Georgia, one of the worst civ choices!?

[lionbadger]

The staples should always be in the game, but they can always exist in a different form. Kievan Rus' and the Soviet Union are also Russia,

Kievan Rus are swedish

georgia, scythian and russia could all be considered "russian", hell, even Poland could be considered part of Russia depending on what historical context you're looking from

 

[AbsintheRed]

I personally saw Austria as a vehicle for a "Hapsburg empire", in that the Hapsburgs were huge in European history but were spread out across different other "civs." So Austria was a way to consolidate the essence of a Hapsburgian style of play via royal marriages while maintaining some semblance of a coherent civ. Kind of how Macedon is pretty transparently a way to get Alexander into VI.

Surely, but then we talk about the country and/or it's rulers again, instead of the civilization itself.
Macedon is also a very bad choice in my opinion, with Greece already in I would have never included it.
In my ideal world none of these would appear as full civilizations, only in various scenarios in one form or another.

In fact, this would be my ideal list of full civilizations:
Europe: Dutch, England, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Norse/Vikings, Spain, Poland, Portugal, Rome, Russia (Celts, Byzantium, Norse split, Bulgaria)
Africa: Egypt, Ethiopia, Kongo, Mali, Morocco, Nubia (Carthage, Songhai, Zulu, Swahili)
Middle-East: Arabia, Armenia, Assyria, Babylon, Hittites, Phoenicia, Sumer, Turkey (Israel, Georgia)
Asia: China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Khmer, Korea, Mongolia, Persia, Siam, Tibet, Vietnam (Burma, Khazaria)
America: Aztec, Maya, Inca, Cree, Iroquios, Sioux, Pueblo (Musica, Mapuche) (Haida, Apache)
(Civs that appeared in the series before, but I would never include them again: Native America, HRE, USA, Brazil, Australia, Venice, Austria, Macedonia, Huns, Scythia, Polynesia, Shoshone)

I would definitely include all those 44 civs without a parenthesis. (let's do not take controversies about Tibet, Pueblo, etc. into account)
Instead of the Cree the Haida or other northern native american civ might appear though.

If there is still room, some might also get in from the ones in parenthesis. A couple examples (and in some case the reason why are they are separated from the main civs):
Adding a couple more native american civs, especially in the south. I'm not that well-versed in the area, maybe there are better options
Splitting the Norse civ into the separate 3 counterparts. It's probably a valid request, altough it does take 2 more slots.
The Zulu is a fairly bad choice, but not that bad either, and a series staple. If there is room, they can get in too.
But the most interesting question is that where is the line between civs, when can they be considered separate. Do Byzantium, Carthage, Songhai have a place if Rome+Greece, Phoenicia and Mali are already in? If yes than I would like to see them too.
If there is still room for a European civ, I would choose a civ from the Balkans: Bulgaria or maybe Serbia.
And finally, put Georgia on the list, based on all the various options I read today. If all the others mentioned above are in, and there is room for a 2nd civ from Caucasia, why not

 

[SammyKhalifa]

the idea that you don't want to include the US kinda reveals your biases.

 

[dunkleosteus]

Surely, but then we talk about the country and/or it's rulers again, instead of the civilization itself.
Macedon is also a very bad choice in my opinion, with Greece already in I would have never included it.
In my ideal world none of these would appear as full civilizations, only in various scenarios in one form or another.

In fact, this would be my ideal list of full civilizations:
Europe: Dutch, England, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Norse/Vikings, Spain, Poland, Portugal, Rome, Russia (Celts, Byzantium, Norse split, Bulgaria)
Africa: Egypt, Ethiopia, Kongo, Mali, Morocco, Nubia (Carthage, Songhai, Zulu, Swahili)
Middle-East: Arabia, Armenia, Assyria, Babylon, Hittites, Phoenicia, Sumer, Turkey (Israel, Georgia)
Asia: China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Khmer, Korea, Mongolia, Persia, Siam, Tibet, Vietnam (Burma, Khazaria)
America: Aztec, Maya, Inca, Cree, Iroquios, Sioux, Pueblo (Musica, Mapuche) (Haida, Apache)
(Civs that appeared in the series before, but I would never include them again: Native America, HRE, USA, Brazil, Australia, Venice, Austria, Macedonia, Huns, Scythia, Polynesia, Shoshone)

I would definitely include all those 44 civs without a parenthesis. (let's do not take controversies about Tibet, Pueblo, etc. into account)
Instead of the Cree the Haida or other northern native american civ might appear though.

