[R&F] On the Topic of Civ Representation

[Legacy of Smiles]

Not all civs are represented equal. Take England for example - their UA is "British Museum" and I feel this is utterly inadequate in representing the country. So I want to ask your thoughts: which civs do you feel are well represented in this game and which do you feel were designed the wrong way?

 

[ferretbacon]

I'll do one of each.

I think Rome was represented pretty fantastically. Its uniques really push that Roman feel of expansion alongside infrastructure and civic refinement.

On the other hand, I'll have to second "England." Even with British Museum out and Workshop of the World in with Gathering Storm, England feels too heavily weighted towards its British side, made doubly awkward with Scotland's representation in the game (the Highlander itself being a British unit). It should either be relabeled as Britain or it should try to incorporate more purely English elements. As of now, the Sea Dog is the only thing English about the English.

I'll add that Germany is in the same situation. The U-boat is modern Germany, but the rest is the HRE.

 

[Haig]

I was a bit bummed about Scotland, I generally like that civs represent a wide range of eras but the Highlander is wearing British Army's kit and the golf club seems a bit.... cheesy. They could probably have used a more distinct scottish unit like a broadsword warrior.
Scotland's civ UA is cool though.

I disagree about England with you guys. Yeah it's more British empire than English empire, but they truly do the British thing well:
Pax Britannica makes England this imperialistic power that settles around the globe and sends redcoats to do the dirty work, while stuffing British Museum with stolen treasures. RN Dockyard and Sea dog enhance the naval side of history, after all without the Royal Navy the empire would have not been possible. New Gathering Storm ability for the civ looks cool as well.

I understand that some don't like the flavor of the civ but I think it's very fun.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

England feels too heavily weighted towards its British side

As an Englishman, I honestly have no idea what that means.

 

[Legacy of Smiles]

As an Englishman, I honestly have no idea what that means.

British = UK, English = before the UK

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Maybe it's just me but I think that Russia having as many religious bonuses that it has seems off to me. I can get behind the Lavra, because how else are you going to put the Russian onion domes in the game, but still.
I would like it better if mother Russia would give extra food and production to tundra tiles. I do like it that Russian units will not take as much damage in blizzards however.
I'd like for Russia to be a production and science powerhouse which is why I thought that a Soviet leader like Lenin, not Stalin, would be a good alt leader.

I can somewhat agree with England, though with the new UA, it doesn't feel as British anymore, at least in the name. And I have a feeling Eleanor, if she is the leader, will make it more English...and hopefully not French.

Sumeria is also mentioned a lot but I just change the name of the UA to Cradle of Civilization and it makes somewhat since.

As for the Civ that is represented well I have to go with Spain. I learned a lot about Spain in history growing up in Texas how they came to the new world with their conquistadors and set up their missions, visiting some myself. An exploration and aggressive religious Civ represented well with Phillip.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

British = UK, English = before the UK

England didn't cease to exist once the UK was formed. There is absolutely nothing Scottish or Welsh about the England as represented in the game, it is clearly England, British Museum, Pax Britannica and all.

 

[Jewelrunna]

I think they nailed the Mongols spot on. Probably the best representation they've had in a Civ game to date, and they're actually fun to play.

I know that a lot of people aren't happy with England, and I agree, but I think that France also deserves a mention. They seem like a hodgepodge of different traits that don't work together all that well; the wonder spamming seems kinda fair, but not quite representative, the chateau is horrible, and the Garde Imperiale doesn't really convey the power of the French military. Plus Catherine—while a noteworthy figure whom I'm not too upset about being in Civ in and of herself—isn't necessarily the best representative for all of French history, and her ability doesn't gel all to well with France's other traits.

Oh, and Egypt is wack too. Cleopatra isn't a good choice for representing Egypt.

 

[ferretbacon]

England didn't cease to exist once the UK was formed. There is absolutely nothing Scottish or Welsh about the England as represented in the game, it is clearly England, British Museum, Pax Britannica and all.

Right, but it fails to adequately represent the breadth of English history despite the civ being called England. It's so weighted toward being post-union Britain that it may as well be called Britain. Queen Victoria, redcoats, Pax Britannica, British Museum... to me, it's British Museum that takes it a little too far (and Workshop of the World as it applies to the industrialization of 19th century Britain has the same issue). I like the cultural aspect of British Museum, but think it could be represented more specifically to England if it were to draw inspiration instead from English literature, perhaps, rather than plundering artifacts from Egypt during the throes of its imperialist phase.

