correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall you saying that culture in the PNW got more complex and richer the further north you go and culminating with the Tlingit.
Correct, though the Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian all had their niches. The Tlingit made Chilkat blankets and were probably the finest carvers, the Haida were the finest canoe-makers, and the Tsimshian were the finest mask makers (look up "Tsimshian transformation masks").
I started a paper for a class in college comparing Granuaile to Cleopatra. I had to abandon it because it ended up being really little more than pointing out coincidences, but the list of coincidental parallels in their lives was still rather fascinating.
I also agree with how inconsistent Civ VI has been with the looks of the leaders. Some like Saladin, Pedro, and Montezuma look very bad even without comparison to the great looking ones like Cyrus and Gitarja. Thankfully some like Teddy and Seondeok went from looking worse at first to looking great with some adjustments.
Gandhi's rendering in-game is particularly bad, even if he RESEMBLES the real person. With his rendered body shape and posture, and the bad memes in Civ player culture, I can't help but imagining him neurotically stroking a nuclear launch "red button" saying, "don't worries, My Precious, we'll nukeses the tricksy rival leaderses' cities after pokesing their eyeses out!"
Gandhi's rendering in-game is particularly bad, even if he RESEMBLES the real person. With his rendered body shape and posture, and the bad memes in Civ player culture, I can't help but imagining him neurotically stroking a nuclear launch "red button" saying, "don't worries, My Precious, we'll nukeses the tricksy rival leaderses' cities after pokesing their eyeses out!"
Roger Zelazny's novel Lord of Light had a Hinduism-based culture in a science-fiction setting that included a description of a nuclear strike that always comes to mind whenever I have to deal with Civ Gandhi in game:
"The God with the wide-brimmed hat will nod his head over your cities."
Correct, though the Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian all had their niches. The Tlingit made Chilkat blankets and were probably the finest carvers, the Haida were the finest canoe-makers, and the Tsimshian were the finest mask makers (look up "Tsimshian transformation masks").
Though the Tlingit are still my preferred PNW civ, that is some nice info that I'm glad to know about. I looked up the Tsimshian transformation masks and was not disappointed!
I started a paper for a class in college comparing Granuaile to Cleopatra. I had to abandon it because it ended up being really little more than pointing out coincidences, but the list of coincidental parallels in their lives was still rather fascinating.
Yeah, I can see the similarities. Brian Boru was my choice to lead Ireland for a while (and he would still be a good choice) but I've come to see Granuaile as a fun alternative. You'd have to go out of your way to make someone known as the Pirate Queen of Ireland boring! If only we could have her and Elizabeth in the same game!
Gandhi's rendering in-game is particularly bad, even if he RESEMBLES the real person. With his rendered body shape and posture, and the bad memes in Civ player culture, I can't help but imagining him neurotically stroking a nuclear launch "red button" saying, "don't worries, My Precious, we'll nukeses the tricksy rival leaderses' cities after pokesing their eyeses out!"
Roger Zelazny's novel Lord of Light had a Hinduism-based culture in a science-fiction setting that included a description of a nuclear strike that always comes to mind whenever I have to deal with Civ Gandhi in game:
"The God with the wide-brimmed hat will nod his head over your cities."
Can't say I disagree. There are some leaders that I don't mind at all if they keep returning but Gandhi isn't one of them for me. I'd hope that next time we could have Chandragupta be the initial Hindu/Jainist leader and leave an alt leader spot for someone else like one of the Mughal emperors.
Can't say I disagree. There are some leaders that I don't mind at all if they keep returning but Gandhi isn't one of them for me. I'd hope that next time we could have Chandragupta be the initial Hindu/Jainist leader and leave an alt leader spot for someone else like one of the Mughal emperors.
I'd like to see India split into multiple civs. It's one of the franchise's last ridiculous blob civs, and it could easily be replaced by Tamil, Maurya, and Mughal civs (as an example).
