Pirates, Really?
- Thread starter agamemnon_of_the-bronze_
- Start date
timmychompchomp
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2016
- Messages
- 132
In a traditional Civilization game a Pirate Republic would be seriously lame, but in Civ 7 it is more appropriate and appreciated. From my perspective, a civilization could collapse, fracturing into competing leaders with piracy becoming a means of survival for the people. Likewise, a minor regional power can lean into piracy to mitigate the impact of a commercial or political imbalance between themselves and a larger power. In Civ 7, you can use the Pirate Republic to role play a scenario like these, or mechanically use them to play catch up economically, mainly through disruption, sunk and plundered production or gold losses for your opponents without a direct war. Seems fun to me.
ehecatzin
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,917
I think that could be a fun scenario to play around when we get collapse mode, beacause really, right now it doesnt quite feel like your civ collapses between ages. Tho you make me wish there are other designs like this in what would otherwise be regular barbarians from past games, as in : Attila and the Huns in Antiquity.
As we discussed in another thread recently, I would have preferred if they had modeled this Republic of Pirates more in view of the barbary corsairs of the Mediterranean.
However, regarding the comments that the pirates should not be considered a real "civ", I would like to point out that we also had Venice in Civ V, which also should not have counted as a proper "civ" in the traditional sense of the series.
I also think that a pirate civ actually works better within the context of the civ switching in Civ VII than it would have in earlier games. Since the Republic of Pirates is one choice in one age, it is not really a civ in itself, but more like an episode in the history of your civ. So your civ basically becomes a rouge pirate state for one age, before becoming "civilized" again in the next age.
And even if this Republic of Pirates actually only existed for 12 years and did not become a proper "nation" in reality, Edward Teach and the other "governors" of this republic propably envisioned it as one day becoming one. Just because they did not succeed in real life, this does not mean that they cannot succeed in an alternate version of history in a game like Civ. After all, isn't this game series about alternative "what-if"-histories? So what if this Republic of Pirates had been more successful and existed for more than 12 years? Why shouldn't you be able to play out something like this in a game of Civ?
From this point of view, I see the Republic of Pirates as an addition to the game not a detraction.
However, regarding the comments that the pirates should not be considered a real "civ", I would like to point out that we also had Venice in Civ V, which also should not have counted as a proper "civ" in the traditional sense of the series.
I also think that a pirate civ actually works better within the context of the civ switching in Civ VII than it would have in earlier games. Since the Republic of Pirates is one choice in one age, it is not really a civ in itself, but more like an episode in the history of your civ. So your civ basically becomes a rouge pirate state for one age, before becoming "civilized" again in the next age.
And even if this Republic of Pirates actually only existed for 12 years and did not become a proper "nation" in reality, Edward Teach and the other "governors" of this republic propably envisioned it as one day becoming one. Just because they did not succeed in real life, this does not mean that they cannot succeed in an alternate version of history in a game like Civ. After all, isn't this game series about alternative "what-if"-histories? So what if this Republic of Pirates had been more successful and existed for more than 12 years? Why shouldn't you be able to play out something like this in a game of Civ?
From this point of view, I see the Republic of Pirates as an addition to the game not a detraction.
Last edited:
Snowygerry
Deity
We had a rather succesful "pirate republic" here, it developed into the better known Dutch Republic
Geuzen - Wikipedia
Theme: Sea Beggars - Historisch Museum Den Briel
Johann Heinrich Keller, Inname van Brielle door de watergeuzen op 1 april 1572 (Capture of Brielle by the Sea Beggars on 1 April 1572), 1759In 1759 Johann Heinrich Keller painted an important moment in the history of Brielle and of our country: the capture of Brielle by the Sea Beggars on 1...
historischmuseumdenbriel.nl
Last edited:
Leucarum
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 3,307
You are right. I wonder if making them free blunted a lot of criticism. The main argumemt against them seems to be "They took the spot of someone more serious," but it's harder to be angry at that if it's being given away...
Also for anyone (myself included) who dislikes the concept, you can disable individual civs and leaders. This is a 100% optional update.
Last edited:
Yeah, when we first got the leaks around them, I was definitely of the same opinion as some in that they're a stretch, a reach, they don't necessarily feel like they fit, etc... I'm still not like 100% sold on them joining, especially this early in the roster.
But as a free addition, I can stomach them a lot better. And frankly, the civ series has long needed some sort of Caribbean representation, so I'm excited to add them to the map.
And as mentioned before, in the 3-act play that is civ, they become a curious option before your civ "settles down" into Mexico or whoever else in the modern era.
Leucarum
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 3,307
It's just a phase?
Well, yes it is a phase, since you can only play them in the 2nd age. So you can consider them as a kind of "dark age" phase in the 3-part history of your great civ from antiquity to modern times.
Apparently they also have a very big downside, since they cannot built or buy settlers but only capture them from others, at least from what is written on the wiki. So I see some similarities to the dark ages in Civ VI, which gave you some unique bonuses but each with a downside.
Apparently they also have a very big downside, since they cannot built or buy settlers but only capture them from others, at least from what is written on the wiki. So I see some similarities to the dark ages in Civ VI, which gave you some unique bonuses but each with a downside.
Last edited:
WillK96
Warlord
I should've marked my comment with /s.
kaspergm
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 5,850
I'm a Dane, and I'm not quite sure which king you would be referring to here. I'm not a history geek, but don't recall ever having had something like that mentioned, unless you talk about some (Vi)king, which don't really follow under this category.
King Erik VII for example. I'm not sure about others, since I'm not really a history expert as well. But I remember reading an article in PM History about pirate kings and I kinda remember that they mentioned a few others as well. But I'm not sure about that.
kaspergm
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 5,850
Not an expert, but from what I read of facts about Erik VII by doing an online search, there's nothing remotely connected to piracy?
