Discussion: Should the Vikings be replaced by Scandinavian civs, or add to them?

[TheLazyHase]

Well, you are giving me reason Regardless meaning expedition man or pirate, viking refers to a ocupation , not to a people or a civilization. And worse, the terms viking was REintroduced far later as a garbage bag to mean "something vaguely related with the Norse peoples" ,from the varenguian guard to Rurik , the Normandy or Sicily ....

But, what is important it that it actually make sense for us. Viking were another kind of people, and consequently they fit as civ.

Country are not the only way to delimite a civilisation. A lot of problem occur when people out of good will decide that something should not be a civ out of historical sense. Native americain are an proeminent example : here again that is more an occupation than a country. But the roman empire cause trouble too, most notably with byzantine empire. In the same trend, Alexander is not a greek leader. We could go on forever with trouble caused by too much history.

TL;DR : Vikings are fine because they are easily defined, they are called by the name that fit them in English, and trying to go too further into customisation of civ is a good way to add problem without adding anything worthwile to the game

(note that for an earth scenario scandinavian make more sense. But I talk about the game, not particular cases)

 

[r_rolo1]

I do not say that the civilization that Firaxis wanted to represent with the term "Viking" should not be included. What I mean is that, having a far more precise ( in spite of being somewhat nebulous, as I stated in the last page ) term of Scandinavians, that is not so well known but that is clearly understandable, or even Norsemen ( again very vague, but clearly understandable ), they decided to chose a term that does not even describe a people in any language ,but a job/ocupation . Those are two very diferent positions....

And what I said about removing the vikings was connected to the OP post. He wants to include the Danish, the Swedish and the Norwegian as separate civs. If you take those of Firaxis "Vikings", what is left? Not much.....

 

[mechaerik]

I think Norse Empire might be a better term, with the UU renamed "Viking".

 

[TheLazyHase]

they decided to chose a term that does not even describe a people in any language

you're wrong . It describe peoples themselves in French at least, and I think in english too.

The main problem is simple : there is no gain to use an obscure word to describe them. Anyway, people will come back to call them "viking" if you try too hard to change the name. So, 0 gain, some disavantadges. That's all my opinion in a nutshell.

 

[r_rolo1]

By that logic we should replace the American civ by the yankee civ, because informally that is how the inhabitants of the USA are known from Mexico to Patagonia, passing by Brazil. Anyway, people will come back to call them "yankee" if you try too hard to change the name. So, 0 gain, some disavantadges ( you would lose the Latin American market )

 

[phungus420]

As far as the core game, The Vikings is fine, and certainly a better choise then if firaxis had put Sweeden, or Norway. But since you're talking about making an expansion that splits of the Vikings, I see nothing wrong with dropping them and replacing them with Norway, Sweeden, and Denmark.

 

[Silu]

I bet Firaxis has thought about this problem and came to the conclusion that they can't have both Sweden & co. and Vikings. So they went with the "interesting" choice in a popular culture sense, even though it makes no historical sense.

Having a "Scandinavia" Civ would be stupid beyond belief. It would be the same as having a North America Civ that merges Canada with USA. Then again it wouldn't be the first such choice they made *cough*nativeamerica*cough*. There's also the inclusion problem, the "Scandinavian" culture doesn't have as clear borders as one might think.

I think Vikings are just fine. They want variety and color in the Civ list (and not just every European power that has a clear nationalism), and Vikings fit in equally well as the Zulu, for example. Civ as a series really wouldn't be the same without Shaka

 

[Lay_Lay]

Native Americans should be called The Sioux. Bring back the Iroquois. Yes, you can have Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and the Vikings.
Not every civ is of the traditional western white bread setup.

 

[Iranon]

Being grouped as a civ does not imply a unified administration in the game. It seems jarring for, say, the Native Americans but Frederick II and Alexander did not rule all of Germany/Greece either.

Sometimes definition of a civ is very muddled; Austria for example shares this problem. Does the HRE live on in it (last Holy Roman Emperor ended up the first emperor of Austria)? Is the HRE truly gone and are Austria and Germany both part of a larger German civilization?

I think I would also prefer Norse Empire, with the UU referred to a Vikings

 

[NikNaks]

Native Americans should be called The Sioux. Bring back the Iroquois. Yes, you can have Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and the Vikings.
Not every civ is of the traditional western white bread setup.

The NA thing is hardly relevant here, and if you'd done any digging you'd find I've already done them Check my sig.

