How diverse is civ6?

[Evie]

The word blob keeps being thrown around for all the wrong reasons.

A civilization does NOT need to reflect a politically unified organization. The Greeks (outside Macedon) were not politically unified, the Mayans were not, the Sioux were not, the Shoshone were not - I could go on. The idea that if a civilization group multiple polities it's a blob is nonsense ; that's Europa Universalis level of details, not Civilization-level of detail.

What a civilization should have is a good measure of cultural distinctiveness and specificity. Good indicators that a culture is distinct and specific CAN include having their own politically united organization, but can also include having a shared language, or having a self-given name with a clear distinction between the group (to whom that name applies) and the outsiders (to whom it does not).

The Maori are two out of three on that list (they have the language and the demonym) - much like the pre-Macedonian Greeks, who shared a language, and a concept of Greeks as a separate group from other humans, but were never politically united. The Norse are something like 1.5 out of three (it's questionable to what extent they had a self-given demonym, but they did share the language). The Mayans are more of a blob than any of them, though the fact that the game seems to focus on a certain subset of the Maya helps.

The Celts, Native Americans and Polynesians are zero out of three on that list. They never formed a country around that identity, they do not share a common language (they have a bunch of related but separate languages for the Polynesians and Celts, not even that for the Native Americans), and there's no real self-given term (that I know of) for any of them that distinguish them as a group from other humans. They are blobs.

Maori are not a blob in any reasonable sense I would use that word.

 

[Henri Christophe]

So you want to take out anything related to Japan, China and India, let alone the European S tier powers of England, France, Germany, Greece, Rome, Russia and Spain?
Good luck marketing and selling that game.

Maybe not all S tier out of Vanila, but I would like to see two abstencion> France and England.
Maybe all Europe can be substitue for Rome in Vanila game and just after come for each European one African, One Native American.
It would be amazing as that.

 

[nzcamel]

The word blob keeps being thrown around for all the wrong reasons.

A civilization does NOT need to reflect a politically unified organization. The Greeks (outside Macedon) were not politically unified, the Mayans were not, the Sioux were not, the Shoshone were not - I could go on. The idea that if a civilization group multiple polities it's a blob is nonsense ; that's Europa Universalis level of details, not Civilization-level of detail.

What a civilization should have is a good measure of cultural distinctiveness and specificity. Good indicators that a culture is distinct and specific CAN include having their own politically united organization, but can also include having a shared language, or having a self-given name with a clear distinction between the group (to whom that name applies) and the outsiders (to whom it does not).

The Maori are two out of three on that list (they have the language and the demonym) - much like the pre-Macedonian Greeks, who shared a language, and a concept of Greeks as a separate group from other humans, but were never politically united. The Norse are something like 1.5 out of three (it's questionable to what extent they had a self-given demonym, but they did share the language). The Mayans are more of a blob than any of them, though the fact that the game seems to focus on a certain subset of the Maya helps.

The Celts, Native Americans and Polynesians are zero out of three on that list. They never formed a country around that identity, they do not share a common language (they have a bunch of related but separate languages for the Polynesians and Celts, not even that for the Native Americans), and there's no real self-given term (that I know of) for any of them that distinguish them as a group from other humans. They are blobs.

Maori are not a blob in any reasonable sense I would use that word.

You were ruling out others for lack of political unity. The name Maori was not used until the consistent arrival of Europeans. It is Iwi and Hapu (tribes and subtribes) they identified with, and still do. They didn't have any unifying identify till European powers arrived, and became the regional power houses.

Yes, the ancient Greeks were never a nation state as presented in Civ, but they certainly buried their differences often enough to fight outsiders. Even with the Kingitanga movement post Treaty of Waitangi, Maori never joined as one to that degree; and by then the merger between Maori and the British was underway. Post Treaty of Waitangi, Maori Iwi and Hapu fought and killed each other far more than they did Europeans.

The introduction of CS into Civ could eventually lead to a better reflection of the Civic arrangements that the Greeks employed.

 

[Evie]

I didn't rule out others for lack of unity. Nor did I lower the ranking of a civ because of lack of unity.

What I did was say that some civs, eg Phoenicia, did not meet the criteria for a higher tiers because they weren't united. S-tier (requires being a global or supraregional power) will be nearly impossible if not politically unified - it's hard to project power at the global or supraregional level without a large organized state. A-tier (dominant regional power) is also harder to reach, but not impossible (Greece and the Mayas are disunited but made A-tier anyway). But B-tier and down certainly don't require it, and even A tier can be reached without political unity.

Since Maori were never close to S tier, and more B than A tier to begin with, their political unity is irrelevant.

