Should there be more civs add to Rhye's

[kairob]

I think hits for the player not going after a certain victory is a bad idea.

 

[jessiecat]

Also, check out National Geographic's May, 2007 edition. It includes a nice insert showing how destructive the plagues were to the Eastern Seaboard's natives. As well, the Plains Indians weren't nomadic until the plagues destroyed their societies farther east... (mentioned in the article)

Haven't seen that article. Looks interesting.
To anybody who thinks Native Americans didn't live in settled communities,
they should read accounts of DeSoto's expedition through the American
South in the 1530's. He visited towns of over 20,000 people each among
the Creeks and Chickasaws of Georgia and Alabama.
The Plains Indians became nomadic for two main reasons.
They began getting horses from the Spanish after 1750.
And white settlement moving west began to threaten their settlements and their
hunting grounds east of the Mississippi.
And yes, plague and white land-grabbing became a factor too.
For example, the Sioux lived entirely in Minnesota and Ilinois until 1800.

 

[onedreamer]

Living in a settlement does not mean living in a city. Only americans (including the scientist community) are so big about this, I suspect that they MUST find something that proves that culture and civilization was thriving in America prior to European "invasion". Is it some kind of complex or what ? In case you missed it, plague has ravaged in Europe for centuries, and it never wiped out CITIES. The truth is that there are no proofs, one settlement (Cahokia) doesn't prove that native americans lived in cities, especially since this settlement (being only a settlement, should I underline it once more) was abandoned before the arrival of european, so I wonder why blaming the absence of cities or sedentary life in general on Europe is so en vogue among american posters.

Vikings never existed as a united empire - or even nation. But since Rhye insist on using this historical incorrect label given by Firaxis for the Scandinavians then yes, the Scandinavian nations are still very much around and going strong.

Firaxis didn't implement Scandinavia, they implemented The Vikings. The music, the UU, the UB and even cities are vikings, not Swedish or Danish or else. Vikings are responsible for pretty blonde sicilian women. Isn't this amusing enough to the average american who thinks sicilians are moors because of idiotic TV shows ?

 

[Panopticon]

That is why their capital is called Nidaros, not Trondheim. (It is also why I think it should collapse more!)

 

[CyberChrist]

Firaxis didn't implement Scandinavia, they implemented The Vikings. The music, the UU, the UB and even cities are vikings, not Swedish or Danish or else.

Both you and Firaxis got all this terribly wrong.
ALL 'Vikings' were from the Scandinavian countries Denmark, Norway and Sweden, but far from all Scandinavians could be said to be Vikings in any meaning of the word (Viking can have several meanings sea raider, from the sea or he who lives in the bay). Most current day Scandinavians are direct descendants from the same people that went on Viking raids, but there has never been a Viking nation, civilization or people under that name.

 

[CyberChrist]

That is why their capital is called Nidaros, not Trondheim.

Heh, Nidaros IS Trondheim.

 

[Panopticon]

Well noticed. That was the point. The Viking civilisation represents the pre-1000AD Scandinavian raiders and not the subsequent Christian kingdoms.

 

[CyberChrist]

Well noticed. That was the point. The Viking civilisation represents the pre-1000AD Scandinavian raiders and not the subsequent Christian kingdoms.

Again I repeat - there never existed such a thing as a Viking civilization - but of course, in RFC they represent Scandinavians through all ages.

I can just barely live with Scandinavians being named "Vikings" in the Middle Ages, but after that they really need to change name. Perhaps "Denmark/Norway" in the Renaissance era, "Sweden" in the Industrial era and "Scandinavia" in the Modern era would be appropriate.

 

[Panopticon]

What? There is a Viking civilisation, it is in the game Civ IV, and that is what I was talking about, as is obvious from my post. The nature of it in both the main game and in its RFC behaviour is that of the Vikings and not the subsequent Scandinavians. Are we going to have a pointless etymological argument about how you define a civilisation, or are we going to get back on topic?

 

[Depravo]

If the Viking civ represents the Viking-age Scandinavians only, they shouldn't get a civ at all. Centralised monarchies and Christianity appear near the end of the period and the period only lasted c. 300 years.

