ales_
Heir
Which scenario?
What additional civilizations would you like to see in Civilization V
- Thread starter AbsintheRed
- Start date
Which scenario?
Your argument was specifically about the area of South America that the Incans controlled, and Central Asia already has 4 civs that could be argued as representing the region: The Mongols, Babylon, The Huns, and Persia (also, arguably, the Ottomans)--I think that is more than enough representation for those regions. My point was that there isn't enough representation of South America outside of the Incan territories (which I pointed out that the Mapuche would probably work best at filling in). Most of the early civilizations (read: pre-colonial) of that area would be hard to fit into a Civ without it feeling "forced" (i.e. we want to be fair and representative, but really they don't meet most of the criteria).
I'm well aware that there were plenty of indigenous people who populated both extra-Incan-South America and Central Asia, and they all have cultures that we should strive to know more about and give more recognition to. My whole point, however, was that we needed to find a good fit that offers representation as well as competitive historical context and impact when compared to the heavy hitters that are already in the game. Some compromises have to be made. My argument for the Mapuche was that they were a civilization that fits the criteria (built cities, had a cultural identity, formed political boundaries, had a lasting impact within their sphere of influence, etc.), and were incredibly durable (they fought against both the Inca and the Spanish for quite some time). In this sense, it's a civilization that wouldn't feel forced, but would still offer representation.
I wasn't trying to garner recognition for every cultural group that existed in those regions, but rather trying to find a good fit that would accomplish that necessary recognition while still meeting criteria set down as precedents by other Civs. So please, don't attack me because you feel like I'm "neglecting" cultural groups, because providing mass recognition wasn't remotely my point in the first place.
True_Candyman
Emperor
Your point that i was picking up on was actually when you disregarded the rest of South America and Central Asia as nomadic. I was not trying to attack you, i was trying to show that what you said was not strictly true, and as a consequence they shouldn't be discounted (Nor was i saying they should categorically be included).
As for that region of South America being represented. There is at least 4000 years of civilisation in some form or other, and the representation of it we have is an empire that spans the entire west coast yes, but for just 100 years. There's plenty of viable civilisation to represent earlier times too, just as we have the Ottomans and the Byzantines.
Equally as you say there are civs in other regions of South America with a viable shot too. The Mapuche are a good fit, but so are the Muisca or Tairona. In fact there are plenty of civilisation candidates in South America outside of Peru and it's empire. And with your knowledge of the Mapuche i'm even more confused as to why you discounted them as nomadic
To be honest, I haven't played CivIII scenarios. I read somewhere from forums about Majapahit being in one of the scenarios. But looks like AbsintheRed was right - they have not been in earlier games ever. http://www.firaxis.com/press/images/pdf/fact_civ3.pdf (the scenarios from page 6 onwards) There's no Indonesia or the Majapahit Empire mentioned.
Your point that i was picking up on was actually when you disregarded the rest of South America and Central Asia as nomadic. I was not trying to attack you, i was trying to show that what you said was not strictly true, and as a consequence they shouldn't be discounted (Nor was i saying they should categorically be included).
As for that region of South America being represented. There is at least 4000 years of civilisation in some form or other, and the representation of it we have is an empire that spans the entire west coast yes, but for just 100 years. There's plenty of viable civilisation to represent earlier times too, just as we have the Ottomans and the Byzantines.
Equally as you say there are civs in other regions of South America with a viable shot too. The Mapuche are a good fit, but so are the Muisca or Tairona. In fact there are plenty of civilisation candidates in South America outside of Peru and it's empire. And with your knowledge of the Mapuche i'm even more confused as to why you discounted them as nomadic
I think the problem here is that you entered in the middle of the conversation and didn't read the posts I had made earlier (that would make it clear that we've been in agreement this whole time). There is absolutely no doubt that most of the early cultures in Central Asia were nomadic--there were some settled civilizations, yes, but they had much less impact than the Civs that already represent the region (I could see a potential argument for Tibet, however). As for South America, there really isn't a whole lot of evidence to go on for most of the cultural groups that didn't have widespread influence (some that are closer to Central America do, but we already have 2 Civs representing that region, so it would be too clustered) and I've already mentioned what I think the best fit for southern South America would be. The early cultural groups in the Amazon were mostly tribal hunter-gatherer types and wouldn't be a good fit for the game.
I don't understand why you're arguing about historical relevance (which I've always maintained should be more represented, if you had read my earlier posts) when the whole issue here is which civilizations would make good fits for the game. Were there lots of cultural groups in those regions? Yes. Should we know more about them? Yes. Were most of them nomadic? Yes. Have you considered the ones that aren't? Yes. Would they make good fits for the game? Maybe (and then I gave examples). It really seems like you just wanted to take this discussion away from the real purpose of the thread just to prove that you know about non-nomadic cultural groups in Central Asia and South America. Your argument doesn't add anything to the discussion.