Code:
Reign and important events
1397: He was crowned as the union king of Denmark, Norway and Sweden at the establishment of the Kalmar Union, but Margaret I ruled effectively until her death.
1412-1415: After Margaret's death, Erik took effective power and tried to strengthen his rule, including by building castles along the border with Schleswig.
1412-1423: He fought a war with the Holstein counts over Schleswig, which ended with an arbitration ruling in his favor.
1423-1425: Erik went on a long pilgrimage to the Holy Land.
1429: He began to collect the Øresund toll.
1430s: He met resistance from both the Holsteins and the Swedes due to taxes and centralized rule, which led to rebellions, including Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson's rebellion in Sweden in 1434.
1436: Erik made a peace treaty with the Swedes that changed the form of government.
1437-1438: He was forced to retreat to Gotland, and in 1438 he left Denmark.
1439: He was deposed as king of Denmark and Sweden.
1441: He was also deposed in Norway.
1449: Erik ceded Gotland to Christian I and retired to Pomerania, where he died in 1459.
queenpea
Emperor
I'm not saying that the Republic of Pirates has no place in Civ VII (though personally I don't like the choice and am not interested in playing them), comparing their legitimacy or role in history against Venice is not an effective argument, as Venice existed as a political entity for hundreds of years.
Republic of Venice - Wikipedia
Wasnt he known as the Pirate King? Here is an article that I found.
https://aswedishfika.com/the-pirate-king/
But I might be wrong.
As far as the implementation of Venice goes, which is playing as a single "city-state" and not acquiring settlers and founding cities normally, I agree with that statement that the two are comparable.I'm not saying that the Republic of Pirates has no place in Civ VII (though personally I don't like the choice and am not interested in playing them), comparing their legitimacy or role in history against Venice is not an effective argument, as Venice existed as a political entity for hundreds of years.
Republic of Venice - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
queenpea
Emperor
Yes, but I thought the OP was making the connection based on historical importance. Happy to have mixed that up if I have!
untitledjuan
Prince
Why is Havana Harbour the associated wonder for the Pirate Republic? It makes absolutely zero sense. Wasn't the Pirate Republic predominantly located in the Bahamas? Wouldn't a Pirate associated building/infrastructure there make more sense?
Even if the "Pirate Republic" civilization is meant to represent the "Pirates of the Caribbean" in general, there were a lot more famous places associated to Caribbean piracy than Havana, such as Port Royal in Jamaica, Tortuga or Old Providence and San Andrés islands, were pirates did really rule and had more permanent control over.
The Havana Harbour was never built by pirates nor was it specifically associated to them aside from being attacked by them a couple of times. If anything, its a piece of infrastructure that has more to do with Spain per se (the traditional enemy of Caribbean Pirates) than to the pirates themselves.
Most Spanish-speaking peoples in the Caribbean actually see colonial-era pirates as bad people and associate them to attempts at destroying their cities. A few years back, present-day king Charles III visited Cartagena, in the Colombian Caribbean, and many people rejected the visit recalling the past history of English pirates and their attacks to the city. Choosing a building in a Spanish-speaking Caribbean city such as Havana to represent a "civilization" of mostly English pirates makes no sense. It's like choosing an Irish monastery as the wonder for a "Viking" civilization.
On the other hand, English-speaking countries and territories do celebrate and see colonial pirate history as part of their own history, so it would have made much more sense for the associated wonder for Pirates to be from somewhere in Jamaica, the Bahamas, Old Providence, etc.
I'm sure the Harbour of Port Royal would have been much more appropriate as an associated wonder for the pirates than Havana Harbour. This just shows, again, that history has been relegated more than what was usual and acceptable in this particular entry of the Civilization series.
At least I hope that the "Pirate city list" includes places with an actual historical link to Caribbean piracy and not just a bunch of Spanish-colonial cities attacked and very briefly held by pirates, such as Havana.
Even if the "Pirate Republic" civilization is meant to represent the "Pirates of the Caribbean" in general, there were a lot more famous places associated to Caribbean piracy than Havana, such as Port Royal in Jamaica, Tortuga or Old Providence and San Andrés islands, were pirates did really rule and had more permanent control over.
The Havana Harbour was never built by pirates nor was it specifically associated to them aside from being attacked by them a couple of times. If anything, its a piece of infrastructure that has more to do with Spain per se (the traditional enemy of Caribbean Pirates) than to the pirates themselves.
Most Spanish-speaking peoples in the Caribbean actually see colonial-era pirates as bad people and associate them to attempts at destroying their cities. A few years back, present-day king Charles III visited Cartagena, in the Colombian Caribbean, and many people rejected the visit recalling the past history of English pirates and their attacks to the city. Choosing a building in a Spanish-speaking Caribbean city such as Havana to represent a "civilization" of mostly English pirates makes no sense. It's like choosing an Irish monastery as the wonder for a "Viking" civilization.
On the other hand, English-speaking countries and territories do celebrate and see colonial pirate history as part of their own history, so it would have made much more sense for the associated wonder for Pirates to be from somewhere in Jamaica, the Bahamas, Old Providence, etc.
I'm sure the Harbour of Port Royal would have been much more appropriate as an associated wonder for the pirates than Havana Harbour. This just shows, again, that history has been relegated more than what was usual and acceptable in this particular entry of the Civilization series.
At least I hope that the "Pirate city list" includes places with an actual historical link to Caribbean piracy and not just a bunch of Spanish-colonial cities attacked and very briefly held by pirates, such as Havana.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll