Pirates, Really?

[Gori the Grey]

Just sayin'

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

Don't historians study history...the recollection of all past events? you might not find caribbean piracy glamourous but It's history and you bet there are real historians that study it

im operating off the assumption that certain political organizations are more important than others. which should be obvious but your being obtuse and trying to make it like i am making some value judgement. i think pirates are very cool. that does not mean they are good for this game.
The Republic of Venice was far more important than the Pirate Republic though.
Venice lasted for over a millennium (from the 7th century to 1797), while the Pirate Republic existed only briefly from 1706 to 1718. This long duration allowed Venice to exert lasting influence in Europe and the Mediterranean, whereas the Pirate Republic was an unstable, short-lived entity with no real political or economic stability.
Venice was a major economic and trading power, controlling vital Mediterranean routes and dominating trade in luxury goods like spices, silks, and glass. Its merchants and fleet were crucial in shaping the region’s economy. In contrast, the Pirate Republic was primarily focused on plunder, and while pirates disrupted trade, they didn’t create a sustainable or organized economy.
Politically, Venice was a key player in European diplomacy, managing alliances and rivalries with powers like the Papal States, the Ottoman Empire, and various Italian city-states. The Pirate Republic, by contrast, was considered an outlaw state with no diplomatic recognition or influence on European politics.
Venice also boasted one of the most powerful navies in the Mediterranean, which played a key role in expanding and defending its empire. While pirates had some naval power, it was nothing compared to the organized fleets of Venice or other European nations.
Culturally, Venice was a center of art and learning, influencing the Renaissance and European culture through its architecture, paintings, and music. The Pirate Republic, being a lawless and militaristic society, left no significant cultural legacy.
In short, the Republic of Venice's enduring influence in trade, politics, naval power, and culture makes it far more important historically than the fleeting Pirate Republic, which, while iconic in its own right, had little lasting impact on world history.

now that we established that venice is way more important than the pirate republic from how it has been studied throughout history. i will say yes your assertion is true that the pirate history did happen and historians do study it, many more historians have studied venice. hence, civilization, a game which basically is about history, should probably have added Venice as the civilization for Tides of Power instead of Pirate Republic. its feels more authentic and would probably be just as 'fun' from a gameplay perspective. i will come up with an idea for venice to prove it.

 

[ehecatzin]

im operating off the assumption that certain political organizations are more important than others. which should be obvious but your being obtuse and trying to make it like i am making some value judgement. i think pirates are very cool. that does not mean they are good for this game.

real historians study the republic of venice.

I mean...real historians study X subject that supports my argument, is quite the statement, sure I'm being facetious, but you were being hyperbolic.

I don't really want to argue to the point of sounding harsh so...

I'll extend you an olive branch, we both think Pirates are cool and all but disagree in them being "deserving" of being in civ, my particular issue with them is the timeline rather than they being in before X civ. I have come to expect hookey pokey stuff from Firaxis mixed within the more deserving stuff, I guess I'm just, used to it by now after all the vampires, magical heroes and illuminati, a pirate republic that actually existed seems tame in comparison.

many more historians have studied venice. hence, civilization, a game which basically is about history, should probably have added Venice as the civilization for Tides of Power instead of Pirate Republic. its feels more authentic and would probably be just as 'fun' from a gameplay perspective. i will come up with an idea for venice to prove it.

I would have loved to see the Barbary coast as the "pirate" representative myself, but again, this is Firaxis,they saw a chance to Pirate the hell out of this and took it, can you really blame them? or not expect it at this point? and unlike the previous times, this time is free content that you can just, disable.

personally I think they have to "fix* the base game before going for the really unique civs, like Venice, if there's ever a mechanic for better plunder I'd love to see a Venice that can "steal" wonders and relics alongside with being a trading powerhouse, I'm sure Venice will make it in when they can cook something more representative

For you is Venice, for me is the Mexica, I'm almost glad they havent release them yet or they surely would have had the usual "kill units gain resources" that Napoleon has now. I want to see them with something unique like Chinampas, canals and building on lakes and swamps, but we'll probably only get them on a "terraforming themed" patch alongside with, the Netherlands or something like that.

I'm sure they'll both be in eventually.

 

[untitledjuan]

View attachment 746167

(image is of Mahatma Gandhi, born 1869 - with advisors represented by Ancient Egyptians, including a Horus falcon and hieroglyphic-themed UI - as King and monarch of the Indian civilisation in Civ 1)

You'd expect them to be at least a bit more informed and sensitive today than they were back in 1991, though.

Of course this game series and this game genre has to have lots of "historical innacuracies" by its own nature. However, giving a civilization an "associated wonder" that was never associated to them in the first place is something that could have been checked before releasing a new civilization.

 

[Krikkit1]

All right, but combine it with their other recent announcement, and we can eventually look forward to playing the Republic of Pirates through all the Ages.

