Charlemagne

[TyrannusRex]

Yes, but the TSL people will still throw a fit about it, even though Constantinople/Kostatiniyye isn't even the only city that's present in multiple places in Civ6. I mean, Aleppo is on Arabia's list twice.

I don't find it on there twice?

 

[Zaarin]

I don't find it on there twice?

Aleppo is Anglicized; Ḥalab is Arabic. Both are different names for the same city.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Personally, I mostly believe that civ's derived European colonial constructs should not, inherently, be in the game (I had a proposal of a revolution/independence war/commonwealth system for far-flung,multi-continental in a given game, regardless of who that civ is). And I have always been for dethroning Gandhi and having multiple Indian civ's (China may not be necessary or desirable to break up - especially given its own history and self-concept). I agree that other parts of the world need to be filled out (I've made quite a few suggestions, myself), though quite a few ideas proposed have been dubious, lacking attestation, and/or possibly highly mythologized, though there have been some very good ones, too. However, when labels like, "Eurocentric," are brought in such an arbitrary way, that begins to politicize the intent of the game. In the modern zeitgeist, I try to remain neutral and pragmatic in the so-called, "Culture War," and terms like that - or their counterparts - pollute a game like this with that sort of clamour.

A more detailed colonial system would be nice to be implemented, included revolution events. But that would not replace the need for a full design of civs like America or Brazil. Yourself have said that a CIV game without Greece or Byzantium would be badly received, we can be sure that a CIV game without post-colonial civs would be also greatly criticized.

 

[Henri Christophe]

would you erect a unique new civ for him or give him dual leadership

I don't think is possible a new civ in civ6, so if we should pick Charlemagne he should be leader at least of the France, but I will be cool if he leads also Germany.

On the other hand, while the inclusion of the Franks could be interesting, their inclusion could be interpreted as blatant Eurocentrism

That is a fair point, we already have a great overrepresentation of european history and I don't think is needed more representation in civ6.
Maybe Charlermagne can appear in civ7 leading the Frankish civ and don't having modern nations as France or Germany. I mean, replacing they.
But I don't want a game without any modern nation, I still want to see Haiti or Yugoslavia in the game.

I'm also less of a supporter of arbitrary and artificial continental civ quotas

I'm all in favor of Quotas, I think we should share the world in 4 corners, América, África, Ásia and Europe. And each of theses corners should have just 1/4 of civilizations.

 

[Patine]

I'm all in favor of Quotas, I think we should share the world in 4 corners, América, África, Ásia and Europe. And each of theses corners should have just 1/4 of civilizations.

Arbitrary and artificial quotas and caps by continent are completely the wrong way to approach such a thing.

And, on another note, using terms such as, "Eurocentric," and, "Han Propaganda," in such a way, makes one wonder. Where do you think the great majority of Civ players come from?

 

[Henri Christophe]

"Han Propaganda,"

I never said nothing about "Han Propaganda". ... Are you speaking about Chinese? Just one civ to they!

Where do you think the great majority of Civ players come from?

I guess the majority of the players are from Americas... If we follow this logic should have more American civs as Europeans.
But I'm not African and like to play with Africans civs, I don't think is right the correlaction we need civs for the nations who play the game, I don't will mind if Brazil don't come in civ 7 (if other modern nations also don't appear, as USA).

But I really have the desire to see more Africans in the game, for example, and I think the overrepresentation of Europeans don't help on it.

 

[Patine]

I never said nothing about "Han Propaganda". ... Are you speaking about Chinese? Just one civ to they!


I guess the majority of the players are from Americas... If we follow this logic should have more American civs as Europeans.
But I'm not African and like to play with Africans civs, I don't think is right the correlaction we need civs for the nations who play the game, I don't will mind if Brazil don't come in civ 7 (if other modern nations also don't appear, as USA).

But I really have the desire to see more Africans in the game, for example, and I think the overrepresentation of Europeans don't help on it.

I'll tell you what won't help. Arbitrary, artificial, politicized, and unnecessarily-labelled civ choices, of any sort. "Eurocentric," "Han Propaganda," (which someone else used, not you, but I use it as an example), or even, "stone age barbaric tribes praised as Noble Savages," (to use terminology we've heard recently here relatively recently, as a counterpoint, but just as much fitting what I'm saying), are terms and concepts we DO NOT NEED in the choice of civ's in a Civ Game iteration, and the attitude behind any such terms is only harmful. The choice of civ's should be organic and sensible, not a forced political agenda or compromise.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't think is possible a new civ in civ6, so if we should pick Charlemagne he should be leader at least of the France, but I will be cool if he leads also Germany.

Considering his capital would probably be Aachen, and that's already the capital of Germany, he should at least lead Germany.

I'm all in favor of Quotas, I think we should share the world in 4 corners, América, África, Ásia and Europe. And each of theses corners should have just 1/4 of civilizations.

