Polynesia/Hawaii?

[TPangolin]

No, no, no you don't understand it's justifiable because she has the same colour skin and is ethnically related to the extremely homogeneous Celtic grouping /s



It's like having the Julius Caesar leading the "The Italians" or Bennelong leading an Aborignal Australia civ.

 

[Atlas627]

Pick one of the Polynesian civs and use the limited info and options we have to make a thematic set of abilities that fits a good gameplay niche.

Germany as a Civ doesn't do justice to the individual cultures and uniques either, but nobody expects to have Prussia in one Civ game and then Bavaria in another. It makes a decent amount of sense to lump them together, just like they do with China, India, Russia, etc. And it results in good gameplay.

Polynesia was a great Civ because it fit a good niche and managed to represent each of the cultures well. It could be better, of course. But its nowhere on the same level as the "Native American" civ in 4. It wasn't even unique at all. At least they could've blobbed things better.

 

[IgorS]

Germany as a Civ doesn't do justice to the individual cultures and uniques either, but nobody expects to have Prussia in one Civ game and then Bavaria in another.

Yes, but no one also expects to have Austria as part of the German civ. Combining Prussia and Bavaria is not a problem, since, you know, eventually, Germany did unite.
Did Polynesia ever unite? Don't get me wrong, I care about gameplay too, but I also want to have real civs in the game, not "what if" civs.

 

[IgorS]

It's been about 15 years since I played, what sucked about the Celts in Civ 2?

Pretty much the same thing as with Civ V. Both leaders were British Celts, city list was also British (the capital was in Cardiff). But Civ II did a lot of stupid things with other civs too... I mean, Sheherezade was the leader of Persia, and Amaterasu was the leader of Japan. And don't get me started on Nazca and Shakala)

 

[Depravo]

Pretty much the same thing as with Civ V. Both leaders were British Celts, city list was also British (the capital was in Cardiff). But Civ II did a lot of stupid things with other civs too... I mean, Sheherezade was the leader of Persia, and Amaterasu was the leader of Japan. And don't get me started on Nazca and Shakala)

Ah yes, now I remember the epic battle of Rhymney. To give them their due, Wikipedia wasn't available back then and books require some effort to locate and open.

Yes, but no one also expects to have Austria as part of the German civ. Combining Prussia and Bavaria is not a problem, since, you know, eventually, Germany did unite.
Did Polynesia ever unite? Don't get me wrong, I care about gameplay too, but I also want to have real civs in the game, not "what if" civs.

Austria was not seen as distinct from Germany until the dissolution of the HRE, and despite the terms of Versailles specifically prohibiting it agreed to join with it for a bit, until separated by considerable force. The dapper chap was Austrian himself as I recall.

 

[IgorS]

Austria was not seen as distinct from Germany until the dissolution of the HRE, and despite the terms of Versailles specifically prohibiting it agreed to join with it for a bit, until separated by considerable force. The dapper chap was Austrian himself as I recall.

Yes, he was.
But when it comes to Austria, they were also an empire in their own right, and a major player in Europe.
What I am trying to say is that there are different cases for each civ. I mean, there is a reason why a German civ makes sense, but a Polynesian one (or a Celtic one) does not.

 

[Atlas627]

Yes, but no one also expects to have Austria as part of the German civ. Combining Prussia and Bavaria is not a problem, since, you know, eventually, Germany did unite.
Did Polynesia ever unite? Don't get me wrong, I care about gameplay too, but I also want to have real civs in the game, not "what if" civs.

Germany has been united for less than a 20th of its known history. Polynesia was just as united, just before leaving Taiwan

Yes, he was.
But when it comes to Austria, they were also an empire in their own right, and a major player in Europe.
What I am trying to say is that there are different cases for each civ. I mean, there is a reason why a German civ makes sense, but a Polynesian one (or a Celtic one) does not.

The reason for Germany (and Austria) meet your standards, but the ones for Polynesia do not. That's fine. Everyone has different standards.

But if you know that there are different levels, why is it so hard to believe that, when everyone says they liked Polynesia, its different level is enough to satisfy their standards? Is it not possible for other people's standards to be acceptable? Popular? Standard, even?

 

[ehecatzin]

I woulnd't write off a Polynesian civ, just because one of the "standarts" Ed Beach is using to decide a civs inclusion is also TSL. As more dlc's and expansions come, having a Polynesian civ would fill a large portion of the globe.

