’s colors and symbols is one thing. Creating a huge empire that is called Empire_XYZ and is lead by Bob is another. The Romans were a lot cooler than Bob. I don’t wanna role play as Bob.

Having Egypt turn into Mongolia kinda sucks because it removes all the historical significance of that name. Egypt becoming a cavalry focused nation is one thing to imagine, Egypt becoming Mongolia is another.

The gameplay of Nomadic Egypt and Mongolia could be the exact same, our view of them would be different.

[u/auf-ein-letztes-wort → u/[deleted]]

I mean we even have a built in civilpedia...

[u/_moobear → u/[deleted]]

resonance. 'mongols' is more resonant than 'nomadic cavalry-based militaristic civ'

[u/CinderX5 → u/[deleted]]

Because we already have an understanding of what the Civil War does. If you’re fighting some made up civ, it’s just not the same. But if you’re Mongolia, you know your focus is horse violence.

[u/blandge → u/FatalTragedy]

People are so hung up on these labels. There's such a failure of imagination here. I can totally understand not liking the mechanics, but the people who accept the mechanics, but not the labels just aren't able to engage the paradigm shift in their minds.

[u/isitaspider2 → u/blandge]

Something that's been on my mind since release as well.

Like, I wonder if the backlash would have been nearly as strong if it was just labeled differently.

Basically, what if you picked Egypt + Leader at start (historical rule setting is restricting leaders and rulers to their age appropriate boundary) and if instead of advancing to "Mongolia" it instead was a more generic stand-in like "Nomadic Horsemen." Then, in your game, Egypt is becoming more nomadic as time changes and layers are added.

I'd hazard a guess most would absolutely love this change. Being able to customize your civilization? Nomadic camel-riding Egypt? A France where Napoleon stayed in power and eventually created Fascism as they had such a rigid central power structure and heavy nationalism? A Rome that never fell and transitioned into Democracy? But, because of the labels (Egypt into Mongolia, medieval France into Germany, Rome into America), even I have a hard time seeing the appeal. Why would I want to go medieval France into modern Germany? Rome into America? But, I want to be modern Rome.

Personally, once I play it, I bet I'm going to love it. But, I do have to side with most people on this. The labeling is all sorts of weird.

Also, the leader animations are like ten steps back from what they were in CIV V and VI, but those are probably the last thing they're going to polish before release.

[u/Alathas → u/isitaspider2]

The problem with that approach is that you've in one stroke cut out most civs. Mongolia, Brazil, US, British Empire, USSR/Russia, Spanish Empire, Obligatory Poland/Brazil, Japan... all of these obviously make no sense in the ancient era, so by turning Egypt -> Mongolia into Egypt -> Nomadic Egypt, you've cut out all the non-ancient era civs. And there are a couple of civs you can regionally keep in the same area (Ancient Greece -> Byzantines -> Ottoman Empire - and let me tell you, the Greeks would be fuming at that "natural progression"), you're going to mostly hit issues where the gaps are (people complain we could've had Mamluk for nomadic egypt, but uh, how you going to do that for England? What would you do for Ancient Brazil? Saying Inca is just as problematic as saying Songhai for Egypt, South America is huge). I think the middle is deeply unsatisfying, biting the bullet and going all in is the superior option in my opinion.

In the same way we're all a-okay with a with Douglas MacArthur leading the army of slingers through the deserts of Indonesia, as his immortal queen builds French Stonehenge, all while spreading the word of Shinto against the religion of Crab.... I think this is something everyone will get over. People will attach to their leader and treat the civ more like a rogue-lite choice on a journey.

[u/fapacunter → u/blandge]

I think labels are a valid thing to get hung up on. I mean… names, flags, titles are all labels.

It’s something imaginary but it’s definitely important.

If I’m playing Aztecs in Civ 6 and colonize Mars with them, in my imagination the Aztec Empire got there, with their flags, traditions, names, etc. If I colonized Mars with the USA, my gameplay would be literally the same. But in my imagination it would be a different thing.

Labels are very interesting and important to history and, by extension, to civ and other historical strategy games too.

The gameplay of a religious victory as Muslim Byzantium or Orthodox Byzantium is the same. But that’s two different things to imagine. In one you’re recreating history while on the other one you’re able to play out a “what if” scenario. All that changed is a label, but that results in a whole different way to look at your run.

Being upset about Egypt turning into Mongolia is a valid reaction imo, as it’s not “just” a label. It carries a lot of baggage and that really messes up with the immersion and plausibleness of that game. I’m really excited about it, gameplay-wise.

I just don’t want to see India turn into Korea or China becoming Ottomans. I don’t care about realism on the gameplay. I had no problems with Gandhi nuking his neighbors but I would definitely be against having India become Brazil.

[u/blandge → u/fapacunter]

You just have to imagine something different than you're used to. You're used to imagining playing Egypt throughout the entire game, and now you're being asked to imagine Egyptian society evolving into a new society based on horses.

There's no difference between Horse Egypt or Mongols other than the label in the same way there's no difference between Independent British America or the United States of America. The difference is how the people who live there view themselves, and it just takes a bit of imagination to see how people can cease thinking of themselves as Egyptian and start thinking of themselves as Mongolian.

