Polynesia/Hawaii?

[Atlas627]

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".

Samoans and Tongans ARE as different as Spain and Portugal. In the grand scheme of things, not that different. But, the historical achievements of Spain and Portugal were completely different, allowing us to create 2 unique playstyles from VERY similar cultures.

Hawaii and the Maori are probably about the same difference as Poland and Italy...'s cuisine. They eat a lot of the same things under different names. The culture is not close, and their historical achievements are even further.

You know that "German" culture is a mix of hundreds of different local cultures? Same with the "Greek" civ, "Russian" civ, "Indian" civ and the "Chinese" civ?

The more specific ones (English, French, and Spanish) that I gave are each a mix of 10s of different cultures. How many local island cultures were being represented by Polynesia? Something in the double digits?

And how many would be represented in a Hawaiian Civ? Single digits? That's too specific imo, but you could do it. As I said, it would be on par with an English civ.

Oh, and each of the Polynesian cultures had nearly no impact on history.

I think the cultures are cool too, and I'd be happy to get them all in the game somehow. But the devs have limited time. You can go ahead and want a Hawaiian civ in place of a Polynesian civ, but to claim that its necessary because their culture is unique from the other Polynesians is preposterous. We don't separate Basque, Catalan, and Castilian culture. We don't separate Bavarian, Old Prussian, Saxon, etc cultures. We don't separate oh-god-I-dont-know-all-the-Indian-culture-names from each other.

We group them into somewhat reasonable areas. Some will be more specific than others. A Maori Civ would fall under the "more specific than ever before" category for a Civ.

 

[IgorS]

I think the cultures are cool too, and I'd be happy to get them all in the game somehow. But the devs have limited time. You can go ahead and want a Hawaiian civ in place of a Polynesian civ, but to claim that its necessary because their culture is unique from the other Polynesians is preposterous. We don't separate Basque, Catalan, and Castilian culture. We don't separate Bavarian, Old Prussian, Saxon, etc cultures. We don't separate oh-god-I-dont-know-all-the-Indian-culture-names from each other.

This is not only about culture, it is also about history. And the fact is that Oceania is not represented at all in the civ series. Now, you can go the "bump" way, and make Polynesia a civ, which would be stupid, because Polynesia was never a state (UNLIKE India, Germany, Indonesia, Greece, etc... who did become states in certain points of their history, thus warranting a civ of their own rather than specific regional civs), OR you can make a civ out of a state that actually existed, and that can actually be made into a unique and interesting civ, like Hawaii. And saying that they had no influence on history is grossly inaccurate. Yes, they may have had no influence outside Oceania, but did, say, the Maya have had any influence outside Mesoamerica?

 

[Kerfuffle]

Samoans and Tongans ARE as different as Spain and Portugal. In the grand scheme of things, not that different. But, the historical achievements of Spain and Portugal were completely different, allowing us to create 2 unique playstyles from VERY similar cultures.

Hawaii and the Maori are probably about the same difference as Poland and Italy...'s cuisine. They eat a lot of the same things under different names. The culture is not close, and their historical achievements are even further.

You know that "German" culture is a mix of hundreds of different local cultures? Same with the "Greek" civ, "Russian" civ, "Indian" civ and the "Chinese" civ?

The more specific ones (English, French, and Spanish) that I gave are each a mix of 10s of different cultures. How many local island cultures were being represented by Polynesia? Something in the double digits?

And how many would be represented in a Hawaiian Civ? Single digits? That's too specific imo, but you could do it. As I said, it would be on par with an English civ.

Oh, and each of the Polynesian cultures had nearly no impact on history.

I think the cultures are cool too, and I'd be happy to get them all in the game somehow. But the devs have limited time. You can go ahead and want a Hawaiian civ in place of a Polynesian civ, but to claim that its necessary because their culture is unique from the other Polynesians is preposterous. We don't separate Basque, Catalan, and Castilian culture. We don't separate Bavarian, Old Prussian, Saxon, etc cultures. We don't separate oh-god-I-dont-know-all-the-Indian-culture-names from each other.

We group them into somewhat reasonable areas. Some will be more specific than others. A Maori Civ would fall under the "more specific than ever before" category for a Civ.

Identifying the uniqueness of cultures based on how many cousins it has nearby (so to speak) is rather arbitrary, no? Also it's been said time and time again, but historical impact on a global scale is of no relevance to civ selection.

