1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Georgia, one of the worst civ choices!?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by AbsintheRed, Jan 9, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,510
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    I believe it's more gameplay reason.

    Besides, the actual discover of Iron comes at Bronze Working, which is ancient. We could consider "Iron Working" tech to be some kind of advanced iron working, which allowed classical era Celtic swords, which, in turn, influenced Roman military.
     
    Zaarin likes this.
  2. Zaarin

    Zaarin Chief Medical Officer, DS9

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    7,309
    Location:
    Terok Nor
    Sure, but iron weapons and tools had been in use for a long time at that point, whereas you can't even use iron in Civ6 until Iron Working. (Plus, there was definitely limited iron tool use in the Bronze Age, which is what I've always imagined revealing iron at Bronze Working represents.) Still, that sounds better than "Firaxis has their own arbitrary era system" (even though they kinda do insofar as any division of history into eras isn't to some degree arbitrary and myopic :p ).
     
  3. Boris Gudenuf

    Boris Gudenuf Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,925
    Location:
    north of Steilacoom, WA
    Civ puts 'Iron Working' at the start of a 'Classical Era' so they can neatly differentiate Swordsmen as THE Classical Melee Unit. This, of course, ignores the fact that Greek Hoplites were spearmen and were the In Fact Classical Era Unit, along with the Persian Immortals. Civ 'History' is not in any way, shape or form Actual History.

    And, for a slight correction, the Greek City States began their rise from the Greek Dark Age in the 6th Century BCE, about 200 years earlier than your date: By 300 BCE Alexander the Great was already dead, his Successors were making a mess of the entire eastern Mediterranean, and Classical Greece had become Hellenistic Greece and, mostly, no longer independent at all.

    For convenience, when I have to put a date on the Eras in Civ, I consider Classical to be 500 BCE to 500 CE, encompassing the Greek City States, Alexander and his Successors' Empires, and the Roman Republic and Empire. But, since the whole Classical-Medieval-Renaissance Era mechanism is almost entirely Eurocentric, it is one of my least-favorite design decisions of the game...

    Let's digress for a bit on Iron Working, because it's a good example of how Firaxis bungs up the Tech Tree and the Eras and the Units all at the same time...

    By 4000 BCE people were already smelting the low-melting-point metals: copper, silver, and gold. In fact, in the area later known as Persia they were smelting copper almost 1500 years earlier!

    By 36 - 3500 BCE Bronze is being made out of copper in the Near East and in the area later known as Bohemia.

    By 2500 BCE Iron is being smelted in Anatolia, using draft furnaces similar to the ones used for fired pottery (yes, the technologies are related)
    However, the start of the 'true' Iron Age, when iron was generally available for a variety of uses from weapons to cooking pans, is usually considered to have started about 1400 BCE in Syria, Palestine, and other parts of the Near East.

    This stuff is all Wrought Iron, pretty low carbon and with 'quality control' that is, to say the least, problematic. The Celtic 'Long Sword' of about 1100 - 1000 BCE, probably the most emblematic Iron Age object, was recorded by the Romans as frequently getting bent out of shape in battle just from pounding on wood and metal shields. 'Excalibre' they weren't!

    In 500 - 400 BCE in Southern India they were actually making Real Crucible Steel: high-carbon stuff called 'Wootz Steel', using (Monsoon) wind-powered Bellows and charcoal furnaces - Alexander was given a gift of 40 pounds of the stuff when he 'visited' northern India a century or so later, and it was so much better than anything anybody in the Med or Europe had ever seen that it was remarked upon by Greek writers.

    About 200 - 150 BCE China was producing Cast Iron using real Blast Furnaces and charcoal firing, and was casting all kinds of domestic and decorative and industrial objects out of iron. Again, these casting techniques used technologies of high-temperature air blast also developed for firing Chinese Porcelain.

    In the 6th - 7th Century CE, a combination of really good iron ore and charcoal firing resulted in the production of really 'true steel' swords and weapons in Damascus - which is how 'Damascus Steel' became famous. This technology was probably exported to Toledo, in Spain, since it developed a similar reputation for its 'iron' work shortly afterward.

