The Diversity of Civs

[Tyrvos]

Brazil's culturally European (you can point out that it's "close to Latin American" countries in a way, say, America is not - but since every Latin American country is of European origin this is immaterial). Byzantium's territorial extent is almost identical to that of the Ottomans - if we're treating the Ottomans as a European civ as well, that gives us two more medieval European civs.

Era by itself is fairly coarse; it's true that most European civs are Renaissance, but these are mostly late Renaissance (lots of Lancer replacements, Caroleans replacing Riflemen etc.) I had, indeed, forgotten the Celts (deservedly so, in my view) - you're right that I neglected Germany (also, technically, France, who now have only a medieval UU, however they don't have an early-game playstyle).

At the time of the Byzantine Empire, the Southern Balkans and the Anatolian peninsula were almost purely culturally greek (from Alexander, Seleucid Empire, etc.) The Turks then invaded and established the Ottoman Empire. There was an 1000 year difference between the start of the Byzantine Empire and the start of the Ottoman Empire. So even though the Byzantine Empire was largely Greek, by the time it fell, different cultures of people had migrated throughout (Even Egypt was largely Greek at the start). There were still some Greeks in the Anatolian peninsula, but they over time were pushed out by the Turks. This is why the Ottoman Empire is not European, they were Turkish nomads that settled in modern day turkey. Ottomans have a special musket and lancer, neither are medieval and they did not reach their peak until after the fall of Constantinople, which marked the end of the medieval era.


There's something like 5 European UU's in the medieval era. That isn't too bad, and I'm not counting UB's or UI's.

Out of the European Civs, two (Spain, France) have musket UU's who are early renaissance. England has the Frigate, Portugal the Caravel, the Dutch the Sea Beggar. I wouldn't discount the Lancer as late-renaissance, since each era is only two rows so if you focus to it you'd still get their early, so that includes the Swedish and Polish. None of these are late game, really.

You have a lot more knowledge about Asia, so I believe you for what your saying there. The makers of this game, however, do pick what they consider their most influential times though. It's like with Greece, they were more than just Ancient Greece, but they picked their most influential era.

 

[seancolorado]

Or as Kuala Lumpur and Malacca...

Well yeah of course I know that, I thought you meant in as a Civ

 

[PhilBowles]

I'm thinking also in terms of what the associated technologies represent - however long it takes to get there in a game, Metallurgy makes sense as late-Renaissance tech, while Gunpowder is squarely medieval (although the 'Musketman' name is a misnomer for medieval firearms - and indeed gunpowder artillery predated firearms in reality - and both the Spanish and French UUs represent Renaissance formations). The Frigate, too, is late Renaissance (or indeed later, the 'early modern' era not represented by a game that goes straight from the Renaissance to Industrialisation), as are privateers.

You have a lot more knowledge about Asia, so I believe you for what your saying there. The makers of this game, however, do pick what they consider their most influential times though. It's like with Greece, they were more than just Ancient Greece, but they picked their most influential era.

In fairness, Greece wasn't much more than Ancient Greece since they were under occupation for most of the intervening period by one empire or another until the 19th Century, and Byzantium is treated as a separate civ.

I've just been struck by the relative paucity of medieval European states (given that there are 16 European states in the game, plus two European-descended ones) when this was an important period in European development. I can see the design logic: the European states tended to exert global influence once the Age of Sail got underway, and so their most influential periods are almost bound to be Renaissance or later (and often associated with naval UUs).

 

[True_Candyman]

In fairness, Greece wasn't much more than Ancient Greece since they were under occupation for most of the intervening period by one empire or another until the 19th Century, and Byzantium is treated as a separate civ.

I've just been struck by the relative paucity of medieval European states (given that there are 16 European states in the game, plus two European-descended ones) when this was an important period in European development. I can see the design logic: the European states tended to exert global influence once the Age of Sail got underway, and so their most influential periods are almost bound to be Renaissance or later (and often associated with naval UUs).

