New DLC anytime soon?

[seancolorado]

They really did. Indonesia has been such an integral piece to the world puzzle that based off of what you said alone I'm surprised they aren't a Civ mainstay. They are truly up there with China and India yet they are not advertised as such in popular culture. Civilization needs to take that step in putting Indonesia on the pedestal in which it belongs. It's crazy that they managed to establish friendly trading relations with so many great empires from all walks of life, as you just mentioned

(Yes, I am quoting myself...)

but I just wanted to clarify something: The sole reason Indonesia is not up there in popular culture despite having the same levels of influence on the world is because Indonesians like to stay in their country. History and the winds of time have led the Chinese and Indians on foreign shores but Indonesians have been pretty happy staying put on their islands and beaches (hey, I would be too) which explains the lack of "advertisement" in popular culture

Just want to point out I'm from Colorado and why am I defending Indonesia with so much passion? Your guess is as good as mine

 

[Menzies]

(Yes, I am quoting myself...)

but I just wanted to clarify something: The sole reason Indonesia is not up there in popular culture despite having the same levels of influence on the world is because Indonesians like to stay in their country. History and the winds of time have led the Chinese and Indians on foreign shores but Indonesians have been pretty happy staying put on their islands and beaches (hey, I would be too) which explains the lack of "advertisement" in popular culture

Just want to point out I'm from Colorado and why am I defending Indonesia with so much passion? Your guess is as good as mine

Up there with China and India, that's pushing it a bit... A lot actually...

...yes, they are significant, but they certainly aren't on that level. Saying they are as significant as China is putting them up there with the very best.

 

[seancolorado]

Up there with China and India, that's pushing it a bit... A lot actually...

...yes, they are significant, but they certainly aren't on that level. Saying they are as significant as China is putting them up there with the very best.

Haha OK maybe a little bit but if you narrow it down to (1) trading and (2) cultural influences then they are definitely up there

 

[Menzies]

Haha OK maybe a little bit but if you narrow it down to (1) trading and (2) cultural influences then they are definitely up there

They are significant, but you're certainly pushing a bit there. To put it another way, they are a good shout, but they aren't demanding of it in the same way as China, India or even Japan.

 

[Matthew.]

I am not seeing Civ5 being overly Eurocentric. I count 12? definite western European countries. And that is including Greece/Rome. I suppose you can throw America in there since it is essentially Europe: The Sequel.

I get the point. I went to school in America, so I am well aware of the issues of European bias in history, but I think Civ5 does a pretty decent job spreading things out. Yeah, it is a bit heavy on the European list, but that is a given. England, Germany, France, Russia, Rome, and Greece are guaranteed to be on the list before you even begin adding other Civs.

Anywho my only point was I am happy so far with the Civs they have added and excited for more regardless which Civs they add.

 

[seancolorado]

They are significant, but you're certainly pushing a bit there. To put it another way, they are a good shout, but they aren't demanding of it in the same way as China, India or even Japan.

Hmmm, I agree they are not as significant but I stand by my belief they had just as much of an influence in terms of trading and cultural prowess. Trading routes especially (which encompasses cuisine/resources, of course). Cultural influences you could argue made less of a dent on a global scale but for sheer levels of sophistication (art, architecture, and philosophy) you can't deny Indonesia is up there with the very best and the most sophisticated - not that it's fair to put a label on what is and what isn't considered important, but hey that's the nature of this thread so we're all taking it with a grain of salt

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I don't believe it's an argument being made from people as much as it's just a simple factual statement about the Civ series. We all realize the eurocentricism is going to stay just so they can sell copies but it's an interesting discussion to have in any case



This is the same kind of biased, lopsided thinking that has the Western world thinking so linearly in the first place. Yes, Civ should continue to use Euro civs to create sales but at the same time they should put a concerted effort in including newer civs the Western world knows less about. Indonesia and other civs mentioned on this thread are only obscure to the ignorant imagination. Civ is a great medium in which to inform - nobody is asking for a history lesson but if they include newer civs then they can create classic civs in the process - how do you think Zulu made its mark?

I agree. THe eurocentrism is a fact. But we really shouldn't go around arguing its merits with regards to Civ. I'm not here to stand behind it or critique it. What annoys me is when we get into these "guess the next civ" competitions and people start bringing up really obscure or unrecognized cultures and then defend the selection by pointing out how we would all love it too if only our society were not blinded to the unique majesties of that obscure culture. Obscurity is an immediate knock against any civ for DLC.

