[R&F] Rise and Fall General Discussion Thread

[LastSword]

Charlemagne leading Francia would be quite pleasant surprise (can play nicely with new mechanics).
I can with some distance understand linking him to France, but those german claims are hilarious at best (just read argument that Aachen is now in Germany... hard to deny it). Austrian culture is not enough apparently.

 

[nzcamel]

Representative government is common in small societies and tribes; the Anglophone parliamentary tradition has its ultimate roots in Germanic tribal councils of the sort that persist today in Iceland's Thing, and local councils are a common form of local-scale government even in monarchic societies. Societies tend not to develop autocratic centralised authority until they reach a certain level of complexity and urbanisation, and need a structured central government to oversee resource distribution.

Yet not many of them survive for long, or manage to grow beyond their local area. That this happened in the U.K. and in the Iroquois is remarkable. The tide of history tends to flow against constitutional arrangements holding sway.

That's not the same as what nzcamel describes as "constitutional government" and - at least as Britannica Online has it - the Iroquois Confederacy was a specific response to external pressures (principally European incursion): "Cemented mainly by their desire to stand together against invasion, the tribes united in a common council composed of clan and village chiefs; each tribe had one vote, and unanimity was required for decisions. The joint jurisdiction of 50 peace chiefs, known as sachems, embraced all civil affairs at the intertribal level."

The Iroquois system was more formalised than anything preceding European contact, and as the same source has it "more consciously defined". That's getting to a point where it can be described as something close to 'constitutional', but it's stretching the point to suggest it's likely to have had specific influence on the development of American government traditions which explicitly rejected representative parliamentary government in favour of a classically-derived republic.

That pressure existed before the Europeans got there. Washington and Franklin (I think...) went and talked to the Iroquois specifically about governance. We all know that the Roman Republic was their main inspiration, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't others.

Catherine's mannerisms and her head and neck apparently taken from Cluedo are too absurd for me to find her in any way threatening, insidious or not.

I know someone (a real person) who has very similar mannerisms which is part of why I enjoy the performance.

 

[God of Kings]

Attila and Harald Bluetooth, at least, more or less bracketing that entire period. Given Dark Ages are a part of this expansion I think they'll have at least one nod to *The* Dark Ages, but I'm not sure what it would be. The Celts led by Brian Boru are a possibility; it's at the very tail end of the period, but the Dark Ages ended at different times in different territories.

A leader from the Chinese Three Kingdoms could be included (that is China's Dark Ages, which neatly coincided with the beginning of Rome's decline).

 

[Xefjord]

Am I the only one especially hyped for the huge influx we are about to get of new awesome atomic era themes?

 

[PhilBowles]

Charlemagne leading Francia would be quite pleasant surprise (can play nicely with new mechanics).
I can with some distance understand linking him to France, but those german claims are hilarious at best (just read argument that Aachen is now in Germany... hard to deny it). Austrian culture is not enough apparently.

The French and Germans are both ethnically Frankish and the Holy Roman Empire is generally considered to be the successor of the Carolingian Empire through the Imperial title. It's roughly as absurd to link him uniquely with the French primarily because they're the ones who kept the name 'Franks'; for all that his earliest rulership was of areas now in France, he ended up extending his rule across most of what's now Germany and Italy. No one knows his birthplace, which could be one of multiple sites located in modern Germany, France or Belgium, or conceivably somewhere else entirely.

Yet not many of them survive for long, or manage to grow beyond their local area. That this happened in the U.K. and in the Iroquois is remarkable. The tide of history tends to flow against constitutional arrangements holding sway.

That's not really true at all. It's a conceit of modern systems that democracy is an advanced stage of government - through most of history monarchy has been the dominant form of governance in most urbanised societies and it has both replaced and been replaced by representative governments at different times.

Some form of representative democracy exists in most tribal societies in the modern world, and was presumably the norm historically. It tends not to last the larger and more complex societies get simply because it's not an effective or at least efficient way to organise a country- or empire-sized unit without industrial- or later-era advances in communication, as the number of representatives necessarily becomes progressively smaller relative to the size of the population they represent.

