Harald Hardrada

[Hotashina]

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...)

While you can make great points about indirect influence, it becomes an iffy way to determine a society's effect on the rest of the world. The Mongols, for example, had an indirect effect on the rise of Russia, and thus one of the world's eventual superpowers. It's not easy to compare this sort of thing when history is such an intricate web of connections.

While my original post might have been a little presumptuous, my point was that the Mongol legacy seems to be more clearcut than that of the Vikings.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Historical significance I don't care at all about because civilization is about creating history. The vikings could be a very cool civ to play as given that both trade and rading seems to be more important then civilization V as well as building a large empire.

 

[Enrchd Iranium]

I don't believe the Civ list as it has evolved has only prioritized historical significance. Otherwise, what accounts for the continued absence of Israel and the Netherlands in the base roster? These are two of the most influential civs in history.

Rather, it's about striking a balance among historical significance, gameplay mechanics, and variety (small and large empires). For every Russia, England, and China, one should have a Poland, Norsemen, and Kongo. There is nothing wrong with that and it makes the game a more rich experience as a result.

The problem is not Western vs. non-Western. Rather, the issue is that in a TSL map much of the Earth will simply be empty. Moreover, many different types of gameplay opportunities will be missing, in a game where most civs are simply located in Europe and are part of the European sphere.

So, instead of an additional European civ, I would have liked an Australian (Anglo/colonial) civ, so that the Earth is more inhabited in TSL mode. A civ for SE Asia would also be appropriate and at least one more each for the Americas and Africa. That would give you a more balanced representation of the world, rather than lumping everything into Europe. It's just not as interesting from a gameplay perspective.

 

[King Jason]

"Cool" is the only parameter I have for whether a civ or leader should be in this game. Vikings are cool. Harald Hardrada was cool. Let's go Norway.

I'm happy with this choice.

 

[ButtBillionaire]

I, for one, am glad to finally play the game as my homeland in the base game. However, I did wonder if Hardråde actually is the leader of a Norse civ, but then I remembered something; wasn't a City-State with a three crowns-symbol (i.e. Stockholm) spotted a while ago? Because that would make a general Norse civ a whole lot more unlikely, and a Norwegian civ a lot more probable.

 

[chazzycat]

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.

Can you explain how Hiawatha had an equivalent impact on history as Bismarck? Uniting the the Iroquois confederacy was cool, and the relationship it played between British, French & American settlers was interesting, no doubt. But the impact that had on world history was exceedingly minor. America took the continent, kicked out the Brits, bought off the French, and wiped out the Indians. That same basic story would have occurred with or without Hiawatha. Maybe slightly quicker. But in the end it didn't matter. Sad? Yes. But we are supposed to give him a place in the game because we feel bad? I would rather have a civ who is famous for something other than getting wiped out, not for philosophical reasons, but because that civ would be more fun to play as.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

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.

Struck out the things that are really only internally significant (or local)... I mean Greek/Norse mythology is only iconic outside of Greece/Norway because of the waves of invasion (Alexander/Rome/Vikings)
The particular forms of government of the Iberian peninsula/France/Germanic areas aren't particularly important, except for the fact that they formed/influenced big empires.

Those things aren't significant, they Seem significant because France/England/Rome/Spain/Germany all formed high tech powerful militaries that then set up global empires (or for Germany/Rome affected other global empires).

That's all you need to list... high tech military power (for their time)->cultural impact today.

 

[dnoisette]

"Cool" is the only parameter I have for whether a civ or leader should be in this game. Vikings are cool. Harald Hardrada was cool. Let's go Norway.

I'm happy with this choice.

My exact thoughts. I was hoping for a northern civ, really not holding my breath for Vikings so early in the game and I'm currently celebrating that they're in after all!

 

[chazzycat]

Struck out the things that are really only internally significant (or local)... I mean Greek/Norse mythology is only iconic outside of Greece/Norway because of the waves of invasion (Alexander/Rome/Vikings)
The particular forms of government of the Iberian peninsula/France/Germanic areas aren't particularly important, except for the fact that they formed/influenced big empires.

Those things aren't significant, they Seem significant because France/England/Rome/Spain/Germany all formed high tech powerful militaries that then set up global empires (or for Germany/Rome affected other global empires).