That is just the TSL of course, if a civ is distinct enough and has enough appeal they will add it, any discussion on weather or not a civ is "worthy" by a forum standard won't matter much, Firaxis will add it. And if Brazil's inclusion on vanilla is any indication, we can expect them to push the civ choices (civ 5 "standard" for inclusion) even harder this time around.

Now talking about an hypothethical polynesian civ, rather than just early sea travel, I think it should be able to use as little space possible to the max, due to city unstacking, space is precious for an island civ. Japan already has something to this regard, I think Polynesia would have to push it even further, making sure they have bonuses or can use sea tiles as districts.

 

[DefiantMars]

I've always been a bit unsure about how I should feel about Civ V Polynesia. As someone of Native Hawaiian decent who lives in Hawaii. Its nice to be acknowledged, but at the same time the "blob" throws me off. The word Disingenuous comes to mind.

To reiterate what I said in a previous thread. While far from an Empire, I would still like the Pacific Islands to be represented in some fashion. I would prefer to not have a blob Polynesia again. But any Civ from the greater Oceania would make me happy. My preference would be Hawaii or Maori.

In terms of suggestions, I can only really say anything about Hawaiian leaders.

Along with Kamehameha I, my next suggestion for a leader would be King David Kalākaua. Nicknamed the Merrie Monarch, he (and his siblings) had a great love for music and hula (Hawaiian Dance). He is credited for reviving Hawaiian culture after much of it was repressed and banned. Greatly progressive, Kalākaua wanted modernize the Hawaiian Kingdom and sought diplomatic relations worldwide.

I think I'd be cool to have a Diplo-Culture focused Semi-naval Hawaii.

I know there aren't any empires by the definition of the word but I think it would be a disservice to skip over such a geographically massive area entirely.

 

[ehecatzin]

I know there aren't any empires by the definition of the word but I think it would be a disservice to skip over such a geographically massive area entirely.

Given than Polynesia was a first under Ed Beach (and Brazil and most likely Poland are coming back) I'm sure that a Polynesian civ is sure to come by eventually.

 

[JimmyBanks]

I'm not a fan of a "Polynesian" civ. I sort of get that Polynesians are similar but it would be like have a "Caucasian" civ.

I think each individual country has enough of a history to have a Civ in its own right, be it Samoa, Tonga, Hawaii or any other poly civ.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[Atlas627]

I'm not a fan of a "Polynesian" civ. I sort of get that Polynesians are similar but it would be like have a "Caucasian" civ.

I think each individual country has enough of a history to have a Civ in its own right, be it Samoa, Tonga, Hawaii or any other poly civ.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

No, its more like having a Greek civ, a Russian civ, a German civ, an Indian civ, or a Chinese civ.

You could certainly make them more specific like a French civ, an English civ, or a Spanish civ too. But you don't have to.

A Caucasian civ would be like having a Middle Eastern civ, an African civ, an Asian civ (which Polynesia would be part of), an American civ, and a Modern civ.

 

[Ikael]

Interesting debate here. Polynesia is on the very edge of being a blobciv. The term "polinesian" denotes a group of different, yet severely related cultures, rather than one wide race. It is a blob in the same sense that an "India", "Babylonian", "Mayan" or "Hellenistic" civilization is a blob.

As for my personal preference, I am of the opinion that if a historic political body has enough defining characteristics (or known defining characteristics) to be richly and properly represented, then it should be considered one single civ rather than merge it with anoter culturally linked civs.

In that case, I think that Maoris & Hawaiians are distinct enough to warrant a proper representation. You have one warrior islander culture (Maori) VS a diplomatic & sailor one (Hawaiians). And for example, we would need to include the Rapa Nui into some kind of "blob" if we would want to represent them, since we lack of enough historical records about them (we know little about their leaders, agendas and the likes, for example).

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Interesting debate here. Polynesia is on the very edge of being a blobciv. The term "polinesian" denotes a group of different, yet severely related cultures, rather than one wide race. It is a blob in the same sense that an "India", "Babylonian", "Mayan" or "Hellenistic" civilization is a blob.

As for my personal preference, I am of the opinion that if a historic political body has enough defining characteristics (or known defining characteristics) to be richly and properly represented, then it should be considered one single civ rather than merge it with anoter culturally linked civs.

In that case, I think that Maoris & Hawaiians are distinct enough to warrant a proper representation. You have one warrior islander culture (Maori) VS a diplomatic & sailor one (Hawaiians). And for example, we would need to include the Rapa Nui into some kind of "blob" if we would want to represent them, since we lack of enough historical records about them (we know little about their leaders, agendas and the likes, for example).

