PhoenicianGold
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2018
- Messages
- 1,828
In what way is Georgia a Poland and Scythia clone?
- "King" Queen - Jadwiga
- Confusingly similar name - Tomyris
- Faith UI: Poland/Scythia
- Civ Ability: Jadwiga agenda
In what way is Georgia a Poland and Scythia clone?
Gran Colombia existed for a mere 10 years! TEN!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Colombia
I hope to never see this in game. Colombia or Venezuela would be a much better choice, since they are nations with, well, more than 10years. They can even have aspects of their brief Gran Colombia existence, but not with this name, please!
Gran Colombia existed for a mere 10 years! TEN!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Colombia
I hope to never see this in game. Colombia or Venezuela would be a much better choice, since they are nations with, well, more than 10years. They can even have aspects of their brief Gran Colombia existence, but not with this name, please!
- "King" Queen - Jadwiga
- Confusingly similar name - Tomyris
- Faith UI: Poland/Scythia
- Civ Ability: Jadwiga agenda
What a boring part of the world, frankly. Just a lot of samey variations on backwater religion.
Personally, I don't see on as really limiting the other. But I'm a big believer in having way more civs than any set limit.
As long as it could still be led by Simon Bolivar I would be fine with that interpretation as well.I hope to never see this in game. Colombia or Venezuela would be a much better choice, since they are nations with, well, more than 10years. They can even have aspects of their brief Gran Colombia existence, but not with this name, please!
Nepal would be a great addition, very unique in culture, and with great gameplay potential
Quality is better than quantity.
You didn't play with Hungary in RFCE?Bulgaria/Thrace - One of my favorite civs to play in the Rhyes and Fall mod-mod for Europe. It's an interesting history for a steppe tribe that adopted Slavic culture and was heavily influenced by the Byzantine sphere. At least two modern nations (Bulgaria and Macedonia) draw their origins from the Bulgarian Empire. Plus I'm listening to the History of Bulgaria Podcast. Not sure about the abilities, but the leaders should be easy to pick.
While I see a need for a degree of quantity as well in this case, I cannot agree that quantity takes place over quality.Normally I'd agree, but not here. All I ask is that they're not game-breaking.
I somehow don't think you do, either.
I'm sure China loves the Euro-/Western-/Anglo-centric bias of the Civilization games. And the fact that they are consistently represented as a "has-been" civ. I think an ancient Tibet civ would be less controversial than you think, especially since there really aren't any other ways to give that quarter of the world population extra representation besides another leader. And worst case, they could just leave it for a DLC pack that just conveniently isn't sold in China. I'm personally torn on the idea, because any sort of ban would prevent the sort of positive global PR reaching younger Chinese, so maybe they do have to be careful. But I'm not completely ruling it out.
Israel I think is less likely than Tibet, if only because the devs could conveniently make a Khazar civ as an alternative. Although a generic "Hebrew" civ led by Baldwin would be relatively safe, apart from the whole Jerusalem capital thing.
As the Cree, Mapuche, and Scotland have shown, Civ can be more documentary in its approach to history than in previous iterations. As long as they very strictly maintained that these are historical representations of the past, I think they can get away with a lot more than when they were some silly children's wish fulfillment game.
My position on "controversial" civs--particularly those of significant historical and cultural import--is that it isn't the responsibility of players to do the political filtering in online fora that the developers almost certainly read. Our responsibility is to steer public discourse toward ideas that we are most likely to purchase and enjoy; to widen options. The developers can do the political research and self-censoring on their own, without us prematurely limiting their ideas.
You didn't play with Hungary in RFCE?
I somehow don't think you do, either.
I'm sure China loves the Euro-/Western-/Anglo-centric bias of the Civilization games. And the fact that they are consistently represented as a "has-been" civ. I think an ancient Tibet civ would be less controversial than you think, especially since there really aren't any other ways to give that quarter of the world population extra representation besides another leader. And worst case, they could just leave it for a DLC pack that just conveniently isn't sold in China. I'm personally torn on the idea, because any sort of ban would prevent the sort of positive global PR reaching younger Chinese, so maybe they do have to be careful. But I'm not completely ruling it out.
Israel I think is less likely than Tibet, if only because the devs could conveniently make a Khazar civ as an alternative. Although a generic "Hebrew" civ led by Baldwin would be relatively safe, apart from the whole Jerusalem capital thing.
As the Cree, Mapuche, and Scotland have shown, Civ can be more documentary in its approach to history than in previous iterations. As long as they very strictly maintained that these are historical representations of the past, I think they can get away with a lot more than when they were some silly children's wish fulfillment game.
My position on "controversial" civs--particularly those of significant historical and cultural import--is that it isn't the responsibility of players to do the political filtering in online fora that the developers almost certainly read. Our responsibility is to steer public discourse toward ideas that we are most likely to purchase and enjoy; to widen options. The developers can do the political research and self-censoring on their own, without us prematurely limiting their ideas.
Doesn't Elder Scrolls have a big Chinese following, animated skeletons and all?I really think you're underestimating how strict China is regarding video games and politics, or even cultural norms, and how impactful such rules are on the gaming industry. Even the biggest gaming companies have to abide by Chinese law or be blocked from the largest gaming market in the world. League of Legends, for instance--they removed Graves' cigar and turned Karthus from a skeleton to a lich because of Chinese restrictions on smoking and bone depictions, changes that happened worldwide despite only being significant in one market.
Doesn't Elder Scrolls have a big Chinese following, animated skeletons and all?