As for Maori not having a concept of themselves before encountering Europeans: well, yeah? Giving yourself a name to indicate your group is separate from other humans is kind of hard before you actually encounter humans who aren't part of your group (or close to it enough that you don't start thinking about the difference). Anyhow, the language point stand: usualy, a group that share a language constitute a distinct, specific culture in the absence of specific reasons to break it up (say, living on a completely different continent). The Maori are not a blob.

 

[nzcamel]

Sure. And neither were they a regional power. They did have names for others. Other tribes that they did not see as themselves.

When the Chatem Island Mori Ori were slaughtered and subjugated, it wouldn't be correct to say Maori did it. No, Taranaki (a prominent tribe) did it. It wasn't done for Maoridom, but for Taranaki.

 

[Evie]

Regional power simply mean a nation or group (including a culture) that held significant sway in a region (and I'd know what it means, I wrote those definitions). New Zealand constitute a region - maybe too small and isolated for A-tier, but certainly large enough for B-tier, and the Maori were the dominant major culture (and the only one) in that region for centuries.

Maori were as significant to NZ as the Maya to the Yucatan. They keep their B.

C-D tier should be for pretty obscure group the kind most people just recognize the name of pr have never of at all. And E tier is for group and culture that never extended their influence beyond local surroundings: a city and its immediate region, a single valley, etc. The Maori are quite well known internationally, so a hard fit.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

You were ruling out others for lack of political unity. The name Maori was not used until the consistent arrival of Europeans. It is Iwi and Hapu (tribes and subtribes) they identified with, and still do. They didn't have any unifying identify till European powers arrived, and became the regional power houses.

The Mapuche were never unified either until invasion from both the Inca and the Spanish, and Poundmaker himself didn't lead all of the Cree, and yet they were still in the A/B tier. The main criteria is they weren't all blobbed under Native Americans.

The Maori fall under the same category as both the Mapuche and Cree. Both groups constitute a similar culture and language between the various groups of tribes/bands that make up the people.

 

[nzcamel]

Regional power simply mean a nation or group (including a culture) that held significant sway in a region (and I'd know what it means, I wrote those definitions). New Zealand constitute a region - maybe too small and isolated for A-tier, but certainly large enough for B-tier, and the Maori were the dominant major culture (and the only one) in that region for centuries.

Maori were as significant to NZ as the Maya to the Yucatan. They keep their B.

C-D tier should be for pretty obscure group the kind most people just recognize the name of pr have never of at all. And E tier is for group and culture that never extended their influence beyond local surroundings: a city and its immediate region, a single valley, etc. The Maori are quite well known internationally, so a hard fit.

No. A regional power is a unified group who control a region or have significant enough influence that they could contest the control of a region. Groups that are not unified do not control any area larger than the sum of their parts, even when they aren't at war.
The islands that make up NZ were never unified under any one group or close to one group until the British arrived. The treaty of Waitangi was signed by representatives of Iwi, not representatives of Maori. There was no such thing.

Of course no one would call NZ a regional power and we are a sovereign nation controlling far more land than the most dominant Iwi did.
None of that lessons the achievements of various Iwi. The British deemed then the fiercest hand to hand fighters they'd ever met, and that reputation was still going strong into WWII. They were natural traders and entrepreneurs.
But all the desire and fluff here for a unified Maori civilisation is just that.

I'm not saying they weren't significant to NZ. Of course the various tribes were. But that's not what makes a regional power.

 

[Evie]

Regional power, in the definition I used for those tiers, do not have to be unified. And, since they're my definition of the tiers...you don't *actually* get to tell me what I meant by them.

A regional power is a civilization (which can be a country, or another form of distinct group, including a distinct cultural group), which, as a civilization (not as the political entity within that group), held sway in a sizeable region. Political unity is not relevant, because political unity is not a requirement to be considered a civilization (but lack of political unity may prevent a civilization from achieving the global or supra-regional power required to reach S-tier).

The Maori are a civilization, not a blob (we already went over the difference), who held sway over a a sizeable region (New Zealand is, in fact, pretty large). They're a regional power as defined in this tier list, and B-tier.

 

[nzcamel]

You're welcome to put forth your own take on regional power (a pre-existing definition) but others are likewise welcome to contest it.
I agree with much of your list. I do not agree that nations etc that never existed can be a regional power. The most powerful tribes in NZ were certainty local powers at times.

 

[Evie]

We're not listing nations, we,re listing civilizations. They are different concepts. A civilization is not limited to a nation, and political unity is not a requirement of a civilization.

Rated as a *civilization*, Maori are B-tier.
Rated as a *nation*, you're quite correct that they are a blob, and the most powerful of them would likely rank E-tier (local power).

