G&K pushes the naming of CIVS into two distinct paths

[El Caballerion]

I've been 'fanatically' reading these postings the past few days in anticipation of G&K, but am noticing something that is bugging the anthropologist inside of me.

It all started with G&K's inclusion of Sweden, which led many to ask, 'should Sweden even exist in G&K considering Denmark is a civ?' And it got me to ask the same question, and come up with my response...'Isn't Sweden very similar culturally and could just be lumped together with Denmark as Scandinavia?'

But this is a common theme of CIV that becomes more confusing. Civ names are based on TWO naming mechanics: CIVILIZATIONS/COUNTRIES/STATES (Ottoman Empire, Rome, USA, Japan, etc.) and TRIBAL/CULTURAL AFFILIATIONS (Arabs, Celts, Polynesia). The former are recognized entities with boundaries or used to be tribes/cultures (France as the Franks for instance) that assimilated into political entities, and the later are ethnicity based (Arabs are people that exist in Egypt, Ottoman Empire, and present day Carthage & Byzantium, and the Celts are present in most of Western Europe).

Just makes me think... which direction will CIV go seeing as G&K continues this trend? Like, why not make EVERY Civ based on a tribe that becomes a civilization later in the game (i.e., Celts can become Britian or France)? Or, just the opposite... no tribes. (Instead of the Celts, just call them Scotland, Ireland, etc.?)

So what do you think... keep the CIVS as ACTUAL civ names? Or have more tribal/cultural-based 'civs'?



And yes, I'm ready for the maelstrom of 'you dont know anything about history' replies that come along with this posting... bring it on.

 

[ampmclock]

You make a good point. Honestly, I would say they did this because they wanted to. It seems to not make sense that The Holy Roman Empire is lumped together with the Germans, and the Khemer have been swallowed by Siam, meanwhile Denmark and Sweden, who have had a long, tired, and heavily tied history, are kept seperate, but I think that's because Sweden and Denmark, while sharing a lot of the same blood and land, are simply VERY seperate from Denmark. There were Danish Kings and there were Swedish Kings, and those things were very different from the get go, I think that's whats important.

But what's even more important, is that the guys making the game wanted Sweden and wanted Denmark in the game, and I'm fine with that. Plus, Denmark swallowed Norway and Sweden swallowed Finland, so there is still some consistency with the "tribal" aspect of naming Civs.

 

[El Caballerion]

That is true. It just seems like there are still huge gaps in the world. For example, there is no representation for Sub-Saharan Africa below Ethiopia, only Incas in South America, and nothing in Australia. Meanwhile, Europe is swamped, yet missing several important countries. Nothing bugs me more than playing a game involving European powers and having to include an 'ancient' civ like Rome when it should be Italy after the Industrial Age.

Argh!

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I just think that what an "actual" civ is has always been an open question. There's not a right or wrong definition as far as your two "groups" go. I don't think your category of "CIVILIZATION/NATIONS/STATES" is entirely correct--many people group Western Europe together as a single "Civilization," for example because they share so many characteristics and history. They're not wrong, it's just a different point of view than you're using.

 

[A Rabid Dopsis]

It seems to be working as is. I'm not sure that a 'direction' needs to be picked. You seem to be working under the assumption that the games must lean one way or the other.

 

[El Caballerion]

Wait. I think I resolved it.

Can they then just include an advanced map option that allows you to CHANGE the names of the AI civs the same way you can change yours? I would be a lot happier.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Any tribe, culture, state, nation, or empire could theoretically be added to the game just s long as it has compelling and unique gameplay. There is nothing wrong with having a tribe in the same game as a culture in the same game as an empire. In fact, that's exactly what we have here. Why go one direction, when you can go both?

 

[noncognosco]

I actually like the idea of starting out with a tribe that at some point changes its name to a modern country. Of course it might be hard to implement since there is not a 1-to-1 correlation: modern France is composed of more than just Franks while the Polynesians currently make up quite a few different countries in the South Pacific. But it is an interesting concept.

Of course this also ignores the fact that tribal identity is often quite fluid. So for instance when you play as Genghis of the "Mongols" you control a large army of "Mongol Keshiks" but historically most of the armies controlled by Genghis and his descendants probably did not identify themselves as Mongols. They were members of any numbers of other tribes that were drafted into the horde.

I guess there isn't really any way to express this kind of complexity in the game though.

 

[El Caballerion]

Again, I think that the tribal names could work very well because they blanket a lot of overlapping land. I guess the more I think about it, the more I want the ability to customize the AI civ names in the game. That way, if I play on a map of Great Britian, I can play as England versus 3 Celt Civs... that way, I can name them Wales, Scotland, and Ireland without getting confused and being able to keep some sort of immersive accuracy.... or at least the best accuracy I can have given the lack of those three countries.

Nah'mean?

 

[Uberfrog]

It's not that there's a path, or a "direction" to this. The developers come up with ideas for civilisations they want to represent, and the name follows thereafter. Hence those with a broader focus than one particular nation state, like Mayans, Arabs, Polynesians and Celts can coexist with the specific, like England and Sweden.

 

[kungming2]

That is true. It just seems like there are still huge gaps in the world. For example, there is no representation for Sub-Saharan Africa below Ethiopia, only Incas in South America, and nothing in Australia.

