Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Krajzen, Aug 21, 2019.
Only the Music Capital moved to Austin, and I don't believe LBJ had anything to do with it . . .
I agree with your argument and just because some one was from the HRE does not immediately disqualify him from every standing as a civ leader. We have already seen that leaders of more complex systems can still represent their respective cultures(Frederick Barbarossa for example, who was also Holy Roman Emperor yet he represents Germany in Civ VI). There is no arguing that Charles IV had an enormous impact on Czech culture and shaped it to be what it is today. The HRE was never even a single culture, more like a medieval confederacy type of state, and was consisted of many semi- autonomous duchies, kingdoms and counties, so it's leaders would be better suited to rule their respective areas of influences and origin.
My 5 list is:
1) Italy (Garibaldi and/or Vittorio Emanuele II)
2) USSR (Lenin and/or Stalin)
3) Byzantinian Empire
5) Yugoslavia (Tito)
Here's what I'm missing from the current crop of civs/leaders:
1. Bulgaria - I'm really surprised they've still not included them at least once before. One of few nations mentioned above that could've legit be considered an empire at one time. A niche choice when you have Byzantium, Macedon, Sparta etc. in terms of the Balkans though, so I can understand the rationale. Think it was either them or Hungary when GS was released. Would really dig a Bulgaria under Simeon/Samuil/Krum or even Vasil Levski. Their musical theme would be pretty awesome too.
2. Armenia - I've always had a soft spot for Armenian stuff. I think they fall into the category of Bulgaria as well. Very old country with an amazing history that's kind of been overshadowed by better-known civilizations in roughly the same geographical location. Still, Tigranes is a badass and I want him in-game.
3. Byzantium - I'm in two minds here. If we get Byzantium there's no chance we're getting Bulgaria too, but they're visibly missing from the roster. Maybe we can get Theodora as an alt leader for Rome. Would not be ideal, but at least we'll have an open spot for a new civ.
4. Celts/Gaul - I'm missing a pagan civ from Western Europe. I don't think Vikings count.
5. Normandy - Self-explanatory really. I want to be a crusader.
Though I would love to have Byzantium, it's to similiar to Rome and the Balkans isn't really represented as well as I would like. Sure you have Greece but this is the classical one that was barely country but a very, very loose confederation of city-states. Again, Macedon is a classical era civ, but are honestly known for conquering half the known world so they don't represent the Balkans either. If you would like to have Armenia in your game, check out CIVITAS Armenia, led by Tigranes himself. They also have made a Normandy mod and there is a Gaul mod by Surkritact, so check that out too.
Yeah, I have all three mods. They're fine but official stuff is obviously more polished and the leaders themselves would have more character.
As for the Balkans, have to agree. There's like 86 civs in that region and not one is Slavic.
Frederick Barbarossa is a really bad supporting example. In his day, there was NO separate, but at all unified "Germany," as a distinct entity from the Holy Roman Empire. His argument is even weaker than Charles IV's in that manner.
Um, no, it isn't. It's very, very different.
No, no, they used the term "SPQR" so they must be the same . . .
Except for their military, administration, language, culture, foreign policy, diplomatic surroundings and environment - otherwise, identical.
I feel like this whole argument is kinda useless considering Firaxis clearly treats Byzantium as a different civ to Rome. if we get an xpack I don't see why they wouldn't keep it that way...
I think I and others have already stated inasmuch why this is a reductive, incomplete assertion.
Early Byzantium was identical in nearly every respect. Later Byzantium was not.
Seems pointless to pick hard sides on a semantic issue that has no "better" opinion, whereas what people actually care about and which substantially color which era of Byzantium is better than the other are things like aesthetics, mechanics, game design, etc.
I obviously think early Byzantium is better specifically within the frame of game design, because I would much rather have both Simeon I and Olga of Kiev over only Irene of Athens. But I also don't fault people for wanting a civ with a stronger Byzantine aesthetic than just a Roman alternate leader. I just happen to be bored by that aesthetic myself and want the region revitalized by fresh blood.
Ireland. Ireland, Ireland, Ireland, with Brian Boru, and I expect a beautiful cover of Oro se do Bheatha Bhaile, don't let me down, Geoff.
My perspective on Ireland is about the same as Finland. Would it be aesthetically and mechanically great? Of course. Will it likely show up? Probably not.
Again, so far the roster has largely limited itself to "empires," long-lasting kingdoms which at some point were expansionist and regionally dominant. Smaller kingdoms which never really had an imperialist era (and/or were frequently controlled by larger imperial interests) have been given the city-state treatment in VI. Ireland is definitely the latter.
I think it would be fantastic, however, if after expack 3 rounded out the "empires," if Firaxis continued to develop bonus civs that don't fit the imperialist mold. Actually, if we wanted to "stretch" the idea of global empires, Ireland could possibly squeeze by. If, for sake of argument, Vatican City or Israel could be considered hubs for global religious empires, or Switzerland could be considered a hub of an economic empire, then Ireland could reasonably be treated as the center of a cultural empire (of beer and whiskey). It's the most celebrated national holiday, and for that one day a year a plurality of the developed world gets to be Irish. That's pretty significant, imo.