Matey!

That would be very interesting.... If you went with an extreme form of "All age civ play" and just gave them their abilities, they would never produce any settlers... it would be
-Capture Settlers
-capture settlements
or
-incorporate city states

 

[bengalryan9]

That would be very interesting.... If you went with an extreme form of "All age civ play" and just gave them their abilities, they would never produce any settlers... it would be
-Capture Settlers
-capture settlements
or
-incorporate city states

They can found new settlements with their unique commander, though, so they do have one other option.

I think one of the new city state types gives a free settler as a reward option, too?

 

[Krikkit1]

They can found new settlements with their unique commander, though, so they do have one other option.

I think one of the new city state types gives a free settler as a reward option, too?

Yeah forgot about the Settler reward.

 

[Kwami]

You'd expect them to be at least a bit more informed and sensitive today than they were back in 1991, though.

You're moving the goalposts, though. You initially claimed that this version of Civilization was less historically accurate than previous versions. That's clearly not true. Every version of the game has had a whole lot of inaccuracy.

 

[Skojardu]

I always am puzzled at Firaxis' inattention to their own community. The Pirate port in Colonization: We The People is PORT ROYAL

 

[magicq99]

@agamemnon_of_the-bronze_ I do not dispute anything you say about Venice. My intention was do address the objection that the Republic of Pirates should not be in the game because they cannot be considered to be a distinct civilization, unlike say the Egyptians, Romans or Greek.

The point I wanted to make in the comparison with Venice was that by this criteria Venice also should not be considered a distinct civilization, yet we had them in Civ V, where they provided a unique gameplay opportunity.

So my case for the Republic of Pirates is that why can't they be part of the Exploration Age in Civ VII, considering we had Venice in Civ V as a distinct "civ" from 4000 BCE into the 21st century? So basically I am trying to say that the Pirates work much better within the context of the distinct ages in Civ VII, because here they are only one chapter in the broader history of your civilization. And they also seem to provide a unique gameplay which fits well into the context of the Exploration Age.

This also applies to Venice btw. Because of the separation of the Ages in Civ VII, the arguments for including something like them as a playable Civ is much stronger in Civ VII than it was in previous games imho.

That being said, as I mentioned ealier, I would also have prefered a "pirate"-style civ based on some other part of history, for example the corsairs of the barbary coast. This would also have been more fitting with the earlier Middle Ages period covered in the Exploration Age, in my opinion.

But I can see why they have made this choice. The Pirates of the Carribean are much more broadly known in popular culture, while a lot of people propably have never heard of the barbary coast. This makes the Republic of Pirates as they are in the game now an easier sell for a broader audience. After all, the game still has to appeal to a broad audience. And I would not be surprised if this style of the Pirates is much more accepted by the broader audience of the game than by the Civfanatics.

The Republic of Pirates may be "Disney-esque". But I would argue that many people have this pop-culture representation in their mind when they think of Pirates. That is just a fact that cannot be igorned if you want to make them appealing to a broader audience. I am all for including educational aspects in games. But I also realize that sometimes the "fun" part has to win over the educational part. And I can see why one might think that this may be one of those cases.

 

[Gorbles]

You'd expect them to be at least a bit more informed and sensitive today than they were back in 1991, though.

They are, in a whole bunch of ways. But that's a different argument to claiming that VII relegates history "more than usual", "again".

Of course this game series and this game genre has to have lots of "historical innacuracies" by its own nature. However, giving a civilization an "associated wonder" that was never associated to them in the first place is something that could have been checked before releasing a new civilization.

You said that Havana was held, however briefly, by pirates, right?

Why are you now saying it was never associated with them?

 

[untitledjuan]

They are, in a whole bunch of ways. But that's a different argument to claiming that VII relegates history "more than usual", "again".

You said that Havana was held, however briefly, by pirates, right?

Why are you now saying it was never associated with them?

Briefly holding a city by military occupation doesn't automatically associate said city to a particular group of people. If that were the case, we could have Brandenburg Gate as an "associated wonder" for America due to Berlin being occupied by the USA after World War II, or make the White House the "associated wonder" of the British because they briefly conquered DC in 1812, etc.

An associated wonder should be representative of a culture, at least built by the particular group of people it intends to represent, not by their historical rivals, which is the case for Havana Harbour, built by the Spanish, not by pirates. Again, the Harbour of Port Royal, which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, would have been much more representative of pirate history and would have worked as the "associated wonder" for pirates.

I do agree with you that more recent Civilization games have been very sensitive to the history and cultures of the world, especially Civ6, where they did an awesome job at that. Which is why Civ7 misses the mark in that regard when compared to its predecessor in terms of civ selection, leader portrayals and unique features chosen to represent each civilization, etc.