    In the 13th Century (1205 CE first mention) , Europe developed the Blast Furnace technology, allowing the production of relatively High Carbon Steel Plate - directly resulting in the plate-armored Knight

    In 1740 CE Huntsman in England invented the clay Crucible for making Steel of fairly regular quality. Just a few years later (1774), using steel blades, Wilkinson's precision Boring Machines could 'bore out' or drill the bores for cannon and muskets with extreme accuracy, allowing lighter and more accurate Field Cannons and more reliable, mass-produced small arms.

    In 1783 Cort's 'reverberatory furnace' allowed Industrial Scale mass production of Wrought Iron - and iron bridges, steam boats, decorative grills, and all the other iron paraphernalia of the 19th Century soon followed.

    In 1856 Bessemer's 'Converter' was invented, which produced cheap, Industrial quantities of Steel - just in time to replace the wrought iron which had been used for early railroad rails and caused numerous accidents by failing to handle the stresses.
    Immediately afterwards, Krupp developed techniques of casting steel, allowing them to forge and cast steel cannon. just in time to use Smokeless Powder in the 1880s, which produced pressures too great for the older bronze or brass guns. Steel cannon, with recoil mechanisms, became the 20th century's Artillery

    Also in the 1870s, Alloy Steels were developed, starting with one of the most important: Nickel-Iron or Nickel-Steel: the first Armor Plate. That turned Ironclad warships into Protected Cruisers, Armored Cruisers, and then Battleships. In the 20th century, Armor Plate was usually made from alloys of steel with Manganese, Chromium, and Molybdenum.

    To sum up this Quick Historical Metallurgy Class (There will be a Written Test before R & F comes out), the simple 'Iron Working' tech in Civ could/should be broken down into about Five Techs:

    Iron Working - wrought iron, Ancient Era, gives Swordsmen
    Iron Casting - Classical Era with Special Circumstances* otherwise Medieval Era - gives Production Bonus - better tools and utensils
    Steel Making - Classical Era with Special Circumstances* otherwise Medieval Era - gives Knights, possibly a Swordsman Upgrade
    Industrial Steel - Industrial Era - allows Railroads, Ironclads, Skyscrapers, massive Production boost from farm, industrial machinery, required for (slightly) later Artillery.
    Steel Alloys - Modern Era - allows Battleships, Tanks, and practically everything else built after 1920

    * The Special Circumstances could be a Once Or Twice Only on the map deposit of Wootz Iron for early Steel Making ...:D
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 10, 2018
    Staal, pgm123, Zaarin and 3 others like this.
  4. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,510
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    To sum it up, all techs have so many historical checkpoints, what developers could freely move the techs on the tech tree to achieve desired gameplay effects :)
     
  5. Greywulf

    Greywulf King

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    768
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Earth
    Actually this might be why...




    Clearly fans have been wanting this to happen. I think that Firaxis does take note of what civs fans make as mods for the game.

    Regarding female leaders, actually the majority of leaders in all the Civilization series games thus far have always been male, and usually not that many female leaders make it into the game. More recently they have been focusing on adding more female leaders, but there will still be more male leaders than female leaders at the end of the day, but now there will be a decent number of female leaders as well...And why not? Just because comparatively so few female leaders appeared throughout history doesn't mean we cannot use them in a game that is loosely based on history. Civilization series have never been entirely historically accurate, but often have decided their own things for the game. Having a HRE leader ruling Germany, or having the HRE rule at the same time as Germany, having colonial civs start in the Neolithic era, depicting leaders quite differently from how they really looked, such as short-haired and short skirted Boudicca in Civ V, having Gandhi a fan of nuclear war, civilizations from different continents starting next to eachother, such as Babylon and the Inca being neighbors from the start...I could go on and on here. The point is that it will never be all that historically accurate, and it will only ever be loosely based on history, so why not have a more balanced number of female leaders to male? Doing so would make a lot of fans very happy, and may even attract more female players to the game. Besides, there is no need to worry, there are too many epic male leaders of history for them to one day be outnumbered by female leaders, we will always have more male leaders than female leaders in this game series, especially since they keep adding more and more civs every new version of the game.

    But the Huns were so much fun!

    I did think the Huns were an odd choice when I first heard about them, and I thought of how they could have added other civs instead, but I ended up enjoying playing as the Huns because of their abilities. I would take an odd civ with a cool unique ability any day over a civ we are all expecting to see with a typical ability.
     
