Pirates, Really?

[James_Champagne]

"All this to bring back Vlad bloody Tepes? All this death and horror for that leech?"
-St. Germain, Castlevania

 

[bengalryan9]

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.

Pretty sure I remember people pointing out that Gilgamesh and Kupe (probably) weren't real people, for one. That's not even mentioning things like ley lines, hero units, vampires, and zombies, and while those were all optional, so are the pirates here.

 

[ehecatzin]

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.

That's the one "vampire" I'd love to see included.

 

[queenpea]

That's not even mentioning things like ley lines, hero units, vampires, and zombies, and while those were all optional, so are the pirates here.

These were game modes delivered in late game DLC that had to be actively turned on -- it's not the same as a civ we receive early in the life cycle which has to be manually turned off.

 

[bengalryan9]

These were game modes delivered in late game DLC that had to be actively turned on -- it's not the same as a civ we receive early in the life cycle which has to be manually turned off.

I guess? If pirates are that much of a turn off to you, just don't download them. Nothing to turn off and you wouldn't miss out on the rest of the pack (assuming it works the same as the other DLC packs have so far).

Gilgamesh was not optional at all, IIRC. Outside of manually setting up every game you played you had a chance to see him.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Pretty sure I remember people pointing out that Gilgamesh and Kupe (probably) weren't real people, for one. That's not even mentioning things like ley lines, hero units, vampires, and zombies, and while those were all optional, so are the pirates here.

Even if they aren't attested as being real people, at least no one can deny that Gilgamesh and Kupe aren't a part of the respective civilization's history. Even so, I'm pretty sure Gilgamesh was, it's just we don't know anything about the real Gilgamesh except for the legendary stories. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know about Kupe. As for the other things you mentioned I didn't count them because I specifically was talking about the designs of the civs, not optional game modes.

That reference was specifically associating a wonder that shouldn't be associated with the pirates at all. There is other infrastructure that would have been a better alternative than picking a port that was built by the Spanish at least a hundred years before a mostly English "Pirate Republic".

 

[moondog385]

I think Civ VI’s portrayals of Scotland and Canada were particularly memey so I’m not too fussed about the oddball associated wonder for the pirates even though I’d prefer it be Port Royal.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think Civ VI’s portrayals of Scotland and Canada were particularly memey so I’m not too fussed about the oddball associated wonder for the pirates even though I’d prefer it be Port Royal.

I think that may be because Port Royal will probably be a city name.

 

[magicq99]

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.

I would also like to point out that we do have Charlemagne in Civ VII, which IIRC is only his second appearance after Civ IV Beyond the Sword. And I think that Charlemagne was much more influential in the history of Europe than say Louis XIV.

So from my point of view we do have a mix of widely know "great" leaders as well as lesser known historical figures in Civ VII. I understand that a lot of people are missing some of their favourite leaders (I do as well). But because the leaders are now "unlinked" from their respective Civ, future DLCs are very free to introduce a similar broad mix of additional leaders. I am pretty sure that some widely know historical leaders like Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar will come back eventually, in addition to a lot of other leaders that had never been part of the series before.

And in Civ VI, after two full expansions, they eventually released the Frontier Pass DLCs and even a series of purely Leader Pass DLCs, which signicantly expanded the selection of leaders. If I am not mistaken, Civ VI in the end had the largest number of leaders we ever had. And I would not be surprised if Civ VII will eventually top this. That is why I also think that arguments about which leader should or shouldn't have been included is pretty moot at the moment.

I also think that the "unlinking" of leaders makes it possible to more broadly honour the life of some of the "great" leaders from the past iterations of the game. Consider Gandhi for example. He used to be in every Civ game as a leader of India. But if you look at the story of his life, he was educated in London in English law and his work as a lawyer in English law brought him back to India as well as South Africa. Those periods in his life have been very influential. So besides India, Gandhi has a strong connection to both England as well as South Africa. But in past Civ games, he was only presented as a leader of India. Given the fact that he never actually was the head of state of India, one could argue that this represenation did not fully appreciate his life. And I think those aspects of well known leaders can shine a bit more in Civ VII.

It is not unthinkable that Gandhi could have been very influential in the history of the Unites States, for example, if his career had brought him there instead of South Africa during the formative years in his life. So once Gandhi is brought back to Civ VII (which I think he will be eventually), you actually can play out this "what if Gandhi had lead America" scenario. And for me, those "what if"- ideas are exactly what constitutes a game of Civ.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I would also like to point out that we do have Charlemagne in Civ VII, which IIRC is only his second appearance after Civ IV Beyond the Sword. And I think that Charlemagne was much more influential in the history of Europe than say Louis XIV.

