[R&F] Rise and Fall General Discussion Thread

[PhilBowles]

The same can be said for Kongo, Scythia, Norway, Nubia, Shoshone, Sioux, Polynesia and Zulus.

Shoshone, Sioux, Norway and especially Zulus, indeed, but given the relevant scale I can't really agree on the rest. History needn't mean global history - very few societies have had impacts that wide-ranging until the modern era. Kongo was an important regional power, Nubia was a significant early competitor with Egypt, Scythia was a pioneer of mounted warfare and - if Cyrus did indeed die in combat with them - had an influence on a more broadly significant civilisation. Polynesia as defined by Firaxis represents the totality of that part of the world's population prior to European contact (and mostly subsequent to it). And while Norway as a country is a worse choice than Civ V's Denmark, 'The Vikings' either as an aggregate or as a principally Danish civ were a major influence on northern Europe.

Civ has always had its share of civs that weren't very meaningful but made it in on the basis of popular recognition - the Zulu and the Aztecs have been staples since Civ I (I wouldn't go so far as to say the Aztecs are completely undeserving of inclusion, but if it wasn't for popular recognition they'd be a very distant third - at most - behind the Maya and the Inca for the Neotropics. They were a minor, geographically-restricted society with only about a century of imperial history and a rather limited tradition of monumental architecture in comparison with other societies from the region).

That doesn't mean anyone needs to like that fact where there are more significant powers which go unrepresented in every incarnation of the series - across six entries Firaxis has hit most of the obvious candidates at least once, but never all in the same entry.

Nevertheless, Australia proves that as far as Civ is concerned anything goes, and I don't object strongly enough to avoid having them or Brazil in games (with random options, and as a Deluxe purchaser I ended up with both without paying for anything other than the base game, I have little choice anyway), but I'd still prefer them to be justified by interesting gameplay (or at the very least leader graphics and dialogue - I'm far from being onboard with the notion that Civ should be about 'big personalities' rather than factions, but Curtin's one of the leaders who gradually won me over to Civ VI's animation style).

We don't see that with Brazil. Pedro's anonymous, the civ had little clear AI identity in Civ V (no civs have clear AI identities in Civ VI) and in both incarnations Brazil's just been a one-trick "fill the culture/tourism resource bucket" civ. Civ V at least justified that on the basis that Brazil was the showcase for one of BNW's new mechanics. While the base game needs a few rather basic civ designs and it's probably inevitable that it will have at least one linear bucket-filler per resource, those should at least be civs that have some other justification for their inclusion.

 

[Nagato]

Agreed
Except for Norway, if we look at them as the Vikings. Nubia...I think they've done enough, but I guess mostly in relation to Egypt alone.

I don't mind any of these "Civs" being in the game, as long as they don't take the place of someone who really left their imprint on the world, for good or for bad.

Denmark was a most important Viking nation, Norway was not so relevant.

Shoshone, Sioux, Norway and especially Zulus, indeed, but given the relevant scale I can't really agree on the rest. History needn't mean global history - very few societies have had impacts that wide-ranging until the modern era. Kongo was an important regional power, Nubia was a significant early competitor with Egypt, Scythia was a pioneer of mounted warfare and - if Cyrus did indeed die in combat with them - had an influence on a more broadly significant civilisation. Polynesia as defined by Firaxis represents the totality of that part of the world's population prior to European contact (and mostly subsequent to it). And while Norway as a country is a worse choice than Civ V's Denmark, 'The Vikings' either as an aggregate or as a principally Danish civ were a major influence on northern Europe.

Civ has always had its share of civs that weren't very meaningful but made it in on the basis of popular recognition - the Zulu and the Aztecs have been staples since Civ I (I wouldn't go so far as to say the Aztecs are completely undeserving of inclusion, but if it wasn't for popular recognition they'd be a very distant third - at most - behind the Maya and the Inca for the Neotropics. They were a minor, geographically-restricted society with only about a century of imperial history and a rather limited tradition of monumental architecture in comparison with other societies from the region).

