Resistance Theory - Civs in Opposition

[PhoenicianGold]

The Mapuche reveal trailer soft-confirmed something that I had been theorizing about for a while. I'm pretty sure the civs in R&F (except Mongolia, as a selling point) were all chosen not for their imperial achievements, but for their enduring resistance against expansionism. The fact that the Mapuche were shown fighting Spain (and in some respects were designed to counter Philip) makes me suspect this was the unifying creative theme of Rise & Fall.

This is interesting, because all of these civs can be matched against expansionist nations, many of which are already represented in Civ:

• Spain - Mapuche
• England - Scotland
• Germany - Netherlands
• Mongolia/Persia/Russia - Georgia
• China/Japan/Manchuria - Korea
• Canada - Cree
  
• Boers/South Africa (Netherlands?) - Zulu
• Egypt - Nubia

This is interesting for two reasons. The first, is that now Canada and South Africa are thrown into discussion as potential expansionist civs that may eventually make their way into the game. Although this is not necessary.

The second, is that this new definition of "civ" may hint at further civs that will be included on this "resistance/independence" logic. Particularly in opposition to imperial civs that are already in the game. If I may theorize examples (I'm excluding the much smaller city-states, because aside from the Vatican and maybe Singapore/Hong Kong they just aren't that globally influential):

• Spain - Portugal - extremely likely
• Spain - Catalonia - probably still too new to make waves
  
• France - Belgium - pretty unlikely
  
• England - Ireland - possible
• Germany - Bavaria - note the missing cities
• Germany - Switzerland - mayhaps?
• Norway - Iceland - perchance?
  
• Russia - Ukraine - Crimea
• Russia - Sibir/Sakha - maybe
• Russia - Kazakhstan - I guess this counts too given the size of the USSR
  
• Japan - Ainu- note the missing cities
• China - Tibet - we all want it, we can't have it
• China - Taiwan - problematic
  
• India - Sri Lanka/Tamil/Chola - Chola is a highly requested civ
• India - Bangladesh/Pakistan - extremely unlikely, although Dhaka is the densest city in the world
• Brazil - Tupi - could happen
  
• America - Shawnee/Sioux - Tecumsah/Sitting Bull (though really any tribe is problematic from this perspective because none of these actually succeeded; the Navajo probably came out the best; the Iroquois have been mostly taken over by Cree mechanics)
• America - Hawaii - it's technically already happened
• America - Texas/California/Deseret - Houston, Norton, Young, extremely unlikely but relevant to this conversation
  
• Arabia - United Arab Emirates - decent chance, collective federation with unique identity
  
• Greece/Turkey - Cyprus - unlikely
• Indonesia/Japan/Portugal - Malaysia - unlikely
  
• Australia - Aboriginal Tribes - pick one
• Australia - New Zealand/Maori - technically already happened as well
• So Many - Israel

If we further interpolated a few "ghost" powers that have yet to be added:

• Canada/Denmark - Greenland/Inuit - double-independence
• Canada - Quebec - also fairly recent and would necessitate Canada's inclusion first
  
• Mexico - Maya - Yucatan Revolt
• Denmark/Sweden - Finland/Sami - something worked
• Ethiopia/Italy - Aksum/Eritrea - very, very recent and problematic
• So Many - Balkan Country - Albania sticks out, but really any of the former Czechoslovakian or Yugoslavian countries also qualify.

I've been mostly avoiding extinct civs, because so far this "rule" has mostly been used to pander to current player nationalities (Canadians, Chileans, Scots, and Georgians have been over the moon and we're all happy for them too in between the salt). Granted, there are other larger civs that could equally satisfy demographics (Canada, Mexico, Colombia, Ethiopia, South Africa, Morocco, anywhere in Europe), but I find these interesting because they are unified not by their successful subjugation but by their stubbornness against subjugation. So the question is, if Firaxis continues to go down this route, which do you think best suit this secondary agenda? Anything I missed? Please try to limit discussion specifically to this civ "type."

I guess I might as well make a poll of these too, just because. To make things interesting, please vote based off of not which civs you personally want, but based on which civs you think the fans would be most likely to buy. Limiting to ten votes. If you would have voted for Israel or a Balkan country (that isn't Bulgaria or Romania), say so in the comments.