If there is still room, some might also get in from the ones in parenthesis. A couple examples (and in some case the reason why are they are separated from the main civs):
Adding a couple more native american civs, especially in the south. I'm not that well-versed in the area, maybe there are better options
Splitting the Norse civ into the separate 3 counterparts. It's probably a valid request, altough it does take 2 more slots.
The Zulu is a fairly bad choice, but not that bad either, and a series staple. If there is room, they can get in too.
But the most interesting question is that where is the line between civs, when can they be considered separate. Do Byzantium, Carthage, Songhai have a place if Rome+Greece, Phoenicia and Mali are already in? If yes than I would like to see them too.
If there is still room for a European civ, I would choose a civ from the Balkans: Bulgaria or maybe Serbia.
And finally, put Georgia on the list, based on all the various options I read today. If all the others mentioned above are in, and there is room for a 2nd civ from Caucasia, why not

I thought it was really weird you were so adamant against Austria's inclusion given their historical importance while you included Hungary until I saw where you were from and then it made a lot more sense

Maybe we should just stop keeping them separate.

 

[AbsintheRed]

the idea that you don't want to include the US kinda reveals your biases.

I don't really understand what does it reveal? I aleady stated a couple times that I won't add any of the colonial civs as full civilizations in the game.
I would represent them through some kind of a special colonization mechanics. Not as a full civ, but some kind of offsprings from the mother civ, which might get totally separate during the course of the game.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

most of the civs you list are themselves former colonies, just at an earlier time period.

They've done as much or more than anyone to stand out in the annals of history as a separate entity, even though they've only been around a short time.

 

[steveg700]

Though Venice was a step in the right direction, I would love to play as a collection of pan-Italian city states this time around with different leaders. I agree that Austria would fit well again with Maria Theresa. I could see her sending her children off to city-states or other Civilizations for diplomatic relationships.
However, coffee houses can go away in favor of opera houses.

How about a sausage factory? A really tiny one

I was one of the big proponents of an Italy civ on this forum back in the Civ V days, well before Venice became official. Was certainly an uphill argument (because, y'know, Rome).

SInce Civ spans multiple eras, it's kind of natural to me for the civ's uniques to span eras as well, rather than be optimal during only one. I could see an Italy civ having a renaissance-themed unique ability, then having a unique leader like Garibaldi, perhaps with an ability wherein he conquers one city-state, and it generates loyalty in others. And then a unique unit could be from the world wars, like the Bersaglieri bicycle infantry or the mountain-traversing Alpini.

 

[dunkleosteus]

the idea that you don't want to include the US kinda reveals your biases.

I dunno, I'm from Canada and I might be ok with having the US excluded from the [base] game. It'd be cool if there were separate civs that could be created from colonies though. The USA could be a civ that could appear from a colony seceding or by choosing a later era to start the game.

If someone was adamant about preferring older empires rather than colonial civilizations, I'd understand why. I mean, if you look at American history before the 1500s, you're looking at European history, for the most part. There isn't really a continuum between the governments, cultures and peoples other than that.

 

[dc1215]

I don't really understand what does it reveal? I aleady stated a couple times that I won't add any of the colonial civs as full civilizations in the game.
I would represent them through some kind of a special colonization mechanics. Not as a full civ, but some kind of offsprings from the mother civ, which might get totally separate during the course of the game.

Then lets not add England bc it’s an offspring of Angles and Saxons and Britons or France bc it’s an offspring of the Franks and others. Your logic here is highly flawed.

 

[steveg700]

most of the civs you list are themselves former colonies, just at an earlier time period.

Sure, everyone came from somewhere, but for me and I suppose others the premise feels stretched when there are Americans trying to discover the Wheel. Not a deal-breaker, but I could see folks wanting to do without civ's that IRL started past a certain technological era. YMMV.

 

[Karpius]

Again, would be perfect as a country in a scenario, but not as a civilization in the full game.

Based on what criteria? What makes Austria any less than any other civ? It was the bulwark against Ottoman expansion in eastern Europe after the demise of the Eastern Roman Empire. The Habsburgs had their fingers in virtually every royal court throughout Europe for centuries. It was as distinct on its own as any other civ represented.

 

[dunkleosteus]

Then lets not add England bc it’s an offspring of Angles and Saxons and Britons or France bc it’s an offspring of the Franks and others. Your logic here is highly flawed.

That's unfair. The English are a bit of a mix of all of the cultural inputs of various peoples and cultures. There was an indigenous population that built stonehenge before being invaded by the Celts. And then the Romans. And then the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. And then France [Normans]. But if you do a DNA analysis on your average Englishman, and an 8000 year old grave found in the same village, you'll likely find that they're related. The gene pool of England has remained largely the same, even if their leaders have changed through politics and conflict.

