First Look: Macedon with Alex the Great

[MooFreaky]

That statement is premature. Macedonian may have been a Hellenic language closely related to Greek (cf. English and Scots) or it may have been a dialect of Greek. It's too poorly attested to say one way or the other, and we're unlikely to find new material to shed light on the question. Athenians protesting that Macedonians weren't Greek is about as relevant as l'Académie français protesting that québécois isn't French.

I agree entirely. I didn't phrase it as well as I could have (especially for someone who is more familiar with history in that region, as you are Zaarin). I think modern views on dialects are often sweeping and miss how varied they can be. For example, my family can speak Scots, but people who don't speak it can't understand us. To the point that places like Aberdeen have Government officials take oaths of office in both English and Scots.

My wife's family speak Calabrese, a dialect from southern Italy. People from other regions (particularly the north) don't understand them. We had cousins come out from the same region recently, who speak official Italian, and they couldn't hold a conversation with those who only spoke Calabrese. Just because we call it a dialect doesn't mean that they aren't distinct languages, which are often unintelligible to people who speak other dialects of the "same language".

At the same time, I actually think it's the time period that is the issue in that Athens, Sparta and Macedon are all distinct enough that they don't make sense being labelled under the same "Greek" civilization as is in the game. They were 3 very different empires that had little in common other than sharing a similar region and fighting with each other a lot.

I'd like to hope they'd never return, but given that Shaka is as much a meme as Gandhi and Alexander, I suspect their return is inevitable

I find it funny that people screaming "Euro-Centric" are often the ones demanding the Zulu ...

Seriously people, if you want less of a Euro-Centric view don't ask for a small, underserving kingdom that is only famous because of its interaction with a European super-power. How about the swathe of potentially awesome, and FAR more deserving, African kingdoms like the Kush, Songhai, Mali and Ghana

 

[standingwolf]

I count 11 European and post-colonial empires that covered more than 2% of the world's total land area.
Meanwhile, I count exactly zero African empires that managed to do the same thing (except if one of the caliphates in the list had their capital in Africa).

Let's just say that there's a very real historical reason why, at least for the initial release, there's more European than African civs. And it's based in hard facts.

um, this statement is extremely close to saying that europeans are inherently superior to africans. i really hope that's not the rabbit hole we're going down.

in any case, even if your basic premise were correct--that the civs included are there because they've been the largest and most successful in terms of conquest--that still fails to address why the initial release didn't include some of the largest and most successful empires in world history, viz., the mongols, the inca, and the persians. it doesn't explain why the only african civ we have was a relatively minor power, as opposed to a genuine empire like mali or songhai. and it also fails to explain why we did have such civs as norway, which spent most of its history as a part of denmark, as well as geographically tiny greece since technically it was macedon that created a massive greek empire.

no, this has nothing to do with who has covered the most territory or who had the biggest guns. the devs are just putting in the civs they happen to be stoked about, and for some reason no one at firaxis is saying, hey, you're supposed to be more balanced than that.

on the other hand, if nothing else this thread is helping me understand how trump got elected.

 

[DWilson]

um, this statement is extremely close to saying that europeans are inherently superior to africans. i really hope that's not the rabbit hole we're going down.

in any case, even if your basic premise were correct--that the civs included are there because they've been the largest and most successful in terms of conquest--that still fails to address why the initial release didn't include some of the largest and most successful empires in world history, viz., the mongols, the inca, and the persians. it doesn't explain why the only african civ we have was a relatively minor power, as opposed to a genuine empire like mali or songhai. and it also fails to explain why we did have such civs as norway, which spent most of its history as a part of denmark, as well as geographically tiny greece since technically it was macedon that created a massive greek empire.

no, this has nothing to do with who has covered the most territory or who had the biggest guns. the devs are just putting in the civs they happen to be stoked about, and for some reason no one at firaxis is saying, hey, you're supposed to be more balanced than that.

on the other hand, if nothing else this thread is helping me understand how trump got elected.

Wow, you're very over-reacting, aren't you? And presumptuous to boot!

 

[CivLuvah]

um, this statement is extremely close to saying that europeans are inherently superior to africans. i really hope that's not the rabbit hole we're going down.

