How well has your country been represented in game?

[Teproc]

Well, looking at it right now, it's somewhere between white and yellow. Cream I guess. Maybe it's supposed to be white and I'm weird. But yeah, it's not exaclty blue and gold, and this is nitpicking anyway. It's predominantly blue, which is definitely the one I would choose out of the three (over white and red I mean).

I could see a Taiwanese person saying the situation is complex because it kind of is as far as international status goes. But I see your point. I didn't pick up the bit about it being a city-state. Hong Kong it is then, or Lhasa which I didn't think about.

 

[Syailendra]

the chinese called the country 'cung kuo' or roughly translated as 'the middle earth', and the word chinese also worded as 'cung kuo ren'.
Also the people sometimes called themselves 'Han Majority' revering to the Han dynasty where it is normally agreed as the greatest dynasty, the one that ruled 'cung kuo' as a whole.
Also in that matters, Han Wu Ti is also a possible great leader for china civ.

 

[Reno Lam]

Are you from Hong Kong or Singapore?
What is your take on the use of modern Mandarin and modern city list for a civ with mostly ancient and medieval uniques and a Tang dynasty leader. What do you think of cities like Shanghai and Guangzhou as the first 3 cities instead of more historical ones like Kaifeng, Luoyang or Changan (which should replace Xian). It does not fit the leader or the loading screen as it clearly shows Changan as the capital. Other modern civs such as England get to use a more historical city list, with York and Coventry ahead of modern big cities like Manchester and Liverpool.

I am from Hong Kong. As others have pointed out (rather quickly), Singapore is not part of China in terms of nationhood, although it does have a sizable Chinese population, and Chinese (Mandarin) is one of its official languages.

For the use of modern Mandarin for the voicing, in general I am fine with it. While it is most certain that back in Tang dynasty, when Wu Zetian ruled (technically she temporarily changed the dynasty name to Zhou, but that did not stick and thus is usually ignored), or any time before the 19th century, the spoken Chinese language does not sound like modern Mandarin (instead being what scholars called Middle Chinese), it would be very difficult to sound someone to voice all the lines in it, as the only ones who can speak it would be dedicated linguists, who are not exactly known for delivering lines. Besides, if historical accuracy is what they were aiming for, then the lines should probably be written in Classical Chinese, which adds another level of complication for the department responsible for the scripts—it is like trying to write the script for Elizabeth in, well, Elizabethan English. Given that how often modern Chinese gets mangled in western games and products already, I would say that might be asking for too much effort for what it is worth. The same applies to romanisation of Chinese names, people or locations.

As for the city list name, admittedly I have not played as China for a long time, and my play-style means I tend not to see too much of the city lists, so I am replying based on the XML files. I agree that using Beijing as the default name for the capital of China is probably not the best choice. While Beijing, in its many incarnations, received the honour of being the capital for several dynasties and regimes, including the most recent few starting from Ming, as a capital it is rather young, and personally I do not think China should be represented by those dynasties (or regimes) that significantly. I would say the most suitable capital for China is either Chang'an/Xi'an or Luoyang—while Kaifeng also has a significant in the history of China, and was the capital for several dynasties as well, it is not as significant as the aforementioned cities. The same applies to Nanjing as well.

A similar problem occurs in one of its neighbours as well, namely Korea and its capital. While the "capital of Korea" most of us knows is Seoul (Pyongyang is somewhat famous, but probably for other... things), technically both Kaesong and, ironically, Pyongyang also has valid claims as the "true" capital of Korea. However, I tend to argue that Firaxis' choice of Seoul (and Beijing, to a degree) as the capital has its reasons as well: it is the most famous city of said civilisation due to it being the capital city of... the government most of us would see as the successor of said civilisation. While it might be more accurate to put the capital in Chang'an and Kaesong for them, these places are nowhere as famous as the current choice, and as a video game, sometimes sacrificing accuracy for accessibility is unavoidable. Overall, it seems that with few exceptions, mostly places that most westerners would know as historical centres of respective civilisations, Firaxis tend to opt for popularity over historical significance.

