The Diversity of Civs

JustinianIV · Jul 19, 2013

Look, if we're going to put more African "civs", then we really should have Canada.

I don't think Canada is a worthy civ, but then again neither is Brazil. Of course, the only reason some of these civs get put in is to be PC.

VainoValkea · Jul 19, 2013

Oh, Brazil is worthy all right. More so than Shoshone and Iroquis. The devs chose to include various different cultures for flavor and I'm fine with that even if I would've made different choices myself.

Also, why the scare quotes on "civs"?

wigwam · Jul 19, 2013

True_Candyman said:
I am no expert on it or its military though, so can you name a UU that would suit this modern and successful Vietnam?

Sorry, I did misunderstand you rather completely!

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a Viet Minh UU (hopefully they'd have sense enough not to make a Viet Cong unit), so long as the rest of the civ—leader, UA, UB/UU—represented the rest of Vietnamese history well. Make them a WWI/WWII Infantry replacement, kit them out like these guys (instead of the "man in black pajamas with conical hat"), give them a free Cover promotion and maybe faster healing or something, and you'd have a solid modern unit. I think anything really modern (past the game's "Modern era") is too late to have a meaningful impact on the game.

The wars against France and the US were dark times for Vietnam, but also sources of immense pride.

VainoValkea said:
Also, why the scare quotes on "civs"?

Racism? I'm gonna guess racism.

VainoValkea · Jul 19, 2013

To assume good faith, calling African nations like Tanzania or South Africa "civilizations" is a misrepresentation as most of them are very new governments unifying (or attempting to unify) several distinct cultures.

JustinianIV · Jul 19, 2013

VainoValkea said:
Oh, Brazil is worthy all right. More so than Shoshone and Iroquis. The devs chose to include various different cultures for flavor and I'm fine with that even if I would've made different choices myself.

Also, why the scare quotes on "civs"?

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that they weren't civilized, just that I don't really consider them fitting the mould of a civilization. For that matter, nor do I think Canada fits that mould.

VainoValkea · Jul 19, 2013

All the best ones from Africa are taken, I'll give you that. Well, all the best ones from around the world are taken, from that matter.

Inhalaattori · Jul 19, 2013

VainoValkea said:
All the best ones from Africa are taken, I'll give you that. Well, all the best ones from around the world are taken, from that matter.

I disagree.

There are still African Civs like Kongo, Ashanti and Benin and also many good non-African Civs like Vietnam, Khmer, Hungary etc. that are not in the game.

VainoValkea · Jul 19, 2013

Yeah, there are eligible candidates (I would've rather taken Congo than Shoshone). The best and most iconic empires are in already, though.

SammyKhalifa · Jul 19, 2013

wigwam said:
Let's get quantitative about this. There are UUs in seven of the game's eight eras, so we can call Industrial, Modern, and Atomic "late" for units.

Late-game European UUs, counting America as European: B-17, Panzer, Norwegian Ski Infantry, Hussar, Cossack, Carolean (six in total, two horse units)

Late-game non-European UUs, counting Brazil as non-European: Zero, Pracinha, Mehal Sefari, Comanche Riders, Berber Cavalry (five in total, two horse units)

There are UBs and UIs in only four of the game's eras, so let's call Medieval and Renaissance "late" for buildings/improvements.

Late-game European UBs/UIs: Ceilidh Hall, Coffee House, Feitoria, Polder, Chateau (five in total)

Late-game non-European UBs/UIs, counting Brazil as non-European: Brazilwood Camp, Satrap's Court, Candi, Longhouse, Kasbah, Mughal Fort, Wat (seven in total)

Most of the later uniques are non-European. And three of the late European UUs (Panzer, B-17, Norwegian Ski Infantry) come from civs with an obvious early-game focus. And two of them are boring ol' horse units. So really, the only proper late-game civ Europe has is Sweden!

Clearly, Europe needs more late-game civs and units (NB: sarcasm).

Not to nit-pick (and this isn't to lessen your bigger point), but why would America be European but Brazil non-European?

Ulthwithian · Jul 19, 2013

Tyrvos: Just a nitpick, but the Japanese traditions that fed its military elite in WW2 were neo-Confucian and developed (originally) in the Tokugawa period. (Also, bushido as exemplified by the Hagakure--not by the utter pragmatism of actual fighting samurai of the Sengoku Jidai--also was developed in the Tokugawa period.)

This would correspond probably to the Renaissance period, particularly culturally speaking, of Japan.

