Caesar of Bread
Trans Gordon Ramsay
Imo I’m fine with India but would desire a subcontinent civ like the Chola or Mughals to join in next game so that there would be more representation and a more varied civ 7.
I agree with you that Eva Peron should be a poor choice, but Argentina can have another names as Bartolomé Mitre. But I would agree he isn't that special since is just another mainly man of military on power, but it will give space to Argentina appear on the game, since it's a very relevante country of South America.my main objection, in the end, comes down to the inexplicably popular choice for Argentina's leader.
Paraguay intermix also the Guarani culture and should be made as two civ as one, anchored in the Germany interpretarion in civ who have leaders and units who cross the German unification, I mean... German have abilities of the Ostroghodos times and Panzer tanks.Why Paraguay, out of curiosity?
Are you talking about the modern Zimbabwean state? Because most people choose the Kingdom of ZimbabweZimbabwe (I'd much like to pick up a chaotic country in the real world and turn it into the best there is in a simulation)
Both should be nice, but I guess to be made for a game just the ancient one are viable.Are you talking about the modern Zimbabwean state? Because most people choose the Kingdom of Zimbabwe
It is united now, politically (for now, but current events with Modi's Hindu Nationalism and at least five etno-linguistic separatist that are currently being stirred up, as well as the sentinent by many in India that that unity, even politically, was never achieved,Post-Independence, because of the Partittion). Also, "shared culture across every group within India?" What bad, uninformed stereotype is this? And, a true, shared history across ALL of India only begins with the (insert colonial power) East India Companies and then the British Raj, not originally of the making of every group within India in and of themselves.Regardless of the reason, India exists and is united. It could just as easily not remain united (see the Balkans), so its continued existence means something relevant.
And there is shared culture and history across every group within India.
Are you sure about that? Because from what I understand Hindi and Urdu are mutually intelligible to a significant degree.My wife and I have friends from India: one family from southeastern India, one from the Punjab in the northwest. One family is Pentacostial Christian, the other Sikh. One spoke Hindi at home, the other a dialect of Urdu. The only language the two have in common is English
What I was talking about harks back to my 'Mapping Peoples and States' thread: that the inclusion or representation of certain groups ends up excluding (implicitly) the inclusion or representation of other groups. Or to speak more lucidly, are the Achaemenid Persian and Roman civs actually meant to represent every ethnic group in their respective empires? Is the inclusion of Achaemenid Persia meant to include Babylon and Assyria as well? Or the Romans meant to include the various peoples they ruled over? Because I feel that is what is happening with an India civ. Now, to use your example of Achaemenid Persia, if the game were featuring Gupta India or Mauryan India or Mughal India that were another matter, but it doesn't, so the comparison doesn't work for me.Finally, if we can include the over-arcing Empires like the Achaemenid Persian and Roman, both multi-ethnic and multi-cultural entities,
Brand new civs onlyHittites (Bring them back, please!)
I am not sure what this has to do with what I said.
You suggested India’s political unification is completely arbitrary and says nothing about their shared culture, but it’s not.
My point is that this is being framed entirely incorrectly and rather pedantically.
Put another way, I don’t think the majority of Indian people are up in arms about being Indian.
You just did to Boneyduck here, twice, what I brought up you doing to me two days ago. The noxious habit of declaring responses that responses to your posts that don't fit, or agree with, your narrative as lacking relevane or validity, regardless of the fact they very much don't. And, the response you gave me two days ago when I called you out that, "every response I made to you was personal," was not only ridiculous and a blatant, insulting falsehood, but a flimsy diverrsion from being called out. It rREALLY is time to retire this noxious debating habit of yours.I would like to see a non-modern representation of India in Civ. Not sure what this has to do with the conversation.
Please try to stay focused on what we’re actually talking about. It’s frustrating to talk about one thing and be confronted with a strawman about something else (intentional or not). I’m generally careful to make sure my posts are precisely worded to reflect specific points.
I’ve already explained that I was specifically challenging the notion that modern India is solely an arbitrary state that doesn’t reflect the history or culture of its inhabitants. Diversity does not preclude a shared culture and heritage.
I don't think modern Zimbabwe would add much to a portrayal of the Pre-Colonial Kingdom. Failed state despotisms built from post-colonial constructs don't tend to enhance Ancient edifices of wonder. And this is the second you've brought up Germany, today, as a comparison to this sort of thing. What is that about?Both should be nice, but I guess to be made for a game just the ancient one are viable.
