New DLC anytime soon?
- Thread starter Jatta Pake
- Start date
HeraldtheGreat
King
Crossing my fingers for the Zulu and Srivijaya! Would dislike another European Civ, but I am open to a native american tribe(s). Cultural Haida Civ? I doubt Tibet though, on account of Lhasa being a city-state.
psyciceman
Chieftain
That doesn't mean anything though, Dublin was a City-State before the Celts, Madrid before Spain. IMO the movement from City-State to Civ shows that (in the terms of playablity) that they have increased importance (or enough outrage
)Honestly though I would prefer they wait a little bit longer to release a new Civ DLC (on account of I'm going to be without internet until after New Years) but would love to see more non-European civs (despite most of the well known civs being European)
Well, by this point last time around we already had 3 DLCs after the release of vanilla. Looks like they're working on an expansion to be announced Feb/Mar, most likely around February 14th or February 21st 2013.
I also doubt we'll see Tibet, I doubt they want to offend anyone.
I also doubt we'll see Tibet, I doubt they want to offend anyone.
Civciv5
Grand Emperor
China invaded and occupied Tibet, they are not the legitimate government of Tibet.
Tibet was a great civilization and at one point threatened to conquer all of China.
Why on Earth would they include another Native North American group? One is more than enough. We already have enough American-European bias within the game, no need to ignore other civilizations for more from one small specific region.
I know of the situation with Tibet, but this isn't an issue of facts, it's one of politics.
Villager720
Warlord
Because a Native American civ would fit well with the American Civil War scenario thats bound to come out at some point. Also, they could offer new, compelling game play, such as a desert focused civ.
There are innumerable better options for "new, compelling game play" without needing so much American bias.
As for the American Civil War scenario, can't they just mock up some civs for the scenario on its own? Why include it just for that reason?
Villager720
Warlord
Besides America being a playable civ, which Im not 100% on, and the Iroquois (which also stretched into Canada), I fail to see "American bias". The Americas, aside from Africa and Oceania aren't particularly well represented. And assuming the inclusion of the US is representative of the whole area and all cultures within its borders, is the same as saying the inclusion of India is redundant with England. Or Australia for that matter.
That said, Im all for some more African Civs.
Irkalla
ENTP POWWWEEEEEER
I'd really like to see Sumer, the Zulu, and other middle eastern and african civs.
With all the Eurocentricity of Civ 5, I actually wouldn't mind seeing Poland.
With all the Eurocentricity of Civ 5, I actually wouldn't mind seeing Poland.
turingmachine
Emperor
- Joined
- May 4, 2008
- Messages
- 1,438
An American-Europe bias would include all of North, South America, Europe, and (culturally) Australia, how is 4 continents a "small specific region". And I would hardly consider another Native American civ even fitting into that bias, as it's separate from the European Culture your bias was hinting at.
It's hard to specify the region I wanted (United States and Europe) succinctly. I didn't mean every place that had come from their colonisation, more the way that the fact that anything to do with the USA or Europe tends to get more weight. The idea that two different native American groups would even be considered with such vast sections of the World and history still yet to be covered would be bizarre to say the least.
Also, the Americas, Europe and Australia all combined have a population of ~1,673,000,000. East Asia (China, Japan, ROK, DPRK, Mongolia) alone has a population of 1,574,000,000, whilst Asia as a whole is 3,879,000,000. Of course considering that the World Population is 7,059,000,000. So that, 1,673,000,000 being only ~24% of the World's population is quite small.
Wait what? Who said anything about redundant..? Even if we were, how on Earth do you manage to pick out a small block of Indian history and then say they are "redundant" with England in the game? That logic doesn't follow in either case.
The fact that there is a small cultural group included from North America in the base game is American bias. The idea a second group would be included as well would represent clear American bias that is beyond reasonable. The idea that Sumeria is still not in the game, nor are a range of still fairly significant civilizations whilst people talk about another Native American one is ridiculous. That all said, one in the game in total is passable and makes some level of sense, particularly as they are on the creators doorsteps.
seancolorado
Deity
Indeed, take a look at the most populous countries:
1. China - always represented
2. India - always represented
3. USA - always represented
4. Indonesia - never represented
The choice is obvious as to which civ needs to be included in the next expansion
Saying that you can call Native Americans and US Americans apart of the same "American bias" shows a great deal of cultural ignorance on your side.
But to humor you.
America = N.A.
Iroquois = N.A.
Mayans = C.A.
Aztecs = C.A.
Incas = C.A.
Babylonians = M.E.
Arabians = M.E.
Persians = M.E.
Carthaginians = M.E.
Turks = M.E.
Egyptians = M.E.