Philosophia · Jul 19, 2013

SammyKhalifa said:
Not to nit-pick (and this isn't to lessen your bigger point), but why would America be European but Brazil non-European?

I think it's because culturally America is similar to European countries, whereas Brazil is similar to South American countries. Another reason could be the roll that they had in European affairs; I'm not sure how often Brazil was involved, but it's quite clear that America was always doing something that involved Europe.

SammyKhalifa · Jul 19, 2013

Philosophia said:
I think it's because culturally America is similar to European countries, whereas Brazil is similar to South American countries. Another reason could be the roll that they had in European affairs; I'm not sure how often Brazil was involved, but it's quite clear that America was always doing something that involved Europe.

Brazil (Rio) was the capital of Portugal at one point. But anyhow, I derail. Sorry about that.

Singularitie · Jul 19, 2013

Inhalaattori said:
I disagree.

There are still African Civs like Kongo, Ashanti and Benin and also many good non-African Civs like Vietnam, Khmer, Hungary etc. that are not in the game.

And Mali!!!
Or would they just be too close to the Songhai?

poom3619 · Jul 19, 2013

Singularitie said:
And Mali!!!
Or would they just be too close to the Songhai?

It's just almost the same, like Khmer (Cambodia) and Siam (Thailand). I guess this is one of the main reason why Khmer and Mali aren't included (for now at least).

True_Candyman · Jul 19, 2013

poom3619 said:
It's just almost the same, like Khmer (Cambodia) and Siam (Thailand). I guess this is one of the main reason why Khmer and Mali aren't included (for now at least).

They are not even nearly the same. You could easily have all 4 of those civs included. The reason we don't have Mali and Khmer is because of the really sloppy way Songhai and Siam were added, essentially agglomerating them with Mali and Khmer respectively.

fbass · Jul 19, 2013

Philosophia said:
I think it's because culturally America is similar to European countries, whereas Brazil is similar to South American countries. Another reason could be the roll that they had in European affairs; I'm not sure how often Brazil was involved, but it's quite clear that America was always doing something that involved Europe.

Which are these roll (sic) in European affairs that you speak of? I don't think that Brazil is any less European than US.. Or is it because most Americans have pale white skin? But even not every Europeans are white.. Or because of Brazil's Latin-origin language? But almost half of Europe speak Latin-origin language :confused:

I also think as a superpower, US doesn't stop their affairs on European stage, their interventionism go across the globe.

Yig · Jul 19, 2013

I know im a noob (roughly 8-10 games played) but iv never understood all the Zero hate. Its a air unit that its better at taking out air units so they can get to dmging the city faster. Or they are good at defending your cities against fighters. Is it purely the late game aspect of them? I know atleast with BNW the game has slowed down quite a bit and i consistently get into higher eras.

Ianwill93 · Jul 19, 2013

True_Candyman said:
They are not even nearly the same. You could easily have all 4 of those civs included. The reason we don't have Mali and Khmer is because of the really sloppy way Songhai and Siam were added, essentially agglomerating them with Mali and Khmer respectively.

This times 100. They failed with their implementation of Songhai.
I get that they were a powerful force for a little while, but to discard Mali for them was a bad idea. I'd still take Mali as a DLC in a heartbeat.
Mansa Musa as leader with a "hajj"/trade route mechanic. And instead of Mandekalus since Songhai stole them, maybe give them Malian Archers or something.
And we could still put Kongo and Ashanti in.

Spiceweasel · Jul 19, 2013

True_Candyman said:
Taking a period of Vietnamese history where they are clearly nowhere near the top and a failing state on the basis that they fought America (and won you could say, but the last time America "won" a war was world war 2, so it's not exactly a big thing).

"Shut up! We did not lose Vietnam. It was a tie."

seancolorado · Jul 19, 2013

Yeah idk why people keep saying Khmer and Siam are the same. They are very distinct civilizations

I will agree admittedly however that within the context of civ video game that "they are the same." Modern day, Asia has five major poles - Korea, Japan, China, India/South Asia and Indonesia/Southeast Asia. All five major poles are represented. Not saying that there isn't room for more, but actually I kind of am saying that because Civ is a Western game and it's unrealistic to expect all of Khmer, Siam, Vietnam and Indonesia in the same game - let a alone a split of India (and let alone the addition of civs like Burma)

The Diversity of Civs

Warlord

Emperor

Prince

Emperor

Warlord

Emperor

Emperor

Emperor

Deity

King

Chieftain

Deity

Chieftain

Ping Pang Poom!

Emperor

Chieftain

Chieftain

Chieftain

Warlord

Deity

Similar threads