 

[Arent11]

Not all civs are represented equal. Take England for example - their UA is "British Museum" and I feel this is utterly inadequate in representing the country. So I want to ask your thoughts: which civs do you feel are well represented in this game and which do you feel were designed the wrong way?

I have to say that I'm pretty much unhappy with everyone There are very few civs that have a clearly defined theme. Almost all of them feel as if the designers threw together a little bit of culture here, a little bit of faith there.

If they would allow me to customize my own civ, all that would be irrelevant.

Let's take england for example. It's of course known for seafaring & industrialization. So I would just go with that. Give them ships of the line or privateers, a little bit more movement or combat strength. In addition, a small science advantage, maybe a better university/queen's college.

Then you would have a seafaring, scientific civ. It wouldn't be strong, but fun.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Right, but it fails to adequately represent the breadth of English history despite the civ being called England. It's so weighted toward being post-union Britain that it may as well be called Britain. Queen Victoria, redcoats, Pax Britannica, British Museum... to me, it's British Museum that takes it a little too far (and Workshop of the World as it applies to the industrialization of 19th century Britain has the same issue). I like the cultural aspect of British Museum, but think it could be represented more specifically to England if it were to draw inspiration instead from English literature, perhaps, instead of plundering artifacts from Egypt during the throes of its imperialist phase.

I would have no problem with it being called Britain but then of course you can't have the excellent Scotland as a separate civ.

It's hard to represent the full breadth of English history with a few unique mechanics in a video game, so I have no problem with the direction taken, only the implementation (in the sense that England are bad).

I really think it is an exercise in pedantry to worry about it, the civ is clearly England.

 

[humble serf]

England could easily be geared towards the domination, cultural and scientific victories, but from a balance point of view it makes sense to pick just 2 of those (England would be overpowered if it had strong bonuses to all three, and useless if it had three weak bonuses all pulling it in different directions). Initially the devs picked domination and culture, which would have been fine -- but archaeology is a ridiculous mechanic to make the driving force behind the English cultural victory. Sure, the British Empire probably got the best ancient loot during the 1790s-1920s "heyday" of archaeology which civ best represents, but that's only because they were in the strongest position to conduct excavations across the globe during that period. The French, the Germans and even the Danes were doing exactly the same thing at the same time, and getting plenty of great loot of their own. The British Museum isn't in the top 5 worldwide in terms of number of visitors; the Louvre is #1.

More to the point, England's cultural prominence has very little to do with its museums. If England's going to be winning a cultural victory, it ought to be through literature (and from the mid-20th century onwards, popular music). Perhaps no other country produced as many internationally renowned writers during the previous millennium, and few countries can rival England's musical output since 1960 in terms of international prominence. Naturally that has a lot to do with English becoming the world's most widely-understood language, but that's exactly the kind of thing that a Civ 6 cultural victory represents: everybody speaks your language. Seriously, though, how many people think of Lord Elgin before they think of Shakespeare, the Rolling Stones or Jane Austen when they think about English culture?

It looks like they're switching England's focus to domination and science in the coming expansion, which is fine by me. A science victory fuelled by iron, coal and engineers makes far more sense for England than a culture victory based on museums.

 

[Haig]

Japan and Australia are very well designed civs.

Again, I find it refreshing that Japan has also one modern bonus, the Electronics factory. It's fun to play when you haven't "used" all you uniques in the first eras.

But I think in the end everyone has in their heads what a certain civ should represent, like the designers have theirs.

 

[Jewelrunna]

England could easily be geared towards the domination, cultural and scientific victories, but from a balance point of view it makes sense to pick just 2 of those (England would be overpowered if it had strong bonuses to all three, and useless if it had three weak bonuses all pulling it in different directions). Initially the devs picked domination and culture, which would have been fine -- but archaeology is a ridiculous mechanic to make the driving force behind the English cultural victory. Sure, the British Empire probably got the best ancient loot during the 1790s-1920s "heyday" of archaeology which civ best represents, but that's only because they were in the strongest position to conduct excavations across the globe during that period. The French, the Germans and even the Danes were doing exactly the same thing at the same time, and getting plenty of great loot of their own. The British Museum isn't in the top 5 worldwide in terms of number of visitors; the Louvre is #1.