It's quite reasonable to expect the current episode of widespread democracy will be replaced by more autocratic systems in future, whether as soon as some doomsayers predict or in a couple of centuries.

 

[God of Kings]

Am I the only one especially hyped for the huge influx we are about to get of new awesome atomic era themes?

We all are. It would be interesting to hear them using piano and synthesizer.

 

[CivLuvah]

Am I the only one especially hyped for the huge influx we are about to get of new awesome atomic era themes?

When can we expect an atomic theme that's as unique as Japan's, France's or England's?

 

[God of Kings]

When can we expect an atomic theme that's as unique as Japan's, France's or England's?

...or Rome's?

 

[Zaarin]

<stuff about the Iroquois>

Like I said, whether or not the Iroquois influenced the American Constitution is still hotly debated by scholars. What we do know is that Washington had a relationship with the Iroquois, and that it shouldn't be ruled out out of hand that there wasn't some influence in there (no one is proposing that the Iroquois were the only or even main inspiration here, but simply part of the general climate out of which the Constitution was borne). Also the Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong about the formation of the League: archaeology supports Iroquois oral tradition dating the formation of the League to the twelfth century.

As for whether Native American civilizations are worthy of inclusion, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think a civ has to be a world power to be a civilization, personally, and I think the social sophistication (and technical sophistication despite the lack of pack animals or metallurgy, for that matter) are too easily overlooked by Europeans. I don't think one can use European metrics for judging civs outside of Europe, because unlike Civ's tech tree civilizations around the world have developed in very different tracks. Not to say there aren't certain civs that are clearly outside those boundaries--I think we'd all be pretty mystified if, say, the Nivkh were included, for example--but I think it would be a genuine shame if the indigenous people of the New World were excluded simply because they lacked metal (a fact I've always found curious) or didn't form massive empires (in fact, both archaeology and oral traditions point to a cycle of brief periods of centralized government [the most recent being the Mississippians] followed by overthrow of the central authority and decentralization).

Am I the only one especially hyped for the huge influx we are about to get of new awesome atomic era themes?

No, I'm looking forward to new ancient and medieval themes.

 

[God of Kings]

No, I'm looking forward to new ancient and medieval themes.

Whatever the Canadian theme would be would use a fiddle for the Ancient Era theme, unless it's a First Nations civ.

 

[ferretbacon]

No, I'm looking forward to new ancient and medieval themes.

I think I prefer most themes in their Medieval incarnation. Many of the Modern themes are overwrought to my ears.

 

[Zaarin]

I think I prefer most themes in their Medieval incarnation. Many of the Modern themes are overwrought to my ears.

I agree: most of them are too bombastic for my taste.

 

[CivLuvah]

...or Rome's?

Oh yeah, forgot about Rome's...

 

[PhilBowles]

Like I said, whether or not the Iroquois influenced the American Constitution is still hotly debated by scholars. What we do know is that Washington had a relationship with the Iroquois, and that it shouldn't be ruled out out of hand that there wasn't some influence in there (no one is proposing that the Iroquois were the only or even main inspiration here, but simply part of the general climate out of which the Constitution was borne). Also the Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong about the formation of the League: archaeology supports Iroquois oral tradition dating the formation of the League to the twelfth century.

That seems an overly strong interpretation of what Wikipedia describes as archaeological evidence for the adoption of corn, which just suggests a sedentary lifestyle and possibly the establishment of trade networks; I'm not at all clear what form of archaeological evidence could date a social development like a league in a preliterate society. The same piece suggests a distinct lack of clarity among scholars as to when the League formed. The Britannica entry is referring to the Confederacy specifically rather than the less structured League (which even if formed in 1450, the latest date suggested in the Wikipedia piece, would still predate regular European contact. I doubt the Iroquois were having lengthy political chats with the occasional stray European fisherman reaching pre-Colombian North America)

