How well has your country been represented in game?

[AW Arcaeca]

So one day I was thinking: do people from Mongolia who possibly play civ5 find insulting that their leader is always represented by a mass-murderer?
And then I started thinking: How much does anyone like how their country is represented in game?

Personally, I'm from America, and figures that Washington would be the leader. The minuteman was a good idea as a UU, but the B17 bomber? I probably would have chosen something like a Navy SEAL (replaces marine) or M4 Sherman (replaces tank). Manifest destiny... was a good thing to name the UA, but it just sucks. America's colors are pretty good, though - I can't think of a better combination to represent America.
Overall, I guess Firaxis did a decent job representing America. (Now if only Washington was actually good in-game... )

So for all those people who aren't from America like me (and whose countries are represented in game) - Did Firaxis portray your civ well, or would you have made some... adjustments?

 

[Glassmage]

I would have chosen Mall as UB...

 

[Sonereal]

ea as a UU, but the B17 bomber? I probably would have chosen something like a Navy SEAL (replaces marine)

Marines are objectively the worst unit in the entire game. That is why Navy SEALs were awful in CivIV.

 

[direblade99]

I don't understand how they have the huns and the zulus as a civ yet not Australia, which for a short lived country has a very diverse culture and extensive history of interaction between different groups both internally and externally.

 

[Arachnofiend]

Also American here. I think they did a relatively good job representing the country; hyper-expansionist warmongers fits the bill pretty well, though I kind of wish they had done it in a more interesting fashion (none of the vanilla civs were much more than +this that or the other thing though so yeah). I also entirely disagree with your evaluation of the B17, it does a fantastic job of representing America's 20th century golden years and is a very powerful unit to boot. If I were to replace something it would be the Minuteman.

I don't understand how they have the huns and the zulus as a civ yet not Australia, which for a short lived country has a very diverse culture and extensive history of interaction between different groups both internally and externally.

Give me an Australian who's name is more well known than that of Attila and you might have an argument.

 

[Memoryjar]

France is perfect.
A mass-murderer with culture : It's Napoleon.
Musketeers are the common picture of French military unit. I'm proud to have them in my cultural history.
«Les châteaux» are what people want to see in France (personnaly I replace them by our «strikes» tile improvement that do nothing and neutralize what the tile provide). Giving cash and culture. The boost with flight is well done.
Foreign Legions tenets in Freedom is also well done.

We will never rule the World again (did we ?) but everyone want to have the Eiffel Tower.

 

[direblade99]

Give me an Australian who's name is more well known than that of Attila and you might have an argument.

Hugh Jackman, Steve Irwin Also I didn't realise that the civ or civ leader has to be famous to be included as part of the criteria, considering how Potacello or Kamehameha got in

 

[otaman1]

Quebec City, Vancouver .. meh. But no Toronto

 

[Koiranputki]

Hugh Jackman, Steve Irwin Also I didn't realise that the civ or civ leader has to be famous to be included as part of the criteria, considering how Potacello or Kamehameha got in

Well...there is still an American "slant" to the game...though the early 1990's originator of the game was from Toronto.... But if you don't know about Pocatello and Kamehameha.... I guess that just goes to prove you haven't been to either Idaho or Hawaii....

But seriously, overall I think the developers have done a pretty good job with the historic figures they have chosen....though it did take some getting used to having Gandhi DOW me....

 

[seancolorado]

Indonesia, with grades

Opening info narration screen (F): Pronounce Gajah Mada incorrectly twice: First "Gayah" and then "Gaha." He also says "Mayapahit" instead of Majapahit. And as for the narration itself they don't really say anything that noteworthy about the Majapahit.

Leaderscreen (A): Rice padi is the most suitable thing they could have chosen. Jungles, admirable depiction of Gajah Mada, accurate Trowulan-specific candi are also positives. Best part is the voice actor though. Amazing that they found someone who speaks Old Javanese. Even more impressive that they found someone who really understands the "dance" of the language.

UA Spice Islanders (B+): Geography aspect captures how it was the widest maritime chain the world has known. Resource aspect captures two things: trading hub aspect, and how desirable the indigenous resources were to outsiders.

UU Kris Swordsman (C): The uniforms they chose look nothing even remotely close to what the Majapahit army would have worn. As for the swords, the majority of kris are actually dagger-like. The reason the grade is not lower is because the Kris is the poster weapon for Indonesia and I wouldn't have them choose any other UU. Damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

UB Candi (B+): Good UB that represents Majapahit architecture. Only reason it's not an "A" grade is because technically they aren't buildings but monuments so I notched it down to a B+ but I'm definitely not complaining. Definitely happy with the choice

Krakatau (A): Great choice for natural wonder since there are so many volcanoes in Indonesia

Borobudur (A+): Easily the most famous wonder from the region so not surprised they chose it

 

[Arcanian]

I was born in Poland. <3

UU = Perfect amount of wings and hussars.
UB = sausage house pls y u gotta do stables
UA = Fits Poland's history well.

 

[Arachnofiend]

Hugh Jackman, Steve Irwin Also I didn't realise that the civ or civ leader has to be famous to be included as part of the criteria, considering how Potacello or Kamehameha got in

I was thinking specifically of civ leaders and the fact that you didn't jump to that proves my point. Also, Kamehameha IS famous. Pocatello doesn't count because the Shoshone were a bad pick made in the rush to replace a good one.

