[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Zaarin]

since it is culturally European I think it is more fairly grouped with Europe.

On what grounds? I'd call Georgia culturally Asian. Caucasian cuisine, music, architecture, clothing--all of it points east, not west. Georgia may not be as firmly in Persia's sphere of influence as Armenia, but until it became a Soviet subject state it was certainly more in Persia's sphere than Russia's.

 

[8housesofelixir]

On what grounds? I'd call Georgia culturally Asian. Caucasian cuisine, music, architecture, clothing--all of it points east, not west. Georgia may not be as firmly in Persia's sphere of influence as Armenia, but until it became a Soviet subject state it was certainly more in Persia's sphere than Russia's.

Okay, so the only problem we have now is to define "Asian".

I'm Asian (East Asian to be precise) and I cannot tell among China, India, Persia, Arabia, and Mongolia, which is the "Asian-est".

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

On what grounds? I'd call Georgia culturally Asian. Caucasian cuisine, music, architecture, clothing--all of it points east, not west. Georgia may not be as firmly in Persia's sphere of influence as Armenia, but until it became a Soviet subject state it was certainly more in Persia's sphere than Russia's.

The Georgians that were posting here when the civ was announced felt pretty adamant that they are European, not Asian.

 

[Xandinho]

Oh no, I read it. But you seem to be fine with only getting a third to a half of those in exchange for Babylon.

I think every single one of them deserves to be in the game before we get a third Mesopotamian civ. This is not "Sid Meier's Mesopotamia."

Okay, but my list was more based on what the developers can do. Babylon has been in the game since Civ1, so I wouldn't be surprised to see it again at some point.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I think every single one of them deserves to be in the game before we get a third Mesopotamian civ. This is not "Sid Meier's Mesopotamia."

More like Sid Meier’s Europe + Colonies.

At this point, I’d for sure take another middle-eastern civ over another European civ (as pleased as I am with today’s announcement).

 

[Inhalaattori]

I think North, West- and Central Africa needs more Civs. For example Benin, Ashanti and/or Morocco would be cool to see. Eastern part is well represented with Egypt, Nubia and Ethiopia.

Im pretty happy with the way Americas are represented. Maya, Aztecs and Inca are pretty much given. Cree and Mapuche are great choices as well. USA, Canada, Brazil and Gran Colombia are the best choices when it comes colonial Civs from Americas.

When it comes to Europe I love that they added Hungary. Scotland was not necessary IMO, but at least they have great music.

Its true that Sumeria, Babylon, Assyria etc. are from the same region and they have lot of cultural similarities. There are good reasons to have only one of them. On the other hand we also have several Greek leaders so I wouldnt really be that disappointed if they would add Babylon or Assyria.

In the end the most important thing to me is that we get Civs with interesting and unique abilities, units and infrastructure. This is game after all.

 

[Dale]

Oh no, I read it. But you seem to be fine with only getting a third to a half of those in exchange for Babylon.

I think every single one of them deserves to be in the game before we get a third Mesopotamian civ. This is not "Sid Meier's Mesopotamia."

Seriously, why do you care so much? Civs are quite simply the representation of a set of game levers and buttons in different combinations. Call the Civs "Config 1", "Config 2", "Config 3" and they are still exactly the same as what we have now. Who cares about diversity?

 

[PhoenicianGold]

On what grounds? I'd call Georgia culturally Asian. Caucasian cuisine, music, architecture, clothing--all of it points east, not west. Georgia may not be as firmly in Persia's sphere of influence as Armenia, but until it became a Soviet subject state it was certainly more in Persia's sphere than Russia's.

Orthodox religion, Christian architecture. No real ethnic or religious ties to Asia outside of Persian aesthetics, and the modern Georgian people generally insist on being considered European. Generally the Northern Caucasus are considered European, and while Georgia may not have been influenced much by Russia, it was influenced by the Byzantines just as much as it was the Persians.

Which brings me back to what I said before. Although it might be one of the most mixed examples of a European/Asian civ, I don't think counting Georgia as Asian representation does Asia any favors when we are missing large swathes of the Arabic and Indian spheres.