Also side note, but weren't Old Prussians Baltic not German...? Actually I forsee that conversation going into OT territory, nevermind

 

[Atlas627]

This is not only about culture, it is also about history. And the fact is that Oceania is not represented at all in the civ series. Now, you can go the "bump" way, and make Polynesia a civ, which would be stupid, because Polynesia was never a state (UNLIKE India, Germany, Indonesia, Greece, etc... who did become states in certain points of their history, thus warranting a civ of their own rather than specific regional civs), OR you can make a civ out of a state that actually existed, and that can actually be made into a unique and interesting civ, like Hawaii. And saying that they had no influence on history is grossly inaccurate. Yes, they may have had no influence outside Oceania, but did, say, the Maya have had any influence outside Mesoamerica?

Scythia was never a state. The Maya were never a state. Stop trying to talk about states when they don't matter to Civilization selection one iota.

The Scythians had influence because they affected the Persians and Greeks. The Maya had influence because they affected the Aztecs.

Oh look, the Maya can have a cool gameplay mechanic? Let's use them separately.

Identifying the uniqueness of cultures based on how many cousins it has (so to speak) is rather arbitrary, no?

I'm not using that to identify uniqueness. I'm using that to point out how equally blobby the Civs are.

Also it's been said time and time again, but historical impact on a global scale is of no relevance to civ selection.

Woah woah woah. It certainly isn't the ONLY factor. It isn't even the most important one. But are you trying to say it has ZERO relevance to Civ selection? None of the Civs chosen were at all chosen because of historical impact?

Also side note, but weren't Old Prussians Baltic not German...? Actually I forsee that conversation going into OT territory, nevermind

I think the Teutons qualified as "German" back then, at least. But if you'd rather include them in, say, Poland, then that also increases the number of culture represented by the Poles.

 

[Kerfuffle]

Woah woah woah. It certainly isn't the ONLY factor. It isn't even the most important one. But are you trying to say it has ZERO relevance to Civ selection? None of the Civs chosen were at all chosen because of historical impact?

There's historical impact and then historical impact on the global scale, I was talking of the latter not the former

I think the Teutons qualified as "German" back then, at least. But if you'd rather include them in, say, Poland, then that also increases the number of culture represented by the Poles.

Except the Teutons were conquerors the Old Prussians and forced them their lands? Prussian is not the same as Old Prussian, they just share the same name

 

[Atlas627]

There's historical impact and then historical impact on the global scale, I was talking of the latter not the former

Yeah, so was I. I never said global impact.

Except the Teutons were conquerors the Old Prussians and forced them their lands? Prussian is not the same as Old Prussian, they just share the same name

I'm aware they aren't the same. I used Old Prussian for a reason. They were pushed out and became Latvian/Estonian, but the Teutons used the name Prussian.

Prussian would be the area around Berlin, I believe.

Either way, it didn't change my point. Just because there are a bunch of unique cultures in Germany, even with historical impact, we bunch Germany together. Same goes for Polynesia.

 

[kul]

I want to see Polynesia resurface again now, with multiple leader brought back, there are at least some degree of justification for them being grouped together.

If they can have an ability that was fun to play, and they can provide fun gameplay, and it was fun for the normies as well, then there are absolutely no reason for Firaxis to not include them again. I agree that the civ's unique besides its UA werent that great, but heck, if it wasnt entertaining to sail around the world before the rest of them landlubbers even embark

 

[Kerfuffle]

I'm aware they aren't the same. I used Old Prussian for a reason. They were pushed out and became Latvian/Estonian, but the Teutons used the name Prussian.

Prussian would be the area around Berlin, I believe.

Eh, the Teutons using the name Prussian doesn't really mean 'Old Prussian' is one of the culture groups that's blobbed into Germany.

We don't separate Bavarian, Old Prussian, Saxon, etc cultures

That was the quote, but yeah I understood you were referring to Prussia, not Old Prussia.

As for the region - iirc, it's not around Berlin per say but centered around Konigsberg (Modern day Kaliningrad) stretching north of it and then to the west near Danzig (Gdansk) and some areas below it. I think the first acquisition of Berlin occurred with their union with Brandenburg who was much further west (At least that's what I remember reading somewhere), but otherwise was not part of its original region.

Also, funnily enough I don't think the Teutonic Order have ever been represented in civ through Germany. The Furor Teutonicus trait in Civ V refers to a Germanic Tribe that fought the Romans and has nothing to do with the Teutonic Order other than sharing the same name (History repeats itself, but never in the same way )
EDIT: I just realised I accidentally mistakenly referred to the Teutonic order as just the Teutons when saying they invaded they Old Prussians, there's several centuries between the two haha

Getting back on topic:
I don't really see a need to group Polynesia together. If the potential mechanics and cultural and historical flavour are there for each potential civ, I don't see a reason why they shouldn't make individual Polynesian civs. Heck there's even a thematic civ pack right there to sell (Just don't sell 'em individually Firaxis ).

