Somehow after playing BNW, I still find the diversity of cultures and civs to be lacking. There seems to be an overabundance of mounted units. Many of the European civs feature late game units while civs from elsewhere all have early game units, except Ethiopia I guess. While it makes sense from a historical perspective, I wish I could play as an Asian civ with a focused late game focus. Also, after taking a look, some of the civs seem just random.
The Diversity of Civs
- Thread starter ptoss1
- Start date
The Man Wood
Chieftain
So, is this thread actually directed at the diversity of the civilizations or are you referring to the units in particular?
There are civs from all continents, even asia-pacific.
I do understand your thoughts on the UU's being mainly early-mid game, however, what late game UU's would you add? There is so much history based around armies with slight advantages through their military (korea - Hwacha, aztec - jaguars, etc...)
Modern military, still very diverse, is very similar across the globe, and if you were to look at differences in military these days, it usually is reflected on the leader themselves, therefore looking more towards a UA instead of a UU.
This is just my opinion, but in regards to only early game units you have japan with the zero and america with the B-17, Germany, and many more. So the diversity is there, it just takes a few play-throughs to find all the differences
There are civs from all continents, even asia-pacific.
I do understand your thoughts on the UU's being mainly early-mid game, however, what late game UU's would you add? There is so much history based around armies with slight advantages through their military (korea - Hwacha, aztec - jaguars, etc...)
Modern military, still very diverse, is very similar across the globe, and if you were to look at differences in military these days, it usually is reflected on the leader themselves, therefore looking more towards a UA instead of a UU.
This is just my opinion, but in regards to only early game units you have japan with the zero and america with the B-17, Germany, and many more. So the diversity is there, it just takes a few play-throughs to find all the differences
PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
I've noted this before - a lot of fuss has been made about geographical diversity, but very little about temporal diversity. Most European civs are late-game; only two (Denmark and Venice, three if you count Byzantium as European) are medieval, and two others (Rome and Greece) are ancient. All the Asian civs except India and the Mesopotamian states are medieval in focus (yes, except the Zulu) and leader choice (and even among Mesopotamian states Persia has a medieval UB); India has a modern leader, but an ancient UA and, yes, a medieval UB. Only Africa exhibits reasonable diversity across time periods - two Ancient (Carthage and Egypt), two Medieval (Songhai and Zulu), one modern (Ethiopia), and one - Morocco - with a modern UU but medieval leader and UI.
Well, Japan has the Zero but we all know how awesome that is...
Yes, that was what I meant. Most civs outside of the "core" modern European civs don't have a late game focus. There is Ethiopia with the turtling UU, Brazil with its tourism focus, and Japan with its "zero," which is aptly named. What this means is that there is a divide in playstyles. If I want to play an interesting early game then the only choices I have are sort of meh. There's really no non-European civ that has a UU/UA focus after the Renaissance era. I mean there are a bunch of cavalry, but you know how interesting that is.
tl;dr: if i want to play an interesting early game then I must play non core European and if i want to play interesting post-renaissance then I must play Europeaen
PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
Sure, truly late-game civs are boring (even in concept, the Brazilian civ is dull), but more diversity could be added within each region. Take Asia particularly: China, India and Japan could all be represented by the modern nation. Siam makes more sense as the Renaissance-era state that bore that name than as the medieval Kingdom of Sukothai in the game. Yet instead all of these civs, bar India, are medieval in focus in the game (although Korea is verging on the Renaissance).
I am just quite surprised after playing BNW that this problem is still noticeable. Well not really a problem, just something I've noticed from a lot of playing. I really want to play a European civ but they're all mostly late game or naval units (which I sort of hate).
For some reason I thought the new civs in BNW would make it better. However now that I've played with them, I think they still have the same problems. The new civs all play with the stat systems, but none have anything that changes the actual battlefield. It's fun to play with Venice and Shoshone, but honestly they feel really gimicky. Gimicky as in this is fun once, but twice?
For some reason I thought the new civs in BNW would make it better. However now that I've played with them, I think they still have the same problems. The new civs all play with the stat systems, but none have anything that changes the actual battlefield. It's fun to play with Venice and Shoshone, but honestly they feel really gimicky. Gimicky as in this is fun once, but twice?
I actually yawned when I read the Brazilian UA and UU. Seemed like another Ethiopia.
Tyrvos
Cu Chulainn
1) Everybody would consider Byzantium European. They were culturally Greek and their main land holdings were in the Balkans.
