i am really looking forward to this expansion

[Securion]

It's not racist that you think England and Germany should have economic bonuses. But it is Eurocentric when you say that it's "weird" that Middle Eastern civs have economic and scientific bonuses. The Middle East, India, and East Asia led the world in trade and science for centuries, if not millennia. I don't think it's "weird" if these civilizations have economic or scientific bonuses. You were essentially dismissing the achievements of these civs with your usage of the word "weird".

East Asia i can agree with and you wont hear me complain about China getting a science and economy bonus for an example. So the me "dismissing" other civs because they are not European argument is falling apart really quick i think.
I just think England and Germany should get the bonuses most of us recognise them for. Thats all. Its "weird" they dont.

 

[Leugi]

Point is... The word "Civilization" has been transformed in fact... Although the original word does go for an Eurocentric definition, it has started to be used in new ways to understand also other ways of social, political and even urbanistical organizations (like, say the Iriquois)...

The word "Civilization" used to have this peyorative sense of "this is Civilized (and thus superior), and this is Uncivilized (and thus inferior)".... Keeping that Eurocentric vision doesn't help everyone... Instead, we now have a game that allows representation of a wide variety of cultures, allowing knowledge a little bit more outside the European bias...

If you decide to call "non-euro" civs "Disney Civs", then I'm all for "Disney Civs"... It is something that increases the symbolic value of this game, allowing to see how truly varied our world actually is...


(EDIT: well ninjaed by Securion now, I understand a bit more the point now, you're not dismissing non-Euro specifically, but yes dismissing alternate ways of organization that were also succesful... Anyway that's another matter...

And would also like to point out that I do agree a bit that Germany could get a different UA, but I don't have anything against England's, is great IMO)

---

Anyway, I suppose we better focus a bit more on the thread itself... It is clear not everyone "is really looking forward to this expansion", and as an opinion it's ok...

I personally, certainly look forward a lot to this expansion... Ideologies seem to be an interesting way of actually making industrial games potentially interesting, and all the boosts to culture and tourism are amazing...

 

[Securion]

(EDIT: well ninjaed by Securion now, I understand a bit more the point now, you're not dismissing non-Euro specifically, but yes dismissing alternate ways of organization that were also succesful... Anyway that's another matter...

And would also like to point out that I do agree a bit that Germany could get a different UA, but I don't have anything against England's, is great IMO)

England was the biggest trade empire on the face of the earth. There have never been anything its size and scope in human history. And Firaxis completely neglects that and gives them a ship that they copied from the French. Sure they improved upon it, but if anyone should be given a ship it would be the french getting a 74-gun frigate.
If ANY civ should have a trade or economy bonus, England should have it.

 

[ferretbacon]

Ugh, don't even get me started on the lamentable German UA...

Wish it was this instead:
Land unit maintenance reduced by 25%. All military buildings (barracks, armory, etc.) provide +1 production.

Or even this:
All military buildings provide +1 production. When at war with more than one enemy, all land units gain a 15% combat bonus.

That barbarian component is just messy. I get it, "German barbarians." Still.

It would also be nice if Firaxis made every civ more nuanced. By that, I mean expand the UAs more to better reflect the civs and throw each a couple more uniques. Yeah it would create balance issues, but it is their job to test play and work that out. The simplistic approach they've taken (one relatively simple UA and only two uniques) leaves some civs feeling flat.

On another note, are we likely to get any new tidbit of information this weekend? I need another fix, the speculation is eating my mind.

 

[cybrxkhan]

East Asia i can agree with and you wont hear me complain about China getting a science and economy bonus for an example. So the me "dismissing" other civs because they are not European argument is falling apart really quick i think.
I just think England and Germany should get the bonuses most of us recognise them for. Thats all. Its "weird" they dont.

Fair enough on the usage of "weird" and for clearing that up.