Okay, but my list was more based on what the developers can do. Babylon has been in the game since Civ1, so I wouldn't be surprised to see it again at some point.

You know what they could also do? Leave Babylon as a city-state where it makes more sense and pick a civ from literally any other region or period.

At this point, I’d for sure take another middle-eastern civ over another European civ (as pleased as I am with today’s announcement).

This is the sort of reductive thinking that disappoints me in these boards lol. It's either between Europe or Middle East; it's like half the members impliedly agree that Asia and Africa don't exist. We have already been trained to hope for less from decades of lazy design choices.

I don't mean to rag on you specifically because I generally agree with your sentiment, but whoo boy it's so depressing to see how constrained our thought processes are here because the devs are so obsessed with France and Greece.

Seriously, why do you care so much? Civs are quite simply the representation of a set of game levers and buttons in different combinations. Call the Civs "Config 1", "Config 2", "Config 3" and they are still exactly the same as what we have now. Who cares about diversity?

Why do you care so little? It's generally proven that exposure to diversity is what makes people more empathetic and cooperative. and that most people are culturally educated by the media they consume. Somebody had to care about this over the decades or western media would still be stuck in the fifties, where there was only "white" and "exotic."

Also, if games are just a bunch of mechanical systems, then why play them at all? It's a finite puzzle designed to just waste time; Civ's mechanics particularly don't actually translate to any real-world skills--honestly, without the historical flavor as an immersive educational tool, Civ would be an utterly worthless time sink, designed to distract rather than enable the masses. In many cases is the aesthetic, the art of a game that creates an experience (and hopefully translates to real-world insight) that makes a game worth playing at all.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Okay, so the only problem we have now is to define "Asian".

I'm Asian (East Asian to be precise) and I cannot tell among China, India, Persia, Arabia, and Mongolia, which is the "Asian-est".

There isn’t one. Because that’s all equally asian.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

I have been to Georgia two times in my life and I can assure you they have more in common with Europeans than with any part of Turkey, Iran, or Asia in general. If you want to see "suburbs" of Asia you have to cross the border with Azarbaijan. Yes, they are poorer and more affected by history but definitely European in a cultural sense. If you want to find any Asian accents in Georgia they are more Turkish than Persian for sure.

 

[Zaarin]

Okay, so the only problem we have now is to define "Asian".

I'm Asian (East Asian to be precise) and I cannot tell among China, India, Persia, Arabia, and Mongolia, which is the "Asian-est".

Asia's a big continent.

The Georgians that were posting here when the civ was announced felt pretty adamant that they are European, not Asian.

the modern Georgian people generally insist on being considered European.

I have been to Georgia two times in my life and I can assure you they have more in common with Europeans than with any part of Turkey, Iran, or Asia in general.

Yeah, but we're not talking about modern Georgia; we're talking about Medieval Georgia. Also it's likely they feel that way because 1) they spent decades as part of the Soviet Union and 2) they feel excluded from the predominantly Muslim Middle East that is much less tolerant of heterodoxy than it was in times past.

Orthodox religion, Christian architecture.

I'd like to point out that Christianity is in origin an Asian religion and is alive and well there...It's true that the Georgians are Chalcedonian, but so are the Melkites, the Maronites, and the Chaldeans, all of whom are indisputably Asian.

No real ethnic or religious ties to Asia

Nor to Europe. All of the Caucasian-speaking peoples (from all three families) are, unsurprisingly, in the Caucasus, disregarding diaspora populations.

Considering Europe and Asia are both constructs, being geographically a single landmass, any definition is going to be arbitrary, but I'd argue that from ancient times through the Medieval period the Caucasus had much more affinity for the Near East than for Europe. I'm not trying to be dogmatic about this--I don't think it's really an either/or since, again, "Europe" and "Asia" are, in reality, Eurasia--I simply think the Caucasus is historically--which is the key word--more Asia-facing than Europe-facing.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I'd like to point out that Christianity is in origin an Asian religion and is alive and well there...It's true that the Georgians are Chalcedonian, but so are the Melkites, the Maronites, and the Chaldeans, all of whom are indisputably Asian.