I'd like to see India split into multiple civs. It's one of the franchise's last ridiculous blob civs, and it could easily be replaced by Tamil, Maurya, and Mughal civs (as an example).
Maratha Empire, maybe, too... If we'll get rid of Nuclear Gandhi, I'll support it.
It's true that whole India had been united by the British Empire. The closest to the total domination over India other than the British were the Mughals and the Mauryas.
That would be a neat idea and I would have no complaints, though the developers might be reluctant to split up a modern nation regardless of the age of the leaders in it. Then again they did split up Greece and Macedonia so who knows!
@Zaarin I forgot to ask earlier but what did you end up writing on after you abandoned the Granuaile and Cleopatra paper?
Gandhi's rendering in-game is particularly bad, even if he RESEMBLES the real person. With his rendered body shape and posture, and the bad memes in Civ player culture, I can't help but imagining him neurotically stroking a nuclear launch "red button" saying, "don't worries, My Precious, we'll nukeses the tricksy rival leaderses' cities after pokesing their eyeses out!"
I'd like to see India split into multiple civs. It's one of the franchise's last ridiculous blob civs, and it could easily be replaced by Tamil, Maurya, and Mughal civs (as an example).
India is still only nominally a 'single' Civ: my wife and I have several friends from India (she nannied some of their kids for several years) and they have less in common with each other than they have with us! One family is from the Punjab and is Sikh, the other from south of Mumbai and are Pentacostal Christians! Linguistically, culturally, genetically and religiously they are very diverse. . .
In addition, and in this India is like China, the area has had Civilizations in it for over 3000 years, leading to a lot of temporal diversity as well: even Indian states that covered roughly the same area geographically could be so different in time period, religion, and culture as to be separate civilizations.
India is still only nominally a 'single' Civ: my wife and I have several friends from India (she nannied some of their kids for several years) and they have less in common with each other than they have with us! One family is from the Punjab and is Sikh, the other from south of Mumbai and are Pentacostal Christians! Linguistically, culturally, genetically and religiously they are very diverse. . .
In addition, and in this India is like China, the area has had Civilizations in it for over 3000 years, leading to a lot of temporal diversity as well: even Indian states that covered roughly the same area geographically could be so different in time period, religion, and culture as to be separate civilizations.
- and the Punjab could in fact be the basis (geographically) for yet another 'separate' Indian Civ: the Sikh: the original Gurus, and Gurdwara-builders: if their Religion, unique People, and religious buildings are already in the game, why not the entire Civ?
Yes, there is a part of me that would have preferred the devs consolidate the Ghandhi and Chandra concepts into a single Ashoka leader to leave room for Nur Jahan or Akbar or Raja Raja.
However, it must needs be said that VI in particular is catering just as much to modern global powers as it is to historical regional powers. And since India is a modern superpower, I don't think there is anything wrong with including a leader nod toward that end. And frankly Ghandhi is better than any of the other modern options as far as choosing an iconic culture hero.
I mean I agree that he's a bit boring at this point, but as for all the historical snobbery going on here, I find it kind of self-satisfied nitpicking against some standard which VI clearly doesn't hold itself to.
Now, if we are talking VII, sure, by all means aim for encouraging a different design paradigm. But I think the criticism leveled at Ghandhi (and Sumeria, and Kristina, and, and) is really just misplaced disappointment in the fundamental concept of VI and how thoroughly indifferent it is to pedantry and propriety. I don't see it going anywhere productive if it's not trying (for the most part) to work within the fundamentals of what has already been decided and developed.
Yes, there is a part of me that would have preferred the devs consolidate the Ghandhi and Chandra concepts into a single Ashoka leader to leave room for Nur Jahan or Akbar or Raja Raja.
However, it must needs be said that VI in particular is catering just as much to modern global powers as it is to historical regional powers. And since India is a modern superpower, I don't think there is anything wrong with including a leader nod toward that end. And frankly Ghandhi is better than any of the other modern options as far as choosing an iconic culture hero.
