Social Engineering by CIV 5?

I don't understand why Poland/Korea/Ethopia, rather non-descript average civs at best are so good in this game while colonial and influential powers like America/France/Germany are meh.

Is this some kind of political/social revisionist attempt at justice

Poland actually used to be a huge power for a long period of time, almost conquered Russia in 1610-s so I think that's fair. Korea is now a world leader in electronics and was strong before colonization so why not. Don't know about Ethiopia though
America is great only for the last hundred years so no early UB or UU, sorry
Germany almost same thing. For the most time it was just a huge number of small "lands"

zagosya said:

Poland actually used to be a huge power for a long period of time, almost conquered Russia in 1610-s so I think that's fair. Korea is now a world leader in electronics and was strong before colonization so why not. Don't know about Ethiopia though
America is great only for the last hundred years so no early UB or UU, sorry
Germany almost same thing. For the most time it was just a huge number of small "lands"

Click to expand...

Based on the way I was taught history in public schools, the big powers were:

-Egypt
-Babylonia
-Persia
-France
-England
-Germany (later)
-Rome
-Mongolia
-Zulu
-Carthage
-America
-Japan
-China

-Maya/Inca/Sioux/ShoShon/Aztec all were mentioned.

But Poland/Korea/Ethopia? Not even a footnote.

But perhaps you had a American-centered education? I don't know where you're from though. However, I will say that there is a big difference btw what was taught in school and how history actually has progressed. For instance, America and Russia feature heavily, as they are more relevant for the current situation and were/are important in recent times. Poland/Lithuania was in fact the largest state in Europe in the 1400s (I think), although Poland deteriorated in the 1600s and onwards due to aristocratic inefficiency (every individual had a veto in the schlachta, hence the term "Polish diet" for things going nowhere).

I guess Ethiopia features because they were the one state not to be colonized in the 1800s, and actually defeated the Italian attempt that century. Korea has been a major actor in the Far East for centuries, so their lack of feature in Western education is probably more due to their irrelevance in Western history.

AP World History makes every civilization look like a major power.

I'm pretty sure the Zulus have never been a major power worldwise, maybe only "africa-wise"
Same for the Shoshone, I really wonder why their UA and UU are so OP

rover6695 said:

But Poland/Korea/Ethopia? Not even a footnote.

Click to expand...

Poland indeed was a major power in Europe during the power of that time frame. It had already fallen a lot from its peak by 1800 though and was even completely wiped off the map for a few decades before coming back into existence post WWI. (The interesting thing is that Germany's plans for the carving of the post WWI map actually including bringing Poland back into existence as well, only the German version would only have taken land that belonged to Russia; their plan was to make it a puppet state.)

Korea, during the time frame of this stated leader, they were at their peak. This is another case where it had fallen a lot from its peak by 1800.

The American version doesn't focus much on Poland (except as an object lesson on what not to do) because of its decline nor Korea (also due its decline then, not withstanding South Korea's recent economic boom), and generally ignores most of Africa.

I'm pretty sure the Zulus have never been a major power worldwise, maybe only "africa-wise"
Same for the Shoshone, I really wonder why their UA and UU are so OP

Pretty sure this is a vanilla vs dlc issue. Most of the OP civs are dlcs and expansions.

Civ 5, AFAIK, isn't supposed to depict history as accurately as something like EU4 does. I think this is more of a balance problem than a revision of history.

rover6695 said:

Based on the way I was taught history in public schools, the big powers were:

-Egypt
-Babylonia
-Persia
-France
-England
-Germany (later)
-Rome
-Mongolia
-Zulu
-Carthage
-America
-Japan
-China

-Maya/Inca/Sioux/ShoShon/Aztec all were mentioned.

But Poland/Korea/Ethopia? Not even a footnote.

Click to expand...

Some Civs are in the game for being major powers within their sphere of influence. Others are in the game simply for being interesting (culturally or historically).

The Zulus fit more into the latter. Their big claim to fame was "heavily resisting the Europeans despite the odds". Their war-friendly culture also factors into it.
Similarly, Carthage's big claim to fame was the Punic Wars, as they're remembered more for it than for their culture, or trading empire (though the latter is often referenced as being "Phoenician"). The Aztecs have shades of this as well, being remembered more for their unique culture than their Empire (the Incan empire has them beat in land, power and influence, but the Aztecs are more famous).

Poland was considered more due to their large Polish fanbase, but, much like with Austria and Sweden, Poland's history is rich enough to make an interesting Civ.
Korea was always a unique culture and state(s), and relevant to Eastern Asian history. Other games (Age of Empire, Rise of Nations, etc.) have also included them.
Ethiopia, as was mentioned, is known for having been a major African power for most of its existence (though they lost a lot of influence after 1974), resisting colonization being one of its most notable achievements.

After including the major powers, the developers mostly turned to options that looked interesting and/or fun (see: Polynesia, Celts, Huns).

zagosya said:

I'm pretty sure the Zulus have never been a major power worldwise, maybe only "africa-wise"

Click to expand...

That actually applies to most of the countries on that list. Rome was the predominant power in the Western world, but had no influence over China, India, or South of the Saharra desert. And even the most learned scholar in the Americas wouldn't have even heard of Rome back then.

It's looking like Spain is the first country to have what could even be considered a world wide empire, at its peaks with possession of most of Central & South America, parts of North America, and the Philippians.

They were quickly surpassed by the British Empire which was indisputably the world leader prior to WWI. (There's still some debate on weather it lost its title during WWI or during WWII)

Yes, but Rome was a progenitor of a later european civilization that conquered (or colonized, whatever) the whole planet. In that sense it does not matter if Rome had influence over China. Its ideology (it's not exactly ideology but rather mentality) has been dominant for at least 2000 years now.
Spain was wider, yes, but less influental

American high school world history is pretty much the history of the Mediterranean Sea. I didn't know Poland was ever a badass until reading that post.

zagosya said:

Yes, but Rome was a progenitor of a later european civilization that conquered (or colonized, whatever) the whole planet.

Click to expand...

And so were the Germanic tribes, the name France itself comes from the Franks, a Germanic tribe.
The Vandals & Visigoths both went thru Spain, followed by Muslims, and what was left needed support from the rest of Western Europe to reconquer the Iberian peninsula.

The name England itself comes from one of the Viking tribes.

Yeh I had never heard of Poland as being a world power, and I took AP world civ.

I think you have made it clear these are legit civs, but I still think its weird Poland/Korea/Ethopia are a top civ over Russia/Japan/Rome/China/Germany/France.

I wouldn't call Ethiopia top tier.
China is definitely top tier, Zhugenyu combined with faster great generals and a library with a net +3 gold
Germany is also sitting pretty with its hanse, which gives a good production boost at the time in the game when you start to have way too much you need to build.

Eh, the game is unbalanced, I think people would be more annoyed if the Russia/Japan/Rome etc were the op Civs, and claimed the the game was slanted towards the real world powers. The game is not a historical simulator, try eu4 and ck2 if you want a simulator.

Btw, look up the Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth. They were quite the power during their day. And Germany only existed as a unified country post 1800s, before that Prussia and Austria were the major 'German' powers.

Wasn't Austria still the Holy Roman Empire at that time?

kingfish101 said:

Wasn't Austria still the Holy Roman Empire at that time?

Click to expand...

Yes and No.
Austria's ruler was the same guy as the head of the Holy Roman Empire, however Austria is where the power was. HRE was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.

As to Prussia, it didn't start rising in influence until the Napoleonic Wars, during which it made some well timed flip flops to gain more power over the neighboring German states.