Lol. Yet Christianity as a global phenomenon was mostly a consequence of the Roman Empire and various European powers, and regardless of where it originated it was solidly appropriated as a European cultural fixture with very few footholds in Asia. You're stretching here.

Considering Europe and Asia are both constructs, being geographically a single landmass, any definition is going to be arbitrary, but I'd argue that from ancient times through the Medieval period the Caucasus had much more affinity for the Near East than for Europe. I'm not trying to be dogmatic about this--I don't think it's really an either/or since, again, "Europe" and "Asia" are, in reality, Eurasia--I simply think the Caucasus is historically--which is the key word--more Asia-facing than Europe-facing.

Oh no, I think we're in agreement there. But insomuch as the initial comment argued that Georgia should be counted as a new "Asian" civ alongside Scythia and Vietnam, I think using Georgia as an example of the devs giving due attention to Asia is an unjustified stretch. Not when we still have no Burma, nothing out of Samarkand, poor Indian representation, and no Ayutthaya, Tondo, or Kuala Lumpur city-states; and Scythia was really just a Huns rework that straddles Eurasia just as much as Georgia does. That's barely new Asian representation.

 

[Dale]

Why do you care so little? It's generally proven that exposure to diversity is what makes people more empathetic and cooperative. and that most people are culturally educated by the media they consume. Somebody had to care about this over the decades or western media would still be stuck in the fifties, where there was only "white" and "exotic."

Please supply the scientific studies that "generally prove" that exposure to diversity is what makes people more empathetic and cooperative, and that most people are culturally educated by the media they consume. Also, what proof do you have that western media would still be stuck in the fifties? Sounds like you're just putting throw away lines out there.

I could also put out there that seeing "groups" with lack of aesthetic distinction, is actually much more inclusive as you see groups as the same, except for behaviours. There is no distinction between race, that continuing with the pigeon-holing of peoples into cultural groups is the root cause of racism and works against diversity.

Also, if games are just a bunch of mechanical systems, then why play them at all? It's a finite puzzle designed to just waste time; Civ's mechanics particularly don't actually translate to any real-world skills--honestly, without the historical flavor as an immersive educational tool, Civ would be an utterly worthless time sink, designed to distract rather than enable the masses. In many cases is the aesthetic, the art of a game that creates an experience (and hopefully translates to real-world insight) that makes a game worth playing at all.

Actually, there is a LOT of useful real life skills taught in a game of Civ. The strategic element of solving a problem such as outwitting an AI sharpens the mind for quick-reactions to unexpected circumstances. Diplomacy can translate to the basics of people management. And of course trade helps with the understandings of the basics of micro and macro economics. Sure the art provides elements of history learning, but what's more useful to the future? Problem solving, people management and economics? Or history?

So no Civ is NOT designed to "just waste time". The mechanics DO translate to real world skills. The history presented in the game isn't even really accurate or reflective of true history, so if anything the history, and the aesthetics such as which nation is each Civ, is the most pointless part of the game. So get rid of it and have one Civ that allows massive customisation.

 

[Potworny]

Almost the entire female roster of Civ2 leaders was insulting.

Just checked it and yeah, that was pretty bad. But I have a lot of respect for including Livia. That's probably what will have to satisfy my dreams of Claudius and Etruscans for the several few decades

 

[Zaarin]

Lol. Yet Christianity as a global phenomenon was mostly a consequence of the Roman Empire and various European powers, and regardless of where it originated it was solidly appropriated as a European cultural fixture with very few footholds in Asia. You're stretching here.

The Ethiopians, Copts, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Maronites, Melkites, Church of the East, Malankara Orthodox, etc. sure will be surprised to find out they're European. You realize that before the spread of Islam the bulk of North Africa and the Middle East were Christian, and Central Asia had major Christian strongholds as well, right? The Nestorian Church of the East made it as far east as China before eventually being stamped out by Confucians who mistook it for Buddhism. To treat Christianity as a solely or even primarily European phenomenon is historically ungrounded and even synchronically indefensible when the Christian churches in the Middle East have survived there for 2,000 years, even amid hostility from Rome, Persia, and Islam, with little to no connection with European Christianity. Yes, Rome spread Christianity--to Europe (better: Rome normalized Christianity in Europe--it was there long before Rome sanctioned it). Christianity did a fine job spreading itself to Asia and East Africa without Roman help. I'm willing to bet I know my ecclesiastical history better than you do.