That doesn't mean anyone needs to like that fact where there are more significant powers which go unrepresented in every incarnation of the series - across six entries Firaxis has hit most of the obvious candidates at least once, but never all in the same entry.

Nevertheless, Australia proves that as far as Civ is concerned anything goes, and I don't object strongly enough to avoid having them or Brazil in games (with random options, and as a Deluxe purchaser I ended up with both without paying for anything other than the base game, I have little choice anyway), but I'd still prefer them to be justified by interesting gameplay (or at the very least leader graphics and dialogue - I'm far from being onboard with the notion that Civ should be about 'big personalities' rather than factions, but Curtin's one of the leaders who gradually won me over to Civ VI's animation style).

We don't see that with Brazil. Pedro's anonymous, the civ had little clear AI identity in Civ V (no civs have clear AI identities in Civ VI) and in both incarnations Brazil's just been a one-trick "fill the culture/tourism resource bucket" civ. Civ V at least justified that on the basis that Brazil was the showcase for one of BNW's new mechanics. While the base game needs a few rather basic civ designs and it's probably inevitable that it will have at least one linear bucket-filler per resource, those should at least be civs that have some other justification for their inclusion.

I don't disagree, if we are accepting regional powers like Kongo, then there should be no questioning about the historical importance of Brazil, Australia and Canada.

Brazil is the dominant power in South America, and the most powerful nation in Latin America, having one of the largest populations and economies on the planet. Australia is certainly the dominant power in Oceania with a great economy. Canada is a member of the G8, and one of the world's biggest economies.

Let us conclude that Norway, Scythia, Kongo, Sioux, Polynesia ... are no more relevant than the three post-colonial nations I quoted above.

 

[PhilBowles]

Denmark was a most important Viking nation, Norway was not so relevant.



I don't disagree, if we are accepting regional powers like Kongo, then there should be no questioning about the historical importance of Brazil, Australia and Canada.

Brazil is the dominant power in South America, and the most powerful nation in Latin America, having one of the largest populations and economies on the planet.

But that dominance is so far short-lived and its economy is smaller than Canada's, while the rules change somewhat when we get to the modern world. there's a big difference between being a major regional power in a world largely devoid of global powers, as Kongo was, and being a major regional power in a globalised world where regional power is of less significance.

Australia is certainly the dominant power in Oceania with a great economy.

To listen to Australian takes on international news, at least as of the time I was living there it amounts to little more than Indonesia's bank - although that was in a time where Australians were worried about possible conflict with Indonesia and their policy was largely one of appeasement. Australia has never sought to make any use of its relative economic strength to assert itself as a strong regional power politically (of course the same is true of Japan).

Let us conclude that Norway, Scythia, Kongo, Sioux, Polynesia ... are no more relevant than the three post-colonial nations I quoted above.

Rather, let us conclude than few if any of these should really have been included in Civ at all and the arguable exceptions - Kongo and Scythia - both have stronger claims to inclusion, the former for being of relatively greater regional significance in a smaller geopolitical context, the latter for a historical innovation.

 

[Nagato]

But that dominance is so far short-lived and its economy is smaller than Canada's, while the rules change somewhat when we get to the modern world. there's a big difference between being a major regional power in a world largely devoid of global powers, as Kongo was, and being a major regional power in a globalised world where regional power is of less significance.

Wrong, Brazil's economy is higher than Canada's, both nominal GDP and purchasing power parity, in which the Brazilian economy is almost double that of Canadian. You can look at the Wikipedia rankings.

Rather, let us conclude than few if any of these should really have been included in Civ at all and the arguable exceptions - Kongo and Scythia - both have stronger claims to inclusion, the former for being of relatively greater regional significance in a smaller geopolitical context, the latter for a historical innovation.

It's okay with Kongo, but Scythia does not even have its own list of cities (need to use Russian cities). There are a ton of better choices than Scythia, and this was only included because of Tomyris, they probably wanted an ancient female leader, and a Cyrus's counter.

Either way, you seem to underestimate Brazil, Australia and Canada for some reason. You can use any argument to oppose the inclusion of postcolonial nations, but the "limited historical importance" is not convincing, if we were to include only great empires that influenced the world of immense form, the list of civs will be restricted between 20/25 civilizations.