    Zaarin, Mr Jon of Cheam and Thormodr like this.
  6. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,873
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    The Ottomans, and the Incans will be in the game. Byzantine and Carthage are very likely too (though the former is represented by Rome; and if the later doesn't make it in, it'll be Phoenicia instead).
    Armenia will not be now.

    Mongolia/Scythia isn't central Asia? The Steppes? Babylon will come.

    Zaarin, please cut it out. Don't give legitimacy to accommodating the Turkish view.
     
  7. gunnergoz

    gunnergoz Cat Herder

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,245
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Southern California
    I appreciate that Firaxis is stretching our imaginations and challenging us to learn more history about cultures we might otherwise overlook. It also helps to bring in new players who may be inspired by seeing leaders they feel a connection to in one way or another. So bring on more "unconventional" leaders and nations. I'm always open to learning new things about the world and about history.
     
    whyidie, Zaarin, sonicmyst and 3 others like this.
  8. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,510
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    Yep, that's generally clear. Byzantium represented as alternative Roman leader is totally possible if developers decide to play with alternative leaders more. Otherwise, they are likely to be returining as a full civ.

    I'm not sure about Babylon. Sumer, Babylon, Akkad and Assyria could easily replace each other and it's unlikely we'll see more than 2 of those "cradle" civs. So, Akkad or Assyria could take the Babylon spot.
     
  9. Greywulf

    Greywulf King

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    768
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Earth
    Just feel the need to point out that not all Turks share the same viewpoint. There is also the Turkish view that the Armenian genocide did happen, and that their government should recognize this.
     
    AbsintheRed and nzcamel like this.
  10. Returning Lurker

    Returning Lurker Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2016
    Messages:
    466
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Somewhere but not here
    Eventually, sure. And eventually I will lose 30 pounds (13.6KG) due to maggots and bacteria consuming my rotting corpse. However it would be preferable to lose 30 pounds sooner since I would probably enjoy it more now than I would in 50 years (optimistically).
     
  11. Krajzen

    Krajzen Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    2,814
    Location:
    Poland
    Unfortunately though, it is in minority, and on top of that most nationalist Turks are the most vocal. Personally I would love to see Armenia in civ, especially now as Georgia paved the way to Caucasus (...which doesn't have many more civs to offer :D )

    Personally I care about following things in civ choices:
    - power (regional or historical power at least)
    - big culture (where big may mean "regionally strong", "resilient" or "old", not necessarily "modern population count")
    - diversity in all forms (geographical, linguistic, racial, ethnic, religious, cultural)
    - interesting gameplay concepts
    - recognizable and charismatic leader

    Georgia is fine addition according to these criterias. What is the difference between Georgia and Maya on power scale? Nothing, except Maya civilisation has been traditionally liked by Western narrative and Georgia did not.

    I'll start complaining once civ gets Bolivia, Tanzania, Slovakia and some hunter-gatherer tribe of Siberia, this would be too much for me.


    Regarding women, the more of them in the game - the better, except extreme cames when controversial female ruler kicks out awesome male one (the only civ6 case for me is di Medici, although she is still better than infamous Maria of Portugal :p ).

    Diversity is fun, I'd hate if half of game's roster were Western early modern male monarchs.
     
    Zaarin, Greywulf and Mr Jon of Cheam like this.
  12. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,510
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    I would like to see Chukchi at some point as they are very cool :)
     
    Thormodr and Mr Jon of Cheam like this.
  13. Art Morte

    Art Morte Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2017
    Messages:
    494
    Gender:
    Male
    It's not a good choice, imo, but in the end it doesn't affect game play what the civs and leaders are called, they might as well be called Civ 1, 2, 3, 4 etc and leader A, B, C, D etc.
     
  14. krokobone

    krokobone Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2018
    Messages:
    70
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Budapest, Hungary
    Actually, I would love having a post-expansion DLC with the Ottomans and Hungary, maybe with an adequate scenario. It doesn't seem very likely, but it would be epic. :)
     
    AbsintheRed likes this.
  15. 13v4n

    13v4n Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2018
    Messages:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree. I personally have an impression that many here have an extremely narrow western world view. Simply because Maya has been important in the Western pop culture, people support its inclusion, while Georgia - not less of a civ in terms of power or culture - gets unfair criticism.

