Eh, 237 years is not that young. The US is older than most countries in the world and it's the oldest country in the western hemisphere.
Civilizations
- Thread starter ltccone
- Start date
Eh, 237 years is not that young. The US is older than most countries in the world and it's the oldest country in the western hemisphere.
Because that's not how any of the civilizations in the game are designed. They're usually meant to represent more than one time period. That's why Germany has both Panzers and Landsknechts, for example.
Syailendra
Prince
err, 237 years, compared to the game design which spans from 4000bc to 2050, thats not an awesome feat.
Chemical Toilet
Chieftain
Except they were. They all had their own unique cultures, traditions, and innovations, and were precursors to the modern flavors of their civilizations.
Norway, Denmark, and Sweden as we know them wouldn't have existed without their Viking history. The Celts had a tremendous impact on the history of the isles. Iceland wouldn't even exist if it weren't for both the Vikings and Celts, albeit someone else would have just came along and colonized it.
You could argue the Huns but realistically any group of barbarians that were able to organize themselves to conquer that much land were civilized to a point. You need infrastructure and laws to accomplish something like that and no group of people are without a culture.
Chemical Toilet
Chieftain
The German State is roughly a hundred years younger than America. I mean I think it'd be kind of cool to also have a Prussian, Teutonic Knights, Holy Roman Empire, etc. civs, but then it gets kind of redundant and things overlap and get cluttered.
It's like how Thailand is represented by Siam. It's the reason why we've never seen an official Italy in the game - because we have Rome.
Chemical Toilet
Chieftain
Civs that have had many historical incarnations are usually picked based on what is considered their most impactful or glorious incarnation.
SnowKomodo
Deity
The cultural connections between Majapahit and Indonesia are so strong it's uncanny. Candis? Kris? Modern day Indonesian icons. Spices? An integral part of Indonesia's modern economy. Even Gajah Mada was utilized as a symbol of patriotism when Indonesia became independent. Geographic area? Similar enough that it's not ludicrous that the devs made the decision they did
I agree wholeheartedly the civ should have been called Majapahit, but I disagree that Indonesia is a bad name. Worse than Majapahit? Yes. But a bad name choice? I think you have to really be nitpicking to get irked by that, particularly in a video game
Not really. Germany is actually a great example of a civilization that represents three different time periods with Landsknechts (15th-16th centuries), Bismarck I (formation of Germany, 19th century) and Panzers (WW2, 20th century). Many civilizations were designed this way and nearly every civilization uses its modern name unless the older name is better known in the US or is for some reason controversial. Indonesia fits with this pattern just fine.
Besides, all of Indonesia's unique bonuses (and its leader) are still very identifiable as Indonesian characteristics.
Breadsmith
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2013
- Messages
- 121
Rooftrellen
King
I would agree that calling Brazil and Indonesia a civilization is a bit of a stretch, just as it is calling America, Germany, the Netherlands, or Sweden a civilization is a stretch.
All of them are too young and not different enough to be a civilization in my book.
Of those, though, Brazil probably has the most right to be called a civ, due to being so culturally unique (probably the most far removed from Roman roots of any place I've been and that has cultural roots in Rome, though admitted I'm not all that well traveled.)
That being said, even though America is basically Rome 2000 years later (really, some similarities are creepy), I think it's ok to have America as it's own civ, due to how many people SEE it as different.
Where we draw lines is pretty arbitrary. I would draw them differently than the makers of the game did, and so would you (and obviously, we would draw them differently, ourselves). I think it's ok. There are some stretches to get a civ in the game. As I said, the second biggest is probably in the base game, America (though Germany though the ages, from several distinct tribes to the nation today is pretty bad, considering 2 of those tribes ended up being England later...)
The BNW (and G&K) picks, overall, felt very solid against the backdrop of the vanilla game, with the original picks.
All of them are too young and not different enough to be a civilization in my book.