That's all you need to list... high tech military power (for their time)->cultural impact today.

Still waiting for that list of significant historical events of the lesser civs people are supposedly clamoring for like Native Americans. You can reduce my list down all you want but it's still better than nothing.

 

[Hotashina]

Can you explain how Hiawatha had an equivalent impact on history as Bismarck? Uniting the the Iroquois confederacy was cool, and the relationship it played between British, French & American settlers was interesting, no doubt. But the impact that had on world history was exceedingly minor. America took the continent, kicked out the Brits, bought off the French, and wiped out the Indians. That same basic story would have occurred with or without Hiawatha. Maybe slightly quicker. But in the end it didn't matter. Sad? Yes. But we are supposed to give him a place in the game because we feel bad? I would rather have a civ who is famous for something other than getting wiped out, not for philosophical reasons, but because that civ would be more fun to play as.

I argued that, even if we were to include just the civilizations that have culturally dominated the most, there are civilizations that should come before much of Europe. My point about Hiawatha was that, no, I cannot name Iroquois cities. Am I Iroquois? No. Am I a student of Iroquois history? No. The anecdotal point that I may not know much about them does not prove anything. I made the point that Civ is not just about the most influential civilizations, but about people and societies. But if playing as the Iroquois is less engaging for you because of your historical perception rather than gameplay concerns, I don't think you are playing Civ right.

 

[SMcM]

What would people think of the Danish being added as DLC later? Would everyone object, saying we already had Vikings covered, or would people appreciate seeing them? I'm fairly sure the fact that Norway has the stereotype Viking leader covered allows Denmark to have more choice. I certainly think Cnut could bring someone different to the table if done well; there are certainly differences between the two leaders- Cnut could be better suited for conquest for example, as that wasn't exactly Hardrada's forte . Hardrada's play style could be more along the lines of play the barbarian; an ability involving raiding cities perhaps.

I'm not suggesting this because Europe isn't already well covered or anything, but I am talking about at a point when the rest of the world is much better represented (which should take place eventually).

 

[jekke]

In-game diversity, which was mentioned here by one or more of the anti-europe whiners, has nothing to to do with how the civ is called, Norway or Thailand, but is rather provided by unique civilisation bonuses and flavours. All european civs are very different to each other, so it is only good to have many european nations in Civ.
It would be unwise to have both Denmark and Norway at the same time though, or maybe Austria and Switzerland. As for now, England, France, Norway, Germany and Russia can be different enough to provide enough of diversity.

Another thing, while I agree that coolness of the in-game civ is a decisive factor here, and vikings are cool by any stretch, I would argue that Nidaros as their capital seems way cooler than Oslo.

 

[need my speed]

Struck out the things that are really only internally significant (or local)... I mean Greek/Norse mythology is only iconic outside of Greece/Norway because of the waves of invasion (Alexander/Rome/Vikings)
The particular forms of government of the Iberian peninsula/France/Germanic areas aren't particularly important, except for the fact that they formed/influenced big empires.

Those things aren't significant, they Seem significant because France/England/Rome/Spain/Germany all formed high tech powerful militaries that then set up global empires (or for Germany/Rome affected other global empires).

That's all you need to list... high tech military power (for their time)->cultural impact today.

That really isn't correct. The French Revolution is massively significant, and is one of the things lying at the very basis of modern 'western' life.

The Spanish Inquisition is iconic, globally - ever watched Monty Python?

The Holy Roman Empire was... Oh, I don't know, the USA of the medieval era, for Europe? That's a really terrible comparison, but... How can you possibly cross out such things? That makes me think you don't know much about them, which is why I use a simplistic - and faulty - comparison.

Fascism and the Berlin Wall aren't significant? ... I can't even address that. Why do you think so?

Yes, I suppose their significance relies on conquest and cultural export... But that makes them inherently significant!

Mythology, I suppose, is a subjective point - but have you ever heard of Age of Mythology? They aren't only - or at all - significant because of invasions; Egyptian mythology is just as significant, and Egypt never invaded like that.