 

[nzcamel]

Either way, you seem to underestimate Brazil, Australia and Canada for some reason. You can use any argument to oppose the inclusion of postcolonial nations, but the "limited historical importance" is not convincing, if we were to include only great empires that influenced the world of immense form, the list of civs will be restricted between 20/25 civilizations.

What have they done to straddle the world stage Nagato? They are all large, yet their borders were secured by other nations. In the global world we have now, they all play a part in scientific discoveries etc; but less and less of that is done in isolation.

 

[Siptah]

Wrong, Brazil's economy is higher than Canada's, both nominal GDP and purchasing power parity, in which the Brazilian economy is almost double that of Canadian. You can look at the Wikipedia rankings.



It's okay with Kongo, but Scythia does not even have its own list of cities (need to use Russian cities). There are a ton of better choices than Scythia, and this was only included because of Tomyris, they probably wanted an ancient female leader, and a Cyrus's counter.

Either way, you seem to underestimate Brazil, Australia and Canada for some reason. You can use any argument to oppose the inclusion of postcolonial nations, but the "limited historical importance" is not convincing, if we were to include only great empires that influenced the world of immense form, the list of civs will be restricted between 20/25 civilizations.

And you seem to underestimate Scythia... it‘s was a hugely successful civ with a high developed culture that was important for centuries. Never unified, they came from Tuva and Siberia and even threatened Egypt and pillaged Palestine at some point. And that more than 1500 years before the Mongols... While the lack of cities and leaders is a problem, it is something I can put up with. Using the names of archeological places is also a better choice compared to Egypt‘s horrible city list. The followed the same approach with Nubia (using Arabic names mostly).

 

[KayAU]

I guess people hold differing views on what makes a civ worthy of inclusion. Historical significance should be a major factor, yes, but I believe geography, variety and flavor should count as well. If a civilization has an interesting history, is culturally distinct, or represents a region which is otherwise underrepresented, I believe it may be a better inclusion than a civilization which was arguably more important in world history.

Firaxis needs to consider what a civilization adds to the game.

 

[nzcamel]

View attachment 482162

I don't think Temujin has ever been portrayed in Civ in a way that I would call definitive. In III from memory he was a clown (it's been a loooong time okay? lol) In IV he was hard n tough, but also very wiry - maybe to distinguish himself from the chubbier Kublai. And in V, my limited interactions with him were all very hospitable.
I guess the chances of VI improving on any of that with caricatures holding sway might be slim...

I guess people hold differing views on what makes a civ worthy of inclusion. Historical significance should be a major factor, yes, but I believe geography, variety and flavor should count as well. If a civilization has an interesting history, is culturally distinct, or represents a region which is otherwise underrepresented, I believe it may be a better inclusion than a civilization which was arguably more important in world history.

Firaxis needs to consider what a civilization adds to the game.

Words are wind. Runs on the board are all that matters.

 

[Kimiimaro]

Wait a minute. You want Genghis to be threatning and scary in Civ VI's caricature style of leaders?

 

[IdiotStyle]

Tbh honest i think you're just all to much overthinking this canada thing. I don't mind any civilization as long as they have their own unique playstyle, and i which for the inclusion of the maximum possible civilizations by the game. the devellopement won't stop after this extension anyway, we can expect all the big names to come and a few uncommon one too.

 

[PhilBowles]

It's okay with Kongo, but Scythia does not even have its own list of cities (need to use Russian cities). There are a ton of better choices than Scythia, and this was only included because of Tomyris, they probably wanted an ancient female leader, and a Cyrus's counter.

I'd say rather that, given a likely top-down requirement to have an ancient-era female leader, the Scythians were one of the better routes they could have gone - certainly better than Gorgo or Dido. We've had other nomadic civs with terrible city lists (such as Huns) or village-based societies without major, named permanent settlements (Iroquois using US cities). The Scythians have better claim to a place in the series than the Iroquois (who were however significant in America's development as a principally English colony).