Guandao
Rajah of Minyue and Langkasuka
Umm.....Amazonian groups farmed and had settlements. People may think that the Amazon was only home to wandering nomads, but that wasn't true. Orellana (the first European who explored that region)'s expedition down the river mentioned substantial settlement and even rulers with musicians accompanying them. Ever heard of Marajo? Or Terra Preta? The only nomads in South America were those on the Brazilian coast, Gran Chaco and Patagonia/Tierra del Fuego.
For the Mapuche to be in the game, Firaxis will have to get permission from their leaders in order to use the language. There was a controversy with Microsoft translating their operating system into Mapudungun. The Mapuche leaders said that the company didn't ask their permission.
For the Mapuche to be in the game, Firaxis will have to get permission from their leaders in order to use the language. There was a controversy with Microsoft translating their operating system into Mapudungun. The Mapuche leaders said that the company didn't ask their permission.
You're both probably right in that my use of nomadic tribes as a catch-all term is most likely inaccurate. However, the problem still remains that we just don't know that much about them. The evidence I've read about the Marajo, for example, is pretty insubstantial--the general consensus being that they may have had more complex societies but the extent to which that is true is unknown. Some of the more well-known groups, however, were at least semi-nomadic (such as the Cambeba). Even if we throw out the term "nomadic" completely, however, and assume that some of the cultural groups from the Amazon had more complex societies than we have evidence for, they haven't left much of a lasting impact on their region. The Mapuche, however, are very well-known and have had a long-standing impact.
Again, it's really not about "who was where" and "were they nomadic or not" but rather does their legacy hold up against other major Civs? You're both harping on semantics here, but not addressing the issue of "which civilizations in this region would be workable as a Civ in the game?" I don't think my dismissal of these groups of people is uncalled for in that context.
AbsintheRed
Deity
Alright, here is another sum of the results:
In the grouped options, the method is similar than previously:
Here is the previous list:
Current vote number: 289 (+116):
1. Portugal: 139 (+65)
2. Zulu: 135 (+59)
3. Indonesia: 118 (+36)
4. Brazil: 103 (+53)
5. Sumer: 100 (+38)
6. Poland: 98 (+38)
7. Kongo: 94 (+28)
8. Hittites: 88 (+36)
9. Sioux: 81 (+27)
10. Tibet: 74 (+24)
11. Khmer: 69 (+24)
12. Assyria: ~65 (+27)
13. Phoenicia: 63 (+26)
14. Hungary: 62 (+29)
15. Hebrews: ~60 (+24)
15. Morocco/Moors: 60 (+18)
17. Armenia: ~50 (+18)
17. Zimbabwe: 50 (+13)
19. Mali: 49 (+18)
20. Vietnam: ~46 (+15)
21. Khazars: 45 (+11)
21. Nubia: ~45 (+15)
21. Swahili/Kilwa: ~45 (+15)
With at least 3-4 North American Native civs going in this list somewhere between 45-70 votes
Apache, Navajo, Comanche, Mississippian are among the most likely candidates that made it over 45.
And the categories got:
Other Middle-Eastern civs: 87 (+38) - Assyria, Hebrews and Armenia
Other European civs: 33 (+12)
Other African civs: 52 (+15) - Nubia and Swahili
Other South Asian civs: 50 (+13) - Vietnam
Other Central Asian civs: 43 (+15)
Other colonial or "modern" civs: 71 (+38)
South American native civs: 46 (+16)
Other North American civs: 94 (+35) - As stated before, probably some of the Apache, Navajo, Cherokee, Comanche, Pueblo, Mississippian, Crow, Inuit made it to at least 45-70 votes, but I don't have enough information here for a good guess
In the grouped options, the method is similar than previously:
Spoiler :
Here is the previous list:
Spoiler :
1. Portugal: 139 (+65)
2. Zulu: 135 (+59)
3. Indonesia: 118 (+36)
4. Brazil: 103 (+53)
5. Sumer: 100 (+38)
6. Poland: 98 (+38)
7. Kongo: 94 (+28)
8. Hittites: 88 (+36)
9. Sioux: 81 (+27)
10. Tibet: 74 (+24)
11. Khmer: 69 (+24)
12. Assyria: ~65 (+27)
13. Phoenicia: 63 (+26)
14. Hungary: 62 (+29)
15. Hebrews: ~60 (+24)
15. Morocco/Moors: 60 (+18)
17. Armenia: ~50 (+18)
17. Zimbabwe: 50 (+13)
19. Mali: 49 (+18)
20. Vietnam: ~46 (+15)
21. Khazars: 45 (+11)
21. Nubia: ~45 (+15)
21. Swahili/Kilwa: ~45 (+15)
With at least 3-4 North American Native civs going in this list somewhere between 45-70 votes
Apache, Navajo, Comanche, Mississippian are among the most likely candidates that made it over 45.
