Luxembourg too, but I hope we won't have a Luxembourg Civ, because wealth per capita is not what made a good choice for a civilization.
Sweden
- Thread starter Leutz
- Start date
Luxembourg too, but I hope we won't have a Luxembourg Civ, because wealth per capita is not what made a good choice for a civilization.
Hypereon
He was a Consul of Rome!
Are we really weighing on suitable civilizations based on modern-day populations and GDP per capita?
Not that there aren't enough European civs in Vanilla Civ6 already, but comparing Sweden to the city of Paris and uhm, Luxembourg is just laughable. Sweden was a major European power, a real contestant for Russia in the 17th century. Gustavus Adolphus, "the Lion of the North" for example, was one of the influential leaders of the 30-years-war, and considered as the father of the modern warfare. Until Charles XII and the Great Northern War, a formidable general and a rival of Peter, Sweden was a great power and the hegemon of the Baltic Sea. Heck, they even had their own colony in the Americas!
It's definitely possible for Firaxis to include Sweden in an expansion, considering Ed Beach's fascination on the country and Protestant history. And though Norway is in, as CiV had both Denmark and Sweden, two Nordic can happen. (Though, if they cycle the civs, it might be Norway and Finland this time
)
Not that there aren't enough European civs in Vanilla Civ6 already, but comparing Sweden to the city of Paris and uhm, Luxembourg is just laughable. Sweden was a major European power, a real contestant for Russia in the 17th century. Gustavus Adolphus, "the Lion of the North" for example, was one of the influential leaders of the 30-years-war, and considered as the father of the modern warfare. Until Charles XII and the Great Northern War, a formidable general and a rival of Peter, Sweden was a great power and the hegemon of the Baltic Sea. Heck, they even had their own colony in the Americas!
It's definitely possible for Firaxis to include Sweden in an expansion, considering Ed Beach's fascination on the country and Protestant history. And though Norway is in, as CiV had both Denmark and Sweden, two Nordic can happen. (Though, if they cycle the civs, it might be Norway and Finland this time
)
Moderator Action: Moved to Ideas and Suggestions.
SMcM
Emperor
I have no idea what made you think that is what I was suggesting
. There is no logic to that assumption. The topic was sales potential of Sweden vs France, with it being pointed out that Paris had a greater population than Sweden, and I was pointing out that the difference in sales potential between Sweden and France was not wholly dictated by population size.
No
. No we are not. The topic was sales potential. Just because MKI decides that is what people were getting at, does not mean it is true!My post was in reply to this:
My point is that population does not determine sales potential (As an example, Singapore actually has a pretty large video game market). Wealth is a factor also; more disposable income = more money to spend on luxuries like video games. No, I am not sure whether Sweden is an important (or even significant) market for Civ games, but what I am saying is it feasibly could be. And, yes, sales potential does play into the inclusion of Civs; I think Germany would likely not be in every Civ game otherwise, for example (I know many will disagree with this though). Clearly Germany being a large, wealthy country has high sales potential, and Sweden will have video game revenues fraction of the size of that, but Sweden could still have enough sales potential that developing a Swedish Civ could be worthwhile; you would imagine a lot of Swedish Civ players would be interested in buying it.
As for the significance of Sweden; I have no idea- my Swedish history knowledge is quite literally non-existant (besides that Gustavus Adolphus existed, had a good taste in music, and was 'the father of modern warfare'- picked that much up from Civ 5). It seems sensible that it is not in the base game, but I see no reason it should not be available as DLC. Gustav Vasa and Erik XIV look like they would be an interesting alternative leaders to me (they wouldn't have to do much work for Erik, as they already made him accidentally for Civ V
).It's also a shame many great asian cultures is not represented, Korea, Siam, Indonesia, Persia, Mongolia, Vietnam etc.
It's also a shame many great american cultures is not represented, Inca, Maya, Iroquois, Sioux, Shoshone, Olmec etc.
It's also a shame many great african cultures is not represented, Mali, Morocco, Zulu, Carthage, Ethiopia, Kilwa etc.
Don't get me wrong, I think that there are a lot of non-European Civs that need to be added. European representation is very disproportionate. There are some very obvious omissions; Persia, Mongols, Ottomans, Inca and Carthage, for example (and many more besides these obviously). But, there are also European Civs which I think need adding. Portugal and the Netherlands might both be quite small European nations, but both have historically punched well above their weights, and they have ruled significant territory all around the world. They are arguably a lot more significant than most of those above civilisations you mentioned, and maybe this is being eurocentric, but I would sooner see them in the game.
I have no idea what made you think that is what I was suggesting
The topic was sales potential of Sweden vs France, with it being pointed out that Paris had a greater population than Sweden, and I was pointing out that the difference in sales potential between Sweden and France was not wholly dictated by population size.