I may make an historical version of this poll if enough suggestions are made

 

[clapyourhands]

Considering that Civfanatics is fond of calling these types of civs “the Vietnam of ______”, like Georgia being the “Vietnam of Eurasia” and the Mapuche being the “Vietnam of South America”, so obviously Vietnam would probably be on this list too.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Considering that Civfanatics is fond of calling these types of civs “the Vietnam of ______”, like Georgia being the “Vietnam of Eurasia” and the Mapuche being the “Vietnam of South America”, so obviously Vietnam would probably be on this list too.

I was hoping if I left out the one, cancerous example that would certainly be memed into existence, if only because players won't shut up about it, that maybe we could have a somewhat fruitful discussion. And that maybe if we steered discourse in some other direction, people might forget about it entirely.

So...I have no idea what you're talking about. My list is complete.

 

[Greywulf]

Would there be any controversy over having both the Cree and Canada in the game?

 

[rattatatouille]

Would there be any controversy over having both the Cree and Canada in the game?

Well, aside from Milton Tootoosis' legit concerns, the only Cree-Canada controversy I know is a vocal minority asking why Canada is not in the game yet.

 

[Phrozen]

Bavaria was included in the Prussian made German state somewhat grudgingly though not active resistance so much as tending to snub the Prussians at any turn they got. Bismarck was afraid that if Bavaria united with Austria there could be a large German war between the states and including both Bavaria and Austria the same as together they could stem Prussian influence. So he split the difference and made Bavaria capitulate.

Iceland wasn't much of a resistance either. Norway pretty much just let them go eventually. It was however founded by Norwegians who fled Norway during a civil war and didn't want to take either side.

 

[Karpius]

Germany - Netherlands

Not sure I understand this one. The 'Low Countries' (Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg) were mostly formed, partitioned and reformed based on dynastic rule of various royal families. Not sure of any direct resistance to Germany, or a specific German state. No, I would not count the occupation by Nazi Germany in WW2.

 

[Phrozen]

Not sure I understand this one. The 'Low Countries' (Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg) were mostly formed, partitioned and reformed based on dynastic rule of various royal families. Not sure of any direct resistance to Germany, or a specific German state. No, I would not count the occupation by Nazi Germany in WW2.

The Hapsburgs and mostly the Spanish branch.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Would there be any controversy over having both the Cree and Canada in the game?

It would be just as controversial as having the Cherokee in a game with America. So, more controversial than Scotland and England. Less controversial than Tibet and China.

Bavaria was included in the Prussian made German state somewhat grudgingly though not active resistance so much as tending to snub the Prussians at any turn they got. Bismarck was afraid that if Bavaria united with Austria there could be a large German war between the states and including both Bavaria and Austria the same as together they could stem Prussian influence. So he split the difference and made Bavaria capitulate.

Iceland wasn't much of a resistance either. Norway pretty much just let them go eventually. It was however founded by Norwegians who fled Norway during a civil war and didn't want to take either side.

Bavaria is included due to recent bids for independence and Germany's lack of cities in the Bavarian region. Either on their own would be thin but together I think they add up to something notable, if unlikely.

I mostly included Iceland for its general history of cultural rebelliousness, from Erik the Red to Bjork. I wholly admit it doesn't fit this archetype as well as other civs on the list. But I'm pretty sure if it were included, Firaxis would necessarily cast it in this sort of mold to make it more edgy and marketable. I mean, IRL it's a beautiful country with wonderful people: that's no fun to play war with.

Not sure I understand this one. The 'Low Countries' (Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg) were mostly formed, partitioned and reformed based on dynastic rule of various royal families. Not sure of any direct resistance to Germany, or a specific German state. No, I would not count the occupation by Nazi Germany in WW2.

I believe I was careful to state that this was how they were portrayed in Rise & Fall, specifically. If Wilhelmina and Radio Oranje aren't enough, their entire presence in the trailer is overshadowed by multiple Nazi Germany references. Netherlands in Civ VI specifically is a resistance country, and the stronger references to the Dutch Empire that were in V have largely taken a backseat to this underdog portrayal. It's...fine. I'm not a huge opponent/proponent of the Dutch civ in any form. They pretty much only exist because polders are cool.

