Georgia, one of the worst civ choices!?

[Thormodr]

Speaking of Vietnam, it really is about time we had Vietnam.

Agree 100%. A country that defeated 3 Superpowers in the 20th century alone deserves some respect, finally.

As to Georgia, it is indeed worthy. A Civ that has endured for thousands of years is worthy of respect and inclusion.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I am glad that, in defense of Georgia, you gave the one good reason on why they should have not been added.

If that's the only reason, by that same logic we don't need any more ancient middle eastern men with beards, since we already have Gilgamesh.

 

[Staal]

That's certainly going to happen. Never heard about apartheid.

Ever heard about...

Zulu = Mfecane (deliberate annihilation of neighbouring tribes, estimate 1-2 million deaths)
Germany = Holocaust

And we can go on... Mongols, Russia (as the Soviets), England (first concentration camps against the Boers that killed an estimated 10% of their population)

But wait let us hold this against the Boers whose death toll literally pales in comparison to all of the above and who in the end gave up power peacefully.

 

[PhilBowles]

Note all those civs you mentioned are not From the Caucasus, they expanded into the Caucasus.

Maybe not a big difference but it is like saying we don't need Vietnam because England, France and the Netherlands already expanded into South East Asia

Iran's borders have been stable in this region for centuries, as has the part of the Ottoman Empire that's now Turkey. The Caucasus is part of their core territory, not a colonial possession. It's closer to arguing that we don't need a civ to represent Yorkshire.

 

[Scaramanga]

Speaking of Vietnam, it really is about time we had Vietnam.

This is my fear that even though Georgia is great and maybe even a little bit indulgent from the developers, it opens the floodgates and soon there will be more random civs than "pantheon" ones (Rome, Greece, Egypt etc.)

 

[GermanSettler]

A lot of posters do such a good job discussing Civ here on these boards that I always enjoy reading through it all without feeling the need to participate.

But this one is different... because I really have an issue with that whole "worthiness" debate.

I totally understand that it can be aggravating when one is hoping for a certain civ or a certain leader and than it goes a different way.

But the absolutism behind some of the arguments seems a bit hyperbolic. Especially since a) there is no rule for determinating a civilization's/leader's worthiness, b) Civilization is about an alternative course of history and not a representation of the real world, and c) there will always be someone with a different hope for the composition of the civ pool.

Yet, one reads a lot of accusations here (and much more so on Reddit and YT) about certain leaders or civs being "unworthy", "inexcusable" and whatnot. And all that despite the fact that we have a very clear picture of why civs and leaders are included in this iteration of the game.

Does the inclusion of Tamar make sense if there are civs excluded which have been more influential on the world's history? The answer can only be "no" if you accept that influence is the primary factor to inlcude a civ. The devs, however, made it clear quite early on that a lot of other contemplations go into the equation as well - such as the personality of a leader. Which seems to have had a lot to do with the inclusion of de Medici for France. Again, if a leader should in your book be the "most represenative" leader of a nation than she isn't a good choice. But if you also want an element of surprise, uniqueness, etc. her "worth" increases dramatically.

This does not mean that I want everyone to shut up about their behelds against certain leaders or civs. Far from it. I have my issues with some choices myself. But as long as they are not gameplay breaking or harming, I at least try to see why it might work for others. I will still disagree with it. But I will not come to the conclusion that a certain choice is in any way despicable, unworthy or inexcusable. As a matter of fact I have a hard time seeing any choice in Civ6 to be inexcusable... all of them seem to make sense to me if I consider the logic behind this game.

 

[Karpius]

This does not mean that I want everyone to shut up about their behelds against certain leaders or civs. Far from it. I have my issues with some choices myself. But as long as they are not gameplay breaking or harming, I at least try to see why it might work for others. I will still disagree with it. But I will not come to the conclusion that a certain choice is in any way despicable, unworthy or inexcusable. As a matter of fact I have a hard time seeing any choice in Civ6 to be inexcusable... all of them seem to make sense to me if I consider the logic behind this game.

So very well said! Lucid and eloquent and everything I have tried to say across several posts, but I think you nailed it.

 

[Karpius]

So anyway....who here is anxious for their first Georgia-Cree war?

::ducks::

 

[Stomper66]

I just thought one of the good things about having Georgia in a real world map game would stop Russia and Mongolia expanding too much and becoming runaway civs. Russian Lavra is already way OP in my opinion and i hope they amend that to just get the tile bonus. They get like every writer, artist and musician in every game I play. Ottomans will also stop Russia expansion to the south when they are eventually added.

 

[jokii]

Georgia civ is not particularly fun. And we already have Scythia which covers that same part of the world.
On the other hand Balkan in Europe have never been covered in any of the Civ games. BTW Greece and Rome civs does not count. Both are always part of the Civ games and they do not represent that part of the world.
I think they should make Yugoslavia as one of the next civs, with Josip Broz Tito as a leader and a Partisan as a military unit.
That sounds fun to me....

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Georgia civ is not particularly fun. And we already have Scythia which covers that same part of the world.
On the other hand Balkan in Europe have never been covered in any of the Civ games. BTW Greece and Rome civs does not count. Both are always part of the Civ games and they do not represent that part of the world.
I think they should make Yugoslavia as one of the next civs, with Josip Broz Tito as a leader and a Partisan as a military unit.
That sounds fun to me....

How do you know if it's fun if you haven't played it?

