Is the civ series too eurocentric?

Yeekim said:

I think the only way to get rid of "Eurocentrism" is to get rid of "predefined" civs and start with generic ones where unique traits, units and buildings of your civilization are somehow organically picked/developed/unlocked as the game unfolds and you name your adversaries as you meet them...

Could be really immersive if done right. Starting with "USA" in 4000BC is such a horrible immersion-breaker.

Click to expand...

Caveman2cosmos does this. There's even a gameoption to unlock leader traits with levels of culture.

(It doesn't seem that way in game creation since it makes you pick a predetermined civ and leader, but the leader doesn't really matter with the gameoption active and the civ only determines which starting culture you get- they go by continent.)

Yeekim said:

I think the only way to get rid of "Eurocentrism" is to get rid of "predefined" civs and start with generic ones where unique traits, units and buildings of your civilization are somehow organically picked/developed/unlocked as the game unfolds and you name your adversaries as you meet them...

Could be really immersive if done right. Starting with "USA" in 4000BC is such a horrible immersion-breaker.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't work for this series. It would stick out as the Civ-SJW

How so? What Yeekim is describing is essentially an expanded version of the social policy and religion mechanics from Civ V.

It's not as if the different civs were strongly differentiated until V, either: in I and II, it's entirely cosmetic, III only adds unique units, and IV just adds unique buildings and semi-generic leader-traits. It's only in V that certain civs are designed to push the player towards certain play styles, and it seems to me that the introduction of the social policy and religion mechanics was in part a recognition of how far this departed from the rest of the series.

III already adds civ traits, which were crucial there. By and large you would not be able to outrun any civ on its trait(s) you miss out on, eg scientific, commercial, sea-faring, militaristic etc

One critisism agains beyond earth were how all the "generic" leaders (of customisable civilisations) were very boring compared to the historical leaders in f.ex. civ5 with more personality

Traitorfish said:

How so? What Yeekim is describing is essentially an expanded version of the social policy and religion mechanics from Civ V.

It's not as if the different civs were strongly differentiated until V, either: in I and II, it's entirely cosmetic, III only adds unique units, and IV just adds unique buildings and semi-generic leader-traits. It's only in V that certain civs are designed to push the player towards certain play styles, and it seems to me that the introduction of the social policy and religion mechanics was in part a recognition of how far this departed from the rest of the series.

Click to expand...

This kind of nitpicky, but I don't think that's at all true for Civ IV. You can easily see how Holy Rome is focused on defense, that Khmer is designed to have large cities, that Rome and Zulus are top dogs for early conquest, that Russia (with Cathy) is the best at expansion and that Portugal is good for New World style maps where colonization can give big bonuses. The starting techs also figure into each civ's strategy, you know.

Now, it's true a lot of the civs seemingly designed for a specific niche don't work all that well (Mongols are typically weak, and despite being builders the Incas' greatest advantage is the quechua), but having narrow abilities like Barbary Corsairs or Seven Cities of Gold isn't much of an improvement.

Traitorfish said:

How so? What Yeekim is describing is essentially an expanded version of the social policy and religion mechanics from Civ V.

It's not as if the different civs were strongly differentiated until V, either: in I and II, it's entirely cosmetic, III only adds unique units, and IV just adds unique buildings and semi-generic leader-traits. It's only in V that certain civs are designed to push the player towards certain play styles, and it seems to me that the introduction of the social policy and religion mechanics was in part a recognition of how far this departed from the rest of the series.

Click to expand...

Certainly in Civ IV, the leader - let alone the civilisation - you choose has a huge impact on how you actually end up playing the game. If you're going for a cultural victory and decide to play as Montezuma, it's not going to go well.

Re: Mouthwash and Flying Pig, I think that's more reflective of the way people play the meta-game than the game itself. It's entirely possible to play for a cultural victory with Montezuma, it's just not very efficient on a higher difficulty level. Civs are advantaged, but never actually handicapped, not really; it's a pull rather than push effect, if you see what I mean, where the play is rewarded for a certain play style but not actually punished for choosing another. It's only in Civ 5 you see anything like that, where it simply becomes unworkable to play certain civs in certain ways, and even then, only some of the civs in some ways. Certainly the meta-game matters, everyone plays it to some extent, and the core fanbase takes it very seriously.

Point being, the in-built differences between different civs are thematic bonuses, not a necessary game mechanic. In Civ IV, a lot of it was tied to leaders rather than civs as such, and by BTS it was possible to play any civ with any leader, which suggests Firaxis aren't of the strong opinion that Vikings should be played like this and Indians should be played like that if a player thinks it would be more fun to play it differently. Replacing it with something more organic wouldn't be a massive break with precedent, especially given that the policy and religion mechanics in Civ V did essentially that.

The CivIV AI was strongly flavour-oriented though

Traitorfish said:

Re: Mouthwash and Flying Pig, I think that's more reflective of the way people play the meta-game than the game itself. It's entirely possible to play for a cultural victory with Montezuma, it's just not very efficient on a higher difficulty level. Civs are advantaged, but never actually handicapped, not really; it's a pull rather than push effect, if you see what I mean, where the play is rewarded for a certain play style but not actually punished for choosing another. It's only in Civ 5 you see anything like that, where it simply becomes unworkable to play certain civs in certain ways, and even then, only some of the civs in some ways. Certainly the meta-game matters, everyone plays it to some extent, and the core fanbase takes it very seriously.

