Less Eurocentrism Please

[InsidiousMage]

The tech and civics trees need to pull in more inspirations from the wider world. This is especially noticeable in the Classical, Medieval and Renaissance Eras. Classical and Merchant Republics, Feudalism, Guilds, Knights and the like draw heavily from Europe, not to mention the name Renaissance itself, yet no similar regional aspects from other parts the world are found outside of wonders and the names for policy cards. Merchant Republics mostly applies to a limited number of Italian cities from the Medieval and Renaissance periods but no unique kind of non-European government is represented in the game.

The horse archer has existed for thousands of years in the Eurasian steppes and a couple hundred in North America yet is limited to two unique units but the Knight, Feudal European Medieval heavy cavalry, is available to every civ in the game. Other unit names are just descriptive, Swordsman or Horseman, which makes the choice of Knight stand out all the more. Why not call it something like Armored Cavalry which better fits the genericness of the other unit names?

Gaul and France are considered distinct enough to be separate civs, not to mention the fact that the Byzantines are just the Medieval Roman Empire, and called themselves such, but are in the game in addition to Rome. But Chandragupta and Gandhi both lead India despite them being further apart in time than Ambiorix or both of France’s leaders or between Trajan and Basil.

This can also be seen in the available religions. There are currently three different versions of Christianity but only one of Islam and Buddhism. Peter was the only Orthodox follower in base game and Orthodoxy was included but there was no Zen Buddhism for Hojo. There are no options for any kind of Greco-Roman or various American Indian beliefs either. The religions from Path to Nirvana could have been a good corrective to this but were never added to the main game.

The game is heavily Eurocentric and could use some changes away from that direction.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I super agree with you, this game is very eurocentric.
Very good points you said, the tech tree need to change it's name, no make any sense renaiscense era.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The tech and civics trees need to pull in more inspirations from the wider world. This is especially noticeable in the Classical, Medieval and Renaissance Eras. Classical and Merchant Republics, Feudalism, Guilds, Knights and the like draw heavily from Europe, not to mention the name Renaissance itself, yet no similar regional aspects from other parts the world are found outside of wonders and the names for policy cards. Merchant Republics mostly applies to a limited number of Italian cities from the Medieval and Renaissance periods but no unique kind of non-European government is represented in the game.

I agree with you to an extent. The problem is the farther you go into the tech tree it's obviously going to be very Eurocentric because of how developed the European powers were and how that technology spread to the rest of the world, so it would be hard to make a technology tree go past the Medieval Era without being too Eurocentric.

Also I'm not sure what unique kind of non European government they could choose that isn't in the game already. Many places outside of Europe were ruled by an monarchy, theocracy, chiefdom etc.

That being said I will agree with you that the Renaissance Era could be changed in the game to the Early Modern Era, considering that is the era being represented however it still is a Eurocentric name.

Gaul and France are considered distinct enough to be separate civs

And rightly so. The region of Gaul was not limited to just modern day France, but also modern day Belgium and Switzerland. Gaul was conquered by Rome so there is no correlation between the Gallic people and modern day France who were Germanic.

 

[InsidiousMage]

I agree with you to an extent. The problem is the farther you go into the tech tree it's obviously going to be very Eurocentric because of how developed the European powers were and how that technology spread to the rest of the world, so it would be hard to make a technology tree go past the Medieval Era without being too Eurocentric.

Also I'm not sure what unique kind of non European government they could choose that isn't in the game already. Many places outside of Europe were ruled by an monarchy, theocracy, chiefdom etc.

And rightly so. The region of Gaul was not limited to just modern day France, but also modern day Belgium and Switzerland. Gaul was conquered by Rome so there is no correlation between the Gallic people and modern day France who were Germanic.

My main problem is the three eras I mentioned. The Ancient Era and then from Industrial Era forward I'm fine with as is. Europe's influence of the world is pretty strong over the past couple of hundred years and I'm fine with that being reflected in the game.

Path to Nirvana uses Thalassocracy, which is rule by sea or a maritime empire, which I feel is a close enough replacement. Also matches as another -ocracy for the tier 2 governments.

