If the "leaked" picture turns out to be true...

How do you feel if the leaked pic turned out to be true?

  • Very satsified

    Votes: 13 15.3%
  • Satisfied

    Votes: 36 42.4%
  • Disappointed

    Votes: 6 7.1%
  • Outraged

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Atrocious! Intolerable! Insulting! Terrible!

    Votes: 3 3.5%
  • Mixed

    Votes: 21 24.7%
  • Some regions are not represented, which is disappointing

    Votes: 25 29.4%
  • Some leaders are bad choices

    Votes: 19 22.4%
  • Some civilizations are bad choices

    Votes: 14 16.5%
  • Many civs/leaders are bad choices

    Votes: 4 4.7%
  • This is so disappointig I won't buy the game at all!

    Votes: 2 2.4%
  • We just need to get rid of Gandhi!!!

    Votes: 20 23.5%

  • Total voters
    85
  • Poll closed .
I do not want to claim that it is a bad choice, or that Poland would be a better choice.

Yes, around 780 A.D. Poles (a tribe) came from Slavs who migrated into the west of Europe around 650 A.D. Nomadic Avars helped them to push back western cultures (Romans, Germans).

Personally, if I had to choose, I would choose Maya civilzation to represent Central Amercia history.

Civ was never meant to replay the rise of empires but to basically play an "alternative". Imho it isn't a game-breaker at all if they do not always go with the "most" representative of leaders.

I agree. Civ games are about alternatives, not a reflection of history. It is far away from accuracy.
 
These three civilizations I mentioned are very old (+1000 years) and have achieved much.

Your question was implying no civilization in Southeast Asia had a long, interesting history or had achieved much.

Dude some people still barely know anything about the roman empire apart from it's name and a few of their emperors and that they controlled most of europe/med. For example, if Trajan is picked, It'd be not unsurprising for some people to think/express, "You'd think they'd pick a more famous emperor" - which, to someone who actually knows the history, is clearly ridiculous.

In fact, in one of my many recent conversations with some friends about this game, I've discovered three of them have never even heard of the Ottoman Empire. That's not their fault. It's important to know history... but really, you seem to have a specific interest in SE asia (which is fantastic) but you can't just blast anyone else who knows nothing about it.

Also the poster who mentioned something about them picking fun civs to play hit it spot on - sometimes just the idea of something is all one needs to think it cool enough to implement. Take Scythia. In all honesty there are a wealth of civilizations that are more impactful than the Scythians - but damn, the idea of playing Tomyris of Scythia sounds unbelievably cool. For no other reason than she seems cool.

Really, the Scythians are such a left field pick... whoever pitched that idea at the Dev table should get 'friggin cookie.
 
Dude some people still barely know anything about the roman empire apart from it's name and a few of their emperors and that they controlled most of europe/med

I have met a bunch of Americans in my life who did not know where Poland is :lol:
 
Well, USAians aren't exactly renowned for their geography skils...
 
ONE "wonder" doesn't make a civilization. Has Brazil invented anything? Has Brazil conquered half of the world? Has Brazil founded the base of one of the major civilizations (like Rome, Greece and China)? Has Brazil sich an influence over the world that it is virtually everywhere? Has Brazil world-renowned artists that are known by the general population? Has Brazil constructed dozens of architectural marvels? Has Brazil any history of global importance at all?

I also choose the Incas in place of Brazil to represent South America in the base game. I agree that Brazil is in the base game was a big surprise (since no one expected). But what I saw here were absurd attempts to underestimate the country as a whole, linked to a lack of knowledge about the country.

But anyway ... for me it was a very pleasant surprise to see the Sumerians back in the game, is one of my favorite civilizations, I am eager to know how the ziggurats will work.
 
Inca > Brazil for vanilla.

Asking if there were any interesting nations in SEA is straight up silly. Not knowing the history doesn't mean it isn't there. Poland was pretty impressive in the early-mid gunpowder era but it had neither the power at its height nor the longevity to match numerous civs that are somehow not even considered. I'd still put it in over stuff like Venice, Brazil, and Celts though.
 
I'm perfectly fine with Brazil on release. I'd still prefer Inca but Brazil is so ok I'll accept it.

"It is non significant"
It is 5th most populous country in the world, 7th (once 6th) biggest economy in the world, 5th biggest regarding land area, by far the strongest (and among the best regarding quality of life) country of Latin America, second major country on Western hemisphere after US etc etc...

