Now Kongo is out ... :(

Kongo doesn't fit into the scenario...technically neither do the Zulu, but Kongo is way further away...

Nujabes said:

Kongo doesn't fit into the scenario...technically neither do the Zulu, but Kongo is way further away...

Click to expand...

The Zulu would fit into the scenario. The battle of Isandhlwana and the trouble the British had with the Zulu, while not necessarily important to the Scramble of Africa in the grand scheme of things, was a very iconic moment of the whole process. By the time of the Scramble of Africa, Kongo's significance and power had diminished to the point where it wasn't iconic in any way to the Scramble for Africa - other African states like the north African ones, Ashanti, Dahomey, and Ethiopia, are more known to those with a casual knowledge of history when it comes to the Scramble for Africa.

I more thinking of the Scramble as post-Conference, which is a fairly somewhat narrow demarcation since colonization had started well before that, but the Anglo-Zulu War is certainly in the general late 19th century period that's being singled out here. The Zulu are largely fan-service, and it would be nice to get a SS African-civ that isn't solely associated with warmongering.

Screw tradition - Kongo would have been great.
Sometimes they shouldn't listen to the fans. Sometimes it's more important to get on and develop something new.

Kongo would have been great, much better than Zulu. Oh well. I still think the civ selection in this game has been pretty good overall.

Ugh, Kongo is not in? That is just....that's just a bad decision on many fronts. Don't even get me started on the history of Kongo. They will need another civ to represent central Africa though. My bet is on the Ashanti. Maybe Great Zimbabwe will make an appearance?

Still, at least the CS name is somewhat accurate.

cybrxkhan said:

Siam never controlled any part of modern Vietnam to my knowledge (and Vietnam never controlled any part of modern Thailand to my knowledge). Vietnam is unique in SE Asia due to the fact it's the only major grou pin SE Asia not influenced by India and Hinduism - it is the only one that was influenced by China and had a culture and society heavily influenced by that (though in no way a clone of it). Of all the mainland SE Asian civs possible, I think Vietnam is the most different from Siam in that regard.

Click to expand...

Modern is the key modifier. But between Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam I thought there was a lot of border movement over the course of history ?

And are you really saying there was no Chinese influence in Cambodia or Thailand ? Or no parts of Vietnam, modern or otherwise that were not influenced by India ?

Nujabes said:

Kongo doesn't fit into the scenario...technically neither do the Zulu, but Kongo is way further away...

Click to expand...

Well, the Zulu were likely only included because they were deemed as a "fan favorite" civ

whyidie said:

Modern is the key modifier. But between Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam I thought there was a lot of border movement over the course of history ?

Click to expand...

There was a lot of border movement, but most of this had to do with Cambodia/the Khmer Empire. Essentially, Vietnam and Thailand slowly pushed their way into Cambodia - before the French came, Cambodia was forced to pay tribute to both Vietnam and Thailand. The southern part of Vietnam was once the eastern part of the Khmer Empire, and parts of eastern Thailand were once part of the western parts of the Khmer Empire. Had the French not colonized the region, and Vietnam and Thailand continued to push in on Cambodia, it's possible Cambodia could have disappeared off the map and then Vietnam and Thailand would have to go into direct confrontation over territory, but otherwise to my knowledge the modern-day countries have no historical overlap... for now.

whyidie said:

And are you really saying there was no Chinese influence in Cambodia or Thailand ? Or no parts of Vietnam, modern or otherwise that were not influenced by India ?

Click to expand...

I can't say there was none either way, but it was extremely minimal.

The Khmer Empire, for instance, was strongly Hindu for much of its history, before converting to Buddhism. Much of its political, religious, and social structures were heavily influenced by that of India - for instance, Khmer kings were often called "deva-raja", or "god-king," to symbolize their connection with the Hindu deity Shiva. Hindu legends such as that of Rama are still an important source for much of southeast Asian literature and the arts - for instance, many of the puppet plays performed in Indonesia and Malaysia take their stories from these legends. A similar situation occurred throughout much of southeast Asia except Vietnam before they converted fully to either Buddhism or Islam.

Contrast this with Vietnam which bears an uncanny resemblance to China. Imperial Vietnam used written Chinese as well as Chu Nom - which was essentially Chinese characters with extra, native-invented characters tacked on. They had an imperial examination system pretty much like that of China. The three big Chinese belief systems - Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism - were also considered the big three belief systems of Vietnam. Even today, pretty much almost all of Vietnamese technical vocabulary is derived from Chinese - even Indian terms that usually crop up in Buddhist contexts are borrowed from Chinese (that is, the Chinese-translated/transliterated versions of the Indian originals, rather than a direct translation from Indian languages), so even the biggest "Indian" influence in Vietnam, Buddhism, went through a heavily SInicized filter and adaptation.

Ultimately, Vietnam's pretty much the oddball of Southeast Asia. In my opinion, culturally, it should be grouped with East Asia rather than Southeast Asia. While it would be incorrect to say Vietnam was a miniature clone of China culture-wise, as the Vietnamese still kept many of their native customs and ideas, as well as a strong anti-Chinese identity, these ideas had little if anything at all with India.

kingchris20 said:

Well, the Zulu were likely only included because they were deemed as a "fan favorite" civ

Click to expand...

