The Ultimate Colonial Civs thread

[acluewithout]

Let’s talk about Colonial Civs, baby.
Let’s talk about you and me.
Let’s talk about all the good things and the bad things that maybe.

• Should Civ have Colonial Civs?
• How should they be represented?
• What do you think about how they are currently implemented?
• What do you think of the specific Colonial Civs we have now?

Discussion of National Park making gun toting Mounties is optional.

 

[Disgustipated]

Love em', just not too many please.

 

[King William I]

Maybe focus on the history that makes people say "hey, that's cool" rather than "I knew that's all they did".

But the way I see it there's only a handful of colonial civs that could believably be in the game. (Canada, America, Australia, Brazil, Mexico. Maybe the Philippines and Haiti) Anything outside of that list and it gets a tad ridiculous.

 

[seasnake]

Can we get a general definition of "colonial civ"? That might be good as a baseline to this discussion.

 

[King William I]

Can we get a general definition of "colonial civ"? That might be good as a baseline to this discussion.

The term used on this site is any nation that started out as a colony of a 15th-19th century European empire

 

[Pistol90]

I also love Colonial Civs ... i dont get why would just ancient empires and Civs have monopoly of being an actual Civ. Australia is great example of interesting Civ with uniqe style, and Canada maybe isnt OP but they are interesting to have in game - its second largest country in the world -- why not have them.

Just what is important is balance, and right now I would say it is OK. I would not mind having South Africa in possible next expanssion or DLC also

 

[Disgustipated]

So now we have Canada, it's time to have Israel as a civ. They aren't a colonial civ per se (though they did form a nation out of former land of a colonial power).

 

[SammyKhalifa]

The term used on this site is any nation that started out as a colony of a 15th-19th century European empire

You're right, but not a very good definition IMHO

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

We've always had a Colonial Civ, so this isn't necessarily new and don't necessarily mind their inclusion. In fact Australia is one of my favorites to play as and wouldn't mind at least seeing one more preferably Spanish speaking one. And gameplay wise they all look like they play better than Georgia.
But at the same time we are lacking in Ancient Era Civs.

 

[Pietato]

And gameplay wise they all look like they play better than Georgia.

High bar.

 

[679x]

I support the addition of colonial civs, but it is a bit unfortunate that a colonial civ would be competing for the same civ slot as another important civ from another era, one that may or may not have been more influential in its circle at its peak. Still, I think it's great to continue to have them, and I think there are sufficient opportunities for them to each be unique in their own ways, as long as the developers are able to pull it off.

I personally wouldn't mind seeing South Africa, for example.

 

[UWHabs]

I think when you have 40+ civs in the game, having 4 or 5 colonial civs is fine. America has been a staple through the series, and I've enjoyed having Brasil around the last couple times.

I do think they went a little stereotypical overboard with Canada, although they did that too with Scotland previously. Although at least they did something kind of unique with Canada, so we'll have to see how it plays out. I do wish they went a little more into history for the civ - honestly, personally, I kind of hoped mostly that our UB would be the grand railway hotel, and was hoping the UU would be a fully non-combat unit. Or that they did something unique with aerodromes, for example, and gave them like a free trade route if built on tundra. Maybe the civ will play really fun with the new systems, but it definitely seems a little over the top, that I agree with some of the above that it would have been nice to focus on some historical traits, and not just "mounties and hockey".

 

[acluewithout]

The term used on this site is any nation that started out as a colony of a 15th-19th century European empire

What he said.

Overall I like them being in the game - interesting mechanics, add colour, scratch an itch for people that want certain countries represented.

But the implementation is not great, really. If you start in the ancient era they are anachronistic. But worse, one of the things that’s cool about colonials countries is that they were colonial - they were originally settled by another country, far from the shores of that country, and then rapidly made a place for themselves in world as an independent nation.

Civ catches none of that - not the voyage to distant and strange lands, not the struggle to adapt to a new environment and exploit it, not the break from the old country, or the sudden and rapid emergence of a new global power.

The specifics are different for each colonial nation in the game, but the overall arcs are fairly consistent.

I’m not sure there’s much Civ can do about it, really. If you’re going to have, say, Australia in the game, then they need to start in the ancient era with everyone else because that’s how the game mechanics work.