 

[Atlas627]

Eh, the Teutons using the name Prussian doesn't really mean 'Old Prussian' is one of the culture groups that's blobbed into Germany.


That was the quote, but yeah I understood you were referring to Prussia, not Old Prussia.

As for the region - iirc, it's not around Berlin per say but centered around Konigsberg (Modern day Kaliningrad) stretching north of it and then to the west near Danzig (Gdansk) and some areas below it. I think the first acquisition of Berlin occurred with their union with Brandenburg who was much further west (At least that's what I remember reading somewhere), but otherwise was not part of its original region.

Also, funnily enough I don't think the Teutonic Order have ever been represented in civ through Germany. The Furor Teutonicus trait in Civ V refers to a Germanic Tribe that fought the Romans and has nothing to do with the Teutonic Order other than sharing the same name (History repeats itself, but never in the same way )
EDIT: I just realised I accidentally mistakenly referred to the Teutonic order as just the Teutons when saying they invaded they Old Prussians, there's several centuries between the two haha

I was under the impression that Old Prussian was the culture around Konigsberg, and Prussian was the culture around Berlin.

Getting back on topic:
I don't really see a need to group Polynesia together. If the potential mechanics and cultural and historical flavour are there for each potential civ, I don't see a reason why they shouldn't make individual Polynesian civs. Heck there's even a thematic civ pack right there to sell (Just don't sell 'em individually Firaxis ).

Because they only have limited development time and there are far more interesting gameplay niches to fill with other Civs? And Polynesia isn't any more egregious than Germany or something, so they might as well represent all of Polynesia if they only have time for one Civ?

 

[Kerfuffle]

I was under the impression that Old Prussian was the culture around Konigsberg, and Prussian was the culture around Berlin.

It started with the Duchy of Prussia which was around Konigsberg, before it joined with Brandenburg

And Polynesia isn't any more egregious than Germany or something, so they might as well represent all of Polynesia if they only have time for one Civ?

Hey I'm not arguing that their time is limited (I would bloody know being a 3d modeller and animator ) - I'm going under a hypothetical assumption that they were going to go ahead with such a project. Ofc I'm not saying make every civ, I'm saying split them if each one would be interesting to play and provide flavour to the game (Doesn't always have to be 4 or 5 civs, even 2 is fine by me).

 

[Atlas627]

It started with the Duchy of Prussia which was around Konigsberg, before it joined with Brandenburg

I know that, yes. But they were two separate cultures afaik, that merged as the ruling elite merged.

Hey I'm not arguing that their time is limited (I would bloody know being a 3d modeller and animator ) - I'm going under a hypothetical assumption that they were going to go ahead with such a project. Ofc I'm not saying make every civ, I'm saying split them if each one would be interesting to play and provide flavour to the game (Doesn't always have to be 4 or 5 civs, even 2 is fine by me).

The points I am making are:

1) Their time is limited. They have time for 1 Civ in this theoretical argument.
2) Polynesian cultures are worth representing, even with no impact on history.
3) Polynesia as a blob provides an interesting gameplay niche that probably doesn't make sense for any of the individual Civs (island colonizer), but certainly doesn't make sense if you separate them all and make 4 or 5 Civs. If you designed 5 different Civs, each with their own niche, none of them would make sense as THE island colonizer.
4) Polynesia is no more a cultural blob than India, Germany, etc. It can be held to the same standards.

Given all of these points, Polynesia is a good Civ, while any individual Polynesian culture is lacking in comparison. I never said they weren't worthy of representation; in fact, I said they are interesting and definitely need to be represented. However, it isn't practical in terms of development time or gameplay design to use one or multiple individual cultures.

If they had infinite time, I would be plenty happy to have a Hawaiian and Maori Civ, assuming one still fills the gameplay niche of island colonizer (probably Hawaii?). I would at that point also expect a Prussian Civ, a Bavarian Civ, a Hamburg Civ, a Novgorod Civ, a Moscovite Civ, a Kievan Civ, a Golden Horde Civ, a Timurid Civ, a Mongol Civ, etc etc etc

And at that point I'd want the game to be designed around having 30+ Civs in one game, so as to actually feel like all of those unique empires make sense. Because having the 8 empires of the world be Wales, New England, Sicily, Nubia, Wu, Ceylon, Seminole, and Portugal won't really feel right. One of those is not like the others, but they also arent grand enough.

