New Warlords civs

[CyberChrist]

The Vikings as a nation should not be in this mod (or in Civ at all imho), mainly as there was never a Viking nation as such.

However, the Scandinavians should be in the game as a collective nation as their contribution to world history since the Viking("Sea Raider") days have been no less important than many of the other nations also in the mod/civ atm - and also, of course, since Scandinavians are still around and going quite strong.

I would be perfectly fine with them having a UU called Viking Berserker and/or Viking Longship to represent their heritage and the Viking era properly.

 

[McA123]

So...You're saying we shouldn't include a Civ on the basis of it's name? If the name was changed to "Scandinavians", what difference would it make?

 

[Prestidigitator]

I think he has a point, not one that I necessarily believe in (I don't have much knowledge in Northern European civilizations), but I think what he is saying is that the Scaninavians were more historically significant, or probably more collective than just saying 'the Vikings'.
Sort of why we chose 'Babylon' as a Mesopotamian civ rather than 'Akkad' for example.

 

[mitsho]

Vikings means "Sea raiders" and refers to that specific time of the Scandinavian civilization. It is the time of the pagan barbaric tribes which believed in Valhalla and sailed to Vinland, America. Scandinavians is a term that summarizes the people of Norway, Sweden, Denmark (Iceland, the Faroers, etc. ... but not necessarily Finland). Their history includes the Vikings, but also adds everything from the Calmar union to Abba.

It's just a name change, nothing more. It's similar to the English/British-question. In other words, would you like it if we talked of New England, but meant whole America?

mitsho

 

[Prestidigitator]

Vikings means "Sea raiders" and refers to that specific time of the Scandinavian civilization. It is the time of the pagan barbaric tribes which believed in Valhalla and sailed to Vinland, America. Scandinavians is a term that summarizes the people of Norway, Sweden, Denmark (Iceland, the Faroers, etc. ... but not necessarily Finland). Their history includes the Vikings, but also adds everything from the Calmar union to Abba.

It's just a name change, nothing more. It's similar to the English/British-question. In other words, would you like it if we talked of New England, but meant whole America?

mitsho

That's what I thought...

 

[McA123]

It just seems like a rather stupid idea to base the opinion of not including a civ on, to me. If we called the English the British, would it be a good idea not to include them? As far as I'm concerned, it's just a name for the same group of peoples used in a different time period. Italians aren't Romans anymore (unless they live in Rome). I'm not saying that it's a bad idea to change the name from Vikings to Scandinavians, I just can't see why you wouldn't want to include them if they were called the Vikings.

 

[mitsho]

He isn't advocating excluding the Vikings, but to rename them to the Scandinavians. Pasta Is that this hard to get. I know it's not that clear from what he wrote, but nevertheless, it's probably the idea.

mitsho

 

[Arkaeyn]

For gameplay purposes they would prevent England from settling the pennisula, but where would they expand? Iceland, Greenland, and Labrodor, I guess. Maybe they would do more (post-1066) than just fill space. I'd welcome the Vikings, they just aren't on the tippy-top of priorities (from my point of view).

The Scandanavian powers were also important in Europe in the Renaissance and even a bit later, especially Sweden, which was one of the prime superpowers of 17th century Europe.

 

[Eddiit]

The name Viking is fine. It does an accurate job of portraying the scandanavian people in their most influential time period in history. Just like the Romans represent italy. Italy has never been more important than when it was ROme and Scandanavia has never been more important than when it was collectiveley known as Viking land.

 

[CyberChrist]

While the Vikings were Scandinavians the Scandinavians were never known as "Viking land" - collectively or not - and noone with even the smallest degree of historical insight regarding the nordic peoples would say otherwise.

So no Eddiit - the term Viking is not fine and does not accurately portray the Scandinavian peoples as a civ throughout history. It is as accurate as calling the English for "The Pirates" just because they had extensive privateer practices at one point.

 

[Willowmound]

In French contemporary writings (800-1100), Scandinavians are sometimes called Normanni (Northmen), sometimes Dani (Danes), regardless of where they actually came from (i.e. a man from Norway could be called 'Dane' one day and 'Northman' the next -- the same for a man from Denmark). But they were never called Vikings. Not in France.

