[R&F] On the Topic of Civ Representation

[Art Grin]

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

Yeah the U-Boat is kinda weird. It's a naval UU for a traditionally land based civ and doesn't remotely synergize with the Hansa or Holy Roman Emperor. But overall the representation of Germany this time around is quite nice.

 

[bite]

As an Australian, I am perfectly happy with how they designed Australia

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

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.

Well quite. I would go further and say it could be reasonably argued that most people's perception of British culture is in fact English culture. At any rate Britishness is certainly far closer to Englishness than Scottishness or Welshness or Northern Irishness, purely by virtue of the massive population difference if nothing else.

Anyway, didn't mean to derail the thread but I've seen the comment about England in Civ VI being too British a few times and wanted to register my objection.

Back on topic: I like the representation of Spartan warrior culture and I love the Aztec focus on luxuries, I think both of those are well designed. Not so sure about America, they seem very bland to me.

 

[Zaarin]

Not so sure about America, they seem very bland to me.

As an American, that seems like an accurate representation.

 

[j51]

Yeah, while boring, America has a good representation in game. Roosevelt's abilities all line up perfectly with his personality. Also, the change made to Founding Fathers in R&F makes sense for America: That the diplomacy slots are flexible encourages America to use the republics/democracy government forms to get the most out of the bonus. Also giving it a late game culture building makes sense. Even if I'd prefer a Recording Studio.

France's representation OTO is a dumpster fire. From Cathy's spies not meshing with the other mechanics, to the Chateau being limited to rivers, to the lack of any military representation aside from the oddly defense oriented Garde, it's just... wow, what a mess. The best representation of France was pre-BNW Napoleon: a cultural powerhouse that could also bully it's neighbors.

 

[altayrneto]

Not just the representation of Civs should be debated, but also how the leaders are portrayed. For example, seeing a machiavellian and untrustworthy Cyrus who have a bonus on backstabbing other civs really odd (while Persia is nicely designed, in my opinion). Almost every source I know portrays him as a humanitarian conqueror, from his successors to the greeks to the Bible. Even the Cyrus Cilinder, called for some as "the world's first charter of Human Rights" is called as "infamous" by the Civilopedia...
About the Civilizations, as a Brazilian, I think Brazil wasn't so well represented. The UD (Street Carnival), although too stereoptical, is nice. The UU (Minas Geraes) is a too obscure choice, and I can say most of the Brazilians never heard about it before, and the ship itself wasn't that powerful. But the UA (Amazon) is the less Brazilian of the Uniques. Amazonia itself is not so present in our cotidiane lifes or our history (I could say that is like Alaska to the Americans), and we avoid living and working near jungles as anyone else. I personally think it was chose by both lazy research, which is strange considering the UU, and pure strategy to deal with game mechanics, as Brazil usually appears near jungles, and it would be penalty to the player, as jungle can't be chop so early and reduces the appeal of the region.

 

[Zaarin]

For example, seeing a machiavellian and untrustworthy Cyrus who have a bonus on backstabbing other civs really odd (while Persia is nicely designed, in my opinion). Almost every source I know portrays him as a humanitarian conqueror, from his successors to the greeks to the Bible.

Like I've said before: when two groups that disliked both outsiders and kings think your king was a pretty awesome guy, he's probably the wrong choice to cast as the villain.

 

[Morningcalm]

Cyrus being represented as a backstabber is actually quite a historical low point, perhaps even worse than cartoony Pedro or overly-skinny Trajan (though whether it's worse than their ridiculous Pericles visual portrayal is quite another thing). If they wanted a backstabber they should put Babylon back in the game with Hammurabi, who is quite possibly one of history's most successful backstabbers. He repeatedly waged war on allies who had helped him previously to carve out his Babylonian empire.

I think every Civ representation of a civilization will necessarily be limited, so to the extent at least one previous poster said a certain leader doesn't seem a good fit for all a civ's history, I would say that applies equally to almost anyone. Even Genghis Khan can hardly be deemed a good fit for all of Mongolia's history, let alone medieval Mongolia (though he definitely had the largest impact of all the khans).

I like civ designs that aren't one trick ponies, so for me what others might call "inconsistent" is a design I feel is ultimately drawn from more quarters of a nation's history and is more representative. (That being said, I do take issue with some rather diverse civ designs like that of Scotland, which has Robert the Bruce making golf courses to keep his cities scientific as he wages war--such a thing never coexisted in Scotland)

Meanwhile, I found more unified Civ designs like Korea's (defensive and science bonuses, with so many bonuses focusing on the seowon) to be rather narrow and too geared to only one victory type, and therefore (in game terms) a bad representative of Korea--it was more diverse than just Silla's scientific Golden Age. But for that matter Korea was more than Sejong's or Seondeok's historical focus on science so any leader chosen for Korea will necessarily be a limited window into that history.

