[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Zaarin]

I say I don't like indentify norway to viking , I think norsemen as have been stated is far better

Etymologically they amount to the same. Norse is just Dutch for "people from the north," which is precisely what Norsk means.

about independence .. we have no to discuss things like sovereign and political unions... but the fact that there was independence sentiment in Scotland (and today is still there) and foreign enemies tried to use it .. does mean that Scotland and England were independent states in real terms..

If you mean from the time of the accession of James VI and I, sure, but in the Middle Ages, at the time of Robert the Bruce, Scotland was absolutely independent from England, and hostile or at least unfriendly towards England more often than not. Up until the High Middle Ages, when the Normans moved in, Scotland was far more closely linked with Ireland than England. That's not to say that Civ6's design that strangely leans heavily on British Scotland doesn't feel terribly out of place, but Scotland absolutely was a completely independent commonwealth ("state" is a misleading term for the Middle Ages or Early Modern period) until James I and VI succeeded to the throne of England upon the death of Elizabeth I, nor were Anglo-Scottish relations particularly cozy even then. I'm not thrilled that they chose Scotland--its design is more British than Norman and more Norman than Celtic, making it a dubious choice for what they clearly hoped would be a "Celtic" civ--Ireland or Gaul would have been much better choices in that regard--but they certainly could have given Scotland a design more in line with what they were aiming for*.

*More or less, at least. The Gaels were always marginalized in Scotland, which means that Scotland was never going to be the ideal choice for a more specific Celtic civ.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Sorry but this is just historical ignorance.

Not that I'm for a Slavic blob civ either, but I'm just pointing it out that it's definitely not as absurd as even a Native American blob. I mean Yugoslavia even existed.
Of course my initial point was that they did all embrace Communism thanks to the influence of the Soviet Union which is factual and all of them were considered satellite states.

Kalmar Union is meh for me, I prefer that they continue to represent Scandinavia with Protestant Sweden and a Viking nation that may be either Denmark or Norway.

For Vikings, how about a civilization called "Nordics" with two leaders, a Norwegian Viking leader and a Danish Viking leader?

I wouldn't mind a Margaret lead Denmark, but I don't know if I'd rather that take the place of non-Viking Sweden. Similarly I'm not totally onboard with "viking" Iceland and would rather either Norway or Denmark stay that.

hehe that would’ve been funny

Native Americans Civ 6 (tribute to the blob fans):

Leader: Lautaro: Gains access to the Eagle Warrior UU.

UU: Chinook Canoe

LUU: Eagle Warriors

CA: Iroquois Confederacy

Not a true Native American blob unless there is a horse raider unit involved.

 

[8housesofelixir]

about independence .. we have no to discuss things like sovereign and political unions... but the fact that there was independence sentiment in Scotland (and today is still there) and foreign enemies tried to use it .. does mean that Scotland and England were independent states in real terms.. Nor Castile and Aragon were "independent" states until 1707-1716 in which the "Decretos de Nueva Planta" unified the laws and create Spain a single political entity

I generally don't want to join the discussion about "who needs to be represented as a separate civ etc." as it tends to be more and more subjective.

But among all the arguments against a Scotland civ, "they are historically part of UK and not an independent country" is the most head-scratching one I have ever seen.

Edit: In terms of Spain, to my knowledge, before the personal union of Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon in 1469, Castile and Aragon were separated, independent political entities, both de jure and de facto.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I don't expect Denmark in Civ6. Having all three Scandinavian civs in one game would be excessive--even if the other kids are doing it, Ἕλληνες. But I wouldn't mind seeing Late Medieval Denmark instead of Early Modern Sweden next time around, as important as Sweden was.

I don't either. Much as I find it a little weird not to have the Kalmar Union and Margaret in a game like Civ, I am choosing to believe of Norway as representing the stronger core of the broader Denmark-Norway legacy in the same way that Hungary is representing Austria-Hungary, or Scotland is representing the Celts. And, if I am of the opinion that we don't need Austria or Ireland crowding those regions, I should at least be consistent and dismiss Denmark on fairly equal grounds.