 

[untitledjuan]

I always am puzzled at Firaxis' inattention to their own community. The Pirate port in Colonization: We The People is PORT ROYAL

It's also what comes to mind first in pop culture when talking about pirates. Now that the game seems to be leaning more on pop culture than actual history, I'd at least expect they got the "associated wonder" right by having the Harbour of Port Royal as the pirate wonder, but instead they get a Spanish (one of the main historical enemies of the pirates) piece of infrastructure as their wonder

 

[Gorbles]

Briefly holding a city by military occupation doesn't automatically associate said city to a particular group of people.

I agree, but that's not what I asked.

I get that you have wider issues with VII and its representation, but I do wonder if you're transferring those here a bit, just because in this one case the link is more tenuous than normal. VI wasn't perfect either, very few things are. This isn't to say the developers can't do better, and I get that in a way you're drawing attention to it. But the whole singling out VII is funny, because I sat through years of threads from others on VI (before we even get to V)

(edited for grammar + more cohesive point, sorry for any mid-post editing)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I agree, but that's not what I asked.

I get that you have wider issues with VII and its representation, but I do wonder if you're transferring those here a bit, just because in this one case the link is more tenuous than normal. VI wasn't perfect either, very few things are. This isn't to say the developers can't do better, and I get that in a way you're drawing attention to it. But the whole singling out VII is funny, because I sat through years of threads from others on VI (before we even get to V)

I do understand where he is coming from. I can't think of anything in Civ 6 off the top of my head that I thought shouldn't be included in a civ design because it didn't feel historically right, as I do for certain civs in Civ 7.
I think giving the Mughals stepwells is another big offender. But as said above it does feel weird to associate Havana Harbor, which was built by the Spanish in the 1500s to a Pirate Republic in the 1700s made up mostly of dissident English sailors. The least they could have done was make it Port Royal or Fort Nassau.

 

[queenpea]

Are you trying to turn people against Civ-Continuity?

I don't want more ages in the game, but given the current structure, pirates work better as a 'quick age' than a full-length one. It's difficult for me to envision playing as pirates for a third of the game when the historical Republic of Pirates lasted only about twelve years—roughly the lifespan of a Labrador retriever.

Within the three-act structure the developers have created for Civilization VII, pirates do have a place, but only at the tail end of the Exploration Age. They emerged as a consequence of European exploration and colonization, with the Golden Age of Piracy spanning roughly 1650-1730. What will feel jarring is the transition: going directly from a civilization like Greece, Rome, or Carthage into exploring the New World as the Republic of Pirates. There's just a massive historical and thematic gap that makes the progression feel disjointed, and this makes it harder for me to narrate the story of my civilization.

All that said, this is free content, and I am very appreciative of the free update! I know a lot of people will be excited to play as pirates; I'm just not among them, and that's fine!

 

[WorldWarIV]

I'm the kind of player who wishes the game would be about the greatest civilizations and their most influential leaders. I haven't had Louis XIV in what, three games now, and it just feels weird to me. I don't really want the Fountain of Youth or the Pirate Republic in my game, at least not before the essential stuff is there.

With that said, and with the trend civ games have taken, I really hope I can finally have Wallachia led by Vlad the Impaler at some point. I can't believe it has never been in a Civilization iteration before.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I'm the kind of player who wishes the game would be about the greatest civilizations and their most influential leaders. I haven't had Louis XIV in what, three games now, and it just feels weird to me. I don't really want the Fountain of Youth or the Pirate Republic in my game, at least not before the essential stuff is there.

With that said, and with the trend civ games have taken, I really hope I can finally have Wallachia led by Vlad the Impaler at some point. I can't believe it has never been in a Civilization iteration before.

I think Vlad the Impaler would be perfect addition to Civ7 leader roster. We don't need Wallachia even, I'm totally fine with him leading, say, America.

 

[queenpea]

I'm totally fine with him leading, say, America.

“That was way harsh, Tai.” - Clueless (1995)

 

[Evie]

I'm the kind of player who wishes the game would be about the greatest civilizations and their most influential leaders. I haven't had Louis XIV in what, three games now, and it just feels weird to me.

And this, right here, is the problem in a nutshell.Louis XIV is a grossly overrated figure in term of actual influence.,. He was the product of the work of many others before and around him who arranged to put France at the centre of the European chessboard, and make European politics revolve around it ; who took steps to advance French culture. His actual work? He mostly used up - and even squandered - what these others had built, and left France closer to oblivion than it had been when he found it. But he fought wars and expanded borders and commissioned monuments, and these were the things that people wrote about for years, so they wrote about him.

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem. Historical fame and actual historical influence are two widely different measures. One is all about how much impact a person actually had on history. The other is just about how good their propaganda was, in life and in death.

Yet when people talk about wanting the real great leaders, they invariably mean the famous ones, the ones that got a lot of good propaganda and hagiographies from the people who lived after them. Not the ones who actually had the deep, lasting influence on history.