Kewl story bro. This was a new story for me. Heres more for those that are interested: Night of the Bombers
Ancient Civs or Modern Civs
- Thread starter Silverman6083
- Start date
Kewl story bro. This was a new story for me. Heres more for those that are interested: Night of the Bombers
Squirrelloid
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 263
I dislike modern 'civs', because they are almost never civilizations, they're nation-states. Sorry nationalists, but Brazil, Poland, Denmark, Sweden, etc... don't deserve to be 'civilizations'. Even "America" (re: US) is questionable, and its been in every civ game. (And its at least potentially justifiable because of the outsized impact its culture has had on the rest of the world in the latter 20th century. If this was 1945, it definitely wouldn't deserve to be a civ). Whenever you propose a nation-state as a 'civilization', you should double and triple think it, because its probably not.
The ideal model of a civilization is Greece, which represents several classical nations as one civilization. Its the shared cultural roots that make a civilization, not lines on a map. Conflating lines on a map with entities defined by shared cultural and political institutions is silly.
To take the Denmark/Sweden problem, a proper 'civilization' would have been The Norse (encompassing those two countries, Norway, and Iceland, and the relevant historical groups).
So, Ireland and Scotland are not deserving of 'civ' recognition - they're already in the game as the Celts, which is the proper civ-level entity. Similarly, Austria is and should be part of the 'German' civilization.
OTOH, Egypt and Arabia totally deserve to be separate civilizations - because they are. Arabia represents the early Muslim dynasty and empire, while Egypt represents a very different religious and cultural tradition. (And Arabia's 'physical overlap' problem is far larger with Babylonians than Egypt, but they're still distinct civilizations). Arabia could afford to be better named...
But, you say, we recognize some nation-states as civilizations now? Only because the nation-state became synonymous with the culture. France vigorously promoted a unified national culture even before the rise of nationalism, as a way of asserting the dominance of the French kings. (The oppression of l'angue d'oc and promotion of French, for example, was cultural oppression and served to linguistically and culturally unify the populace).
Problem areas:
The extent to which Brazil represents a new civilization is highly debatable. And 'represents' is really the key term. It is not, itself, a civilization. It may form part of an emerging Latin American civilization, created by the blending of multiple cultural sources and the shared history of colonial oppression and violence. I think its probably too soon to pull the trigger on this, and the civilization should definitely not be 'Brazil'.
Russia is a hugely problematic civ for several reasons, owing in no small part to its history in the civilization series. (It originated to be the stand-in for the Soviet Union in Civ I, complete with leader Stalin). Sadly, because of Russia's outsized modern importance, there's probably no satisfactory solution. With regard to the Soviet Union specifically, the rise of Bolshevik Communism was basically the creation of a new Civ overnight, independent of previous Russian cultural institutions (many of which it tried to suppress, like the Orthodox church). Handling that in a meaningful way within the constraints of 4X play is hard. And because it happened in Russia, that only makes the Russia problem harder.
===============
As far as new civilizations go, I think there is some untapped potential in native American cultures. (I think Shoshone was a mistake, too. Not distinctive enough in popular imagination, and having a famous leader and a record of conflict with the US army applies to lots of Native American tribes.) What Firaxis should focus on is differences in lifestyle: so the Lakota and the Pueblo would make good choices. (Choosing the Shoshone over the Lakota is especially silly, since Civ IV's Native American leader Sitting Bull was Lakota, and he's one of the only important Native American leaders who we have a real biography of).
That's probably enough, but for completeness one of the Pacific Northwest tribes, maybe the Chinook, could be a decent choice. And a speculative Mississippian culture that combines what we know of their monumental construction with successor tribes (like the Muskogee iirc) could potentially be distinct enough to warrant inclusion. But lack of good records and good archaeology impedes making these into solid civilizations.
I feel like India could be decomposed into several civilizations, and as a composite it reflects British colonialism rather than any intrinsic civilization. The choice of Gandhi as a leader is particularly galling, especially when there are good choices like Asoka. (But seriously, Firaxis, stop being an instrument of colonial violence in your representation of India). So instead of a monolithic India, we could and should have civilizations like Harappa.
