[GS] Sneak Peak 11/12

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I agree. Cut all three of them.

That line of argument is still among the most silly I see here. EVERYTHING is a former colony.

Only if you define "colony" in the loosest, broadest sense possible, and even that's a stretch.

Carthage is a colonial empire that they decided to probably cut.

 

[AriochIV]

Just because another "empire"(China) is on the rise doesn't mean we are on the decline.

Also, since when is the decline of a civilization cause for exclusion from Civilization? We'd have to take out about half of the civs currently in the game.

I'd gladly support removing America from future iterations of Civilization if it also meant omitting all these various recent colonial spinoffs, but we all know that's not going to happen.

 

[CivLuvah]

I take exception with this. Just because another "empire"(China) is on the rise doesn't mean we are on the decline. See Fareed Zakaria's good article on Peak America. We are still at our peak. Just because the 2nd place country is rising doesn't mean we are declining. But the stock market is starting to see this peak as we can see. But you never know, some amazing technological advance could still keep us strong for years to come. When it comes to innovation I'll take the U.S. over China any day.

Hmmm.... when you said peak I was assuming it was in the same connotation as "peak oil" or "peak beard" - something that's at its height but is going through some sort of decline.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

We are at our peak. It doesn't get any better for us. Our IQ is dropping on the whole. There is simply no way we can compete with China in the long run. I really don't see complete disintegration of our nation, however. More likely we'll end up like Greece, a shell of our former selves. And with our debt situation the way that it is, Greece may well be our future.

We have way too many resources and way too many people to end up like Greece. True China may outpace us in the long term but our country would have to break up to ever end up like Greece.

 

[Giskler]

Utter nonsense. Things have been worse many times since, and we survived. There was widespread rioting during the civil unrest in the US that peaked around 1968, including the shutting down of the Democratic national convention, and government troops shooting protesters on college campuses. People who think that the current political tensions in the US are either unprecedented or unrecoverable don't know very much about Americans or our history.

The political divison of the country is not nonsense. The current polarization, which started in the 1970s, hasn't been this bad since the reconstruction era after the Civil War.

 

[AriochIV]

The political divison of the country is not nonsense. The current polarization, which started in the 1970s, hasn't been this bad since the reconstruction era after the Civil War.

I didn't say the division is nonsense, I said that the assertion that it's the worst it's been since the Civil War is nonsense. Are you currently in the United States? Have you lived here for more than 50 years? If not, please don't presume to lecture me about the internal politics of my own country.

 

[Guandao]

Too bad there aren't any Babylonian gamers playing the game.



I take exception with this. Just because another "empire"(China) is on the rise doesn't mean we are on the decline. See Fareed Zakaria's good article on Peak America. We are still at our peak. Just because the 2nd place country is rising doesn't mean we are declining. But the stock market is starting to see this peak as we can see. But you never know, some amazing technological advance could still keep us strong for years to come. When it comes to innovation I'll take the U.S. over China any day.

You do know I'm of Chinese descent, right? Let's keep the China bashing to the minimum please....

 

[PhilBowles]

I don't get why countries like Australia, Brazil, Canada, and the US get so much hate.

As others have said, it's mostly a case of simply not having exhausted better candidates. The US is obviously deserving of a spot due to its outsized influence on world history - a power needn't be long-lasting to have a major impact. That claim can't be made for the other three. Another issue is that the colonial civs mostly take areas of the world that could be represented by indigenous cultures - something there's a big community appetite for - and use Yet Another European LeaderTM.

Finally, by their nature these are late game civs and there simply isn't that much gameplay interest to them as a result due to the way Civ games work. So whatever you want out of Civ games' Civ selections - historical significance, diversity, or interesting gameplay - post-colonial civs are usually going to fall short in every category, and those do seem to be the three things the community most wants from civ selections. "Seeing my country" is a somewhat distant fourth, and the only real justification for using most of these civs.

Australia, it can be argued, also fills a TSL role that no other civ can, since there are cultural difficulties in portraying Aboriginal civs (specifically, a widespread - maybe universal - Aboriginal taboo on depictions of dead people, which both means there are few models of historical Aboriginal leaders to work from and could result in accusations of cultural insensitivity for using them). But it's a TSL role that isn't needed, since Australia isn't an especially attractive area to settle and sitting on a large island (in Civ terms) with no immediate competition doesn't make for great gameplay.

Yes, all their accomplishments happened in the past 200 years.

It seems that a greater portion of the community - at least if we're representative - values diversity than values civs for their accomplishments. And not to be unkind to a country where I used to live, but judged by a historical barometer it's not clear what accomplishments Australia has that really warrant inclusion, ditto Brazil. For two iterations now Civ designers have put Brazil in the game and appeared to have had no real idea what to do with it, so it's been a rather characterless culture civ with carnivals, football stadia and an ahistorical obsession with Great People. Australia comes off a little better (and has a great soundtrack and leader animation/lines that make it much more memorable than Pedro the Forgettable), but the characteristic chosen to represent it is .. settling in wilderness, farming cattle and getting attacked. Gameplay-wise it just gets excessive resource bonuses instead of doing anything interesting (though I'll grant that that's true of Nubia, a worthier civ on historical grounds). That's hardly on the same page as Sumeria, Rome or the British Empire.