But perhaps Civ could try to fill the gap a little. First, maybe the game needs some sort of colonial mechanic, where you create colonies on other continents and these colonies have a degree of independence or are at least are just visually different. And second, maybe the game needs some sort of optional staggered start mechanic, or just a colonial scenario, so I could start as a colonial Civ on a map that has existing established “old world” powers.

I think when you have 40+ civs in the game, having 4 or 5 colonial civs is fine. America has been a staple through the series, and I've enjoyed having Brasil around the last couple times.

I do think they went a little stereotypical overboard with Canada, although they did that too with Scotland previously. Although at least they did something kind of unique with Canada, so we'll have to see how it plays out. I do wish they went a little more into history for the civ - honestly, personally, I kind of hoped mostly that our UB would be the grand railway hotel, and was hoping the UU would be a fully non-combat unit. Or that they did something unique with aerodromes, for example, and gave them like a free trade route if built on tundra. Maybe the civ will play really fun with the new systems, but it definitely seems a little over the top, that I agree with some of the above that it would have been nice to focus on some historical traits, and not just "mounties and hockey".

Railway Hotel is a good idea.

Pity they didn’t go a non-Military UU. That would have been unique and very striking.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I wouldn't mind seeing Mexico in the game, preferably led by Juarez although I can see a case for Cardenas.

edit: I am generally against colonial civs in the game although I'll accept America as an exception to the rule because of their historic importance

 

[Guandao]

I will grudgingly tolerate them being in the game, as long as the Maya, Ethiopia, Byzantines, Babylon, Portugal return later. But I've little hope for a 3rd expansion or DLCs.

And we have so many potential non-Colonial Civs (like those on my wishlist) that add diversity to the game. Why would I want an English speaking colonial country? I guess Laurier speaking French makes it a bit better....

 

[Returning Lurker]

Approve of the United States because it is the single most important nation of the Atomic age and arguably the modern age as well and also bias.

Disapprove of Brazil as a base-game civ as they snubbed many more prestigious civs and interesting dark horses as well and their design is dull as dishwater.

Disapprove of Australia as it was released right after another sister-civ (Alexander the Civ) and we already had an English Colony but no Spanish or French ones.

Disapprove of Canada because we already had 2 English colonies, a North American cultural powerhouse with a focus on National Parks, and they went with the most boring concievable route they could’ve gone with an already boring choice making the whole thing feel like a bad meme.

Basically, I don’t disapprove of colonies in and of themselves, but the timing of their releases has been nothing short of appalling (I’d choose a less dramatic word, but the word I want to use isn’t appreciated by the moderators) and has soured me to all of them excluding America thus far.

 

[johnlynch13957]

I don’t mind them, but I don’t think we really need anymore, at least American ones.

 

[King William I]

Honestly, I think we could use a good number of modern and ancient nations and cut out some of the medieval ones.

The game us supposed to span all of human civilization, so why are all the factions from the middle ages or enlightenment?

 

[Sostratus]

hey did that too with Scotland previously.

The golf course was a bit "silly" although mechanically it flows with their amenity bonus focus. I actually was pretty okay with scotland because they have a 1000+ year history of being scots; while currently in union with england, I think this sets them apart from canada and Australia and America.

America gets the defacto pass for obvious reasons.

I think Australia, to me, can be justified by the fact that it's a huge area of the earth that really just includes
Australia
New Zealand
Polynesian islands

So it's one of the only ways to include that part of the world, and it's wacko kangaroo land so they can have fun with it.
Brazil is similar; it's the biggest, easiest modern south american country.

But Canada I kind of dislike from the standpoint of we have America, sadly; and canada kind of falls as quasi similar to it as a modern country in north america. And we have the cree, which is a cool choice and also covers that area. I'm not being authoritative so don't come after me. Canada doesn't seem "other" enough to me compared to a byzantium or Maya. I'm from Minnesota which is kind of America's canada though so it could just be me.

Mexico is kind of the same; you have the modern representation that people sometimes ask for, and then historical one which is the Aztecs. And then there's the Spain colonial overlap aspect.

I think the civ series is certainly getting pretty anglophone in 6. The UK will think they have 4 civs to choose from now

 

[Sagax]

If no one complains about inclusion of obvious ancient-classical civs, but modern colonial civs always result in arguments, then I personally see an easy solution:

Shove all dem colonies into DLCs. That’s like the whole point of the model, no? Add or leave out whatever pieces you want in your game, without sacrificing the juicy parts that come with large expansions.