I mean I agree that he's a bit boring at this point, but as for all the historical snobbery going on here, I find it kind of self-satisfied nitpicking against some standard which VI clearly doesn't hold itself to.
Now, if we are talking VII, sure, by all means aim for encouraging a different design paradigm. But I think the criticism leveled at Ghandhi (and Sumeria, and Kristina, and, and) is really just misplaced disappointment in the fundamental concept of VI and how thoroughly indifferent it is to pedantry and propriety. I don't see it going anywhere productive if it's not trying (for the most part) to work within the fundamentals of what has already been decided and developed.
Well, now that you've brought out terms like, " historical snobbery," "self-satisfied nitpicking," and "thoroughly indifferent it is to pedantry and propriety," I think you've pretty much shot yourself in the foot and thoroughly sabotaged yourself in any historical arguments going forward, which you have rested a lot of your past statements, and you know is a strong focus of many others arguing here. And I don't think gained much, if anything, by this "stick it to you" commentary. Of course, your view is only a microcosm of one the biggest problems, on all levels in all areas, that is among the most destructive forces in the world recently - the "feelings" should override rational thought and education at all junctures of conflict - a line of thought that is one of the biggest to the death spiral of CIVILIZATION (in a RW sense) into a new dark age that we are seeing unfolding before us today.
Series regulars yet to be seen:
Babylon (the only Civ I civ yet to make an appearance)
Byzantines (since Civ III)
Maya (since Civ III)
Portugal (since Civ III)
Some others I'm hoping for
Kingdom of Italy (Garibaldi)
Madagascar (Ranavalona I)
Vietnam (Trung sister(s))
(Gran) Colombia (Bolivar)
Alt-Leader: Egypt (a Pharaoh. Just any Pharaoh. Male or female. Pick one)
These two are fairly likely also, as I consider them nearly series regulars:
Iroquois (Civ III & V)
Ethiopia (Civ IV & V)
Series regulars yet to be seen:
Babylon (the only Civ I civ yet to make an appearance)
Byzantines (since Civ III)
Maya (since Civ III)
Portugal (since Civ III)
Some others I'm hoping for
Kingdom of Italy (Garibaldi)
Madagascar (Ranavalona I)
Vietnam (Trung sister(s))
(Gran) Colombia (Bolivar)
These two are fairly likely also, as I consider them nearly series regulars:
Iroquois (Civ III & V)
Ethiopia (Civ IV & V)
We have never gotten more than one Ancient Era civ in an expack. And the Maya are generally a much better option than Babylon, given that it spreads out ancient representation instead of obsessively fixating on the levant. Not to mention the fact that Sumeria is a blob civ intended to obviate the need for Sophie's choice between Babylon, Assyria, and Akkadia.
Also, for the umpteenth time, just because things worked in prior games doesn't mean they presumptively work in VI. In particular, a lot of effort has gone into differentiating the art design and musical sound of each civ, not to mention the political personality and mechanical identity. As a matter of game development, any requested civs which are already extremely culturally similar to any existing civs are at an extreme disadvantage, because the devs would have to spend additional time trying to account for--in Babylon's case--the similarities and overlaps in game feel it might share with Sumeria. This problem does not exist if they just pick an unrepresented region of the map, which they could easily do for all eight civs if they wanted to. So this presumption that the devs will elect to create additional work for themselves simply for "tradition's sake" is an extremely weak and undernuanced argument.
Yes, they could still choose undertake that burden (which would also be at the cost of adding one less civ from another region, overall reducing roster diversity and diluting the globalist themes of VI). But given that they have already expressly prioritized Sumeria, I don't think "well, it's Babylon" carries much water. If Babylon were that important to VI's thesis, we would have Babylon in the base game and not Sumeria. I don't see it happening.
Also, we have two ancient era civs. We have Phoenicia. Which actually makes the only two ancient civs at the moment crammed into the same region. We don't need a third ancient civ gumming up the levant.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