In short, the city list (or at least, the first part, which is most people not going wide would see only—Handan appears as one of the last cities of the list) is quite clearly based on modern China cities and, to a degree, popular geography, I do not think it is too much a problem since Civilisation is, along with other things, a video game, and accessibility is a key. In addition, some of the inclusion might have unfortunate implication for some people, such as using Nanjing as the capital of China (which is the legal capital of... the other China), and Pyongyang as the capital of Korea (again, the current capital of the other Korea).

As an interesting side-note, while Macau, Taipei and Tainan appears in the city list of China, Hong Kong (as well as Lhasa, although I heard some versions removed it from the city state list—Seoul is also on the list of XML but I think since the introduction of Korea as a "proper" civ it has been taken out from circulation) does not, instead it is a city-state.

You should take a look at China, they are in a similar situation: half the things I own says "made in China" at the back, yet China doesn't have any unique ability, unit or building related to production. Why? Because the Civ is focused on medieval imperial China not modern (sort of) communist China. I'm sure there's some Chinese people who don't think China is best represented by this period.

While I am among those who do not think the current China should be the best representation of China as a civilisation for... many reasons, I think that, at least in the context of a faction in a competitive video game (in the sense that you compete with other players, human or AI, for victory), the choice is more likely to be based on the unique aspects (or at least, the unique aspects that most people think of when said civilisation is mentioned) of such civilisation. While USA and current China is famous for its productivity, it is a rather bland and ubiquitous aspect, as opposed to the long history of China as a cultured (as well as science-minded, although it is a bit more complicated—China as a whole tend to complicate things) people and the "pioneer" aspects of early USA. Powerhouses are common, but I think the mentality and how it reflects on the people is a better choice in terms of making a civilisation—I would go as far as to argue that such things are the civilisation.

 

[copperred]

Swedish, and like most Swedes (and Finns) here I feel it was somewhat of an A-.
The UU's and the UA fits just fine to the period after we chased away them pesky Danes, the imperialistic "era of great power" (literal translation from Swedish), as well as the more diplomatic and peaceful 19th-20th century's Nobel-pricey Sweden-sans-Finland-Sweden.
The era in between those is barely hinted at, but neither is it really known to the general Swedish population ("Like, some king got assassinated, maybe? Was it Bellman? Oh, and Russia stole Finland, I think? [Sweden actually attacked Russia, because reasons] What's this nonsense about Hats and Caps?").

However, like the other Swedes/Finns here I still have two issues, albeit aesthetic, with the representation of Sweden:

Firstly, the king looks like Erik XIV, and not Gustav II Adolf, his face is very recognizable, with statues of him in many Swedish cities (possibly even Finnish cities, but I don't really know). Also, he refers to himself in-game as "the Snow King", which was the first time I've ever heard of it. "The Lion of the North" is a more well-known moniker around these parts.

Secondly, the city list, which seems to be a blend of modern day Finnish cities, and ancient Swedish cities, neither of which are appropriate to the period of Swedish history represented in the game.
The pattern of cities, as far as I can discern, is first two Swedish cities based on age, and then one Finnish based on size (repeat), all Finnish cities have their Finnish-form names, even though they would have been Swedish-form during the empire, I'll go through the list and give the choice cities a small review.

1.Stockholm, of course, as an exception to the pattern, isn't the oldest city, but has been the capital for a long time, including the entire modern period and is thus possibly the only city on the right place in the city list.​

2.Sigtuna, while important during the viking and medieval eras really lost it's importance after the Kalmar Union, it should be further down the list​

3.Helsinki (Helsingfors) should really be further down the list, just a small fishing town until the Russian era​

4.Birka, an important trade-city. To the vikings, and not since, should probably not even be on the list​

5.Uppsala, Sweden's answer to the Vatican, is a good choice, I'd go as far as saying it should be higher on the list, either second or third​

6.Turku (Åbo), I'm not sure of how important it was to the Swedish Empire, but it certainly was the most important city in Finland at that time, it should be higher on the list, replacing Helsinki at least​

