Finland

[Suomi]

I have seen crap in my life, but this is outrageous!They do not have Sweden/Finland. They shoud at least give Scandanavia as a whole.

 

[Portugal]

 

[Kyriakos]

Sweden should be in some x-pack. Finland is ok, i have been there, but it is just not that important historically. Today it is rich and probably an interesting society, but it has no place in a game like civ.

 

[apatheist]

I'm not sure the Finns would like it if they got lumped in with the Swedes, the Danes, and the Norwegians anyway.

 

[Crayton]

His name is Suomi. He might be a Finn, but I didn't think Finland was a Scandinavian country. I thought Finland was a Baltic country. WE NEED THE BALTICS!!! Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, or Finland. Pick One. <== poor attempt at humor.

Maybe Suomi is being sarcastic? Suomi, are you being sarcastic? If so, you should know better than to try and rile us all up. If not, then I simply would disagree that they deserve a top 18 position (maybe, not even in Europe, I'll need to do some calculations).

 

[Mrdie]

Sweden seems fine. What would the leaders be? Gustaf I and Charles XI?

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Gustav I Vasa would be fine but the other should definitely be Gustavus Adolphus in a swedish civ.

A Scandinavian civ, like it was civ3, would probably be more realistic to hope for, and that would satisfy me. ...A Scandinavian civ with a Viking as the first leader and Gustavus as the other.

 

[Reno]

Finland is not suitable for Civ, it has not been around long enough. (As an independent state i mean). Finland is a part of Northern Europe, it's not part of Scandinavia, it's not part of the Baltic in any way. Culturally we differ from the Baltic and Scandinavic people's, although we share a long history together.

BTW, Suomi means Finland.

 

[Willowmound]

It would make no sense what so ever to have Sweden by itself as a Civ. Might as well have Finland, or Angola. The Vikings on the other hand, of course they should be in. And remember this: say Sweden did make it, if there was even a hint that they somehow represented all Vikings, you can rest assured that civ players from at least two countries would get mightily crossed. Sweden didn't even become unified as one country until after the Viking age (c. 800 - c. 1060). No one Scandinavian country should represent the Vikings. Norway, Sweden, Denmark - in short, Scandinavia - were all Vikings. Or Normannii. Or Danii. They were called many things at the time.

 

[Reuhka]

Eh, no, I didn't see that coming. That won't never happen but who should be the leader head, Kekkonen? Anyway, at least when I last heard...

Scandinavia
- Sweden
- Norway
- Denmark
- Finland
- Iceland

Baltic
- Estonia
- Latvia
- Lithuanian

I give a basket of fried, cold chicken for one who can actually point the location of Finland in the world map.

 

[Willowmound]

Thanks for the chicken!

Scandinavia is Sweden, Denmark and Norway. A thousand years ago they used to speak the same languange. The languages are still simmilar enough for them to understand one another (most of the time). These languages are so-called germanic languages. They are related to German, Dutch and English, to name but three. Finnish is a so-called finno-urgic language. It is related to Hungarian and some of the Baltic languages. Scandinavia is thus defined by 1) geography; and 2) language. Iceland speaks a language very simmilar to what the Vikings spoke, but geography precludes them from being considered Scandinavian.

Questions?

 

[Loppan Torkel]

It would make no sense what so ever to have Sweden by itself as a Civ. Might as well have Finland, or Angola. The Vikings on the other hand, of course they should be in. And remember this: say Sweden did make it, if there was even a hint that they somehow represented all Vikings, you can rest assured that civ players from at least two countries would get mightily crossed. Sweden didn't even become unified as one country until after the Viking age (c. 800 - c. 1060). No one Scandinavian country should represent the Vikings. Norway, Sweden, Denmark - in short, Scandinavia - were all Vikings. Or Normannii. Or Danii. They were called many things at the time.

Did anyone say Sweden was to represent all Vikings? or Scandinavia for the matter? Sweden could be put in civ as a civ on it's own just like Denmark or Holland. It wouldn't be the first civ to be included but before Finland and Angola at least, going by historical relevance.

But I agree that it would be better to lump Norway, Sweden and Denmark together in a Scandinavian civ to have them represented in civ in some way. The question is whether they would include a king historically tied to one of the nations as a leader for Scandinavia, alongside one given Vikingleader.

Scandinavia
- Sweden
- Norway
- Denmark
- Finland
- Iceland

-- These are the 'Nordic' countries, at least were when I was in school...