These nations will also outlive every great empire in history.

What possible grounds are there for suggesting that? Brazil may already have hit its economic peak, having failed to meet expectations set in the '90s that it could become an economic superpower. Far right leadership intent on strip-mining its remaining natural resources is hardly likely to increase the country's prospects of surviving for the next few centuries.

Australia's global importance lies mostly in being Indonesia's bank and supplying China with raw materials, and it doesn't have the fertile land to support significant population growth - it already suffers severe problems from salination and water shortages in many parts of the country. It has an economic foundation in mineral extraction and agricultural products with an uncertain future market, so it's by no means sure that this is sustainable in the long run even without environmental challenges and its much-publicised and ongoing political problems.

Canada too is reliant, as others have mentioned, on harvesting and exporting natural resources. It likely has the brightest future of any of the three, but it's not clear why it should be considered in a better position than many long-established societies let alone empires that persisted for centuries.

 

[Giskler]

I didn't say the division is nonsense, I said that the assertion that it's the worst it's been since the Civil War is nonsense. Are you currently in the United States? Have you lived here for more than 50 years? If not, please don't presume to lecture me about the internal politics of my own country.

The state of affairs in the US affects the rest of the world. While most americans might not know much about other countries, most people in the West know more than enough about the internal politics in the US. The assertion that the country is more divided now than at any other point in the past 140 years isn't mine, it's one made by americans who have studied the political history of the country since the 1870s. You need to calm down a bit and not take a discussion about the US as a personal attack. Anyway, we're getting way off topic here.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Leaving aside the Colonial Civ Bashing, China Bashing, et al, and back to the Sneak Peak:

After careful study I can only say what Civilizations it's not:
There's not enough snow in the front for Antarctica, so the Emperor Penquin Civ is out. ("Don't Cry For Me, Madagascar")
- Unless it's not snow, but Nitre, in which case it might be a nod to the early-gunpowder excellence of the Armies of Gustaf Adolph, so it might be Sweden, but with the wrong Leader.
- Unless it's Nitre as in Nitroglycerin, the component of Nobel's dynamite, which would make it the Firaxis Civ staple: the Nobel Prize Norweden Civ.
It's a Civ that builds rectangular buildings with rectangular windows, so that leaves out the Noongar - or the Navaho, Hopi, or Iroquois, Doesn't look good for the Inuit, either.
There's not a tree in sight, so IF it is supposed to be Canada, it will be without the Iconic Canadian UU: the Singing Lumberjack.
- Or the Second Most Iconic Canadian UU: The Beaver, which is probably more likely than the Lumberjack in GS, because it would give Canada a very early jump on building Dams or Canals - and extra Culture from Top Hats, required to get the most out of Theatre Districts...

 

[Guandao]

So.......it's Sweden right? What could be the uniques for it? Hakkapell? Carolean? I'm not knowledgeable about unique Swedish infrastructure/buildings/improvements.

 

[Amtoj]

I'll admit I got a bit ahead of myself there. Probably could've reworded some bits like the one on outliving empires, but seeing everyone else's side on the topic is good. Though I'm still of the opinion that modern civilizations have their place in the game. Right now, there's a good balance between old and new. We've got civilizations that have shaped the past, those currently shaping the world around us, and the ones who will take the lead in the future. I see no reason to prioritize the ancient world over all else. The recently emerging powers currently in the game also have a good amount of history behind them to justify their inclusion as well. Honestly, I can't really argue that any of them are too recent with the accomplishments they've got. Especially the United States since they're the sole world superpower today. Basically, everyone in the game has made a mark on history and/or will continue to do so.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

There is no objective yardstick by which we can measure the worthiness of a civilization, every civ that has ever been included in the franchise is completely justifiable*. The end.

Roll on tomorrow, I'm excited to see if we have another civ with major strengths and weaknesses!


*With the exception of blob civs

 

[PhilBowles]

I'll admit I got a bit ahead of myself there. Probably could've reworded some bits like the one on outliving empires, but seeing everyone else's side on the topic is good. Though I'm still of the opinion that modern civilizations have their place in the game. Right now, there's a good balance between old and new in the game. We've got civilizations that have shaped the past, those currently shaping the world around us, and the ones who will take the lead in the future. I see no reason to prioritize the ancient world over all else. The recently emerging powers currently in the game also have a good amount of history behind them to justify their inclusion as well. Honestly, I can't really argue that any of them are too recent with the accomplishments they've got. Especially the United States since they're the sole world superpower today. Basically, everyone in the game has made a mark on history and/or will continue to do so.