Of those, though, Brazil probably has the most right to be called a civ, due to being so culturally unique (probably the most far removed from Roman roots of any place I've been and that has cultural roots in Rome, though admitted I'm not all that well traveled.)
That being said, even though America is basically Rome 2000 years later (really, some similarities are creepy), I think it's ok to have America as it's own civ, due to how many people SEE it as different.
Where we draw lines is pretty arbitrary. I would draw them differently than the makers of the game did, and so would you (and obviously, we would draw them differently, ourselves). I think it's ok. There are some stretches to get a civ in the game. As I said, the second biggest is probably in the base game, America (though Germany though the ages, from several distinct tribes to the nation today is pretty bad, considering 2 of those tribes ended up being England later...)
The BNW (and G&K) picks, overall, felt very solid against the backdrop of the vanilla game, with the original picks.
Gabriel Pyyrhic
Warlord
To be fair, I do not believe Germany (in game) is solely representing the modern German state. If it was then the landsknecht (Holy Roman Empire) and Furor Teutonics (Gothic Tribes) would not apply. Alternatively look at India ? The UB is from the Mughal period of Indian history (when Pakistan and Bangladesh were a part of India), whilst the War Elephant dates back to Alexanders time, Ghandi and the Indian Civ V geography (as indicated by the leader background at game start) is unmistakenly modern.
Civ V seems to be representing an Ethnic, cultural and geographic identity across an appropriate timeperiod that is representative of that Tribe/Civs existence. It would make no sense to give the USA UA/UB/UU/etc that predate colonization or independence unless you were solely representing the geographic USA. Hence in Civ V terms they are far younger then say India or Germany.
I do think it is important to distinguish between lines on a map (state or country) and a collection of people linked by shared culture, ethnicity and geography.
With this in mind I think people are confusing a nation, with a geographic, ethnic and cultural identity.
Civ V seems to be using the later, not the former in general and as such it is then fair to call Civs like USA, Australia, Canada, Brazil etc as young in the scheme of things.
I like cultural diversity in the game so I do not mind a liberal interpretation of "Civilization". IMO the more Civs the better.
BTW OP There is no VIKING Civ in Civ V, there is Denmark (Norway). You are confusing a Civilization with a NATION, NATION STATE, COUNTRY or EMPIRE; they are different things. One does not necessarily imply the other.
Arachnofiend
Perturbed Pugilist
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,950
I don't really understand the "too young" argument. The influence on world history of Indonesia, America, Germany, and the Netherlands is indisputable; besides, American is and the Netherlands were true world superpowers, and have had longer tenures than some of the prior holders of that tile (IE the Mongols).
Sweden and Brazil haven't had nearly as much of an impact, sure (though Sweden's impact on European history via participation in the Thirty Years' War is quite significant in its own right) but if we only allowed global hegemons to get into in this game then we'd have a very short list of playable civs.
Gyra Solune
King
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2013
- Messages
- 942
As I've said in other places, it's primarily for marketing purposes. If you ask thousands of people where the Majapahit Empire was located, they'd probably be like "...uhhhh, I dunno, Africa or something?". But if you asked them where Indonesia was located, pretty much all of them would be certain it was in Asia, and most of them could certainly point to it on an unlabeled map. In terms of actually selling the game, a good part of what carries an expansion is the civs it includes. Leader screens take a big chunk of development effort, and those leaders are the engine that drives sales. Most people will want to buy such a costly expansion for the new people they can play as, and it's important to be able to recognize those characters. In terms of BNW, the only real odd one out is the Shoshone, and really, one glance at Pocatello makes you pretty certain he's Native American. Typically, this is the trend followed by the game, being able to clearly identify who and when and where these people were you're playing as. The odd ones out are likely the Songhai and Siam, but those are in the main game, where the actual civs are less important than the core game itself.
And really, modern Indonesia is very easily the continuation of the Majapahit Empire, and much of their culture is still descended from them. The word "Indonesia" paints a clear picture in the head, one similar to what the Majapahit actually was, but the word "Majapahit" provides no such thing to the vast majority of people.
