Is the civ series too eurocentric?

[Traitorfish]

I still think a single Frankish civ is the way to go. For the last millenium and a half, France, Germany and England have had more or less the same social, political and economic structure. Same religion, give or taken some sectarian disagreements, and their elites even shared a language, French, until quite recently, and that's been in practice replaced by English, even if the French aren't very happy about it. Insisting on three separate vanilla civs, another one for an overgrown colony, and then two or or expansion civs for the smaller or more peripheral polities of the Frankish world, is really just narcissism.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

That said, i am still not sure why Germany has to be a core civ in this game. France could also be stretching it, but Germany more clearly does. The game starts at 4000 BC, not the start of the 19th century (even if we bypass the obvious Prussia---> Germany, which would make the latter a reality of the very end of the 19th century anyway).

Germany in 4000 BC might seem out of place, but wouldn't the same go for Sumeria with railroads and planes?

I still think a single Frankish civ is the way to go. For the last millenium and a half, France, Germany and England have had more or less the same social, political and economic structure. Same religion, give or taken some sectarian disagreements, and their elites even shared a language, French, until quite recently, and that's been in practice replaced by English, even if the French aren't very happy about it. Insisting on three separate vanilla civs, another one for an overgrown colony, and then two or or expansion civs for the smaller or more peripheral polities of the Frankish world, is really just narcissism.

The problem is that France and Germany were two very powerful distinct nations for a time. Considering all that happened during the Scramble for Africa, World War One, and World War Two, I don't think they should be combined.

As for Britain, they are certainly a necessary civ. Mostly because of how powerful and influential the British Empire was.

 

[Traitorfish]

The problem is that France and Germany were two very powerful distinct nations for a time. Considering all that happened during the Scramble for Africa, World War One, and World War Two, I don't think they should be combined.

You're talking about, what, seventy years? That's the blink of an eye, by the standards of a game of civ. China has had civil wars that lasted longer than that.

As for Britain, they are certainly a necessary civ. Mostly because of how powerful and influential the British Empire was.

Why does that require a separate civ? If the English were, as I propose, simply one polity in a broader "Frankish" culture, then the influence it spread was the English strain of Frankish culture, not uniquely "British".

I think we should be wary of assuming a dynamic in which "civilisations" are in conflict with each other while at harmony with themselves, as I think you do here. Contrasting societies can co-exist quite happily for great periods of time, even if their rulers might squabble about tributes or trade rights, while members of a single society can be competitive and even belligerent towards one another. Indeed, I think for most of history, that is the rule: societies inhabiting different ecological habitat tend not to have strong designs on each other, while competing aristocrats within a single society while invest tremendous amounts of gold and blood trying to best each other. Conflict is not a remotely reliable guide to the lines between "civiliastions".

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

You're talking about, what, seventy years? That's the blink of an eye, by the standards of a game of civ. China has had civil wars that lasted longer than that.

Yes, but those 70 years saw major technological innovations, the rise and fall of ideologies, and hundreds of millions of people killed. Both nations were able to project power far from their borders and were among the major powers of their times. The Mongol Empire didn't last very long, but it accomplished a lot while it lasted, same with the German and French Empires.

Why does that require a separate civ? If the English were, as I propose, simply one polity in a broader "Frankish" culture, then the influence it spread was the English strain of Frankish culture, not uniquely "British".

Britain controlled almost a quarter of the world's land at one time. I don't see how anyone could justify not including them in the game as a separate civilization.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes, but those 70 years saw major technological innovations, the rise and fall of ideologies, and hundreds of millions of people killed. Both nations were able to project power far from their borders and were among the major powers of their times. The Mongol Empire didn't last very long, but it accomplished a lot while it lasted, same with the German and French Empires.

The Mongols represented a distinct culture, with a distinct social, political and economic structure, and a distinct set of literary and religious traditions. The same can't truthfully be said of France and Germany in the nineteenth century, two polities which were by any "civilisational" reckoning as similar as warring Greek city-states, if not more so. To any outside observer, these empires are no more distinct than any other brace of warring princes, of which there's no historical shortage, in Europe or anywhere else.