Well ancient Greece wasn't just one continuous entity. They had plenty of periods of dominance in different forms pre-Byzantium.

As for the supposed paucity of medieval European states, i think this is only right (at least until we have many, many more civs). Most of the European civs are present in the medieval era and thus loosely represent them, but because they weren't at their height in the medieval era they have been given a different era focus when they were more significant. Relatively, (in civ terms) Europe was behind much of the rest of the world for much of the medieval era (including Mesoamerica and South America, and potentially some of North America). I am honestly shocked at the relative paucity of medieval Southeast Asian civs in particular as this was essentially the medieval equivalent of Renaissance or even Industrial Europe (for comparisons sake).

 

[ajok]

Well yeah of course I know that, I thought you meant in as a Civ

malacca sultanate is a good idea for civ i think

 

[seancolorado]

malacca sultanate is a good idea for civ i think

Agreed. But I can't see them being in above a number of other Southeast Asian civs also yet to be in (Burma, Vietnam, or a return of Khmer)

 

[wigwam]

Seriously? Here's a tip from a resident european AND brazilian: It's not the colour of your skin that makes you European, it's your ancestry and your culture. Brazil, like the vast majority of modern day America, is the direct result of and heavily influenced by european powers. And really, if they aren't European, then what are they? Native American? Tell that to the native minority hiding in the middle of the Amazon!

In a perfect world (and perhaps in Amsterdam) that's true, but in most of Europe—as you probably know—it's not. You don't have to look any farther than the recent riots in Sweden to see that. Racism is alive and well, and, unfortunately, the color of your skin matters a great deal in Europe and in the US. Probably in Brazil too, actually.

For Star Trek, there was no need for a black actor - Roddenberry decided on one. And you are I suspect overestimating the availability of black actresses at the time. Come to that, you can hardly claim anyone in the Star Trek cast was chosen on the basis of their acting ability - look at Shatner.

Ha, you'll note that I didn't say they did pick Nichols for her skill—only that they didn't pick her at random. Again, though, that's like saying there's no need for a black actor in Othello. Roddenberry didn't create Uhura merely as a token, but rather as part of his vision of a progressive, multicultural future.

 

[ptoss1]

In a perfect world (and perhaps in Amsterdam) that's true, but in most of Europe—as you probably know—it's not. You don't have to look any farther than the recent riots in Sweden to see that. Racism is alive and well, and, unfortunately, the color of your skin matters a great deal in Europe and in the US. Probably in Brazil too, actually.

LOL

That reminds me of something I read on Stormfront:

"It's not your ancestry that makes you white, but how you act."

 

[wigwam]

LOL

That reminds me of something I read on Stormfront:

"It's not your ancestry that makes you white, but how you act."

Maybe you misunderstood me?

One of the main factors behind the riots in Sweden was that Swedes with immigrant backgrounds—even people whose families have lived in Sweden for three or four generations—find themselves discriminated against, ghettoized, and treated as less than fully Swedish. The riots were an expression of frustration and resentment.

 

[ptoss1]

Maybe you misunderstood me?

One of the main factors behind the riots in Sweden was that Swedes with immigrant backgrounds—even people whose families have lived in Sweden for three or four generations—find themselves discriminated against, ghettoized, and treated as less than fully Swedish. The riots were an expression of frustration and resentment.

I understood you completely. My comment was meant to be ironic. Stormfront ideology claims that how you act makes you white, yet they hate blacks, asians, and pretty much every other ethnicity that have lived in America and Europe for generations. The rationalize their concept of "how you act makes you white," so that they can discriminate against Jews who would otherwise be indistinguishable from the rest of mainstream "white" society. It's like Hitler's Nazi team. "I get to choose who is a Jew and who is not a Jew."

