1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Change Vikings to Danes

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Rhye's and Fall of Civilization' started by lumpthing, Oct 8, 2009.

  1. lumpthing

    lumpthing generic lump

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Messages:
    781
    Location:
    Lumpinium, England
    Just read a really excellent post arguing that the Vikings should be renamed the Danes. It totally convinced me and I think the same should be done in RFC.

    The article's key arguments:
    Spoiler :
    And my own pro-Dane argument:
    Spoiler :
    For me, it's more immersive to be dealing with civs that have the names of real historical countries, not amorphous regional blocs like 'Scandinavians' or 'Norse' (terms that were never historically used to describe a single power, which is what civs, in the game, are)
    I think the case for renaming the Vikings the Danes is overwhelming. I would suggest that the Viking-replacement civ start with one settler in Denmark and one or two on the Scandinavian mainland. I hate the way that in RFC the centre of Scandinavian power, right into the modern age, is in the distant north-west.

    ----------------------------

    THE VOTE

    We're now holding a vote on this issue, in the hope of delivering a coherent statement of our opinions to our god Rhye

    Voting instructions:
    Spoiler :
    Please answer the following questions, preferably stating 2nd and 3rd preferences (this will have an effect when the votes are tallied up):

    What should the 'Viking' civ in RFC be called?
    Example answer:
    1st choice: Danes
    2nd choice: Scandinavians
    3rd choice: Norse
    4th choice: Vikings


    Where should the 'Viking' capital be on the RFC map?
    Example answer:
    1st choice: Copenhagen, but with additional settlers on southern Scandinavian peninsula (maybe appearing a turn later (same time as workers) to ensure they don't build a capital there)
    2nd choice: Stockholm
    3rd choice: Oslo


    Bear in mind that there is no chance of RFC splitting the 'Viking' civ into multiple smaller civs, so there is no chance of distinct Danish/Norwegian/Swedish/Finnish civs.

    -----------------------------------

    LATEST VOTING RESULTS

    Current vote leaders: (last post checked: #126)
    • Norse (7 of 14 votes)
    • Copenhagen (11 of 14 votes) (but with additional settlers on southern Scandinavian peninsula (maybe appearing a turn later (same time as workers) to ensure they don't build a capital there)

    Individual votes:
    Spoiler :
    lumpthing
    danes, scandinavians, norse
    copenhagen, stockholm, oslo

    blizzrd
    norse, scandinavians
    copenhagen, anything but nidaros

    BurnEmDown
    danes
    copenhagen, oslo

    Whaleyland
    danes
    copenhagen [im assuming – lumpthing]

    RobinHat
    danes, scandinavians, vikings, norse
    copenhagen, oslo, tronheim

    TDK
    nordboerne, norsemen, norse, scandinavians, danes
    copenhagen, scania (lund or trelleborg), ribe

    ICNP
    scandinavians
    scania

    Grey Fox
    norse/nordic people, vikings
    copenhagen

    Etienne
    norse, vikings, scandinavians, danes
    oslo, stockholm, copenhagen

    Science Rules
    norse
    copenhagen

    Ekolite
    Swedish
    Stockholm

    Magma
    no civ-name preference
    copenhagen

    Cosmos1985
    scandinavians, vikings, norse
    galleys, copenhagen, stockholm,

    Magnificent_One
    kalmar union, norway (or sweden??)

    Positronic
    norse
    copenhagen


    Detailed results for civ-renaming vote
    Spoiler :
    First Round:
    Danes 4
    Norse 6
    Scandinavians 2
    Swedes 1
    Kalmar Union 1

    Second Round:
    Danes 5
    Norse 7

    Detailed results for capital-relocation vote
    Spoiler :
    First Round:
    Copenhagen 11
    Stockholm 1
    Scania 1
    Oslo 1

    No second round, because Copenhagen vote is overwhelming
     
  2. scu98rkr

    scu98rkr Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2004
    Messages:
    463
    I agree ! and the Romans should should be renamed the Italians. :)

    Also they should there should be some real Danish/Norwegian/Swedish leaders.

    I mean cnut really really should be in there. He was a very powerful leader and proved to be a right **** to the english.
     
  3. blizzrd

    blizzrd Micromanager

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    3,738
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    I prefer Norsemen to either Vikings or Danes. The term Viking only became widely used from around the 1800s anyway, nobody called the people from Scandinavia "Vikings" until about this time.
     