 

[Arent11]

Not just the representation of Civs should be debated, but also how the leaders are portrayed. For example, seeing a machiavellian and untrustworthy Cyrus who have a bonus on backstabbing other civs really odd (while Persia is nicely designed, in my opinion). Almost every source I know portrays him as a humanitarian conqueror, from his successors to the greeks to the Bible. Even the Cyrus Cilinder, called for some as "the world's first charter of Human Rights" is called as "infamous" by the Civilopedia...

Those are exactly not the right arguments to redeem Cyrus. You might have argued that he was no worse than his contemporaries. But that's exactly not what you do:

(1) His 'humanitarian conqueror' is the same as caesar being 'generous' and alexander being 'great'. In truth, all of them were ruthless - once they had won, they were generous.

(2) The Cyrus Cylinder as a 'charter of human rights' is a white lie. It might be well meant, but it is still wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_Cylinder#Human_rights

 

[humble serf]

The UD (Street Carnival), although too stereoptical, is nice.

I still wish they called it a Sambadrome rather than having you "build" a carnival.

 

[Sagax]

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 defended Civ6 Russia till the bitter end in the representation elimination thread, and I still stand by it.

While Russia is not as “in your face” religious in world history, religion always had an impact on the country’s culture. Russian Orthodox Church is the second largest Christian church in the world, second only to the Roman Catholic Church - this doesn’t come out of nowhere. With Byzantium nowhere on the horizon and the Greece civ never really being about religion, a religious Russia is a decent representation of an Eastern Orthodox following - thus making Lavra a justified UI choice.

Faith from tundra is a stretch, though - I’ll give you that.

I only have 2 complaints:

1. Pls get rid of the stereotypical tundra bias.
2. They could have spread out the Lavra bonuses across other Russian Uniques, instead of cramming everything into one religious district.

If anything, the “science-production-more Lenin-more spies” Russia is as cliche as it can get. Not that different from portraying the US as a military-heavy civ with bonuses to gold and espionage - and you don’t see Firaxis doing that (yet?). I, for once, am glad that they are showcasing the side of Russia that isn’t talked about as much.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

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

I don't know much about Hungary, but the Thermal Bath seemed like an inspired choice. Lots of nations have unique parliament buildings. Highlighting the thermal baths seems, to an outsider, like a positive trait to emphasize about Hungary that I otherwise wouldn't have known much about.

 

[The googles do nothing]

1. Pls get rid of the stereotypical tundra bias.

Firaxis is doubling down and in GS Russian unit will take less damage from blizzard events. Russian troop and civilians suffered just as much as Napoleon's and Germans.

 

[Morningcalm]

As an aside, what is the logic of lavras getting great artist and musician points? Such a bonus is particularly ironic given Peter the Great's dislike of religion and his belief men in religion were a waste (yet his agenda is all about science and art, and those great artist points from the lavra yield just that).

 

[Sostratus]

I'm not the greatest world historian, but I really like the Khmer's depiction. They aren't the most powerful, yet I really enjoy the feel of fulfilling their abilities- this sort of jungle builder civ replete with temples, lush farms and aqueducts... The domrey is a little bit of a disappointment to me, solely because siege is the unloved stepchild; and little can replace my enjoyment of the glorious Naresuan's elephant the siamese had in civ5. What a beast that boy was!
Picking the Wat building, maybe getting Feed the world too, it's very enjoyable games working around the terrain and their bonuses and matches what i think of when you see pictures. And Angkor Wat really meshes with the civ's playstyle, for turbo theming.

I really feel like egypt lost its magic this time around. Civ5, they had a wonder ability, a war chariot, and a cool UB in the burial tomb. Their current ability, is quite weak; the sphinx is pretty meh. I don't really find it as this cultural capstone improvement that it could be. It's a crappy pairidaeza with quite possibly the worst tech tree support of any UI. Cleo herself does the civ no favors; that leader ability is basically outclassed by the polish sukiennice. Embarrassing. And, I know this doesn't line up with the current vision of more gender balanced game, but i would have very much preferred a Ramesses II leader. A Pharaoh. I'm a simple man; I click on egypt, I want to see the pharaoh hat. The fact that the civ is also totally outclassed in every way by their neighbor nubia is just salt in the wound. Better builder bonuses, better UI, better ranged unique unit. Come on man.

Yeah the U-Boat is kinda weird. It's a naval UU for a traditionally land based civ and doesn't remotely synergize with the Hansa or Holy Roman Emperor. But overall the representation of Germany this time around is quite nice.

