1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

How well has your country been represented in game?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by AW Arcaeca, Dec 2, 2013.

?

Did firaxis accurately portray your country?

  1. Yep, they nailed it!

    22 vote(s)
    10.9%
  2. They did pretty good.

    79 vote(s)
    39.1%
  3. Meh, they did okay

    55 vote(s)
    27.2%
  4. Not that great

    34 vote(s)
    16.8%
  5. Maybe Firaxis should actually do some research first

    12 vote(s)
    5.9%
  1. truenarnian

    truenarnian Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    246
    Location:
    Tk'emlups
    This.

    I live in Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada, and I can honestly say that I'm happier with the inclusion of the Shoshone that I would be with the inclusion of Canada.

    I can't speak for all Western Canadians/Americans, but as sean points out, some of us non-indigenous Westerners are really keen to have Western continental representation.

    I still hope I'll one day see Inuit or Cree civ representing tundra/snow inhabitors, and maybe even Haida as a maritime-cultural civ. Od Coast Salish civ at large.

    But I'd aldo have been stoked to get Pueblo (if their elders had agreed to the inclusion), and would gladly and loyally play as Utes, Zuni, or really any indigenous group from the West or North.
     
  2. Arachnofiend

    Arachnofiend Perturbed Pugilist

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,950
    I'd approve of the Haida, they get the same "iconic architecture" boost that Polynesia gets with their totem poles. Unfortunately the most obvious use for a totem pole UB already exists as the Stele. Might work as a UI but I don't know what the yield would be. Maybe a split culture/faith yield, must be built in forest?
     
  3. shaglio

    shaglio The Prince of Dorkness

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2001
    Messages:
    3,466
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Lawrence, MA, USA
    You could always refer to us as United Statesians, but that doesn't really roll off the tongue very well (nor have I ever actually heard anybody use that term, but you could be a trend setter if you put in the effort).
     
  4. Teproc

    Teproc King

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2013
    Messages:
    835
    Location:
    Lyon, France
    People actually do that in France (états-unien). It sounds awful and I hate it, but I can't logically blame people for doing it because it is more logical than "américain/American"
     
  5. truenarnian

    truenarnian Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    246
    Location:
    Tk'emlups
    Given the connections between Haida/Salish cultures and the sea, I'd go with:

    Totem Pole - (replaces Monument) - +2 culture, +1 culture for every sea resource worked, +1 Tourism if there is a University in the city [nod to UBC Museum of Anthropology]
     
  6. Eagle Pursuit

    Eagle Pursuit Scir-Gerefa

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    15,532
    I am an American and here is my take on the civ.

    Washington. An obvious selection which is at least contemporaneous with the Minutemen. He was a great (read brave and very lucky) military leader, but his political career was more about setting the precedent for presidents than actually being remarkable at leading the country. FDR is the best choice IMO, but I would have liked to have seen TR. Jefferson would have been a better choice to go with the UA.

    Manifest Destiny. This is a good choice to represent the first half of American history. Cheap tiles represents things like the Louisiana Purchase pretty well. I would have liked to see a bonus to Settlers production (maybe getting a free one for every three you build) instead of the sight bonus, but it is ok too. I kind of would have preferred to represent America as it was in the last century instead of the one before it. Perhaps a late bonus to trade and military production.

    Minutemen. I don't care for the choice. It more of a callback to popular mythology than a real, effective unit.

    B17. A good choice. America's current military power largely revolves around dominance in the air, and that started with huge quantities of Flying Fortresses and Mustang fighters.

    All in all, it's a good representation, but I have a lot of druthers.
     
  7. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,288
    In reality, or in Civ...?
     
  8. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,288
    In terms of their inclusion in Civilization, certainly. You make a fair point, but including immediately post-colonial America as a "civ" would be on a par with including Idi Amin's Uganda as a civ. And in America's case it's a frankly ridiculous choice considering what the country went on to achieve a couple of centuries later. In which case my essential point, that something should be included to represent the US strength of mass production, and the Minuteman is the most expendable element, remains.