And the categories got:
Other Middle-Eastern civs: 87 (+38) - Assyria, Hebrews and Armenia
Other European civs: 33 (+12)
Other African civs: 52 (+15) - Nubia and Swahili
Other South Asian civs: 50 (+13) - Vietnam
Other Central Asian civs: 43 (+15)
Other colonial or "modern" civs: 71 (+38)
South American native civs: 46 (+16)
Other North American civs: 94 (+35) - As stated before, probably some of the Apache, Navajo, Cherokee, Comanche, Pueblo, Mississippian, Crow, Inuit made it to at least 45-70 votes, but I don't have enough information here for a good guess
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
My personal choices for a 9 civ line-up based on what I think is realistic (for instance I want a Tamil or Brazil in, but I don't think those choices are likely to be in):
1. Portugal (obvious)
2. Zulus (obvious)
3. Sioux (not necessarily the best NA civ per se, but they're the most recognizable)
4. Vietnam (another SE Asian civ - but this is part nationalism here)
5. Morocco/Berbers (unfortunately might be considered overlap with the Arabs, but they have their own distinct culture and history, and are really cool all-round)
6. Timurids/Transoxania (some civ with a Silk Road UA)
7. Sumer (it's already in, though I prefer Assyria)
8. Indonesia (maybe too many SE Asian civs, but it would be nice)
9. Poland (one obligatory European civ (there's too many currently, but fair enough), and to make the pro-Poland people happy)
Maybe Nubia and Kongo can take honorable mentions.
1. Portugal (obvious)
2. Zulus (obvious)
3. Sioux (not necessarily the best NA civ per se, but they're the most recognizable)
4. Vietnam (another SE Asian civ - but this is part nationalism here)
5. Morocco/Berbers (unfortunately might be considered overlap with the Arabs, but they have their own distinct culture and history, and are really cool all-round)
6. Timurids/Transoxania (some civ with a Silk Road UA)
7. Sumer (it's already in, though I prefer Assyria)
8. Indonesia (maybe too many SE Asian civs, but it would be nice)
9. Poland (one obligatory European civ (there's too many currently, but fair enough), and to make the pro-Poland people happy)
Maybe Nubia and Kongo can take honorable mentions.
AbsintheRed
Deity
I really hope that we will get at least as many new civs in One World as we got in Gods and Kings
10 or maybe 12 new civs from most popular ones here would be awesome
Civ V could reach a total number of 50 civs with a coule later DLCs, including almost all of the most important and popular options
10 or maybe 12 new civs from most popular ones here would be awesome
Civ V could reach a total number of 50 civs with a coule later DLCs, including almost all of the most important and popular options
seancolorado
Deity
Too many Southeast Asian civs? Am I playing the same game?
AbsintheRed
Deity
I think he meant adding both Vietnam and Indonesia in the same expansion might be too much
(cybrxkhan is vietnamese though)
(cybrxkhan is vietnamese though)
awesome
Meme Lord
i don't think vietnam will be in civ 5 because of geographical reasons. i realize most people will say that world map placement doesn't matter and there are already several civilizations that overlap, but most of those have contributed much more to the rest of the world than southeast asia. that doesn't make this region any less important, since it has had many of its own accomplishments and contributions, but it's a relatively small geographical area that already has representation.
i wouldn't be surprised at all if it were in civ 6, though. i just hope it represents more than just the vietnam war era.
i wouldn't be surprised at all if it were in civ 6, though. i just hope it represents more than just the vietnam war era.
Guandao
Rajah of Minyue and Langkasuka
I don't know what to think of your comment, awesome. I think it is important to note that this game has a western bias. Perhaps Scandinavia has more influence on western civilization then even all of SE Asia. Personally, Siam doesn't really represent all of SE Asia, maybe mainland SE Asia (Burma and Cambodia/Khmer are Buddhist so there's overlap, Vietnam has more Sino influence though). I still hope that maritime SE Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines) is represented.
awesome
Meme Lord
yeah, i wasn't even just talking about western civilization. i was thinking particularly about the byzantines and ottomans when i made my post, which have both had quite a bit of influence on the world, especially with their respective religions. as i said, south east asia has definitely had influence on the world, but not quite like some of the larger empires have.
seancolorado
Deity
When a civ already in the game (Netherlands) has an entire UA ("Dutch East India Company") whose history largely centers around an empire (Indonesia) I'm not sure you could say SE Asia's contributions are less. Are us westerners less aware and less exposed to SE Asia's influences on the history of Earth? Without a single doubt. Does Southeast Asia have influences that have affected greatly affected the course of history? Easily.