Mind, I personally don't care. I would have preferred some different civilisations, but eh, who cares... Oh, let me do this for fun; eighteen civilisations:

Greece
Rome
Germany
France
England
Arabia
Persia
Egypt
'''India''' (ideally, I'd split this up in two, with one for the base game and one for an expansion pack / DLC / whatever)
China
Aztecs
Inca
Mali
Zimbabwe / Bantu / Zulu
Babylon
Ottomans
Russia
Khmer

Yes. No USA. I'll run away now (but really, imagine how well that DLC would sell! But fine, I suppose you can take out the Ottomans or Babylon and replace one of them with the USA).

 

[ToothedBomb]

Cool that the vikings are in, but I'm not sure that's something we need in the base game.
Choices have to be made, I understand that, but then I'd rather see Norway as DLC or in an expansion. Some may argue that the order in which we get access to civs doesn't matter, but I think it does. I'd rather have a nice balance of civilizations from across the world from the get-go, rather than a big chunk from one region in the base game, then wait a year or more for the rest of the world to get some decent representation.

 

[SMcM]

Struck out the things that are really only internally significant (or local)... I mean Greek/Norse mythology is only iconic outside of Greece/Norway because of the waves of invasion (Alexander/Rome/Vikings)
The particular forms of government of the Iberian peninsula/France/Germanic areas aren't particularly important, except for the fact that they formed/influenced big empires.

Those things aren't significant, they Seem significant because France/England/Rome/Spain/Germany all formed high tech powerful militaries that then set up global empires (or for Germany/Rome affected other global empires).

That's all you need to list... high tech military power (for their time)->cultural impact today.

The things you chose to cross out are ridiculous! You say the fall of the Berlin Wall is only internally significant. Do you not even know what that is or something?

Edit: Just noticed you think fascism had only minor consequences too . Fascism played a huge role in causing a war involving nearly every sovereign nation at the time! How can its importance be overstated?

 

[Lohrenswald]

It would be unwise to have both Denmark and Norway at the same time though,

why

Another thing, while I agree that coolness of the in-game civ is a decisive factor here, and vikings are cool by any stretch, I would argue that Nidaros as their capital seems way cooler than Oslo.

Having Nidaros/Trondheim as capital is close to having Richmond as capital for the american civilization

 

[Lord Lakely]

What would people think of the Danish being added as DLC later? Would everyone object, saying we already had Vikings covered, or would people appreciate seeing them?

One Scandinavian Civ is more than enough for me, thanks. (and I hope the Norse city list reflects this by including Danish, Swedish and Icelandic cities as well) There are better European picks than Denmark or Sweden at this stage imo.

 

[SMcM]

One Scandinavian Civ is more than enough for me, thanks. (and I hope the Norse city list reflects this by including Danish, Swedish and Icelandic cities as well) There are better European picks than Denmark or Sweden at this stage imo.

What European Civs would you rather see? Portugal is defiantly a Civ I want to see at some point. Netherlands also. Byzantines would be nice, but I would rather they went with medieval Byzantium under someone like Basil II for a change, as I don't see Justinius as being far enough detached from Rome. Ottomans should be added, but Turkey isn't really European. Huns will probably be given a break, maybe we'll get Goths instead. Austria could also be a good choice, but I have a feeling (though I can't be sure) that many Austrians would see Barbarrossa as representing them also. Other than that, I can't think of any essential Civs; Serbia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Lithuania are all interesting, but I see no reason why we would include them over Denmark. As for Sweden, they would be nice to see at some point, and possibly stand a chance of being included as DLC I feel, but I would personally rather see Denmark.

 

[joncnunn]

Moderator Action: This thread's topic is about Harald Hardrada and Denmark / Vikings, if you wish to speculate about other civs (European or otherwise), but do so in another thread

 

[ferretbacon]

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.

I won't bother to argue that European civilizations aren't higher profile or more significant to our modern lives than Native American cultures, but let's be realistic: most Native American peoples got obliterated due to disease, genocide, and displacement, and their culture went with them. Very much a case of history being written by the victor. We'll never know how their cultures would have developed and flourished had they been left to, well, develop and flourish as they undoubtedly would have. Since Civilization isn't a history simulator, but rather a game of "what if?", any Native American tribe is just as valid a civilization as any European tribe so long as they're well thought out and fun to play.

As for Norway... not a huge fan of their inclusion in vanilla. Kind of an obscure European civ with too many already in. Would rather have seen Norway/Norse/Vikings later on. But I suppose they were inevitable and I like vikings, so why the heck not?