    See above and my original post on the subject. I answered "barely American" in response to a query about whether I'd say the Minuteman was "American enough", after I'd originally suggested removing it. It wasn't the reason I suggested removing it - I suggested removing it because I consider that mass production should be part of the American uniques, and the Minutemen is a more expendable unique than the UA or the B-17.

    I've noted that it's fair to say Washington was "barely American", but I haven't suggested he shouldn't be the civ's leader.

    Loyalties and national identity are two different things. British national identity is somewhat dispersed; the idea of a British identity as somebody born and raised on the island is a fairly recent phenomenon (and yes, you are correct that English would be the more appropriate adjective), and is still not universal - people from territories as far flung as Gibraltar and the Falklands identify as British (and have referendum results to prove it). Rudyard Kipling would have been surprised to hear he wasn't British - indeed, wasn't English - yet he was born in Bombay. Even as recently as the mid-20th Century this kind of dispersed 'English' identity persisted; as far as he and the world were concerned, Freddy Mercury was British, having been born in Zanzibar when it was still a British territory, and despite growing up mainly in immediate post-independence India. Had he been born today, he would probably have been labelled Iranian on grounds of his Parsi ethnicity, or Indian on account of the country of his upbringing - or, of course, Tanzanian.

    On the same basis, George Washington was English despite being born in Virginia. It's fully understandable that Americans have adopted him, but then (as I noted before) we adopted William III and don't claim that he was English.

    Yes, this is very common - it's why Britain today has large Indian, Pakistani and East African populations, and why a friend with family and ethnic origins in South Vietnam identifies as French (despite now living in the US).

    I don't see it working that way. As I say, the key is national identity. America as a new nation was not somewhere with a national identity - it's very different from the Dutch situation, where the populace had always seen itself as distinct from the Spanish. Even today Americans, in my experience here (indeed, in Virginia), define their identity much more in terms of their Civil War and its repercussions (and consequently whether they are from the North or the South) than in terms of the state that existed following the secession of the Thirteen Colonies; insofar as they identify themselves as Americans vs. the rest of the world, that's on the back of their 20th Century achievements.

    I see this as reinforcing my point - these areas all have regional identities, and the North vs. South divide in Britain is particularly striking in the formerly Danish areas compared with the Saxon south, but then Americans too have their internal regional identities - that doesn't make Texas a country, or the South as a whole.

    Indeed something that comes from living here at a time of largely regionalised partisanship is that a unified American identity isn't all that pronounced, or at least that it's based on a belief in America's role in the world which is increasingly seen here as being under threat (a recent poll indicated that many Americans incorrectly believe that China has overtaken them as the world's greatest economic power).

    Only one country in the world has "America" in its name, and only that country has the adjective "American". Anyone claiming "America isn't a country" is being either deliberately obtuse or provocative for the sake of pointing out that Latin America exists (Canadians never seem to feel the need to point out that "America" is also part of the name of their continent), and everyone knows (even in Latin America, where the name America is used for the US as it is everywhere else) that when the word is being used to refer to a country, it means the United States. Claiming otherwise is akin to somebody from Columbia (a US state) saying "Colombia isn't a country, it's a state, and by the way it doesn't have two "o"'s in it", or like an Ulsterman complaining that the Republic calls itself Ireland when it doesn't cover all of Ireland.

    Good point, although strictly speaking the continent is called Australasia.

    Problems are going to start if Scotland votes to leave the UK. "British" refers to the island (although is appropriate also for those from Northern Ireland and other offshore territories), not the nation (it's not actually clear what we'd have to call ourselves if Scotland secedes - "the Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland" is awkward, and "United Kingdom" refers to the union with Scotland, the main body of the Irish having already seceded). "English" would annoy the Northern Irish and probably the Welsh. Americans already habitually refer to all islanders as "English" - start calling someone from a different country English and you'll probably have a problem (particularly since that country is Scotland, and the Scot in question would probably hit you...)
     