How is it that, by simply saying that European countries had the upper advantage and the power during the Industrial era compared to African countries, and presenting the factual evidence that they had more land and power compared to African empires, be an indication that the person saying it is a white supremacist?

Jared Diamond and Howard Zinn talk about the prominence of European empires in world history, that doesn't mean they were racists. In fact, sometimes they were antagonistic to Western imperialism.

in any case, even if your basic premise were correct--that the civs included are there because they've been the largest and most successful in terms of conquest--that still fails to address why the initial release didn't include some of the largest and most successful empires in world history.....

no, this has nothing to do with who has covered the most territory or who had the biggest guns. the devs are just putting in the civs they happen to be stoked about, and for some reason no one at firaxis is saying, hey, you're supposed to be more balanced than that.

If we were to be honest, we don't exactly know why. But to assume that the devs have some racist malice behind the over-representation of Western civs is just too much.

Best we could do is hope that a new expansion adds the major non-Western players of world history and several other non-Western civs.

on the other hand, if nothing else this thread is helping me understand how trump got elected.

 

[Leyrann]

um, this statement is extremely close to saying that europeans are inherently superior to africans. i really hope that's not the rabbit hole we're going down.

If I would say what I thought about the validity of this statement and the amount of logic that went in there, my post would contain mostly asterisks.

It just doesn't make ANY sense at all. ALL I said, and I hope that's quite clear (because it's all I said, after all) is that there have been 11 European empires that have conquered more than 2% of the world's land area, while there have been 0 African empires that have conquered more than 2% of the world's land area.

The ONLY ONE who thinks that implies Europeans being inherently superior to Africans is YOU.

 

[standingwolf]

How is it that, by simply saying that European countries had the upper advantage and the power during the Industrial era compared to African countries, and presenting the factual evidence that they had more land and power compared to African empires, be an indication that the person saying it is a white supremacist?

by implying that african civs should not be in the game for that reason, despite the fact that civ has always pulled civs from all periods of history and all parts of the world. the fact that europeans have been dominant in recent centuries--which of course i don't dispute--in no way supports the claim that "there's a very real historical reason why ... there's more European than African civs." that would only be the case if civ focused exclusively on the last five centuries.

Jared Diamond and Howard Zinn talk about the prominence of European empires in world history, that doesn't mean they were racists. In fact, sometimes they were antagonistic to Western imperialism.

indeed. i wouldn't presume to know what howard zinn would think about the balance of civs in civ 6, but it might be safe to say he'd be more sensitive to the underrepresentation of non-westerners than some on this board.

If we were to be honest, we don't exactly know why. But to assume that the devs have some racist malice behind the over-representation of Western civs is just too much.

it's probably more like eurocentric cluelessness. but given that civ games have usually been much better at striking a balance than civ 6--including the two expansions for civ 5 which were also designed by ed beach--it's a cluelessness that's hard to understand or explain.

in any case, it is impossible to deny that from a global perspective there is a serious imbalance in the civs selected so far. if white folks on this board don't mind that there are so many white civs because they like to see their own history, then fine, just say so. but don't claim that i'm somehow out of line for simply pointing out that there's an imbalance.

Best we could do is hope that a new expansion adds the major non-Western players of world history and several other non-Western civs.

in this we are in full agreement.

 

[MooFreaky]

Come on guys, let's leave the debate about which Civs deserve to be represented for a thread about that. Otherwise we will go around in circles with people getting more frustrated. Let's talk about Macedon. Let's talk about the fact Alex has a mullet... what a bogan

 

[Leyrann]

@standingwolf How about you stop discussing for something that just isn't true?

I provided factual evidence that there's a lot more big empires from Europe than from Africa, and still you say that it's wrong there's more European than African civs in there. Where's the logic in that? I sure as hell can't find it.

Let me get this clear - I want more civs from the other continents. But it's a fact that most big empires were either European or from the Middle-East.

 

[nzcamel]

in any case, even if your basic premise were correct--that the civs included are there because they've been the largest and most successful in terms of conquest--that still fails to address why the initial release didn't include some of the largest and most successful empires in world history, viz., the mongols, the inca, and the persians. it doesn't explain why the only african civ we have was a relatively minor power, as opposed to a genuine empire like mali or songhai. and it also fails to explain why we did have such civs as norway, which spent most of its history as a part of denmark, as well as geographically tiny greece since technically it was macedon that created a massive greek empire.