To be honest though, many of the UAs are pretty nonsensical to begin with. China's UA could easily apply to Germany, Mongolia, or Rome. The Ottomans' UA could be applied to Greece, Carthage, or Scandinavia. The French UA could be applied to China, India, Egypt, and so on. The UA choices are pretty arbitrary to begin with, but some one has to get each one and not everyone can have everything.

 

[PhilBowles]

The word "Civilization" used to have this peyorative sense of "this is Civilized (and thus superior), and this is Uncivilized (and thus inferior)".... Keeping that Eurocentric vision doesn't help everyone... Instead, we now have a game that allows representation of a wide variety of cultures, allowing knowledge a little bit more outside the European bias...

This reflects a fallacy I pointed out on another thread: the fact that we no longer use colonial-era definitions of "civilization" does not imply that "anything goes". There is still a definition for civilization that describes a particular type of society. Indeed this is an important distinction in the fields of anthropology and archaeology, since in order to determine when civilization arose and among which groups you need to know how it differs from different social structures.

(EDIT: well ninjaed by Securion now, I understand a bit more the point now, you're not dismissing non-Euro specifically, but yes dismissing alternate ways of organization that were also succesful... Anyway that's another matter...

The irony here is that you're falling into the colonialist mindset: civilization = good, not civilization = bad. You assume describing a culture as not being a civilization is perjorative, rather than merely descriptive, because you implicitly assume that civilization is a superior form of social organisation and a society's features can only be valued if it's called a "civilization".

There's also the simple fact of what Civilization, the game, represents. You play as the leader of a society that founds cities, develops technology, has centralised government and organised militaries, and develops advanced forms of social organisation over time. Regardless of the factions involved, the game itself fits the modern definition of civilization as opposed to "uncivilised" societies (Civ IV even had names of European, Native American and African tribal cultures for barbarian settlements and tribal villages, very explicitly dividing its world into "civilizations" and "other").

For many of us it's simply immersion-breaking to feature historical societies without any of these features of civilization as playable civilizations.

England was the biggest trade empire on the face of the earth. There have never been anything its size and scope in human history. And Firaxis completely neglects that and gives them a ship that they copied from the French. Sure they improved upon it, but if anyone should be given a ship it would be the french getting a 74-gun frigate.
If ANY civ should have a trade or economy bonus, England should have it.

The British Empire was the largest trade empire on the face of the Earth (and much of its focus on economic imperialism was the brainchild of Victoria's German Prince Consort); the civ explicitly represents England rather than Britain. I think its selection of UUs and abilities is actually among the most fitting of those in the game, and among the most consistent with its leader (they should just change the UA's name, which does refer to the British Empire). Elizabeth presided over England's first colonial adventure, when the country was starting to emerge as a naval power, and three centuries before Britain was described as a "nation of shopkeepers".

 

[Securion]

Fair enough on the usage of "weird" and for clearing that up.

To be honest though, many of the UAs are pretty nonsensical to begin with. China's UA could easily apply to Germany, Mongolia, or Rome. The Ottomans' UA could be applied to Greece, Carthage, or Scandinavia. The French UA could be applied to China, India, Egypt, and so on. The UA choices are pretty arbitrary to begin with, but some one has to get each one and not everyone can have everything.

I agree.
Thats why its even more important to give civs everyone knows about traits that we all know them for? imho

 

[cybrxkhan]

Frankly, the game might be a bit better if it were named "Complex societies and cultures that had some degree of agricultural and/or technological development and/or that were extremely important to world history", but that's a bit too long, I guess.

I suppose PhilBowles' convinced me on the definition of civ in-game with the Iroqouis and early medieval Vikings as a sort of borderline situation.

 

[Guandao]

Um... This thread is getting off topic.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I agree.
Thats why its even more important to give civs everyone knows about traits that we all know them for? imho

In your case with England and Germany, I suppose the devs were going for England's naval power, which was quite remarkable at its height and one of the reasons why England was so successful; in the case of Germany, I suppose quite a number of people with a casual knowledge of history know about how the Germans were famous for being a sort of "other" to the Romans - they fought against Rome and "destroyed" it (although current academia, so far as I know, regards this idea of Germans roflstomping Romans problematic at best and ludicrous at worse).