  9. bane_

    bane_ Howardianism High-Priest

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2013
    Messages:
    1,559
    We call it "Oceania" here. And I heard some US citizens calling that continent "Oceanica" as well.

    The issue I think from all the 'America isn't a Country' and the fallacy that 'if you call it that way and people understand than it's right' is that, in my opinion, 'United States of America' is the name of the Country - I believe that's uncontested? - but if you want to call it 'US' or 'USA' or 'America' or ''Murica' like our friend a page ago, it's all good. BUT, that doesn't make it less right for people who claim that America is a Continent. After you put an argument on the table, it must be true for both parts, so if you can claim that America is the name of the Country because it ends with that word, the same can be said by those who claim that America is a Continent (North AMERICA, South AMERICA, Central AMERICA).
    I usually call it 'USA' when writing or "United States" when talking, but I don't feel anything towards people who talk differently or try to make them talk like me. It's silly.

    On an unrelated note, I think 'Latin America' isn't a geographic continent, but a Geo-political division based on native languages derived from the Roman family.
     
  10. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,288
    Oceania is usually considered the island portion - Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia - although according to Wikipedia there's no clear formal definition of Oceania.

    Nearly every country is known by its contraction, and three of them are "properly" United <political entity> of <geography> (United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, and United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland).

    It's as correct to call my country Britain as it is to call it the UK, even though it doesn't cover all of the British Isles, and it includes territories that are not geographically part of the island of Great Britain.

    "British" is also the adjective universally used for nationals of the country (even those outside the geographic British Isles, in the same way that Hawaiians are Americans despite coming from islands that are geographically part of the Australasian continent), and not for people from the independent Republic of Ireland (which is geographically within the British Isles). Colombians have their own national adjective, as do Peruvians, Canadians, Brazilians and members of every other independent territory in the Americas; it is only correct to call citizens of the United States "Americans", when referring to a country, just as it is only correct to call nationals of the UK British. If Scotland does secede, the most likely solution to the national adjective problem is that we'll continue to be "British" while they'll be Scottish, even though "Britain" will no longer include all of the island of Great Britain.

    And when referring to the continental populace as a whole, "American" is as correct for the collective as "European" is for my continent. But claiming "America is a continent, therefore it isn't a country" is as absurd as asserting "Europe is a continent, therefore Belgium isn't a country"; the fact that the two share a similar name in the former case is immaterial. No one in Zambia objects to calling South Africa a country, or its nationals South African, because it's not the only country in south Africa. I doubt people in the Republic of Congo object to the name of the DRC because the Republic is (at least in principle) also democratic.

    And if you don't object to these examples on these grounds, the America vs. (Latin) America case is just a silly double standard. The name is just a historical oddity; in the same way that not all of Lake Chad is in Chad, and part of the Gambia river is actually in Senegal and Guinea, not all of the American landmass is in America.

    I don't think anyone's claimed anything of the kind. The national adjective is 'American' because that's the name the founders settled upon; ditto for the name and contraction of the country (which is hardly contentious - no one insists that Tanzania has to be called the United Republic of Tanzania in common use, and I don't think URT or UR are recognised national acronyms, even though there are no other countries in the world with "United Republic" in their name). There isn't a formal system in English to assign national adjectives to which a consistent principle can be applied.

    It's a term of convenience used for all of the Americas south of the US mainland (though usually excluding at least Anglicised and Dutch portions of the Caribbean), since "South and Central America, plus Mexico" is unwieldy, and Central America does not belong to any continental landmass. It's approximately the same as the area of "Latin" influence, minus the southern US states (Spanish and Portuguese aren't "native" languages in any of those territories, though they are national languages), but several of them speak French or non-Romance languages (Dutch and English in Suriname and Belize, respectively).