And yeah, I don't think that a nation being "modern" means it's not worthy of being a civ. The idea of a civilization has been disputed here, but I personally think it's a definition that changes through time. Today, the concept of a civilization is basically a nation, what you'd see on a map, but thousands of years ago, it was less a formal thing and more of an idea, settlements with close ties and intertwined history. Sumer, for example, was never even a unified thing, more a region where human growth in the Fertile Crescent was greatest, composed of city-states heavily guarded against each other, but they had close cultural connections and grew mutual ideas and prosperity through trade and conquest, enough to make them feel like a unified group, even if they formally weren't. The same applies to Greece: the country as we know it is very young, but the idea of a Greek people does go back to ancient Greek times, where the settlers of that region had deep contact and grew in many similar ways, sharing gods and innovations and crafts amongst each other, even if for most of their history they were primarily city-states. As countries grew larger and richer, setting formal boundaries, nations became closer to how they're defined now, with lands outlined less by conquest and more by unity, until you have what we see today.
ltccone
Prince
That is exactly the point I was trying to make. Rome 'represents' Italy, and the Majapahit Empire should 'represent' Indonesia.
The inclusion of modern countries like America and Brazil, is related to the fact that they are great nations both economically and culturally. Although America, despite being a young nation, has already made ​​many important things in history. While Brazil has not done many important things, but one can not deny that it is a great nation and that exerts increasing influence on the world stage, in addition to Brazil was a great empire when it won its independence.
Other moderns civs that deserve to be in games is the Mexico and Canada.
Other moderns civs that deserve to be in games is the Mexico and Canada.
PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
"Celtic civilization" is a neologism, a way modern Irish, Scottish and Welsh communities have defined to identify themselves and their history as a whole, and is I think of essentially 19th Century origin. The name "Celtic" applied to a historical European artefact culture is an anachronism, and it's unknown to what extent this represents any kind of unified civilisation; the definition of "Celtic" as applied to those artefacts is itself disputed.
As represented in the game, the Celts are certainly a travesty - the core cities are mostly medieval and non-Celtic, the leader is an Iceni warrior from Roman-era East Anglia, and "Druidic Lore" represents a religious caste that was completely unknown in Scotland, despite an early medieval Scottish UU and capital (itself a medieval, and essentially non-Celtic, town).
However, their time was very short and their importance was regional (particularly so in both cases with the Aztecs). Tenochtitlan was a large city, but the Aztecs ruled as a minority elite over an empire of native vassals - they were never a populous group and spread little cultural influence to the people they included within their empire. None had any particularly lasting cultural influence on their region. Sweden emerged as a European power at a time when the major European powers were expanding across the world, and its influence remained strictly confined to Europe.
PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
The Celts' leader is from East Anglia, so why wouldn't you call the civ the East Anglians (or, even less inclusively, the Iceni) rather than the Celts?
It's a longer lifetime than the Songhai, the Zulu, the Huns or the Aztecs, and not much less than imperial Venice. All of which is beside the point - a civ's importance is defined by its influence rather than its age. America and Brazil have nothing in common beyond age and a colonial origin, and certainly nothing in common in terms of their impacts on global civilization. The Huns, too, were extremely important in their time despite that time being very short.
Iceland was entirely a Norwegian colony - how does it relate to the Celts in any way?
And really, "Iceland wouldn't exist otherwise" is a major sign of global influence? You're stretching if you consider a civ worthy of inclusion on the basis that EVE Online wouldn't exist without it (yes, EVE really is modern Iceland's largest export).
ltccone
Prince
It would be tough to call them 'East Anglians' when Anglia didn't even exist at the time.
Chemical Toilet
Chieftain
There is debate that the Celts may have settled Iceland and left or died out before the Nords got there.
The founding may not have been a major world event but that's beside the point. The point is that the Celts and the Nords did have an important impact such as settling a foreign land.
