Relevance of Geographic Location

In the debate over which civs may be included in BNW, its seems as if this community's biggest concern is geographic location, for example 3 european, 2 african or people hoping for inuit and aboriginee because those areas are not expressed in the game.
However, since true-start maps are not a part of the game they are selling us, but only included in user-made mods, wouldn't this mean geography is irrelevant to the devs? The only thing that should concern them is if including a civ is going to sell more copies, meaning it should be something interesting, which is why they added civs such as the Huns, for name recognition not for their legitimacy as a civ. In some cases, such as The Scramble for Africa scenario, it should be assumed that african civs should be included. But it seems that people saying "there are too many civs from x continent/not enough civs from y continent" or "this civ needs to be included to fill out this area of the map" are not making legitimate claims, no?

I love to play true-start maps but you have to look at what's actually included in the game.

P.S. this is NOT in support of the inclusion of Italy... they better not do it

PerceeP927 said:

But it seems that people saying "there are too many civs from x continent/not enough civs from y continent" or "this civ needs to be included to fill out this area of the map" are not making legitimate claims, no?

Click to expand...

No, those are not legitimate claims.

I don't think true map starts are at all relevant to the developers and I don't personally think they should be a consideration either. However, cultural variety should be a factor and that does include geographic diversity. I just don't think they need to cover every nook and cranny of the earth and they certainly should not, under any circumstances, exclude a unique, fascinating, important civilization simply because it was located near another one.

You aren't going to get everyone to settle on what constitutes a "deserving spot" as far as inclusion of Civilizations. Some people look to historical impact, others to geographical location, some because it is their homeland, some for chance of interesting gameplay mechanics, etc.

Personally I think the devs team main focus is variety. That doesn't necessarily mean geographical location, but I think they will add a Civ that brings something new to the game as far as style and gameplay, whether there are more "deserving" Civs or not.

They are. Because cultures from the same area are generally related somehow, it only makes sense that people will say these things. England and France might play differently, but their cultures aren't all that different, once you get past a certain point in history.

Louis XXIV said:

I don't think true map starts are at all relevant to the developers and I don't personally think they should be a consideration either. However, cultural variety should be a factor and that does include geographic diversity. I just don't think they need to cover every nook and cranny of the earth and they certainly should not, under any circumstances, exclude a unique, fascinating, important civilization simply because it was located near another one.

Click to expand...

Yeah, what he said! I think that diversity in gameplay is what they are mainly concerned about. So, I think they try to find civs that fit what they are tying to do. Of course, they listen to the fans too (ergo Poland). Geography may come into it somewhat, because you don't want to make certain people mad or seem to exclude a region. It can be a sensitive thing. But, in the end, it's just a game and the fun factor is the main thing.

I think cultural diversity is relevant, especially since that also contributes to the differences in gameplay mechanics. Geographical location is tied to cultural difference, but it's not really relevant on its own.

Nujabes said:

I think cultural diversity is relevant, especially since that also contributes to the differences in gameplay mechanics. Geographical location is tied to cultural difference, but it's not really relevant on its own.

Click to expand...

I agree to that completely, but what concerns me is when people take counts of civs based on continents/location, and determine numerically that one civ is more likely than another. I think I mindset like that can lead to oversight of deserving cultures that may have been in close proximity. I'd rather have more civs than less, but I believe it would be a shame to include a rather fictional inuit empire to prevent hiawatha from dominating north america instead of adding a vietnam, gran columbia, or israel for example.

But see, the Inuit are a perfect example; it'd be annoying to have to select a fictional leader, yes, but currently no one in the game uses snow or ice, so their culture represents the possibility of filling a unique gameplay niche.

I totally get what you're saying, although when we start to get into the conversation of "deserving," we go down a different road, one that is rehashed a lot on this board.

Well, "deserving" should be straightforward once one accepts that Civ is just a game. A civ that lends itself to interesting design possibilities is worthy.

Of course, others do not embrace this axiom because Civ has been blown up in their minds to be something more than a game. It does strike me as peculiar that people would hotly anticipate a civ like, say, Kongo purely because of its geographic location, even to the extent of not having a clue or a care what such a civ might offer in terms of uniques. Its token inclusion is what's important to some, not what it has to offer the game.

Conversely, other civ's that might make good candidates are flatly dismissed because they're European.

It's a single-mindedness that I doubt the game's developers share, for which I'm appreciative. I like global diversity, as my sig indicates, but all things in moderation.

The thing is that we're playing Civilization, not Empire, so you can have peoples like the Inuits and Kurds, who may not have ever had an empire, but could have formed a unified state if things went differently. The Inuits even have Nunavut now and a leader who's fairly important, so we could possibly get an inuit civ in about civ 10 or 15.

I do care a bit about the map. Sth East Asia, Australia, Most of the Americas and large parts of Africa dont have representation. The Middle East on the other hand is chock full of options. Assyria, Babylon etc all seem quite similar stylistically to me and that doesn't excite me as much as say the Indonesian's, Western North Americans or Moors would.

I also think that at some stage they should brign out an official world map with proper start locations merely so that pweople who want to play that can do so without having to get mods.

I'm all for them filling up the real world map as much as possible because those areas are both under-represented and also culturally different to those already in game and that adds to some of the experience. If I was picking the remaining 5 it would be Moors, Majapahit, Australia, Portugal and a western Nth American native society merely because those choices add the most variety to the experience if the developed correctly. Argentina, Timurid, Vietnam, Kongo but each is a little too similar to somethign already in or being added (Brazil, Mongol, Thai, Songhai respectivly) for me to be as keen on their addition. Italy (under Venice) has a case but the game is already so Eurocentric and with Poland already in I'd have to choose Portugal over Italy due to Rome already beign represented.

