Georgia, one of the worst civ choices!?

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

So I come back and start seeing why Austria and U.S.A. shouldn't be in the game. Firaxis should just move their headquarters to Tblisi, at least that would be a good reason why they got in the game to some people.
At the end of the day, I still don't see why having a religious female leader of a medieval kingdom is bad. We already had that with Poland.
And I am one of the few who love Macedon, though I'm biased as well. And Australia is actually my favorite Civ to play as currently. We all have different ones we want, but that doesn't mean we need to start acting like barbarians when we say what we want.
Although I don't totally agree with the OP's list or reasoning on some things, I don't totally dislike any Civ on the list he would want to include that is bolded, although Tibet might be somewhat questionable.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Amongst all the possible choices, why would this one bubble to the top?

Because the dev team thought they were interesting and fancied including them.

 

[steveg700]

Because the dev team thought they were interesting and fancied including them.

That's just begging the question.

Shamelessly so, which I suppose is the best way to beg.

 

[Greek Stud]

(Jewish, Greek and Hispanic) Historians also attribute the Georgians (Iberians) for being the ancient forefathers of the Italians (Umbrians), Lusitanians (Portuguese), Basque, Aragonese, and Spanish.

Although legend says that Lusitanian mythology says Thubal (Iber) was the uncle of their ancestor Lysia (Elisha or Hellen the son of Javan) making the Portuguese Hellenes and Thubal only accompanied Hellen at the founding of Portalegre under Iberian King Brigo. The tomb of Lysia (Hellen) is located in Portalegre.

 

[Ondolindë]

That's just begging the question.

Shamelessly so, which I suppose I can grant is the best way to beg.

So then, what wouldn’t be begging the question in your opinion.

 

[Kwami]

That's just begging the question.

Shamelessly so, which I suppose I can grant is the best way to beg.

Yeah, but unless the developers tell us their motivations, we'll never really know. So, begging it is!

 

[steveg700]

So then, what wouldn’t be begging the question in your opinion.

Yeah, but unless the developers tell us their motivations, we'll never really know. So, begging it is!

Well, if there are people who support and applaud the inclusion of Georgia (and safe to say, they are), seems reasonable that they can offer their estimations as to why they support and applaud it. So, why would someone on the dev team find Georgia fascinating and fancy to include it? Are people here supporting motivations that are utterly unfathomable to them, in other words is it support based purely on blind faith? Are people interested in Georgia, or just supportive of any civ that the devs propose?

 

[Kwami]

Well, if there are people who support and applaud the inclusion of Georgia (and safe to say, they are), seems reasonable that they can offer their estimations as to why they support and applaud it. So, why would someone on the dev team find Georgia fascinating and fancy to include it? Are people here supporting motivations that are utterly unfathomable to them, in other words is it support based purely on blind faith?

Who are we to question their motivations, though? Why do their motivations matter?

Besides all of that, the developers have made clear that when choosing which civilizations to add, they consider the area in which the civilization is/was located, whether its been in the game before, and whether it has interesting leaders. Georgia is an obvious choice when you consider that its the first civilization from the Caucus region, that it hasn't been in the game before, and that Tamar was awesome.

 

[13v4n]

I personally would enjoy hearing some compelling case for Georgia, Amongst all the possible choices, why would this one bubble to the top?

Can you think of many civs who have survived for more than three millennia without losing their identity and still exist today? Georgia has - the first Georgian kingdom of Colchis was founded in c. 13th century BC. And no, Colchis was not just a proto-Georgian kingdom, it was a proper Georgian (Kartvelian) kingdom.

Why shouldn't Civ acknowledge this grand continuity of one of the most unique cultures? Especially since they actually did establish a pan-Caucasus empire in 12th century AD and had regional military and cultural impact.

There are many other reasons why Georgia stands out, wrote on it already earlier in this thread.

 

[steveg700]

Who are we to question their motivations, though? Why do their motivations matter?

I didn't really bring those motivations into it, I just humored the move. That came from an overly literal (perhaps facetiously so) response applied to a one-line excerpt from a much longer post broadly posing questions that were asking people to articulate their case for Georgia.

Besides all of that, the developers have made clGeorgia. when choosing which civilizations to add, they consider the area in which the civilization is/was located, whether its been in the game before, and whether it has interesting leaders. Georgia is an obvious choice when you consider that its the first civilization from the Caucus region, that it hasn't been in the game before, and that Tamar was awesome.