As for Gaul, I'm well aware of that but using the pattern the Firaxis used for India Ambiorix should be a French leader. The Byzantines called themselves Basileia Rhōmaiōn, which means Monarchy of the Romans, but Rome and Byzantium are two separate Civs, not unfairly. However, the same level of distinction is not given to India, despite the almost 2,500 years between the lifetimes of Chandragupta and Gandhi.

 

[Albertan Civfanatic]

The tech and civics trees need to pull in more inspirations from the wider world. This is especially noticeable in the Classical, Medieval and Renaissance Eras. Classical and Merchant Republics, Feudalism, Guilds, Knights and the like draw heavily from Europe, not to mention the name Renaissance itself, yet no similar regional aspects from other parts the world are found outside of wonders and the names for policy cards. Merchant Republics mostly applies to a limited number of Italian cities from the Medieval and Renaissance periods but no unique kind of non-European government is represented in the game.

The horse archer has existed for thousands of years in the Eurasian steppes and a couple hundred in North America yet is limited to two unique units but the Knight, Feudal European Medieval heavy cavalry, is available to every civ in the game. Other unit names are just descriptive, Swordsman or Horseman, which makes the choice of Knight stand out all the more. Why not call it something like Armored Cavalry which better fits the genericness of the other unit names?

Gaul and France are considered distinct enough to be separate civs, not to mention the fact that the Byzantines are just the Medieval Roman Empire, and called themselves such, but are in the game in addition to Rome. But Chandragupta and Gandhi both lead India despite them being further apart in time than Ambiorix or both of France’s leaders or between Trajan and Basil.

This can also be seen in the available religions. There are currently three different versions of Christianity but only one of Islam and Buddhism. Peter was the only Orthodox follower in base game and Orthodoxy was included but there was no Zen Buddhism for Hojo. There are no options for any kind of Greco-Roman or various American Indian beliefs either. The religions from Path to Nirvana could have been a good corrective to this but were never added to the main game.

The game is heavily Eurocentric and could use some changes away from that direction.

You do this and you will kill the Civ franchise.

 

[Evie]

Hardly. Other than maybe renaming the knights (which while often associated with the medieval warrior actually has broader application and is definitely the best way to evoke the idea of the medieval armored cavalry in the english language), these are eminently sensible comments and suggestions that would be to the benefit of the game.

The Medieval-Renaissance (not so sold on including Classical here) tech tree really would benefit from more diversity representing other paths taken by other civilization. It's also pretty stark that units that were in common usage in Europe are generic units, but units that were in common usage on other continents and not in Europe are always reduced to UUs, here again diversity would only help the game. India really is a catch-all terms that cover many extremely distinct cultures that were only properly united and forced together under British occupation and into Independence ; an additional Indian civ would be ideal (and is a common topic of discussion on these forums). And the pre-scripted religions in the game are basically a name and a logo (since beliefs are picked within the game anyway); there is certainly no harm in adding more.

(Though the comparison with the gauls and French is off base: as much as the French like to claim they are descended from the gaul, the link between France and Gaul is actually pretty limited, and Rome and the Franks are much stronger roots of modern France).

Frankly, your dramatic reaction makes me suspect you only read the title of the thread and rushed to whine without reading any of the actual text.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

As far as heavy cavalry goes the only thing I can see them doing is making a universal Cataphract unit unlockable in the Classical Era that could upgrade into a Lancer in the Renaissance then into Tanks, which could be a way to skip Feudal European Knights. That being said certain civs could get unique knights in the Medieval Era.

The question is would Firaxis go this route? Then again they could easily go back to one unit per era so the Knight would still probably be the Medieval Era heavy cavalry unit.

 

[criZp]

The game is heavily Eurocentric and could use some changes away from that direction.

The direction is fine, europe is the most interesting continent and the game mainly sells to a western audience, so the familiarity is surely beneficial to the sales. Horse archers are limited to unique mainly because they are always considered to be OP and firaxis apparently isn't able to balance them.

 

[The Civs 6]

I actually agree with this.