DLC civs will be chosen based on what the general public in our society has heard of, not what someone thinks they really need to hear about. Civ is not the tool by which eurocentrism will be broken, if it ever gets broken. This isn't a social movement, it's a game.

If some one wishes upon a star for some obscure culture, don't argue the merits of it. Just roll your eyes and move on because it's not going to happen. It's not worth discussing anymore than someone hoping for dinosaur mounted units.

And as I said in my Post Script, you are more likely to find the obscura in the vanilla game because they can sow it in among the better known ones and it won't affect sales. DLC civs have to sell purely on their own merits in the eyes of the general public. Fan favorites like the Zulu are a sure hit. The Zulu were also an enemy of a western civ and were featured as villians in movies, which is something else they have going for them.

These same civ concepts come up every month and have done so since they announced CivV. We really haven't covered anything new. If your idea isn't a Western Civ nor an enemy or competitor of a Western Civ, it's not worth discussing because eurocentrism decides what gets made. You hate it? Sure you do. Let's stop talking about it though, because it's not going to change for Civ V because it's a game, not a social movement. Save it for the Civ IV forum.

And not you specifically, seancolorado. I'm addresssing this to everyone who has derailed this thread from its original purpose of determining if a new DLC is coming soon.

 

[Snoopaloop]

It's not worth discussing anymore than someone hoping for dinosaur mounted units.

But we were given dinosaurs before.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=69439

I really think a Caveman civ, with a dinosaur mounted UU deserves inclusion now that you mention it.

 

[seancolorado]

What annoys me is when we get into these "guess the next civ" competitions and people start bringing up really obscure or unrecognized cultures and then defend the selection by pointing out how we would all love it too if only our society were not blinded to the unique majesties of that obscure culture. Obscurity is an immediate knock against any civ for DLC.

I don't think there is anything wrong with playing guess the next civ. It's clearly a popular enough topic of discussion that it's constantly brought up in all these threads and I tend to learn a lot about what the fans are thinking about - I really like that, I find it interesting.

As for the civ I mentioned, they may be obscure and unrecognized within Western textbooks/media but clearly not within the civ community: They are tied for first in that poll for "what civ should be next?" so they certainly do not fall under the category of a civ that "we would all love it too if only our society were not blinded to the unique majesties of that obscure culture." I was just defending the fact that they are not at all obscure within the civ community so it's due time for their inclusion since, unless I'm forgetting, they haven't seen a single Civ inclusion in the entire series despite their constant requests

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree obscurity is an immediate knock against any civ for DLC

 

[seancolorado]

But before this thread is derailed any further I want to direct everybody to the Civs ideas thread. I wasn't the one who started with the ideas but I sure as hell threw some wood into the fire. I'll be continuing this discussion there if anybody wants to join:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=433030&page=98

And to recap what this thread was originally about:

Question: Will there be a new DLC sometime soon?

Answer: Blah blah blah, nobody really knows

 

[Icaria909]

Actually, the mississippians had a remarkably UN-centralised power structure. They were certainly not an empire in the european manner of the word, but they can and should be included on their own merits. They were a vast cultural power spreading throughout much of north america.

The idea that native americans did not have large cities is absurd. Cahokia was huge at its peak, and Tenochtitlan was one of the largest cities in the world at the time of contact. A lot of our conceptions of these societies are unfortunately still centered around the original opinions of explorers and conquistadors who travelled to these places and saw these people as barbaric and uncultured, largely because they weren't christian and because they seemed so different (not backward).

The idea of the "tribal societies" of america is an entirely artificial construct. Some were tribal of course, but the vast majority had incredibly complex socio-political relationships within their communities and with others. There were trading networks connecting quito to california by sea and large scale migration was occurring all over the 2 continents, all this was happening BEFORE Europeans arrived i might add.

These societies ABSOLUTELY relied on the economic strength of their cities to advance their societies, as well as science. They were not static and unchanging! The Inca's developed one of the most complex bureaucracy systems of their time using ropes, the anasazi developed a highly complex and high yielding system of agriculture and Cahokia had a religious and cultural influence on their continent rivaling Rome. I should also add that a large number of these societies could track and often accurately calculate the movements of the moon and constellations in the sky before the majority of Europe.