Then again, ranked as a *nation*, the Maya are a blob, and the Greeks are a blob, and while the Greek probably scrape together an A-tier rank because Athens still rank a dominant regional power with its colonies and leagues, the Maya probably don't rise above a C-tier.

But we're not rating nations. Civilization is (as the name implies, and as every iteration of the game has shown) a game where you control, well, a civilization, not merely a nation. If you rate them as nations, your rating will invariably introduce errors, because you're evaluating them by the wrong set of criteria.

 

[nzcamel]

I'd also add that political unity is required to be a civilisation. It's a reasonable rule. Of course there are exceptions to the rule (the Greeks), but in this case, those exceptions are very exceptional. Ya know, inventing several types of constitutional arrangements, some still in use millenia later.

List the number of Civilisations that have been in the game that were not unified under one leader. Ever.

 

[Evie]

That requirement has never been part of the requirements for a civ to make it into the game.

And the Greek aren't so much of an exception considering that the Mayans and Phoenicians, not to mention the Cree and Mapuche (and the Maori themselves, of course) also were never politically united. That's starting to be a lot of exceptions - more than ten percent of total civs - , and most of them did not lay the bedrocks of democracy.

A civilization CAN certainly be politically united, and many have been, but making it the only way to be a civilization doesn't fit the word and doesn't fit the game.

 

[Zaarin]

I'd also add that political unity is required to be a civilisation. It's a reasonable rule.

It's an arbitrary and unhelpful rule. Civilizations are unified by culture and ethnic identity, not politics.

 

[Evie]

I'd say they *can* be unified by politics, but it's only one way out of many to do that.

 

[Zaarin]

I'd say they *can* be unified by politics, but it's only one way out of many to do that.

Yes, I didn't mean to imply they couldn't be; I just wouldn't consider it diagnostic as a civilization can be split into multiple commonwealths (and, for that matter, a commonwealth can encompass multiple civilizations, which is virtually the definition of an empire).

 

[nzcamel]

It's an arbitrary and unhelpful rule. Civilizations are unified by culture and ethnic identity, not politics.

Well, I look forward to the Anglosphere or the modern West being added as a Civ then. It sounds like you guys quite like blobs. Most of the S and A tier civs were very multi-ethnic.

That requirement has never been part of the requirements for a civ to make it into the game.

And the Greek aren't so much of an exception considering that the Mayans and Phoenicians, not to mention the Cree and Mapuche (and the Maori themselves, of course) also were never politically united. That's starting to be a lot of exceptions - more than ten percent of total civs - , and most of them did not lay the bedrocks of democracy.

A civilization CAN certainly be politically united, and many have been, but making it the only way to be a civilization doesn't fit the word and doesn't fit the game.

Okay, now you're just making me think that Phoenicia should never be in the game, only Carthage. And if the Cree and Mapuche are similar to the Maori, then none of them should be in the game. Hobbling a culture together and deciding that is what is a Civilisation when the game doesn't reflect that, and the original contenders (the people groups from which the word was based on) were all unified, whether by nation statehood or a city state controlled empire (hell, were it not for Macedon hegemony over Greece they might not even qualify - after all, till recently it was always Alexander in charge) is you changing what the game is about, not me.

I do consider the West or the Anglosphere to be civilisations of sorts. But should they ever take a seat in this game? Hell no.

 

[Evie]

The "original contenders" were a hodgepodge that included whatever the devs thought of. They had the Zulu but not the Japanese, for crying out loud (except on Super Nintendo, which inverted those). Using that as the standard for definition is nonsensical.

One cannot even begin to speak of the devs putting thoughts into civilizations before at the very least II, by which time you have the Celts, Vikings and Sioux making up 3 out of twenty one civs.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Okay, now you're just making me think that Phoenicia should never be in the game, only Carthage. And if the Cree and Mapuche are similar to the Maori, then none of them should be in the game. Hobbling a culture together and deciding that is what is a Civilisation when the game doesn't reflect that, and the original contenders (the people groups from which the word was based on) were all unified, whether by nation statehood or a city state controlled empire (hell, were it not for Macedon hegemony over Greece they might not even qualify - after all, till recently it was always Alexander in charge) is you changing what the game is about, not me.

I mean the very definition of what a civilization is makes no reference to where all the urban settlements of a particular culture must be politically under one central government. One of the groups of people that we refer as the cradles of civilization, Sumer in the game, was a collection of closely-related city-states with similar culture just like Phoenicia, Ancient Greece, and the Maya.
Nobody disregards them as a civilization.

 

[Zaarin]

Well, I look forward to the Anglosphere or the modern West being added as a Civ then. It sounds like you guys quite like blobs.

I could retort that you want a game full of nation-states, which precludes anyone who existed prior to about 1800. Your definition is arbitrary and decidedly modern- and Western-centric.