Britain controlled almost a quarter of the world's land at one time. I don't see how anyone could justify not including them in the game as a separate civilization.

One could equally say that the Franks controlled half of the world's land at one time. What's so significant about flags, that they're the way we draw the lines? Given that, as has been pointed out, we seem absolutely indifferent to the many flags that have flown over the vast territories while casually generalise as "India", "Arabia" and "Persia".

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

The Mongols represented a distinct culture, with a distinct social, political and economic structure, and a distinct set of literary and religious traditions. The same can't truthfully be said of France and Germany in the nineteenth century, two polities which were by any "civilisational" reckoning as similar as warring Greek city-states, if not more so. To any outside observer, these empires are no more distinct than any other brace of warring princes, of which there's no historical shortage, in Europe or anywhere else.

One could equally say that the Franks controlled half of the world's land at one time. What's so significant about flags, that they're the way we draw the lines? Given that, as has been pointed out, we seem absolutely indifferent to the many flags that have flown over the vast territories while casually generalise as "India", "Arabia" and "Persia".

India, Arabia, and Persia, have all been unified at some point. There was never a time when all of France, Germany, and Britain were part of the same country.

If three Indian states had colonized faraway lands and spread their culture around the world, then they would deserve to be counted as three different Civs.

 

[Ajidica]

India, Arabia, and Persia, have all been unified at some point. There was never a time when all of France, Germany, and Britain were part of the same country.

Rome?
France and Germany were definitely part of the same "county" under Charlemagne and his successors. France and England were part of the same country under the Plantagenets and Capetians with it not being incorrect to say the 100 Years War was a long civil war between two groups of aristocrats over who inherited the title King of France.
I'm pretty sure at one point in time some of the leading German kingdoms of the HRE married into the Plantagenet royal line and came close to a personal union.
Regardless, given their shared heritage in the Holy Roman Empire the "French" and "Germans" are definitely similar enough to be part of the generic "Frankish" civ.

If three Indian states had colonized faraway lands and spread their culture around the world, then they would deserve to be counted as three different Civs.

So why is Poland a civ? Or the Dutch? I daresay the Mughals and Vedic Aryans have individually more of an impact on world history than the Dutch or Poles.
If we are going with "colonize faraway places and spread their language and culture" then the Goths definitely deserve a spot on the civ list. Migrating from Scandinavia to Spain and Italy, playing a leading role in the collapse of the Roman Empire, and bringing with them a new material and linguistic culture that caused massive permanent changes to established Greco-Roman culture? Sounds more influential than the Dutch.

 

[Kyriakos]

The following civs are the only ones to be in every vanilla iteration of the series...I suppose you could call them the "core civs".

Hm, were the Aztecs really on every vanilla first civ title?

If so, impressive. I recall them in civI (Montezuma ), and i suppose there would be in CivII as well, but i didn't remember they were in the vanilla CivIII. Haven't much followed the franchise since...

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Rome?

Never controlled all of Germany.

France and Germany were definitely part of the same "county" under Charlemagne and his successors. France and England were part of the same country under the Plantagenets and Capetians with it not being incorrect to say the 100 Years War was a long civil war between two groups of aristocrats over who inherited the title King of France.
I'm pretty sure at one point in time some of the leading German kingdoms of the HRE married into the Plantagenet royal line and came close to a personal union.
Regardless, given their shared heritage in the Holy Roman Empire the "French" and "Germans" are definitely similar enough to be part of the generic "Frankish" civ.

Yes, but by the 19th century these nations had clearly gone down separate paths and were individually world powers on their own.

So why is Poland a civ? Or the Dutch? I daresay the Mughals and Vedic Aryans have individually more of an impact on world history than the Dutch or Poles.

I didn't say that either Poland or the the Dutch were necessary. I also think that Austria isn't necessary.

If we are going with "colonize faraway places and spread their language and culture" then the Goths definitely deserve a spot on the civ list. Migrating from Scandinavia to Spain and Italy, playing a leading role in the collapse of the Roman Empire, and bringing with them a new material and linguistic culture that caused massive permanent changes to established Greco-Roman culture? Sounds more influential than the Dutch.

Sure, probably should have been them rather than the Huns.