So from my point of view we do have a mix of widely know "great" leaders as well as lesser known historical figures in Civ VII. I understand that a lot of people are missing some of their favourite leaders (I do as well). But because the leaders are now "unlinked" from their respective Civ, future DLCs are very free to introduce a similar broad mix of additional leaders. I am pretty sure that some widely know historical leaders like Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar will come back eventually, in addition to a lot of other leaders that had never been part of the series before.

And in Civ VI, after two full expansions, they eventually released the Frontier Pass DLCs and even a series of purely Leader Pass DLCs, which signicantly expanded the selection of leaders. If I am not mistaken, Civ VI in the end had the largest number of leaders we ever had. And I would not be surprised if Civ VII will eventually top this. That is why I also think that arguments about which leader should or shouldn't have been included is pretty moot at the moment.

I also think that the "unlinking" of leaders makes it possible to more broadly honour the life of some of the "great" leaders from the past iterations of the game. Consider Gandhi for example. He used to be in every Civ game as a leader of India. But if you look at the story of his life, he was educated in London in English law and his work as a lawyer in English law brought him back to India as well as South Africa. Those periods in his life have been very influential. So besides India, Gandhi has a strong connection to both England as well as South Africa. But in past Civ games, he was only presented as a leader of India. Given the fact that he never actually was the head of state of India, one could argue that this represenation did not fully appreciate his life. And I think those aspects of well known leaders can shine a bit more in Civ VII.

It is not unthinkable that Gandhi could have been very influential in the history of the Unites States, for example, if his career had brought him there instead of South Africa during the formative years in his life. So once Gandhi is brought back to Civ VII (which I think he will be eventually), you actually can play out this "what if Gandhi had lead America" scenario. And for me, those "what if"- ideas are exactly what constitutes a game of Civ.

I've just calculated and out of 27 leaders we have announced so far, 13 fall into great leader category from previous civ games (I didn't count Franklin in as he never was a president and leader in previous civs), so it's very close to 50/50 switch. Probably a bit more great leaders would be nice to restore the balance to perfect 50%.

 

[Cedbird77]

TBH I have more of an issue with the Bermuda Triangle being a natural wonder than the Republic of Pirates being a playable civ.

So what problem do you have with the Bermuda Triangle being a natural wonder????

 

[Evie]

"Must have been a chief of state" is shown in full for the wholly arbitrary and nosensical "rule" it was, when you get to the point of not counting Benjamin Freaking Franklin as a Great Leader, when he was one of the most influential founding fathers, and one of the figures most critical in the revolution years that gave birth to America. That by the time the revolution was over and the constitution was agreed upon (both of which he was heavily involved in), he was eighty two years old and had only two years left to live does not somehow make his leadership less!

Fortunately, that was only ever a rule for some vocal fans, and never for the devs themselves, and Ben Franklin, though he had not previously made it, would have been a perfectly valid Civiliation Leader in previous games.

 

[MutilationWave]

So what problem do you have with the Bermuda Triangle being a natural wonder????

I'd imagine the same problem I have with it. It is entirely fictional and does a magical thing. Civ is history fantasy but it would be nice if it didn't veer into the physically impossible.

 

[Gorbles]

I'd imagine the same problem I have with it. It is entirely fictional and does a magical thing. Civ is history fantasy but it would be nice if it didn't veer into the physically impossible.

Does an unrealistic thing? Yes.

Entirely fictional? No, it exists. This isn't like El Dorado (which is, to the best of my knowledge, still mythical and not conclusively proven) or something, this is an actual place on Earth where arguably unexplained things happen (though there are some good, scientific guesses and exploratory work).

I appreciate people might find it a bit too much, but "entirely fictional" would be aliens. The Bermuda Triangle exists, and many ships and other craft have gone missing in it. Popular culture is, well, popular.

 

[Evie]

Have to disagree with you here Gorbles. The triangle is a purely mythical (well, urban legendary) place. Oh, we have a location for it, but that just make the case worse - because we can actually compile the numbers on shipwrecks (and plane crashes) in that area, and there's no statistically meaningful difference between that area and any other region where tropical cyclones are common. Ships and planes don't vanish there more than anywhere else ; it's just close enough to the US Seaboard to have more headline presence when they do.

Even commercial insurers see nothing to be afraid off in the triangle, and you know that if insurance agent had even a whiff that sailing there increase risk, they would charge a premium on any ship headed to those water. But they don't, because there is nothing anywhere but in lurid media account that even suggest any sort of unusual risk or hazard associated with that area.

The question of whether or not we have an explanation, scientific or otherwise, is moot, because there is nothing special there to explain.

