[R&F] Based on the new features - which civilizations and leaders should be introduced in R&F?

[Wingednosering]

I almost started this discussion yesterday about the Native American civs. Not being mean, but they would be best be represented by stepped-up barbarians (excluding the Southwest tribes that built cities). It's not discounting that they existed, were people, and got royally screwed over by Manifest Destiny, it's just that, on a global scale, their biggest accomplishment was based on who conquered them.

BUT... they fill a nice hole on the map, they DO have some neat recorded cultural identities that make them fun to speculate on, and they've been included not only in Civ games, but in many period-appropriate RTS and strategy games for the entirety of video gaming.

Personally I liked when the barbarians were wild animals (Civ IV). Provided the same gameplay deterrent, but wasn't offensive to anybody. I think City States capture the feel you're talking about. Minor nations with less global influence, but still a lengthy history, artifacts and an impact.

I'm starting to think civ VII is going to have to radically change up the formula. Eurekas are a good move in the right direction, but the linear tech/civic trees make inclusion difficult for certain nations/cultures/civs. They seem to be aiming for diversity and inclusion these days, so it may be time for a rethink of some core mechanics. It's pretty common to see Industrial era civs with Ancient era powers at the moment. That isn't a commentary on that civilization, more the game's mechanisms and how specifically they tie themselves to European advancement.

 

[Duuk]

China's impact on the "world" also goes back a long, long way. China was known during the Roman Empire and has been relevant, even if not "powerful", the entire time. So not a great comparison.

A better comparison would be the Minoans or Etruscans, who existed, had a basic civilization, and were conquered/assimilated before we knew much about them.

 

[Guandao]

China's impact on the "world" also goes back a long, long way. China was known during the Roman Empire and has been relevant, even if not "powerful", the entire time. So not a great comparison.

A better comparison would be the Minoans or Etruscans, who existed, had a basic civilization, and were conquered/assimilated before we knew much about them.

China hasn't impacted the world in the same way as America, England, or Spain did. Maybe influenced the world in some aspects, like God of Kings brought up below.

 

[God of Kings]

China's impact on the "world" also goes back a long, long way. China was known during the Roman Empire and has been relevant, even if not "powerful", the entire time. So not a great comparison.

A better comparison would be the Minoans or Etruscans, who existed, had a basic civilization, and were conquered/assimilated before we knew much about them.

If it weren't for the Chinese, how do we get wood-based paper (and by extension, banknotes), a functioning compass, gunpowder, or the printing press? See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Great_Inventions

 

[Wingednosering]

Not the purpose of the thread, but personally to me 'civilization' is about survival against overwhelming odds. The fact that humans have come this far is nothing short of amazing when any one of us could still step outside our home towns and die of exposure in days.

To me, duration of the people is a big part of that definition. The Native Americans have tremendous respect from me. They had some pretty difficult environments to survive in without many domesticated animals and still lasted thousands of years.

China is the longest lasting civilization in history. That's worth a lot to me.

It's part of why I don't love the Aztecs or modern nation depictions. Australia, Aztecs, America and Brazil are all so young (or died out so quickly) that it's unclear how 'successful' they'll be long-term.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Personally I liked when the barbarians were wild animals (Civ IV). Provided the same gameplay deterrent, but wasn't offensive to anybody. I think City States capture the feel you're talking about. Minor nations with less global influence, but still a lengthy history, artifacts and an impact.

I'm starting to think civ VII is going to have to radically change up the formula. Eurekas are a good move in the right direction, but the linear tech/civic trees make inclusion difficult for certain nations/cultures/civs. They seem to be aiming for diversity and inclusion these days, so it may be time for a rethink of some core mechanics. It's pretty common to see Industrial era civs with Ancient era powers at the moment. That isn't a commentary on that civilization, more the game's mechanisms and how specifically they tie themselves to European advancement.