"It is less important than x empire!"
Brazil had bigger cultural, political and economic influence on the world than following civs: Shoshone, Iroquis, Songhai, Zulu, Polynesia, Sweden, Siam and few others.
I'd actually argue it has comparable impact on the outside world to Precolombian civilisations, Korea and Ethiopia (all those civs are of course much older than Brazil but most of their history was not reaching beyond their narrow area and internal matters). Personally I also think Denmark, Poland, Celts and Venice also were comparable to Brazil regarding achievements and impact.

"What has Brazil ever brought to the world?!"
Check wiki regarding Brazilian culture, literature, architecture, science, and famous people and stop being ignorant. If such minor tribes as Iroquis deserve to be in civ, so does Brazil.

"Brazilian culture is..."
Very diverse, very rich, very unique and very distinctive, also quite popular across the world, as well as representing Latin American culture in civ series (which didn't happen before Brazil appearance).

"Brazil has no great or interesting leaders"
Read Pedro's biography.

"Brazil is eurocentric"
Besides the fact that it isn't in Europe - Brazil is far less 'western' than US. ~60% of Brazil population is of coloured or mixed origin, with huge part of population coming from West Africa, Asia, mestizos etc.

"It is too young and has no history!"
Brazil has history 500 years long if we count from first settlements, 300 if we count actual urbanization instead of feitorias, 200 if we count 'pretty huge independent state being regional powerhouse and impacting the world'. 300 is the best imo.
This means, Brazil 'empire' (big independent Brazil) has history longer than actual Aztec empire, Incan empire, Songhai empire, Shoshone state, Zulu state, Boudicca's tribe :p , imperial Carthago (keep in mind I am comparing states in their "big" state, not original cities, tribes, settlers etc), Swedish imperial era, Hunnic state, Majapahit empire (though ofc state history of Indonesia is much older), Ayutthaia empire, to name only civ examples. Brazil has also history comparable in length to US and indepedent Iroquis. Anyway, regardless of how we count its existence, Brazil while one of younger civs is not one of civs/states with shortest lifespan.
 
Inca > Brazil for vanilla.

Asking if there were any interesting nations in SEA is straight up silly. Not knowing the history doesn't mean it isn't there. Poland was pretty impressive in the early-mid gunpowder era but it had neither the power at its height nor the longevity to match numerous civs that are somehow not even considered. I'd still put it in over stuff like Venice, Brazil, and Celts though.

No, it is not silly. The fact that something exists doesn't mean someone is interested in it. The fact that you consider it to be interesting doesn't mean it is interesting to me etc.

I did not enjoy Southeast Asia civs in Civ V. My tastes, my vision. I always ticked them off so that they could not appear in my games. Why? Basically, the asthetics did not match my visions, the leaders, animations. The only thing I liked about them were the leaders backgrounds. It's existenece in civ games did not make me play with them. Unless they had felt right. But they didn't feel right to me or the experience I wanted to gain from them.

The difference is that you compare the civs in the game with real counterparts. And I pay attention to how they look in the game. If I do not like how the leader looks and animates, I might as well ignore the whole civ.
 
Honestly, not too disappointed.

Happy about Scythia and Kongo (though I would have preferred Mali).
The leader selection seems solid... I even got over my grief with them choosing de Medicis for France. (If they selected a strong personality, yet incompetent leader, I would have much rather had Robespierre)
Kind of baffled about Poland and Brazil.
Disappointed about the lack of South East Asian, Native North American, or Native South American Civs.

Overall, not perfect, it's taking some risks though, and I like that.
 
Personally, if I had to choose, I would choose Maya civilzation, not Brazil, to represent South Amercian history.

The Maya are not a South American civ.
 
The Maya are not a South American civ.

So what? I want them, not the Brazil in the base game. It is Central America, indeed, but if Southeast Asia is not represented, why South Amercia has to be? If most Civs included occupy Europe, we might as well have two Central America civs on its release. It's the same anoalogy because there is no specific pattern how civs are chosen.

And as for the South America, Inca would be nicer. But as I said, Brazil is perfectly ok, too. I don't mind the order, which they get released as long as they get released.
 
I'm perfectly fine with Brazil on release. I'd still prefer Inca but Brazil is so ok I'll accept it.

"It is non significant"
It is 5th most populous country in the world, 7th (once 6th) biggest economy in the world, 5th biggest regarding land area, by far the strongest (and among the best regarding quality of life) country of Latin America, second major country on Western hemisphere after US etc etc...

