Harald Hardrada

[Luckystrike77]

Shameful why? It is good to have Euro civs.

Agree. Political correctness has made some people to even be shamefull being alive it seems.

Norwegian Civ! I'm so proud. Great Choice!

 

[Dragonflow]

Shameful to have YET another Euro civ. That makes half or more than half the leaders in the base game European. T_T

Nothing shameful about Vikings/Norway or any of the European civs selected. They're all recognizable and offer interesting gameplay.
And let's face it the average person will want to play as Vikings rather than "never heard of African/Amerindian/Asian Civ that CFC has a hard-on for". They don't care about earth map starts or about political correctness.

 

[Quarz]

Speaking for myself, I am very happy about the Norse/Norwegean Civ. I do enjoy playing Europe map(s) way more then playing World maps. So getting more more more european civs is making lot of sense to me.

 

[Gokudo01]

Agree. Political correctness has made some people to even be shamefull being alive it seems.

Norwegian Civ! I'm so proud. Great Choice!

bull... I'm proud of being french but I would like to play something exotic when I'm playing a "game". I'd rather remove France from vanilla and add some fancy civs ( Malinke/Mali/Siam/Polynesia etc ... )


Ps : I loved Kameahmeah for his style and his name in Dragon ball V sorry, Civ V

 

[Luckystrike77]

bull... I'm proud of being french but I would like to play something exotic when I'm playing a "game". I'd rather remove France from vanilla and add some fancy civs ( Malinke/Mali/Siam/Polynesia etc ... )


Ps : I loved Kameahmeah for his style and his name in Dragon ball V sorry, Civ V

Well, that wasn't what I was talking about. I was talking about remarks claiming it's shamefull of Firaxis to use so many european civs, and my arguement is it's far from shamefull. That has nothing to do with me not wanting to play Mali or Siam, some of my favorite Civs in past Civ-games.

 

[Boom Shakazulu]

I love it! And also I guessed correctly in the all leader thread

 

[demidyad]

Agree. Political correctness has made some people to even be shamefull being alive it seems.

Norwegian Civ! I'm so proud. Great Choice!

I'm Australian and would be proud to play an Australian Aborigine civ. (not a generic civ but a specific group like in TPangolin's mods). It's also nothing to do with 'political correctness' or historical revisionism or anything like that, for me personally. I just think the game would be better with more diverse civs. I'd rather have one game where the Sioux dominate the globe, then one where the Vietnamese spread their religion across the world, then one where the Inuit and the Greeks are vying for cultural supremacy.... rather than it just being, oh the Spanish won the last game and this time it's the Portuguese. Then the next game is a fight between Rome and Venice. It just leads to much less diverse stories emerging from the game.

Anyway I appreciate this is a thread to discuss Harald, not Yet Another Eurocentricity Thread, so I'll just say I searched google images and I think he looks cool so I look forward to seeing him in-game

 

[Luckystrike77]

I forsee Harald Hardrada to have a military trait representing his knowledge in tactics learned while being a byzantian royal guard officer, and an economical one due to his trade and monetary reforms.

The national traits of Norway is harder to forsee, but more yield from fish and oil ressources at sea could be one. We also have the Longship and the Longhouse of course, and the Berserker, the Ski-Infantry, or the Hird (Guards of noblemen). Better coastal raiding abilities is of course also a probable choice.

 

[Babri]

Enough with this anti European nonsense. As if France and Germany were the same or as if more civs aren't coming with DLC. Every goddamn time someone complains if a European civ is shown, i swear people are going to be happy the day firaxis puts out a game with one civ called Europe and a thousand different tribes from the rest of the world.

Aren't you overreacting a bit. Besides one Western Europe civ won't be much worse than 'Native American' civ we had in the past.

People complain about more inclusion of European civs is because one more European civ means less civs from rest of the world. We already have more than enough civs to represent Europe.

If hypothetically Firaxis could create infinite civs, then no one would complain about more European civs. But more European civs at the expense of Mongols, Persians, Mughals, Incans, Ottomans etc is quite painful.

 

[Sobornost]

Aren't you overreacting a bit. Besides one Western Europe civ won't be much worse than 'Native American' civ we had in the past.

People complain about more inclusion of European civs is because one more European civ means less civs from rest of the world. We already have more than enough civs to represent Europe.

If hypothetically Firaxis could create infinite civs, then no one would complain about more European civs. But more European civs at the expense of Mongols, Persians, Mughals, Incans, Ottomans etc is quite painful.

Amen! While normally a complaint could be that a big and interesting European civ is being excluded for a marginal non-European civ just for the sake of diversity, with Norway we have big and interesting non-European civs being excluded for a marginal European civ.

I guess I try not to take this too personally, they can't satisfy everyone with their choices as I'm sure they well know, and I think pretty much everyone accepted the other SEVEN European civs more or less, but they ditched a lot of huge and interesting civilizations to add Norway on top of all that.