As for whether Native American civilizations are worthy of inclusion, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think a civ has to be a world power to be a civilization, personally, and I think the social sophistication (and technical sophistication despite the lack of pack animals or metallurgy, for that matter) are too easily overlooked by Europeans. I don't think one can use European metrics for judging civs outside of Europe, because unlike Civ's tech tree civilizations around the world have developed in very different tracks. Not to say there aren't certain civs that are clearly outside those boundaries--I think we'd all be pretty mystified if, say, the Nivkh were included, for example--but I think it would be a genuine shame if the indigenous people of the New World were excluded simply because they lacked metal (a fact I've always found curious) or didn't form massive empires (in fact, both archaeology and oral traditions point to a cycle of brief periods of centralized government [the most recent being the Mississippians] followed by overthrow of the central authority and decentralization).

Civlisation in a traditional definition refers to city-building societies, and given the series' focus from the start on cities that's a logical point to draw the line. It's not a question of 'overlooking' anything, as much as urban societies like to consider civilisation a linear evolution from less complex societies - tribes simply don't fit that definition. It's akin to having an Age of Empires game whose factions don't build empires. The addition of unique units - mainly a feature of societies with developed militaries and buildings only further cements the series as focusing on complex societies.

As much as we like to pretend Civ's representing a wide range of cultures, it's actually very limited in what it can actually portray - it doesn't really gain anything from using skins representing Native Americans to represent a society with the city-building, army development and linear tech and civic structure associated with European and to a lesser extent other urbanised states. How does "What if the Iroquois developed like the French?" meaningfully represent a Native American culture?

Inclusion has its place, but inserted into a context where it doesn't belong it becomes ludicrous. Would anyone buy into a WWII game in which all of the Allied soldiers were from India and the Germans from East Africa, or where because of a perceived need for female leaders Churchill was replaced by Margaret Thatcher or Hitler by Angela Merkel?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

You know, there's been some speculation that R&F is adding more diverse cultural buildings: I really hope that's true. Today as I was playing I noted that Buenos Aires (and someone else mentioned Brazil) has the same step pyramid palace and jaguar warrior swordsmen as Palenque/Aztec. They really should add a "South American" style--and just more styles in general. (Also, why does Jerusalem use the Greek/Roman style instead of the Middle Eastern style?) I'd even be willing to pay for a DLC that added more in-depth unit and building diversity (for example, I noted that Palenque's archer had a Native American-skintone and an American-style bow, but was still dressed like a Greek archer).

Here's hoping we found out tomorrow with Korea. I hope that is the case with Brazil and maybe Portugal could get the same style as well when I mentioned it. Interesting enough in the game files they all fall under Culture: SouthAmerica (which represents city architecture) while Jerusalem and Hattusa fall under Culture: Mediterranean with Rome, Greece, Macedon, Spain, Lisbon, Geneva, Preslav and Valletta. I think Hattusa could get Culture: NorthAfrican which is what Sumeria, Egypt and Carthage has while Jerusalem could get that but maybe Culture: Mughal which is what India, Arabia, Persia, Scythia, Mohenjo Daro and Kandy has. That being said the Mediterranean style is my favorite looking ones but it doesn't look right on Jerusalem and Hattusa.
Ethnicity is a different thing though than city architecture I believe.

 

[God of Kings]

I think I prefer most themes in their Medieval incarnation.

The Medieval Khmer theme for example has a section not found in the other eras' themes.

 

[evanaurora]

I "do literature" for a living. It's how I tend to approach the world, and the disciplines that touch lit stuffs in particular. History, in particular, is a thing constantly demanding "reading," both for my own purposes and just in general (in my opinion) when one encounters it.

In other words: how does one read a text? Hopefully, in as many ways as possible, using as many disciplines as possible, considering in a hypothetical vacuum and in the context of what one deems relevant texts preceding and following.

To bring this comment back from being wildly off topic, the thing with Civ is: it's undeniably Eurocentric in how it frames the world. The concepts it uses to drive game play, the tech tree, the intrinsic notion of "progress" in a historical sense which a) defines the idea of the game itself and b) is, in its current incarnation, something made up in Europe during the Industrial Revolution.

