SuperWaffle247
Secretary General
Eh, if I were doing it, the Polynesias would be separate but the Indias and Greeces would be under Greece.
More Civilisations
- Thread starter Pouakai
- Start date
turingmachine
Emperor
- Joined
- May 4, 2008
- Messages
- 1,438
I don't really feel like different political entities has much to do with defining different civilizations, though. With the Kingdom of England and Great Britain it's clearly a case of successor states as well as two states made up of the same 'people'. The Polynesian civs are completely separate and the original blob Polynesia civ was equally as ridiculous.
TranquilSilence
Grumpy Snufkin
Aye that's fair enough, which is why I was curious as to whether Prussia would be added under an alt. Germany. I feel I should clarify that I don't have an issue with the England/Great Britain scenario given how culturally similar the two are - I thought it was just a point that could be worth considering.
I agree with the consensus that Polynesia should not be grouped (as the eventual Celtic split should not be), I'm not sure in regards to the others though.
Natan35
Mayor of St. Natansburg
I don't think that harappa and Chola should be listed under india.
SuperWaffle247
Secretary General
Definitely not Harappa. I don't know about Chola but that's because I don't know their actual history.
RawSasquatch
Minuteman
Yeah, I could see maybe one or two Indian civs going under India itself. Some would be like putting Texas/California in the America slot. I feel like regional/separatist civs belong in their own slot.
Natan35
Mayor of St. Natansburg
Yep. Also, could be nice for your civs, Rawsasquatch, as they feature alternative leaders.
shaglio
The Prince of Dorkness
And Davey Henninger's Mexico
I was going to suggest the Mughals be separate because they were Muslims who migrated from the Middle East into the Indian subcontinent rather than stemming from the subcontinent itself. At least I think that's how it went down. Memory is not my forte.
Tomatekh
Sahib-i-Qirani
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,408
You know, I would make a case for the Timurids to be a base civ group with the Timurids and the Mughals grouped under that separate from Persia and India. They were the same dyanasty, ethnically and culturally the same people, and both the Timurid and Mughal Empires called themselves by the same name; Gurkani. But I understand why people wouldn't be up for that and there are multiple Timurid and Mughal mods anyway.
Though, I now kind of feel it's up to the mod creator how to group their civs. If More Civs/Pouakai want to group them all under India (or likewise all the Polynesias together) that's perfectly fine regardless of anything else. The support is easy enough to manually change after release by editing one of the files anyway for people who really care and want them grouped a specific way.
Kesler
Master Kekkler
Again, this is Alt Leaders. Grouping several civs together because of geographic location does not fit the bill sadly. Byzantine Leaders are not alt leaders of Rome. They are not alt leaders for the Ottomans. But then we enter the tricky area of "Are the Turks an alt leader for the Ottomans?" I think it's up to the mod creators to decided that. Personally, if it's a situation of Denmark-Norway, that should be counted separately. The UK however...
Alternatively, what could be done is that Civs that evolve into a greater collective could all share that same option in their alt leaders screen. For example, Scotland could consist of Robert the Bruce, James VI, and then Victoria, George V, and Churchill. Alongside that, England contains Henry III, Elizabeth, Victoria, George V, and Churchill as well.
Alternatively, what could be done is that Civs that evolve into a greater collective could all share that same option in their alt leaders screen. For example, Scotland could consist of Robert the Bruce, James VI, and then Victoria, George V, and Churchill. Alongside that, England contains Henry III, Elizabeth, Victoria, George V, and Churchill as well.
King William I
King
I think a good rule of thumb to follow is "Do these two civs have the same name?" i.e. Germany (Firaxis) and Germany (Hitler) being grouped but not Germany and Prussia. It would make things simpler IMO
Urdnot_Scott
Sultan
I disagree - the game is called 'Civilisation' not 'Political Entity V' (I imagine marketing would have had something to do with that, but I digress) it is undeniable that Prussia and Germany are both separate political entities within the greater German civilisation. There are civs which are lumped together without any issues who have more differences than Germany and Prussia.
If it were up to me, which I'll concede; it is not, I'd go hog wild on grouping things together. Stick Oman in with Arabia; Omanis are ethnically Arab, they live in Arabia, how could you say they weren't a subgroup of the greater Arab civilisation? The Gauls could easily be grouped in in with all the Celts or as an alternate France. Mercia? England. Chola, Mughals, Mauraya and Maratha? India. Group the Polynesians together, why not?
None of this is to say that the people of Rapa Nui are not obviously distinct from the people of Hawai'i. They are, of course they are! Lumping them together for gameplay purposes is just weird, but all four of them are ethnically Polynesian with interlinked languages, cultures and belief systems which seperate them from the rest of the world - Cleopatra is far more seperated from Narmer than Te Rauparaha is from Kamehamaha yet we'd stick them in the same category.
But then I'm a sucker for labelling and grouping and organising in games, so that's probably the reason that appeals to me more than anything.