  4. RobinHat

    RobinHat Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    150
    Location:
    Nowhere to be found
    If you read the article, you will see why Norsemen is just as wrong.
     
  5. lumpthing

    lumpthing generic lump

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Messages:
    781
    Location:
    Lumpinium, England
    The article also put forward some strong arguments against the terms "Scandinavians" and "Norsemen".

     
  6. TDK

    TDK Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,229
    Location:
    Denmark
    I, myself a Dane, agree that the vikings are probably the most un-historical civ in Rhye's.

    I am leaning towards:
    a) either removing the "Vikings" all together because of low impact on history, or

    b) calling them Norsemen(or just Norse), and let the dynamic names shift from Denmark to Kalmar Union to Sweden. If people like this I would be wiling to help out with the dynamic names.

    I don't like just calling them Denmark, because it wouln't reflect the shift in power towards Sweden in the later periods.
     
  7. RobinHat

    RobinHat Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    150
    Location:
    Nowhere to be found
    The problem is, that Denmark and Sweden are a combined Civ in the game. They should really be two seperate Civs to begin with. Denmark was the dominant power in the Viking Age and Sweden was the dominant power in the 15th, 16th and 17th Centuries, but at no point AT ALL throughout history have the two nations been combined in one single nation.

    And no, Kalmar Union does not count. This was not a single nation, but rather a mutual protection pact and economic union between Denmark/Norway and Sweden. The Swedes hated it and eventually left because it was effectively ruled from Copenhagen - which was unacceptable to the Swedes.

    Having the two together in a joint 'Viking' civilization is simply lazy.
     
  8. Heathcliff

    Heathcliff Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    250
    Location:
    Sweden
    I agree to change the name after maybe 1200-1300 AD.

    I'm not totally convinced that it should be namned Denmark instead of Sweden. Due to Sweden's larger georgaphical area, you can only fit one city in Denmark but several in Sweden.

    I agree that the scandinavians center of power should be along the triangle Stockholm, Copenhagen, Oslo. It's unhistorical to have the most cities in the north as it's too cold there. The terrain on the map is too good there too.

    For gameplay purposes having Copenhagen as capital, might not be the best as it's culture there competes heavily with German and Dutch culture and might even flip to germany.

    You mentioned Lund in the article. Maybe that could be the capital and the settlers move north after that, only problem is that Lund square is occupied with pigs I think. Or everyone could start in Stockholm and first two settlers walk to Oslo and Lund. I think there is such a mod already.

    Probably danes, swedes and norweigans cannot agree which name for the civilization. And you gave reasons against the name Scandinavia.

    Maybe could use the name scandinavians call their area themselves: "Nordic" "Nordic people".
    However that area includes Finland and Iceland, but those are often settled in the game.
     
  9. Heathcliff

    Heathcliff Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    250
    Location:
    Sweden
    I thought Sweden and Denmark was the same country 1520-1523. But sure it is only 3 years out of 1400 they are in the game.
     
  10. TDK

    TDK Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,229
    Location:
    Denmark
    There's only room for a certain amount of civs in the engine, so 2 norse civs in the game is a no-go, so it's either we come up with a common name, or we remove them altogether. I agree that the present name "Viking" is a bad one.

    The sub-categories of names in the Dynamic name files can be discussed. There are many other categories like "kalmar union" among other civs; like greek league etc..

    Why not, I am danish and I just argued against using Denmark.
     
  11. mitsho

    mitsho Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Messages:
    7,799
    Location:
    Europe, more or less
    I am in favour of this change.

    And why not just do it in a modmod. Then one could compile all these different small modmods if possible into an "alternative RFC" ;-) (and no go, do it ;-))
     
  12. Lone Wolf

    Lone Wolf Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    9,907
    It can be increased, see all these Earth34's/48's.

    While thinking that Scandinavian countries combined deserve RFC representation, I don't think that they do individually, so I think that the name "Nordic" is the best.
     
  13. scu98rkr

    scu98rkr Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2004
    Messages:
    463
    I have suggested this idea in the Italy thread and think this would benefit several civilizations the dynamic naming system could be linked to the calendar or the number of respawns.