"It is less important than x empire!"
Brazil had bigger cultural, political and economic influence on the world than following civs: Shoshone, Iroquis, Songhai, Zulu, Polynesia, Sweden, Siam and few others.
I'd actually argue it has comparable impact on the outside world to Precolombian civilisations, Korea and Ethiopia (all those civs are of course much older than Brazil but most of their history was not reaching beyond their narrow area and internal matters). Personally I also think Denmark, Poland, Celts and Venice also were comparable to Brazil regarding achievements and impact.

"What has Brazil ever brought to the world?!"
Check wiki regarding Brazilian culture, literature, architecture, science, and famous people and stop being ignorant. If such minor tribes as Iroquis deserve to be in civ, so does Brazil.

"Brazilian culture is..."
Very diverse, very rich, very unique and very distinctive, also quite popular across the world, as well as representing Latin American culture in civ series (which didn't happen before Brazil appearance).

"Brazil has no great or interesting leaders"
Read Pedro's biography.

"Brazil is eurocentric"
Besides the fact that it isn't in Europe - Brazil is far less 'western' than US. ~60% of Brazil population is of coloured or mixed origin, with huge part of population coming from West Africa, Asia, mestizos etc.

"It is too young and has no history!"
Brazil has history 500 years long if we count from first settlements, 300 if we count actual urbanization instead of feitorias, 200 if we count 'pretty huge independent state being regional powerhouse and impacting the world'. 300 is the best imo.
This means, Brazil 'empire' (big independent Brazil) has history longer than actual Aztec empire, Incan empire, Songhai empire, Shoshone state, Zulu state, Boudicca's tribe :p , imperial Carthago (keep in mind I am comparing states in their "big" state, not original cities, tribes, settlers etc), Swedish imperial era, Hunnic state, Majapahit empire (though ofc state history of Indonesia is much older), Ayutthaia empire, to name only civ examples. Brazil has also history comparable in length to US and indepedent Iroquis. Anyway, regardless of how we count its existence, Brazil while one of younger civs is not one of civs/states with shortest lifespan.

:agree:

I agree with everything you said, and I still can add a few more things:

-Architecture and Urbanism: the capital of Brazil (Brasilia) is an example, the captial is a planned city and munidal heritage of UNESCO because of its unique modern architecture.

-Great Artists: Oscar Niemeyer (one of the most important figures of modern architecture, and also worked in the UN building project), Paulo Coelho, Tarsila do Amaral, Candido Portinari, Anita Malfatti, Castro Alves, Machado de Assis, Jorge Amado, Oswald de Andrade, Cecilia Meireles ....

-Discoveries and inventions: Read about Santos Dumont, César Lattes, Bartolomeu de Gusmão, Vital Brazil, Oswaldo Cruz, Manuel de Abreu, Landell de Moura, Carlos Chagas...

-Extremely diverse culture: Just to name a few examples, the Brazilian city of Blumenau has one of the largest Oktoberfest of the world . The Brazilian city of Salvador is considered, according to some sources, the blackest city in the world outside Africa. Brazil has the largest colony of Japanese in the world. Still can mention the strong presence of indigenous and natives culture, especially in the north.
 
Brazil had bigger cultural, political and economic influence on the world than following civs: Shoshone, Iroquis, Songhai, Zulu, Polynesia, Sweden, Siam and few others.

Just to clarify my position, when I said I'd prefer other nations in vanilla, I did not mean these. Especially not "Polynesia" or "Native American civilization" and such. I'd rate Brazil easy #2 in SA after Inca, and probably ahead of Aztec/Maya in NA despite the latter's tradition as civ reps.
 
I'm perfectly fine with Brazil on release. I'd still prefer Inca but Brazil is so ok I'll accept it.

"It is non significant"
It is 5th most populous country in the world, 7th (once 6th) biggest economy in the world, 5th biggest regarding land area, by far the strongest (and among the best regarding quality of life) country of Latin America, second major country on Western hemisphere after US etc etc...

"It is less important than x empire!"
Brazil had bigger cultural, political and economic influence on the world than following civs: Shoshone, Iroquis, Songhai, Zulu, Polynesia, Sweden, Siam and few others.
I'd actually argue it has comparable impact on the outside world to Precolombian civilisations, Korea and Ethiopia (all those civs are of course much older than Brazil but most of their history was not reaching beyond their narrow area and internal matters). Personally I also think Denmark, Poland, Celts and Venice also were comparable to Brazil regarding achievements and impact.