 

[Flying Pig]

If we are going with "colonize faraway places and spread their language and culture" then the Goths definitely deserve a spot on the civ list. Migrating from Scandinavia to Spain and Italy, playing a leading role in the collapse of the Roman Empire, and bringing with them a new material and linguistic culture that caused massive permanent changes to established Greco-Roman culture?

I seem to remember that you've read enough of Peter Heather's book to be very careful about taking that story at face value!

On the subject of distinctions between 'civilisations' over the grand span of history - is that all that the Civ games are? I mean, part of what playing Civ is about is growing a civilisation from a settler and a scout in 4000BC to become a space-racing, world-conquering nuclear power, but that's not all that it's about. I'd argue that scenarios - the ever-present World Wars and other era-specific, smaller-scale games - are equally a key part of what makes the games what they are, and it would be difficult to play the vast majority of those if there were no distinction between Britain, France and Germany.

 

[Ajidica]

I seem to remember that you've read enough of Peter Heather's book to be very careful about taking that story at face value!

I was intentionally oversimplifying it, but the archaeological evidence (which considering we are dealing with a material culture in premodern outer Europe means we have a bottomless well of asterisks) does indicate a material culture associated with "the Goths" started out somewhere near the Baltic Sea and eventually ended up near the lower Danube. We have compelling evidence of not-insignificant amber trade between the Baltic Sea and the Mediterranean; so when coupled with archaeological evidence and what vaguely reliable historical evidence we can glean from Roman sources makes the migration of the Goths seem historically plausible.
As far as playing a leading role in the collapse of the Roman Empire, from what I remember both Heather and Halsall make a pretty convincing argument that due to a variety of factors "the Goths" were the first "barbarians" the Roman Empire was unable to break apart and resettle throughout the Empire. Instead, we see Gothic leaders such as Alaric receiving Roman titles and appearing to act as an independent armed group inside the Roman Empire. The Roman Emperors alternated between trying to forcibly disperse "the Goths" and making deals with "the Goths" which saw them gain an increasing level of autonomy and began serving as a sort of middle man between a given region and the Roman Empire.

 

[trader/warrior]

You're talking about, what, seventy years? That's the blink of an eye, by the standards of a game of civ. China has had civil wars that lasted longer than that.

Considering how the number of years passed per turn changes, the last 500-ish years of history when European powers played important roles is a good third or even more of the game. Towards the end of the game an era that would have taken a thousand or more years in the beginning of the game, takes about a hundred years or less. Considering pace of technological change (going from muskets to supercarriers in under 5 turns, or alternatively hundreds and hundreds to go from bronze to iron wouldn't be much fun) and historical knowlege of the target audience, this makes sense to me. And considering this, so does at least including some of the western powers that played such important roles from the medieval period onwards to colonization, world wars, etc.

 

[Traitorfish]

India, Arabia, and Persia, have all been unified at some point. There was never a time when all of France, Germany, and Britain were part of the same country.

If three Indian states had colonized faraway lands and spread their culture around the world, then they would deserve to be counted as three different Civs.

Why are political unity and colonisation-efforts the key criteria? Are these the criteria upon which other civs are defined?

I seem to remember that you've read enough of Peter Heather's book to be very careful about taking that story at face value!

On the subject of distinctions between 'civilisations' over the grand span of history - is that all that the Civ games are? I mean, part of what playing Civ is about is growing a civilisation from a settler and a scout in 4000BC to become a space-racing, world-conquering nuclear power, but that's not all that it's about. I'd argue that scenarios - the ever-present World Wars and other era-specific, smaller-scale games - are equally a key part of what makes the games what they are, and it would be difficult to play the vast majority of those if there were no distinction between Britain, France and Germany.

Why is that? There are a few era-specific scenarios that can make much use of England, France and Germany as they've been included previously. England typically has a leader and UU from the 16th century, France from the 18th century, and Germany a leader from the 19th century and a UU from the 20th century. Any scenario is going to involve some degree of customisation or asking the player to make certain leaps of imagination, probably both, and it's not clear why that would be any more difficult with a single "Frankish" civ than with separate English, French and Germany civs.