My sense is that they knew germany was getting some strong abilities so they gave the U boat to mix it up. I think if they had a Landsknecht unit they might be too HRE centric, and a Panzer tank replacement would be a blast, but they've had panzers for a while. I mean, if germany had something like this:
Landsknecht - replaces Pike&shot. Cheaper to build, and does not suffer penalty against melee units.
or
Panzer: replaces Tank. +10 strength vs other heavy cav units. +1 movement.
We would probably enjoy it a lot, but they might become too strong

I do like though, that they seem to have incorporated a number of elements throughout the long history of germany - frederick, the hansa, the "free imperial cities," a WW2 unit. I agree with another poster here that it's kind of fun to have spread out bonuses.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I defended Civ6 Russia till the bitter end in the representation elimination thread, and I still stand by it.

While Russia is not as “in your face” religious in world history, religion always had an impact on the country’s culture. Russian Orthodox Church is the second largest Christian church in the world, second only to the Roman Catholic Church - this doesn’t come out of nowhere. With Byzantium nowhere on the horizon and the Greece civ never really being about religion, a religious Russia is a decent representation of an Eastern Orthodox following - thus making Lavra a justified UI choice.

Faith from tundra is a stretch, though - I’ll give you that.

I only have 2 complaints:

1. Pls get rid of the stereotypical tundra bias.
2. They could have spread out the Lavra bonuses across other Russian Uniques, instead of cramming everything into one religious district.

If anything, the “science-production-more Lenin-more spies” Russia is as cliche as it can get. Not that different from portraying the US as a military-heavy civ with bonuses to gold and espionage - and you don’t see Firaxis doing that (yet?). I, for once, am glad that they are showcasing the side of Russia that isn’t talked about as much.

Maybe I should be better at religion because my best religious games happen to be from Russia, which I usually don’t expect, but still definitely had fun with anyway. I also like the boom of cultural great people the lavra gives.
I guess I dont see any problem having more of a productiom bonus like I said instead of faith because well, historically Russia did go to space first. I can agree France can keep the spies. If anything I would want Japan to get a unique spy unit.

 

[Sagax]

As an aside, what is the logic of lavras getting great artist and musician points? Such a bonus is particularly ironic given Peter the Great's dislike of religion and his belief men in religion were a waste (yet his agenda is all about science and art, and those great artist points from the lavra yield just that).

The GWAM generation by itself kinda fits, as a nod to Russia's golden age of culture in the 19-20th centuries. The ties to Lavra are not really based on much.

Which is why I'd love them to move some of Lavra's bonuses to other uniques. As of now, the playstyle fits the lesser known cultural/religious side of Russia, it's just that everything stemming from Lavras is weird.

 

[Arent11]

My sense is that they knew germany was getting some strong abilities so they gave the U boat to mix it up. I think if they had a Landsknecht unit they might be too HRE centric, and a Panzer tank replacement would be a blast, but they've had panzers for a while. I mean, if germany had something like this:
Landsknecht - replaces Pike&shot. Cheaper to build, and does not suffer penalty against melee units.
or
Panzer: replaces Tank. +10 strength vs other heavy cav units. +1 movement.
We would probably enjoy it a lot, but they might become too strong

I do like though, that they seem to have incorporated a number of elements throughout the long history of germany - frederick, the hansa, the "free imperial cities," a WW2 unit. I agree with another poster here that it's kind of fun to have spread out bonuses.

To be honest, that would be a fun civ - but obviously too late & therefore not at all that strong. Even a medieval landsknecht is already quite late. Having an early unique unit is so much better than a late one.

 

[Morningcalm]

The GWAM generation by itself kinda fits, as a nod to Russia's golden age of culture in the 19-20th centuries. The ties to Lavra are not really based on much.

Which is why I'd love them to move some of Lavra's bonuses to other uniques. As of now, the playstyle fits the lesser known cultural/religious side of Russia, it's just that everything stemming from Lavras is weird.

Totally agreed. Monks didn't have anything to do with great artist generation in that time in Russia's history, to my knowledge, and certainly the Civilopedia entry on lavras mentions nothing to suggest such.

 

[humble serf]

I'm not the greatest world historian, but I really like the Khmer's depiction. They aren't the most powerful, yet I really enjoy the feel of fulfilling their abilities- this sort of jungle builder civ replete with temples, lush farms and aqueducts... The domrey is a little bit of a disappointment to me, solely because siege is the unloved stepchild; and little can replace my enjoyment of the glorious Naresuan's elephant the siamese had in civ5. What a beast that boy was!
Picking the Wat building, maybe getting Feed the world too, it's very enjoyable games working around the terrain and their bonuses and matches what i think of when you see pictures. And Angkor Wat really meshes with the civ's playstyle, for turbo theming.

Totally agree with this; Khmer are the closest thing I have to a "main" and it's mostly down to their flavour. But given that they essentially have both a unique Holy Site and a unique Aqueduct, it's pretty disappointing that their "real" UI (ie. the only one which actually looks different on the map) is a temple replacement. Would have been really cool to see actual Barays in place of Aqueducts.