I thought the wild animals were kind of silly to be honest. I always took the barbs as roving bandits and outsiders.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Not the purpose of the thread, but personally to me 'civilization' is about survival against overwhelming odds. The fact that humans have come this far is nothing short of amazing when any one of us could still step outside our home towns and die of exposure in days.

To me, duration of the people is a big part of that definition. To this effect, the Native Americans have tremendous respect from me. They had some pretty difficult environments to survive in without many domesticated animals and still lasted thousands of years.

China is the longest lasting civilization in history. That's worth a lot to me.

It's part of why I don't love the Aztecs or modern nation depictions. Australia, Aztecs, America and Brazil are all so young that it's unclear how 'successful' they'll be long-term.

America was the first/only nation to bring a man to the moon and the first/only to explode a nuclear weapon in wartime. I think they've already made their spot in history books.

 

[Guandao]

Not the purpose of the thread, but personally to me 'civilization' is about survival against overwhelming odds. The fact that humans have come this far is nothing short of amazing when any one of us could still step outside our home towns and die of exposure in days.

To me, duration of the people is a big part of that definition. To this effect, the Native Americans have tremendous respect from me. They had some pretty difficult environments to survive in without many domesticated animals and still lasted thousands of years.

China is the longest lasting civilization in history. That's worth a lot to me.

It's part of why I don't love the Aztecs or modern nation depictions. Australia, Aztecs, America and Brazil are all so young that it's unclear how 'successful' they'll be long-term.

Why the Aztecs? Seems like a strange choice, they at least existed before Australia, America, and Brazil. One can even say their culture has survived to this day. Nahuatl is still spoken in Mexico by a decent (but probably decreasing) number of people.

 

[Wingednosering]

Why the Aztecs? Seems like a strange choice, they at least existed before Australia, America, and Brazil. One can even say their culture has survived to this day. Nahuatl is still spoken in Mexico by a decent (but probably decreasing) number of people.

Technically they lasted 150 years as an empire. This was because of the Spanish rather than a natural decline, but still...

 

[DWilson]

Meanwhile the Inka are certainly worth inclusion, despite a very brief existence. Additionally, we don't know much about some Native North American cultures. What we know is when the Spanish first arrived, they reported a fair bit of populated areas, had brief introductions, and lost some pigs. Then a hundred years passed, several plagues struck back to back or simultaneously against a fairly homogeneous set of immune systems, and when Europeans next explored they found almost none of those populated areas. The lost knowledge of these peoples (who they were, what they knew, etc). severely hampers our ability to depict people from North America.

Meanwhile, if we want to talk about lasting impact, evidence suggests that much of the Amazon and the Great Plains may have been influenced by human efforts (spreading of the particularly fertile soils allowing the rain-forest to grow, control of the spread of the forests to maintain extensive graze lands for particular species of prey).

 

[Vahnstad]

Aztecs are a no-brainer imo and also a civ mascotte. The same does apply for the Maya's and the Inca. I think those three civilizations are all known more in Europe than all native American civs tbh. I remember we had to dress as Aztecs once at school for carnaval.

 

[Phrozen]

Meanwhile the Inka are certainly worth inclusion, despite a very brief existence. Additionally, we don't know much about some Native North American cultures. What we know is when the Spanish first arrived, they reported a fair bit of populated areas, had brief introductions, and lost some pigs. Then a hundred years passed, several plagues struck back to back or simultaneously against a fairly homogeneous set of immune systems, and when Europeans next explored they found almost none of those populated areas. The lost knowledge of these peoples (who they were, what they knew, etc). severely hampers our ability to depict people from North America.

Meanwhile, if we want to talk about lasting impact, evidence suggests that much of the Amazon and the Great Plains may have been influenced by human efforts (spreading of the particularly fertile soils allowing the rain-forest to grow, control of the spread of the forests to maintain extensive graze lands for particular species of prey).

