Is the civ series too eurocentric?
- Thread starter thecrazyscot
- Start date
CELTICEMPIRE
Zulu Conqueror
No, but I couldn't justify not including a nation that was a world power at one time.
Depends on what a world power means, though. Is it about actually being in a position to win a world war? (arguably Germany wouldn't be able to under most - or all - circumstances). Is it about being massively more powerful than most others in a given timeframe of a few aeons? Abbasids should be their own civ then, instead of a generic 'Arabs'. Would it be a cultural significance? On that grounds one could easily argue for more than just one ancient greek civ.
It is true that only in the case of England/France/Germany you have so distinct civs, which often are not world powers in any metric prior to the end of the 19th century. Germany didn't even have a merchant marine up until the late 19th century, and needed Austria (itself not exactly a ruler of the seas) to help it somewhat rival the navy of Denmark in 1864...
And at least England, and also France, were leading powers for a few centuries before that time.
Edit: That said, Germany isn't entirely a strange choice, even without taking the commercial reason to include it (game market there). Japan likely is a far worse choice for the vanilla civs. Furthermore, at times there were Zulu in the starting civs (for 3 games at least), and now we have Brazil and Poland, which again probably better fit an expansion.
It is true that only in the case of England/France/Germany you have so distinct civs, which often are not world powers in any metric prior to the end of the 19th century. Germany didn't even have a merchant marine up until the late 19th century, and needed Austria (itself not exactly a ruler of the seas) to help it somewhat rival the navy of Denmark in 1864...
And at least England, and also France, were leading powers for a few centuries before that time.
Edit: That said, Germany isn't entirely a strange choice, even without taking the commercial reason to include it (game market there). Japan likely is a far worse choice for the vanilla civs. Furthermore, at times there were Zulu in the starting civs (for 3 games at least), and now we have Brazil and Poland, which again probably better fit an expansion.
thecrazyscot
Spiffy
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2012
- Messages
- 2,460
Hm, were the Aztecs really on every vanilla first civ title?
If so, impressive. I recall them in civI (Montezuma), and i suppose there would be in CivII as well, but i didn't remember they were in the vanilla CivIII. Haven't much followed the franchise since...
Yep, although for Civ 6 it's a bit of a stretch considering they're free preorder DLC which unlocks for everyone else 3 months after release. But technically still in vanilla.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I'm not suggesting that we excluded England, France or Germany, only that they don't each warrant individual conclusion. By the same reckoning, I don't think Athens should be excluded from the series, but I don't think it warrants inclusion distinct from a broader Greek civ.
Well, for my part, I'd rather have a smaller but more interesting selection of civs than a lot of chaff. Quality over quantity, sorta thing.
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
Or put another way: Does the PRC require its own civ? Does the USSR?
His effin' name was MOCTEZUMA!
I understand Montezuma sounds more sexy, but come on Firaxis, some historical accuracy for a change, now please!
Yesss!, USSR, a great suggestion!
USSR instead of Russia for a change. We need to kick those commies butts every once in a while, right? Just to soothe our nerves...
Led by Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev or Gorby, or whatever...
Such a great amount of UU's, UA's and UB's available. Then there's the KGB and all that spy/cold war agenda...
Come on Y2K!, oblige!
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
No. USSR in addition to a Russia civ. I mean how could you "justify not including a nation that was a world power at one time.", right?
trader/warrior
Deity
Surely you mean Motecuhzoma.
bob bobato
L'imparfait
I'ms sorry if it's bad to bring up again a month-dead thread (haven't been on civfanatics for a while), but after reading this thread I can't help but put in my two cents.
The main issue with the civs of Civ is that "civilization" is a very simplistic concept. This was compelled by the limitations of 1990-era technology but is just glaringly awkward now. If we were really to address the problem of eurocentricism in the game (namely, that there are some critical non-European civs that are consistently left out, but we can't include them without removing micro-European civs that are also critical) we would need to create a dynamic civilization system. This is what I think that would entail:
1. Changing the name of the civilization when it changes its system of government, with privilege to examples in history where this has actually happened. So, If, say, Rome were to become Communist it would become the "People's Rupublic of Rome" and get the generic bonuses of communism, but Russia would become the USSR and gain a minor attribute on top of the generic bonus.
2. Using civil wars as a civilizational/governmental attribute. Some civilizations would be more or less prone to civil wars than others, and different civs would be prone to different kinds of wars. China, Persia, and India could be prone to dynastic civil wars, and would each have their set of dynasties which occasionally prop up and try to take over your empire and rename it (or give it a subtitle). A hypothetical "Frankish" civilization could be prone to have different regions more likely to revolt and create new civs such as the French and Germans. All of these possibilities would add minor attributes on top of the civilizational baseline. Another option would be to add civil wars as an attribute of different government types which exert themselves as, say, dynastic or successionist, as I've described here. In all cases, the game would provide mechanisms to control the threat of civil war.