    Here in the US the term "Hispanic" is used more specifically to refer to people from Spanish-speaking Latin American territories (though more to distinguish these from Brazil than from, say, Belize); it's also used - very imprecisely - to denote an ethnic group of predominantly mestizo (Spanish plus native) ancestry although Spanish-speaking Latin Americans typically described as Hispanic range from Andean Colombians of almost pure European ancestry to pure Quechuas from Peru, and everything in between.
     
  11. bane_

    bane_ Howardianism High-Priest

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2013
    Messages:
    1,559
    Noting the "Republic" as part of the name just extends things a bit further. If you include method of government (Republic) and regimen (democracy), things just get too out of hand in order to find a middle ground.

    • And when referring to the continental populace as a whole, "American" is as correct for the collective as "European" is for my continent. But claiming "America is a continent, therefore it isn't a country" is as absurd as asserting "Europe is a continent, therefore Belgium isn't a country"; the fact that the two share a similar name in the former case is immaterial.
    I have no idea why are you saying this. This is obviously an absurd, I agree. What is your point? I never said you can't call your country America because people call the continent that as well. Also, the comparison with Europe-Belgium just throws all logic in the trash can.

    • I don't think anyone's claimed anything of the kind
    I understood that from your previous post:
    • Only one country in the world has "America" in its name, and only that country has the adjective "American". Anyone claiming "America isn't a country" is being either deliberately obtuse or provocative for the sake of pointing out that Latin America exists (Canadians never seem to feel the need to point out that "America" is also part of the name of their continent), and everyone knows (even in Latin America, where the name America is used for the US as it is everywhere else) that when the word is being used to refer to a country, it means the United States. Claiming otherwise is akin to somebody from Columbia (a US state) saying "Colombia isn't a country, it's a state, and by the way it doesn't have two "o"'s in it", or like an Ulsterman complaining that the Republic calls itself Ireland when it doesn't cover all of Ireland.
    I find it problematic that you only refer to countries again. The Mayas were meso-american. Again, I'm not saying that it confuses or anything, just trying to explain the other side.


    • It's a term of convenience used for all of the Americas south of the US mainland (though usually excluding at least Anglicised and Dutch portions of the Caribbean), since "South and Central America, plus Mexico" is unwieldy, and Central America does not belong to any continental landmass. It's approximately the same as the area of "Latin" influence, minus the southern US states (Spanish and Portuguese aren't "native" languages in any of those territories, though they are national languages), but several of them speak French or non-Romance languages (Dutch and English in Suriname and Belize, respectively).
    I don't believe those are part of the Latin America.
    Being Brazilian, I don't call everything south of the US 'Latin America'. It seems to be a (bad) generalization.

    • Here in the US the term "Hispanic" is used more specifically to refer to people from Spanish-speaking Latin American territories (though more to distinguish these from Brazil than from, say, Belize); it's also used - very imprecisely - to denote an ethnic group of predominantly mestizo (Spanish plus native) ancestry although Spanish-speaking Latin Americans typically described as Hispanic range from Andean Colombians of almost pure European ancestry to pure Quechuas from Peru, and everything in between.[/LIST]
      Didn't know that. You learn something every day! :lol:

      ----

      As I said in the other post, if someone near me says 'I'm from America.' I'm not going to ask 'Which one?' - that's stupid. Still, the same applies to the other side of the coin. I don't understand the need to instill your ideas upon the other person, he is not wrong, neither are you.
      America is a country, just as it is a Continent, how is that hard to understand? May it cause confusion in conversation? Rarely, if ever, but naming conventions are easy to change and occasionally do from country to country - as the French poster said, they actually call US citizens 'états-unien'.
     
  12. reddishrecue

    reddishrecue Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Messages:
    5,365
    America has been represented well in the game with 13 colonies in the loading background, the UU as the minuteman with the same promotion as pracinha, and the manifest destiny UA look works out. Washington looks very familiar, with a globe in the background. Washington looks just like the dollar.