Point being, the in-built differences between different civs are thematic bonuses, not a necessary game mechanic. In Civ IV, a lot of it was tied to leaders rather than civs as such, and by BTS it was possible to play any civ with any leader, which suggests Firaxis aren't of the strong opinion that Vikings should be played like this and Indians should be played like that if a player thinks it would be more fun to play it differently. Replacing it with something more organic wouldn't be a massive break with precedent, especially given that the policy and religion mechanics in Civ V did essentially that.

Click to expand...

I'll take your word for it, having not played Civ V - but is that not an acceptable sacrifice in the name of fun? I mean, one of the most basic rules of designing a video game has to be that you don't want people to buy it and find themselves frustrated that they keep losing on Settler. There are already huge compromises in 'accuracy' made for that reason - you don't have to win elections as Roosevelt, appease nobles as Elizabeth, or avoid angry senators as Caesar. I suppose this is probably just working towards your point that there's no reason beyond flavour to have 'Aztecs' and 'Germans' rather than 'Green' and 'Grey' in the first place - but to me, that flavour is quite an important part of what makes Civ a good game. Or are you suggesting something like RFC, where the civilisation develops variably within certain bounds - so you can have the 'People's Republic of America', the 'Islamic Republic of France', and so on - but always vaguely resembles something from the real world?

Traitorfish said:

Re: Mouthwash and Flying Pig, I think that's more reflective of the way people play the meta-game than the game itself. It's entirely possible to play for a cultural victory with Montezuma, it's just not very efficient on a higher difficulty level. Civs are advantaged, but never actually handicapped, not really; it's a pull rather than push effect, if you see what I mean, where the play is rewarded for a certain play style but not actually punished for choosing another. It's only in Civ 5 you see anything like that, where it simply becomes unworkable to play certain civs in certain ways, and even then, only some of the civs in some ways. Certainly the meta-game matters, everyone plays it to some extent, and the core fanbase takes it very seriously.

Point being, the in-built differences between different civs are thematic bonuses, not a necessary game mechanic. In Civ IV, a lot of it was tied to leaders rather than civs as such, and by BTS it was possible to play any civ with any leader, which suggests Firaxis aren't of the strong opinion that Vikings should be played like this and Indians should be played like that if a player thinks it would be more fun to play it differently. Replacing it with something more organic wouldn't be a massive break with precedent, especially given that the policy and religion mechanics in Civ V did essentially that.

Click to expand...

It's pretty surreal to see you discussing Civ strategy, but I suppose there had to be a reason you joined this forum.

I think, personally, that being able to combine any pair of traits with any pair of unique builds is way more interesting than having straightforward bonuses. If you want leaders/civs to have specific playstyles you could just buff all traits and unique builds to the point that they are forced to specialize. Plenty of unique abilities in CiV are weaker than BTS traits.

dutchfire said:

The CivIV AI was strongly flavour-oriented though

Click to expand...

It was, but it wasn't strictly hard-wired to certain civs. Different leaderheads for the same Civ had different personalities, albeit usually similar ones, and the ability to randomise both leaders and leader-personalities meant that was ultimately optional, if the player so choose.

Besides, that could lead to some immersion-breaking conclusions, when you see an under-teched but resource-rich Aztecs declaring war on the world, and on the moon for good measure, because Monty gonna Mont. It seems like you could build a system where civs developed strong personalities that were more appropriate to their in-game situation.

Flying Pig said:

I'll take your word for it, having not played Civ V - but is that not an acceptable sacrifice in the name of fun? I mean, one of the most basic rules of designing a video game has to be that you don't want people to buy it and find themselves frustrated that they keep losing on Settler. There are already huge compromises in 'accuracy' made for that reason - you don't have to win elections as Roosevelt, appease nobles as Elizabeth, or avoid angry senators as Caesar. I suppose this is probably just working towards your point that there's no reason beyond flavour to have 'Aztecs' and 'Germans' rather than 'Green' and 'Grey' in the first place - but to me, that flavour is quite an important part of what makes Civ a good game. Or are you suggesting something like RFC, where the civilisation develops variably within certain bounds - so you can have the 'People's Republic of America', the 'Islamic Republic of France', and so on - but always vaguely resembles something from the real world?

Click to expand...

Something like that. I remember that the back of the Playstation version of Civ II invited the player to wonder "what if the Aztecs invaded Spain?", and that's always been the central joy of the series, turning history on its head. Forcing civs into over-narrow paths of developmental feels like a betrayal of that. Something like an expanded version of the religion mechanic from Civ V seems more in keeping with the spirit of the series, allowing players to "grow" the character of the empire, just as they grow its borders and economy.

Mouthwash said:

It's pretty surreal to see you discussing Civ strategy, but I suppose there had to be a reason you joined this forum.