Others have tackled your other stuff well, so I just want to address this ^^^:

If it were my choice, the Mongols and Incans would have been in the base game ahead of Scythia and Brazil. Persia probably a head of Sumeria. And the Aussies wouldn't have been one of the first dlc.

But people like variety so I don't blame the devs for feeling the pressure to switch things around. The lack of the Mongols annoy me the most, but I do look forward to them helming the first expansion. They better be the big draw card!

I think your criticism of Kongo is fair.
As to Norway/Denmark/Vikings - they are all itinerations of the same thing. I think it's fair to say they don't belong alongside the greatest Civs....but I understand what they offer in contrast to land based civs, and how popular they are at the mo due to a couple of dark tv shows. I wouldn't have included them in my vanilla release either.

I do not think any of that is racism. I will acknowledge there is pandering to people who want variety, and to current trends. Take out the Vikings, Scythia, Brazil, Australia, & Sumeria. Replace them with the Incans, Persians, Mongols, Ottomans, & another Civ you like; and the line up is still very European...and there is nothing wrong with that.

Come on guys, let's leave the debate about which Civs deserve to be represented for a thread about that. Otherwise we will go around in circles with people getting more frustrated. Let's talk about Macedon. Let's talk about the fact Alex has a mullet... what a bogan

I appreciate your angle MooFreaky, but there is a rejection of Macedon as worthy tied to their ethnicity that is running through this thread that cannot be ignored. Especially once it spills over into accusations of racism on the part of the devs.

But it's a fact that most big empires were either European or from the Middle-East.

And Oriental Asia...

 

[Palavos]

 

[standingwolf]

Others have tackled your other stuff well, so I just want to address this ^^^

hey, i'd just like to say a genuine thank you for actually reading one of my arguments and responding thoughtfully. it sounds like overall our assessment of which civs should be included lines up pretty closely. and i agree that it's fun to shake things up--it's just when that creates too much of an imbalance that it concerns me.

i certainly would be very happy to be wrong about any blatant or subtle racism on the part of the devs. i'm really enjoying civ 6 overall and it bugs me that this issue keeps muddying the waters. moreover if my charges are false then you're all right to take offense.

at the same time, if racism is bad then it's important to call it out whenever it appears, even if it's merely the appearance of racism rather than the real thing. i would rather be on record saying this looks racist and be wrong than have it actually be racist and i said nothing.

in any case, as we all keep saying, hopefully more world civs are just around the corner and we never need to have this discussion again.

 

[nzcamel]

by implying that african civs should not be in the game for that reason, despite the fact that civ has always pulled civs from all periods of history and all parts of the world. the fact that europeans have been dominant in recent centuries--which of course i don't dispute--in no way supports the claim that "there's a very real historical reason why ... there's more European than African civs." that would only be the case if civ focused exclusively on the last five centuries.

How many different Civ games have you played? I've been playing since II; and there always have been a wildcard or two in each game; but it is the titans of world history who have featured most often.
No one has implied that African Civs should not be in the game. No one has said that Kongo is wonderful and we don't want to see other African Civs join the game.

indeed. i wouldn't presume to know what howard zinn would think about the balance of civs in civ 6, but it might be safe to say he'd be more sensitive to the underrepresentation of non-westerners than some on this board.

I would say here is your problem: You want a different roster of Civs based on sensitivity.

it's probably more like eurocentric cluelessness. but given that civ games have usually been much better at striking a balance than civ 6--including the two expansions for civ 5 which were also designed by ed beach--it's a cluelessness that's hard to understand or explain.

Once again...I don't think you've been playing Civ for that long.

in any case, it is impossible to deny that from a global perspective there is a serious imbalance in the civs selected so far. if white folks on this board don't mind that there are so many white civs because they like to see their own history, then fine, just say so. but don't claim that i'm somehow out of line for simply pointing out that there's an imbalance.