 

[Cyzyk]

Honestly, I only care about new Civs insomuch as they can provide interesting new abilities and UBs for them. I tend to only play Civs with UBs anyway, since I dislike being stuck with an era-specific unit as a bonus that is only relevant if I happen to be going to war in that era.
If they put in the Bohemians with a few truly new and unique bonuses, I'd be much more pleased than them rounding out something else for the sake of some bizarre definition of diversity. That being said, with as vague and floaty as half the justifications for the bonuses they give you, you could rename and reskin half the abilities in the game onto different civs and nobody would notice.

For all that I loathe the Ethiopians (build defense 100+ capital, stick a UU and GG in there, and denounce everyone over and over while stealing their tech until I got dynamite and ended them), it was nice to see a civ who didn't revolve around a pair of early era units that never got used and a bizarre marginal ability the AI couldn't use effectively.

 

[Tiggurix]

In a perfect world (and perhaps in Amsterdam) that's true, but in most of Europe—as you probably know—it's not. You don't have to look any farther than the recent riots in Sweden to see that. Racism is alive and well, and, unfortunately, the color of your skin matters a great deal in Europe and in the US. Probably in Brazil too, actually.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how this relates to the "Brazil is not European" stance. In fact, you could argue that it is BECAUSE of racism that Brazil is so European as it is, as the European colonists marginalized and oppressed the Native Americans and imported slaves, and forced them to adapt a religion and culture that wasn't their own. And you still didn't answer my question of: "If they aren't European, then what are they?" Because if they aren't considered part of the European descended sphere of influence, then they are something wholly unique in and of themselves (which one could argue that all cultures, to a degree, are).

 

[wigwam]

I'm sorry, but I don't see how this relates to the "Brazil is not European" stance. In fact, you could argue that it is BECAUSE of racism that Brazil is so European as it is, as the European colonists marginalized and oppressed the Native Americans and imported slaves, and forced them to adapt a religion and culture that wasn't their own. And you still didn't answer my question of: "If they aren't European, then what are they?" Because if they aren't considered part of the European descended sphere of influence, then they are something wholly unique in and of themselves (which one could argue that all cultures, to a degree, are).

They are "Latin American" (or, to use the ridiculous American misnomer, "Hispanic"). The American concept of "Latin America" has nothing to do with language; it encompasses lots of English- and Dutch-speaking countries (Belize, Suriname, Guyana, etc.). It basically means "everywhere south of the Rio Grande, where poor brown people live."

Most of Europe (Turkey and parts of Eastern Europe usually excluded), Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan form "the developed world," also called "the global north" or "the first world" or whatever. See the IMF's list of "advanced economies," for instance. It's an increasingly outdated model, but this is generally assumed to be where, among other things, game consumers are. It's also where almost all of the world's white people are. When people talk about "diversity" in a strategy game that represents cultures from around the world, they mean "let's get some more civs from outside the global north," i.e. "let's get some more civs from places where people don't look like us."

 

[Tiggurix]

They are "Latin American" (or, to use the ridiculous American misnomer, "Hispanic"). The American concept of "Latin America" has nothing to do with language; it encompasses lots of English- and Dutch-speaking countries (Belize, Suriname, Guyana, etc.). It basically means "everywhere south of the Rio Grande, where poor brown people live."

Most of Europe (Turkey and parts of Eastern Europe usually excluded), Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan form "the developed world," also called "the global north" or "the first world" or whatever. See the IMF's list of "advanced economies," for instance. It's an increasingly outdated model, but this is generally assumed to be where, among other things, game consumers are. It's also where almost all of the world's white people are. When people talk about "diversity" in a strategy game that represents cultures from around the world, they mean "let's get some more civs from outside the global north," i.e. "let's get some more civs from places where people don't look like us."

Thank you for educating me on things I already know. /sarcasm But the concept of "Latin America" is distinctly influenced by European ancestry. Indeed, if there had been no European colonialism, there would have been no Latin America!