I think if we thought about it carefully enough, most civs could easily have several different potential UAs. Let's just take China, for example:

- China's known for its large population, so it could have a large population UA (sort of like India) or something related to agriculture
- On the other hand, those with a casual knowledge of history might know about its technological and scientific innovations particularly in the pre-modern era. Maybe a scientific UA would suit this.
- But then again, China was the cultural center of Asia, developing things like Confucianism that spread and heavily influenced neighboring societies like Japan and Vietnam to this day.
- Yet, China's also known for its stereotypically zerg rush military achievements, if only through the Art of War - maybe a military UA would work.
- But, well, China was also a key part of the Silk Road and the reason why so much trade occured - because everyone wanted stuff from China. So maybe China should get a luxury resource or economic UA?


As you can see, at some point there's plenty of potential UAs that could fit everything. I guess what just happened was the devs had to eliminate some possibilities for certain civs because of balance reasons or because they wanted each civ to have a different and uniqe UA (no point in having 50% of the civs have only culture UAs). It is a bit unfortunate, and I can understand your frustration especially as I have been completely baffled at China's UA when I felt an economic or cultural UA would have suited it better. Oh well.

 

[Securion]

In your case with England and Germany, I suppose the devs were going for England's naval power, which was quite remarkable at its height and one of the reasons why England was so successful; in the case of Germany, I suppose quite a number of people with a casual knowledge of history know about how the Germans were famous for being a sort of "other" to the Romans - they fought against Rome and "destroyed" it (although current academia, so far as I know, regards this idea of Germans roflstomping Romans problematic at best and ludicrous at worse).

I think if we thought about it carefully enough, most civs could easily have several different potential UAs. Let's just take China, for example:

- China's known for its large population, so it could have a large population UA (sort of like India) or something related to agriculture
- On the other hand, those with a casual knowledge of history might know about its technological and scientific innovations particularly in the pre-modern era. Maybe a scientific UA would suit this.
- But then again, China was the cultural center of Asia, developing things like Confucianism that spread and heavily influenced neighboring societies like Japan and Vietnam to this day.
- Yet, China's also known for its stereotypically zerg rush military achievements, if only through the Art of War - maybe a military UA would work.
- But, well, China was also a key part of the Silk Road and the reason why so much trade occured - because everyone wanted stuff from China. So maybe China should get a luxury resource or economic UA?


As you can see, at some point there's plenty of potential UAs that could fit everything. I guess what just happened was the devs had to eliminate some possibilities for certain civs because of balance reasons or because they wanted each civ to have a different and uniqe UA (no point in having 50% of the civs have only culture UAs). It is a bit unfortunate, and I can understand your frustration especially as I have been completely baffled at China's UA when I felt an economic or cultural UA would have suited it better. Oh well.

I completely agree with you, and to get back on topic; Maybe they will change the UA for China, Germany and England in the expansion?
They actually have a chance of doing it "right" this time.

EDIT; I can easily see England getting a trade route bonus now. Sadly though, i think they will give all new trade route UAs to the new "Disney civs".

 

[PhilBowles]

I completely agree with you, and to get back on topic; Maybe they will change the UA for China, Germany and England in the expansion?
They actually have a chance of doing it "right" this time.

EDIT; I can easily see England getting a trade route bonus now. Sadly though, i think they will give all new trade route UAs to the new "Disney civs".

They'll probably want to keep England as-is, and they'll want to keep the bizarre extra spy because no one else does espionage as part of the UA. I expect any trade route-based changes to existing civs will be to Carthage and/or the Netherlands.

 

[Securion]

They'll probably want to keep England as-is, and they'll want to keep the bizarre extra spy because no one else does espionage as part of the UA. I expect any trade route-based changes to existing civs will be to Carthage and/or the Netherlands.