It was a bad choice, not because Norway/Vikings are relatively irrelevant or uninteresting (modern Norwegian state sure, Vikings certainly not), but like Babri said because it means better choices (Persia Ottomans Incas SE Asia) were pushed aside.

 

[Metecury]

Aren't you overreacting a bit. Besides one Western Europe civ won't be much worse than 'Native American' civ we had in the past.

People complain about more inclusion of European civs is because one more European civ means less civs from rest of the world. We already have more than enough civs to represent Europe.

If hypothetically Firaxis could create infinite civs, then no one would complain about more European civs. But more European civs at the expense of Mongols, Persians, Mughals, Incans, Ottomans etc is quite painful.

The people overreacting are the ones talking as in the world is ending and firaxis will never include Ottomans, Persia, SE asia and native americans. We all know they are coming, they simply are not in right now. It's quite disgusting to have people displeased with leaders solely because they are of european descent (Pedro and Cleopatra) or with civs because they are european. Just like people in SE asia or anywhere else want to see their country represented so do the many westerners that make up the majority of the market. Since we know more civs are coming what does it matter if there are more european civs now and why is it a problem? Are you somehow personally offended by it? Why so?

We do not have more than enough civs to represent Europe, there are plenty of european civs that could be included but are missing. On the contrary one or two native american civs in north america and a few for south america are all we need since it makes no sense to represent every single tribe that ever existed, lets' be honest here European, midlle eastern and Asian civilization had more of a global impact than native american tribes, this does not mean that they do not deserve representation but that obviously it would be absurd to expect the vanilla version of the game to be packed with them. I agree that the middle east both in its ancient and modern representation is lacking but other than that there is nothing wrong with the starting civs since, I repeat yet again, the missing ones will be coming soon.




We all knew that some civs were not going to make the cut, we all knew more would come via DLC/expansion and we all knew that there are some base civs that have always been there and will always have a spot in the base game.




It is what it is, if people find it so unbearable to play as a european nation they can not buy the game until the civs they do want appear or until modders put them in, problem solved. The eurocentrism accusations are laughable and are getting quite annoying.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

Because more diverse cultures & nations as civs are better than more European civs.

Diversity is certainly one criteria as to what makes a for a better Civilization in the context of the game. Another equally valid criteria is historical significance, which I and many other fans of the series lean more towards. And I do emphasize historical - that is to say, that their accomplishments and impact are part of the written record. Yes, this will result in emphasizing Western civilizations far more, but the fact remains that Western civilizations truly did have a more significant impact on human history.

Were the men of Gondor to play such a game, surely they'd insist on Númenor's inclusion over the Púkel-men of the Drúedain Forrest.

 

[Aheadatime]

I don't really care about what region the civs are from. I just care that there's a sense of cultural and ethnic diversity, as man's history involves much of. Asian, Aboriginal Australian, African, Native American, South American, Sumerian, Arabic, etc. There's alot of history to base civilizations off of and to choose most of the European civs seems limiting and quite boring to me.

 

[Guandao]

Is this the first time a Scandinavian leader was included in the base game for Civilization?

Guess the Scandinavian market is more important than others, "sulks away with head down"

I don't expect Norway to be much different from Denmark in Civ5, Berserkers, warmongerer, etc

 

[chazzycat]

Diversity just for diversity's sake would be a mistake IMO. Is there really an argument to be made that any native american civ for example, had a global impact on history at the same level of France, Germany, UK, Vikings etc? It's just not the case whatsoever. Each individual European country has iconic, unique historical events with huge impacts that everyone knows about:

Spain: Unification (repelling the Moors). The Spanish inquisition. The Spanish Armada. The first global empire. Colonized most of the new world. Spanish is still the 2nd most spoken language in the world.

France: The French Revolution. The Napoleonic conquests. 100 years war. Colonizing half of Africa. Countless contributions to arts & science.

Germany: The Holy Roman Empire. Protestant revolution & 30 years war. Unification. Rise of Fascism. Berlin Wall

Vikings: Massive wave of invasions. Amazing ship builders and explorers. Iconic Norse mythology.

Greece: Birth of Democracy and Philosophy. Athens v. Sparta. Alexander's conquests. Iconic mythology. Writings of Homer.

Britain: Most impressive global empire ever assembled. Most dominant navy in history. English is the 3rd most common spoken language. Shakespeare, Darwin, countless other huge contributors to arts & science.

Rome: Roads. Legions. Gladiators. Aquaducts. Everything.

Now try to make a list like that for any Native American civ. What have you got? I could justify including civs like the Netherlands, Portugal, Austria, and Poland before a single native American civ.

Now don't get me wrong, "historical significance" just for historical significance sake is not the right approach either. To me, since this is a game, the key is having fun. But the thing is, I have way more fun if there is some level of role-playing involved. For role-playing to be any good, it has to stem from real life historical impact.