After this I don't care much, my biggest beef is that Gothenburg (Göteborg), largest port in Sweden (and Scandinavia) and Malmö (third largest city in modern-day Sweden) is so far down the list, whilst Karlskrona is not even appearing, an important naval-base until we stopped with the whole "war"-thingamajig.
My proposed city-list would be something in the likes of:

Stockholm
Uppsala
Turku (Åbo)
Gothenburg (Göteborg)
Malmö
Karlskrona
Vaasa (Vasa)
Tallinn (Reval, Estonia was Swedish during this period too! something most people seem to forget)
Lund
Luleå
Helsinki (Helsingfors)​

...Yadda, yadda, yadda

I generally agree about the portrayal and the words sound fine, and yeah the Snow King sounds like someone has been reading way too much Tolkien.

As to cities, I have no issue with Sigtuna, since it is Sweden's oldest city and a past capital, (and if you ever go there boy do they repeatedly tell you this), followed by Uppsala, which could just as easily come before Stockholm. Stockholm is now the capital but Uppsala was the capital, spiritual and religious as well as seat of government until Stockholm was founded; Stockholm isn't that old after all whereas Old Uppsala was a meeting place staring almost 1000 years before Stockholm, in 300-400 AD. Birka is sort of weird since it was abandoned but I guess if you want to remember the one missionary who actually made it to a Viking seat alive, then that's something; they usually ended up with their heads in sacks.

If they're going to have Finnish cities they're probably not in the mood to make them Swedish slash Finnish names, but best to pick the ones on the coast.

 

[seanflokstra7]

I forgot to talk about the Dutch city list which isn't too bad.

1. Amsterdam is a fair pick. Its our current capital, so I'm alright with this

2. Rotterdam is really the only choice for the second city. It's important

3. Utrecht. I would be alright if it was number 4, but it's not more important, than The Hague. Nowadays its a big city, but it should be number 4

4. Groningen. Same story as Utrecht, it should at 5

5. Breda. NOT SIGNIFICANT AT ALL. It should be much lower

6. Nijmegen: Better than Breda, probably in the right spot

7. Den Haag(shut up its not The Hague). *sigh*, where to start? At first, it was our de facto capital during the time we were a republic. Secondly, it is now our third biggest city(behind Amsterdam and Rotterdam). Finally, the government and the Royal Family are seated here. Den Haag deserves the spot as third city

8. Haarlem. No comment on this one, its alright, maybe it should be a bit lower

9. Arnhem. Big city, same as Haarlem

10. Zutphen. Excuse me Zutphen, what are you doing here?

Other cities that should be higher

Brielle. Nowadays its small, but during our war against Spain it was so important, it should be higher

Delft. Where William lived. Still a big city today, should definitely be a lot higher

Leiden. Also too low, but not as important as the first two

Almere. Its one of the bigger cities IRL. But its a really new city(Flevoland, its province, was created by the Aflsluijtdijk), so I get why its not that high.

Why don't we get some of the cities we had colonized in the past? Atleast Batavia(currently Jakarta) should be there

 

[Liufeng]

I forgot to talk about the Dutch city list which isn't too bad.

1. Amsterdam is a fair pick. Its our current capital, so I'm alright with this

2. Rotterdam is really the only choice for the second city. It's important

3. Utrecht. I would be alright if it was number 4, but it's not more important, than The Hague. Nowadays its a big city, but it should be number 4

4. Groningen. Same story as Utrecht, it should at 5

5. Breda. NOT SIGNIFICANT AT ALL. It should be much lower

6. Nijmegen: Better than Breda, probably in the right spot

7. Den Haag(shut up its not The Hague). *sigh*, where to start? At first, it was our de facto capital during the time we were a republic. Secondly, it is now our third biggest city(behind Amsterdam and Rotterdam). Finally, the government and the Royal Family are seated here. Den Haag deserves the spot as third city

8. Haarlem. No comment on this one, its alright, maybe it should be a bit lower

9. Arnhem. Big city, same as Haarlem

10. Zutphen. Excuse me Zutphen, what are you doing here?

Other cities that should be higher

Brielle. Nowadays its small, but during our war against Spain it was so important, it should be higher

Delft. Where William lived. Still a big city today, should definitely be a lot higher

Leiden. Also too low, but not as important as the first two

Almere. Its one of the bigger cities IRL. But its a really new city(Flevoland, its province, was created by the Aflsluijtdijk), so I get why its not that high.