No
My post was in reply to this:
My point is that population does not determine sales potential (As an example, Singapore actually has a pretty large video game market). Wealth is a factor also; more disposable income = more money to spend on luxuries like video games. No, I am not sure whether Sweden is an important (or even significant) market for Civ games, but what I am saying is it feasibly could be. And, yes, sales potential does play into the inclusion of Civs; I think Germany would likely not be in every Civ game otherwise, for example (I know many will disagree with this though). Clearly Germany being a large, wealthy country has high sales potential, and Sweden will have video game revenues fraction of the size of that, but Sweden could still have enough sales potential that developing a Swedish Civ could be worthwhile; you would imagine a lot of Swedish Civ players would be interested in buying it.
As for the significance of Sweden; I have no idea- my Swedish history knowledge is quite literall non-existant (besides that Gustavus Adolphus existed, had a good taste in music, and was 'the father of modern warfare'- picked that much up from Civ 5). It seems sensible that it is not in the base game, but I see no reason it should not be available as DLC. Gustav Vasa and Erik XIV look like they would be an interesting alternative leaders to me (they wouldn't have to do much work for Erik, as they already made him accidentally for Civ V
Don't get me wrong, I think that there are a lot of non-European Civs that need to be added. European representation is very disproportionate. There are some very obvious omissions; Persia, Mongols, Ottomans, Inca and Carthage, for example (and many more besides these obviously). But, there are also European Civs which I think need adding. Portugal and the Netherlands might both be quite small European nations, but both have historically punched well above their weights, and they have ruled significant territory all around the world. They are arguably a lot more significant than most of those above civilisations you mentioned, and maybe this is being eurocentric, but I would sooner see them in the game.
Hear hear!
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
"Sweden" should just be in as an alternate leader (probably Gustav) of the Nordic/Scandanavian civ
SMcM
Emperor
IIRC you suggested that somewhere else already. And I still think your idea sucks
; blob civs like that are really irritating. And no, India is not a blob Civ; it is a real country; the fact it has not always been united is irrelevant; no country has been! Yes, India is a very large one, with more history than many other countries combined, but its inclusion is not akin to selecting a region of the world and pretending it to be one nation.Why would Firaxis bother to do like 90% of the work for a new Civ (leader and art, some uniques, AI behaviour, etc.), and then lump it in with another Civ, even when the two are very clearly in not the same? Either there should be separate Norway, Denmark and Sweden Civs, or Firaxis should stick to just Norway. Gustavus Adolphus and Harald Hardrada ruled two different areas, and two different groups of people, an to this day the regions they ruled are distinct nations, so why have them lead the same Civilisation? Swedish people would not be very impressed, and others would likely not care, so I can't imagine DLC with extra Swedish leaders for a Scandanavian civ would sell that well, so that would make all the work required for the new leader not too worthwhile.
And TSL is something to keep in mind; it is very popular, and why would we have three different 'Norse' leaders next to each other on a TSL map when they could just as easily be separate Civilisations. People would just find this an annoyance and mod the game to amend this; why make people have to change your game when you could just as easily not made the mistake in the first place?
And also, Norse, as has been pointed out dozens of times by dozens of people, would be a ridiculous thing to call a Civilisation; the Norsemen should be what a generic Sweden/Denmark/Norway Civ would be called. I think Scandinavia would be a terrible name for a Civ also; Scandinavia is just a geographical region.
I'm fairly sure that literally the only people who would like a Nordic blob Civ are people who are annoyed by having multiple Scandinavian Civs and one Civ for India, and think that amalgamating several countries into one is somehow a reasonable half measure. And seeing as most players likely couldn't care less, I see no reason why they would bother catering to these.
NecromancerKing
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2016
- Messages
- 33
I like how the only non-politically correct way to add a leader and country is to have an European country with straight white males. It seems like minorities' achievements and presence in anything has to be justified. Despite most of the countries in the based games are Europeans and its colonies, somehow it's not politically correct, even when some of the countries didn't have any great achievements to be a civilization. On that note, Sweden as a modern country doesn't have that many achievements. How is adding them is not pandering? Whether it is politically correct or fan service due to sales? If they really want to pander to sales, they would probably added Poland and Canada first.
SMcM
Emperor
I barely have any idea what you are talking about, but it sounds way too political. It appears you dislike of the inclusion 'straight white males' leading European nations. I have literally no idea why you are bringing sexuality into a conversation about the inclusion of Sweden. Also, white people are a minority; they are like 17% of the world population.