If I'm exploring and run into Harald Hadrada, I'm gonna say "Oh crap, the Vikings are gonna come raid my shorelines! better build a navy". If I see Germans I'm gonna say "oh crap they are probably building up a huge military/industrial complex to destroy me". If I see Rome "oh crap their infrastructure could give them an advantage, better watch for those legions building roads towards me."

What do I say if I run into Hiawatha in civ 5? "Oh crap he's gonna spam a bunch of cities, because he has a very high expansion modifier." That sucks...the role playing doesn't stem from any historical impact. Can you name a single Iroquois city from real life?

And so the moment I meet Hiawatha, and every interaction with him thereafter, feels much more shallow and "gamey" than a leader/civ with more historical impact.

That's my 2 cents anyways.

 

[Lohrenswald]

I was planning on not buying the game at launch but if Norway's in it I'll buy it 10 times

Shame they can't spell Hardråde correctly though

 

[Hotashina]

Yes, this will result in emphasizing Western civilizations far more, but the fact remains that Western civilizations truly did have a more significant impact on human history.

You can't possibly argue that Norway had a greater influence on human history than the Mongols.

And what the heck is with all this nonsense about political correctness? For one, countless empires not yet seen in Civ have had greater influence than those such as Brazil and Poland. For another, doing a better job to represent civilization as a whole is not some attempt to lie about history. In fact, it shows that Firaxis is devoted to celebrating the breadth of inspiring human stories across the world and across time. Human history is about sharing the pasts of all the world's people, not just those you happen to find interesting.

Of course you view western civilizations as being more influential, and of course you are able to more easily recognize Bismarck than Hiawatha. You are a westerner.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Since Harald is sometimes referred to as "the Last Viking" I would think they'd almost have to address that somehow.

How about Viking Longship as a UU, ability to cross deep ocean, when it hits land (not Cliffs!) can either Plunder a coastal tile (Improvements, etc) OR turns into a land unit and can Immediately move up to one tile inland (3 tiles if on a river) and attack.

This would balance the increasing importance of trade-seaport cities with the real historical terror the Vikings induced - anything on or near the coast was Fair Game.

In keeping, a trade bonus could be that Viking/Norse/Norwegian/whatevertheydecidetocallit Traders can defend themselves if attacked. That would automatically make their trade routes longer lasting and able to penetrate their trade through areas normally too dangerous.

 

[Craig_Sutter]

You can't possibly argue that Norway had a greater influence on human history than the Mongols.

And what the heck is with all this nonsense about political correctness? For one, countless empires not yet seen in Civ have had greater influence than those such as Brazil and Poland. For another, doing a better job to represent civilization as a whole is not some attempt to lie about history. In fact, it shows that Firaxis is devoted to celebrating the breadth of inspiring human stories across the world and across time. Human history is about sharing the pasts of all the world's people, not just those you happen to find interesting.

Of course you view western civilizations as being more influential, and of course you are able to more easily recognize Bismarck than Hiawatha. You are a westerner.

But I think an argument might be made that the Norse did... just the effects upon other European nations history, esp. England's. England might conceivably never have existed as a single entity without the Danish and Norse invasions. We might today have the Heptarchy still in existence. No British Empire. And the influence of the Normans cannot be denied. There are a lot of counter-factuals that would arise if there were no vikings. (not to deny that the same arguments might be made for the Mongols as well... but you cannot simply dismiss viking influence out of hand...)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Diversity is certainly one criteria as to what makes a for a better Civilization in the context of the game. Another equally valid criteria is historical significance, which I and many other fans of the series lean more towards. And I do emphasize historical - that is to say, that their accomplishments and impact are part of the written record. Yes, this will result in emphasizing Western civilizations far more, but the fact remains that Western civilizations truly did have a more significant impact on human history.

But for some of us, the point is not to see if you can recreate history, but to explore the 'what ifs?' of history.

What If the Haudenosenee, or Triple Alliance, or the Inka were the ones who landed, say, in Cornwall or Brittany instead of Europeans in the Americas?

How can I build a World-Striding Empire starting as Morocco?

And, of course, it is far more fascinating (to me) to explore a civilization I am unfamiliar with than one I know all too well. I don't, in fact, think I've played more than 4 games as 'America' in Civ V, and none in the last 3 years.

What does 'bug' me, is when they try to shoehorn all of a civilization that lasted several thousand years (China, Egypt, Ottomans, Persia, Rome, France, England/Britain, etc., etc) into a single set of 'Unique' attributes: it cannot be done successfully, and what you end up with is a tiny slice of the original civilization to play with.

And finally, while the Firaxians may spend a lot of time, effort and money recreating the graphics and designs for European Civilizations, I will as I have in the past play as a Civ and cheerfully Rename It and its cities and play as, for instance, Prussia instead of Germany, Novgorod instead of Russia, or The Golden Horde or the Crimean Tartars instead of the Mongols. As long as I'm playing the Civ, I never see their Leader Animation and can play as anyone or anything I want...