I think your view of this (and using it to prognosticate, often in a way that you act as though you knew these with authority - that you had a source right from Firaxis), and that NOT everyone who has appeared as a Civ is an "Empire," by definition. This is blatant and obvious that there are exceptions to that label. But you keep preaching the "Empire label," like a mantra, mostly to shut down other people's ideas and suggestions. And not even all of the one's you've suggested have been "Empires," even remotely. I think you should stop this. It is unproductive - in fact, it's just being used to shut people down.
I'd like to see Kingdom of Italy civ, but maybe you start by controlling 4 or so Italian-named city states. And then if you keep them from being conquered or from allying with some other civ (not sure how that would work exactly)...you then get to found your capital city "Rome" later on in the game.
You have to make gameplay interesting here.
Until Civ can get Civlizations/Cultures that were composed of politically and diplomatically independent City States, and other Civs that were based on Pastoralism instead of Agriculture, I would rather not see them try Italy, or Switzerland, or Classical Greece, or any Civ before 1500 CE located between Hungary and China. I know they are going to keep right on giving us Monolithic Greek Civs and urban Mongols, but I wish they'd stop until they get away from the One Frame Fits All Civs model they've been using since Civ I.
Mongols were actually quite urban after the death of Genghis, actually. Kublai lived in Beijing, the Golden Khans lived in Astrakhan, and the Ilkhans lived in various large Persian cities. Just saying...
Sorry, you just (inadvertently, I'm sure) proved my point: their capitals were in cities, because that's where the existing administrative 'machinery' was to govern their new territories. The bulk of the Mongol population, though, remained culturally and physically pastoral, and the Mongol style of strategic warfare, as practiced by the Mongols themselves against Khwarizm, the Ilkhans in the Middle East, and the Timurds in Afghanistan, included the complete obliteration of numerous cities. Astrakhan, being a terminus for part of the Silk Road, was a major source of wealth to the Golden or Great Horde, but tellingly, the capital of the Golden Horde for a time was near the narrowest point between the Don and Volga Rivers - modern Volgograd/Stalingrad - and it was known as Sarai Batu - "Batu's (leader of the Horde) Camp". That to me indicates a distinctly pastoral mindset rather than the Civ game-typical Urban development model.
You do touch on an important point about Conquering Pastoral Civs that would need to be included in any mechanism that tries to model them accurately (well, semi-accurately) for the game (the current Civ VI Ottomans touch on it only slightly): they were perfectly willing to Use cities even when at first they claimed to despise them and their inhabitants. The 'Royal Scythians' basically kept the Greek colonies along the Black Sea coast as sovereigned City States, milking them for city-produced goods they wanted. The Mongols, famously, formed an entire Dynasty (Yuan) in China, and essentially became Chinese over several generations. The Seljuk and later Ottoman Turks moved in off the steppes as mercenary soldiers and took over the cities of the Middle East up to and including Constantnople in the end. But, tellingly, you have to look long and hard and have an elastic set of definitions to find purely Scythian, Mongolian, or Ottoman/Seljuk founded cities. There are very, very few of them, and frequently they are founded late and in imitation of cities they've already taken from others.
What would a Cuman civ even look like? Now don't get me wrong, I like the Cumans/Kipchaks a great deal (thank Age of Empires for that), I'm just curious if they could even be... civ-ified without being too similar to Scythia.
The Cumans, Kipchaks, Polovtsii are another 'standard Central Asa Pastoral Group', which is not to belittle their importance at all, but simply to point out that everybody living on the 'sea of grass' from east of the Dnepr River to Manchuria shared a number of cultural/technological characteristics, the most basic of which was that they based their food supply on herds, not crops.
That means that all of them - Mongols, Huns, Scythians, Cumans, Bulgars (pre- modern 'Bulgaria'), Pechenegs, Cimmerians, Khazars, Hsung-Nu, et al are virtually impossible for the Civ games to model, because the basic concept of the Civ franchise is that Agriculture = Cities and Cities = Civilization. The fact that agriculture preceded the first cities by 4 - 5000 years is ignored, because it happened before the game starts (Agriculture has been dated back to around 10,000 BCE, the first cities - as in, groups of people with organized crafts beyond simple food production and a governing body that consists of someone other than family/clan elders - to around 4000 BCE, but new discoveries are changing the exact dates almost monthly). The fact that there have been numerous diplomatically and militarily very important groups since then - like all the ones listed above, plus their Lakota and Comanche 'cultural cousins' in North America - is simply ignored, and they are stuffed into a 'city' pattern for lack of any in-game alternative.
So, add the Cumans to the list of 'Civs' that cannot be properly represented/modeled in Civ until they come up with a non-City, pastoral civ mechanism that makes such groups playable and competitive.
Separate names with a comma.