 

[Kerfuffle]

I wasn't actually advocating for 4-5 civs - that was just hyperbole. I'm saying it can be done, even with just two civs, and not feel redundant. Just look at the Polynesia split by MoreCivs, only one of them takes the mantle of the island settler niche whilst the rest play differently from each other: Hawaii with a specialists focus, the Maori with a focus on fast military production, Rapa Nui with faith and culture, Tonga with ocean-faring and city-states. Furthermore, I haven't once talked about whether I thought Polynesia as a blob is worse than India or Germany as a blob civ - I'm discussing whether from a gameplay and flavour perspective if it is viable to create content for multiple Polynesian civs.

I also haven't questioned your views on Polynesia's historical relevance itself, merely stated that such discussions aren't the most critical part of civ selection: There has been precedent for selecting certain civs without much impact but are culturally, thematically or mechanically rich.

I would at that point also expect a Prussian Civ, a Bavarian Civ, a Hamburg Civ, a Novgorod Civ, a Moscovite Civ, a Kievan Civ, a Golden Horde Civ, a Timurid Civ, a Mongol Civ, etc etc etc

And at that point I'd want the game to be designed around having 30+ Civs in one game, so as to actually feel like all of those unique empires make sense. Because having the 8 empires of the world be Wales, New England, Sicily, Nubia, Wu, Ceylon, Seminole, and Portugal

1. Mongols have been in every most civs and I hope they return
2. I actually wouldn't mind if they included many on that list - Yes I know, production limitations but I'm discussing wants not feasibility

 

[IgorS]

Scythia was never a state. The Maya were never a state. Stop trying to talk about states when they don't matter to Civilization selection one iota.

Except that Scythia was a state. There were a few Scythian kingdoms throughout their history that rose and fell one after the other.
The Maya were not a state, but they were in constant contact with one another, and all their city states were in the same area, just like Ancient Greece, so this could definitely qualify them as a state of sorts. I am not saying a civ must have a state per se, but they have to at least be close to each other geographically. The Maya had something that resembled a state - they had a common territory where all their city-states were located. The Polynesians never had that. Look how far away Hawaii and New Zealand are from one another. Putting them in a same civ based solely on them being ethnically and culturally related would be like having a Hungarian civ with Khanty and Mansi elements. It would make no sense. Just as a Celtic civ made no sense, (however, a Briton civ of England Celts would make some sense, as would a Gaul civ).

 

[IgorS]

I want to see Polynesia resurface again now, with multiple leader brought back, there are at least some degree of justification for them being grouped together.

That could somewhat solve the problem. You make the leaders, we (the modders) make separate civs for them.

I can totally see it happen already.

 

[Atlas627]

I wasn't actually advocating for 4-5 civs - that was just hyperbole. I'm saying it can be done, even with just two civs, and not feel redundant. Just look at the Polynesia split by MoreCivs, only one of them takes the mantle of the island settler niche whilst the rest play differently from each other: Hawaii with a specialists focus, the Maori with a focus on fast military production, Rapa Nui with faith and culture, Tonga with ocean-faring and city-states. Furthermore, I haven't once talked about whether I thought Polynesia as a blob is worse than India or Germany as a blob civ - I'm discussing whether from a gameplay and flavour perspective if it is viable to create content for multiple Polynesian civs.

I also haven't questioned your views on Polynesia's historical relevance itself, merely stated that such discussions aren't the most critical part of civ selection: There has been precedent for selecting certain civs without much impact but are culturally, thematically or mechanically rich.



1. Mongols have been in every most civs and I hope they return
2. I actually wouldn't mind if they included many on that list - Yes I know, production limitations but I'm discussing wants not feasibility

Ah, so we completely agree on everything, except that I prefer the blobbier Civs because they feel more appropriate when there's only 8 Civs on the board. Sorry, guess I got mixed up with arguing with IgorS.

Except that Scythia was a state. There were a few Scythian kingdoms throughout their history that rose and fell one after the other.

The Greeks called all the people of the region Scythians. By that account, there is no such thing as a Scythian state, as none of the Scythian kings ever controlled anything close to all of the Scythian people.

The Maya were not a state, but they were in constant contact with one another, and all their city states were in the same area, just like Ancient Greece, so this could definitely qualify them as a state of sorts.

You are welcome to draw your line wherever you want. Drawing the line at "Polynesia is fine but Native America was not" seems to be the majority opinion. When you say you don't know how people can possibly have that opinion, I say I don't see how you can possibly not see how. You're doing the same thing, just with a different opinion.