Why don't we get some of the cities we had colonized in the past? Atleast Batavia(currently Jakarta) should be there

Well, the portuguese city list is rather strange, since they've thrown some colonies with portuguese cities, which some should not even be on the list while others are waiting to be included :
- Lisbon is the capital, and no other city should.
- Porto : no surprise either. It is the second most important city in Portugal, and always had historical significance.
- Braga was a clever choice, although I would have placed 5th on the list.
- Coimbra is also one of th emost important cities, but I would have placed it 4th, after Gumarães, which is not present in the list and is the birthplace of the nation.
- Funchal ? Of course, but certainly not as the 4th, but after the first 10 !
- Leiria ... Same than Funchal. It has a medieval and pre-modern importance, but it stops there, and there's not much to offer ...
- I'll past Goa, Luanda, São Tomé e Principe, Maputo (which should be named Lourenço Marques as a portuguese city), Praia and Dili, which should not be in the list in my opinion : Portuguese has more than enough important cities to make a decent city list of at least 30 cities.
- Vila Nova de Gaia : should be further ...
- Aveiro : same thing
- Evora : Finally, a good city ! Should be in the 7th place, why, because the 6th should be Faro, a great city of the far south with great importance during the discoveries.

Well you get the idea, but ... What the hell are cities like Lamego, Tomar, Silves or Figueira da Foz doing on the list ???
Why the hell cities like Guimarães, Lagos, Vila Real, Sagres or Fatima absent on the list ? How can they add Lamego and not Lagos ? How can they even add Tomar and not Guimarães ?
Cities far down on the list like Guarda, Viseu, and Sintra should earlier.
I know I can be exagerating a little, but for the portuguese city list, It's almost like they added important cities they knew, and then randomly add planty of other cities while wathching a map of Portugal ...

 

[cpm4001]

In regards @AggressiveWimp's question: according to this, the American shield represents the Great Seal of the USA.
In regards our city list: I think it's okay for the first five cities (Washington, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Atlanta). However, after that I'd prefer to see cities like New Orleans, Denver, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis move up while cities like Seattle, Houston, and Portland move down the list.
As for Hunt Valley....I get that it's in the city list because Firaxis's headquarters are there. But honestly, shouldn't it be at the very bottom of the list, as an actual Easter Egg? No way is it more important than Omaha.

 

[Floating Voter]

Ireland here...we get to be Celts. Unfortunately Celts covers Scotland, Wales, England, France and Spain as well - yes they invaded or turned up without an invite all over western Europe. The leader isn't even Irish though I would entertain her after showing her to the shower. Ceilidh Hall makes me think of Riverdance. Pictish warrior, fair enough ... they were scary buggers - even the Romans gave up on them.
And using England as a launchpad for my domination of Europe is a bit of a laugh given the history. Before anybody cracks on at me about that, my wife is from Somerset.
Overall - Ireland only covered vaguely but with no U2, "Irish pubs", or eurozone debt talks thats a good thing.

 

[PhilBowles]

The English city list (from York onwards) seems to be intended to reflect name recognition and geographical spread rather than any historical or modern sequence of importance.

We have an easier time with our capital than most countries - London has been England's capital, in the country's various incarnations, throughout most of its history as a unified state (and was previously a Roman capital, replacing Colchester); the only exceptions were during the Civil War (when the still-nominal government of Charles I relocated to Oxford) and during an outbreak of plague later in the 17th Century (when both Charles II and Parliament relocated, again to Oxford). Also unlike many countries, our capital and our main economic centre have always been the same city - there's no way of disputing London's preeminence as our most important city.