Well, Australia's on track to create an entirely new form of full democracy: one in which every citizen in the country gets to take turns being Prime Minister.

Personally I've always been very much in favour of choosing civs based on their accomplishments, as well as favouring a literal view of civilisation - that the societies represented should be settled empires which suit the game's focus on territorial expansion, urban development and Western-style technological progression (and not because certain spokespeople for the Cree get upset when they're used in that framework). But when it comes down to it the way a civ is implemented in the game can win me round - the Huns and Polynesia in Civ V weren't civs I felt the game needed, but they were done well (Polynesia so well that, whatever I think of the appropriateness of the name in Civ VI, I'm very happy with the way the civ looks in Civ VI).

That hasn't been the case for any post-colonial civ. In both Civ V and Civ VI Brazil is tedious, panders to stereotypes, and doesn't pursue the culture game in any way half a dozen other cultures don't. I can't imagine anyone who, across six Civ games, has ever found any incarnation of America to have interesting gameplay, for all it deserves to be a fixture of the series. Take away the leaderscreen and music and Australia is just a pile of stat bonuses - it's even lost the novelty of culture bombs from improvements.

These are civs that I want to persuade me they belong in the series, since on the face of it they don't. Brazil in particular has spectacularly failed to do any such thing - it's a fan-service civ that feels as though the designers put it in because it was a popular request but didn't really want to and didn't have any idea what to do with it.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

So.......it's Sweden right? What could be the uniques for it? Hakkapell? Carolean? I'm not knowledgeable about unique Swedish infrastructure/buildings/improvements.

Karoliner as a pike and shot replacement makes the most sense to me.
I can see either a library or research lab replacement that could generate more great people points and not just scientists. Unless they try to go for a furniture warehouse.

 

[Guandao]

Karoliner as a pike and shot replacement makes the most sense to me.
I can see either a library or research lab replacement that could generate more great people points and not just scientists. Unless they try to go for a furniture warehouse.

What's the Swedish word for library or research lab?

Nevermind: Library is Bibliotek and Research Lab is forskningslaboratorium.

 

[Nagato]

huuummm...I hope in civilization7 they will not add Canada, Brazil and Australia again. Saying for myself, the inclusion of Civ a or b never bothered me (why bother me? it's just a strategy game, the inclusion of Australia never bothered me), I would give welcome to everyone, except blob civs. But the inclusion of these countries has caused a very negative outcry in some people, and this is spoiling the main objective of the game which is fun.

They can add to only America, to keep Americans happy. As always was.

 

[Amtoj]

Well, Australia's on track to create an entirely new form of full democracy: one in which every citizen in the country gets to take turns being Prime Minister.

Personally I've always been very much in favour of choosing civs based on their accomplishments, as well as favouring a literal view of civilisation - that the societies represented should be settled empires which suit the game's focus on territorial expansion, urban development and Western-style technological progression (and not because certain spokespeople for the Cree get upset when they're used in that framework). But when it comes down to it the way a civ is implemented in the game can win me round - the Huns and Polynesia in Civ V weren't civs I felt the game needed, but they were done well (Polynesia so well that, whatever I think of the appropriateness of the name in Civ VI, I'm very happy with the way the civ looks in Civ VI).

That hasn't been the case for any post-colonial civ. In both Civ V and Civ VI Brazil is tedious, panders to stereotypes, and doesn't pursue the culture game in any way half a dozen other cultures don't. I can't imagine anyone who, across six Civ games, has ever found any incarnation of America to have interesting gameplay, for all it deserves to be a fixture of the series. Take away the leaderscreen and music and Australia is just a pile of stat bonuses - it's even lost the novelty of culture bombs from improvements.

These are civs that I want to persuade me they belong in the series, since on the face of it they don't. Brazil in particular has spectacularly failed to do any such thing - it's a fan-service civ that feels as though the designers put it in because it was a popular request but didn't really want to and didn't have any idea what to do with it.

Man, poor Australia. Those are fair points though.

What you said about stereotypes makes sense. Looking back at ancient civilizations with leave you with what they were remembered for. Brazil is still attempting to gain more global influence, and what they left the world isn't exactly something anyone thinks about. Same goes for the US despite all the influence they already have. The stereotypes are easy to fall into because that's all we see at this moment. I hope that makes sense, because I haven't exactly been articulating things well.

Nobody can say they haven't done anything, but it's easier to see why some would think they don't fit in as well. Anyway, I agree that the way these civilizations do end up being represented in the game is lackluster.

 

[Zaarin]

Too bad there aren't any Babylonian gamers playing the game.

I bet there are some Assyrian players, but probably not enough to merit pandering to.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

What's the Swedish word for library or research lab?

Nevermind: Library is Bibliotek and Research Lab is forskningslaboratorium.

I was thinking more in line with calling it an Akademien, which means academy, which the different ones are responsible for handing out the Nobel prizes, as opposed to a direct library or lab building.