Click to expand...

Oh believe me, I'm as startled by anyone. I'm the sort of person who puts cities in the wrong tile because I think it looks more scenic.

I think, personally, that being able to combine any pair of traits with any pair of unique builds is way more interesting than having straightforward bonuses. If you want leaders/civs to have specific playstyles you could just buff all traits and unique builds to the point that they are forced to specialize. Plenty of unique abilities in CiV are weaker than BTS traits.

Click to expand...

That's true; I'll admit that my claim that CiV pushes the player towards certain play-styles might be a response to how the game presents the differences between civs, rather than how they play out mechanically. It felt, in IV, like the civs were presented as basically similar and you had to tease out the differences for yourself, while in V they pretty much tell you up front how you're expected to play, in part because the unique abilities are so specific in their utility.

Traitorfish said:

That's true; I'll admit that my claim that CiV pushes the player towards certain play-styles might be a response to how the game presents the differences between civs, rather than how they play out mechanically. It felt, in IV, like the civs were presented as basically similar and you had to tease out the differences for yourself, while in V they pretty much tell you up front how you're expected to play, in part because the unique abilities are so specific in their utility.

Click to expand...

Basically, the strength of the bonus is a separate question from how well the bonus is tailored to reward a specific playstyle. In IV the traits are much less pigeonholing. Philosophical was probably the most pigeonholing trait in that it's more or less useless unless you focused on Great People generation, but Agg and Pro (the obvious warmonger traits) give such poor bonuses that one can play completely peacefully with either trait and it won't affect the game much.

By contrast in Civ V there's really no point in playing e.g. the Mongols or Huns peacefully.

Traitorfish said:

Oh believe me, I'm as startled as anyone. I'm the sort of person who puts cities in the wrong tile because I think it looks more scenic.

Click to expand...

I sometimes do that, and I play on Emperor. #notsobad

Maybe the earlier games were a little Eurocentric. Civ I didn't even have Japan or Persia IIRC. However, since the Civ III expansions (which introduced Korea, Arabia, Sumeria, the Ottomans, the Hittites, Carthage, the Maya, and the Inca) there seems to be a greater effort to include non-European Civs.

Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Rome, and Greece are essential civilizations. The game would feel empty without them just like it would without China, Egypt, or the Aztecs. There are just so many very powerful and influential European states that the game would feel incomplete without.

I think some of the issue is how the European civs get broken down relatively finely while non-European civs get to represents just about everything in a region. I mean, China gets to represent everything from bronze-age prehistory to modern day PRC and India likewise consists of everything from the Vedic Aryans to modern day India.

It would follow that regions with similar levels of historic diversity and written sources should be represented with a similar number of civilizations; but that isn't the case. Europe gets the freaking Dutch, Celts, and Portuguese as independent civs while China is just, well, China. I get that Civ needs to "hit the big name civs", and I'm totally down with that, but once you got the big ones, perhaps include the Mughals or [insert Southern Chinese kingdom where I betray my complete lack of knowledge about historic China] before moving on to the Dutch or Poland. I remember when Civ4 came out everyone was joking about how they had to crack open their college world history textbooks to figure out what Mali was. I see no reason civ can't do the same with the Mughals or [Chinese kingdom].

I'd suggest moving towards greater geographical than chronological diversity. The central conceit of the series is that "civilisations" can be meaningfully from traced from the neolithic to the space age, so it's not unreasonable to try and include a broad historical scope under a single banner. After all, the idea of a continuous Chinese civilisation stretching from the Shang to the PRC is something most Chinese are themselves are quite emphatically convinced of, not something imposed on them by the West, even if they might have a richer understanding of it.

In the Indian case, I'd suggest maybe trying to split "India" into Hind and Dradividian civs, or maybe Indic and Gangetic civs.

The problem with European civs, I think, is that Euro-Americans struggle to imagine themselves as anything other than specific national or ethnic identities on the one hand, or as the impossibly broad and meaningless entity of "the West" on the other. I think the best medicine is simply to ignore what people expect and dice Europe up into a few basic components: Rome and Greece, for tradition's sake, and then something like "Franks" and "Slavs", maybe add "Scandinavians" as an expansion-civ, the Vikings are colourful enough I think we can let that fly, and perhaps "Iberians" if we're feeling especially indulgent.

Traitorfish said:

maybe add "Scandinavians" as an expansion-civ, the Vikings are colourful enough I think we can let that fly,.

Click to expand...

That's what Civ III and IV did, I will agree that there is no reason to include both Sweden and Denmark.

The Dutch and Portuguese usually get picked when they need someone to have a UU ship.

18 starting civs is as random a number as 24, so if the developers weren't that set on making even more $$$ through deluxe content aka dlc and expansion civs, they could just have a few more starting game civs and therefore have enough numbers to position those other non-euro civs.

That said, i am still not sure why Germany has to be a core civ in this game. France could also be stretching it, but Germany more clearly does. The game starts at 4000 BC, not the start of the 19th century (even if we bypass the obvious Prussia---> Germany, which would make the latter a reality of the very end of the 19th century anyway).