POLL: Non-Leader Leaders

[Boris Gudenuf]

In the Ideal Civ World (Okay, MY Ideal Civ World, because we'll never get complete agreement on this) each iteration of the Civ franchise would have an almost completely different set of 'base' Civs, and each 'set' would try to keep some kind of geographical and cultural diversity:

So, if the Lakotah/Souix appeared in Civ VIII as the Native American Plains Civ, the Commanche or Cheyenne would appear in Civ IX.

If Austria appeared in Civ IX, Bohemia, Bavaria or Saxony would appear in Civ XI

Get the Republican Romans in Civ VII, get Imperial Romans in Civ VIII, get Byzantium in Civ IX, and the Etruscans in Civ X.

How 'important' a Civ was historically would not matter: it's the job of the player to Make Them Important, using the collection of 'special' attributes the game gives them.

 

[MooFreaky]

In the Ideal Civ World (Okay, MY Ideal Civ World, because we'll never get complete agreement on this) each iteration of the Civ franchise would have an almost completely different set of 'base' Civs, and each 'set' would try to keep some kind of geographical and cultural diversity:

So, if the Lakotah/Souix appeared in Civ VIII as the Native American Plains Civ, the Commanche or Cheyenne would appear in Civ IX.

If Austria appeared in Civ IX, Bohemia, Bavaria or Saxony would appear in Civ XI

Get the Republican Romans in Civ VII, get Imperial Romans in Civ VIII, get Byzantium in Civ IX, and the Etruscans in Civ X.

How 'important' a Civ was historically would not matter: it's the job of the player to Make Them Important, using the collection of 'special' attributes the game gives them.

Or at least different iterations of the same Civ.
For example we have done the Augustus/Trajan/Caesar Rome with the Legionnaires, so next do a Rome from Auerelian or Diocletian where it's heavy cavalry based, with gameplay elements based around using military force for loyalty or something. I'd love an Aurelian based Rome, with his personal ability being based around religion, and his personal UU being a knight replacement. Just to keep it fresh, especially when there are Civs and Empires that have such a massive time frame to be picking from.

 

[Zaarin]

In regards to Poland, why not simply combine them with Lithuania and recreate the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?

They essentially did by choosing Jadwiga as leader. I have no problem with Poland, but we've had them twice now.

Etruscans

If only their language were better attested. (As I understand it, their nominal morphology is pretty clear, but their verbs and syntax are utterly opaque.)

Or at least different iterations of the same Civ.

I'd prefer this to completely randomizing the civ list personally.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Or at least different iterations of the same Civ.
For example we have done the Augustus/Trajan/Caesar Rome with the Legionnaires, so next do a Rome from Auerelian or Diocletian where it's heavy cavalry based, with gameplay elements based around using military force for loyalty or something. I'd love an Aurelian based Rome, with his personal ability being based around religion, and his personal UU being a knight replacement. Just to keep it fresh, especially when there are Civs and Empires that have such a massive time frame to be picking from.

We have this now, in the Modded Civs.
For examples, among both 'regular' and Mod versions, in Civ VI we already have 5 different versions of China, 2 versions of England/Britain (and separate Anglo-Saxon and Briton Civs with 4 different alternate leaders among them) 6 versions of France (including leaders as diverse as Charles De Gaulle, Henry IV and Charlemagne), 3 different Germanies, and 2 different Tibets. Given a well-thought out 'framework', the Mod Community can provide all the variety within a Civ in the form of alternative Leaders and Attributes you could desire. The only thing lacking (and to me it is Utterly Unimportant) is animation for most of the Leaders.

. . . If only their language were better attested. (As I understand it, their nominal morphology is pretty clear, but their verbs and syntax are utterly opaque.)

I have posted this before, but while I love the effort put into getting something close to proper language and dialect for the Leaders (even when they don't quite get it right, I applaud that they are making the effort!), the fact is that it is completely irrelevant to the play of the game, and should not be a complete barrier to including a Civ. As long as a City List can be formulated and peculiar specifics of the Civs' physical, political, military, religious or cultural identity can be identified, there has to be a 'work around' for the language that the Leader is speaking.

Shucks, we could just have the Leader standing in the background gesturing, and an obsequious/imperious/devious-looking Interpretor standing in front speaking the player's language with a weird accent. . .

Given the number of intriguing Civilizations that have had to be 'written off' because of language (Etruscans, Minoans, Olmec, just for three) we need to find a way around The Language Barrier..

(And yes, I know that a City List for the Olmec is currently virtually Impossible, but the etymologists have found Pre-Roman, Pre-Greek place names all over northern Italy and Greece and Crete that can be used for the others, and I am the Eternal Optimist in that there is no telling what the archeologists may dig up tomorrow: an Olmec version of Strabo's Geography or a Grand Tour Itinerary for Olmec cities, for instance. . .)