Either way, you seem to underestimate Brazil, Australia and Canada for some reason. You can use any argument to oppose the inclusion of postcolonial nations, but the "limited historical importance" is not convincing, if we were to include only great empires that influenced the world of immense form, the list of civs will be restricted between 20/25 civilizations.

And therein lies the major point. Not that relatively minor nations shouldn't be included, but that they shouldn't be included until this roster of major civs has been completed. Being 'post-colonial' per se has nothing to do with it - no one can reasonably argue that the US hasn't had a significant enough impact to justify its place.

 

[nzcamel]

Wait a minute. You want Genghis to be threatning and scary in Civ VI's caricature style of leaders?

Yeah well...that was what I was just dwelling on. He's not likely to be. Like the only leader whose depiction I really loved in V was Monty. He was scary to behold. Of course when given a bit more caricature...he's over the top, and silly. So yah. I guess I'll live if we don't get Genghis...

The Scythians have better claim to a place in the series than the Iroquois (who were however significant in America's development as a principally English colony).

I dunno about that... It's at least close.

And therein lies the major point. Not that relatively minor nations shouldn't be included, but that they shouldn't be included until this roster of major civs has been completed. Being 'post-colonial' per se has nothing to do with it - no one can reasonably argue that the US hasn't had a significant enough impact to justify its place.

 

[Siptah]

And therein lies the major point. Not that relatively minor nations shouldn't be included, but that they shouldn't be included until this roster of major civs has been completed. Being 'post-colonial' per se has nothing to do with it - no one can reasonably argue that the US hasn't had a significant enough impact to justify its place.

Well, I think there are also marketing reasons. If they keep big names for DLCs and the 2nd (or even 3rd) expansion, more people are likely to buy that. I mean, if a 2nd expansion adds Zulu, Denmark, Canada, Argentina, Tlingit, Nepal, Hittites and Mapuche, many people will be disappointed and not buy it. If it contains Mongols and Ottomans, more people may buy it. I have nothing to prove this of course, just how I feel about it. And yes, I would buy an expansion with those civs

 

[Kimiimaro]

Yeah well...that was what I was just dwelling on. He's not likely to be. Like the only leader whose depiction I really loved in V was Monty. He was scary to behold. Of course when given a bit more caricature...he's over the top, and silly. So yah. I guess I'll live if we don't get Genghis...

Civ V had more great depictions, like Askia, Enrico Dandolo or Ashurbanipal, if you want a fearsome one. However, the only leader that managed to scare me in Civ VI is Philip II, when he did this to me for the first time:

 

[Nagato]

What have they done to straddle the world stage Nagato? They are all large, yet their borders were secured by other nations. In the global world we have now, they all play a part in scientific discoveries etc; but less and less of that is done in isolation.

None of them did anything very relevant (Brazil conquered some territories in the Paraguayan war, nothing big). Canada and Australia appear to have minor holdings in World War II. Likewise, Kongo, Sioux, Zulus, and Shoshone have never had any major achievements. That is, they are all in the same boat, none of them are relevant. If we are opposing "irrelevant" civilizations, let us oppose all of them, not just the post-colonial ones.

And you seem to underestimate Scythia... it‘s was a hugely successful civ with a high developed culture that was important for centuries. Never unified, they came from Tuva and Siberia and even threatened Egypt and pillaged Palestine at some point. And that more than 1500 years before the Mongols... While the lack of cities and leaders is a problem, it is something I can put up with. Using the names of archeological places is also a better choice compared to Egypt‘s horrible city list. The followed the same approach with Nubia (using Arabic names mostly).

Even with this, Scythia is very far from the podium of the most relevant civilizations. And about Tomyris having signed Cyrus, this is very historically questionable.

I guess people hold differing views on what makes a civ worthy of inclusion. Historical significance should be a major factor, yes, but I believe geography, variety and flavor should count as well. If a civilization has an interesting history, is culturally distinct, or represents a region which is otherwise underrepresented, I believe it may be a better inclusion than a civilization which was arguably more important in world history.

Firaxis needs to consider what a civilization adds to the game.

That's exactly what I think.

Anyway, I would like to continue with this, on a separate topic if possible. But I do not want to keep diverting the subject from this thread.