2) When do you consider late-game? Are you going by renaissance era as late game? Because that's where most European civs tend to settle, and that's not late game. If going by industrial and later, you are not counting many european civs. However, if just going by pre-renaissance, you are forgetting the Celts and Germans (UA, UU early game focus). So that's 7 pre-renaissance European civs right there. That's not too bad.
3) Huns aren't medieval in focus. So that's 4 Asian civs focused in medieval (China, Japan, Mongolia, Indonesia, maybe Siam but they have a university UB). To be fair with Japan, even in WW2 they retained those traditions from the medieval era. That might be a fair amount, but those were very famous times for these civilizations, so it's understandable.
4) The other continents, except maybe the Americas (but that's because they were wiped out), have a lot of diversity like Africa in this game.
Tyrvos
Cu Chulainn
Morocco is another good non-European team with a UU after the renaissance.
Danes, Celts, Rome, Greeks, Byzantines are all European teams that work early game.
VainoValkea
Emperor
I don't have a problem with diversity. I dislike the inclusion of the Shoshone because I don't see any reason they're in more than, say, the African Kingdom of Kongo. There were great city-building empires in America before European settlers and the Shoshone weren't one of them.
Most of the Civ's unique buildings and units are centered around pre-modern gameplay anyway, which is good - it reflects the fact that militaries have become more homogenous across the world.
Most of the Civ's unique buildings and units are centered around pre-modern gameplay anyway, which is good - it reflects the fact that militaries have become more homogenous across the world.
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).
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).
seancolorado
Deity
The East Asian building graphics for the Southeast Asian civs makes no sense at all. Polynesia's graphics for them would be much more suitable
True_Candyman
Emperor
Well lets brainstorm then. Who wants to think of a late game Asian civ?
I've got vietnam with the Viet Cong. But that would be such an incredible disappointment considering it's plentiful history. 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).
If we do take Vietnam with the Viet Cong the flood gates will open too. We could get all sorts of travesties like Israel with the Haganah, Palestine with Hamas, Afghanistan with the Mujahideen... etc.
None of these are really inspiring and leading civiliations. None of them are at the peak of their history. When there is so much more diversity to choose from within a civilization, and at times when they were more competitive with the rest of the world or at least there neighbours, why should we force modern units into the equation?
I know it comes down to personal preference at the end of the day, but can you think of one Asian country that is currently successful in its diplomacy, military, economy, science or culture that has a "unique" unit with an edge over competition?
Vietnam is a failing state? News to me, and presumably to everybody in Vietnam. I think, really, it'd be hard to argue that we aren't witnessing the "top" of Vietnamese history: finally free of Chinese, French, or American influence, booming economy, growing influence, etc.
When you say "can you think of one Asian country that is currently successful" etc., presumably you mean "that's not already represented in the game"? Because every Asian country in the game (perhaps with the exception of Thailand) fits the bill. Japan and Korea (and Vietnam) in particular are countries that have been most "successful" in modern times.
When you say "can you think of one Asian country that is currently successful" etc., presumably you mean "that's not already represented in the game"? Because every Asian country in the game (perhaps with the exception of Thailand) fits the bill. Japan and Korea (and Vietnam) in particular are countries that have been most "successful" in modern times.
VainoValkea
Emperor
Isn't Thailand pretty much the modern incarnation of the Siamese Empire?
JustinianIV
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2013
- Messages
- 245
Yeah, they should make the Somali Pirate UU
True_Candyman
Emperor
You sir, have completely misunderstood me
I very well know Vietnam is a booming country these days, it's in the next category down from the BRICs alongside places like Mexico, Indonesia and South Korea according to goldman sachs. I was however referring to the Vietnam in which the Viet Cong were active, ie 60's and 70's. When it was split in two and cast into a civil war and almost puppeted by foreign powers. That is not an incarnation of Vietnam i want to see in game, do you? And i won't argue that Vietnam is doing particularly well now, maybe the best in its history. I am no expert on it or its military though, so can you name a UU that would suit this modern and successful Vietnam?
As for the second part, yes, I thought that was a given. I thought the overall tone of my post was "go team asia - but lets do it right", i apologise if i came off any differently
VainoValkea
Emperor
I would like to see some more African cultures in the game, either modern or historical, although I don't think Africa is underrepresented much. I think modders could add South Africa led by Nelson Mandela, Tanzania led by Julius Nyerere or Congo led by... uh, I don't know which of the kings to pick.
However, there's the problem of these being modern states, not quite historic cultures of their own, yet.
However, there's the problem of these being modern states, not quite historic cultures of their own, yet.