From then on the cities bear little relation to their importance either today or during the Renaissance period represented by the civ. York is famous as the hub of Viking Britain, the Danelaw; it might also be second in the list because of the Yorkist role in the Wars of the Roses, however none of these Dukes of York was actually from or based in the city, and by the Tudor period the city was in decline. We follow with Nottingham (Robin Hood), Hastings (of the eponymous Battle) and Canterbury (of the Tales, and the seat of the head of the English Church, both Catholic and Protestant). None of these cities was of any importance in the Tudor period; Canterbury was so neglected that stone was being stolen from its buildings. Nottingham and Hastings were however both capitals of pre-unification Saxon kingdoms; while none of the second to fifth cities were important in the Tudor period (with the arguable exception of Hastings, but it was at most on a par with Dover, and that comes much further down the list), they were all important medieval or pre-medieval ("Dark Ages") cities.

Oxford should be higher in the list for gameplay reasons if nothing else: allow people to build it, so that they'll sometimes put Oxford University there... It has, admittedly, never been a populous or important city for anything other than its university, and its position close to London and also along the Thames.

If they were going for a historical list, I'd accept leaving Birmingham as low as they did, since it wasn't important until the 18th Century, but as it is I'd favour putting that higher as well - it's modern Britain's official second city, and the hub of the Industrial Revolution.

On the plus side, the cities are all genuinely English (the Civ V list is almost identical to the Civ IV list, but (I think earlier incarnations of Civ had some Scottish and Welsh cities).

When I first commented on England, I didn't mention the leader choice, only discussed the uniques in relation to her. Elizabeth I is not the best choice among English monarchs in isolation, and is more than a little overexposed, but she makes sense in the context of Civ. She did not preside over, or play much part in, especially significant events in English history except for the consolidation of Protestantism as the national religion, but she has become iconic not just for the 'Elizabethan' era but for the country's Renaissance era as a whole (not wholly fairly, since Henry VIII and James I were both more scholarly, and Henry in particular made significant advances in bringing England into the Renaissance, updating its military technology, and making England a naval power, an area we'd previously neglected).

It might be apparent that I'd prefer Henry VIII as the English leader, and he would certainly be more appropriate for a civ characterised by a wholly military focus (its UA affects only units, except the free spy) and naval strength. But if you're going to try and find civs with strong female leaders for a Civ game, it would be odd not to give England a female leader (we've had several strong, long-lasting ones).

The leaderscreen is one I find uninteresting, and the voice acting is terrible (are there really so few English women available to Firaxis that they had to use a Canadian voice actor, as I understand they did?) The dialogue and accent are highly stereotyped, but given that there's probably no country in the world more heavily stereotyped among the American audience than England, the civ got a much fairer treatment than it might have.

Overall - Ireland only covered vaguely but with no U2, "Irish pubs", or eurozone debt talks thats a good thing.

Could be worse - down my road here, there's a self-proclaimed Irish pub proudly flying ... a Scottish flag. That's America for you.

 

[Koiranputki]

Well, the portuguese city list is rather strange, since they've thrown some colonies with portuguese cities, which some should not even be on the list while others are waiting to be included :
- Lisbon is the capital, and no other city should.
- Porto : no surprise either. It is the second most important city in Portugal, and always had historical significance.
- Braga was a clever choice, although I would have placed 5th on the list.
- Coimbra is also one of th emost important cities, but I would have placed it 4th, after Gumarães, which is not present in the list and is the birthplace of the nation.
- Funchal ? Of course, but certainly not as the 4th, but after the first 10 !
- Leiria ... Same than Funchal. It has a medieval and pre-modern importance, but it stops there, and there's not much to offer ...
- I'll past Goa, Luanda, São Tomé e Principe, Maputo (which should be named Lourenço Marques as a portuguese city), Praia and Dili, which should not be in the list in my opinion : Portuguese has more than enough important cities to make a decent city list of at least 30 cities.
- Vila Nova de Gaia : should be further ...
- Aveiro : same thing
- Evora : Finally, a good city ! Should be in the 7th place, why, because the 6th should be Faro, a great city of the far south with great importance during the discoveries.