 

[Zaarin]

I have posted this before, but while I love the effort put into getting something close to proper language and dialect for the Leaders (even when they don't quite get it right, I applaud that they are making the effort!), the fact is that it is completely irrelevant to the play of the game, and should not be a complete barrier to including a Civ.

Well, for the record, I think Etruscan is well enough attested that some leader dialogue could probably be scraped together, at least so long as you don't mind the leader reciting funerary texts. I was more literally bemoaning the poor state of Etruscan, not its relevance to Civ. Perhaps the bigger barrier is that the pronunciation of Etruscan does not have the level of consensus that, say, Akkadian does, but you can fairly fudge it. There are no Etruscans left to complain about your bad accent. ...

Given the number of intriguing Civilizations that have had to be 'written off' because of language (Etruscans, Minoans, Olmec, just for three) we need to find a way around The Language Barrier..

I don't think the language barrier is a particular objection to the Etruscans. They can recite Etruscan funerary texts and the all of the major Etruscan cities are well known. The Minoans are a bigger challenge. We don't know what they called themselves; we don't know for sure what they called Knossos (based on the general traits of Linear A, I'm going to guess it wasn't "Knossos"); we don't know what they called their leaders; most of what we know about them is simply what their frescoes can tell or what Homer recorded. The Olmec face a similar challenge.

(And yes, I know that a City List for the Olmec is currently virtually Impossible, but the etymologists have found Pre-Roman, Pre-Greek place names all over northern Italy and Greece and Crete that can be used for the others, and I am the Eternal Optimist in that there is no telling what the archeologists may dig up tomorrow: an Olmec version of Strabo's Geography or a Grand Tour Itinerary for Olmec cities, for instance. . .)

Hopefully it was translated into Classical Maya, which, unlike Olmec, we can actually read.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Well, for the record, I think Etruscan is well enough attested that some leader dialogue could probably be scraped together, at least so long as you don't mind the leader reciting funerary texts. I was more literally bemoaning the poor state of Etruscan, not its relevance to Civ. Perhaps the bigger barrier is that the pronunciation of Etruscan does not have the level of consensus that, say, Akkadian does, but you can fairly fudge it. There are no Etruscans left to complain about your bad accent. ...

I don't think the language barrier is a particular objection to the Etruscans. They can recite Etruscan funerary texts and the all of the major Etruscan cities are well known. The Minoans are a bigger challenge. We don't know what they called themselves; we don't know for sure what they called Knossos (based on the general traits of Linear A, I'm going to guess it wasn't "Knossos"); we don't know what they called their leaders; most of what we know about them is simply what their frescoes can tell or what Homer recorded. The Olmec face a similar challenge.

Hah, right you are: went over to paleolexicon.com, and they have a fairly extensive Etruscan dictionary, so the 'state of the language' has increased dramatically since I was in school.
On the other hand, 'Knossos' is, in fact, Pre-Greek: most of the 'Greek' place names that end in '-os' are some Pre-Greek root word 'modernized' by Greeks. Among the Greek Cities that were there before the Greeks, Corinthos and Argos, are other examples (along with the Pre-Greek sites and names Athens, Thebes, and Delphi, none of which are 'Greek').
Because the incoming Greeks 'reused' so many older place names, ranging from cities to mountains to rivers, finding a 'city list' for either the Pelasgians or the Minoans isn't the main problem. In fact, the 'interpreter' idea would work perfectly with the 'Minoans':

"The Minos will see you now. Stand over here between the Horns and whine your abject wishes. . ."

Hopefully it was translated into Classical Maya, which, unlike Olmec, we can actually read.

If only Baedecker was publishing guides about a thousand years earlier and 3 - 4 thousand miles further west . . .

 

[Zaarin]

On the other hand, 'Knossos' is, in fact, Pre-Greek

To clarify, I'm sure Knossos comes from a Minoan source. But while not every language written with a syllabary ought to be written with a syllabary (poor Hittite and Akkadian), Linear A seems to have been developed natively by the Minoans. This suggests that their language probably didn't allow CC sequences like K-N and probably disallowed coda consonants as well (based on the fact that the Mycenaean texts in Linear B dropped codas), so maybe the original was something like /ŋoso/ or some such (NB this is pure speculation of the moment not based on any research).

 

[Ziad]

I have posted this before, but while I love the effort put into getting something close to proper language and dialect for the Leaders (even when they don't quite get it right, I applaud that they are making the effort!), the fact is that it is completely irrelevant to the play of the game, and should not be a complete barrier to including a Civ. A

I enjoyed Dido's voice actress in Civ5 (I think she was an Israeli VA), but the pronunciation was hilariously modern Jewish.