I am sufficiently unfamiliar with SE Asia to comment productively on how many legitimate civilization entities there are there. I will note that Civ V's Siam is a disappointment, the civ name is an exonym (when Thai would be perfectly appropriate), and the chosen ruler is known only by a single stele which is probably a nationalist fabrication. Civ IV's Khmer was much better thought out and more legitimate.
The ideal model of a civilization is Greece, which represents several classical nations as one civilization. Its the shared cultural roots that make a civilization, not lines on a map. Conflating lines on a map with entities defined by shared cultural and political institutions is silly.
To take the Denmark/Sweden problem, a proper 'civilization' would have been The Norse (encompassing those two countries, Norway, and Iceland, and the relevant historical groups).
So, Ireland and Scotland are not deserving of 'civ' recognition - they're already in the game as the Celts, which is the proper civ-level entity. Similarly, Austria is and should be part of the 'German' civilization.
OTOH, Egypt and Arabia totally deserve to be separate civilizations - because they are. Arabia represents the early Muslim dynasty and empire, while Egypt represents a very different religious and cultural tradition. (And Arabia's 'physical overlap' problem is far larger with Babylonians than Egypt, but they're still distinct civilizations). Arabia could afford to be better named...
But, you say, we recognize some nation-states as civilizations now? Only because the nation-state became synonymous with the culture. France vigorously promoted a unified national culture even before the rise of nationalism, as a way of asserting the dominance of the French kings. (The oppression of l'angue d'oc and promotion of French, for example, was cultural oppression and served to linguistically and culturally unify the populace).
Problem areas:
The extent to which Brazil represents a new civilization is highly debatable. And 'represents' is really the key term. It is not, itself, a civilization. It may form part of an emerging Latin American civilization, created by the blending of multiple cultural sources and the shared history of colonial oppression and violence. I think its probably too soon to pull the trigger on this, and the civilization should definitely not be 'Brazil'.
Russia is a hugely problematic civ for several reasons, owing in no small part to its history in the civilization series. (It originated to be the stand-in for the Soviet Union in Civ I, complete with leader Stalin). Sadly, because of Russia's outsized modern importance, there's probably no satisfactory solution. With regard to the Soviet Union specifically, the rise of Bolshevik Communism was basically the creation of a new Civ overnight, independent of previous Russian cultural institutions (many of which it tried to suppress, like the Orthodox church). Handling that in a meaningful way within the constraints of 4X play is hard. And because it happened in Russia, that only makes the Russia problem harder.
===============
As far as new civilizations go, I think there is some untapped potential in native American cultures. (I think Shoshone was a mistake, too. Not distinctive enough in popular imagination, and having a famous leader and a record of conflict with the US army applies to lots of Native American tribes.) What Firaxis should focus on is differences in lifestyle: so the Lakota and the Pueblo would make good choices. (Choosing the Shoshone over the Lakota is especially silly, since Civ IV's Native American leader Sitting Bull was Lakota, and he's one of the only important Native American leaders who we have a real biography of).
That's probably enough, but for completeness one of the Pacific Northwest tribes, maybe the Chinook, could be a decent choice. And a speculative Mississippian culture that combines what we know of their monumental construction with successor tribes (like the Muskogee iirc) could potentially be distinct enough to warrant inclusion. But lack of good records and good archaeology impedes making these into solid civilizations.
I feel like India could be decomposed into several civilizations, and as a composite it reflects British colonialism rather than any intrinsic civilization. The choice of Gandhi as a leader is particularly galling, especially when there are good choices like Asoka. (But seriously, Firaxis, stop being an instrument of colonial violence in your representation of India). So instead of a monolithic India, we could and should have civilizations like Harappa.
I am sufficiently unfamiliar with SE Asia to comment productively on how many legitimate civilization entities there are there. I will note that Civ V's Siam is a disappointment, the civ name is an exonym (when Thai would be perfectly appropriate), and the chosen ruler is known only by a single stele which is probably a nationalist fabrication. Civ IV's Khmer was much better thought out and more legitimate.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
