Georgia, one of the worst civ choices!?

[Eagle Pursuit]

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).

What? No. DLCs have to be civs that will sell rather well. Georgia by itself would have a limited market appeal (as shown by this thread). Ottomans would be a great choice for DLC because it would sell very well. The best choices for vanilla and expansions are a mixture of series regulars to anchor it, and a collection of "guest star" civs.

 

[Vahnstad]

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.

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

And Hungary is probably after Portugal the best possible choice for Europe right now (not counting Ottomans European), and adds something new/fresh, and would be more diverse than Austria.

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!

So true this.

But i want both more civs & focus from Americas & Africa, but I also want new civs in Europe. But it doesn't mean that while we want some staples to return from the America's and Africa, that we shouldn't get more additional European civs beside Portugal and the Celts.

 

[dnoisette]

What? No. DLCs have to be civs that will sell rather well. Georgia by itself would have a limited market appeal (as shown by this thread). Ottomans would be a great choice for DLC because it would sell very well. The best choices for vanilla and expansions are a mixture of series regulars to anchor it, and a collection of "guest star" civs.

I wasn't taking marketing and money into account, just saying what I think is more "logical" for this sort of game.
Of course, from a business angle, what you're saying makes sense. Just bundle Georgia together with another more popular civ in a DLC, problem solved!

 

[Vahnstad]

Persia was a DLC too. Civ 5 had DLC's like these too with Spain & Inca's for example. Georgia probably wouldn't sell well enough as a separate DLC.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Meh, it all depends on what you call a "bad" choice. I don't think the franchise included "unworthy" civs. The "badness" in itself is relative, compared to other choices they could've been made.

On topic, I think Macedon as a separate nation alongside a Greece with two leaders might be my personal least favourite choice. I really, really dislike token choices like that "but it's Alexander, he MUST be in every game!" um no, they ditched that idea forever when they sacked off Catherine the Great and Elisabeth. Not that I dislike Peter or Vicky as choices, but both Gandhi and Alex should have taken the fall as well for compensation's sake. But to give, one of my consistently least favourite opponents a Civ by himself... ARGHHHHH!!

What? No. DLCs have to be civs that will sell rather well. Georgia by itself would have a limited market appeal (as shown by this thread). Ottomans would be a great choice for DLC because it would sell very well. The best choices for vanilla and expansions are a mixture of series regulars to anchor it, and a collection of "guest star" civs.

An Ottoman + Byzantine + Bulgarian or Kievan DLC would be lovely; not gonna lie.

I do think the Nubian DLC sold well though? (nobody can resist the charm of a sassy black woman)

 

[Vahnstad]

Ottomans + Hungary!

But again, they actually can be co-grouped with a lot of nations, like Genoa, Serbia, Austria, Venice or the Mamluks (-> though represented by Arabia). Ottomans and Byzantium together would actually make less sense to me, since Byzantium wasn't in their prime time during that age at all, especially if we have theodora or justinian, or even alexios I komnenos. They would have fallen sooner or later by another civilization, if it wasn't for the Ottomans.

 

[Inhalaattori]

As a historian I think Georgia is a solid choice from a region that has never been in the series. It was a long time coming. Tamar is a solid leader choice as well. I personally like that they are adding new Civs to the series. I really dont see the problem. On the other hand I feel they could have made the Georgia little bit more interesting Civ, but we will see.

Only Civ Im really missing is the Inca. South-America needs more Civs and they are more than deserving. But most of all they could be pretty unique Civ like they were in Civ V with their terrace farms.

 

[steveg700]

So, I asked this elsewhere, but that thread was already way too many pages deep, but what is Georgia actually known for? What is distinct about them?