Oceania exists too.

 

[Zaarin]

Considering his capital would probably be Aachen, and that's already the capital of Germany, he should at least lead Germany.

Strictly speaking his capital would be Aix-la-Chapelle. Strictly speaking, Aachen is Aix-la-Chapelle. So we have a Constantinople/Kostantiniyye situation. (Which, of course, is what Suleiman's capital should be called. Istanbul was just a nickname until Ataturk came along with his utter loathing for all things Ottoman. But I digress.) At any rate, I don't think either Germany or France has a better claim on Charlemagne than the other. Culturally, the French more directly developed from the Frankish culture, but the Germans were more successful at maintaining his political institutions.

Charlemagne really is best suited for his own Frankish civ--which, granted, could be a very interesting culture/religion civ. They have a prime candidate for a unique improvement in the Abbey--perhaps something like this: Must be built adjacent to any district; gives a minor adjacency bonus to Theatre Squares and Holy Sites; grants +1 Faith, +1 Culture, +1 Science; each adjacent Holy Site grants +2 Faith; each adjacent plantation, farm, and City Center grants +1 Gold; each adjacent Theater Square grants +1 Culture, +1 Science; each adjacent Wonder grants +2 Culture, +1 Gold; grants Tourism equal to Culture after Flight; limited to 1 per city. Probably needs some balancing, but the idea is to build cities clustered around Abbeys, similar to Nubia's pyramids. For a unique unit, the Paladin replacing the Man-at-Arms is a little too obvious but would earn pop culture points I guess. The really question is do we really need Francia alongside France? While probably more interesting than Macedon, the answer is probably not.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Strictly speaking his capital would be Aix-la-Chapelle. Strictly speaking, Aachen is Aix-la-Chapelle. So we have a Constantinople/Kostantiniyye situation. (Which, of course, is what Suleiman's capital should be called. Istanbul was just a nickname until Ataturk came along with his utter loathing for all things Ottoman. But I digress.) At any rate, I don't think either Germany or France has a better claim on Charlemagne than the other. Culturally, the French more directly developed from the Frankish culture, but the Germans were more successful at maintaining his political institutions.

Aix-la-Chapelle can be his French capital, while Aachen can be his German one.

For a unique unit, the Paladin replacing the Man-at-Arms is a little too obvious but would earn pop culture points I guess.

I've been waiting for a UU that could create a Great Work when promoted and are destroyed. That could work for them or if the French get the Musketeer again.

The really question is do we really need Francia alongside France? While probably more interesting than Macedon, the answer is probably not.

I wouldn't mind it if we reached about 60 civs and we got all the prominent Europeans out of the way, for Civ 7.

 

[Zaarin]

I wouldn't mind it if we reached about 60 civs and we got all the prominent Europeans out of the way, for Civ 7.

Like I said, I think it would be a fascinating civ, both from a historical and gameplay perspective, and it's definitely the best way to incorporate Charlemagne--it just doesn't seem like a very high priority to me.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Oceania exists too.

For oceania I have 2 solutions, or it have one extra spot outside of quotes. Or Oceanian's civs enter in the game in the Asiatic quota.

Constantinople/Kostantiniyye

I didn't know that, that is the why I like this forum, I'm ever learning something...
Once I read Istanbul just means "the city" in Turkish.

The really question is do we really need Francia alongside France?

Of course not, I think Charlermagne's Frankish kingdom should replace France, but the Germans still can appear as Prussia under the Frederick the Great.

I wouldn't mind it if we reached about 60 civs and we got all the prominent Europeans out of the way, for Civ 7.

I agree with you, I would like to see Civ7 without theses strong powerhouse as USA, France, Russia and etc... And have more civs who was never in game before.

 

[Patine]

For oceania I have 2 solutions, or it have one extra spot outside of quotes. Or Oceanian's civs enter in the game in the Asiatic quota.

Are you still contemplating ways to manage politicized continental quotas that would destroy the credibility and appeal of the whole game for no real or appreciable gain? Can't you grasp how bad of an idea this is, and not instead hammer on about it endlessly?

 

[Zaarin]

Once I read Istanbul just means "the city" in Turkish.

The Turkish adaptation of the Greek phrase meaning "the city," actually.

 

[Henri Christophe]

quotas that would destroy the credibility

I don't think so, quotas don't destroy any credibility, by oposite of that, a quota system should make this game more fair.
By the way, I enter in the university by quota. And I'm also all in favor of social quotas too.

 

[Patine]

I don't think so, quotas don't destroy any credibility, by oposite of that, a quota system should make this game more fair.
By the way, I enter in the university by quota. And I'm also all in favor of social quotas too.