Also, Indonesia is the fourth most populous country on Earth and has been a friendly diplomatic trading nation since the 1st century (CE) when they sailed all the way to Africa. The archipelago spans from Singapore to Australia. I wouldn't exactly call that an area already with representation.
Just to be clear: Civ is a western-biased game so I have absolutely zero problem with them ignoring civs outside of the western bubble. No complaints whatsoever.
awesome
Meme Lord
yeah, i was talking specifically about vietnam in my post. i've been a huge proponent of including indonesia in this game since the beginning, but that's more for reasons of differentiation and filling up world maps. i agree that the indonesian islands aren't filled up space, but i tend to think of them as oceania, even if they're politically included, so i guess that's just semantics.
anyway, as i said, it's more for differentiation than anything else. the reason why these games usually have a western bias is because those are the civilizations with the most influence over the past few centuries.
also, the dutch east india company is a pretty weak argument for indonesia's importance, since that's pretty much saying that indonesia is important because the dutch exploited their natural resources, instead of anything they accomplished culturally.
but seriously, i would love to see indonesia, it's just more because they fill up space and the fact that they offer something different than any other reason.
anyway, as i said, it's more for differentiation than anything else. the reason why these games usually have a western bias is because those are the civilizations with the most influence over the past few centuries.
also, the dutch east india company is a pretty weak argument for indonesia's importance, since that's pretty much saying that indonesia is important because the dutch exploited their natural resources, instead of anything they accomplished culturally.
but seriously, i would love to see indonesia, it's just more because they fill up space and the fact that they offer something different than any other reason.
seancolorado
Deity
gotcha, and agreed. i don't know much about vietnam but it would be pretty cool to see a civ there. and despite the eurocentric aspect of civ i actually wouldn't mind more european civs. for me it's just about more/different civs to play with. couldn't care less where they are from to be honest (although i do acknowledge that the more varying the civs the better for the overall flavor of the game)
and yeah, the dutch east india company was just an example not to be taken as the heart of my argument but i mentioned it since it's already in the game.
My personal list?
Indonesia and Portugal. Those are the only two I am crossing my fingers and hoping for. (For Indonesia, I want the "Majapahit" because they were the largest empire in Southeast Asia's history and I find the Mongol relationship pretty interesting. For Portugal, just by their modern name for their amazing naval prowess)
and yeah, the dutch east india company was just an example not to be taken as the heart of my argument but i mentioned it since it's already in the game.
My personal list?
Indonesia and Portugal. Those are the only two I am crossing my fingers and hoping for. (For Indonesia, I want the "Majapahit" because they were the largest empire in Southeast Asia's history and I find the Mongol relationship pretty interesting. For Portugal, just by their modern name for their amazing naval prowess)
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
I only suggested Vietnam because I'm Vietnamese. I can see why it wouldn't make it in Civ5 - or, well, any future iterations of Civilization, to be honest. It does occupy a somewhat unique position in Southeast Asia for being the only truly Chinese-influenced Southeast Asian culture, but from a marketing standpoint it kind of blends in pretty easily with the Khmer or Thailand or Burma to the average consumer. Other than that objectively speaking Indonesia/Majapahit would be a better choice, given how influential it was in the Indian Ocean sea trade.
I can only imagine what a Civ game would be like if it was developed in the Middle East, or in Asia - the civ line-up would be so much drastically different than it is now. Frankly I do think Civ5 has a bit too much of an Eurocentric focus, after Civ4 which was an improvement in the sense that at least they had a token civ for some previously unrepresented regions (Mali, Ethiopia, Khmer, etc.), so I'm hoping that a new expansion would represent history before these past couple of centuries or so before European domination. I don't imply that I want to get into a Eurocentrism argument here, but I do wish Civ5 goes back into Civ4's direction of exposing the Civilization series to more diverse and interesting cultures that had their importance, too.
I can only imagine what a Civ game would be like if it was developed in the Middle East, or in Asia - the civ line-up would be so much drastically different than it is now. Frankly I do think Civ5 has a bit too much of an Eurocentric focus, after Civ4 which was an improvement in the sense that at least they had a token civ for some previously unrepresented regions (Mali, Ethiopia, Khmer, etc.), so I'm hoping that a new expansion would represent history before these past couple of centuries or so before European domination. I don't imply that I want to get into a Eurocentrism argument here, but I do wish Civ5 goes back into Civ4's direction of exposing the Civilization series to more diverse and interesting cultures that had their importance, too.
awesome
Meme Lord
I don't think that anybody will argue against cvilization games being Eurocentric. Some more pre colonial civilizations would be great, but some areas of the world are geographically smaller than others, so it makes sense to have less civilizations from that region.
I would love to see Vietnam, but in civ 6 and only as long as it represents more than Ho Chi Minh and the Vietcong.
I would love to see Vietnam, but in civ 6 and only as long as it represents more than Ho Chi Minh and the Vietcong.
Similar threads