    Hawaii, Polynesia, is represented okay with a tribe, no need to add Honolulu to the already large set of America's city names. The UU, Maori warrior is as scary as the other civs' elephant UUs though? Not a problem. The UA, wayfinding is good in water maps and yet not overpowered.
     
  13. reddishrecue

    reddishrecue Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Messages:
    5,365
    El Salvador is also mentioned subliminally, I guess, by the Korean leader, sejong, as he speaks the hangul language and kind of raises a fist with positive vibes. Salvador also appears as Brazil's second city.
    I guess mayans nor Aztecs weren't in el Salvador. There is no mention of Aztecs nor mayans in the el Salvador in the civilization 4 or 5 especially when maya starts with palenque as the capital.

    Or maybe mayans were also in el Salvador then because of the geographical map. The long count is a unique ua now more than ever with the new great people.
     
  14. direblade99

    direblade99 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2013
    Messages:
    279
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    Since when was Australasia/Oceania a continent. In Australian schools everyone is taught (and it's in the early geography textbooks) that Australia is the only country that is a continent, country and island (because screw tasmania apparently).

    Oceania/Australasia is just the geographic region that Australia and a bunch of other smaller countries happen to be in
     
  15. Reno Lam

    Reno Lam Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2013
    Messages:
    10
    As I am living in whence now is part of China (it is complicated), I guess that will be the closest thing I have as "my country". That said, the place I live in DOES get represented as a city-state, but there are not really anything to comment on it.

    Leader: Wu Zetian

    As others have pointed out, out of 100+ emperors China had, Firaxis decided to pick the only empress in the list to represent China, most likely to boost the "female leader count" for whatever reasons they have. While not a bad monarch herself, Wu Zetian's contribution was not exactly significant compared with other emperors—in fact, her reign was called "revival of the reign of Zhenguan" under Tang Taizong, as under her rule China recovered a bit from its weakened state, drawing it closer to back when it was the powerhouse during Zhenguan period. If the choice of leader is based on how significant (or famous) said leader was, then it would probably be more logical to pick Tang Taizong himself. Other than that, there are several other emperors that are more influential to China than Wu Zetian, most of them founders of a new dynasty (which means their rule tend to affect the entire dynasty).

    That said, I think it is an improvement from the previous instalments of the series, which used Mao as the leader (along with Qin Shi Huang from IV and Tang Taizong from III and IV after expansion and in the Chinese version). As his replacement in the Chinese version suggested, Mao, while undoubtedly influential to China and the world in his own ways, is still a rather controversial figure among Chinese and a few others, while the past emperors are... not, mostly. Thus, although I have no problem playing as Mao or seeing him being in the game, picking someone who is not as controversial might be better over all. The same also applies to other potential post-imperial leaders of China, but probably to a greater degree.

    Regarding the dialogue, it is actually quite well-written (Chinese) and well-voiced (Mandarin). Although some lines sound a bit awkward (such as NeutralHearIt03 and, to an extent, Request), it is still of quite high-quality overall, especially given how Chinese lines usually end up in western games. A minor nit-picking would be that Wu Zetian did not refer to herself as, well, Wu Zetian—Zetian is a title she (or rather, her successor) picked up after her ascension as the empress emeritus. During her reign, she will probably refer to herself as Tian Hou, or other titles she gave herself. One might say that since we all know her as Wu Zetian, it is passable. I agree with that, but since I doubt the Chinese lines are chiefly directed to people who know Mandarin, I would say the voiced lines can afford to be a bit more obscure and period-correct.

    Rating: B

    Unique Ability: Art of War (The Great General combat bonus is increased by 15%, and their spawn rate is increased by 50%.)