If Israel are in, they could get the extra spy (Mossad?) and England could get an extra sea trade route instead?

 

[Leugi]

PhilBowles, you do have some good points... Anyway, there's also the fact that (aside from politically correct or not issues) many of us do enjoy the historical diversities ingame, even if they are not using their actual social organization different than what "civilization" stands for (but it would be nice to have them be really different in organization too, so yeah, agreed with the whole point)... So it's a matter of opinion in the end, but I do see your point...

Could we at least stop calling the "not-civilizations-because-of-their-different-but-not-necessarily-worse-organization" as "Disney Civs"?, you got to admit that does sound very peyorative... (maybe just call them Societies or something)

If Israel are in, they could get the extra spy (Mossad?) and England could get an extra sea trade route instead?

Could be (as long as Firaxis does risk to make Israel, considering some unrest in some fans as can be seen in some other thread in this forum)... At any rate, the naval bonuses England has probably apply to naval caravans too; naval movement and all... But yes, an specific naval caravan bonus could be nice for England...

 

[cybrxkhan]

I completely agree with you, and to get back on topic; Maybe they will change the UA for China, Germany and England in the expansion?
They actually have a chance of doing it "right" this time.

EDIT; I can easily see England getting a trade route bonus now. Sadly though, i think they will give all new trade route UAs to the new "Disney civs".

The trade route UAs will probably be given to Portugal, and, if they make it in, Indonesia/Majapahit or the Timurids, which are hardly like the "Disney civs" label you use for the Iroqouis and Polynesia. I'm pretty sure any trade route UA will be given to a civilization that was important to the various international trade routes in world history (such as the maritime trade routes of the Indian ocean, the Silk Road, etc.)

 

[SamBC]

England was the biggest trade empire on the face of the earth. There have never been anything its size and scope in human history. And Firaxis completely neglects that and gives them a ship that they copied from the French. Sure they improved upon it, but if anyone should be given a ship it would be the french getting a 74-gun frigate.
If ANY civ should have a trade or economy bonus, England should have it.

Well, England never had much of an empire at all, that was Britain (post-unification). And it wasn't so much a trade empire as just an empire empire. It was held together by an exceptionally professional navy, and a system of privateers, and that's what that half of the UA is about. The British Empire was never that much a trade thing. Much of the territory started as control of trade, but they then decided it was just better to take over entirely.

The Netherlands' international forays, on the other hand, were all about trade. They brought stuff from all over the world and sold it to other Europeans, and even did this before most other European powers.

 

[PhilBowles]

Could we at least stop calling the "not-civilizations-because-of-their-different-but-not-necessarily-worse-organization" as "Disney Civs"?, you got to admit that does sound very peyorative... (maybe just call them Societies or something)

No argument there. I suspect Securion means it as an attack on Firaxis rather than the cultures, but you're right how it comes across.

Could be (as long as Firaxis does risk to make Israel, considering some unrest in some fans as can be seen in some other thread in this forum)...

I suspect difficulties with including Israel per se have been overstated - it is not Tibet, and I doubt there is as significant an Arab market as a Chinese one for the game. Personally I don't see any reason to or anything interesting it would add either as classic Israelite culture or the modern Israeli state. However, I suspect referencing Mossad, an organisation notorious for carrying out targeted killings in a politically volatile area, would be a no-no regardless.

Besides which, we all know why the English get the extra spy. It's historically meaningless, but you're not going to obliquely reference James Bond by giving that part of the UA away to another civ, and Firaxis wouldn't have created an extra spy UA if not to obliquely reference James Bond. Some other espionage-related UA, possibly, but not that. So for better or worse the English are stuck with it.

The trade route UAs will probably be given to Portugal, and, if they make it in, Indonesia/Majapahit or the Timurids, which are hardly like the "Disney civs" label you use for the Iroqouis and Polynesia. I'm pretty sure any trade route UA will be given to a civilization that was important to the various international trade routes in world history (such as the maritime trade routes of the Indian ocean, the Silk Road, etc.)