It is actually the opposite. Usually rainforests and forests grow in rather poorer soil, hence the ubiquitous use of slash and burn farming in such areas to restore nutrients to the soil. Trees having a deep root system let them gather more nutrients from soil but they are slow growing in comparison but not needing as much nutrients as other plants. Plains have rather good soil. In good soil a fast growing, shallow rooted but nutrient intensive grasses and scrub plants out compete the much slower growing trees.

 

[Wingednosering]

I would argue that the Inca were about 1197 - 1572. Much longer. The maya were also longer. I agree that the Aztec and Maya are probably the most well known Native American civilizations.

 

[Phoenix1595]

Oh dear, the perennial debate on what constitutes a civilization. At the end of the day, this is a game, and I have always applauded Firaxis for introducing new cultures to the game, both on an entertainment and educational level. I trust Ed and the other designers on whom they deem to be a "civilization."

 

[Guandao]

To change the topic, given that Ed Beach has a strong interest in Renaissance Europe, is some form of Italy likely to make it as a Civ in this expansion?

 

[DWilson]

It is actually the opposite. Usually rainforests and forests grow in rather poorer soil, hence the ubiquitous use of slash and burn farming in such areas to restore nutrients to the soil. Trees having a deep root system let them gather more nutrients from soil but they are slow growing in comparison but not needing as much nutrients as other plants. Plains have rather good soil. In good soil a fast growing, shallow rooted but nutrient intensive grasses and scrub plants out compete the much slower growing trees.

Perhaps I am mis-remembering, but I recall some notion that the plains v. forests were heavily influenced by the natives in North America; while the Amazon growth was promoted to areas it might not have covered otherwise. That said, I surely haven't done enough research to give specific details.

 

[Phoenix1595]

To change the topic, given that Ed Beach has a strong interest in Renaissance Europe, is some form of Italy likely to make it as a Civ in this expansion?

I say yes, but I get outvoted by many here. I agree it is a hard task to create a civ that represents either a beefed-up city-state a la Venice, or a multi-state existing in an specific time period without creating a "blob" civ, like the hideously offensive Native American civ from way back, but I think the evidence is clear that the Italian Renaissance will be represented in some way.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I would argue that the Inca were about 1197 - 1572. Much longer. The maya were also longer. I agree that the Aztec and Maya are probably the most well known Native American civilizations.

Not to mention that the Inca were closer to Europeans technologically than any other culture in the New World. Nearly all the New World could cold-work copper. The Mesoamericans could work gold and silver. But the Inca were able to smelt bronze.

 

[DWilson]

I say yes, but I get outvoted by many here. I agree it is a hard task to create a civ that represents either a beefed-up city-state a la Venice, or a multi-state existing in an specific time period without creating a "blob" civ, like the hideously offensive Native American civ from way back, but I think the evidence is clear that the Italian Renaissance will be represented in some way.

While generally agreeing with you, I want to state that a blob-Italy civ (representative of the mildly diverse Italian culture) is far more reflective of real life than a blob-native american civ, a blob-celtic civ, etc.

 

[Ondolindë]

My two cents on the previous subject and I do agree with @Phoenix1595 that this is something that has been: .

According to the dictionary, civilization is defined as the stage of human social development and organization that is considered most advanced (i.e. they equated the railroad with progress and civilization.)
• the process by which a society or place reaches an advanced stage of social development and organization.
• the society, culture, and way of life of a particular area: the great books of Western civilization | the early civilizations of Mesopotamia and Egypt.
• the comfort and convenience of modern life, regarded as available only in towns and cities: the fur traders moved further and further from civilization.

So using the most broad part of the definition: any society, culture and way of life of a particular area, that is considered a civilization.

I think where we get conflicted here is that we have preferences based on what we consider ideal and this is a place no one will ever win, if winning is your purpose, simply because preferences are biased and include whether we think the lifespan of such civilization is optimal, or its accomplishments, impact or notoriety and knowledge of it around the world. The franchise has opened its doors to civilizations that are not as popular which I think is a great thing. They are indeed civilizations in their own right, period.