It's ALSO capable of moving outside of this, perhaps not in its intrinsic concepts, but in the tenets that it builds upon, as a franchise, or I hope it is; I've seen changes in this direction, however minimal, in each incarnation I've played since Civ 2. At minimum, looking to peoples beyond the deeply ridiculous idea of "civilization" as progressing from savages=>Greece=>Rome=>European empires=>US o' A (or, you know, whichever nation one happens to be wanting to put forward as the central defender of some abstract and pure Western Tradition at the time! but i digress.)

I study the most dusty parts of the Western Canon voluntarily. No one is saying "put aside Europe," or even "put aside European ideas of civilization," least of all myself. But what one thinks of as make a people "significant" or "civilized" are based on one's knowledge of them, and if you come from Europe, or an area with a long history of European colonizers, one is going to have a disproportionately high education on European history and European peoples and European ideas. That doesn't mean other areas don't have equally rich histories, or that they're unworthy of inclusion because of this. In other words, civilizations-- yes!-- from every part of the world deserve a presence in the franchise, whatever what one's opinion of the order they should be included in is. Individual civs may be up for debate, but that fundamental concept, to me, and to most Civ players, I think, isn't.

And.... that's all I, personally am going to say on the topic; partially because most of my rambling is arguably irrelevant, and partially because this discussion has the potential to veer into a really unpleasant place, and I want to read rampant speculation about R&F instead.

 

[PhilBowles]

To bring this comment back from being wildly off topic, the thing with Civ is: it's undeniably Eurocentric in how it frames the world. The concepts it uses to drive game play, the tech tree, the intrinsic notion of "progress" in a historical sense which a) defines the idea of the game itself and b) is, in its current incarnation, something made up in Europe during the Industrial Revolution.

That's because it's called Civilization. The name is a European concept, and that concept is not that of a tribal society. Complaining that the things it depicts are the ones that fall within the definition of a civilisation is akin to complaining that chess unfairly excludes game components other than chess pieces by pointing out that dice have a valuable history of their own.

The problem arises with a modern tendency to apply the name 'civilisation' to any form of society, while subscribing to the Eurocentric baggage that imagines a linear progression from non-civilised to civilised societies. It doesn't follow at all that a tribal society is inferior to an urban one just because it can't be called a civilisation on a technical definition, any more than a die is inferior to a chess piece.

Recall that, in spite of Sid's later denials, Civilization was initially based on an Avalon Hill board game that very explicitly followed a traditional definition of a civilisation - initially set wholly in Europe and the Near East. Every civ in that game was a significant early urban culture, and like its digital successor the gameplay revolved around settling cities, developing technologies, and proceeding linearly through different eras, with the final score that determined victory being weighted towards the civs with the most cities and the most advanced technologies.

It's ALSO capable of moving outside of this, perhaps not in its intrinsic concepts, but in the tenets that it builds upon, as a franchise, or I hope it is; I've seen changes in this direction, however minimal, in each incarnation I've played since Civ 2. At minimum, looking to peoples beyond the deeply ridiculous idea of "civilization" as progressing from savages=>Greece=>Rome=>European empires=>US o' A (or, you know, whichever nation one happens to be wanting to put forward as the central defender of some abstract and pure Western Tradition at the time! but i digress.)

To what extent is tokenism really "moving outside of this", since that's effectively all it is? Seen in a certain light "your people can be represented in our game but only as long as they act exactly like Europeans" is closer to being offensive than being inclusive. The fact that the idea of linear progression from 'uncivilised' to 'civilised' is wrong doesn't invalidate the idea of distinguishing between different types of societies, just as discarding the Linnean idea of a linear chain of nature culminating in humans doesn't entail invalidating the idea that frogs are different from kangaroos. Civilization, fundamentally, is a game about one type of society and not the other.

 

[God of Kings]

It would have been better if the game were called Sid Meier's Human Cultures.

 

[Meluhhan]

Inclusion has its place, but inserted into a context where it doesn't belong it becomes ludicrous. Would anyone buy into a WWII game in which all of the Allied soldiers were from India

Indian soldiers, though, did play a very important role in WWII.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_in_World_War_II