I am not saying a civ must have a state per se, but they have to at least be close to each other geographically. The Maya had something that resembled a state - they had a common territory where all their city-states were located. The Polynesians never had that. Look how far away Hawaii and New Zealand are from one another. Putting them in a same civ based solely on them being ethnically and culturally related would be like having a Hungarian civ with Khanty and Mansi elements. It would make no sense. Just as a Celtic civ made no sense, (however, a Briton civ of England Celts would make some sense, as would a Gaul civ).

They had nothing resembling a state. Most people think that's fine as long as the cultural grouping makes sense, hence things like the Vikings, the Celts, and the Polynesians being popular while Native America was widely reviled. The theme of each Civilization is their culture and achievements, not whether or not they agreed to live under the same ruler.

 

[Kerfuffle]

Ah, so we completely agree on everything, except that I prefer the blobbier Civs because they feel more appropriate when there's only 8 Civs on the board. Sorry, guess I got mixed up with arguing with IgorS.

Mrm, not exactly - I still disagree with the point below which I replied to in the first part of my previous reply.

3) Polynesia as a blob provides an interesting gameplay niche that probably doesn't make sense for any of the individual Civs (island colonizer), but certainly doesn't make sense if you separate them all and make 4 or 5 Civs. If you designed 5 different Civs, each with their own niche, none of them would make sense as THE island colonizer.

I wasn't actually advocating for 4-5 civs - that was just hyperbole. I'm saying it can be done, even with just two civs, and not feel redundant. Just look at the Polynesia split by MoreCivs, only one of them takes the mantle of the island settler niche whilst the rest play differently from each other: Hawaii with a specialists focus, the Maori with a focus on fast military production, Rapa Nui with faith and culture, Tonga with ocean-faring and city-states.

Tpang actually addressed this very point on post 16 of the first page of the thread.

 

[Atlas627]

Well I maintain that point, then.

Polynesia makes sense as an island colonizer.

Rapa Nui doesn't, though you could use the Moai as an interesting island improvement.

Maori doesn't, though you could use their warrior culture and mythology to do something interesting on islands.

Samoa, Tahiti, and Tonga don't, though you could use one for atolls, one for seaweed farming as an improvement, one for resorts and tourism.

Hawaii makes the most sense as an island colonizer due to the island chain. So if they had to pick exactly 1 culture to use for Polynesia, it should probably be Hawaii. But if they make several different Civs, using Hawaii as an island colonizer makes less sense. If you're going to represent each of the cultures so intimately, it seems disingenuous to push Hawaii into the island colonizer.

But it makes sense for Polynesia as a whole to colonize multiple islands. And on each of those islands they can have more interesting things to do if you grab different abilities from different cultures (atolls, resorts, Moai, natural wonders giving mana, etc).

So yeah, I still think Polynesia is a good gameplay choice. You could certainly come up with unique Civ mechanics for each culture, but combining them lets you create something different. In this case, that different is a very good niche.

 

[Kerfuffle]

The whole point is that not all of them need to represent island colonisation - And Tonga would actually be a valid candidate for the ocean fairer (It doesn't need to be island settlement) with it being part of an archipelago itself and as a maritime empire with influence reaching various islands around it extending to Somoa and parts of Melanesia.

 

[Atlas627]

The whole point is that not all of them need to represent island colonisation

Oh I know that. Individual ones wouldn't make sense for island colonization.

And Tonga would actually be a valid candidate for the ocean fairer

Sure, you can make it work as seafarer. I agree.

(It doesn't need to be island settlement)

This is my point. It DOES need to be island settlement, because seafarer is already taken in Civ6 by Norway. So seafarer is no longer a niche that needs to be filled.

But nobody is incentivized to be an island *settler*. That only makes sense for Polynesia, because that's the only good way to represent settling multiple disparate islands.

 

[SMcM]

This is not only about culture, it is also about history. And the fact is that Oceania is not represented at all in the civ series. Now, you can go the "bump" way, and make Polynesia a civ, which would be stupid, because Polynesia was never a state (UNLIKE India, Germany, Indonesia, Greece, etc... who did become states in certain points of their history, thus warranting a civ of their own rather than specific regional civs), OR you can make a civ out of a state that actually existed, and that can actually be made into a unique and interesting civ, like Hawaii. And saying that they had no influence on history is grossly inaccurate. Yes, they may have had no influence outside Oceania, but did, say, the Maya have had any influence outside Mesoamerica?

Yes, exactly.

That could somewhat solve the problem. You make the leaders, we (the modders) make separate civs for them.

I can totally see it happen already.

You're completely right of course, its just a little annoying that mods may have to be relied on to change things that most people with an opinion on the matter probably never liked in the first place.