Facts are absurd? I just pointed out the historical context. Don’t let your personal experiences color objectivism. You have a certain perspective being polish, but that perspective doesn’t reach other places in the world. While your personal perspective might make you feel as if the slavic cultures are completely unrelated, try to conceive the idea that perhaps, then, that native american cultures are even more varied. Since you’re Polish, you probably don’t exactly have a good idea of how different Native American cultures actually are (most Americans probsbly don’t either), but historical fact doesn’t lie.

As someone who is only a few generations from Polish immigrants, I personally don't find Polish culture worth defending this much. Being Catholic isn't really an identity lol. Although I do like Krupnik and I make a mean bigos stew.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Facts are absurd? I just pointed out the historical context. Don’t let your personal experiences color objectivism. You have a certain perspective being polish, but that perspective doesn’t reach other places in the world. While your personal perspective might make you feel as if the slavic cultures are completely unrelated, try to conceive the idea that perhaps, then, that native american cultures are even more varied. Since you’re Polish, you probably don’t exactly have a good idea of how different Native American cultures actually are (most Americans probsbly don’t either), but historical fact doesn’t lie.

This is my last post about it for real. I can't leave it like that. Thank you for the enlightenment, but imagine, from my narrow polish perspective, I am aware of the diversity of NA native cultures. The problem is we are talking about video game here and to be more precise Civs we want to be in a game. When I said it is not important for me if we have this or another NA Native Civ or is it blob or not doesn't mean my ignorance on this topic but my subjective opinion what Civ I am interested to be included. There is a difference, don't you think? What is absurd here? This kind of argumentation in a subjective discussion on what Civilization people would like to see in a video game. Separate some aspects of history from personal preferences here because this discussion and arguments become ridiculously serious. The fact you would like to see some Civs in a game even if you can rationalize your picks the best way you can don't mean everybody should think your way. And please do not pretend there are some objective criteria behind it. There are only fans with their various expectations from the one side and developers from the other. And as I said only a limited number of free spots to cover.

 

[onepurpose]

I generally don't want to join the discussion about "who needs to be represented as a separate civ etc." as it tends to be more and more subjective.

But among all the arguments against a Scotland civ, "they are historically part of UK and not an independent country" is the most head-scratching one I have ever seen.

And what do you mean by saying "foreign enemies tried to use it"... I think you are getting into the dangerous waters here; this is not a thread for political conspiracy theories.

Edit: In terms of Spain, to my knowledge, before the personal union of Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon in 1469, Castile and Aragon were separated, independent political entities, both de jure and de facto.

I am not saying that Scotland does not deserve to be represented.. I say that in a civ game is a bit odd to have scotland as different civ... and , specially , I don't understand why pretend that Scotland, as is portrayed, representes celt culture (in the most broad sense)

Regarding "foreign enemy" I was responding to previous statement of France being allied to Scotland against England in the one hundred year war.. maybe not the best choice of my words , but my statement is that at least from XV century ahead, Scotland had been tied to England..

About Spain, indeed, before Isabella & Ferdinand marriage (and conquests of Grenada in 1492 and Navarra in 1512) there were separated states, had different interests and were often enemies.. Castile finished Reconquista in the Iberian peninsula (except kingdom of Grenada, from s. XIII a mere vassal to Castile ) and Aragon focus in Mediterranean .. therefore the rivalry to France in Italy... France had been traditional allied to Castile , having aided France in 100 years war (Battle_of_La_Rochelle)... indeed , after the personal union , remained as separated entities for the 250 years .. until the beginning of 18 century.. (for example, America colonization was reserved to Castile).. but it does't mean that Aragon and Castile were true "independent" countries

 

[Zaarin]

I don't understand why pretend that Scotland, as is portrayed, representes celt culture (in the most broad sense)

To be clear, I don't think anyone here is satisfied with its portrayal as a Celtic civilization; however, I think it is very clear that that was Firaxis' intention, misguided though it may be.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I am not saying that Scotland does not deserve to be represented.. I say that in a civ game is a bit odd to have scotland as different civ... and , specially , I don't understand why pretend that Scotland, as is portrayed, representes celt culture (in the most broad sense)

It's honestly no different than the Maori being the sole representative of Polynesian culture in Civ 6.