More to the point, England's cultural prominence has very little to do with its museums. If England's going to be winning a cultural victory, it ought to be through literature (and from the mid-20th century onwards, popular music). Perhaps no other country produced as many internationally renowned writers during the previous millennium, and few countries can rival England's musical output since 1960 in terms of international prominence. Naturally that has a lot to do with English becoming the world's most widely-understood language, but that's exactly the kind of thing that a Civ 6 cultural victory represents: everybody speaks your language. Seriously, though, how many people think of Lord Elgin before they think of Shakespeare, the Rolling Stones or Jane Austen when they think about English culture?

It looks like they're switching England's focus to domination and science in the coming expansion, which is fine by me. A science victory fuelled by iron, coal and engineers makes far more sense for England than a culture victory based on museums.

Agree completely, though it'd be nice if they buffed England enough to the point where they actually felt like the naval power they were. The Sea Dog is maybe the worst unique naval unit in the game, rivaled in its mediocrity only by the U-Boat. Their colonization niche also just doesn't work in Civ, at least not by its design; just try to colonize a place and then build the RND fast enough to save your city from loyalty pressure, I bet 9 out of 10 times you won't be able to do it. Just give them back the Ship of the Line, please.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

England could easily be geared towards the domination, cultural and scientific victories, but from a balance point of view it makes sense to pick just 2 of those (England would be overpowered if it had strong bonuses to all three, and useless if it had three weak bonuses all pulling it in different directions). Initially the devs picked domination and culture, which would have been fine -- but archaeology is a ridiculous mechanic to make the driving force behind the English cultural victory. Sure, the British Empire probably got the best ancient loot during the 1790s-1920s "heyday" of archaeology which civ best represents, but that's only because they were in the strongest position to conduct excavations across the globe during that period. The French, the Germans and even the Danes were doing exactly the same thing at the same time, and getting plenty of great loot of their own. The British Museum isn't in the top 5 worldwide in terms of number of visitors; the Louvre is #1.

More to the point, England's cultural prominence has very little to do with its museums. If England's going to be winning a cultural victory, it ought to be through literature (and from the mid-20th century onwards, popular music). Perhaps no other country produced as many internationally renowned writers during the previous millennium, and few countries can rival England's musical output since 1960 in terms of international prominence. Naturally that has a lot to do with English becoming the world's most widely-understood language, but that's exactly the kind of thing that a Civ 6 cultural victory represents: everybody speaks your language. Seriously, though, how many people think of Lord Elgin before they think of Shakespeare, the Rolling Stones or Jane Austen when they think about English culture?

It looks like they're switching England's focus to domination and science in the coming expansion, which is fine by me. A science victory fuelled by iron, coal and engineers makes far more sense for England than a culture victory based on museums.

That's a fair assessment but then Austen and the Rolling Stones are from post union England so that makes them British.

 

[Zaarin]

Maybe it's just me but I think that Russia having as many religious bonuses that it has seems off to me.

Fyodor Dostoevsky would like a word with you.

 

[Tech Osen]

Japan and Australia are very well designed civs.

Australia was first settled by the British in the late 18th century, yet the Outback station is unlocked by Guilds, a medieval civic...

 

[Arent11]

Maybe it's just me but I think that Russia having as many religious bonuses that it has seems off to me. I can get behind the Lavra, because how else are you going to put the Russian onion domes in the game, but still.

Russia had originally the "siberian riches" ability which was just nice. Together with claiming more land this would lead to a nice production boost, in addition to the ability to chop lots of woods.

The tundra ability would in my humble opinion much better fit Norway. After all, they settled greenland and iceland.

 

[oakflesh]

I have concern with Hungary. The parliament building would be way better unique building than the thermal baths

 

[humble serf]

Got so caught up talking about museums that I forgot to say anything positive -- the Aztecs stand out for me as a really nicely-designed civ. Go to war with everyone immediately, focus on killing units rather than taking cities, capture slaves, use them to develop enormous cities, give your people more sport and chocolate than they could ever want. And even though it's largely useless, from a flavour point-of-view that +1 Great General point from the Tlachtli is just... *kisses fingers*.

That's a fair assessment but then Austen and the Rolling Stones are from post union England so that makes them British.

Honestly I don't see the point of these pre-/post-union arguments with regard to England and Scotland. Englishness and Scottishness didn't disappear in 1707 (or at any time after that); Britishness just grew up alongside them.

And Jane Austen and Mick Jagger are certainly more English than Lord Elgin (who was Scottish, and who gave the British Museum by far its most important exhibit ).