What is your opinion on Venice possibly being included as a civ?

[Cyanfunk]

Idvhl,

How many people are practicing Christians, Muslims, or Jews?

How many people are practicing Hindus or Buddhists?

How many people are practicing worshipers of Sioux deities?

You can pick another one though. Percent of world GDP output at their zenith? Percent of world population at their zenith? Output of literature and historical records? You go ahead and pick.

You absolutely do have religious views. Man is incapable of existing without worshiping something. Part of our natures. Whether you want to call your weird-looking idols your religion or not (since being 'religious' isn't the cool kids' thing nowadays), is all up to you.

So apparently I'm not agnostic and am really part of the Church of the Signed Vinyl of Folsom Prison Blues. Thanks for clarifying that for me!

 

[Alteris]

Also, I don't hate tribes. My ancestry is from an Indo-European group that on its own is really more a tribe than a civilization. Tribes have very interesting customs and history often times. A few tribes are good for the sake of variety. And a few tribes (Mongols being the prime example) were such outliers they can win inclusion on the same criteria as civilizations. But tribes generally are tribes, not civilizations, and objective measures demonstrate as much.

 

[Alteris]

Cyanfunk,

I don't know you, so I couldn't tell you what you worship. Safe to say at the very least it doesn't term itself a religion.

 

[PerceeP927]

"man is incapable of existing without religion" which came first the man or the religion? religion is made up by man buddy...

 

[Alteris]

Percee,

You quoted me wrong.

I said man is incapable of existing without worshiping something.

'Religion' implies a level of organization not always present in mankind's spiritual matters.

 

[gunnergoz]

Idvhl,
(snip)
You absolutely do have religious views. Man is incapable of existing without worshiping something. Part of our natures. Whether you want to call your weird-looking idols your religion or not (since being 'religious' isn't the cool kids' thing nowadays), is all up to you.

I worship your right to be wrong and still prattle on about religions, even though I'm an atheist.

 

[PerceeP927]

I love how not too thrilled is leading the poll. Why the hell would they include a civ where only about 25% are anticipating it? That's why... I still believe they are not being included

 

[Arachnofiend]

I love how not too thrilled is leading the poll. Why the hell would they include a civ where only about 25% are anticipating it? That's why... I still believe they are not being included

Because they didn't anticipate the backlash? They probably came up with a cool mechanic and decided that Venice would be the best to show it off, bonus points for the bad ass blind leader. It's a little late to pull back and pick another civ now.

 

[Sonereal]

And here's the prize for most astute observation in this thread. BNW is going to drastically revamp the game to favor economics and tourism/culture. It is my belief that civs that play to that theme will be well represented in the game. Sure, there will be bones thrown to the warhawks out there, but I think this is as good a logic as any to make me expect to see Venice in the game.

I generally enjoy economics anyway. (Actual) Civilization is driven more by the distribution of resources than simple war, and the control of lucrative trade routes has been a pushing factor for conflict forever.

If all Spain did was buy Chinese products and all China did was take Spanish gold in exchange, Spain would become poor very, very quickly.

Not exactly. Spanish silver was also bought by many Europeans, driving the Portuguese sugar trade, the Russian fur trade, British cash crops, etc. In the case of the British, by bought, I mean ruthlessly stole at every given chance. There's also the fact that Spainish merchant buying Chinese manufacturers recoup losses by turning around and selling those back on both domestic markets and not.

The extraction of gold/silver and raw material is also an economic activity, one the Spaniards did very well. And Spanish power increased dramatically relative to Chinese power while it was managing this, before decay started to set in.

Relatively.

The extraction of raw materials is nowhere near as lucrative as the buying and selling of Chinese manufactures back in domestic markets. If it wasn't, Spain wouldn't have mined silver to buy them in the first place. However, in the trade directly between Spain and China, China did hold a dominant position.

Plenty of Spanish authors discuss the long term impact of the fortune and power Spain made in extraction of primary resources - the fact that sloth was widespread and the Spanish heart eventually shied away from the virtues that won it it's wealth in the first place. This is the cyclical nature of history.

Napoleon invading Spain had a bit to do with it as well.

In the long run resource extraction it is a primary activity not a secondary one like manufacturing where the real profit lies, but if civilizations built on a warrior ethos were not impactful in history, Spain would hardly be the only civilization left out. The Arabs and Turks were peoples who made their mark in the same way the Spaniards did. The Arabs were fanatical, incredibly courageous, and as intrepid as the Spaniards in their zenith but for the same reasons as with Spain they've more often than not been second to the Persians.

I wouldn't count the caliphates out. There's a reason why Arabia's trait, even in vanilla, was trade related.

China in its history has almost always been greater than Spain. Though frequently martial/economic/cultural output per person in Spain has vastly outweighed that of the Chinese, to the point where Spain was punching far above its weight and near that of China.

Extremely debatable. The fact that everything Spain and the following colonizing powers did was, at first, to trade with China and to enter the Chinese markets means that China was still performing on a far higher level than Spain. Saying that Spain was even approaching China in economic, martial, or cultural output of China would be reading into the deep rooted fallacy of strategy game players.