"What has Brazil ever brought to the world?!"
Check wiki regarding Brazilian culture, literature, architecture, science, and famous people and stop being ignorant. If such minor tribes as Iroquis deserve to be in civ, so does Brazil.

"Brazilian culture is..."
Very diverse, very rich, very unique and very distinctive, also quite popular across the world, as well as representing Latin American culture in civ series (which didn't happen before Brazil appearance).

"Brazil has no great or interesting leaders"
Read Pedro's biography.

"Brazil is eurocentric"
Besides the fact that it isn't in Europe - Brazil is far less 'western' than US. ~60% of Brazil population is of coloured or mixed origin, with huge part of population coming from West Africa, Asia, mestizos etc.

"It is too young and has no history!"
Brazil has history 500 years long if we count from first settlements, 300 if we count actual urbanization instead of feitorias, 200 if we count 'pretty huge independent state being regional powerhouse and impacting the world'. 300 is the best imo.
This means, Brazil 'empire' (big independent Brazil) has history longer than actual Aztec empire, Incan empire, Songhai empire, Shoshone state, Zulu state, Boudicca's tribe :p , imperial Carthago (keep in mind I am comparing states in their "big" state, not original cities, tribes, settlers etc), Swedish imperial era, Hunnic state, Majapahit empire (though ofc state history of Indonesia is much older), Ayutthaia empire, to name only civ examples. Brazil has also history comparable in length to US and indepedent Iroquis. Anyway, regardless of how we count its existence, Brazil while one of younger civs is not one of civs/states with shortest lifespan.

Granting all that to be true, I don't care for having post-colonial nations in civ, and honestly yes, that includes the United States. But since America will be included regardless, I'd prefer they remain the only post-colonial nation. Further, I'd argue that Brazil is a nation-state not a civilization. If culturally and historically significant and unique civilizations like Armenia can be represented by having Yerevan as a city-state, then Brazil ought to be represented by having Rio de Janeiro as a city-state.
 
Given that 18 is not that much it is not strange that it feels like civilizations are missing. Given that they bunch alot of different cultures and civilizations into a single civilization (India) I guess they could bunch all western european civilizations into a single civilization called western europe, that would atleast save a few slots that could be used to create a native american civ and a south east asia civ.

Using so many slots for european civilizations lead to the rest of the world being left behind in terms of representation and bunching togther rest of the world civilizations in a few arbitary civs called india and native america mean even less possibility for these areas to be represented well.
 
Granting all that to be true, I don't care for having post-colonial nations in civ, and honestly yes, that includes the United States. But since America will be included regardless, I'd prefer they remain the only post-colonial nation. Further, I'd argue that Brazil is a nation-state not a civilization. If culturally and historically significant and unique civilizations like Armenia can be represented by having Yerevan as a city-state, then Brazil ought to be represented by having Rio de Janeiro as a city-state.

I go just one step futher and say there should no more than 2 post colonial nations in civ, America (because of power and influence) and Brazil (to represent Latin America, South America and because it is decently unique) should be in. But I wouldn't like to see more, such as Mexico, Canada, Australia, Argentina, Philippines etc, because they are imo too culturally similar to other civs or not big enough or interesting enough. Brazil is imo just behind the line of enough significant, unique and interesting to fit in the game, other colonial civs are not. Its leader Pedro II is also absolutely top quality leader on par regarding achievements and character.

In general I'd prefer Inca to take place of Brazil for release version (I considered some SA civ necessary to not leave the continent empty) but I'm fine with Brazil itself. After all it's still representation of South America (+Latin American culture, I guess in the end Precolombian culture will need to survive with Aztecs and maybe second civ).
 
I guess I just don't understand the anti-modern bias. It's one thing if it's just a matter of one having a particular interest in a specific era and therefore being more pleased to see civs from that era than from eras one is not interested in. But the idea that post-colonial civs should be banned from the game altogether makes no sense to me. The Civ series spans from 4000 BC all the way into the near future. Once we allow for the fact that the future is too unknown to base anything on, and the point that it's not advisable to depict a still-living person in the game, I see no other reason why any particular era within this span shouldn't be fair game for drawing civs from.

"Such-and-such is a nation-state, not a civilization" is a common argument to make, but it's not one that ever works. If the developers had ever actually spelled out how they are defining "civilization" for the purposes of the game, and shown a consistent pattern of following that definition, then we could argue about whether this or that nation qualifies. But since they have no such definitions, then any definition a forum user tries to impose is doomed to not line up with whatever criteria the developers may decide to use. If the developers want to include Brazil, they will include Brazil, and demanding that Brazil is "not a civilization" is not going to dissuade them.