This is a blindspot for me I guess, because I only know of it as being passed around like a hacky sack to a series of suzerains--in Civ terms, seemingly the veritable posterchild for what a "city-state" is--but enough people are doing air guitar over its inclusion that I must be missing something special. Like, some people were zealous about including other civ's because of something as simple as winged hussars. Examining the unique features of the civ doesn't really help because they're pretty ubiquitous, and could be reskinned as another civ without too many changes. What was Georgia's "golden age"?

Enlightenment, please.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

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.

I never suggested that every single civ should be from the same period. But there are a lot of great civs that should be in the game.

 

[Guandao]

Ottomans + Hungary!

But again, they actually can be co-grouped with a lot of nations, like Genoa, Serbia, Austria, Venice or the Mamluks (-> though represented by Arabia). Ottomans and Byzantium together would actually make less sense to me, since Byzantium wasn't in their prime time during that age at all, especially if we have theodora or justinian, or even alexios I komnenos. They would have fallen sooner or later by another civilization, if it wasn't for the Ottomans.

That doesn't matter, since the scenario in Macedon/Persia DLC didn't even feature Cyrus, who isn't Darius III the actual Persian emperor who lost to Alexander. The Byzantine leader for Civ6 doesn't need to be featured in the Ottoman/Byzantine scenario. In most of the scenarios for Civ6, the moving leaders are replaced by static images of symbols.

So, I asked this elsewhere, but that thread was already way too many pages deep, but what is Georgia actually known for? What is distinct about them?

This is a blindspot for me I guess, because I only know of it as being passed around like a hacky sack to a series of suzerains--in Civ terms, seemingly the veritable posterchild for what a "city-state" is--but enough people are doing air guitar over its inclusion that I must be missing something special. Like, some people were zealous about including other civ's because of something as simple as winged hussars. Examining the unique features of the civ doesn't really help because they're pretty ubiquitous, and could be reskinned as another civ without too many changes. What was Georgia's "golden age"?

Enlightenment, please.

There's an English wiki page on the Georgian Golden Age.

 

[Vahnstad]

That doesn't matter, since the scenario in Macedon/Persia theme didn't even feature Cyrus, who isn't Darius III the actual Persian emperor who lost to Alexander. The Byzantine leader doesn't need to be featured in the Ottoman/Byzantine scenario.

But Byzantium was almost non-existent by the time the Ottomans conquered it.

 

[Guandao]

But Byzantium was almost non-existent by the time the Ottomans conquered it.

What do you mean by non-existent? You mean declining? Having a much smaller territory than before?

I don't really care if the Ottomans and Byzantines aren't bundle in a post-expansion DLC, but the pairing still makes sense to me.

 

[steveg700]

There's an English wiki page on the Georgian Golden Age.

Thanks, but it doesn't really present anything notable about it. The "Commerce & Culture" section is pretty small. The wiki focuses more on how it developed and how it declined than the specific outputs.

What do you mean by non-existent? You mean declining? Having a much smaller territory than before?

I don't really care if the Ottomans and Byzantines aren't bundle in a post-expansion DLC, but the pairing still makes sense to me.

Indeed so. I think the pinnacle of Civ V for me was the Spain/Inca DLC. They both offered unique features that led to very distinct, divergent styles of play.

I pined for the Mongols in Civ VI, and then I finally got'em I was vaguely disappointed. Not sure what I was expecting, but what I got felt pretty ham-fisted.

 

[Guandao]

Thanks, but it doesn't really present anything notable about it. The "Commerce & Culture" section is pretty small. The wiki focuses more on how it developed and how it declined than the specific outputs.

I'm not an expert on Medieval Georgian history, so I can't help you much. I'm not sure there are historians who specialize in Caucasian history on this forum.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

As a Georgia skeptic at first, after doing research on them they are very interesting. (Not that I would never want them, I just didn't see it as a possibility)
But no I don't think it is the worst choice ever made: The Huns are basically playable barbarians (Blob civs are a different category)
Don't forget another achievement is Stalin came from Georgia. That means Austria is incoming as the birthplace of Hitler.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

Yep, that's true, that wasn't a perfect choice either. Altough that's mostly because of the lack of knowledge about them. Almost the same can be said of Scythia btw.