    Another argument in favour of this judgement is how many fans say they would have 'of course' preferred Armenia from Caucasus. Again - the main reason for this seems simply that Armenia has a large diaspora in the West, hence Europeans and Americans know more about Armenia then Georgia, not that Armenia is actually a more important civ than Georgia. Both Armenia and Georgia are ancient and worthy civs for inclusion (maybe not at the same time), but Georgia definitely comes first. Armenia never had a statehood in Caucasus since 11th century and has been part of Georgia, Ottomans or Russia up to 20th century. Armenian empire back in the first BC lasted for 35 years only under their King Tigran and it is hard to find what actual legacy it left. While Georgian empire lasted well over a century and left abundant cultural and architectural legacy in that part of the world.
     
    Aktchyually, Zaarin, Reavici and 2 others like this.
  16. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    8,278
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Just to make my point clear, I have nothing against female leaders. I prefer them actually.
    But only if they are great choices for their nation, if they have been significant enough historically.
    I wouldn't bat an eye if there were only female leaders in the game, if all of them were great choices.

    The problem is with Firaxis' tendency of choosing questionable female leaders over way more significant historic icons.
    And the biggest reason in all those cases is gender. I would go as far as to say that in some cases it is the only reason...
    There are plenty of examples for this in both Civ V (Theodora, Maria, Wu to a lesser extent) and Civ VI (Cleopatra, Cathrine de Medici, Gorgo, Jadwiga to a lesser extent, maybe Seondeok and Wilhelmina too).
    And for VI they took the next step with Tomyris and Tamar: while they are good choices for the civs themselves, I feel that one of the primary reasons for choosing an otherwise questionable civ is because they had a good female leader.
    And it really needs to stop now.

    I understand the need for diversity in the game, but they do not have to push it this hard.
    Right now we have 33 known leaders, from which 11 is female.
    That's 33%. Even with taking the selectiveness of choices into account, it's just way too much. History just didn't work that way.
    Once again, I don't care about the numbers themselves. But this means, that it would have been perfectly fine if we only had the best female leaders from those 11 at this point.
    Would have resulted in a better leader and civ roster.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2018
  17. Esperr

    Esperr King

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2012
    Messages:
    868
    I appreciate throwing in lesser known civilizations, or ones that have a more obscure history for most of the games primary audience. It does seem though like theyre swinging it a little to far with VI.

    I don't think I would mind as much but there will always be a limited number of total civilizations that will end up in the game, so there is potential to miss out on some of the classics(in terms of the series).

    Yeah but flavor is important, theres a reason civ is always the most popular 4x game even though games like Galciv III are the exact same thing just in space.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2018
    AbsintheRed likes this.
  18. Naktis

    Naktis Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    280
    Gender:
    Male
    Worst Tamar ?! NO WAY!..we still have Catherine de Medici , I hope firaxis add new french leader soon , oh and that new korean leader is terrible too.

    And complaint about bad leaders is valid , some choices were really bad..like the ones I mentioned..But Georgia was good addition to Civ , and Tamar looks as a good leader , also fits golden age system with rise and fall , when that korean leader fits only fall system...

    Also the fact that devs willing to add meme Civs , means that our disccusion and words matter.
     
    Staal, Pythakoreas and Paideia like this.
  19. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,873
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    :lol::lol::lol:

    35 Years!! :eek::eek::eek: It sounds like you're thinking of one ruler. Tell me what interactions the Romans had with Georgia? Tell me how influential Georgians were in the ME during the Crusades?
     
  20. Paideia

    Paideia Warlord

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    150
    Location:
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    This is worth getting upset over. Putting an italian noble as the leader of France is absolutely insultingly stupid. I have no problem with them introducing Georgia to the Civ franchise. There have been far worse choices..

    I don't have a problem with female leaders in Civ. I have a problem with stupid leader choices. I'm not at all sold on Queen Wilhelmina, who was only the titular head of the country, and I'm still upset about the semi-legendary choices like Ragnar from Civ III and IV and the very iffy Ramkhamhaeng. If you really wanted female leaders why put Harald Bluetooth as leader of Denmark in Civ V instead of Margaret I or Philip in Spain rather than Isabella (Yes, I'm aware that she was queen of Castile, but if Barbarossa can lead Germany, is it worth nitpicking over)?
     
    Pythakoreas, Zaarin and AbsintheRed like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page