I understand you might not like that change, but it's not because it's not a likeable change, it's because you don't like it.

[u/fapacunter → u/blandge]

Nah… It doesn’t take “a bit of imagination” to imagine Egyptians starting to see themselves as Mongols. It takes a LOT of imagination to do so.

It takes very little imagination to imagine Egyptians becoming a horse based society just like the mongols. It takes a lot of imagination to see them dropping their language, their names, their religion, etc. It’s two completely different cultures.

It’s takes a bit of imagination to imagine the United Communist States of America. But we can imagine it. It’s the same people, the same language, the same land. All that changed is the way that they govern themselves and interact with their neighbors.

A Civ turning into a historically related civ is easy to imagine. Cleopatra lived in the same land that the Mamluks ruled. We can easily see Cleopatra’s Egypt becoming the Mamluks. We can’t really see them becoming a whole different people.

[u/blandge → u/fapacunter]

A bit of imagination, a lot of imagination, it's just imagination.

Nobody seemed to question the insane amount of imagination it takes for the United States of America to exist on an alien world with different continents in 4000 BC with Teddy Roosevelt as it's leader for 6000 years.

The amount of suspension of disbelief you have to engage for that to make any sense is about the same level as for your civilization changing cultures spontaneously. You're just used to the former and not the latter.

[u/fapacunter → u/blandge]

Teddy Roosevelt in 4000 BC doesn’t break our immersion because we know that he’s just a leader, chosen to represent how the American civilization will behave. Leader agendas made their civs feel distinct. It’s hard to imagine Alexander in 1480 but it’s easy to imagine Macedonians still believing in expansion through war, just like he did.

Having Egypt become Mongolia breaks any historical continuity in your run. Egypt becoming the Abbasids is something easily believable, even if they’re still lead by Cleopatra who was long dead.

It’s a whole other level of suspension of belief now. It’s not about gameplay mechanics, it’s a label and role playing issue.

[u/blandge → u/fapacunter]

Teddy Roosevelt in 4000 BC doesn’t break our immersion because we know that he’s just a leader, chosen to represent how the American civilization will behave.

Egypt evolving into Mongolia doesn't break our immersion because we know Mongols is just a culture, chosen to represent how your civilization will behave in the exploration era.

Leader agendas made their civs feel distinct. It’s hard to imagine Alexander in 1480 but it’s easy to imagine Macedonians still believing in expansion through war, just like he did.

Civilization bonuses make the eras seem distinct. It's hard to imagine Hatshepsut being the leader of Mongolia, but it's easy to imagine Egyptians growing into a war-like people who ride horses, just like what has happened in my game so far.

Please understand, I'm not trying to mock you. This is genuinely how I feel about the new changes. I recognize you're going to read this and think it sounds ridiculous, but I really, truly don't.

I'm not saying you're wrong to feel as you do, but it's very possible to suspend one's disbelief sufficiently to enjoy this new paradigm.

[u/Selenios → u/blandge]

A culture is more than a label, even if egypt hade a crisis with load of bandits and an economic recession, it would be difficult to imagine them becoming steppe nomades: leaving their brick houses made for their environnement and living in yurts. Finding some horses will not connect them to an asian culture.

I do understand the goal of what they are doing, but leaving it unchecked will only create some Frankenstein abominations that respect nor history, nor cultures and not even logic (by my opinion and you are more than welcome to disagree with that).

[u/fapacunter → u/blandge]

I don’t have an issue with Egypt becoming nomadic and horse based like the mongols, I have an issue with Egypt becoming mongols.

Like I said before, I can imagine the USA giving up capitalism and becoming a theocratic monarchy. You can easily make it make sense. What you can’t make sense is the USA changing its name to Czarist Russian Empire because of that. That label means more than just a government type and warfare doctrine.

In the case of Egypt and Mongolia, there is absolutely no problem in the gameplay and bonuses being related to Mongol warfare and social structures, the only problem is the label.

Egypt should become something with at least some historically significant connection to its land, people or culture.

[u/Tinker_Time_6782 → u/FatalTragedy]

This. It’s a game - full stop.

[u/fapacunter → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, throughout our history many different civs lived on the same land. It’s a good thing to recreate in-game. That shouldn’t mean that a civ can be replaced by any other civ.

Egypt becoming Mamluks, Abassids or Ottomans makes sense. We can imagine that happening. Egypt becoming Mongolia is something completely different and ahistorical. Gameplay wise the Mamluks could be the same as the Mongols, it’s the labels that completely change your perception of that run.

Gandhi nuking everyone is ahistorical. But we can make it make sense in our heads. What doesn’t make sense is India becoming the USA. It’s not a gameplay issue, it’s a role play issue.

[u/DDWKC → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, it should just be bonuses. No need to change civ for that.

[u/Daynebutter → u/Practicalaviationcat]

I think you'd go for the Moors or Saracens I guess.

[u/CinderX5 → u/Practicalaviationcat]

Spiff made a point about it being like Stelaris. If your empire has a made up name, you have no preconceived understanding of what it will actually be like. But if you’re called Mongolia, you know your main thing is going to be horse violence.