Guess the New Civs

AbsintheRed said:
Actually you are wrong in all your statesments :p
Check again Hungarian history, especially between 900 - 1500 AD


Anyway, my point is:
Civ V should definitely have Hungary, and I would certainly don't mind Austria either
But adding an Austro-Hungary instead of them is a very bad idea.
It was too shortliving, and couldn't really represent a civilization
Same for the Commonwealth. I would gladly have Poland and/or Lithuania, but only separately

Austro-Hungary and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth would be the same as adding the HRE to Civ IV. All were a powerful entity, but not a civilization
I just hope Firaxis won't make the same mistake again
Click to expand...

Apologies! For some reason i was under the impression the Ottomans had it from about 1200 :S

I would actually argue that Hungary was too shortlived to justify a civ. It's main period of grand civilisation was in only the medieval era. Austria/Austro-Hungary are strictly speaking a continuation of the same empire and one that spans renaissance - modern and was effectively the heartland of the most powerful European dynasty, so i wouldn't mind Austria in either form, it's just a matter of which period of it's history is being more represented in game.

I can't speak for Poland-Lithuania, but Austro-Hungary and HRE are absolutely not the same thing. By saying the Austro-Hungarian empire isn't worthy of a place in civ, you are quite literally also ruling out the Austrian empire. The difference between them is merely a treaty representing the fact that Hungary is an equal part of the power as Austria and renaming it largely for the purposes of the growing nationalist movements in Europe in the 19th century. They were by all means a continuation of the same empire more similar to a changing of dynasties than the creation of a new civilisation.

HRE on the other hand was a very very loose conglomeration of germanic states that had no real connection as an empire at least at the end of it's time. At it's founding and throughout it's medieval life it was as much a civilisation as France or Spain or England. I still agree it's not needed though, since Germany is a more modern representation of the core of the HRE.
 
True_Candyman said:
I can't speak for Poland-Lithuania, but Austro-Hungary and HRE are absolutely not the same thing. By saying the Austro-Hungarian empire isn't worthy of a place in civ, you are quite literally also ruling out the Austrian empire. The difference between them is merely a treaty representing the fact that Hungary is an equal part of the power as Austria and renaming it largely for the purposes of the growing nationalist movements in Europe in the 19th century. They were by all means a continuation of the same empire more similar to a changing of dynasties than the creation of a new civilisation.
Click to expand...

No, the difference between them is the following: Austria is a civilization, and so is Hungary. Austria-Hungary is not a civilization. The Austrian Empire was an empire in which the Austrian civilization dominated the other civilizations within the empire - like the Persian civilization did to the Phoenicians and etc. within the Persian Empire.
 
And what about the Etruscans? It seems nobody mentioned them so far, and it would be a unique addition, I think.
 
Androrc the Orc said:
No, the difference between them is the following: Austria is a civilization, and so is Hungary. Austria-Hungary is not a civilization. The Austrian Empire was an empire in which the Austrian civilization dominated the other civilizations within the empire - like the Persian civilization did to the Phoenicians and etc. within the Persian Empire.
Click to expand...

This.
I would very-very much like to see Hungary in Civ V, and Austria would be a very nice addition too
But don't add Austro-Hungary. It just feels wrong to have them as a civilization
I would rather not have anything Austrian or Hungarian related then

It would be pretty much the same as releasing only the Kalmar Union for Scandinavia, to represent all of the Danish, Swedish and Norwegian history with only those ~100 years


EDIT:
True_Candyman said:
I can't speak for Poland-Lithuania, but Austro-Hungary and HRE are absolutely not the same thing. By saying the Austro-Hungarian empire isn't worthy of a place in civ, you are quite literally also ruling out the Austrian empire. The difference between them is merely a treaty representing the fact that Hungary is an equal part of the power as Austria and renaming it largely for the purposes of the growing nationalist movements in Europe in the 19th century. They were by all means a continuation of the same empire more similar to a changing of dynasties than the creation of a new civilisation.
Click to expand...

Reread your post, and I think I'm getting your initial point too
So let me rephrase my toughts:
A separate Austria can more or less represent the Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy too.
So is a separate Hungary. It's kinda "included"
Austro-Hungary was a part of both nations history. And to be honest, a very small part - even if it was one of the top powers in it's time

Either Hungary or Austria is so much more than Austro-Hungary
So keeping only the Austro-Hungary "part" of either of these nations, and releasing that as a civ. That just feels... wrong
It's a very different case than the HRE, I agree
But it fees wrong the same way the HRE felt wrong as a separate civ in IV


EDIT2:
BTW, before anyone asks. A medieval+renaissance era centered Hungarian civilization, and a renaissance+industrial era centered Austrian civilization (including both the Austrian Empire, and the Austrian parts of Austro-Hungary) would work pretty great alongside each other in Civ V
 
Androrc the Orc said:
No, the difference between them is the following: Austria is a civilization, and so is Hungary. Austria-Hungary is not a civilization. The Austrian Empire was an empire in which the Austrian civilization dominated the other civilizations within the empire - like the Persian civilization did to the Phoenicians and etc. within the Persian Empire.
Click to expand...