Whatever the economic situation and colour of the skin of modern day Latin America is, the fact still remains that their culture is a direct result of European Colonialism. And this is unlike many other countries which have been under European dominance. China and India has a strong cultural identity of their own, which they preserved under the age of colonialism, whereas the previous cultures of the Americas were more or less wiped out, and replaced by the mixture of the colonialist's cultures and others, such as those of the imported slaves, as you surely know. Indeed, since the USA is also a distinct product of this process, just as the other colonies of America, if Brazil is not European, but considered "Latin American", then the USA could probably be considered "Anglo-American", rather than European.

Of course, since both Brazil and the USA are the only representatives of their "cultural group" in the game, it is easier to just consider them European within the context of the game.

 

[ptoss1]

Thank you for educating me on things I already know. /sarcasm But the concept of "Latin America" is distinctly influenced by European ancestry. Indeed, if there had been no European colonialism, there would have been no Latin America!

Whatever the economic situation and colour of the skin of modern day Latin America is, the fact still remains that their culture is a direct result of European Colonialism. And this is unlike many other countries which have been under European dominance. China and India has a strong cultural identity of their own, which they preserved under the age of colonialism, whereas the previous cultures of the Americas were more or less wiped out, and replaced by the mixture of the colonialist's cultures and others, such as those of the imported slaves, as you surely know. Indeed, since the USA is also a distinct product of this process, just as the other colonies of America, if Brazil is not European, but considered "Latin American", then the USA could probably be considered "Anglo-American", rather than European.

Of course, since both Brazil and the USA are the only representatives of their "cultural group" in the game, it is easier to just consider them European within the context of the game.

Without Mongols Russia would not exist, so obviously Russia is Mongolian amiright? I get your point but I don't think Brazilian culture is very European tbh. It's like saying Hawaii is representative of all of America.

 

[God of Kings]

What is Quebec then?

Is it Anglo-American, Latin American, or its own culture?

 

[ptoss1]

What is Quebec then?

Is it Anglo-American, Latin American, or its own culture?

Definitely not Anglo, definitely not Latin, part Francophone, part insecure, part hate France, part made fun of by French people, part don't give a about the rest of North America, part very different from Canada. Great place to go if you're looking for real Canadian culture though. None to be found in Vancouver.

 

[Tiggurix]

What is Quebec then?

Is it Anglo-American, Latin American, or its own culture?

Dunno.

But really, these distinctions are very arbitrary, much like other divisions among humans. I consider the American states European because they are a direct result of European colonialism, culturally and in other aspects. You may disagree, but don't call the USA "European" and Brazil not. They have basically the same origins and similar histories, so distinguishing one as more "European" than the other seems very weird to me.

 

[ptoss1]

Dunno.

But really, these distinctions are very arbitrary, much like other divisions among humans. I consider the American states European because they are a direct result of European colonialism, culturally and in other aspects. You may disagree, but don't call the USA "European" and Brazil not. They have basically the same origins and similar histories, so distinguishing one as more "European" than the other seems very weird to me.

The US is definitely not European. In fact even the British don't really consider themselves Europeans. They try to separate themselves as much as possible. They're special.

 

[True_Candyman]

The US is definitely not European. In fact even the British don't really consider themselves Europeans. They try to separate themselves as much as possible. They're special.

And herein lies the kicker. This is a horrendous generalization like everything else in this thread (there's always time for irony).

It's a question of identity, and identity is unique to everyone. Part of the US would consider it and Europe as one, part mortal enemies. Lots I imagine consider Brazil foreign and strange and un-European. Yes, perceptions play into it too. It's a question far too complex and convoluted to have a single answer.

There's no science to this. We are asking the question what do we think Brazil is, and everyone is trying to speak for everyone, which is ridiculous.

It is what it is, that is different to everywhere and increasingly different as you get to a more individualistic basis. Just like every other civ. It's it completely moot to slap an arbitrary group classification on them. If a civ has done fantastic things it should be in, regardless of how many others from its "group" are in.