EDIT: Obviously some of these are more contentious than others; I'd totally agree that, while part of a greater Polynesian civilisation, it can definitely be argued that the four civs in the split were civilisations in their own right, civilisation is a layered concept and it isn't a 'in this or in that' idea. That said, some of them, like Prussia and Germany, just seem crazy to me. How anyone could argue that Prussia is a distinct civilisation in their own right, particularly under Frederick the Great, and not part of the German civilisation, is beyond me. They're barely even a different political identity, Prussia just absorbed everyone else and changed its title.
What? How is that even a question, the leader is Mehmet II for gawds sake, the most famous Ottoman sultan possibly of all time. If we were talking about 'The Turks' led by, say, Asena, covering all Turkic peoples, there'd be a question, but under Mehmet? No way.
If it were up to me, which I'll concede; it is not, I'd go hog wild on grouping things together. Stick Oman in with Arabia; Omanis are ethnically Arab, they live in Arabia, how could you say they weren't a subgroup of the greater Arab civilisation? The Gauls could easily be grouped in in with all the Celts or as an alternate France. Mercia? England. Chola, Mughals, Mauraya and Maratha? India. Group the Polynesians together, why not?
None of this is to say that the people of Rapa Nui are not obviously distinct from the people of Hawai'i. They are, of course they are! Lumping them together for gameplay purposes is just weird, but all four of them are ethnically Polynesian with interlinked languages, cultures and belief systems which seperate them from the rest of the world - Cleopatra is far more seperated from Narmer than Te Rauparaha is from Kamehamaha yet we'd stick them in the same category.
But then I'm a sucker for labelling and grouping and organising in games, so that's probably the reason that appeals to me more than anything.
EDIT: Obviously some of these are more contentious than others; I'd totally agree that, while part of a greater Polynesian civilisation, it can definitely be argued that the four civs in the split were civilisations in their own right, civilisation is a layered concept and it isn't a 'in this or in that' idea. That said, some of them, like Prussia and Germany, just seem crazy to me. How anyone could argue that Prussia is a distinct civilisation in their own right, particularly under Frederick the Great, and not part of the German civilisation, is beyond me. They're barely even a different political identity, Prussia just absorbed everyone else and changed its title.
What? How is that even a question, the leader is Mehmet II for gawds sake, the most famous Ottoman sultan possibly of all time. If we were talking about 'The Turks' led by, say, Asena, covering all Turkic peoples, there'd be a question, but under Mehmet? No way.
Natan35
Mayor of St. Natansburg
*Civilization, American English FTW
Austria is also part of the greater German civilization. Yet the game creators chose to make it separate. Would you have Maria Theresa as an alternate leader of Germany? I won't...
Some civs are just way to large(Germany, Russia) but some are smaller. And you can't possibly have Kamehamaha and the Maori leader as alt. Leaders of Polynesia, because their cultures were pretty differet by the time they ruled, more different then, say, 1000 years earlier. And can you have Cyrus and Khomeini as alternate leaders of Persia, despite the massive differences between their regimes? I don't think so.
Just my thoughts.
Austria is also part of the greater German civilization. Yet the game creators chose to make it separate. Would you have Maria Theresa as an alternate leader of Germany? I won't...
Some civs are just way to large(Germany, Russia) but some are smaller. And you can't possibly have Kamehamaha and the Maori leader as alt. Leaders of Polynesia, because their cultures were pretty differet by the time they ruled, more different then, say, 1000 years earlier. And can you have Cyrus and Khomeini as alternate leaders of Persia, despite the massive differences between their regimes? I don't think so.
Just my thoughts.
Like Scott said, Prussia is pretty much literally Germany. Austria is obviously a different case.
Natan35
Mayor of St. Natansburg
*as well
Also, its quite different, considering native American is much less specific(or at least, includes much more) than "Polynesian".
Also, its quite different, considering native American is much less specific(or at least, includes much more) than "Polynesian".
Urdnot_Scott
Sultan
If you group all the Polynesian civs toghether you might as when group all the Native American civs together.
Why? Americans were all ethnically diverse with radically different cultures and faiths. Polynesians were certaintly diverse, but their common ancestor had left the Polynesian homeland long after the proto-Americans had left Asia. 'Polynesian' is an ethno-linguistic group, accepted by most anthropologists - 'Native American' is not.
Natan35
Mayor of St. Natansburg
@Tarcisio: how is that a different case? It was as involved in Germany as Prussia, for the most part...
(And there's snothing Prussian other than Bismarck is the vanila German design...)
(And there's snothing Prussian other than Bismarck is the vanila German design...)
But this mod is not to group together cultures; rather, it is too split civilizations. "Polynesia" was never one civilization with one leader so it makes no sense. Putting the Maori and Hawai'i together is not what this mod is looking to do. Instead, Kamehameha should be put with Liliʻuokalani (if a mod was made of her).
At the same time, not putting the Prussians in the German category would be like not putting the Qing in the Chinese category.