But of course, if I'm developer I would intermix ancient with modern Zimbabwe as they made with Germany.
The modern Indian state is very weird in this respect, because their constitution outright makes it illegal for states to secede.It is united now, politically (for now, but current events with Modi's Hindu Nationalism and at least five etno-linguistic separatist that are currently being stirred up, as well as the sentinent by many in India that that unity, even politically, was never achieved,Post-Independence, because of the Partittion).
Maybe they could build a unique Safari Park?I don't think modern Zimbabwe would add much to a portrayal of the Pre-Colonial Kingdom.
Isn't clear? Because Germany have an interpretation of it's civ with leaders, abilities and other stuffs of a time before of the unification of Germany of 1871.And this is the second you've brought up Germany, today, as a comparison to this sort of thing. What is that about?
I think Mugabe could be a cool leader.I don't think modern Zimbabwe would add much to a portrayal of the Pre-Colonial Kingdom.
You still seem too hung up on Bismarck's purely political and triumphal pronouncement being a, somehow, fundamental change in the notion of self-perceived, or externally-perceived, German national concept, which it definitely wasn't. As Evie and I said, the Holy Roman Emperors had the title, "King of Geramy," as their most important subsidiary title, and the term, "German Conffederation," from 1815-1871 was not an empty gesture. But yet you cling to this bizarre notion.Isn't clear? Because Germany have an interpretation of it's civ with leaders, abilities and other stuffs of a time before of the unification of Germany of 1871.
No, he wouldn't really.I think Mugabe could be a cool leader.
I have read this 3 times and I cannot for the life of me figure out what you're trying to say.You still seem too hung up on Bismarck's purely political and triumphal pronouncement being a, somehow, fundamental change in the notion of self-perceived, or externally-perceived, German national concept, which it definitely wasn't. As Evie and I said, the Holy Roman Emperors had the title, "King of Geramy," as their most important subsidiary title, and the term, "German Conffederation," from 1815-1871 was not an empty gesture. But yet you cling to this bizarre notion.
Dude all your posts come off so aggressively, like you're always looking for a fight. Calm down my guy. We're talking about a videogame.You just did to Boneyduck here, twice, what I brought up you doing to me two days ago. The noxious habit of declaring responses that responses to your posts that don't fit, or agree with, your narrative as lacking relevane or validity, regardless of the fact they very much don't. And, the response you gave me two days ago when I called you out that, "every response I made to you was personal," was not only ridiculous and a blatant, insulting falsehood, but a flimsy diverrsion from being called out. It rREALLY is time to retire this noxious debating habit of yours.
Not all of my posts are aggressive and looking for a fight (another falsehood to try and divert me). But it's easy to get annoyed with some who perennially arrogantly dismisses others' points as being invalid and irrelevant just because they don't like them or they don't fit their narrative. It IS a noxious habit, and there's no pretending otherwise, or trying to turn things on highly exaggerated, portrayals of attitudes I occassionally show that don't change the situation.Dude all your posts come off so aggressively, like you're always looking for a fight. Calm down my guy. We're talking about a videogame.
I don't believe I am, at all, unclear, and I think this is yet another insulting, arrogant of a response that doesn't fit your narrative.I have read this 3 times and I cannot for the life of me figure out what you're trying to say.
It's been so long at this point I think they might count as new.Brand new civs only
(Though I would love to see the Hittites too)
If we ever get a modern African civ, besides Ethiopia, I think a unique Safari Park could work. But I associate Safari Parks more with countries like South Africa, Tanzania, or Kenya. I think a Zimbabwe civ would be fine just being represented by the Medieval kingdom.Maybe they could build a unique Safari Park?
I was really disappointed when the Hattusa city-state was revealed in Civ 6 I remember holding out hope with each DLC release that we'd get the Hittites.It's been so long at this point I think they might cou
If you look at a map, Kenya, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, and South Africa are all in a line together. They all have Safari parks and have played host to that form of tourism. If you recall the story of Cecil the Lion, that controversy happened in Hwangwe Park in Zimbabwe. Though admittedly Zimbabwe hasn’t been thought of much as a tourist destination since Mugabe’s rule.But I associate Safari Parks more with countries like South Africa, Tanzania, or Kenya.