 

[dunkleosteus]

Quebec is delusional if they think they can survive without us.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Quebec is delusional if they think they can survive without us.

So is Texas. And Vermont. I'm not judging the practicality of these rebellions, just noting their existence.

 

[halfhalfharp]

I discourage calling or making Taiwan and Tibet as "rebellion civs".

The main point is they are too politically controversial and will make Firaxis a shut-down in Chinese market immediately.

Other than the political sensitivity, Taiwan is hardly a civ on its own.
Tibet should have its own standing and characteristics as a separate Civ instead of being "Rebellious".

And overall, it does nothing good to unleash an intentionally hostile altitude among Civs that still exist. That will turn the whole series into political games in the real world.

I won't mind if you say Ottoman against Byzantine, or America against British empire. But Taiwan against China is certainly not acceptable.

 

[Basileus Rhomaion]

Cyprus is not a unique civ (unless you are implying Bronze age Alashiya) and most definitely not rebellious towards either Greece or Turkey. If anything, if Cyprus would ever be considered a rebel "civ", then it would be against the British.

Either way, you'll run straight into mad controversy with that.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I discourage calling or making Taiwan and Tibet as "rebellion civs".

The main point is they are too politically controversial and will make Firaxis a shut-down in Chinese market immediately.

Other than the political sensitivity, Taiwan is hardly a civ on its own.
Tibet should have its own standing and characteristics as a separate Civ instead of being "Rebellious".

And overall, it does nothing good to unleash an intentionally hostile altitude among Civs that still exist. That will turn the whole series into political games in the real world.

I won't mind if you say Ottoman against Byzantine, or America against British empire. But Taiwan against China is certainly not acceptable.

My observations are documentary, and simply asking that I censor this discussion purely because some options are more charged than others is not productive. Scotland is a current political point of contention. Both the Mapuche and Cree have fairly long and bloody histories with Canada and Spain. Firaxis has deliberately portrayed Scotland, Mapuche, and the Netherlands as "resistance/rebel" civs in the R&F marketing.

This edgy PR stance is an observable agenda on the part of Firaxis. You can complain all you want, but this discussion is about predicting which civs it will use in furthering that agenda. It has absolutely nothing to do with my documentation.

Furthermore, I find your Chinese exceptionalist stance myopic. Eritrea and Crimea are just as politically sensitive at the moment, not to mention Israel. This poll has nothing to do with your thin skin, frankly.

Moderator Action: Please stick to the topic and do not get personal with other members. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[halfhalfharp]

This edgy PR stance is an observable agenda on the part of Firaxis. You can complain all you want, but this discussion is about predicting which civs it will use in furthering that agenda. It has absolutely nothing to do with my portrayal.

Furthermore, I find your Chinese exceptionalist stance myopic. Eritrea and Crimea are just as politically sensitive at the moment, not to mention Israel. This poll has nothing to do with your thin skin, frankly.

Then I am predicting those two options are very unlikely.

The above "agenda" is so far, your side of portrayal, as Firaxis didn't admit that agenda yet ( i guess?) so I don't think you are innocent of that statement.

And I don't think that discussing my focus will bring anything fruitful. Everyone has their own prioritized interests. I am not Jesus who loves every men.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Cyprus is not a unique civ (unless you are implying Bronze age Alashiya) and most definitely not rebellious towards either Greece or Turkey. If anything, if Cyprus would ever be considered a rebel "civ", then it would be against the British.

Yes, it would be controversial, obviously. But they have been historically pulled between the two regions, and at the very least have had to fend off Turkish invasions.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Then I am predicting those two options are very unlikely..

Thank you. I appreciate that input.

 

[Basileus Rhomaion]

Yes, it would be controversial, obviously. But they have been historically pulled between the two regions, and at the very least have had to fend off Turkish invasions.

The whole "Turkish invasions" part is a lot more complicated than that. The problem isn't that Cyprus is disputed, the people of Cyprus identify as ethnically Greek/Turkish, there's no separate Cypriot ethnicity. When the Greek Cypriots rebelled against the British, the primary goal was unification with Greece, not independence. For more hardline Greeks/Greek Cypriots, Cyprus is not much different from Crete or Rhodes.