Georgia, one of the worst civ choices!?

[Reavici]

whenever I play singleplayer game I pick countries who had negotations with each others. I mean if I play as Rome, I would definetely pick Carthage, Greek, Persian etc civs to compete with... it makes some cool atmosphere. in this case, Georgia, the country that existed in ancient, medieval and modern era had negotations with all majority Civs
from current announced Civs historically Georgia had negotations with Arabian, Roman, Greek, Mongolian, Persian, Russian and Schytian civilizations. it's much more than Kongolese who are not relatable to any Civilization. Georgia is small but relatable Civ to all major Civilizations, it could make perfect rival duo with Mongols.

also Civ had never represented any nation from Caucasus region. Georgia had best chance to be chosed as Caucasian civ, cause of it's history. historically Georgians were regional power, it had 55% of total population of Caucasus region. it subroudinated nations like Armenians, Alans, Circassians, Pontian Greeks, Kypchaks etc. Kingdom of Georgia is roughly mix of Byzantine, Persian and Schytian "world", with its unique flavour. Queen Tamar's mother was Alan by origin while her grandma was Armenian.

Depravo


Georgian monastery of the Cross located in Jerusalem, there are many remnants of Georgian monasteries and churches in Jerusalem

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Inlex thank you for that link has really helpful. I would like to see any of these leaders represent Holland. I think that apart from Peter the Great there are not many European leaders in game that are based in the 1600 and 1700 hundreds period. At this point most leaders from Europe are early modern or medieval. I find the age of discovery to be one of the more interesting periods and for me this period is the funnest part of the game to play in Civ 5 and Civ 6. There are not many civs who reach their peak at this time so it would have been nice to see Holland at their strongest in the 1600s, led by a leader from the 1600s.

Sweden and Austria would fit that time period nicely.

By the way I designed Civ for the Iroquois yesterday and it's on the design your own civ thread. Please check it out and tell me what you think. I put a lot of time and thought into it and would like to know what you think. Personally, I recon it's a more appealing civ to play as to the Cree. They could have given the Canadians what they wanted and had the Iroquois and another Great Plains tribe but hey ho. Oh and the Cree authorities are still not happy.

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/design-your-own-civ-vi-civ.572811/page-29

I actually mentioned that if they wanted to take them out, then they could take a majority of the abilities of the Cree and give it to the Iroquois by changing the leader and the name of the unique abilities. Of course it would probably be too late to change it now and there is a good possibility we could still get the Iroquois down the line. That being said I am happy with what they decided to do, and I'm sure even many Canadians are also excited with the Cree as well.

 

[Inlex]

By the way I designed Civ for the Iroquois yesterday and it's on the design your own civ thread. Please check it out and tell me what you think. I put a lot of time and thought into it and would like to know what you think. Personally, I recon it's a more appealing civ to play as to the Cree. They could have given the Canadians what they wanted and had the Iroquois and another Great Plains tribe but hey ho. Oh and the Cree authorities are still not happy.

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/design-your-own-civ-vi-civ.572811/page-29

No! I just swapped Iroquois from my bet for zulu, since the Cree slashed the chances of Iroq being added

 

[SammyKhalifa]

but back to the original topic, the "worst civ choices" were the Native Americans and HRE

 

[Basileus Rhomaion]

but back to the original topic, the "worst civ choices" were the Native Americans and HRE

Don't forget the "Vikings" as well, plus I'd argue the "Celts" are equally bad. In fact I'm expecting something like Gaul/Scotland to replace them in Civ VI instead.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I see Zulu as a bad choice on many people's list as well. At least it is better than the alternatives of the region: the Boers or modern South Africa.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Never really got into the zulu either; but back at the time the only difference between the civs was the name and a photo, so it wasn't a big deal. Now that there are real differences I'd like to see that "slot" go to someone else.

 

[Stomper66]

I don't think i'd want the cree abilities i find them a bit boring to be honest. They are just a stereotypical peaceful native american civ with a better scout and a slightly better trade mechanism. Apart from their new music flavour city design (which was pretty cool) I think my design for the Iroquois offered way more and something different gameplay wise. Making use of the new alliance system, excelling in forest terrain and being strongest militarily in the 1600-1700s period is something we've not really experienced yet in civ6 besides England.

No! I just swapped Iroquois from my bet for zulu, since the Cree slashed the chances of Iroq being added

Inlex I know thats what i was gutted at last week with the release of the Cree. If the Australians, Americans and Brazilians got represented as a modern civ then it's only fair that the Canadians should be represented too. It would have been nice to see them represented and have the Iroquois instead as a much more interesting native American civ.

Sweden and Austria would fit that time period nicely.