Oh no, I think we're in agreement there. But insomuch as the initial comment argued that Georgia should be counted as a new "Asian" civ alongside Scythia and Vietnam, I think using Georgia as an example of the devs giving due attention to Asia is an unjustified stretch. Not when we still have no Burma, nothing out of Samarkand, poor Indian representation, and no Ayutthaya, Tondo, or Kuala Lumpur city-states, and Scythia was really just a Huns rework that straddles Eurasia just as much as Georgia does. That's barely new Asian representation.

Well, to be fair, I never made such a claim.

But I have a lot of respect for including Livia.

I mean, if for some strange reason I were choosing a female leader of Rome, I would have gone for Fulvia...

 

[AaronTBD]

There's controversy whether or not Gaul is France or not they're not




They're France Beta™

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Well sometimes is good to give yourself a break from the historical books and just see the living world around. Don't get me wrong I like to read a lot! But I also like to travel and explore different cultures and places. When you travel from Warsaw to Baku or Teheran in the same Euroasian landmass you instinctively and without any overthinking notice differences between cultures, peoples, and history that cut like a razor all divagations. You may see those differences traveling from Tbilisi to Baku. Speaking with people helps too. Georgians do not feel more European because they spent decades in the Soviet Union that's for sure. The same Soviet Union was in Azarbaijan or Kazachstan and it did not change those countries into the European ones. The only thing the Soviet Union made was an attempt to Sovietization of people. To create a new Soviet culture. Thankfully it failed everywhere. But signs of their presence you can still see. In mentality (and awful architecture). Of course, we can always bent reality and say that all Europeans are Asians in some way perhaps it's true, but I don't think this is a common definition

 

[The Kingmaker]

This is the sort of reductive thinking that disappoints me in these boards lol. It's either between Europe or Middle East; it's like half the members impliedly agree that Asia and Africa don't exist. We have already been trained to hope for less from decades of lazy design choices.

I don't mean to rag on you specifically because I generally agree with your sentiment, but whoo boy it's so depressing to see how constrained our thought processes are here because the devs are so obsessed with France and Greece.

Hey, at least give me the benefit of context. In the NF pass, we’ve already gotten civs from Central and South America, Africa, and now two from Europe. There was also a leak strongly hinting at an upcoming southeast Asian civ.

So yeah, I’d say we’re due for a middle-eastern civ at this point.

 

[Zaarin]

Well sometimes is good to give yourself a break from the historical books and just see the living world around. Don't get me wrong I like to read a lot! But I also like to travel and explore different cultures and places. When you travel from Warsaw to Baku or Teheran in the same Euroasian landmass you instinctively and without any overthinking notice differences between cultures, peoples, and history that cut like a razor all divagations. You may see those differences traveling from Tbilisi to Baku. Speaking with people helps too. Georgians do not feel more European because they spent decades in the Soviet Union that's for sure. The same Soviet Union was in Azarbaijan or Kazachstan and it did not change those countries into the European ones. The only thing the Soviet Union made was an attempt to Sovietization of people. To create a new Soviet culture. Thankfully it failed everywhere. But signs of their presence you can still see. In mentality (and awful architecture). Of course, we can always bent reality and say that all Europeans are Asians in some way perhaps it's true, but I don't think this is a common definition

I have traveled. I lived for two years in South Korea, and while I was there I traveled all throughout East and Southeast Asia. I was a kid at the time and don't consciously remember a lot of it, but living in a different culture profoundly altered the way I think and see the world. Unfortunately, as an adult, traveling the world isn't a luxury I can afford, as much as I'd love to. You'll note I mentioned repeatedly I wasn't talking about modern Georgia, which may well be European; if you find a way I can travel to the 12th century I'd love to borrow it--as long as I have a way back.

 

[8housesofelixir]

There's controversy whether or not Gaul is France or not they're not
They're France Beta™

This kind of related to the "civ with dynasties" discussion we've had in this thread before. Gaul surely isn't an ancient dynasty of France, but they did occupied the exact same place until the Franks moved in.