Either way this discussion is getting nowhere as it's obviously clear that with the introduction of Norway, Scotland, the Cree, and the Maori that we won't see any broadly named civs called Vikings, Celts, Native Americans, or Polynesian in the game.

 

[8housesofelixir]

I am not saying that Scotland does not deserve to be represented.. I say that in a civ game is a bit odd to have scotland as different civ... and , specially , I don't understand why pretend that Scotland, as is portrayed, representes celt culture (in the most broad sense)
about foreign enemy I was responding to previous statement of France being allied to Scotland against England in the one hundred year war.. maybe not the best choice of my words , buy my statement is that at least from XV century ahead, Scotland had been tied to England

My apologies about misread the meaning of your post, I thought you are talking about things other than historical status, my bad. I will edit my post.

In terms of representing Celtic culture, yes, the current Scotland is nowhere near an adequate representation. It's more of a 18th century industrialized Scotland with a 14th century king for the "Brave Scots" flavor.

Although from the perspective of a historical nerd, the Scottish Enlightenment is an important part of human history worth representing.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Civ games in the way they have evolved produce an immense scope for discussion of what Civs to include or exclude or combine, because Civ does not appear to have any hard and fast rules for what constitutes a 'Civ' in the first place, other than what is identifiable to someone and sellable to many:

Nation-State? You'd be hard put to find one before Early Modern Europe, and even then a lot of them are pretty whiffy. And you could also get considerable argument over a definition of a nation state any more.
Culture? Very rarely does Culture include all of a single independent group - for an example already discussed, Scotland has a distinct cultural divide between the Highlands and Lowlands, so that 'Scots Culture' almost always means one or the other (usually the Highlands, which in fact were always the minority group of the two) but rarely (and never to my knowledge in a game) both.
Language? Is close to meaningless as a discriminator. Aside from Dialects (which were once defined by a Pundit as a language without an army or navy) very few 'civilizations' were all one language and only one language, even when otherwise they could be defined geographically and politically - see Switzerland for an extreme example, but by no means the only multi-lingual 'state'. And the larger the 'state', even when it is supposedly culturally singular, the more the language distinctions can be extreme - see India, China, the USA, Russia, Canada - and even geographically smaller states like France and Germany have dialectic differences that are extreme. Again, all examples but by no means unusual ones worldwide.

Then there is what is IMHO the major reason for confusion: the Civ game reduces all Civilizations, no matter how ephemeral or long-lasting, to a single set of 'Unique' attributes and 1 - 2 Leaders. The result is a 'snapshot' of a Civ, which models in most cases only 1 - 2 aspects of the civilization, culture, or nation-state in question.
So, we can argue interminably about what IS a Civ, what Civ is 'needed' in the game, and the Mod Community can keep permanently busy whopping out new Leaders and aspects of Civs. For instance, in addition to our current 2 Teddy's and 2 different distaff French leaders, there are already Modded United States Civs with Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Lincoln as Leaders, and French Mod Civs with Henri IV, Louis IV, Francis I, Charlemagne, Jeanne d'Arc and Clovis. And even then the Mods and the 'official' Civs barely begin to reflect all the possibilities of either the United States nor France. Multiply that by just the 200+ nations in the world today and the possibilities are literally Endless.

Just my two ducats' worth . . .

 

[Zaarin]

Culture? Very rarely does Culture include all of a single independent group - for an example already discussed, Scotland has a distinct cultural divide between the Highlands and Lowlands, so that 'Scots Culture' almost always means one or the other (usually the Highlands, which in fact were always the minority group of the two) but rarely (and never to my knowledge in a game) both.

This is the fascinatingly weird part of Scotland's design: while seemingly intended to be "the Celtic civ," the design revolves around the Anglo-Norman part of Scotland almost exclusively. Even "the Highlander" unit is a British regiment, not a Highland clansman. For being "the Celtic civ," there's virtually nothing Celtic about it, as Gaelic Scotland and Anglo-Norman Scotland have always been at odds with each other (which leaves out the third group: the Norse-Gaels, whose heartland is ironically the modern Gàidhealtachd).

