Georgia, one of the worst civ choices!?

[Stringer1313]

I immediately stop reading a post when it starts complaining about the inclusion of female leaders. I'm done with that subject. Keep 'em coming.

 

[Guandao]

I'm not against new civs at all. It's good for the game to have some.
I also don't care about the order of the civs, if all civs will be included eventually.
The problem is that civ slots are limited. How many more will we get altogether? Maybe 15?
If I have say 20 civs I definitely want to see included, it's a problem if something comes up which is not among them.
Every unexpected new civ means one more left out from my preferred list.
Surely the preferred list might be different for everyone, but my point is that it does matter how "good" are the civ choices.

PS: Btw, I also have some civs on my lists which never appeared in a civ game before, the 3 personal highlights are (were):
Hungary - the most significant missing medieval European power. There were even petitions for it's inclusion for IV and V, also usually quite strong in the "best civ to include" polls.
Phoenicia - I much prefer them to Carthage, would be great to include it instead of them for once.
Armenia - now it's basically out with Tamar. I will admit though, that Georgia is the 2nd best option from the region.

Phoenician leader choices are meh in my humble opinion.

 

[Manifold]

I personally prefer to play against very important and powerful powers of the world history...Georgia is not at the top of my opponents. So I am not very exited about them.

Of course Georgia cannot rival civs such as Ottomans, Byzantines, Persians or Russians, but if Poland, Congo, Nubia, Norway or Indonesia are civs, Georgia is definitely not less.

Nubia is a very cool choice. They had a very long and old history.
Congo is the second leader replacement of Shaka.
Norway represents the Vikings.
Indonesia has a spread of its territory which is nearly five times as long as the Caucasus mountains.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

Well, I'm not speaking to how unknown Georgia is to anyone except myself. There have long been champions for it, but not really any articulation. Just "go look into it". If there's a gap in my knowledge, then it's probably not some major-league empire. There must something notable about it someone can point to and say "this is why it's neat". Like, I can say the Inca were notable because of how they succeeded at building cities that could thrive in inhospitable mountains. The Khmer were neat because they were a pre-industrial empire with cities with populations topping a million. I can say to someone "go do your homework and then come back here", it begs the question of why I can't some bullet points out of a civ's champions, or at least an elevator pitch of what is fascinating about it.

Consider: plenty of people post things that nobody is asking for. There's no shortage of pedantry in these parts. But then information is requested about something they've been vocally passionate about, and suddenly....it's a chore?

As I tried to mention in my post I realize the tone of your request was not complaining, it was simply relevant to their 'unknown' status and it was easier to multiquote since it was sitting right above at the time. I was making a comment about the boards generally, sorry if it seemed to target you. As to your question abut Georgia's history, I am no expert and have nothing to offer. I do look forward into reading more about them soon though.

I was just trying to point out how I find it amusing that so many people were stating that they love the inclusion of the Cree since they were relatively unknown and now they get to learn all about their awesome culture. Then on the other side of it so many were complaining about Georgia because they are so unknown and therefore it must not be an important culture. Made more obvious with their back-to-back announcements.

 

[pgm123]

I just want more ancient civs like Assyria, Hittites, Babylon, Incas, Phoenicia.

Inca are a Renaissance-era civ. Phoenicia is Classical (and so are the Neo-Assyrians), but that's close enough.

 

[Stomper66]

I have no objection to smaller less well known civs been introduced as a lot of people like to play tall with 3/4 cities.
I also don't mind more female leaders in the game. I prefer Cleopatra to Civ5's Ramesses any day.

Saying that I think it's a big snub that this civ has been chosen over the inca, the Ottomans, the Byzantines and the Carthaginians.
Launching a civ like this before the Ottomans is as offensive as launching Venice at game launch and forgetting to include Rome.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

Indonesia has a spread of its territory which is nearly five times as long as the Caucasus mountains.

Well if size makes you a world power, then Algeria, Brazil, Canada, Portugal, and Greenland (only 1 pop per city the rest are polar bears) shouldn't have any detractors.

Just trying to point out justification of 'worthiness' is a slippery slope, any and all will end up simply being subjective and deeply flawed.

 

[GenyaArikado]

Georgia had King Tamar, Armenia didn't, hence Georgia > Armenia. It is known

 

[Scaramanga]

Sure, Georgia is a terrible choice in terms of historical significance, but they're pretty good for variety.

 

[earlc]

I don't see how people could be upset about Georgia when Indiana has been in the game since the beginning




The only legitimate response I saw there is that Armenia is more deserving, which is legitimate but something I still disagree with for the reasons of "deservedness" already elaborated by others. Man this forum has its stuff together

 

[AriochIV]

It's like when in World of Warcraft, they took the Pandarians (which had been a running joke for several years) and made an actual expansion out of them.

It's a bit like that.

 

[Zaarin]

Inca are a Renaissance-era civ. Phoenicia is Classical (and so are the Neo-Assyrians), but that's close enough.