PerceeP927 said:

but I believe it would be a shame to include a rather fictional inuit empire to prevent hiawatha from dominating north america instead of adding a vietnam, gran columbia, or israel for example.

Click to expand...

I feel that it should be pointed out that Gran Colombia's support is mostly because of the geography argument. GC didn't last too long, or contribute anything technologically.

I'm in agreement with others in that geography is only important because it is intertwined with culture. Many a user would see the inclusion of Hungary (for example) as boring. They're just another European civilization with similar UA/UU/UB as the others.

I, personally, would rather have Poland's spot go to Vietnam/Cherokee/an African for the purpose of keeping the game interesting, worldly and openminded to what a 'civilization' really is.

Colmar said:

I feel that it should be pointed out that Gran Colombia's support is mostly because of the geography argument. GC didn't last too long, or contribute anything technologically.

I'm in agreement with others in that geography is only important because it is intertwined with culture. Many a user would see the inclusion of Hungary (for example) as boring. They're just another European civilization with similar UA/UU/UB as the others.

I, personally, would rather have Poland's spot go to Vietnam/Cherokee/an African for the purpose of keeping the game interesting, worldly and openminded to what a 'civilization' really is.

Click to expand...

I wasn't so worried about Poland because they fill a large gap in Eastern Europe on the map. It's still another Euro Civ but at least it was from the East

Hungary is a bit like Italy for mine - the Huns are already in as is the Austrian Empire. Those cover that part of the world in different time frames. Hungary is worthy of consideration but if it comes to a choice I'd rather see say The Moors or Indonesia or Australia or somewhere similar who doesn't currently have some sort of representation.

I only support Portugal being in because in terms of effect on the world as a whole the Portuguese exploration of the new World is such a major part of history. Much like Spain they really need representation.

alpha2117 said:

Hungary is a bit like Italy for mine - the Huns are already in as is the Austrian Empire. Those cover that part of the world in different time frames. Hungary is worthy of consideration but if it comes to a choice I'd rather see say The Moors or Indonesia or Australia or somewhere similar who doesn't currently have some sort of representation.

Click to expand...

You could argue that Carthage, Arabia and Spain cover the same geographical area as the Moors throughout history as the Huns and Austria cover Hungary

Geographical location does matter, because it brings with it diversity. The game designers don't only design the game for existing fans, they want it to appeal to people who haven't played any games from the series yet. If the game is full of European empires, it loses some of its appeal to many. If someone sees a commercial of the game or something, featuring fully playable civs that from all over the world, it adds interest and a fun factor to them - what major games allow the Iroquois and the Songhai to go head to head? Obviously things should be appropriate; they won't necessarily throw in an unknown ancient culture for the sake of uniqueness and because no other game uses it. But geographic diversity can be a major selling point.

I think it's debatable whether the primary concern here actually is geography, as opposed to culture. It's hard to pull those apart, because nations that are near each other on the map also tend to have more cultural similarities, if only because they have longer histories of trade and mutual influence. But when there are whole vast areas whose cultures are being totally overlooked, or given one or two token civs to represent them, it can be kind of frustrating for them to effectively say, "And now have some more Europeans!" I have absolutely nothing against the inclusion of Poland, for example. When it comes to Civ, I'm pretty inclusionist; I want as many different civs to play with as possible. But if the Europeans are coming at the expense of including more Native American or African civs, it may be time to give Europe a rest and explore some different cultural groups for awhile.

This is why I'm baffled at people who say that the Khmer won't or shouldn't be included because Siam is already in. So what if they are? Siam and the Khmer Empire were not the same thing. Of course there were cultural similarities, because they existed in similar regions. But there was not much overlap of their territory, and they were not linked politically. They would not have the same city lists, and uniques could be found for the Khmer that would make them different from other civs. There is no argument I can see against the Khmer that could not equally well apply to any of the European civs. Saying Siam precludes the Khmer is no different from saying Germany can't get in because France already is, or the Netherlands can't get in because England already is. It's nonsense. Trying to get Siam and Thailand both in might be silly (like trying to get both England and Great Britain), but the Khmer Empire was different from Siam and should not be excluded merely because "Well, we've got Southeast Asia covered already." We've got Europe covered, too, and exhaustively.

Colmar said:

I feel that it should be pointed out that Gran Colombia's support is mostly because of the geography argument. GC didn't last too long, or contribute anything technologically.

Click to expand...

It could be that. Or it could be that Simon Bolivar himself is an important figure (he's the national hero of, what, half the countries in South America?) and it would be cool to have him included. Gran Colombia itself turned out to largely be a footnote in history, so doesn't warrant inclusion on its own merits, but the man who ran it does.

Geographical diversity is useful as a yardstick for cultural diversity. Humans have established interesting and diverse cultures over the entire globe, and Civilization should reflect this. The actual geographical distribution is largely irrelevant, so the whole "I don't play Earth maps" counter-argument misses the point, I feel.

AriochIV said:

No, those are not legitimate claims.

Click to expand...

Somebody has been playing Crusader Kings 2.

...seriously, play Crusader Kings 2.

i wish they would add the Portuguese, it was after all one of the big colonial powers.