However I believe the 'Vikings' represent all the Scandinavians and that the name was chosen for its commercial appeal.

 

[CyberChrist]

What? There is a Viking civilisation, it is in the game Civ IV, and that is what I was talking about, as is obvious from my post. The nature of it in both the main game and in its RFC behaviour is that of the Vikings and not the subsequent Scandinavians. Are we going to have a pointless etymological argument about how you define a civilisation, or are we going to get back on topic?

Yeah, because if some historical illiteral at Firaxis says it is so then surely it must be a fact.

Nidaros is actually automatically renamed to Trondheim at some point during the progress of the mod - so Rhye clearly took some of the realities into consideration already, but it wouldn't hurt if this was taken just one step further.

Anyway, it was you - not me - who brought the Vikings to the table.

Vikings stay around longer than they did historically as united empires, and I think they should either be simulated as barbarian waves or suffer a lot of minuses in stability, so they collapse early.

This is of course incorrect on many levels, so I had to correct your misconception about this issue.

Also, as I read the purpose of this thread then it was to debate whether more civs(and which ones if so) should/could be added it RFC. You argued some should be taken out and now I more than sufficiently argued why they should not.

---

I for one wouldn't mind seeing the inclusion of more industrial/modern era civlizations such as Canada, Australia, South Africa, Brazil etc.
This could be further spiced by older civilizations respawning/renamed with/to more modern names such as Mexcio, Peru, Libya, Iran, Vietnam etc.

Perhaps all this could be the trigger to make a 3rd starting point in time as well - starting at the birth of America?

 

[Panopticon]

Look, this is a forum, not a debating society, so there's really no point to continuing this. We are at cross purposes.

 

[LtCowprod]

Living in a settlement does not mean living in a city. Only americans (including the scientist community) are so big about this, I suspect that they MUST find something that proves that culture and civilization was thriving in America prior to European "invasion".

Not necessarily cities but the Creeks were getting fairly advanced for their means. There is a settlement in Macon, Georgia at the Ocmulgee river with man made dry lakes, HUGE mounds, and evidence they had been there for ages .... I don't see how that can be arguably much different from the Mayas, except the infrastructure and culture certainly hadn't become established.

 

[CyberChrist]

Look, this is a forum, not a debating society...

Heh, a Forum is a place where people meet, trade and debate stuff. So yes ... CFC is (among other) a debating society for Civ related topics.

 

[onedreamer]

Again I repeat - there never existed such a thing as a Viking civilization - but of course, in RFC they represent Scandinavians through all ages.

They do not. As I already said their name is not any of the scandinavian countries, their UU is viking, UB viking, city names, music, flavor, everything is VIKING, even in RFC if you consider also UP and UHV. Since there can be Babylonia and Rome and Carthage from the Middle Ages to the Modern Age, and NOT Morocco, Italy or Iraq, there can be Vikings and NOT Scandinavians or Denmark, Sweden, Norway or even Finland.

 

[CyberChrist]

@onedreamer:
So what you are actually saying is that you think it is fine to have a civilization that never existed in history - and at the same time leaving out civilizations that did/do exist - in a game that sets out to approximate history?

 

[Úmarth]

Are you reading different posts to everybody else?

 

[Panopticon]

There is no point engaging with this any further, I recommend that nobody do so. It is a futile effort. In the words of a certain opera, "Some men you cannot satisfy". (Same goes for women of course!)

 

[CyberChrist]

Are you reading different posts to everybody else?

How else can you read it? He is saying that the current bogus 'Viking civilization' doesn't/shouldn't represent Scandinavians at all - and the Vikings was NEVER a civilization in any definition of the word.

If all the Vikings are meant to represent are the sea raiders that came from scandinavia then frankly they would be better represented by Barbarians. However, if they are meant represent later eras of scandinavian history as well then some tweaking to the civilization would be in order - changing the name of the civilization in later eras to start with.

 

[Rod]

You know,

I like that.

I mean I like the idea to replace Viking Civilization with Barbarians that are spawning.

See, most of the time the Vikings are passive anyway. Just settling their little Scandinavia but apart from this ... not even Iceland gets settled and they do not really trouble anybody.