Phoenicia's significance was sharply on the decline by the Classical Age, eclipsed by the Tyrian colony of "New Tyre" (Carthage). I'd call Phoenicians Ancient.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

It's like when in World of Warcraft, they took the Pandarians (which had been a running joke for several years) and made an actual expansion out of them.

It's a bit like that.

Hardly.

She became a joke because of her legitimacy (and some misunderstandings on how the alphabet works). If she, and by extension her land, were not a good guess as to a potential new civ then it would have not been offered up as much as a response to the missing civ from the board. It was this reoccurring guess that spawned the 'joke' not some throwaway leader and civ picked at random.

For God's sake she is a saint after all.

 

[Zaarin]

Hardly.

She became a joke because of her legitimacy (and some misunderstandings on how the alphabet works). If she, and by extension her land, were not a good guess as to a potential new civ then it would have not been offered up as much as a response to the missing civ from the board. It was this reoccurring guess that spawned the 'joke' not some throwaway leader and civ picked at random.

For God's sake she is a saint after all.

If CivFanatics had a "love" reaction, I would love this post.

 

[PhilBowles]

They founded the Empire of Trabzon, sent successful military campaigns to Iran's core, and draw up plans with Europeans to take part in Crusades - how isolationist is this?

Of course Georgia cannot rival civs such as Ottomans, Byzantines, Persians or Russians,

The Ottomans and Byzantines aren't yet in the game - people would be less sceptical of Georgia if they were.

[but if Poland, Congo, Nubia, Norway or Indonesia are civs, Georgia is definitely not less.

Nubia was a powerful ancient era civilisation that represents a foil - both geographically and historically - to Egypt. As far as Civ tradition goes, it was in the Avalon Hill board game a decade before Sid ever based a computer game on the same game.

Norway is the worst choice yet for 'the Vikings', but the Vikings have been in the series in some form since Civ II so have tradition and brand recognition on their side. Indonesia is an anachronistic name, but in both incarnations so far it's represented the regionally powerful Majapahit Empire, one of the major Southeast Asian civs. Kongo had a long history of fan requests, was a notable power in its region, and was a major route by which Christianity became established in Africa.

 

[MAHRana]

It’s interesting that Georgia is in, adds nice variety (personally i would have liked to see Armenia as well though, but still).
My concern is that they place more importance on leaders than the actual ‘civilizations’ though, a trend not just seen in Tamar.
But really, I do feel that any potential variety a civ does bring is severely limited by the gameplay mechanics, would be great if civs could actually change the mechanics up. I remember the announcement of Venice for Civ V, that it was a supposed game changer, when all it did was introduce the one city challenge as a necessary play style for them (looking back at it, after all the limited variety we’ve been getting in gameplay, it does seem something unique now). The devs are getting trapped with their time frames and quotas, impacting potential reworkings of the franchise imho.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Which to me is the issue. Civ is a game about civilisations, not about individual figures. I dislike the trend of adding a not-very-notable civ just because it has a notable leader. Sometimes the execution can work (I disliked Attila in Civ V for the same reason but the execution was okay and I loved his leaderscreen).

That's one of the staples of game design - playing against some person, whether real or virtual, is a way more interesting than just against some numbers. Psychologically, people play against leaders, not civilizations. So, picking strong personality leaders is a right thing to do.

 

[Zaarin]

That's one of the staples of game design - playing against some person, whether real or virtual, is a way more interesting than just against some numbers. Psychologically, people play against leaders, not civilizations. So, picking strong personality leaders is a right thing to do.

100% this. Even if it's 50% (or more) imagination, it's fun to have in-game friends and rivals. I can't stand Pedro, for instance; he and Tomyris have been my longstanding rivals in Civ6. Meanwhile, I'll go out of my way to be friends with Jadwiga. It makes the game more fun.

 

[pgm123]

Phoenicia's significance was sharply on the decline by the Classical Age, eclipsed by the Tyrian colony of "New Tyre" (Carthage). I'd call Phoenicians Ancient.

The start of the era can be debated, but Civ VI has Iron Working and Celestial Navigation as Classical Era techs. The game starts it in 1000 BCE. Tyre dates back father than that, but it was more of an Egyptian vassal before the Bronze Age collapse. It arguably spans the Ancient and Classical because eras are arbitrary and meaningless. I bet they'd pick Tyrian leader from the Classical Era like Hiram I.

 

[Zaarin]

The start of the era can be debated, but Civ VI has Iron Working and Celestial Navigation as Classical Era techs. The game starts it in 1000 BCE. Tyre dates back father than that, but it was more of an Egyptian vassal before the Bronze Age collapse. It arguably spans the Ancient and Classical because eras are arbitrary and meaningless. I bet they'd pick Tyrian leader from the Classical Era like Hiram I.

Honestly, no one but Firaxis counts the beginning of the Iron Age as Classical, though. Most historians would mark the beginning of Classical Antiquity with the rise of the Greek city-states ca. 300 BC.