Lols, I want Mongolia, I want the Ottomans, I want Japan, I want Assyria, I want Babylon, I want China, I want the Incans, I want the Mayans, I want the Iroquois, I want Ethiopia, I want Siam, I want Korea, I want Phoenica. And I am certain that 90%+ of those not yet included will get included because they warrant it, along with some others I have not named. Along with all the Euro Civs we have so far, and Portugal, and the Netherlands, and Sweden, and the A-H Empire, all of whom also warrant inclusion.

 

[nzcamel]

hey, i'd just like to say a genuine thank you for actually reading one of my arguments and responding thoughtfully.

I appreciate your appreciation...yet the others have been reading your posts and responding thoughtfully too. Like it or not.

at the same time, if racism is bad then it's important to call it out whenever it appears, even if it's merely the appearance of racism rather than the real thing. i would rather be on record saying this looks racist and be wrong than have it actually be racist and i said nothing.

I cannot agree with this. Once again, what appears to be racism will strike everyone differently. It's similar to how offence can only be taken, not given.
When you live life this way...calling out "racism" all over the show...you turn people off, like the boy who called wolf; and in turn they are less likely to take genuine situations of racism less seriously.

 

[standingwolf]

aw, c'mon, dude--i thought we were going to put this to rest.

I appreciate your appreciation...yet the others have been reading your posts and responding thoughtfully too. Like it or not.

trying to shut me up because i dared say the R word is not responding thoughtfully. addressing why 60% of the civs are white when whites make up less than 20% of the world's population would be thoughtful.

I cannot agree with this. Once again, what appears to be racism will strike everyone differently. It's similar to how offence can only be taken, not given.

so if i call a black guy the N word, he's only taking offense--i'm not giving it? come on.

When you live life this way...calling out "racism" all over the show...you turn people off, like the boy who called wolf; and in turn they are less likely to take genuine situations of racism less seriously.

interesting how you accuse me of sensitivity, and yet my use of that word provokes such responses from you. it's interesting to me too when white people are more upset about being called racist than about the possibility of actual racism.

as i said, hopefully the devs correct this, and soon. this is the last i'm going to post on this issue.

 

[CivLuvah]

On more relevant concerns...

When do you guys think the DLC should be released? By the end of this month?

 

[Leyrann]

And Oriental Asia...

Oriental Asia is the main reason why I said "most". (and the few others are the reason I said "main" reason)

at the same time, if racism is bad then it's important to call it out whenever it appears, even if it's merely the appearance of racism rather than the real thing. i would rather be on record saying this looks racist and be wrong than have it actually be racist and i said nothing.

I understand - and fully agree - that racism is one of the worst things in human history (maybe even the worst; after all, things like genocides are an effect of it). However, people need to be far more careful using the word. With what "racist" originally meant, I would rethink my life choices if someone called me a racist, but considering you can barely turn your rear without being called a racist these days, I'd probably just ignore it, thinking this was another person just throwing out the word racist for no other reason than to automatically be right.

 

[GIO888]

Sean Penn!! Love the mane-toss when he takes the helmet off, haven't giggled like that since the BBC reported exit polls said Clinton was winning!!

Mind you, I'm guessing the Euro crisis means lots of Greek developers have gone to Take2/Firaxis since 2008 - we have Gorgo, Pericles, Cleopatra (yes, she was basically Greek!) and now Alexander!

 

[Siptah]

On more relevant concerns...

When do you guys think the DLC should be released? By the end of this month?

Tuesday. is Eagle Pursuits guess. And I think that sounds good. The three videos in rapid succession make a release in the very near future very likely. For tonight, I think we are lacking some updating going on in the steamdb. They haven't released much on todays in the past, so tuesday seems good.

 

[CivLuvah]

Tuesday. is Eagle Pursuits guess. And I think that sounds good. The three videos in rapid succession make a release in the very near future very likely. For tonight, I think we are lacking some updating going on in the steamdb. They haven't released much on todays in the past, so tuesday seems good.

Do you think they'll be doing more announcements before that? I think Eagle Pursuit (or someone in the forums) pointed out a wonder in one of the techs in the tech tree?

 

[Siptah]

Do you think they'll be doing more announcements before that? I think Eagle Pursuit (or someone in the forums) pointed out a wonder in one of the techs in the tech tree?

2 wonders: Apadana and mausoleum of Halikarnassos.
I've posted screenshots and what they do in the live stream thread.