 

[jokii]

How do you know if it's fun if you haven't played it?

I will try, of course, but on a first look it doesn't look very interesting...
Let see:
Glory of the world leader trait - protectorate war? - very, very situational. I don't want to be to harsh, but it looks even useless.
Strength in unity - golden age bonus? - very questionable, we will see but definitely not a game breaking...
Khevsureti unit - Hill bonus? - situational pre-gunpowder unit..., but not to bad...
Tsikhe - Renaissance walls which give you....wait for it.... FAITH ?....What? OK. Fine.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I will try, of course, but on a first look it doesn't look very interesting...
Let see:
Glory of the world leader trait - protectorate war? - very, very situational. I don't want to be to harsh, but it looks even useless.
Strength in unity - golden age bonus? - very questionable, we will see but definitely not a game breaking...
Khevsureti unit - Hill bonus? - situational pre-gunpowder unit..., but not to bad...
Tsikhe - Renaissance walls which give you....wait for it.... FAITH ?....What? OK. Fine.

Yeah, I don't know either. I think it comes down to how fun it is to play with the golden age things.

 

[steveg700]

Does the inclusion of Tamar make sense if there are civs excluded which have been more influential on the world's history? The answer can only be "no" if you accept that influence is the primary factor to inlcude a civ. The devs, however, made it clear quite early on that a lot of other contemplations go into the equation as well - such as the personality of a leader.

Okay, but understand that doesn't really mean that fans should abandon their desire for meritocratic consideration because the devs have tossed the bar away. It just means some fans will post their disagreement with the current team of developers handling of the franchise.

Where Civ came from was the premise of a title bout between empires between the great empires throughout history. Kind of like those "Greatest Warrior" battles that would pit Viking berserkers and samurai against each other. So, the old elitist paradigm and the new "band camp" paradigm are pretty much diametrically opposed. Ripe for contention.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Okay, but understand that doesn't really mean that fans should abandon their desire for meritocratic consideration because the devs have tossed the bar away. It just means some fans will post their disagreement with the current team of developers handling of the franchise.

Where Civ came from was the premise of a title bout between empires between the great empires throughout history. Kind of like those "Greatest Warrior" battles that would pit Viking berserkers and samurai against each other. So, the old elitist paradigm and the new "band camp" paradigm are pretty much diametrically opposed. Ripe for contention.

Ha, you haven't been to the same band camps as I have.

 

[steveg700]

I will try, of course, but on a first look it doesn't look very interesting...
Let see:
Glory of the world leader trait - protectorate war? - very, very situational. I don't want to be to harsh, but it looks even useless.
Strength in unity - golden age bonus? - very questionable, we will see but definitely not a game breaking...
Khevsureti unit - Hill bonus? - situational pre-gunpowder unit..., but not to bad...
Tsikhe - Renaissance walls which give you....wait for it.... FAITH ?....What? OK. Fine.

Faith does seem to be the resource-of-least-resistance. Being so utterly ubiquitous as it is (not even necessarily tied to religion), just about any civ could get faith for doing something. And it's not offer a direct buy into victory conditions in the fashion of culture and science.

Yeah, I don't know either. I think it comes down to how fun it is to play with the golden age things.

That seems to be the crux of it. It doesn't help you earn a golden age, just gives you an extra reward. That's the kind of thing I like from a civ. I miss Spain's "Cities of Gold" ability from Civ V, where you got some extra bennies from discovering natural wonders. I would rather have incentives to meet challenges than bonuses that act as an "easy button" to overcome them.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Where Civ came from was the premise of a title bout between empires between the great empires throughout history. Kind of like those "Greatest Warrior" battles that would pit Viking berserkers and samurai against each other. So, the old elitist paradigm and the new "band camp" paradigm are pretty much diametrically opposed. Ripe for contention.

Careful now, we don't want this coming true.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

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.

Um, actually, in 1500 all 'British' Americans were still in Britain. Even the abortive Roanoke Colony wasn't until just before 1600, and none of the permanent British colonies in North America were established until after 1600. The only 'Americans' in 1500 were speaking Native American languages and tracing their DNA back to Siberia...

 

[dunkleosteus]

Um, actually, in 1500 all 'British' Americans were still in Britain. Even the abortive Roanoke Colony wasn't until just before 1600, and none of the permanent British colonies in North America were established until after 1600. The only 'Americans' in 1500 were speaking Native American languages and tracing their DNA back to Siberia...

Thank you, that's a very good point

 

[Vahnstad]

Ever heard about...

Zulu = Mfecane (deliberate annihilation of neighbouring tribes, estimate 1-2 million deaths)
Germany = Holocaust

And we can go on... Mongols, Russia (as the Soviets), England (first concentration camps against the Boers that killed an estimated 10% of their population)

But wait let us hold this against the Boers whose death toll literally pales in comparison to all of the above and who in the end gave up power peacefully.

We don't have Adolf Hitler as a leader or Nazi-Germany as a civ?
Moderator Action: We do not need to go here. leif
Mongols is a very long time ago
USSR did this under the leadership of Stalin, other leaders were morally good (contrary what they let believe you because of western propaganda).

I'm not advocating the inclusion of Leopold II, Hitler, Stalin or other recent leaders who did controversial things. That's why I wouldn't support Ronald Reagan as an alternate leader. His actions were far too recent and many families are still affected by policies he enacted.