There is an incredible case for promoting the indigenous peoples of the americas but due to a lack of education on the topic the general public turns to preconceptions from 16th century spaniards who called aztec priests cannibals while they ate each other because they didn't know how to grow crops.

I'm sorry, but my original post lacked clarification. The Native American societies I am referring to are Native American Societies of North America, excluding those groups in Central America and Modern Day Mexico. It is true that the Mexica, Mayan city-states, Inca, and other Native groups of South America did have highly centralized civilizations that do mirror in many ways the development of European civilizations and fit very well into the mold of a civilization game. However, the societies north of the Rio Grande river from the 16th to the 19th centuries do not.

In regards to Mississippian societies, I was referring to the fact that one still sees semi-divine chiefs who held significant power over their societies, even if those societies were confined to a single city or small geographic region. Comparing these chiefs of the Mississippian Pre-contact period with Chiefs of the Creek or Choctaw nations two hundred years later, and these new chiefs have very little, if any, ability to force their people to do anything they don't want to do.

I do not, nor do I think any historian, would argue these tribal societies were at all static. Considering diaries of English imperialists like Narne, it becomes clear that tribal societies like the Creeks operated because of willingness to adhere to incredibly complex social norms and expectations. These societies were anything but simplistic or stagnant. However, the ways these cultures developed was linked to their trade relations with Europeans and was not based on their cities (unlike the cases of the Mexica, Inca, Maya, etc).

It is also true that there were trade routes that connected all of North America prior to European arrival, and many of these routes continued to function well into the colonial age. These Native American groups were complex societies, with a great degree of cultural refinement, and clearly represent a particular development of civilizations. My point was that their path of civilization was unique in comparison to the rest of the world and does not fit with the way the CiV series tries to portray historical development.

Edit: didn't see that you moved this discussion elsewhere...

 

[seancolorado]

Edit: didn't see that you moved this discussion elsewhere...

I don't exactly have the authority to move this discussion elsewhere, I just thought it would make sense since that thread I linked loves that sort of discussion*

*Edit: Loves that sort of discussion when paired with actual concrete ideas for civs/UA's/etc themselves.

You (and some others here) have a lot of great ideas from what I've been reading. You guys should channel your knowledge into coming up with some ideas for new civs. Who knows, maybe myself or someone else will pick up on the ideas and make a mod out of it

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I don't think there is anything wrong with playing guess the next civ. It's clearly a popular enough topic of discussion that it's constantly brought up in all these threads and I tend to learn a lot about what the fans are thinking about - I really like that, I find it interesting.

As for the civ I mentioned, they may be obscure and unrecognized within Western textbooks/media but clearly not within the civ community: They are tied for first in that poll for "what civ should be next?" so they certainly do not fall under the category of a civ that "we would all love it too if only our society were not blinded to the unique majesties of that obscure culture." I was just defending the fact that they are not at all obscure within the civ community so it's due time for their inclusion since, unless I'm forgetting, they haven't seen a single Civ inclusion in the entire series despite their constant requests

Bear in mind that we are Civ Fanatics, not Civ Average Players. We are the best informed. We have arcane knowledge of history. We do not represent the average player.

Firaxis may love us because we are the finicky early adopters, but what they really want is to lure the average player to buy their DLC. They want a several thousand people in Chicago to think, "Hey, my grandpa is Polish. Maybe I'll dust off Civ V, buy that Poland DLC and have warm, fuzzy nostalgia for my grandpa's stories of the old country." Or, "Zulu! Just like in Civ IV. I'll go check out Civ V. I hear it's gotten better." Or some other approximation thereof. They don't want people to think, "Civ V Indonesia. Isn't that some island with cannibals or something?". That doesn't sell.

Now, in case your priming up to ask me why Polynesia was a DLC when it has a weird island cannibal vibe, I'll point out that they shoehorned the 3 best known things about Polynesia into the civ: Hawaii, Easter Island, and New Zealand. Compounding fame.

So what would the average Ancient Aliens-watching American think about Indonesia? It's got a lot of Muslims.
It's got volcanoes.
Some Wal Mart products are made there.
Obama lived there once.
environmental issues.