I agree that there's less diversity in those areas, but I don't think there's any historical civ other than the Inca to include from South America (Olmec were North) and none from Australia (hundreds of tribes with an impressively diverse set of languages). Unless you're suggesting including modern countries like Australia or Brazil?

I think we'll see the Zulu return in a future expansion, though. I miss Shaka from Civ IV.

 

[Baleur]

But that's the charm of the game, seeing England in 3000BC and Aztec in 2015.
If you're looking for historical accuracy this game will never provide that, i'm afraid.
Europa Universalis 3 might be more your taste.

 

[Calouste]

But this is a common theme of CIV that becomes more confusing. Civ names are based on TWO naming mechanics: CIVILIZATIONS/COUNTRIES/STATES (Ottoman Empire, Rome, USA, Japan, etc.) and TRIBAL/CULTURAL AFFILIATIONS (Arabs, Celts, Polynesia). The former are recognized entities with boundaries or used to be tribes/cultures (France as the Franks for instance) that assimilated into political entities, and the later are ethnicity based (Arabs are people that exist in Egypt, Ottoman Empire, and present day Carthage & Byzantium, and the Celts are present in most of Western Europe).

The Caliphates (7th -15th century) were definitely an Arab empire and not just a tribal affiliation.

 

[mo123567]

I prefer that the most influential empires are included in the game and represented in their most dominate form: eg; Rome as opposed to Italy. After the major empires are included (Rome, Persia, England, USA etc..) I think they try to have some fun and add some surprises to keep things interesting (Polynesia, Sweden, Iroquois, etc)

I guess I am not one who cares about representing all areas on the globe. I just want the most influential empires/nations. Even though we have plenty of European civs, I still want Portugal and Poland more than some nation or tribe added just to represent space in Africa, South America, or Australia. I guess that is because I do not play on Earth maps.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I don't think this is a new trend. It's pretty much been this way at least since Civ2 (Arabs and Celts, but Russia, America, France). Civ4 had the Holy Roman Empire and the Celts. I don't think there will ever be a uniform system, nor do I think one is required.

 

[Phrozen]

I agree that there's less diversity in those areas, but I don't think there's any historical civ other than the Inca to include from South America (Olmec were North) and none from Australia (hundreds of tribes with an impressively diverse set of languages). Unless you're suggesting including modern countries like Australia or Brazil?

I think we'll see the Zulu return in a future expansion, though. I miss Shaka from Civ IV.

There were city states in South America before the Inca. In fact the Inca civ uses some of their names for Incan cities. The problem is that we don't know a whole bunch about them. In all the other civs we have historical i.e. written documents and archaeological evidence about them. Some of the other civilizations in North and South America that came before European contact we only have archaeological evidence for such as the Olmecs, Mississipian, Chaco Canyon, Toltecs, Nazca, Tiwanaku and others.

Now, for North America you could certainly include the Cherokee, Seminole, Sioux, or the Pacific Northwest Salish.

 

[jjkrause84]

There were city states in South America before the Inca. In fact the Inca civ uses some of their names for Incan cities. The problem is that we don't know a whole bunch about them. In all the other civs we have historical i.e. written documents and archaeological evidence about them. Some of the other civilizations in North and South America that came before European contact we only have archaeological evidence for such as the Olmecs, Mississipian, Chaco Canyon, Toltecs, Nazca, Tiwanaku and others.

Now, for North America you could certainly include the Cherokee, Seminole, Sioux, or the Pacific Northwest Salish.

Yes, but do we really need Aztecs AND Olmecs? I, personally, don't think so. A little selectivity is not a bad thing. The Sioux I would like added, for their role played in modern history, and I'm glad the Iroquois are in, even though they were not a 'people' as such.

 

[Kimuyama]

The Olmecs were quite different from the Aztecs, I'd see them as the halfway-point between Aztecs and Mayans, certainly more different than Sweden and Denmark.

 

[Gucumatz]

Yes, but do we really need Aztecs AND Olmecs? I, personally, don't think so. A little selectivity is not a bad thing. The Sioux I would like added, for their role played in modern history, and I'm glad the Iroquois are in, even though they were not a 'people' as such.

There are actually a ton of unique civs in South America - Most of them unknown though to the West which makes them all poor choices to get in.

Chachapoya, a Jungle/Mountain based trading empire that introduced slingers to the region ruled for hundreds of years and established a big confederation. Very unique styles of architecture, pottery, and religion [Kuelap outshines Machu Picchu in almost every aspect - but is less heard of. Its the city with the most stone in the world]

The Wari and Tiwanaku - Two empires that engaged in a literal cold war for centuries and eventually ended up in fighting. Controlled massive populations

The Moche - Amazing Stadiums, Carving abilities, stone work is amazing.

The Nazca - City names known, specific buildings unique to them known (desert aqueducts for example), and of course amazing accomplishments (Nazca Lines, various pyramids, living in an arid desert)

The Mapuche - Not my favorite but considered the Sioux of the South

ETC.

 

[jjkrause84]

The Olmecs were quite different from the Aztecs, I'd see them as the halfway-point between Aztecs and Mayans, certainly more different than Sweden and Denmark.

I'm not saying that they were the same....I'm saying does Civ really need the Olmecs or Toltecs or other more obscure South/Central American cultures? At what point do you stop? You cannot, and should not have, 30 or 40 civs. At some point game makers have to be realistic about what they choose to include (and part of this means being wise to the economics of their creation!). People on an internet forum do not have to engage with reality in the same way, and can get carried away.