Claiming that such-and-such a civ is "not interesting enough" to include also fails. "Interesting" is far too subjective to try making any blanket statements about who is or is not interesting. A nation you find uninteresting, somebody else might have an obsessive fascination with. The developers are never going to exclude a civ on the grounds that someone on the forums said that civ isn't interesting.

If Brazil is sufficient to "represent" Latin America, then it would also follow that we suddenly have a lot of superfluous civs in Europe. We wouldn't need the Netherlands or Austria or anyone in Scandinavia because they're already represented by the Germans. Portugal is unnecessary because we have Spain. Do we really need Greece, Rome, and Byzantium? And so on. I know plenty of people will argue that yes, that's exactly right, and we should cut some of these out. But I disagree. I think the game would be poorer for not having them. And if, during the course of the game's development cycle, they end up adding Mexico, Canada, Australia, Argentina, and the Philippines, I will be delighted to see them all finally get in. As long as they are each implemented well enough that they don't feel like carbon copies of another civ in-game, why does it matter that their real-world cultures are (debatably) "too similar" to someone else? (And who in blazes is the Philippines "too similar" to, anyway? That's a pretty unique country. Who else has that same blending of Asian, Pacific Island, and Hispanic influences to claim that the Philippines is already sufficiently represented by someone else, even if we allow for the idea that civs can represent each other in the first place?)
 
I guess I just don't understand the anti-modern bias.

So basically you're dismissing everyone else's bias to justify your own...? Also, your argument about similarity is simply wrong: the world is far more homogeneous now than it has been at any time in the past on account of globalization. Pick any two modern industrialized nations, and they will be more similar to each other than even two provinces in a civilization 500 years ago. Not that I'd want such a thing, but based on distinctiveness it's far more justifiable to include Medieval Bohemia, Prussia, and Austria than it would be to include the modern United States, Mexico, and Brazil--and those are some of the more distinctive modern nations that don't even speak the same languages.

Which is why, for me, Medieval and earlier nations are more interesting. The world has been growing more homogeneous since the Age of Exploration began bringing cultures closer together, and that rate has accelerated astronomically in the last 200 years. Medieval and earlier nations have much more flavor before the rise of nationalism and Western globalization.
 
So basically you're dismissing everyone else's bias to justify your own...?

That's an odd way of putting it. My argument is that any civ from the time period the game spans should be a potential candidate, and that it doesn't make sense to me to take a chunk of that span and say that even though the game covers that period, civs from that period are off-limits. If they decide to include Mexico, and they implement it well (it doesn't resort to lazy stereotypes in choosing its bonuses and is distinct enough that it doesn't feel like having a second Brazil civ, etc.), then I don't see why its being a modern nation should count against it.

My point is about the span of the game. Europa Universalis IV spans from 1444 to 1821, so putting in the Hittites or the Soviet Union would be nonsensical. That game should be, and generally is, restricted to nations that either did exist within that timeframe, or didn't but could reasonably have arisen within it. Civ's span contains the modern era, so modern civs aren't inherently off-limits, even if you and some other people want them to be because they're just not as "interesting" to you as medieval and earlier civs.
 
That's an odd way of putting it. My argument is that any civ from the time period the game spans should be a potential candidate, and that it doesn't make sense to me to take a chunk of that span and say that even though the game covers that period, civs from that period are off-limits. If they decide to include Mexico, and they implement it well (it doesn't resort to lazy stereotypes in choosing its bonuses and is distinct enough that it doesn't feel like having a second Brazil civ, etc.), then I don't see why its being a modern nation should count against it.

My point is about the span of the game. Europa Universalis IV spans from 1444 to 1821, so putting in the Hittites or the Soviet Union would be nonsensical. That game should be, and generally is, restricted to nations that either did exist within that timeframe, or didn't but could reasonably have arisen within it. Civ's span contains the modern era, so modern civs aren't inherently off-limits, even if you and some other people want them to be because they're just not as "interesting" to you as medieval and earlier civs.

I'm aware that there are people who find modern civs interesting, but I think they should be limited to DLC and expansions, that there overall should be fewer of them, and that Firaxis is way overdo in allowing us to exclude civs from being selected randomly (which, of course, has a lot of applications--for example, I can't remember the last time I played a game of Civ5 and Brazil was not randomly selected--I set up my last game's civs manually simply because I was sick of seeing Brazil in every game I played).
 
Top Bottom