And, for the record, can we please avoid discussion about renaming the Vikings to the Scandinavians or Norsemen. While a valid opinion, that's not what this discussion is supposed to be about, as, for all intents and purposes, that's the same as leaving them in, so if that's your opinion, at least make sure to vote for that as your answer, but avoid the argument where possible. Cheers

 

[702]

I just want to clarify one thing here, if we

Spoiler :

and by "we" I mean the wonderful NikNaks!

did "lose" the Vikings and replace them with Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Vikings would still be represented, there could easily be Viking Age LHs, UUs and UBs. Indeed I would recommend keeping Ragnar as LH, and adding in Canute and Harald Hardrada as well. These (and other) new LHs would likely be aggressive so you would still have to be careful, and the Viking UU and UB could be kept, but with the addition of other Viking Age units as well.
I'm sure Longboat would be a popular choice for a new UU, and plenty of people would be happy keeping the bezerker, but it would strike me as odd that of these two distinctly Viking units, only one was in the Viking civ, and another was in a "non-Viking" Scandinavian civ. Seems an unnecessary overlap to me. It was suggested here http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8545155&postcount=64 that Trelleborg fortress could be the Danes UB, again, it would be odd if there were one Viking age UB in the Viking civ and another Viking age UB in a "non-Viking" Scandinavian civ.
This way we get to represent the Viking age, with appropriate leaders, units, buildings, but also see how they evolve into the Scandinavian countries we know today.

I'd also think carefully about appealing either way to how Firaxis have done civs previously, some have been representative of only one culture/time period when there are several to choose from (Persia, Khmer), others civs group numerous different civilisations together under one banner (Ethiopia, India). Since both sides can provide their own examples, I feel we would get nowhere with such an approach.

Spoiler :

I could cause further trouble by suggesting Celts be broken into Scotland, and Ireland, and Arabia be broken into Saudis, Morocco, Yemen, or Ummayads, Abbasids, Fatimids etc...!

Spoiler :

But I'm not sure I agree with all that or not

 

[3 EMS]

Yankee comes from yanglee (sp) which was how north eastern American indians pronounced English. So it would be another name that means something different to different people.

 

[unfairlane]

The Norsemen dominated Europe for centuries, their place in a historic game is beyond discussion. Only too bad to see versions like in LoR where the "Vikings" has no viking-warriors. After all, the old norsemen had a highly develpoed warrior-culture simular to the Japanese samurai-tradition.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

What I don't understand at all is why anyone would ever "Replace" any civ when we can just "Add".
After all, more variety is always better than less.

Why would anyone ever want to "remove" something when he can just keep adding is beyond me.

 

[702]

PPQ, how do you feel about NikNaks replacements for the Native America civ?
You could have one (NA) or the other (his several replacements) but would it not be silly to have both Native Americans AND Sioux, Iroquois, Cherokee and Apache?

 

[PPQ_Purple]

No it would not be silly, becouse they both have a place.

To explain:

Witch civlisations you will use them depends on the type of game you are playing.

If you want to play out a game that focuses on a region (say America or Scandinavia) than you will include all of the local factions.

If you want to play out a game that focuses on a few civs from each region you just want your generic indians, generic norseman, a few european civs, a few asian civs and so on, than you take Vikings and Indians. You don't add both Germany and HRE, you don't add Rome, Cartage and Grece together ect.

Spoiler My usual layout :

My usual layout looks like this:
-Asia
1. China
2. Japan
3. Mongolia
-Europe
4. Germany
5. France
6. England
7. Rome
8. Vikings
-Other
9. Indians
10/11. 1 or 2 mezoamerican civs
12. America

Naturaly, you can't play with all the civilisations in the game at once.
Hence, the point of having Generic Racial Group factions like Indians and Vikings is to allow you to represent the whole world without having to feel that you are leaving something importmant out.

Meanwhile, the point of individual factions (like all 4 tribes of indians, all difrent scandinavians) is to allow you to play certain sections of history or just create your own mix and match games.

 

[702]

But that though is just your individual way of playing civ. So in that case for you it might make sense to have both Vikings, and DNS (an abbreviation that probably won't catch on, but it's far easier than writing Denmark, Norway, Sweden all the time).
But I play differently, I just have random civs, I may choose a few of them, I may not, but for me it would be therefore silly to have Vikings and DSN.
I don't suppose that everyone plays my way, or your way.
But I can't really see the problem with replacing Vikings in your list with any of DNS. Each one of them could still be "generic Norsemen" (indeed it would be easy enough to play with the XML so that you had cities from each and/or the Viking cities on there as well) and you could alternate between each of them every game, D, then N, then S.

I just wouldn't assume everyone plays the same way as yourself.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

I just wouldn't assume everyone plays the same way as yourself.

I am not. What I am assuming is that there are people that do play like my self and that would like the option.

And what I am assuming is that there is no logical reason why to remove an extra option especialy since it's one that already exists in the game.

If someone wants to alternate NDS or just use random civs he has that option.
My arguement is that there is no valid reason to remove the option chosen by those that don't want to.

 

[DroopyTofu]

I voted "other" before I fully read the OP, but I think my logic still stands. If you replace Vikings with Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc. then you will have people complain and say that the wrong one was used. If you use Norsemen or Scandanavia, you'll still have people complain. People will complain about Vikings. Humans will complain about anything. Personally, I'd say just leave Viking the way it is and add the other 3.

 

[Beornhard]

They should just get a different name (like "Norseman", as suggested). Otherwise, they were an important civilization that influenced the European cultural and political scenario and had some notable achivements, like being the first to settle in America (even if unsuccessfuly).