 

[nzcamel]

Civ V had more great depictions, like Askia, Enrico Dandolo or Ashurbanipal, if you want a fearsome one. However, the only leader that managed to scare me in Civ VI is Philip II, when he did this to me for the first time:

Oh they don't have to be scary. Just not on Prozac

None of them did anything very relevant (Brazil conquered some territories in the Paraguayan war, nothing big). Canada and Australia appear to have minor holdings in World War II. Likewise, Kongo, Sioux, Zulus, and Shoshone have never had any major achievements. That is, they are all in the same boat, none of them are relevant. If we are opposing "irrelevant" civilizations, let us oppose all of them, not just the post-colonial ones.

That's what I do
Keep in mind what Phil said below though. It is relevant to the relevancy of Civs:

But that dominance is so far short-lived and its economy is smaller than Canada's, while the rules change somewhat when we get to the modern world. there's a big difference between being a major regional power in a world largely devoid of global powers, as Kongo was, and being a major regional power in a globalised world where regional power is of less significance.

 

[Siptah]

None of them did anything very relevant (Brazil conquered some territories in the Paraguayan war, nothing big). Canada and Australia appear to have minor holdings in World War II. Likewise, Kongo, Sioux, Zulus, and Shoshone have never had any major achievements. That is, they are all in the same boat, none of them are relevant. If we are opposing "irrelevant" civilizations, let us oppose all of them, not just the post-colonial ones.

I can easily see our differences. I don't care that much about how much a civ has conquered, that's important for some, but less than half of them. But that's my view, others differ. It's also more of my play style. I do conquer, but not much.

 

[nzcamel]

I can easily see our differences. I don't care that much about how much a civ has conquered, that's important for some, but less than half of them. But that's my view, others differ. It's also more of my play style. I do conquer, but not much.

See it doesn't have to be conquering...but it has to be something! Preferably that ties in with a win condition somehow...

 

[Zaarin]

village-based societies without major, named permanent settlements (Iroquois using US cities). The Scythians have better claim to a place in the series than the Iroquois (who were however significant in America's development as a principally English colony).

On the other hand, that's just the devs being lazy: the Iroquois were an urbanized culture with lots of city names to choose from; resorting to random towns in New York was utterly unnecessary. Also, while I think there are pros and cons to the Scythians (I think they're an interesting inclusion, and as far as figures of dubious historicity go at least Tomyris is interesting--I just think they also have problems, like a barely attested language forcing Tomyris to speak Ossetian instead [though considering she really does little more than harumph, that's not much of a problem ] and using archaeological sites as city-names [Scythian tribes would have been a better option] ), I'd say the Iroquois are probably the more worthy of the two: their government practices may have influenced the formation of America (there's still scholarly debate on this point, but it's worth discussing), and they were a major part of the balance of power among the American and Dutch colonies, the British, and the French for three centuries.

Civ V had more great depictions, like Askia, Enrico Dandolo or Ashurbanipal, if you want a fearsome one. However, the only leader that managed to scare me in Civ VI is Philip II, when he did this to me for the first time:

I wasn't afraid; I laughed. Like, that's totally not how you use a rapier. Philip is such a disappointment; not only does he look nothing like the real Philip, but the real Philip was supposed to be cerebral, melancholy, and reserved. He's still a sort of entertaining figure, though, if you pretend he's not Philip II of Spain; maybe Antonio Banderas playing Don Juan impersonating Philip II of Spain or something.

 

[Xandinho]

Well, I think there are also marketing reasons. If they keep big names for DLCs and the 2nd (or even 3rd) expansion, more people are likely to buy that. I mean, if a 2nd expansion adds Zulu, Denmark, Canada, Argentina, Tlingit, Nepal, Hittites and Mapuche, many people will be disappointed and not buy it. If it contains Mongols and Ottomans, more people may buy it. I have nothing to prove this of course, just how I feel about it. And yes, I would buy an expansion with those civs

They always seem to book great names for expansion, so I think we'll see two or three of them in this expansion and a few more to the second expansion.
What I really want is for Civ6 to have more civilizations than Civ5.