 

[Gorbles]

Have to disagree with you here Gorbles. The triangle is a purely mythical (well, urban legendary) place. Oh, we have a location for it, but that just make the case worse - because we can actually compile the numbers on shipwrecks (and plane crashes) in that area, and there's no statistically meaningful difference between that area and any other region where tropical cyclones are common. Ships and planes don't vanish there more than anywhere else ; it's just close enough to the US Seaboard to have more headline presence when they do.

Even commercial insurers see nothing to be afraid off in the triangle, and you know that if insurance agent had even a whiff that sailing there increase risk, they would charge a premium on any ship headed to those water. But they don't, because there is nothing anywhere but in lurid media account that even suggest any sort of unusual risk or hazard associated with that area.

The question of whether or not we have an explanation, scientific or otherwise, is moot, because there is nothing special there to explain.

I disagree that it's moot, because urban legend is closer to reality than myths (by the pedantic preference for legend -> myth if nothing else). Maybe VII was a bit late to the Triangle; it might have been better in VI or even V, given the balance of pop culture vs. scientific evidence (or the lack thereof). It's fun to have silly theories sometimes!

A submarine having a 5% (or 1%, or whatever) chance to taking damage to be instantly destroyed might be more realistic, but it isn't fun. Damage is represented in nearly all cases as a relatively abstract loss of efficiency / combat power. El Dorado (as apparently that's the example I'm settling on today) turning up (or even being a regular Wonder) would be less realistic; more flat-out mythical. The Bermuda Triangle is close enough to modern human urban legend without being actual myth, compounded by the fact that (despite being no less statistically safe than anywhere else), stuff has crashed there. Again, it's the difference between having a named thing that has an effect, vs. giving all aircraft an X% chance to crash.

Personally, I see it as no worse than GDRs in VI and V (and to be clear: I enjoyed GDRs, and the sometimes-maligned XCOM Squad too), and I still understand that others will either a) see it as worse, or b) see it as bad, and like none of them. That's fair.

 

[ehecatzin]

Does an unrealistic thing? Yes.

Entirely fictional? No, it exists. This isn't like El Dorado (which is, to the best of my knowledge, still mythical and not conclusively proven) or something, this is an actual place on Earth where arguably unexplained things happen (though there are some good, scientific guesses and exploratory work).

I appreciate people might find it a bit too much, but "entirely fictional" would be aliens. The Bermuda Triangle exists, and many ships and other craft have gone missing in it. Popular culture is, well, popular.

If they wanted to add an historical ocean hazzard they could have gone with The Sargasso Sea, which is actually a thing, (and even then limiting it to a few game tiles is pushing it.). Also other very famous shipwreck areas that are dangerous to this day, why not the Strait of Magellan?

personally I don't see the need to add fictional places to civ just because they are famous in popular American media.

Finallly about El Dorado, the best candidate for it was the Muisca and specifically Lake Guatavita, the Spanish found literal lake filled with gold, and in their minds it still wasn't "El Doradoy" enough,, curiosuly in North America they did the same looking for the 7 cities of gold. Almost like it was the popular fictional media of the time as well.

 

[Evie]

The distinction between legendary and mythological is not nearly so clear-cut, and, in this particular case, does not indicate that one is in any way more realistic than the other. They're both wholly made up human beliefs. No more.

I agree with ehecatzin: if we want a natural wonder that represent the perils of the sea it should be an actual area of frequent shipwreck (Straits of Magellan, some famous reefs, etc), not one that show no increased frequency of shipwreck whatsoever, just an increased frequency of attention from US Media.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The distinction between legendary and mythological is not nearly so clear-cut, and, in this particular case, does not indicate that one is in any way more realistic than the other. They're both wholly made up human beliefs. No more.

I agree with ehecatzin: if we want a natural wonder that represent the perils of the sea it should be an actual area of frequent shipwreck (Straits of Magellan, some famous reefs, etc), not one that show no increased frequency of shipwreck whatsoever, just an increased frequency of attention from US Media.

The thing here is that Bermuda Triangle in Civ7 has totally fantasy game mechanics attached - teleportation. So, it's not possible to replace it with any real world areas. So, if for some reason, Firaxis wanted this particular mechanics to exist in the game, BT was a good choice.

But I don't understand the need for it and I'm totally together with people who are against fantasy elements in the main game of Civilization (scenarios could be anything).

 

[Xandinho]

Fantasy elements should be avoided as much as possible, and when included, they should be optional. I always disable those fantasy wonders in Civ6, and I’d like to be able to do the same with the Bermuda Triangle in Civ7.