Namely, the more of the map colored your color, the better you must be doing.

It's my history. I'd advocate the Chinese pay a lot more attention to Han China. European societies should absolutely be Eurocentric (but not ignorant of the outside world) in the context you use it, as Chinese society should be Sinocentric.

Except world history is not Eurocentric, it is, if anything, Sinocentric. All roads may have led to Rome once upon a time, but all caravans and ships pointed toward China between 1200 and 1850.

And the royal "we" is the realistic "we". I know there are people of non-Indo European heritage here, but since anti-European focus is a trait most vocally held by people of European heritage themselves, I figured it a safe bet that the poster is of the same stock as myself. If not he should assume himself exempted from the "we". If I'm reading a Chinese-dominated forum and they talk of "we" I'm not going to assume that includes myself.

My mother is Irish and my father is African-America. Therefore, I don't consider myself of European stock but global stock. That must be why I don't view history solely through the lenses of Eurocentrism, but through the lenses of global trade. When it comes to global trade, China was dominant up until the Opium War and is, once again, a major player in global trade. The period of lost dominance less than two centuries.

I love how not too thrilled is leading the poll. Why the hell would they include a civ where only about 25% are anticipating it? That's why... I still believe they are not being included

Because it is coming in an expansion, not a DLC. You're buying the game for mechanics, not new civilizations. That's why Venice is more likely as an expansion civilization than DLC while Spain and the Vikings made great DLC civilizations, because people will shell out the money for the latter two.

 

[Pikachao]

I love how not too thrilled is leading the poll. Why the hell would they include a civ where only about 25% are anticipating it? That's why... I still believe they are not being included

because as it turns out, civfantatics is kind of a little bit of a small and limited representation of the public, especially considering how at least a few people people here are vehemently anti europe or are just unhappy with the choice to include them over their own preferred civ.

 

[Sonereal]

because as it turns out, civfantatics is kind of a little bit of a small and limited representation of the public, especially considering how at least a few people people here are vehemently anti europe or are just unhappy with the choice to include them over their own preferred civ.

Even the poll says 62% of people at least think Venice is a good idea. Unless that 30% who said it was a good choice, but would've preferred someone else, all are gunning for the inclusion of the same civilization, it can be safely argued that the silent majority are ok with, or approve greatly of, Venice. The other third falls into the category, "This is awful, but I'm probably going to buy the game anyway because the game comes with eight other civilizations."

Firaxis can blunt the one or two lost sales.

 

[Alteris]

Because they didn't anticipate the backlash? They probably came up with a cool mechanic and decided that Venice would be the best to show it off, bonus points for the bad ass blind leader. It's a little late to pull back and pick another civ now.</quote>

Because Venice will be without a doubt one of the most played new civs once the game is released. Only a hundred or so people that spend all day on a forum making up weird egalitarian criteria for what civs should be included and would make a terrible game if actually put in charge, and a handful that don't classify Venice as a distinct civilization, aren't happy.

 

[Gucumatz]

The poll says 67% wish there was a different civ. Perhaps I should have voted the last option, but I voted the 2nd because ultimately its not the worst choice ever. But there were many other better choices. I suspect since Civfanatics tends to be more diehard, there is a higher support for Venice in these forums than there is elsewhere.

The backlash on Facebook should be memorable though . If people think the substantiated complaints from this forum is bad, it will only be 1000x times worse from the general public. Civs like Sweden although ( a great and fitting civ) are consistently the lowest played according to steam. Venice wouldn't surprise me if it was near the bottom too

 

[cybrxkhan]

Anybody want to guess what kind of facebook comments we'll see if Venice does get a blind Enrico Dandolo as a leader?

 

[Gucumatz]

*Hahaha he can't see me, but I can see him*

*Perhaps he went blind looking for Venice on a map?*

*Venice? Some new form of ice cream?*

*Why is the the UA not Pasta?*

Some of my guesses

 

[OsmarChito]

venice is not gonna be added as a civilization dudes....get real....

 

[Sonereal]

Anybody want to guess what kind of facebook comments we'll see if Venice does get a blind Enrico Dandolo as a leader?

"Isn't Venice Rome or something?"

venice is not gonna be added as a civilization dudes....get real....

Bet money.

 

[gunnergoz]

venice is not gonna be added as a civilization dudes....get real....

My thinking is based on real clues: what is your opinion based upon except your wish for something, anything, else but Venice?

 

[lacond]

Venice is an interresting choice as playable civ...
if people who think this is a great idea accept the fact it still a great Italian city state in the history...
OK, ok I stop the provocation for tonight.















.

 

[ellgieff]

I love how not too thrilled is leading the poll. Why the hell would they include a civ where only about 25% are anticipating it? That's why... I still believe they are not being included

Not too thrilled doesn't mean people don't want it, though.

I haven't voted, because I don't care what they _call_ the new Civs, I only care what the gameplay is like. If I did vote, the only thing that fits what I feel about it is "not too thrilled".

It's not actually the Most Serene Republic of Venice. It's not even a representation of the Most Serene Republic of Venice. It's an actor in a video game that has a label associated with it.

So my vote for not too thrilled wouldn't be "I don't want", more "I don't care"