 

[8housesofelixir]

As someone who is only a few generations from Polish immigrants, I personally don't find Polish culture worth defending this much. Being Catholic isn't really an identity lol. Although I do like Krupnik and I make a mean bigos stew.

Religion is historically a deciding factor for marking the boundaries/identities between different ethical groups, or even races (see: the identification of what is "Jewish" and what isn't in Medieval Europe and even in Nazi Germany). I am not Polish nor Catholic but I feel like the religion point is worth defending.

And religion is not even the "simplest" deciding factor for creating different identities in human history. The initial difference between Canadians and Americans was the more simpler "I'm loyal to the King and you are not". For us the modern people this might sound meh, but 200 years earlier that's a serious matter - which also greatly contribute to our interminable discussion about what IS a Civ and what isn't, since many "civilizations" and even modern nation-states as we know of was born from having a different religious belief or a different political belief with the majority.

 

[onepurpose]

[QUOTE="
Then there is what is IMHO the major reason for confusion: the Civ game reduces all Civilizations, no matter how ephemeral or long-lasting, to a single set of 'Unique' attributes and 1 - 2 Leaders. The result is a 'snapshot' of a Civ, which models in most cases only 1 - 2 aspects of the civilization, culture, or nation-state in question.
[/QUOTE]

... and in a determinate historic period

so , the devs obsession to attach "civs" (in the sense playing choices in civ series) to real modern countries does not help vey much...

 

[AntSou]

The fact that were different political entities does not imply independence .. there was not separate foreign police nor army ... more or less , like the rest of Western Europe which indeed is the birth of the modern nation-state that conform the international order today

Buy a manual on international law and read the first introductory chapters.. then we can continue this topic

does mean that Scotland and England were independent states in real terms.. Nor Castile and Aragon were "independent" states until 1707-1716 in which the "Decretos de Nueva Planta" unified the laws and create Spain a single political entity. but as I said, I won't discuss anymore

About Spain, indeed, before Isabella & Ferdinand marriage (and conquests of Grenada in 1492 and Navarra in 1512) there were separated states, had different interests and were often enemies.. Castile finished Reconquista in the Iberian peninsula (except kingdom of Grenada, from s. XIII a mere vassal to Castile ) and Aragon focus in Mediterranean .. therefore the rivalry to France in Italy... France had been traditional allied to Castile , having aided France in 100 years war (Battle_of_La_Rochelle)... indeed , after the personal union , remained as separated entities for the 250 years .. until the beginning of 18 century.. (for example, America colonization was reserved to Castile).. but it does't mean that Aragon and Castile were true "independent" countries

You're trying to apply the modern understanding of an independent state to the pre-Westphalia period to reach the conclusion that no such thing as a true independent state could exist back then.

I mean, the issue here isn't so much IR but semantics. You're the one who is choosing to interpret other people's words through the IR lingo.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And religion is not even the "simplest" deciding factor for creating different identities in human history. The initial difference between Canadians and Americans was the more simpler "I'm loyal to the King and you are not". For us the modern people this might sound meh, but 200 years earlier that's a serious matter - which also greatly contribute to our interminable discussion about what IS a Civ and what isn't, since many "civilizations" and even modern nation-states as we know of was born from having a different religious belief with the majority.

Yeah because the production and the consumption of maple syrup wasn't going to help the in the division.

 

[Zaarin]

Being Catholic isn't really an identity lol.

Religion is historically a deciding factor for marking the boundaries/identities between different ethical groups, or even races (see: the identification of what is "Jewish" and what isn't in Medieval Europe and even in Nazi Germany). I am not Polish nor Catholic but I feel like the religion point is worth defending.