    While China has its fair share of great generals, and the Art of War is indeed among the most famous books of war the world has ever had, personally I do not think it fits well in, especially considering the introduction of [GandK] and BNW (when will we get a smilie for it? :cry:). As others have mentioned, China is basically the east Asian version of Roman Empire except it did not fall apart until the modern era, and even then it remains independent to this day, but perhaps unlike the Romans, China did not (and still does not, but anyway) excel in warfare. Although China had a decent military depending on the dynasties and periods, and it did held off the Mongols for generations, an amazing feat in and of itself, China is more skilled in maintaining a large empire and making it stable, as well as spreading its culture to bordering nations. As such, I believe a more fitting UA for China would be something that is based on culture gain or (with the new BNW culture and tourism system) a bonus on tourism pressure.

    Rating: C

    Unique Unit: Chu-Ko-Nu

    Despite being considered impractical as a weapon and most likely fictional (at least about its inventor, the eponymous Chu-Ko/Zhuge), I think it is not too bad a UU for China. In real life, it is a well-designed weapon usable by untrained peasants and women to defend their home from bandits, its weak firepower being compensated by firing speed and a liberal use of poisoned tips. It proved to be quite useful a weapon even for the military (though then, Chinese military was not the best in the world) against lightly-armoured cavalry from the north, and had since saw widespread deployment up until 19th century—at least, as far as legends are concerned. In any case, it is one of the most famous and well-known Chinese weapons out there (the others being either rather ubiquitous, or more often associated with other cultures), and its in-game performance is consistent with its historical role and characteristics.

    Rating: A

    Unique Building: Paper Maker

    The building is a decent choice due to how famous China being the inventor and mass-producer of paper, and its significant influence on China as a culture at large. While originally I feel its function not matching its description very well, I have since realised what it was supposed to represent: the spread of knowledge using paper-based books and records, which reflects rather well with its :c5science: per:c5citizen: function. However, as the use of paper-based books also help a lot with the spread of education and culture (got to have all the poems, writings and paintings being on something), I feel it might be better if the :c5gold: bonus is replaced by :c5culture: or, as BNW, :tourism: bonus. I am not sure how it will act on the balance of the game, but that is just my two cents.

    Rating: B

    Overall, I think China is quite well-represented, especially given the context of western games not being the best source to learn about China. Although there are some mistakes and head-scratching choices in design, I think They did pretty good.

    Another minor things, while the spoken dialogue of Oda Nobunaga (from Japan) is pretty well-written, its delivery is quite hilarious. When I declare war on him, his reaction is more like he is on the verge of tears than someone being eager to destroy me (or being destroyed by me). :D
     
  16. HipNozY

    HipNozY Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    68
    Location:
    Blumenau, Brazil
    IMO, a science UA would fit better, mainly in the early ages. The paper maker could use the tourism/culture bonus, as you described.

    Chu-Ko-Nu is such a great unit in the game. When they get the range promotion, they become unstoppable :)

    @OFF - About the American/US discussion

    Here in Brazil, we always refer the USA simply as US(Estados Unidos), NEVER as America.

    When refering to a American, there are three different ways:
    - Americano (American): Most used;
    - Norte-Americano (North American): I usually see it on the media;
    - Estadunidense (from 'States', which means 'someone who was born in a state');

    When I speak portuguese, I usually use 'american' or 'north american', but I'm aware that I'm ignoring the canadians and mexicans in this case (Sorry!). Although, I've seen more and more people using 'estadunidense'.
     
  17. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,288
    There were Maya in El Salvador, as evidenced by sites like San Andres. The Aztecs were from Mexico's central valley - they weren't in any of the Yucatan territories.

    In the popular sense of a continent (i.e. the division of the world into seven 'continents', several of which are either not geological continents - Europe and Asia - or encompass areas that are not part of continental plates - the inclusion of the Caribbean and sometimes Central America in South America, and Oceania in Australasia), I'm not sure but at least as far back as the 19th Century (when it was just called Australia). In geological terms of the Australian continental plate (which includes Australia and New Guinea, but not most of the islands), for at least 80 million years since it split from Antarctica

    Unfortunately the textbooks are inaccurate in that case however you slice it - even in its narrowest sense the "Australian" continent is taken to include New Guinea and New Zealand.