Not exactly anything to stir up curiousity. Something has to happen there to make the Western World see that Indonesia the way you do. Revving up Civ Fanatics message boards isn't going to get the general public to clamor for more Indonesia.

I'm not saying Indonesia isn't a legitimate culture. It is. I also have confidence that Firaxis could do something spectacular with Indonesia. But the average casual player would hardly be interested in finding out about the mechanics if the name or leader doesn't intrigue them. It's just not going to be made into DLC. It's better to hope for it to be included in an expansion or Civ VI vanilla.

 

[seancolorado]

Bear in mind that we are Civ Fanatics, not Civ Average Players. We are the best informed. We have arcane knowledge of history. We do not represent the average player.

Firaxis may love us because we are the finicky early adopters, but what they really want is to lure the average player to buy their DLC. They want a several thousand people in Chicago to think, "Hey, my grandpa is Polish. Maybe I'll dust off Civ V, buy that Poland DLC and have warm, fuzzy nostalgia for my grandpa's stories of the old country." Or, "Zulu! Just like in Civ IV. I'll go check out Civ V. I hear it's gotten better." Or some other approximation thereof. They don't want people to think, "Civ V Indonesia. Isn't that some island with cannibals or something?". That doesn't sell.

Now, in case your priming up to ask me why Polynesia was a DLC when it has a weird island cannibal vibe, I'll point out that they shoehorned the 3 best known things about Polynesia into the civ: Hawaii, Easter Island, and New Zealand. Compounding fame.

So what would the average Ancient Aliens-watching American think about Indonesia? It's got a lot of Muslims.
It's got volcanoes.
Some Wal Mart products are made there.
Obama lived there once.
environmental issues.

Not exactly anything to stir up curiousity. Something has to happen there to make the Western World see that Indonesia the way you do. Revving up Civ Fanatics message boards isn't going to get the general public to clamor for more Indonesia.

I'm not saying Indonesia isn't a legitimate culture. It is. I also have confidence that Firaxis could do something spectacular with Indonesia. But the average casual player would hardly be interested in finding out about the mechanics if the name or leader doesn't intrigue them. It's just not going to be made into DLC. It's better to hope for it to be included in an expansion or Civ VI vanilla.

I said I wouldn't continue this discussion here and I won't. I'm bothered by a few sentiments you discussed so to avoid further rambling: all I can say that is I agree it would be better suited for an expansion, not a DLC. Now, onto other things

 

[Browd]

Of course, go figure, another thread that turned into an "I want Civ X" thread.....if anything, they need to release more DLC so people here have something else to talk about.

Won't fix anything. If they do release another DLC, the howls will begin about why they included this civ, and why they omitted that civ, and when are they going to recognize that persistent euro-centric, asia-centric, north american-centric (pick-'em) biases are ruining the gaming world ....

 

[tnick777]

American Civil War DLC

American Civil War Scenario
Civs involved: USA, Confederates, Sioux, English, French, Quebec City (CS)
Goal: Capture capital of other civ and at least 50% of their lands by turn 200
Goal 2: Try to get French/English to enter war on your side

New Civ:
Sioux - Sitting Bull Leader
UA: Ghost Dance (Every unit you lose grants you +10 , +10; units gain +20% fighting bonus in own territory, Horses provide double quantity)
UU: Mounted Rifleman (Replaces Calvary) (+25% fighting bonus on plains, +2 movement, +10% fighting bonus for every Mounted Rifleman in an adjacent tile)
UB: Teepee (replaces shrine) (Maintenance free, +25% unit production if at war with a civilization with greater literacy)

 

[Menzies]

Won't fix anything. If they do release another DLC, the howls will begin about why they included this civ, and why they omitted that civ, and when are they going to recognize that persistent euro-centric, asia-centric, north american-centric (pick-'em) biases are ruining the gaming world ....

"asia-centric", there is nothing "asia-centric" about the game.

 

[shaglio]

"asia-centric", there is nothing "asia-centric" about the game.

Maybe not “Asia-centric,” but I can name 11 civs whose capitals (and most of their territory) are in Asia:

Japan
China
Korea
Mongolia
Siam
India
Babylonians
Ottomans
Persians
Arabs
Byzantines

And another 4 more whose territory has spilled over into Asia:
Russia
Greeks
Romans
Huns

I might even be missing some more (Egypt perhaps?). I'm not complaining, mind you. As far as civs go, I say, "the more, the merrier."