    After thinking about it for a while this might actually make the most sense, although I'd be sad to the "vikings" go. To stop the german/english expanding too much into this region the simple answer would be made the conditions there worse ie add more peaks/tundra.
     
  14. lumpthing

    lumpthing generic lump

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Messages:
    781
    Location:
    Lumpinium, England
    For historical accuracy there should of course be two civs: Denmark and Sweden. But that would be a bad idea in RFC of course: no room for more civs and there's other more important civs than Sweden anyway.

    So the question is whether a historically inappropriate, unflavorsome amalgamation (Vikings/Norsemen/Scandinavians) is better than a historically accurate, flavorsome term like the Danes, even though it includes Sweden.

    I would much prefer Danes - I would just imagine that Sweden falls under Danish influence every RFC game. If people can tolerate Scotland+England being called England, Germany+Austria (and Poland and others?) being called Germany, Netherlands+Belgium being called the Netherlands, Cambodia+entirity of South-East Asia being the "Khmer" and many similar situations, I don't see why Denmark for Denmark+Sweden should be so hard to swallow. Or would it be better to have the "Central-Northern European civ" and the "South-East Asian" civ?
     
  15. RobinHat

    RobinHat Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    150
    Location:
    Nowhere to be found
    It's actually quite tricky, because the history of rivalry beween the two nations is such that throwing them together in one civ under any name would p*ss someone off...

    I know that the Swedes would be insulted if they were thrown into a 'Danish' civ, as well as I know any Dane would be insulted to be thrown into a 'Swedish' civ.

    Ideally, the only possible solutions I see are the following:

    1) Making two seperate Civs: The Danish Civilization and the Swedish Civilization (Of course, this presents the problem of Northern Europe being even more crowded than it already is).

    2) Making one Civ: The Danish Civ (However, this would present a historical hole in the 15th-16th Centuries, and would effectively mean that Sweden never existed).

    3) Making one Civ: The Swedish Civ (Again, this would effectively mean that the world's oldest kingdom, Denmark, never existed - and that the Viking power was based in Sweden, which is completely wrong).

    4) Leaving things as they are, and calling it the 'Viking', 'Norse' or 'Scandinavian' Civ (which, as I believe we all now are aware, all are completely stupid and historically wrong names).


    It is very tricky, and definitely up for discussion.

    However, whatever happens, it is definitely time that Ragnar Lodbrok is thrown in the trash, as there is not even any solid historical proof that he even existed.
    And for the love of all that is holy... GET RID OF THOSE HORNS ON THE HELMET!!!
     
  16. scu98rkr

    scu98rkr Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2004
    Messages:
    463
    This is why linking the dynamic naming system to dates would be a great idea.

    Although in fairness I think for some instance Rhye is trying to suggest the CIV collapsed in Read life.

    For instance do the khmer just represent the khmer of all south east asia.
    In real life the Khmer were collapsed by the Thai in 1431. If you manage to get the khmer to survie beyound 1431 then are you doing better than the real khmer empire ?

    Im not sure what this is meant to represent.
     
  17. TDK

    TDK Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,229
    Location:
    Denmark
    Not if we find a common name like Viking or Norsemen. The rivalry between the nations could not have started before the nation-states appeared, which was early 19th century. Of course before that there was power-struggles between powerful familis and interests, but not between two nations as such.
    I think in game terms, and taking into account the starting year, I would say it's one civilization.

    I'm not so sure, after all, isn't it normal for people to just call themselves "we" or just name themselves after close social relations like tribes or families?
    I mean how many names of civs in this game is really just the colonial names by european powers?

    If people on the recieving end called them Norse or Norsemen from the Iron Age on, that is a good enough expression for me.

    Yes!
     
  18. Panopticon

    Panopticon Utilitarian

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    1,454
    Location:
    Ireland
    Yeah, swap the Ragnar leaderhead with Harald, who is somewhere in the database.
     
  19. RobinHat

    RobinHat Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    150
    Location:
    Nowhere to be found
    I hope you don't mean the Harald Harderaade leaderhead with that god-awful wolfskin on his head... That is the single most inaccurate leaderhead in the entire Civ community.
     
  20. Panopticon

    Panopticon Utilitarian

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    1,454
    Location:
    Ireland
    Ha. Yes.

    On a more serious note, RFC Europe uses Gustaf II Adolf, and I'm sure there is a Danish leader somewhere.
     

Share This Page