iammaxhailme
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2015
- Messages
- 1,999
I think they only made Alexander the leader of Macedon instead of alt Greece because the Acropolis doesn't really suit him at all.
Georgia, one of the worst civ choices!?
- Thread starter AbsintheRed
- Start date
- Status
I think they only made Alexander the leader of Macedon instead of alt Greece because the Acropolis doesn't really suit him at all.
Returning Lurker
Prince
Believe me, if Georgia pushes the Ottomans out of this expansion I will be absolutely livid and resentful. HOWEVER even I have to admit that calling them one of the worst choices is a bit hyperbolic. I mean, you’d have to actively try to make the worst civ imaginable if you wanted even the slightest chance at beating “The Native Americans” from Civ 4. I wouldn’t even call them the worst inclusion in this game, I’m STILL bitter at Brazil. And the glorified Alexander the Civ they called Macedon? Shameful.
krokobone
Chieftain
I'm getting a bit tired of all this "undeserving civ with a female leader" nonsense. Firstly, I think every culture deserves to be represented in a Civ game, especially if it is one that we have never seen before. I myself would have preferred Portugal or Turkey over Georgia, but Georgia is just as valid a choice for a civ as those two, and I will be glad to try them out in the expansion, regardless of my personal preferences.
Secondly, Tamar seems to me a very good choice for a female leader. Yes, there have been a few not so great choices in the base game (like Catherine for France), but I really can't see how Firaxis is "forcing gender equality". Sure, there have been more male leaders in history, but does it really matter that much? If they can find interesting leaders (regardless of their gender), that is more than enough for me, and Tamar seems a very fresh and interesting choice.
Secondly, Tamar seems to me a very good choice for a female leader. Yes, there have been a few not so great choices in the base game (like Catherine for France), but I really can't see how Firaxis is "forcing gender equality". Sure, there have been more male leaders in history, but does it really matter that much? If they can find interesting leaders (regardless of their gender), that is more than enough for me, and Tamar seems a very fresh and interesting choice.
Kouvb593kdnuewnd
Left Forever
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 4,146
Civilization is not about premade history but about making history so your argument that Armenia should be in instead of Georgia based on histroy is something I can not agree with.
This is a game and a good designed civ should be interesting gameplay wise while also have some ties with that civs history and culture and to me Georgia looks to be an interesting civ to play as, so no I don't think it is a bad civ
A bad civ would be something you would not want to play as because that civ is boring to play as.
This is a game and a good designed civ should be interesting gameplay wise while also have some ties with that civs history and culture and to me Georgia looks to be an interesting civ to play as, so no I don't think it is a bad civ
A bad civ would be something you would not want to play as because that civ is boring to play as.
Indeed. This “undeserving Civ” nonsense needs to be put to rest.
Georgia is an excellent choice for a Civ and Tamar is an excellent choice for a leader.
gunnergoz
Cat Herder
Proving once again that you can please some people all of the time, and all people some of the time, but never all people all of the time.
Disgustipated
Deity
I think Georgia is fine as a civ, but the only issue I have is there are only 8 civs this expansion, and not 9. I'd prefer they be a 2nd expansion civ, as there are more important ones to get out now.
SupremacyKing2
Deity
I just want more ancient civs like Assyria, Hittites, Babylon, Incas, Phoenicia.
Kouvb593kdnuewnd
Left Forever
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 4,146
Boring to have all civs based on one time period however. Modern In my opinion deservs as much room as old civs which is why I like having civs such as Amercian and Brazil in the game.
AbsintheRed
Deity
I absolutely agree with that, there are many civs to include, and most of them are not from Europe.
Here is my full list for VI, sorted and ordered carefully, altough obviously somewhat subjectively to my own taste.
The ones in parenthesis are 2nd tier civs (compared to the rest) for one or more reasons, but I also consider those good enough choices. Otherwise it's more or less ordered by priority.
Europe: Portugal, Hungary, Celts, (Byzantium, Bulgaria, Sweden, Denmark)
America: Maya, Inca, Iroquios, Sioux, (Pueblo/Anasazi, Muisca, Mapuche)
Africa: Mali, Ethiopia, Morocco/Berbers, (Carthage, Songhai, Zulu, Swahili)
Middle-East: Turkey/Ottomans, Phoenicia, Babylon, Armenia, Assyria, Hittites, (Israel)
Asia: Tibet, Siam, Vietnam, (Burma, Khazaria)
Merciorum
Prince
.