I'm with you on that one would be nice to have both of them civs. Maybe do the thirty years was to pit these civs with France and Spain to see what they can do. As good as that would be I am a bit apprehensive to include more European civs at this stage. Not until some non caucasian civs are added in the game first. Remember there is not yet one indigenous civ in South America yet.

 

[Karpius]

Well that's not how I remember it but even if you're right, Georgia are not a joke civilization so I still don't see the problem. It's not as if they've added Klingons, they've added a genuinely interesting medieval nation.

And what, pray tell, would be wrong with adding Klingons????

Are you anti-Klingon? Got a thing against deeply furrowed brow ridges?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm with you on that one would be nice to have both of them civs. Maybe do the thirty years was to pit these civs with France and Spain to see what they can do. As good as that would be I am a bit apprehensive to include more European civs at this stage. Not until some non caucasian civs are added in the game first. Remember there is not yet one indigenous civ in South America yet.

I agree that Europe can hold off for a little bit, except maybe Italy.
However those fit perfectly with European powers in the 1600-1700s like you mentioned previously and I expect to see at least one of them (preferably Austria), if not both down the road.

 

[agonistes]

Ugh, I'm gonna make exactly one post in this thread and then I'm out and not visiting it again.

Variety. We've had five editions of Civilization beforehand, and yes, there are a number of civs, like England, Egypt, Spain, China etc that really deserve to be in every single edition because they were just so damn important in their time frame. But, there are maybe 20, 25 such civilizations that really must be in the game. That means that any civ beyond that - and we can expect a total of 40-50 civs - is not a must have for the game. Yes, there are many important civs in there - the Netherlands, Austria, Mali, Aztec, etc - but it would be super boring if we'd have the exact same civs every game. So instead, those important-but-not-must-have civs are occasionally swapped out in favour of less important civs that only appear once. Think Civ IV's Holy Roman Empire or Civ V's Songhai or Shoshone. Or Civ VI's Australia, Cree and now Georgia. They were never before in, they're in this time, and they very well might not be in the next three or four editions of Civilization. Think of it as a gliding line. We've got the 150 most important civs in human history ordered by importance. The most important 15-20 of those get to be in every edition. After that, you draw a line that goes from 1 to 0 on a scale, and that's the percentage of games in which the civ appears. The last ten civs in that list of 150 might appear only once per ten Civilization games, while the ones taking, say, spot 40, will be in seven or eight of ten games. This time, it's Georgia's turn as a somewhat smaller civ to appear. Just like it's previously been Venice's or the Iroquois' turn.

Very well said Leyrann.

Unfortunately, those that need to hear it aren't going to listen.

I'd like to point out that the OP considers Hungary an important civ to include in the game, but not Austria.

Armenia is one of the top few civs which should have been added to a Civ game by this point, along with Hungary and Phoenicia... ....

Actually there always were some bad choices, for almost all Civ titles:
For V the Huns, Venice, Brazil or Austria.

Highlight/bold added.

Hmmm. Questions, questions. *taps finger to lips and speculates*

edit: in fairness, the OP in another post admits his bias for his native Hungary.

 

[steveg700]

Very well said Leyrann.

Unfortunately, those that need to hear it aren't going to listen.

Some don't listen. Others listen and don't agree. Some of those who don't agree reply with counter-arguments that in turn aren't listened to. Does "Ugh, I'm gonna make exactly one post in this thread and then I'm out and not visiting it again" sound like the comment of a good listener? Do you feel you listen?

Making commentaries that get a bravura reception from those who already agree with you is easy. Leyrann articulates a reasonable position on the value of variety, On the other hand, we're many pages into this thread, and I've looked and looked to see what anyone has to say about what makes Georgia a notable civilization out of genuine curiosity, and nobody has anything to offer. It's palette of abilities doesn't paint much of a portrait either. It seems like this could be reskinned as another civ pretty easily. So, how do we apply a value on variety to something that is ubiquitous in form and execution?

In contrast, I liked the Cree because it did paint a portrait about a culture I didn't know anything about. The abilities weren't too interesting (an affliction VI's civs seem to suffer from, in contract to V).

 

[Zaarin]

How would you feel if America, Rome and Russia were not in the game at all at this point?

I'd be ecstatic if America and Rome were left out. I'd miss Russia, though.

 

[agonistes]

Some don't listen. Others listen and don't agree. Some of those who don't agree reply with counter-arguments that in turn aren't listened to. Does "Ugh, I'm gonna make exactly one post in this thread and then I'm out and not visiting it again" sound like the comment of a good listener? Do you feel you listen?