Indeed. I don't think many modern Westerners living in societies that have largely compartmentalized religion really appreciate how profound a role religion has played in history or in cultural identity. It's also worth noting that this compartmentalization of religion is the direct result of religion: societies that were fractured by the Protestant Reformation had to find a way to keep society coherent in the face of the fact that Jan is Catholic, his neighbor is Reformed, his cousin is Lutheran, and his co-worker is an Anabaptist. You'll note that Orthodox, Muslim, and Eastern societies, that didn't undergo similar religious fragmentation, are also less secular. Moral of the story: in most societies before 1517, cuius regio, eius religio (whose realm, his religion) was very much a thing: being Polish was inseparable with being a Catholic; being Greek was inseparable with being Orthodox; being a Turk was inseparable with being a Muslim; etc. If you wanted to change religion, you also had to change culture--and residency, unless you liked being burned at the stake for apostacy.

 

[onepurpose]

You're trying to apply the modern understanding of an independent state to the pre-Westphalia period to reach the conclusion that no such thing as a true independent state could exist back then.

No.

Is not about true independence .. is about being a true "state" in the modern term..

States .. in the modern sense of word .. date from early renaissance .. England, France, Spain, Portugal had their frontiers mor or less defined.. and the Papacy stated the system of internacional relations that exists today ...

(though the modern concept of sovereign had to be developed and does not appear until French Revolution)


the game is a fiction

take an ancient empire (Rome, Persia).. a defined country (Canada, Brazil)... common culture (Greece) ...a thousand year cultural continuity (China, India), a guy in a boat (Kupe)... and convert it in a "CIV" to play de game ... and pretending to treat all of this like states is what is stretching the game.. that and the talibans from these forums

 

[AntSou]

pretending to treat all of this like states is what is stretching the game..

Nobody is pretending anything. You're the one who hijacked this thread in that direction. You're the one who's desperately trying to haphazardly apply some basic concepts which you probably learned from a first-year uni module into a a context in which it is completely asinine to do so. But I've no interest in proceeding with this discussion because you're being argumentative for the sake of it.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

The question about "what is a civ" is something that I really struggle with. "Civilization" is a dated term - it lumps together disparate city-state (Greece, Maya), modern recognizable states (Canada, the United States), and, as someone said here, homogenizes cultures across time and space - the United States of 1776 is not the USA of 1910 (it certainly was not for Black or female Americans). That said, you have to choose your abstractions. Even games that try to go for hyper-realism end up doing things like assuming a land-based system of ownership as opposed to a people-based system of rule, or privileging those who hold the pen or the sword, and not those who hold the plow. For a medieval peasant in Silesia, Cambodia, or Xinjiang, who sat on the throne (or where the throne was based) probably didn't mean as much as other factors. Even for military commanders in the later second millennium, simply knowing where your own ships were at any point in time was an imperfect science (and led to a lot of consequential blunders) - something that's never an issue when you play a game of Civ. But this is the game that we're playing - there's a certain latitude that you have to twist X or Y rules (e.g. Kupe) to try to represent something outside of the box (e.g. maritime nomadic peoples), but at the end of the day you want a game where everyone starts out more or less with the same potential. The diversity of civs is more like "hey. Here. Why don't you spend some time thinking about the Khmer? Look up John Curtin. What's up with that Raven King of Hungary?" Not to say that "The Maori, the Maya, and Canada were all states organized in similar ways."

I think it's appropriate to discuss the extent to which the idea of "a civilization" does or does not line up with "a nation," "a state," "a culture" (whatever that might mean), or "a blob", but on the same level you've got to have a game where you start as X and your friend starts as Y and you have an equal chance to <utterly destroy the other> win the game according to the (Westphalian) rules that it's set down. It's a balance - thinking outside the box and making a playable game.

I like giving reading recs. We should try to disambiguate "nation," "state," "civilization", "culture", "people", etc. All are abstractions. Here goes, re: questioning what a nation/civilization is:
Benedict Anderson Imagined Communities
Eric Wolf Europe and the People Without History
Ernest Gellner Nations and Nationalism
Thongchai Winichakul Siam Mapped

 

[AntSou]

I highly recommend this book:

It's a collection of excerpts on the subject matter mentioned above, including excerpts from Imagined Communities and Nations and Nationalism, and the quickest way to delve into the subject matter that I know of. I found it extremely useful several years ago. Karl Deutsch's approach is also unique and worth a read.

There's some truly awesome stuff here. I don't think I've ever used as much underlining and highlighting in a book as I did with that one.