Denkt has it right and I also welcome the new addition. Every time a new civilization makes it into a Civ game we always get posts like this trying to rank the relative "CIV worthiness" and I can't wait for the backlash of posts if Canada ever gets included in a Civ game. (not counting CtP and please add them Firaxis!)
iammaxhailme
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2015
- Messages
- 1,999
I don't really care much about how relevant a civ is, but I want some more from under-represented areas to true-start-location maps will be more filled out. Let's have the Boers of South Africa, let's have the Inca, let's have the Pueblo... as long as they all have fun bonuses.
AbsintheRed
Deity
Actually I agree with every single thought in this post. Even with the hyperbole part.
I actually mentioned the very same things in later posts.
Georgia is not that bad compared to some earlier decisions in the series (and yeah, Macedon, Brazil, Australia, HRE, Native America, Venice, Austria are all among the worst choices), but still consider it a disappointment. Especially because of the way it was added.
I know many people here love the "meme -> civ" thought, but I just hate the whole thing. What's next if we go into that route? Where will be the end?
Gender of the leader, and popularity of the civ obviously matters. But only for Firaxis, for marketing reasons. On the other hand I, as a player, only care about the best possible civs/leaders.
Historic importance should be a much more dominating factor IMO, along with gameplay synergies and other gameplay reasons. I feel currently gender and popularity are way too important when choosing new leaders/civs.
Last edited:
I have nothing against female leaders but Tamar really wasn't my first choice.
The main issue I have with Georgia is that it should have been DLC. Expansion's civ slots are meant to feature series' staples, recurring civs with such a large and lasting regional historical impact that their "worthiness" cannot be denied. On the other hand, DLCs are perfect for new, innovative and varied options, such as Australia.
As such, Ottomans should have been in R&F and Georgia should have been a DLC (that's my opinion, others are entitled to disagree but I wanted to voice it and this seemed the right thread to do so).
The main issue I have with Georgia is that it should have been DLC. Expansion's civ slots are meant to feature series' staples, recurring civs with such a large and lasting regional historical impact that their "worthiness" cannot be denied. On the other hand, DLCs are perfect for new, innovative and varied options, such as Australia.
As such, Ottomans should have been in R&F and Georgia should have been a DLC (that's my opinion, others are entitled to disagree but I wanted to voice it and this seemed the right thread to do so).
Kouvb593kdnuewnd
Left Forever
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 4,146
Not a single one of these was bad choice in my opinion.
Georgia do play with the new mechanics and what you are saying did not apply to civilization V expansions either.
Well, only wildly overrepresented if working from the assumption that every region should be equally represented, regardless of level of accomplishment. Basically, the "band camp" approach that has everyone in the big recital when all the moms and dads show up, regardless of individual merit.
To some extent, centering on Europe and Asia is just meritocracy at work. Achieving parity means inclusion of a lot of people who were mired in proto-civ practices like oral tradition and hunter-gatherer existence. Which is fine, meritocracy is out, tokenism (or diversity or inclusiveness or whatever term has the best spin) is the zeitgeist, so we can be all band-campy. But in some regions you're going to hear that sound of scraping bedrock faster than others. At some level, it's just easier to focus on the mega-civ's, because it's hard to come up with unique buildings and districts for folk who really didn't really build dense population centers with that kind of infrastructure.
I do get tired of people keeping a running tally of what part of Earth the represented civs are coming from. Each civ is unique in its history and its culture despite the overt perceptions of 'outsiders' looking in and therefore deserves to be considered on THAT basis alone and not some artificial factor about what part of the world its from.
I like the inclusion of Georgia, and I would have been just as pleased with Armenia. I would also have welcomed some 'vanished' kingdom from Europe such as Savoy, Galicia or Ruthenia. If the next five civs come from Asia, I won't bat an eye and likely enjoy them. But please, please, stopping telling us where they should NOT come from!
Agreed, but I was stating what I think should be for every expansion, not saying that each game followed that pattern.
- Status
Similar threads