I'm not sure why there's such a widespread expectation that the Portuguese UA will have anything to do with trade routes. Certainly they were prompted to explore by the need to identify a new trade route to the east, but first and foremost the Portuguese are seen as explorers and navigators. They might have a shot at a trade UA in isolation, but probably not in a game where there are better candidates (including the Dutch and quite possibly the Indonesians), and above all not in an expansion in which exploration is one of the focal themes. It would be absolutely nonsensical to have an expansion with an exploration theme, include Portugal in that expansion, and give Portugal a UA that's about something other than exploration.

Well, England never had much of an empire at all, that was Britain (post-unification). And it wasn't so much a trade empire as just an empire empire. It was held together by an exceptionally professional navy, and a system of privateers, and that's what that half of the UA is about. The British Empire was never that much a trade thing. Much of the territory started as control of trade, but they then decided it was just better to take over entirely.

The Netherlands' international forays, on the other hand, were all about trade. They brought stuff from all over the world and sold it to other Europeans, and even did this before most other European powers.

Britain's empire was very heavily driven by commercial interest both before and after acquisition of territories. The British East India company rather than the British government was responsible for the acquisition of India because it, essentially, it was deemed more profitable to take direct control than work through local middlemen. The British empire had a somewhat curious development in which many territories were acquired as officially unsanctioned commercial enterprises (including India, Sarawak, Rhodesia and I think also Singapore) and only later administered by the British government. During the height of British imperialism Prince Albert heavily pushed the idea of spreading the empire as a way of promoting free trade; he also organised the World Fair in Crystal Palace designed to showcase the assets of the imperial territories. It was very different from England's colonial forays into America and the Caribbean in the Age of Sail (though that too was driven by commercial interests, principally the need to control the fur and tobacco trades).

However as pointed out by another poster civs' traits should reflect what the civ is known for, and the general conception of both England and the British Empire (Napoleon's "nation of shopkeepers" comment aside) is as a naval power first and a commercial power second, while the Dutch are more deserving of a trade or commerce-based UA because it is what they're principally known for.

 

[jjkrause84]

I came to the party late, but PhilBowles is largely correct. There is an important distinction between 'civilizations' and 'cultures'. For game purposes 'cultures' are, at best, an incredibly awkward fit. I personally refuse to accept 'Polynesia' as a 'civilization', because no such country/nation existed. The Huns and Celts run into similar issues (although the Celts have a slight advantage in being a 'legacy' Civ, like the Zulu).

That said, I think the Iroquois are an excellent choice. They were a major political force in North America which conducted international relations and had a stationary centre of power at Onondaga. It is slightly problematic that the Iroquois were not a single cultural/ethnic group, and that they did not build cities the way Meso- and South American peoples did. Nevertheless, I think they 'work'.

Personally, I'd rather have slightly fewer Civs with different leaders for variety rather than a mass of 'non-Civs'. You could even provide slight re-skins for different leaders (so, you could play as either India, or the Mughals depending on what leader you chose, for example). That might be a fun way of providing more choice without jumping the shark with 'civs' like the Huns.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

Anyone notice in the screenshots that they've improved the graphics for forests/jungles? They look more detailed and forests now contain a combination of deciduous/coniferous tress. Hopefully they have some other graphical improvements included, like no more land-based wonders being built in the water.

 

[True_Candyman]

If it helps at all, a common archaeological definition for civilization i've run into these days is an agrarian society with some degree of specialisation.

I'd disagree even with that since there have been complex societies with a hunter-gatherer system employed in North America.

Essentially, civilisation does not have one definition, it varies depending on who you ask and is irrelevant to this game. What this game essentially boils down to is a historical street fighter; pit different societies in the world against each other on a level playing field and see who wins. Does it then matter who is added in? It's all equally ridiculous and unhistorical.