Only on the British isles were Scandinavians occasionally called Vikings. At other times they were Danes or Northmen. Again, regardless of actual origin.

The word Viking -- while in the 13th century sagas indeed used to mean 'sea reaider' -- does in itself only mean 'of the bay'. Originally it probably referred specifically to people from Viken, the land around the Oslo fjord (called Follen fjord in Viking times). Viken means 'the bay'. A person from Viken would be a Viking, linguistically. The term was probably applied to all Scandinavians (on the British isles) in the same way 'Dane' and 'Northman' was.

And that's the story of the word 'Viking'.

Do with it as you see fit.

 

[McA123]

I just don't see any need to change it. "Viking" would be the more common term, and even if it wasn't used back then to refer to the Scandinavians of that period as a whole, it is NOW. I'm not saying it shouldn't be changed, i'm just saying that I see no reason to.

 

[Head Serf]

It should be changed. It would be very easy to do, and would be an improvement on the standard game.

 

[CyberChrist]

I just don't see any need to change it. "Viking" would be the more common term, and even if it wasn't used back then to refer to the Scandinavians of that period as a whole, it is NOW. I'm not saying it shouldn't be changed, i'm just saying that I see no reason to.

Are you saying you still call Danes, Icelandics, Swedes, Norwegians etc. for Vikings in any other situation than when you are trying to be funny or lighten up a conversation? If you are then you might be advised that most Scandinavians will take offense of being called that in a serious tone today(even if they are often proud of their Viking heritage).

As I already said in my first post then a Scandinavian civ with the UUs of a "Viking Berserker" and/or "Viking Longboat" would serve to represent both the Viking age and the entire cause of history far better. A Scandinavian civ would in fact allow for far more varied Leaders also representing later Scandinavian periods (Magrethe I/II, Gustavus Adolphus etc.).

In truth then the only place where a Viking civ might be appropriate would be a scenario focusing around the middle ages - or a fantasy one.

 

[McA123]

No no no, I wouldn't refer to them as Vikings now, but I would refer to the Scandinavians of the "Viking" times as Vikings, collectively. But the Romans don't change to the Italians after a certain date, and the Aztecs don't change to the Mexicans. I don't even see why I'm arguing, I don't really even care. If you think it'd be better as Scandinavians, then whatever, I see no reason to change it or to leave it as it is.

 

[CyberChrist]

@McA123:
I am sorry to say this but you analogies are poorly chosen

1) Rome was an Empire that existed over 1000 years - the Vikings(by that name) was never even a collective nation.

2) The Aztech Empire fell when it was conquered by the Spanish - Scandinavia was never conquered(WW2 not withstanding) and are still inhabited and controlled by people with Viking heritage.

 

[McA123]

No, I was just saying that YES, the Aztecs were conquered and died and so forth, but in the mod they usually survive (and by usually I mean almost always). But as I said, i don't really even care. I don't even know why I'm continuing to post in this thread. This is the last thing I will say on the matter; you clearly know more about this than I do, and if you think it would be best to change the "Vikings" to "Scandinavians" or something else, then be my guest. I won't object.

Edit: And about the Roman one, meh.

 

[Willowmound]

Wouldn't it be possible to have civs' names change over time? It seems very appropriate for the mod, what with dynamic rise and fall and all that.

To have Rome become Italy, Ottomans become Turks, and yes, Vikings become Scandinavia?

Would that be difficult? Is there anyone who would object to this? Someone must have thought of this already, surely!

 

[Prestidigitator]

Wouldn't it be possible to have civs' names change over time? It seems very appropriate for the mod, what with dynamic rise and fall and all that.

To have Rome become Italy, Ottomans become Turks, and yes, Vikings become Scandinavia?

Would that be difficult? Is there anyone who would object to this? Someone must have thought of this already, surely!

... And England Becomes United Kingdom
Babylon becomes Iraq
Aztecs become Mexico
Inca becomes Peru
Ottomans become Turkey
Rome becomes Italy

... and that's about it really, if you really want to discuss this...

 

[Willowmound]

I'd like to discuss whether this will be implemented.