Actually there always were some bad choices, for almost all Civ titles:
For IV "Native Americans", as in a single civ, or the HRE. IMO these 2 were the most awful choices, ever, from all titles.
For V the Huns, Venice, Brazil or Austria.
For VI Scythia, Australia, Macedon.

While bad decisions happen for all games, that doesn't really help when a new one comes up.

You have named some of the favorite civs of other individuals.

The civ choice is very subjective. There is no magic formula. The team has noted some areas they look at when making a choice but those are general "rules", within that metric its all down to splitting hairs. There is always going to be a reason why X should or should not be included. Unless you have some objective proof that Georgia doesn't belong, then it all just seems like sour grapes.

 

[mitsho]

I don't think a game is the right place to find the „best possible distribution of civilizations and/or the best knowledge on world history“. And yes, I used best intentionally.

I could write that discussions on that belong in historical research journals, books and so on, but that wouldn't be true either. Since academia isn't about ranking or evaluating civs. Even the term civ would certainly not be used as knowledge has moved beyond such thinking in categories. You're looking for an objective truth that doesn't exist.

On top of that, that is exactly why the developers have stated their conditions for inclusion time and time again. Historical significance is not the most important one for them (and that is what matters).

But reading this rant thread, I am wondering about the comments below the youtube video or the facebook post. Those must be awful AND interesting to read at the same time, as indeed many people are still thinking the same way as the opening post does. And that is why Tamar is a good choice for Firaxis, to break up this expectation game. I also want the Ottomans (or better: the Turks) in the game, but someone has to stand back in the queue after all. No harm done, it is just a game after all.

 

[MooFreaky]

A lot of the complaints about cubs seem to stem from 2 areas.
1... I don't know this civ other than in passing so therefore it is a bad choice and was an irrelevant nation.
Rather than allowing a gap in your knowledge be the basis for a wildly inaccurate assumption have a look. They may not be a world beater but the civilian in the game were/are big players in their regions.
Example here is the way Georgia existed was massively influential on both the Seljuk Turks and the Byzantines. They were a big player in an area that has been the crossroads between East and West since forever

2... My culture is more important than that other culture so deserves inclusion more.
Yeah no. All cultures deserve inclusion and rather than complain about someone else getting the limelight how about enjoying it and then asking for your inclusion too? We should be wanting more and more options with each release. And you can't have all the big boys come out at the start otherwise there will be no excitement for later expansions and Dlc. The well known to high school historians need to be spread out.

We all want different things because we have different perspectives. No one is saying x is better than y. It is trying to cover all the bases in a way that makes everyone stand out.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

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).

Sorry I think most of us missed the updated rules section for expansions and DLC.
You mind linking in the updated FAQ?

So, I asked this elsewhere, but that thread was already way too many pages deep, but what is Georgia actually known for? What is distinct about them?

This is a blindspot for me I guess, because I only know of it as being passed around like a hacky sack to a series of suzerains--in Civ terms, seemingly the veritable posterchild for what a "city-state" is--but enough people are doing air guitar over its inclusion that I must be missing something special. Like, some people were zealous about including other civ's because of something as simple as winged hussars. Examining the unique features of the civ doesn't really help because they're pretty ubiquitous, and could be reskinned as another civ without too many changes. What was Georgia's "golden age"?

Enlightenment, please.

I do like that one of the "best" parts of the Cree was the chance to learn more about this interesting culture and one of the "worst" parts about Georgia is their culture is far too unknown.
(I realize that is not the tone of your post, but it was just more accessable with a similar message)

 

[DWilson]

If the Zulu are okay, Georgia is fine. Were they my first, second, third, etc. pick? Nope, not at all. I wouldn't have put them in. That said, it doesn't hurt, and we've received a lot of excellent civs and a leader for this expansion already.