Making commentaries that get a bravura reception from those who already agree with you is easy. Leyrann articulates a reasonable position on the value of variety, On the other hand, we're many pages into this thread, and I've looked and looked to see what anyone has to say about what makes Georgia a notable civilization out of genuine curiosity, and nobody has anything to offer. It's palette of abilities doesn't paint much of a portrait either. It seems like this could be reskinned as another civ pretty easily. So, how do we apply a value on variety to something that is ubiquitous in form and execution?

In contrast, I liked the Cree because it did paint a portrait about a culture I didn't know anything about. The abilities weren't too interesting (an affliction VI's civs seem to suffer from, in contract to V).

Yes, I do feel like a listen. I feel like I listen very well. Based on Leyrann's comments, I think he listened pretty well too.

There have been many posts about Georgia's history, and Tamar's, that suggest they are as worthy of inclusion as many other civs. Maybe not in this particular thread, but this thread is an offshoot of the first look thread, try looking there. If you read well (not listened, but read), you'd see that there has not been a good argument made to exclude Georgia, except that someone considers another civ to be more worthy of inclusion - and what the heck kind of argument is that? Which is what Leyrann responds to and tries to explain. And if a reader doesn't get it, there is no sense sticking around, so he doesn't.

Regardless of the qualities of Georgia's gameplay uniques, those are separate and distinct from whether or not Georgia is a good choice. ANY civ could have outstanding uniques, and any Civ could have horrible ones.

And I think any Civ could be reskinned, its abilities renamed, and it could fit a number of other civs. How can you seriously suggest a civ is bland because its in-game uniques are?

The negative arguments all share a commonality: the opinion is at the heart of the argument. The opinion should be formed at the end of it.

As Leyrann probably knows, if someone is arguing around their opinions, they can't be reasoned with. Exit Leyrann stage left.

Exit agonistes stage right.

 

[AbsintheRed]

I'd like to point out that the OP considers Hungary an important civ to include in the game, but not Austria.

Yeah, I would hate to see Austria included, but actually that has nothing to do with my hopes for Hungary.
I always considered it a very odd choice. Why would there be a separate Austrian civ in the game, when there is a German civ?
Austria is a country, part of the greater German civilization the same way as Bavaria, or all the other german countries of the HRE.
While it's not always obvious where does a separate civilization start, I think it's pretty obvious in this case.
Adding Austria when we already have a German civ would be similar to adding Denmark, when there is a blob Viking/Norse civilization.

On the same note I always hated the inclusion of Venice too.
Surely both of these 2 are perfect for scenarios. But have no place as separate a civilization in the full game IMO.

 

[Karpius]

On the other hand, we're many pages into this thread, and I've looked and looked to see what anyone has to say about what makes Georgia a notable civilization out of genuine curiosity, and nobody has anything to offer.

First you need to define and get a consensus of what makes a civ 'notable'. Obviously, you have a set of criteria that you look for, but others may have different criteria. What you may consider bland, others may find fascinating. This is the point where any and of all of these arguments regarding 'worthy' civs fall apart. The criteria becomes subjective and a matter of taste.

@Zaarin mentioned he would be ecstatic if America and Rome were left out of the game. I would be sorely disappointed. Neither of us is wrong in our opinion, but I doubt either of us could give clear cut, objective reasons for our respective positions beyond what we individually like.

 

[Lord Lakely]

but back to the original topic, the "worst civ choices" were the Native Americans and HRE

Don't ever equate that Civ4 Native Americans monstruosity (Lakota with... a Mississipian City List... what? O_O) to Charlemagne's HRE ever again. Charlemagne's Civ would've been fine had they named it "Francia" or "Carolingia" (which some foreign editions did) and provided an excellent medieval counterpoint to Ancient Rome, Renaissance France and Post-Unification Germany. Carolingia was a very unique empire in its own right, with no true equivalent.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Don't ever equate that Civ4 Native Americans monstruosity (Lakota with... a Mississipian City List... what? O_O) to Charlemagne's HRE ever again.

I think I actually probably will, thanks.

 

[Guandao]

I'd be ecstatic if America and Rome were left out. I'd miss Russia, though.

I don't care about Murica being in the Civ6 vanilla. But I do care about Rome and Russia being the vanilla.

 

[Karpius]

I always considered it a very odd choice. Why would there be a separate Austrian civ in the game, when there is a German civ?
Austria is a country, part of the greater German civilization the same way as Bavaria, or all the other german countries of the HRE.

Because historically, Austria was quite the separate beast from the many other german duchies, principalities, dukedoms, etc. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was not even comprised of mostly ethnic Germans, but was a very diverse collection of Slavs, Hungarians, Romanians and other Balkan groups (including Turks) along with the German speaking Austrians. Even among the German speaking groups in the empire, there was separate identity between Austrians, Tyrolians, Swabians and others.