3.Have spontaneously arising cultures within a civilization, under certain conditions. When one civilization conquers another's cities, in time a new culture would emerge in the border territories that combines the two (ie, Greek and Roman would become Byzantine, Chinese and Inca would become... well it would be a thing). As the culture spreads within your civilization you could adopt it as a new name for your civilization, and gain a new attribute, and you might be forced to change your capital to stop it from splitting off. And if the culture spreads into the other civilization, it might eventually enter yours. Similarly, a city that's founded too far away from your core territory, if it stays isolated for long, it might eventually develop its own culture.
The main risk of all this, of course, is that it would add too much complexity to the game. But for the most part these dynamics would be operating under the hood.
The main issue with the civs of Civ is that "civilization" is a very simplistic concept. This was compelled by the limitations of 1990-era technology but is just glaringly awkward now. If we were really to address the problem of eurocentricism in the game (namely, that there are some critical non-European civs that are consistently left out, but we can't include them without removing micro-European civs that are also critical) we would need to create a dynamic civilization system. This is what I think that would entail:
1. Changing the name of the civilization when it changes its system of government, with privilege to examples in history where this has actually happened. So, If, say, Rome were to become Communist it would become the "People's Rupublic of Rome" and get the generic bonuses of communism, but Russia would become the USSR and gain a minor attribute on top of the generic bonus.
2. Using civil wars as a civilizational/governmental attribute. Some civilizations would be more or less prone to civil wars than others, and different civs would be prone to different kinds of wars. China, Persia, and India could be prone to dynastic civil wars, and would each have their set of dynasties which occasionally prop up and try to take over your empire and rename it (or give it a subtitle). A hypothetical "Frankish" civilization could be prone to have different regions more likely to revolt and create new civs such as the French and Germans. All of these possibilities would add minor attributes on top of the civilizational baseline. Another option would be to add civil wars as an attribute of different government types which exert themselves as, say, dynastic or successionist, as I've described here. In all cases, the game would provide mechanisms to control the threat of civil war.
3.Have spontaneously arising cultures within a civilization, under certain conditions. When one civilization conquers another's cities, in time a new culture would emerge in the border territories that combines the two (ie, Greek and Roman would become Byzantine, Chinese and Inca would become... well it would be a thing). As the culture spreads within your civilization you could adopt it as a new name for your civilization, and gain a new attribute, and you might be forced to change your capital to stop it from splitting off. And if the culture spreads into the other civilization, it might eventually enter yours. Similarly, a city that's founded too far away from your core territory, if it stays isolated for long, it might eventually develop its own culture.
The main risk of all this, of course, is that it would add too much complexity to the game. But for the most part these dynamics would be operating under the hood.
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
I mean you more or less described the Paradox tetralogy of Grand Historical Strategy games.
bob bobato
L'imparfait
More or less... I should probably start playing them. Though I've never been a big fan; too much action going on in the menus instead of the playing field.
It's always about putting accuracy against accessibility. Personally, I think the style of the games is cartoonish enough in all senses - whether in the leader graphics or the fact that you can fight tanks with spearmen and win -
that nobody really expects that level of detail - yes, we know that religions don't pop up fully formed a when somebody has a certain idea, but most of us aren't looking for a precise historical simulator. So it's one thing to talk about changing the civilisations we have, but if you go too far down the road of changing what a civilisation is, it's stopped being a Civ game.
that nobody really expects that level of detail - yes, we know that religions don't pop up fully formed a when somebody has a certain idea, but most of us aren't looking for a precise historical simulator. So it's one thing to talk about changing the civilisations we have, but if you go too far down the road of changing what a civilisation is, it's stopped being a Civ game.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Well, having picked up Civilization VI recently, I do notice it feels more that you are on top of a society you are building. More than the previous instalments; it's in the design choices. It feels a lot more organic (I suppose) to have roads originate from having trade routes than to order a worker to build them.
It also worth noting that Civilization operates on a logic of its own, inspired by - though significantly different from - real-life civilisations. Aside from being a strategy game, it is not a historical sim that depicts real-life civilisations; it brings a fantasy version of earth which pays homage to real-life civilisations.
Not sure i like this, in a civ game; roads (and other stuff?) spawning due to algorithm instead of workers making them. Besides, in most of the civ timeline those roads would actually have to be built by decree of the gov the civ had.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
As 'organic' as it may feel, governments are the ones who normally build roads--certainly of the type Civ has. The classic examples would be the Roman roads built by the Roman government, but even smaller projects like bog causeways were normally constructed at the instigation of the ruling power. Of course, in modern times private finance is organized on a sufficient scale to complete such projects, but even today our creative job-creating supermen still need to get their buddies and colleagues occupying public offices and legislatures to overcome the multiple legal obstacles (like, for instance, scummy plebs having the temerity to 'own' property on the route).
Similar threads