 

[Willowmound]

Those are indeed the Nordic countries.

Fair enough, I guess Sweden could be a Civ in its own right, though many others are more deserving. But then you should indeed be Sweden, that is, the nation after its unification. That would mean no Vikings. Doesn't matter though, it seems we agree that Scandinavia as a single Civ is the best way to go.

For whom to pick as leader, I guess there would be many contenders. Civ 3 saw Ragnar Lodbrok as leader, Civ 2 Canute (Knut) the Great. Knut was the only one to rule almost all of Scandinavia, so from that perspective him as leader would make sense.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

For whom to pick as leader, I guess there would be many contenders. Civ 3 saw Ragnar Lodbrok as leader, Civ 2 Canute (Knut) the Great. Knut was the only one to rule almost all of Scandinavia, so from that perspective him as leader would make sense.

Two Vikingleaders... that would be the easy solution, but wouldn't they be too similar?
They could have Christian IV or Gustavus Adolphus for example as leaders also, to get some diverseness among the leaders. But perhaps they would represent individual countries too much? If they tie the UU:s to the leaders also, you basically and specifically have Denmark or Sweden in the game.

 

[Willowmound]

Yup. I think, it being the Vikings, there should only be Vikings as leaders. Also, I don't think post-Viking Age Scandinavian cities should be in. So that would mean no Copenhagen, no Stockholm, but places like Birka, Ribe and Skiringssal. Arguably Oslo, founded in the year 1000.

 

[Reno]

Scandinavia
- Sweden
- Norway
- Denmark
- Finland
- Iceland

Those as was already said are the Nordic countries. And officially (There are differing views, but officially) Scandinavia is Geographically comprised of only Norway and Sweden. Though Denmark and Iceland are more often then not counted as Scandinavian countries. (Wich they are culturally and linguistically).

Anyway this thread is dangerously slipping away from Civ and more to the side of OT. (Off Topic)

 

[Willowmound]

Those as was already said are the Nordic countries. And officially (There are differing views, but officially) Scandinavia is Geographically comprised of only Norway and Sweden. Though Denmark and Iceland are more often then not counted as Scandinavian countries. (Wich they are culturally and linguistically).

Anyway this thread is dangerously slipping away from Civ and more to the side of OT. (Off Topic)

How can you call this Off Topic? We are discussing the best leaders for a future Civ4 Viking civ! You know there will be one (here's hoping!) in the x-pack.

I've never heard anyone claim the Danes aren't Scandinavian. Wonder what they would think of that! Come on, we speak virtually the same language, though granted, the Danes need to start pronouncing their words properly

EDIT: Ah, I see what you mean. You mean the Scandinavian peninsula. Yes, that does indeed comprise only Norway and Sweden, but the Danes are still Scandinavian!

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Yup. I think, it being the Vikings, there should only be Vikings as leaders. Also, I don't think post-Viking Age Scandinavian cities should be in. So that would mean no Copenhagen, no Stockholm, but places like Birka, Ribe and Skiringssal. Arguably Oslo, founded in the year 1000.

I think that's why they don't make this civ a Viking one but a Scandinavian... It gives them more freedom with cities and now also leaders and UU:s if they would like to include any other than Viking...

 

[Willowmound]

I don't know. I suspect the cities-thing might be due to lax research. As for them calling it Scandinavia, in vanilla Civ3 the noun was 'Viking', making for sentences like Abe Lincoln asking "How are things going in Viking?" That jars anyone's ear, so they changed it. What to change it to? No real options other than Scandinavia, really, is there? I mean, it's not like the Babylonians can found Baghdad, though the remains of the city of Babylon is now in Iraq.

I don't know. If Firaxis paid me I'm sure I could come up with a number of good leaders for them, all the cities and UUs as well Hear that, Firaxis? I'd do it cheaply too!

 

[777]

Finland is not suitable for Civ, it has not been around long enough. (As an independent state i mean). Finland is a part of Northern Europe, it's not part of Scandinavia, it's not part of the Baltic in any way.

Ok this is kind of tricky.

Scandinavian countries = Sweden, Norway and Denmark
Nordic countries = Scandinavian countries and also Finland and Iceland.
Baltic countries = Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania

And US isn't so old too as an indepent state if you made judicious by that.

Edit: And of course I want that that Finland would be in the game but I doubt it will ever be For the world were just bunch of hillbillys. That's kind of truth.