As for inclusion of Sweden; they are not a modern nation (Sweden has existed since the 10th century) and I'd argue they have achieved more than Brazil has. Not enough to warrant them being in the base game, but enough that if there is sufficient demand for a Sweden DLC, why not include them?
I'd like to point out that people don't approve of leader choices like Peter the great and Phillip II because they are 'straight white males' (weird you are even talking about things like that; no leaders are being chosen due to skin colour or sexuality), instead people think they make sense because they are regarded as important and successful leaders. Similarly, people don't object to Catherine de Medici, Cleopatra or Victoria because they were women, but because some view them as poor leaders, or even not as leaders (certainly in the case of Victoria).
NecromancerKing
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2016
- Messages
- 33
Where did I say that? I said that they don't have to justify anything with having white males while having women or minority of anything have to be about pandering. I was commenting more on the politically correct comment as well as the comment about too many women made by the OP. It's weird how people focus on the best leaders when the developers have NEVER said they want the supposed best leader for the civilization.
SMcM
Emperor
I love how you've climbed down from your original statement; you were complaining about how people only accepted the inclusion of 'straight white males', and now it's just 'white males'.
And besides, that's a load of nonsense. As I already pointed out in my last response, the reason less people are not objecting to leader choices like Phillip II is because he was actually an important and successful leader. The reason people think he is a good leader choice is nothing to do with him being a 'straight white male'. Similarly, Cleopatra being woman is not a factor in people's complaints about her.
If someone says that the inclusion of Cleopatra is bad, and that it is pandering to women, that does not mean that they think her inclusion is bad because she is a woman. That is not the same, and that seems to be where you are going wrong.
Right, but you did not quote the OP, so I had no idea why you were brining all of this up all of a sudden.
Firstly, so what if they don't claim that? I don't care whether they claim their choices to be the best leaders of their civilizations, I don't have to want the same things from leader choices that they do. But also, they actually do seem to be claiming Catherine de Medici to be one of France's greatest leaders; she 'paved the way for France becoming a strong centralised state'.
Anyway, leaders like Trajan, Qin Shi Huang and Peter the great were clearly chosen in part due to them having been very important figures in the histories of their Civilizations, all being arguably among the best leaders of their nations. In terms of personality, Trajan is definately not the first Roman emperor that comes to mind. So, when leaders like these are chosen based on merit, why do they then choose leaders like Catherine de Medici? You might think her to be one of France's greatest leaders, but I'm fairly sure that would you in a minority.
JimmyBanks
Warlord
It's also a shame many great asian cultures is not represented, Korea, Siam, Indonesia, Persia, Mongolia, Vietnam etc.
It's also a shame many great american cultures is not represented, Inca, Maya, Iroquois, Sioux, Shoshone, Olmec etc.
It's also a shame many great african cultures is not represented, Mali, Morocco, Zulu, Carthage, Ethiopia, Kilwa etc.
Couldn't agree more, I'll be disappointed if any of the DLC's are european. I am pretty sure I am setting myself up for disappointment but the Devs need to bring some balance back into the game in this area.
Ed Beach claimed to have taken this into consideration, but I think they have failed massively in this area. Got nothing against Sweden but the game isn't ready for any more European Civs yet.
SMcM
Emperor
Do you mean any of the DLC, or any of the initial DLC? I think not including Portugal or the Netherlands at any point would be crazy.
JimmyBanks
Warlord
Yeah should have been clearer. I reckon not in the initial couple of releases.
Firaxis should use this http://fsi.fundforpeace.org/ as a basis for choosing included civs.
Just pick the least failed states from the list. At least I wouldn't have to liberate Helsinki every time when Sweden is in the game.
Just pick the least failed states from the list. At least I wouldn't have to liberate Helsinki every time when Sweden is in the game.
SMcM
Emperor
Firaxis should use this http://fsi.fundforpeace.org/ as a basis for choosing included civs.
Just pick the least failed states from the list. At least I wouldn't have to liberate Helsinki every time when Sweden is in the game.
What makes Turkey more stable than Russia or the Philippines? Even if this is prior the the coup attempt, Erdoğan himself has been a known loose-cannon for years.
You could read the whole report and find out, but I was just kidding. It's got more to do with the fact that the oppression of our Swedish overlords is felt to this day (mandatory Swedish for everyone, hooray). I'd say suetica sunt, non leguntur.
SMcM
Emperor
You could read the whole report and find out, but I was just kidding. It's got more to do with the fact that the oppression of our Swedish overlords is felt to this day (mandatory Swedish for everyone, hooray). I'd say suetica sunt, non leguntur.
Yeah, I know that you were kidding
. Was just pointing out that those rankings look BS. Won't be reading any reports either, because I've already read more than enough to know Turkey is in a pretty bad place.Similar threads
- Locked