Songhai = AF
Ethiopia = AF
Swedes = EU
Danish = EU
Dutch = EU
English = EU
Celts = EU
Romans = EU
Austrians = EU
Spaniards = EU
Byzantines = EU
French = EU
Germans = EU
Russians = EU
Mongols = AS
Chinese = AS
Koreans = AS
Japanese = AS
Siam = AS
Huns = AS
Indians = AS
Polynesians = AS
Only 2 civs are from North America. The Native American population was at least 120,000,000 before its eradication. It's culture is one of the most unique in the world.
Great empires that were as big and as spectacular as many of the Eastern Hemisphere's were around. Great tribes like the Powhatan (Pochahantas' tribe), the Navajo (deadly warriors), The Cahokia (mound builders), the Lakota (Sitting Bull... etc.).
I seriously don't see a reason to not include another Native civ.
EDIT: I do see where people are coming from with Africa... Maybe add Nubians and Zulu in a DLC and add Powhatan and Navajo in another.
LordTightPants
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2012
- Messages
- 23
How about an Ancient Alien civ? 
World history is a Eurasian-centric thing. They're not the only players in the game or anything but an accurate representation of the history of civilization is going to be pretty heavy on Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Even beyond that there are a couple good reasons that western civs are going to be more represented than eastern ones. One is that when the world became small enough that the two really did meet western civilization won out in that conflict, relatively speaking. Another is that the most significant eastern civilizations tended to stay unified a lot more than western ones which are more separate but each flared up at their own moment in history that earns them a spot (not that there aren't some good examples of that effect working the other way, such as the Mongols and Huns).
I think a Haida-family civ would be a good choice. Besides being a good one in terms of spreading things out I think they've got a lot of potentially unique flavor to them that would make them an actual good civ. The Cahokia would be fascinating, every indication I've read suggests that that was a top-rate American civilization more on the level of the Central American ones than other North American civilizations pre-disease. My understanding is also that you'd pretty much have to make the whole thing up though since so little is known. I think including one of the plains tribes would be a boring choice and probably also kind of a Eurocentric one. I don't think they were remarkable compared to other NA civs, just flourishing and resilient at the moment they encountered western culture, kind of like the Zulu.
You can make a totally solid argument for a civ from the area of modern Indonesia (presumably Java/Majapahit rather than the modern state of Indonesia, which is pretty unremarkable) but citing the population and non-inclusion of Indonesia as an indication of a European bias is sketchy. Indonesia as a unified country is mostly a European construct. Prior to the arrival of Europeans there was no unified nation there, just a series of kingdoms of a level of size and influence that is mostly unremarkable compared to others that are included in civ. I'm not saying they wouldn't be a good inclusion, just that their absence is not particularly conspicuous.
I think if you were really concerned about accurately representing the significance of civilizations you'd be looking for things like different phases in China's history that are distinct enough for their own representation to match some of the many representations of European civilizations that have an awful lot in common with each other. That's boring compared to finding new cultures/nations that would make more interesting additions to the game from an art/gameplay standpoint though.
I think a Haida-family civ would be a good choice. Besides being a good one in terms of spreading things out I think they've got a lot of potentially unique flavor to them that would make them an actual good civ. The Cahokia would be fascinating, every indication I've read suggests that that was a top-rate American civilization more on the level of the Central American ones than other North American civilizations pre-disease. My understanding is also that you'd pretty much have to make the whole thing up though since so little is known. I think including one of the plains tribes would be a boring choice and probably also kind of a Eurocentric one. I don't think they were remarkable compared to other NA civs, just flourishing and resilient at the moment they encountered western culture, kind of like the Zulu.
You can make a totally solid argument for a civ from the area of modern Indonesia (presumably Java/Majapahit rather than the modern state of Indonesia, which is pretty unremarkable) but citing the population and non-inclusion of Indonesia as an indication of a European bias is sketchy. Indonesia as a unified country is mostly a European construct. Prior to the arrival of Europeans there was no unified nation there, just a series of kingdoms of a level of size and influence that is mostly unremarkable compared to others that are included in civ. I'm not saying they wouldn't be a good inclusion, just that their absence is not particularly conspicuous.
I think if you were really concerned about accurately representing the significance of civilizations you'd be looking for things like different phases in China's history that are distinct enough for their own representation to match some of the many representations of European civilizations that have an awful lot in common with each other. That's boring compared to finding new cultures/nations that would make more interesting additions to the game from an art/gameplay standpoint though.
Villager720
Warlord
Perhaps redundant was a poor word choice, but you still managed to illustrated my point perfectly.
You cant pick out a small block of Indian history and label it as "Euro-centric" and thus claim it has no grounds for inclusion. Yet you're doing it with Native Americans. The Iroquois were a powerful political, cultural, and economic force in that region of the world (a large region - ranging from southern Canada to the Carolinas) for centuries. And as such, labeling them as "Ameri-centric" and lumping them in with US, and some how Europe as well, is pretty absurd. Whats more, while many of these native cultures might seem insignificant at first glance, the Iroquois alone have contributed a fair amount to modern culture in both the US and abroad, be it culturally or politically. Ever heard of lacrosse?
Similar threads