To that end, you can track the history of England from the stone age to the present. In colonies like Canada (my own country) or America, you can't do that as well. We supplanted the native people. My people's history is not the history of Canada, I'm European. You can say "what does a stone age Englishman look like" and get an answer. If you asked what a stone age American looks like, I'd give you the same answer I gave for England.

 

[Karpius]

Sure, everyone came from somewhere, but for me and I suppose others the premise feels stretched when there are Americans trying to discover the Wheel. Not a deal-breaker, but I could see folks wanting to do without civ's that IRL started past a certain technological era. YMMV.

Based on that, you might need to remove all the current civs and stick to the most ancient peoples that we don't even have names for.

 

[dc1215]

I get all that. My point is that when you look at a civ’s historical significance its origins should not be relevant.

 

[Ricard.Bossle]

If any of the DEVS are reading this, I would like you to know:

Great job with Tamar and Georgia! It is a very interesting CIV with a very interesting leader.
Some members of this forum might disagree with this choice, but there's a lot of people - like me - who loved the inclusion. We just dont keep creating threads to express our love, but we are here too.


Thanks.

 

[steveg700]

Based on that, you might need to remove all the current civs and stick to the most ancient peoples that we don't even have names for.

Horrible application of a slippery-slope argument. C'mon, sir.

 

[dunkleosteus]

I get all that. My point is that when you look at a civ’s historical significance its origins should not be relevant.

The Civilization series spans 6000 years. There really weren't a ton of huge civilizations in 4000 BC, but there have been some truly immense empires since then. America has certainly played an important role since the mid-19th century, and even took the center stage in the 20th century, but it is the odd one out when compared to many other civilizations. America was largely built on the infrastructure created and put in place by European powers. The people were settled from Europe, and they brought with them their language, beliefs, religions and cultures. There are many examples of nations building themselves from the ashes of their predecessors: many modern European countries were built on Roman foundations. But Rome fell. Governments collapsed. Petty kingdoms rose and fought amongst each other and warred and built themselves up. I don't mean any offence against America, but it really hasn't done the same thing. America was built by Europe, mostly Britain. America had a falling out with Britain and declared independence. America fought against a subset of the British military and won, and Britain conceded that America should be allowed to separate. That's a very big simplification of the history, but the point is that America was given everything it needed to succeed on a silver platter. This may not be easy to swallow for some people. I am very, very proud of my country, but I have to admit that it's even worse for us. We didn't even fight for our freedom, we just asked nicely.

I'm trying to say that while America is very big and important, they are standing on the soldiers of giants. There was no American identity for the first 11/12ths of the game.

 

[Karpius]

To that end, you can track the history of England from the stone age to the present. In colonies like Canada (my own country) or America, you can't do that as well. We supplanted the native people. My people's history is not the history of Canada, I'm European. You can say "what does a stone age Englishman look like" and get an answer. If you asked what a stone age American looks like, I'd give you the same answer I gave for England.

Every 'civ' is the offspring or offshoot or amalgamation of something else. What makes a civ is not its DNA and ethnicity, but so very much more.

 

[dunkleosteus]

Every 'civ' is the offspring or offshoot or amalgamation of something else. What makes a civ is not its DNA and ethnicity, but so very much more.

See my recent post. My argument is that a people need a cultural identity and a history that belongs to themselves, not borrowed from someone else. I used "11/12ths" when I referred to the history of America, but that was generous. I was using 1500 as the starting point of American history. All "Americans" in 1500 were British citizens and lived in British villages, towns and outposts.

 

[dc1215]

The Civilization series spans 6000 years. There really weren't a ton of huge civilizations in 4000 BC, but there have been some truly immense empires since then. America has certainly played an important role since the mid-19th century, and even took the center stage in the 20th century, but it is the odd one out when compared to many other civilizations. America was largely built on the infrastructure created and put in place by European powers. The people were settled from Europe, and they brought with them their language, beliefs, religions and cultures. There are many examples of nations building themselves from the ashes of their predecessors: many modern European countries were built on Roman foundations. But Rome fell. Governments collapsed. Petty kingdoms rose and fought amongst each other and warred and built themselves up. I don't mean any offence against America, but it really hasn't done the same thing. America was built by Europe, mostly Britain. America had a falling out with Britain and declared independence. America fought against a subset of the British military and won, and Britain conceded that America should be allowed to separate. That's a very big simplification of the history, but the point is that America was given everything it needed to succeed on a silver platter. This may not be easy to swallow for some people. I am very, very proud of my country, but I have to admit that it's even worse for us. We didn't even fight for our freedom, we just asked nicely.

I'm trying to say that while America is very big and important, they are standing on the soldiers of giants. There was no American identity for the first 11/12ths of the game.

I fundamentally disagree with you. We’re going to have to agree to disagree.