Well you get the idea, but ... What the hell are cities like Lamego, Tomar, Silves or Figueira da Foz doing on the list ???
Why the hell cities like Guimarães, Lagos, Vila Real, Sagres or Fatima absent on the list ? How can they add Lamego and not Lagos ? How can they even add Tomar and not Guimarães ?
Cities far down on the list like Guarda, Viseu, and Sintra should earlier.
I know I can be exagerating a little, but for the portuguese city list, It's almost like they added important cities they knew, and then randomly add planty of other cities while wathching a map of Portugal ...

Ahhhh...I think you're being too hard on the developers... I was happy to see they had finally included Portugal as a civ.....long overdue...

Such an important country in world history.... I assume you are Portuguese, so I probably don't have to remind you that a lot of modern Portuguese think the last time Portugal actually did anything important was in 1585....[just joking, of course... ....but you know that's what some say...]

Of course from a computer game point of view, it is about balance and not unduly offending anyone....or, better to say, offending the smallest possible number of people.

Because Spain was "no-brainer" to be an early civ, Portugal had to wait a bit. And as for Maputo....well, yeah....I, too, think the city name, Lourenço Marques, pronounced, of course, in the Portuguese way, not as though it were Spanish, has much more historic resonance....but a few things have to be sacrificed to remain reasonably PC....

Heck, it's enough of a shock when you are new to this game to have Gandhi DOW on you...

 

[PhilBowles]

Ahhhh...I think you're being too hard on the developers... I was happy to see they had finally included Portugal as a civ.....long overdue...

Such an important country in world history.... I assume you are Portuguese, so I probably don't have to remind you that a lot of modern Portuguese think the last time Portugal actually did anything important was in 1585....[just joking, of course... ....but you know that's what some say...]

Of course from a computer game point of view, it is about balance and not unduly offending anyone....or, better to say, offending the smallest possible number of people.

Because Spain was "no-brainer" to be an early civ, Portugal had to wait a bit. And as for Maputo....well, yeah....I, too, think the city name, Lourenço Marques, pronounced, of course, in the Portuguese way, not as though it were Spanish, has much more historic resonance....but a few things have to be sacrificed to remain reasonably PC....

Heck, it's enough of a shock when you are new to this game to have Gandhi DOW on you...

Portugal was in two previous versions of Civ - Civs III and IV. And in Civ V Spain also missed out on vanilla (and, like Portugal, was not in Civs I or II at all). Portugal should really have been in Gods & Kings, but it was never realistically going to be excluded from Civ V altogether.

 

[Koiranputki]

Portugal was in two previous versions of Civ - Civs III and IV. And in Civ V Spain also missed out on vanilla (and, like Portugal, was not in Civs I or II at all). Portugal should really have been in Gods & Kings, but it was never realistically going to be excluded from Civ V altogether.

Yes...but my knowledge of the series is a bit more limited...I regularly played the first in the series just called, "Civilization", back then in the early 1990s....and I still carry around a fond memory of one notable game....I was Washington and I had a huge capital....I think it was up to 32 ... I still remember the titantic struggle with the Aztecs....they were "yellow"...the Americans were "turquoise" if I'm remembering correctly...... seeing the stacks of Aztec armour coming for my city....but I turned the tide and beat them back... Can't remember if I won that game or not...

Then I came back to the series a couple of years ago with CivV.... a vastly more enjoyable game and it continues to evolve in a way that I, anyway, find interesting and appealing....

 

[PhilBowles]

Yes...but my knowledge of the series is a bit more limited...I regularly played the first in the series just called, "Civilization", back then in the early 1990s....and I still carry around a fond memory of one notable game....I was Washington and I had a huge capital....I think it was up to 32 ... I still remember the titantic struggle with the Aztecs....they were "yellow"...the Americans were "turquoise" if I'm remembering correctly...... seeing the stacks of Aztec armour coming for my city....but I turned the tide and beat them back... Can't remember if I won that game or not...

Then I came back to the series a couple of years ago with CivV.... a vastly more enjoyable game and it continues to evolve in a way that I, anyway, find interesting and appealing....