And it boils down to this - the dark ages, middle ages, enlightenment - these aren't things that just automatically happen to civilizations. While Europe was in the dark ages, the Byzantine empire was at its height, and the Islamic and Asian worlds were seemingly well-integrated in a series of prosperous, organized and dare I say advanced societies. Conversely, while the European peoples were going through the enlightenment, just to take one example, the Chinese were ruled by a reactionary Manchu regime (but more importantly were crippled by a demographic trap due to labor-intensive agriculture).

These are things that need to be explained by what the player does in Civ, rather than being foregone steps on the path to civilization.

And to respond to the "Europe is the most important continent" - well in the timeframe we are talking about, it wasn't. Before the 12th century, Europe was an unimportant backwater that was probably too poor to be worth conquering. All the action was in the Middle East and Asia (and maybe Africa, I don't know). And before the Greek and Roman Empire, again, Europe was irrelevant to world history and the action was elsewhere.

 

[Henri Christophe]

about name of eras can be used other nations names, for example, the scramble of Africa is know in Zulu as Mfecane. If have a Renascensce era in this game, why not have also a Mfecane later?

 

[Ryansinbela]

For my project I used Eurocentric names and structured it based on LordofWarN02’s names

Neolithic
Ancient
Classical
Early Postclassical
Late Postclassical
Early Modern
Imperial
Industrial
Modern
Postmodern
Contemporary
Future

although after reading some ideas from Boris Gudenuf I may do eras differently (Perhaps tech groups based on eras)

 

[Henri Christophe]

How about use stuffs age, as for example. Bronze age, Iron age, Plastic age.

 

[The Civs 6]

How about use stuffs age, as for example. Bronze age, Iron age, Plastic age.

Not objective, either. The advent of the iron age is different in different places. And then you have gunpowder - created in China, used mostly in fireworks and niche weapons, converted by Europeans later into guns and explosives, and not at all known outside of the old world until the Columbian exchange.

A coherent and inclusive framework for the passage of time and the development of civilization would be an interesting, tricky and time-consuming challenge.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Not objective, either. The advent of the iron age is different in different places. And then you have gunpowder - created in China, used mostly in fireworks and niche weapons, converted by Europeans later into guns and explosives, and not at all known outside of the old world until the Columbian exchange.

A coherent and inclusive framework for the passage of time and the development of civilization would be an interesting, tricky and time-consuming challenge.

so China arrive first in gunpowder age and native american needed the columbian exchange to enter in gunpowder age, I guess this name still better than Renascense. Because, for bad or for good, all nations one day found the gun powder, but a lot of nations never had a Renasceinse. Can I speak about Mali renascense? I don't think so.

Renascense era deffinitily must go out of this game

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

so China arrive first in gunpowder age and native american needed the columbian exchange to enter in gunpowder age, I guess this name still better than Renascense. Because, for bad or for good, all nations one day found the gun powder, but a lot of nations never had a Renasceinse. Can I speak about Mali renascense? I don't think so.

Renascense era deffinitily must go out of this game

Just rename it Early Modern Era because that's the time period of what it's supposed to represent.

 

[The Civs 6]

so China arrive first in gunpowder age and native american needed the columbian exchange to enter in gunpowder age, I guess this name still better than Renascense. Because, for bad or for good, all nations one day found the gun powder, but a lot of nations never had a Renasceinse. Can I speak about Mali renascense? I don't think so.

Renascense era deffinitily must go out of this game

And that age name is path dependent on what happened in our earth's history. Maybe age names should be computer-generated by what happens in the game?

 

[Ryansinbela]

And maybe instead, tech tree ages should be based on Number categories
0 Neolithic
1 Ancient
2 Postclassical
3 Industrial
4 Modern
5 Future

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And that age name is path dependent on what happened in our earth's history. Maybe age names should be computer-generated by what happens in the game?

You are the first to learn about a new era by discovering Games and Recreation. Therefore you have entered the Games and Recreation Era.
Not sure if it would work like this but it's kind of an interesting way to play especially if this game is a what if this happened scenario.

 

[The Civs 6]

You are the first to learn about Games and Recreation in the new era. Therefore you have entered the Games and Recreation Era.
Not sure if it would work like this but it's kind of an interesting way to play especially if this game is a what if this happened scenario.

AKA the 21st century baby!

 

[Ryansinbela]

Perhaps the names are set and have specific names that appear under certain criteria