No. Artificial quotas and caps of civ's by continent in a game called, "Civilization," is the height of ludicrous, and conspicuously politicized, and WOULD destroy the game's integrity, and WOULD NOT have any appreciable gain or value. It would inherently present a wonky, and, unavoidably, revisionist view of history no matter how you spin it.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Of course not, I think Charlermagne's Frankish kingdom should replace France, but the Germans still can appear as Prussia under the Frederick the Great.

France isn't going to go away at all. I'd just see Charlemagne lead France if that were to happen. I mean we did get Catherine de Medici and Eleanor of Aquitaine leading France this iteration so who knows?

I agree with you, I would like to see Civ7 without theses strong powerhouse as USA, France, Russia and etc... And have more civs who was never in game before.

I think you misunderstood me. I meant I'd take a Frankish civ with Charlemagne as one of the last (European) civs we'd get. I mean I'd rather the important ones such as the Greeks, Rome, France, Germany, Russia, England, Spain, the Dutch etc. first.

 

[BuchiTaton]

No. Artificial quotas and caps of civ's by continent in a game called, "Civilization," is the height of ludicrous, and conspicuously politicized, and WOULD destroy the game's integrity, and WOULD NOT have any appreciable gain or value. It would inherently present a wonky, and, unavoidably, revisionist view of history no matter how you spin it.

So when a criterion turn into an "artificial quota"?
- Zulu an interesting but far from be the most significative Sub-Saharan culture.
- Sioux and all the interchangeable NA native civs after them.
- The Polynesian, Central Asian, SEA, Celtic, Post-Colonial, etc. Slots.
CIV is already doing the "representation quota" since its start.

A game called "Civilization" full of all those famous names we see in books and documentals about civilizations like the Scotish "civilization", Cree "civilization" and Australian "civilization". Those are nations, cultures, another parts of a bigger proper civilization. Those are already in-game by terms of "quotas" for representation and/or market appealing. Certainly have the same amount of civs for Oceania than any other continent would be forced, but a lot of suggestion for X or Y civ are partially justified as the "representation" of something/somewhere, and since the number of slot is limited some form of regional planning is useful.

For example, A:"I would like to have a civ from the Magreb" B: "Too bad beacuse Franks civs is so special and unique neither France or Germany would never represent them, so the slot is for Franks"
Because this Dihya leading the Berber civ would end competing for a slot not just againts others North African "representatives" but also againts the minor/irregular European options.

Policing "bad words" like Eurocentrism would not stop people questioning about the 19th, 20th, 21th christian european civ over any other more unique option.

 

[Patine]

So when a criterion turn into an "artificial quota"?
- Zulu an interesting but far from be the most significative Sub-Saharan culture.
- Sioux and all the interchangeable NA native civs after them.
- The Polynesian, Central Asian, SEA, Celtic, Post-Colonial, etc. Slots.
CIV is already doing the "representation quota" since its start.

A game called "Civilization" full of all those famous names we see in books and documentals about civilizations like the Scotish "civilization", Cree "civilization" and Australian "civilization". Those are nations, cultures, another parts of a bigger proper civilization. Those are already in-game by terms of "quotas" for representation and/or market appealing. Certainly have the same amount of civs for Oceania than any other continent would be forced, but a lot of suggestion for X or Y civ are partially justified as the "representation" of something/somewhere, and since the number of slot is limited some form of regional planning is useful.

For example, A:"I would like to have a civ from the Magreb" B: "Too bad beacuse Franks civs is so special and unique neither France or Germany would never represent them, so the slot is for Franks"
Because this Dihya leading the Berber civ would end competing for a slot not just againts others North African "representatives" but also againts the minor/irregular European options.

Policing "bad words" like Eurocentrism would not stop people questioning about the 19th, 20th, 21th christian european civ over any other more unique option.

I think you're putting words and intents in my mouth, especially on the specifics.

 

[Evie]

Civilization is, and has always been an entirely althistorical game, where even on TSL the game is *never* meant to follow the course of history, where the civilizations are what you build over the course of the game, not what you are at the start of the game - the "civilization" you pick at the start of the game is merely flavor and familiarity to serve as a starting point for the civilization you intend to build.

The idea that we should limit who's playable based on who did or did not achieve certain anthropological benchmark, or that we should exclude tribal people or nomadic people, is in that light wholly and entirely unnecessary, because there's no reasonable non-bigoted argument why a "What if the Sioux developed an urban civilization" is inherently impossible. As a matter of fact, in the specific case of the Sioux, given there is not insignificant evidence that many of the Siouan languages can be linked to the Northern Mississippian cities of Ohio and upper Mississippi valleys, it's not only plausible that it could have happened; it's plausible that it did, in fact, happen.

(And that whole disgression with the Mississippian also point out to how much of history remains unknown to us, and how the "tribes" of European colonial thinking may have actually been the urban settled people of another time, so maybe judgemental categorization about "this group was too primitive to be a civilization" should...get lost).