I mean, you mention World War scenarios- but how far has the series ever catered to those out of the box? For World War 2, we get the German Panzer and, in Civ 5, the Japanese Zero and American B17, but all other units are generic. In Civ 4, we get four era-appropriate leaderheads, a far-from complete set, and only one included in Vanilla. World War One gets nothing at all; several key players don't even have civs to call their own. And yet, people seem to make it work.

 

[daft]

European civilization has become the most dominant over the centuries and dominates the world to this day. There's absolutely no reason for it (it's countries/powers) to be under represented in a game which deals with history of civilization.

Game's developers are more than eager to add non-European civs in the game, and those saying otherwise simply aren't correct.

If India ever became the dominant culture on Earth over several centuries would it be fair enough to the Europeans and recognize them as a major contributor to the planet's history of civilization? Think not.

History is written by those who come to dominate it, aka:Europe and North America/USA.

Instead of undermining the achievements of your predecessors, my fellow Europeans, be proud of them, for there are those who'd gladly claim them for their own.

That's why I anticipate as many European civilizations in the game called "Civilization VI" as possible. Why? Because Europe more than deserves it, and if you don't like this fact, you're defying history of civilization, and if you're, then you shouldn't be playing this game in first place.

Ps. Middle East (especially ancient Anatolia) is vastly under-represented!!!

 

[Kyriakos]

I think we need more than just two greek civs, and only one in the vanilla

The north euro civs can be diminished, i don't mind

 

[Traitorfish]

European civilization has become the most dominant over the centuries and dominates the world to this day. There's absolutely no reason for it (it's countries/powers) to be under represented in a game which deals with history of civilization.

Nobody is arguing that Europe should be under-represented. We're arguing that it is over-represented.

 

[daft]

No Babylon in CVI Vanilla? No Persia either? What about Assyria, once such a mighty empire, wait, I don't see it on the list, same with Akkadians.
What happened to Byzantium? not of consequence? There's no Hatti/Hittites either, no Ottomans, no Lydia, Phrygia, Troad, Lycia.

What happened to everyone's favorites from CV, the Huns?
Colchis? Khazars? Armenia? Syria?

No Israel/Hebrews, no Phoenicia, no Canaan, no Media/Medes, no Mittani, no Cimmerians, Hurrians, no Parthia, no Seleucid empire, Iran, or Kurds?
None of the Caliphs, no Crusader nation(just to stir things up).

I say Middle East is seriously under-represented, lets lament about that. (sorry about the other civs/tribes I missed/forgot to mention above)

 

[daft]

Nobody is arguing that Europe should be under-represented. We're arguing that it is over-represented.

It will even/balance out as more civs are added through dlc's and expansions no doubt. Firaxis is very sensitive about this stuff, although less than about the absolutely needed inclusion of Female rulers, hey, no one wants to be accused of sexism these days.

Y2K/Firaxis has to take into consideration the popularity of the game in every country it's sold/steamed in, and since Western European nations are key component of these sales, they have to be represented.

I love the fact they included Scythia this time, although they could have made it even more fun to play as.
Remember suggesting Scythia and Thrace several months ago, looks like they do read these forums from time to time, impressive.

 

[trader/warrior]

I won't go back through this thread now, but I think it was Pangur Ban who said earlier he thought the civ series is too focused on the "Mediterranean/middle eastern microcosm" view of the beginning of civilization. TBH that made me think maybe it would have been better to just focus on the simplistic traditional view of history as being Fertile crescent civs - Hellenistic period - Roman period - Dark ages/medieval period, cutting out the more modern eras and the other civs of the wider world. Could be more in depth on the historical dynamics involved, and have more representative civs and more consistent overall game progression.

 

[daft]

I think we need more than just two greek civs, and only one in the vanilla

The north euro civs can be diminished, i don't mind

Just watch it, Mr.Greek, Sparta is coming, if not in CVI, then definitely in CVII.

And, if it's lead by Leonidas, Lysander, or any other significant Spartan ruler of the past, and if I can build Spartans, superior to Hoplites, even if more expensive or turn consuming to train, I will buy the game, take on those Athenian democrats and wipe them off the face of Earth.

Democracy isn't a perfect system after all. Xenophon, he was a wise one.