That's where you can use multiple leaders of a single civ. You know some common factors->civ Uniques
Then the subculture specific factors->leader uniques

 

[JimmyBanks]

No, its more like having a Greek civ, a Russian civ, a German civ, an Indian civ, or a Chinese civ.

You could certainly make them more specific like a French civ, an English civ, or a Spanish civ too. But you don't have to.

A Caucasian civ would be like having a Middle Eastern civ, an African civ, an Asian civ (which Polynesia would be part of), an American civ, and a Modern civ.

I completely disagree with this.

Samoan's and Tongan's are as different as Spain and Portugal. Hawaii and the Maori are as different as Poland and Italy.

Only people who have no understanding of the different Polynesian cultures would say they are the same. If Firaxis are going to have Germany, England and Spain they can also have one of the civs from Polynesia rather than just having "Polynesia".

 

[Depravo]

I completely disagree with this.

Samoan's and Tongan's are as different as Spain and Portugal. Hawaii and the Maori are as different as Poland and Italy.

Only people who have no understanding of the different Polynesian cultures would say they are the same. If Firaxis are going to have Germany, England and Spain they can also have one of the civs from Polynesia rather than just having "Polynesia".

Cultural distance? You could use the same logic to argue for several hundred African or a few dozen South American civilisations.

 

[SMcM]

It is a blob in the same sense that an "India", "Babylonian", "Mayan" or "Hellenistic" civilization is a blob.

No, not really. The Neo-Babylonian empire united Babylonians. India was unified under the Maurya dynasty. Mayans are admittedly a blob civ though, but they were it least in far more regular contact due to the Mayan city states all existing in a fairly small area of land as opposed to being separated by vast expanses of sea.

Polynesia has never been a united entity. There was never a Polynesian empire. This is what sets it apart from India and Babylon; those are not civs which Firaxis formed by blobbing together separate kingdoms which never really united.

 

[Ikael]

Polynesia has never been a united entity. There was never a Polynesian empire. This is what sets it apart from India and Babylon; those are not civs which Firaxis formed by blobbing together separate kingdoms which never really united.

Thing is, polinesians had been united under a common culture in the past (lapita culture) from whom they splintered into many differenced ones. It is not nearly the same as the "native american" blob or the "viking" blob, it is more akin to the "Celtic" or "Mayan" civ, if anything, me thinks.

As to the other present "quasi-blob" civs, you do have a point, the Neo Babylonian empire was a unified single entity on its own right. The Mayuran dynasty... hmmm... I wonder. I mean, they didn't fully unified India, and they lasted for a very, very brief period of the very vast history of the region.

That being said, this is more of a mental exerecise than any kind of defense of the creation of a "Polynesian" civilization. I do believe that polinesian cultures such as the Maori, the Hawaiians or the Samoans ought to be represented as their own differenciated civs, and that grouping ought to be avoided when possible.

 

[Abraxis]

I completely disagree with this.

Samoan's and Tongan's are as different as Spain and Portugal. Hawaii and the Maori are as different as Poland and Italy.

Only people who have no understanding of the different Polynesian cultures would say they are the same. If Firaxis are going to have Germany, England and Spain they can also have one of the civs from Polynesia rather than just having "Polynesia".

Everything is different from everything, having to make this argument if anything just shows how little you appreciate it. As different as Poland and Italy? how about as different as northern and southern Italy. As different as a Tuscan and a Roman, as different as an italian living near the Vatican and an Italian in the slums. As different as one random Italian who eats at the restaurant across the street from the other random Italian. All with an incomprehensible and likely ultimately unquantifiable uniqueness separating the two.

Trying to deconstruct the need for delineation is stupid and pointless.

Things need to be defined to exist, and a certain scale must be consistent, that's just something you need to deal with. If you think every island should be represented as it's own civilization, that's cool.
It's never going to happen.
It's beyond foolish to expect.
It's a dead end debate.

 

[Amrunril]

Lumping and splitting occur along a continuum, and there will always be debate about where to draw the line in any given case. While I won't claim to know enough about Polynesian culture to weigh in meaningfully on how it should be represented, I will say that the unique city state system eliminates some pressure to lump different groups together simply for the sake of making sure both are represented (assuming it isn't feasible to make both full civs). If, for instance, you wanted to include a specifically Hawaiian civ instead of a generic Polynesian one, it would still be possible to represent Easter Island culture as a city state the grants its suzerain the ability to construct Moai tile improvements.