Right. Frankly, I think the popularity of the Zulu is more about our collective ignorance regarding the rest of Africa than anything else, although even if we're comparing wars, personally I think the War of the Golden Stool is more interesting than the Anglo-Zulu wars.

Any hope for the Lunda or Luba? Don't know much about them historically... Just looking at a map of African empires for the center of the continent. Both did run into the Scramble for Africa period...

whyidie said:

Or no parts of Vietnam, modern or otherwise that were not influenced by India ?

Click to expand...

The southern part of modern Vietnam, what was historically the kingdom of Champa from ~AD 192-1832 was largely Hindu. However, Champa was conquered by Vietnam and the Cham people were a separate linguistic and cultural group from the Vietnamese. A large amount of the Cham people were also systematically killed by the Khmer Rouge. Because of all this, their impact on modern Vietnam is relatively low, so it is correct to say that even modern Vietnam is mostly lacking in Hindu influence.

Also, re: the Africa scenario. I still hope to see one Sub-Saharan African civ, and the most likely area to be drawn from are the Gulf of Guinea civs. Of these I'd say the Benin Empire and the Kingdom of Ashante have the highest chance. Both also significantly interacted with colonialism.

what do you think are the reasons of this exclusion?

some of you said that Kongo doesn't fit into the scenario, but when I look on the wikipedia link for "scramble of Africa", Kongo is mentioned..

The reason for the exclusion is they are adding 9 civs, not 19. They added one Subsaharan African Civ and probably decided to focus on something else instead. I think the Kongo are a great choice, but the Zulu were almost a given as an addition and having both was unlikely. They compromised and added them as a City-State just to show that they weren't forgotten and that they deserve consideration.

They did this last time too by adding Marrakesh as a City-State in response to those who wanted the Moors/Morocco/Almoravids. Now they're likely a full-fledged Civ. In the unlikely event that there would be a new expansion pack, we can hope for the Kongo.

they don't really fit in the scenario, that part is true. The scramble for Africa was the 2nd phase of colonialism - Portugal and civil war had greatly reduced their power/influence by that time.

Torwaechter said:

Screw tradition
Sometimes they shouldn't listen to the fans.

Click to expand...

The customer is always right

Torwaechter said:

Screw tradition - Kongo would have been great.
Sometimes they shouldn't listen to the fans. Sometimes it's more important to get on and develop something new.

Click to expand...

...and who will the dev listen to if it's not the fan? CEO?

Sometimes destroying tradition would anger the "native" and cause uprising. Kongo WOULD have been great. But to trade it with Zulu would not been a wise choice since some are eager to see them again. (One even explicitly showed his desire since G&K aren't out)

You couldn't possibly fulfill everyone's dream even through Civ5 have most number of Civ so far. Some are like "Africa is underrepresented!" "We need more Native American!" "There are another European civ that should be included" "SEALAND!"
Unless the amount of civ is ridiculously many, say, 300. One could still can find excuse to include this civ, that civ, those not-even-civ. You better be patient and wait for DLC.

And that's what I would have suggested: Zulu as DLC. If there are die-hard Shaka fans, they will grab that DLC.
I think it's more important to include new civs that have more relation to the expansion's new mechanics and to put the spotlight on new parts of world history.

A dev should listen to himself and his vision of the game - as any artist should do. That they have waited so long with Zulu shows that there aren't that many Zulu fans at Firaxis.
And I know, everyone hates the Huns - but still, they tried something new. It doesn't work every time, that's the risk. Taking Zulu was a no-brainer, no risk at all. Face it, it was a boring choice - even those who wanted their dose of Shaka have to admit, it's not the same with the magic of a totally new never before included civ.

speaking of that: like Vietnam or Indonesia

I know how Zulu works as a civ, you know how Zulu works as a civ, there is no freshness to it.

Portugal is different for example, since it is linked to the new trade route system and they can now build their Feitoria into a CS. That's a whole new approach to Portugal compared to Civ4 Portugal and I'm looking forward to that experience.

Maybe the dev think they shouldn't milk the fan's love for bucks, and Zulu are more or less, as you said, a "tradition" that every completed Civ game should have.

I agree that dev can have vision of his own. But that's not justify why they should turn deaf to fan's voice. You know, no offense, but I wonder Civ5 would regain faith from fan if Jon Shafer, who want diplomacy to be mysterious, still being the head of dev and carry on with his vision without heed the uproar in this forum. They would actually making risk by not including Zulu and hold some fan's expectation, some might even feel betrayed and that's gonna hurt the sales.

By the way. I prefer us not to argue about what is "right". Both of us clearly having different opinion about what dev should do based on how we think about Zulu's inclusion. So, As we voiced our opinion, let's not post anything that's will cause arguement that's not go anywhere. You might reply my argument. Anyway.

(I think you used Vietnam and Indonesia to change my opinion, That didn't work)

I think only Vietnam proper (Northern Vietnam) is firmly in Sinosphere and could be said to part of East Asian region.

On the other hand Central Vietnam was known as Champa, a heavily Indianized Austronesian state, which culturally very similar to Khmer empire, Sri Vijaya and Java.

And of course we know Southern Vietnam is formerly part of Khmer kingdom.

So Vietnam would be 2/3 Southeast Asian and 1/3 East Asian, for me.