That's even more wrong. Austria is a civ, Hungary is a civ, Austro-Hungary is a civ that combines the two to a certain extent (though is much more Austrian than Hungarian). I could say potatoes and leeks are civilisations but not beetroot and it would be about as logically selective as that.

Austria is a Nation, Hungary is a Nation, Austro-Hungary was a proto-nation. Nations and civilisations are not the same thing and you are thinking of civilisation in a very modern European context. There is no reason why Austro-Hungary has less entitlement than Austria, and to a certain extent Hungary.

Is the Roman empire less of a civ because it gave equal power to the eastern roman empire (subjugated land) and western roman empire? Is the US less of a civ becuase it gives equal power to states annexed from Mexico? Are the Spanish less of a civ because they gave equal power to the united kingdoms or Aragon and Castille? There are so many conglomerations of former kingdoms and modern nations that are civilisations that it makes no sense to exclude Austro-Hungary and no justification in saying it is not a civilisation.

Austro-Hungary is far more of a civilisation than the Celts, who are in fact a sub-race of the Caucasians that spread across northern Europe yet somehow they made it into the expansion.
 
It depends on the actual impact of the "combined" civs
Just to pick to last few mentioned examples:

Austro-Hungary, Kalmar Union and such things doesn't really make sense, as the included civs separately were far more important. Keep in mind that these were rather shortliving entities.
A definite no to the combined civs

Spain otherwise is much more important then Leon, Castille, etc.
A definite yes to the combined civ

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is probably somewhere in between
For me a separate Poland is still a much better choice than the Commonwealth
But I guess the exact position of each of these is rather subjective
 
AbsintheRed said:
I disagree. Most of the Levant inhabitants weren't dark skinned, not even before the Roman conquests
Anyway, specifically the Phoenicians weren't dark skinned at all, and Carthagians are mostly related to them
I think the Civ IV approach was correct
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, I did wonder if I was right about that :)
 
Yes, I'm pretty sure Roman historians would have made it quite clear to us if the Carthaginians were black. By not mentioning the colour of their skin, we can assume that they had a similar skin tone as the Romans themselves.
 
AbsintheRed said:
It depends on the actual impact of the "combined" civs
Just to pick to last few mentioned examples:

Austro-Hungary, Kalmar Union and such things doesn't really make sense, as the included civs separately were far more important. Keep in mind that these were rather shortliving entities.
A definite no to the combined civs

Spain otherwise is much more important then Leon, Castille, etc.
A definite yes to the combined civ

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is probably somewhere in between
For me a separate Poland is still a much better choice than the Commonwealth
But I guess the exact position of each of these is rather subjective
Click to expand...

Austrian empire - 1804-1867
Austro-Hungarian empire - 1867-1918

Short lived?

It is as i said a continuation of the Austrian empire. Do not let the name fool you, it has little to do with the Hungarians other than placation in order to maintain some level of subjugation. It was still by all practical means the same Austrian empire, and for the purposes of this game would be interchangeable with the Austrian empire.

By the way, the Austro-Hungarian empire is entirely different to the Kalmar union. The kalmar union was a concious effort to unite three seperate kingdoms to the same effect of the EU today. Austro-hungary was a literal continuation of the Austrian empire. More or less nothing changed other than the labelling of it and consequently it cannot be seen as shortlived, it cannot be seen as less significant and it cannot be seen as unworthy because it is the same thing as the Austrian empire.

By using spain as an example i was trying to show that the situation is very much comparable to that of Austro-Hungary. The only difference is that Austria and Hungary are today seperate. That does not lessen the significance of their combined kingdom as it was essentially the same institution as Spain at the time ruling over the previously seperated kingdoms of castile and aragon. Same with France ruling over Alsace-Lorraine and Burgundy, same with Germany ruling over Prussia and Saxony, same with Russia ruling over Ukraine. Catalan is vying for independence today, if it succeeded, would spain be another insignificant union?

It was a European power of essentially the same ruling format as it's fellow powers and shouldn't be treated differently because it had a double barrelled name. In fact, it's name if anything makes it MORE of a candidate. The 1860's in Europe was a HUGE period of unrest, revolt and civil war. Many states broke down and formed seperate states that played less significantly in world politics as a consequence, but Austro-Hungary survived this period intact, and in the centre of the most volatile region in Europe, and i would suggest that is a very good reason for it's inclusion.
 