Also, addendum to what I said about America: Washington was a poor choice for leader. Not because he's unworthy (I'd have to be rather silly to say that) but because he is at odds with the portrayal of the United States Firaxis chose. One of the Roosevelts would have been better picks for the expansionist warmonger.

 

[direblade99]

I was thinking specifically of civ leaders and the fact that you didn't jump to that proves my point. Also, Kamehameha IS famous. Pocatello doesn't count because the Shoshone were a bad pick made in the rush to replace a good one.

Also, addendum to what I said about America: Washington was a poor choice for leader. Not because he's unworthy (I'd have to be rather silly to say that) but because he is at odds with the portrayal of the United States Firaxis chose. One of the Roosevelts would have been better picks for the expansionist warmonger.

I didn't realise you were talking about leaders though, besides, what might seem like a famous Hawaiian leader to an American (Kamehemeha) is absolutely meaningless to an Australian, and vice versa, many of what we would call famous leaders probably mean nothing to you.

Besides, when it comes to historical significance (at least from the Eurocentric view of historical significance) Australia has as a nation achieved a lot more than these tribes, penicillin, postage stamps, the refrigerator and the electric drill come to mind as notable Australian innovations. Others include the pacemaker and early british tanks.

 

[Syailendra]

I didn't realise you were talking about leaders though, besides, what might seem like a famous Hawaiian leader to an American (Kamehemeha) is absolutely meaningless to an Australian, and vice versa, many of what we would call famous leaders probably mean nothing to you.

Besides, when it comes to historical significance (at least from the Eurocentric view of historical significance) Australia has as a nation achieved a lot more than these tribes, penicillin, postage stamps, the refrigerator and the electric drill come to mind as notable Australian innovations. Others include the pacemaker and early british tanks.

wow, you haven't heard of king kamehameha? Really? I've known his name ever since i can read. And i'm not american, i'm indonesian. He is a great king.
Have to admit that its my first time to hear pocatello though.
As for my nation, indonesia got B-, its good that they put candi, kris, spice and syncretism in the game, it just they haven't got the good placement for them. (closing my eyes on the prologue, its a disaster).

 

[Arachnofiend]

Besides, when it comes to historical significance (at least from the Eurocentric view of historical significance) Australia has as a nation achieved a lot more than these tribes, penicillin, postage stamps, the refrigerator and the electric drill come to mind as notable Australian innovations. Others include the pacemaker and early british tanks.

From a Eurocentric point of view Australia is a dumping ground for the British that got its independence when the British were tired of being the world's bad guys and started giving everyone their independence.

 

[cpm4001]

...and another American here. I'd say that the US in-game should get a C:
UA: Manifest Destiny is a logical choice for an American UA, but it was badly implemented (gee, Vanilla civ and bad UA...never would have expected that...). The whole point of Manifest Destiny was for we Americans to conquer land from those who were viewed as being racially or morally inferior to us. The discount on purchasing tiles may fit with the Homestead Acts, but it doesn't fit with the overall concept of Manifest Destiny. As for the extra sight on military units, I guess it kinda fits with the exploration of the American West, but that's a pretty tenuous link. It gets a D.
UU1: The Minuteman is a good choice for the UU, and prior to the Fall Patch it was represented pretty well. However, the addition of the Golden Age Ability promotion is stupid. So it gets an B.
UU2: The B17 is an odd selection for another UU. While it was a good bomber, there are other, better choices to represent later American military advances. So it gets a C.

 

[Sir Parker II]

I am also from America, and I am fine with both UUs and the UA, but I really don't like having George Washington as the leader. There were a lot better presidents. I like having FDR, like in Civ IV, or maybe Lincoln.

 

[Colin]

So one day I was thinking: do people from Mongolia who possibly play civ5 find insulting that their leader is always represented by a mass-murderer?
And then I started thinking: How much does anyone like how their country is represented in game?

While I'm not from Mongolia, I have lived there for a number of years. For Mongolians Genghis (Chinggis) Khan is the only possible choice. He is not seen here as a 'mass murderer' but as a great empire builder, innovator, and tolerant leader. He's really not more of a mass murderer than any other great 'expansive' historical leader like Alexander, Napoleon, etc. I think Mongolia is well represented by civ5.

 

[17arkOracle]

As another American:

Washington as a leader really bugs me. He was a much better General than President, and the other founding fathers did a lot more in office than he did. Someone like Lincoln or FDR would've made a lot more sense to me.

With Manifest Destiny, I've heard mixed things. It seems underwhelming on paper to me, but I've heard many people say it's not bad. Regardless, it is bland. It fits very well with America and our whole "conquering the wilderness" thing, but I never have much desire to play them.

Minutemen aren't bad (and at least they got buffed), even if in real life they would essentially be worse than normal musketmen.

Can't say much about the B-17. As others have said, there are more fitting units, but late game UUs tend to be universally bad, and you can't exactly give America an Ancient UU.

A UB would be nice, just so America is less Domination-focused (as universal as the UA is, it feels more like "not good at anything" rather than "decent at everything").

 

[Merciorum]

For England:

UA: Reasonable, I suppose. Our naval might was the key defining factor in our power-base. Might have been nice to be a little less conquest-heavy.
UU1: Accurate. Vital to our military stratagems in the later Middle Ages.
UU2: Not exclusive to England, but as a unit, it does a good job in establish 18th-century British naval dominance.

So I voted for "pretty good".