    Which is pretty much the working definition of a continent. Europe is the geographical region where a bunch of countries happen to be - in reality it's part of the Eurasian continental plate (while India, which has its own continental plate, is part of "Asia"). It's an archaic system, but it's founded on the idea that every part of the world has to be assignable to one continent or another, and that puts Oceania in Australasia.
     
  18. bane_

    bane_ Howardianism High-Priest

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2013
    Messages:
    1,559
    Brazil's second city Salvador has nothing to do with 'El Salvador', it is capital of Bahia state and first capital of Brazil back in 1550.
     
  19. Teproc

    Teproc King

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2013
    Messages:
    835
    Location:
    Lyon, France
    I also don't see how Sejong has anything to do with El Salvador ?
     
  20. Kimuyama

    Kimuyama Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    415
    Location:
    Västra Götaland, Sweden
    Swedish, and like most Swedes (and Finns) here I feel it was somewhat of an A-.
    The UU's and the UA fits just fine to the period after we chased away them pesky Danes, the imperialistic "era of great power" (literal translation from Swedish), as well as the more diplomatic and peaceful 19th-20th century's Nobel-pricey Sweden-sans-Finland-Sweden.
    The era in between those is barely hinted at, but neither is it really known to the general Swedish population ("Like, some king got assassinated, maybe? Was it Bellman? Oh, and Russia stole Finland, I think? [Sweden actually attacked Russia, because reasons] What's this nonsense about Hats and Caps?").

    However, like the other Swedes/Finns here I still have two issues, albeit aesthetic, with the representation of Sweden:

    Firstly, the king looks like Erik XIV, and not Gustav II Adolf, his face is very recognizable, with statues of him in many Swedish cities (possibly even Finnish cities, but I don't really know). Also, he refers to himself in-game as "the Snow King", which was the first time I've ever heard of it. "The Lion of the North" is a more well-known moniker around these parts.

    Secondly, the city list, which seems to be a blend of modern day Finnish cities, and ancient Swedish cities, neither of which are appropriate to the period of Swedish history represented in the game.
    The pattern of cities, as far as I can discern, is first two Swedish cities based on age, and then one Finnish based on size (repeat), all Finnish cities have their Finnish-form names, even though they would have been Swedish-form during the empire, I'll go through the list and give the choice cities a small review.
    1.Stockholm, of course, as an exception to the pattern, isn't the oldest city, but has been the capital for a long time, including the entire modern period and is thus possibly the only city on the right place in the city list.​
    2.Sigtuna, while important during the viking and medieval eras really lost it's importance after the Kalmar Union, it should be further down the list​
    3.Helsinki (Helsingfors) should really be further down the list, just a small fishing town until the Russian era​
    4.Birka, an important trade-city. To the vikings, and not since, should probably not even be on the list​
    5.Uppsala, Sweden's answer to the Vatican, is a good choice, I'd go as far as saying it should be higher on the list, either second or third​
    6.Turku (Åbo), I'm not sure of how important it was to the Swedish Empire, but it certainly was the most important city in Finland at that time, it should be higher on the list, replacing Helsinki at least​

    After this I don't care much, my biggest beef is that Gothenburg (Göteborg), largest port in Sweden (and Scandinavia) and Malmö (third largest city in modern-day Sweden) is so far down the list, whilst Karlskrona is not even appearing, an important naval-base until we stopped with the whole "war"-thingamajig.
    My proposed city-list would be something in the likes of:
    Stockholm
    Uppsala
    Turku (Åbo)
    Gothenburg (Göteborg)
    Malmö
    Karlskrona
    Vaasa (Vasa)
    Tallinn (Reval, Estonia was Swedish during this period too! something most people seem to forget)
    Lund
    Luleå
    Helsinki (Helsingfors)​
    ...Yadda, yadda, yadda
     

Share This Page