See, that's the spirit. You do feel comfortable speaking to the devs expressed motives and more importantly you do have your reason to present. What a guy!

So, what's awesome about Tamar? Wikipedia doesn't seem to do justice.

 

[Karpius]

See my recent post. My argument is that a people need a cultural identity and a history that belongs to themselves, not borrowed from someone else. I used "11/12ths" when I referred to the history of America, but that was generous. I was using 1500 as the starting point of American history. All "Americans" in 1500 were British citizens and lived in British villages, towns and outposts.

I would highly suggest you get hold of the Anchor "Atlas of World History" (two volumes). It is an excellent yet elegantly simple primer on world history that clearly demonstrates how cultures evolved from other cultures. It also elucidates quite well how peoples migrated and settled across the landscape. There is no set formula to how cultures merged or assimilated or supplanted other cultures, but invariably a new culture was born to one degree or another. Cultures can be described in a broad sense, or within a microcosm. In the broader sense, there is little difference between the culture of the post-Roman British Isles and the culture on the main continent. However, the people living in Wessex certainly felt their culture was different than that in Northumbria of the same period.

And, as a point of clarity, the first British settlement in America was in 1606. The Spanish were the first to bring colonists to the Americas (their first North American settlement was St. Augustine, Florida). There were also Dutch, German and French settlements making the American culture - right from the beginning - a new amalgamation of cultures. Over the years, there were many more influences including the Native Americans and Mexicans. It *is* the definition of melting pot.

Are people interested in Georgia, or just supportive of any civ that the devs propose?

Personally, I support any civ the developers propose because I believe each one is worthy in its own right. It

 

[Ondolindë]

Not wanting to be flippant in the slightest, I believe we’ve answered the original question and intent of this thread: for a simple majority of individual opinions, Georgia is not one of the worst Civ choices! Albeit, for a few, it is.

 

[Stomper66]

Yes I agree. I am happy for all the fans excited about Tamar. Everyone looks for something different. If tall game play returns in R&F who knows maybe Tamar might win me over. Looking forward to next Tuesday. Hopefully a civ more up my street will be announced.

 

[PhilBowles]

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.

Not universally true by any means. People play against factions, in many games without figureheads - in games like RTSes mostly the opponent is a human player, but they're faceless within the game. That's no different from the traditional Civ approach - people imagine the AI civs as characters, regardless of what name is associated with the leader or if that leader is a full animation or a small box in the middle of a trade screen that otherwise never makes an in-game appearance. There's a reason there's a lot of discussion over which civs should be included, and discussion of leader choices generally only takes place in that context. People ask whether the Inca will be in the game, not whether Manco Inca should be.

 

[Shadole]

Poor choice for a Civ, don't like the annoying meme with it. On top of that I think the abilities were meh. I hope the meme dies now.

 

[DWilson]

Wishing that a meme will die only gives it strength

 

[PhilBowles]

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.

Babylon's one of the Original Twelve. I feel those should be in every Civ game, and so far they have. The Zulu are arguable, but there's no reason to dispute Babylon's place. We got Sumeria this time instead of Assyria, rather than instead of Babylon.

also Civ had never represented any nation from Caucasus region.

Why do people keep saying this? The Ottomans and Byzantium extended into the Caucasus. Persia/Iran is in the Caucasus. Modern Russia ranges to the Caucasus. There is no need for a civ from the central Caucasus and limited TSL map space for one between these, Sumeria, and assorted city states.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

At the end of the day, I still don't see why having a religious female leader of a medieval kingdom is bad. We already had that with Poland.

I am glad that, in defense of Georgia, you gave the one good reason on why they should have not been added.

 

[bite]

Why do people keep saying this? The Ottomans and Byzantium extended into the Caucasus. Persia/Iran is in the Caucasus. Modern Russia ranges to the Caucasus. There is no need for a civ from the central Caucasus and limited TSL map space for one between these, Sumeria, and assorted city states.

Note all those civs you mentioned are not From the Caucasus, they expanded into the Caucasus.

Maybe not a big difference but it is like saying we don't need Vietnam because England, France and the Netherlands already expanded into South East Asia

 

[Depravo]

Maybe not a big difference but it is like saying we don't need Vietnam because England, France and the Netherlands already expanded into South East Asia

Speaking of Vietnam, it really is about time we had Vietnam.