The Habsburg Dynasty was established in 1278 and it held territory outside of the Holy Roman Empire for a significant portion of that history. Austrian annexation of Hungary and Bohemia in 1526 is a good starting point. The destruction of the Holy Roman Empire ended past complications, but wasn't the starting point except in perhaps the most technical sense.
 
True_Candyman said:
Austrian empire - 1804-1867
Austro-Hungarian empire - 1867-1918

Short lived?

It is as i said a continuation of the Austrian empire. Do not let the name fool you, it has little to do with the Hungarians other than placation in order to maintain some level of subjugation. It was still by all practical means the same Austrian empire, and for the purposes of this game would be interchangeable with the Austrian empire...
Click to expand...
FYI: Austro-Hungary was a personalunion
Habsburgs were elected emperors of Austria and elected kings of Hungary
Kaiserlich und Koniglich - the famous K.u.K also comes from this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K.u.K

Anyway, as I already said a couple times, I'm absolutely not against including Austria
My point was that the dual monarchy was only a small part of the Austrian history, small part of the Austrian civilization (using the word in Civ V terms)

I'm really getting curios:
Why are you against a complete Austrian civilization, which could represent the early Habsburg kingdoms from 1282, the continuously rising power of the Austrian Kingdom in central Europe in the 15-18th century, the Austrian Empire from the end of the 18th century to 1867, and the dominant partner in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy?
Wouldn't that be so much more than only the Austro-Hungary part?

The same works for Hungary
Why would you want to represent it with only the lesser partner in a personal union which only existed for 50 years?
Why, when a separate Hungary could represent hundreds of years of very eventful and rich history, a unique culture stuck between western european and slavic nations in central Europe, which still managed to be a dominant power for more than 600 years?
 
Because we will not get both in this game, the K.u.K is more popular and allows for more creative effects, but with no doubt several users would protest heavily if the second K is not mentioned in the civ at all. But of course we would also have the same problem with an Austria-Hungary civ ;)

In the end, it really doesn't matter which "version" of the civ we get. Because there is a natural "ceiling" for the number of civs possible, or otherwise the stable big ones (like the Americans, English and Chinese) would get devaluated in my mind. I'd put that number around 50, but at the moment we already have a record number for Civ 5, right?
 
I dont like the Austro-Hungary as a civ. Austria and hungria can be civs, but, IMO, austro-hungary is not the best choice.

Its the same problem I have with the Gran-Colombia. I prefer that they choose colombia, venezuela, argentina or brazil.

Better to have one country well represented than 2 or more mixed together. Even if the history can justify this "approach".
 
mitsho said:
Because we will not get both in this game, the K.u.K is more popular and allows for more creative effects, but with no doubt several users would protest heavily if the second K is not mentioned in the civ at all. But of course we would also have the same problem with an Austria-Hungary civ ;)

In the end, it really doesn't matter which "version" of the civ we get. Because there is a natural "ceiling" for the number of civs possible, or otherwise the stable big ones (like the Americans, English and Chinese) would get devaluated in my mind. I'd put that number around 50, but at the moment we already have a record number for Civ 5, right?
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree that both of them are very unlikely
Naturally I'm all for a separate Hungarian civ, but it's also perfectly fine if we only get a separate (and whole) Austrian civ
Which of course somewhat includes Austro-Hungary as well, even if not perfectly

So yes, I would rather have an Austria civ and no Hungary at all, than having Austro-Hungary
 
mitsho said:
In the end, it really doesn't matter which "version" of the civ we get. Because there is a natural "ceiling" for the number of civs possible, or otherwise the stable big ones (like the Americans, English and Chinese) would get devaluated in my mind. I'd put that number around 50, but at the moment we already have a record number for Civ 5, right?
Click to expand...

Civ3 had 30-31 civs, so I don't think so.
 
25 Civilizations right now in Civ V (including DLC) says the civfanatics count. If we get 9 additional civilizations, we are already over civ 3 (25 + 9 > 20). With the expansion, the number of civs in Civ IV will also be reached, as there were 34 civilizations in there. Although you might count different leaders additionally there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Smegger213
Is it me, or is the AI just dumb a lot of the time
Replies
7
Views
2K
Naokaukodem
Naokaukodem
T
[BNW] Wonders of the Ancient World
Replies
3
Views
658
Tharkon
T
A
Magic wand
Replies
0
Views
425
AlanH11
A
mattwho
Matt's Civs: Ireland
Replies
0
Views
271
mattwho
mattwho
B
Civ 5 is disappointing
Replies
5
Views
4K
Bonyduck Campersang
Bonyduck Campersang
Back
Top Bottom