 

[Menzies]

Maybe not “Asia-centric,” but I can name 11 civs whose capitals (and most of their territory) are in Asia:

Japan
China
Korea
Mongolia
Siam
India
Babylonians
Ottomans
Persians
Arabs
Byzantines

And another 4 more whose territory has spilled over into Asia:
Russia
Greeks
Romans
Huns

I might even be missing some more (Egypt perhaps?). I'm not complaining, mind you. As far as civs go, I say, "the more, the merrier."

Okay, let's start with definitions. What are we calling Asia, and what is Asian centric? Well, if you are lumping everything that is part of Asia as "Asia" in this case, ignoring any definitions of the Middle East (which generally includes parts of North Africa) and blurring the lines of Europe and Asia (which are poorly defined anyhow as they are the same continent), then yes, the following can be considered "Asian":

Japan
China
Korea
Mongolia
Siam
India
Babylonians
Ottomans - Depends on definition
Persians
Arabs
Byzantines

As well as, depending on definition, the Huns. The following however cannot:
Russia
Greeks
Romans

The Greeks are most certainly European, regardless of what territory they held for what time in Asia. The same can be said of Rome and Russia. The reason being is that by the same loose definition you could define England as North American, African, Asian, Oceanian, South American and pretty much everything else, Rome would also be African as well... But I guess you didn't directly include them, so that's something.

Now, if you are to define Asia as the entirety of the continent that is Asia, suddenly things become very different. Asia to many people refers to East Asia and less commonly everything in the continent Asia that is not considered Middle Eastern. If you do define Asia as the whole continent, and there is nothing wrong with that, then the list you presented is a pathetically short list barely covering the vast number of Civilizations that has covered the largest continent that people has inhabited. Considering the shear number of people, the Empires and the fact that it was the birthplace of what would become Western Civilization, only having 11 in comparison to 14 for Europe, effectively the baby brother of what you have defined as Asia. So no, even with that, there is nothing "Asia-centric" about the game still, maybe even light on all things considered.

Personally I rather break the lists up into better bins than just that though. So let's try a different set of definitions:

Europe:
1. Austria
2. Byzantium
3. Celts
4. Denmark
5. England
6. France
7. Germany
8. Greece
9. Huns
10. Netherlands
11. Rome
12. Russia
13. Spain
14. Sweden

Middle East:

1. Arabia
2. Babylon
3. Ottomans
4. Persia

North Africa:

1. Carthage
2. Egypt

Sub Saharan Africa:

1. Ethiopia
2. Songhai

North America (excluding central America):

1. America (United States)
2. Iroquois

South and Central America:

1. Aztecs
2. Incans
3. Mayans

The subcontinent:

1. India

East Asia:

1. China
2. Japan
3. Korea
4. Mongolia
5. Siam

Pacific:

1. Polynesia

Of these, the ones that stick out as under represented are:

1. Sub Saharan Africa
2. East Asia
3. Middle East

This is based on the size of the regions and the historical civilizations that are currently overlooked.

 

[tnick777]

O
Of these, the ones that stick out as under represented are:

1. Sub Saharan Africa
2. East Asia
3. Middle East

This is based on the size of the regions and the historical civilizations that are currently overlooked.

You say those are under represented? Culturally Carthage is Middle Eastern though. Phoenician actually. Their UA is definitely (and quite obviously) derivative of the Phoenicians.

What else would you need for East Asia/South East Asia? Japan, China, India, Korea, and Siam are all represented...

Sub-Sahara I agree on... Zulu, Nubians, or Benin should be represented.

Again we go back to more Native North American representation.

Oh and to cite my source for the 120 mil mark it's this

Most scholars writing at the end of the 19th century estimated the pre-Columbian population at about 10 million; by the end of the 20th century the scholarly consensus had shifted to about 50 million, with some arguing for 100 million or more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#cite_note-1

But I accidentally used the 120 million statistic from this

Death Toll: 95,000,000 to 114,000,000

http://espressostalinist.wordpress.com/genocide/native-american-genocide/

Where it was cited even higher in another study at 120 million... I will find it if you are interested.

Cheers