An example was her intro.

Puruku haKana'anah et atah leMemlakat hana'aman. Anuk Dido, haMalkat Qart Hadasht wakul hu' lah.

(Translation: The Canaanite bless you to the most pleasant kingdom. I am Dido, the queen of Qart Hadasht and everything that is hers)

The ' in "haKan'anah" is a glottal sound (like a gargle sound almost) which she said incorrectly (she skipped it).

The H in Qart Hadasht was not a "kh" sound but also a glottal sound (the sound you make if you are parched)

etc...

But as I said, I still appreciated the effort.

 

[Zaarin]

I enjoyed Dido's voice actress in Civ5 (I think she was an Israeli VA), but the pronunciation was hilariously modern Jewish.

Yes, it was, and I can personally confirm that as fragmentary as Phoenician is, it's well enough attested to write six lines of dialogue in.

 

[Ziad]

I wonder what they'll use this time. Probably a native Hebrew speaker as well, although I hope they go for Aramaic but I can understand if they don't.

 

[Zaarin]

I wonder what they'll use this time. Probably a native Hebrew speaker as well, although I hope they go for Aramaic but I can understand if they don't.

I'd actually prefer Hebrew to Aramaic if only because Phoenicia resisted accepting Aramaic for several centuries after the entire rest of the region was speaking either Aramaic or Greek (and of course in North Africa they went on speaking Punic right up until the Islamic Conquest); in their respective heydays, Biblical Hebrew and Phoenician were probably mutually intelligible. (Aramaic of any variety would be better than Israeli Hebrew, though...)

 

[Ziad]

I'd actually prefer Hebrew to Aramaic if only because Phoenicia resisted accepting Aramaic for several centuries after the entire rest of the region was speaking either Aramaic or Greek (and of course in North Africa they went on speaking Punic right up until the Islamic Conquest); in their respective heydays, Biblical Hebrew and Phoenician were probably mutually intelligible. (Aramaic of any variety would be better than Israeli Hebrew, though...)

Oh right I should have specified preferring Aramaic over "modern" Hebrew. Biblical Hebrew would be fine and probably more reasonable.

 

[Disgustipated]

I have no problem with Poland, but we've had them twice now.

I have a feeling they will be in every game here on out. Don't they have a large gaming community over there? I assumed so since they have a pretty major developer with CD projekt red. Isn't one of the Civ 5/6 youtubers from there?

 

[Zaarin]

I have a feeling they will be in every game here on out. Don't they have a large gaming community over there? I assumed so since they have a pretty major developer with CD projekt red.

CD Projekt Red also happens to own GOG, so I would assume Poland has a decent-sized gaming market. Without any slight meant to Poland, however, I think it would be a shame if they were our perennial non-Russian, non-German Central/Eastern European civ. I'm not a fan of including civs to pander to markets, but Civ6 suggests I'd probably better get used to it...

 

[AmazonQueen]

CD Projekt Red also happens to own GOG, so I would assume Poland has a decent-sized gaming market. Without any slight meant to Poland, however, I think it would be a shame if they were our perennial non-Russian, non-German Central/Eastern European civ. I'm not a fan of including civs to pander to markets, but Civ6 suggests I'd probably better get used to it...

I also think theres a danger if we allow too many civs to become perennials. About 50 seems to be a reasonable limit (one Civ 6 hasn't reached yet) on how many civs we can expect to get per game. I think there should be about 20 perennials, maybe about 20 biennials or triennials that turn up fairly regularly, and 10 wildcards per game.

 

[Ziad]

What do you consider to be perennial? Probably USA and the European civs I imagine.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

What do you consider to be perennial? Probably USA and the European civs I imagine.

Well, there hasn't been a Civ game without a pretty strong USA/European bias for included Civs, and, like it or not, that's where the gamer market is.
I think they have gotten much, much better since Civ 2 at trying to include a wider variety of Civs, but there will always be 'imbalances' - if nothing else, for sheer lack of the information they think they need to include a Civ: Mohenjo-Daro and the Olmecs, much as I might like to see either or both of them represented, are probably not very likely without some massive breakthrough in archeology and/or archeological linguistics.

 

[Ziad]

Well they are represented as city states. That's at least something.

 

[AmazonQueen]

What do you consider to be perennial? Probably USA and the European civs I imagine.

Plus a few others like China, India,Eygpt probably the Aztecs and Zulus
Not my ideal but being realistic

 

[Ziad]

Plus a few others like China, India, probably the Aztecs and Zulus
Not my ideal but being realistic

I mean I accept it knowing full well that they are doing their best to appeal to what players perceive as iconic while throwing in a few creative implementations in the pipeline. I'm sure gamer audiences have something to do with it as well.