I still think of civs in terms of their Civ I colours even when they're almost all different - the Zulus aren't green now? Russia isn't white? I wouldn't say Civ V is 'more enjoyable' if only from nostalgia for the '90s classic, however I will say it captures my memory of the essential feel of Civ I more than I remember any of the other sequels (save perhaps Civ II) doing. Some of that is cosmetic, too - the squares with icons used to represent units in Civ I were much more characterful - and fit the game's board game feel (and origins) - better than the later 'realistic' unit models. Civ V's unit icons are similar in that respect.

 

[Kimuyama]

I generally agree about the portrayal and the words sound fine, and yeah the Snow King sounds like someone has been reading way too much Tolkien.

As to cities, I have no issue with Sigtuna, since it is Sweden's oldest city and a past capital, (and if you ever go there boy do they repeatedly tell you this), followed by Uppsala, which could just as easily come before Stockholm. Stockholm is now the capital but Uppsala was the capital, spiritual and religious as well as seat of government until Stockholm was founded; Stockholm isn't that old after all whereas Old Uppsala was a meeting place staring almost 1000 years before Stockholm, in 300-400 AD. Birka is sort of weird since it was abandoned but I guess if you want to remember the one missionary who actually made it to a Viking seat alive, then that's something; they usually ended up with their heads in sacks.

If they're going to have Finnish cities they're probably not in the mood to make them Swedish slash Finnish names, but best to pick the ones on the coast.

I wouldn't really expect them to use the Swedish names, as the Finnish names are the official names in English. Gothenburg too is in its English form, after all.

 

[Liufeng]

Ahhhh...I think you're being too hard on the developers... I was happy to see they had finally included Portugal as a civ.....long overdue...

Such an important country in world history.... I assume you are Portuguese, so I probably don't have to remind you that a lot of modern Portuguese think the last time Portugal actually did anything important was in 1585....[just joking, of course... ....but you know that's what some say...]

Of course from a computer game point of view, it is about balance and not unduly offending anyone....or, better to say, offending the smallest possible number of people.

Because Spain was "no-brainer" to be an early civ, Portugal had to wait a bit. And as for Maputo....well, yeah....I, too, think the city name, Lourenço Marques, pronounced, of course, in the Portuguese way, not as though it were Spanish, has much more historic resonance....but a few things have to be sacrificed to remain reasonably PC....

Heck, it's enough of a shock when you are new to this game to have Gandhi DOW on you...

Well, the thing is, I may be portuguese and patriotic, but I'm not falling either to nationalism. I'm not naive enough to ignore that after the portuguese empire was swallowed by marriage by the spanish, the last great effort the country made was to free from the spanish court, and the carnation revolution. But after that, there are some achievements, but none had an worldwide impact what so ever. Well, that golden age had such an impact on portuguese people that the "saudade" is the nostalgy of that period.

 

[EulerMcE]

For the Celt list I naturally find cities like Dublin and Limerick questionable as they are mostly small settlements or forts repurposed into cities by invaders. I suppose Tara, Eamhain Mhacha, Tullyhogue and Cashel might have worked for Irish examples but choices are difficult due to the lack of city-like structure that existed in Gaelic Ireland. Monasteries and coronation sites are the most town-like features. Alternatively they could have made the Celts use the names of tribes and tuatha similar to the Shoshone with Iceni as the capital (ignoring Venta Icenorum), though a lot of people would probably hate it.

 

[PhilBowles]

For the Celt list I naturally find cities like Dublin and Limerick questionable as they are mostly small settlements or forts repurposed into cities by invaders.

Ditto Cardiff, which is Norman. Edinburgh is Anglo-Saxon, having been developed around the pre-existing fort by Northumbrian invaders.

In fairness to the developers, though, are there many options for Celtic cities which don't fall into one of the above? All of the Celtic land in the British Isles has been under occupation by Romans, Saxons, Norse, Normans, or some combination of the above, and most of the pre-existing settlements would probably have been small. The Cornish settlements may be the closest approximation to pure Celtic towns, and possibly some in the Welsh interior, but they are mostly not very large even today.

I suppose Tara, Eamhain Mhacha, Tullyhogue and Cashel might have worked for Irish examples but choices are difficult due to the lack of city-like structure that existed in Gaelic Ireland. Monasteries and coronation sites are the most town-like features. Alternatively they could have made the Celts use the names of tribes and tuatha similar to the Shoshone with Iceni as the capital (ignoring Venta Icenorum), though a lot of people would probably hate it.

I think that that would be the best approach if Firaxis continues its obsession with the Celts as British indigenous people; making the Celts entirely or predominantly Gallic is still a better option. I don't see why it would cause problems - it's a much more appropriate way to treat the Celts than the Shoshone.

 

[klandri]

Iceland here, represented under Denmark as Reykjavík is the 14th city on the Danish city list. (Couldn't it have been just a tad higher up? and above the Faroes? and why isn't Tórshavn a city instead of "The Faroes"?) Anyway, obviously Iceland is not going to be its own civ but it would be nice to be a city state. But looking on to the fact that we are a part of Denmark the civ is adequately representing. Consider that this is written from an Icelandic perspective:

Leader and title screen: Harald was never the king of Iceland so honestly I don't know much about him. It's highly annoying to me that he speaks modern Danish (as if anyone wants to hear that) and not Old Norse. Even modern Icelandic would have been more accurate. And from there it's a short trip to Old Norse, just change all the vowels, watch the stresses, adjust the grammar slightly and you're there.

Symbol: The horns look menacing and recognizable enough but I would have liked a more recognizable symbol like Mjölnir or Hrungnir's Heart.

UA: Game play vise the ability is uninspiring. It fits the viking theme decently and it's nice to see a exploration heavy embarking ability to fit with the exploration of Iceland, Greenland (Nuuk is a city under its Danish name) and North America. The pillaging bonus is also a must.

UU: The Berserkers are the stereotypical Norse warriors (when they're not high on shrooms, or maybe especially when they're tripping) and are widely reported on in the Icelandic sagas and other sources. While in game it bores you to tears it fits thematically as a brutal viking.

UU2: The Norwegian Ski Infantry has nothing to with Icelandic culture and I know nothing about them or their significance so I won't comment on it. Would not have minded a Long Ship Galleass/Trireme replacement.

Overall, considering Reykjavík is just the 14th city on the list I can't complain too much although I would want Reykjavík (or even Þingvellir, even if it's not technically a city) to be higher on the list and make Harald speak his actual language.

 

[PhilBowles]

Leader and title screen: Harald was never the king of Iceland so honestly I don't know much about him. It's highly annoying to me that he speaks modern Danish (as if anyone wants to hear that) and not Old Norse. Even modern Icelandic would have been more accurate. And from there it's a short trip to Old Norse, just change all the vowels, watch the stresses, adjust the grammar slightly and you're there.

Shame he's not more authentic (which I didn't know) - I love Harald's voice acting. He sounds so cheerful, in a boisterous stereotype Viking kind of way.

UU: The Berserkers are the stereotypical Norse warriors (when they're not high on shrooms, or maybe especially when they're tripping) and are widely reported on in the Icelandic sagas and other sources. While in game it bores you to tears it fits thematically as a brutal viking.

Strange, I've always liked the way Denmark plays in game. The Berserker's not very interesting to look at mechanically, but in combination with the UA - both the disembark bonus and the pillaging - it's highly characterful in the way it lets you play a hit-and-run raider.

UU2: The Norwegian Ski Infantry has nothing to with Icelandic culture and I know nothing about them or their significance so I won't comment on it. Would not have minded a Long Ship Galleass/Trireme replacement.

I've said before that I think longships are represented perfectly by the Danish UA and the icon for embarked troops - better than they would be as a UU.

That doesn't mean I'm a fan of Norwegian Ski Infantry; I wonder if there's a UB or even UI that could have worked?

 

[Viregel]

That doesn't mean I'm a fan of Norwegian Ski Infantry; I wonder if there's a UB or even UI that could have worked?

Possibly a Runestone, but there's more in Sweden by the looks of it, athough I can't find any figures. I've got another design for Denmark in my sig, if you're interested.