SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,308
I think Cuba could be a very interesting and colorful entry. Got to be honest though, despite all of the recent discussion I'm still having a real hard time with Gran Columbia.
It lasted like 10 years.Gran Colombia would be much worthier of a civ than Canada.
A lot of these potential later game leaders and countries are what we call here colonial nations. And a lot of those have an interesting history to tell or to abuse. The problem is really their implementation. Civ VI‘s America is for me the best they ever did and it‘s still not among my favorites. Brazil is a country I like very much in RL and whose history and culture is very unique. Yet both civ Brazil incarnations aren‘t very fun to play. I sometimes wonder if it would be a better approach to come up with a nice set of uniques and then look which civ they could fit instead of the other way round.
My only gripe is how Anglocentric the colonials are in VI - you get three former British colonies and that's not even counting the mother country (yes, I know Laurier spoke French, but still).
It lasted like 10 years.
The Republic of Texas would be a worthier civ than Gran Columbia.
Agree. Unique designed Cuba would be very interesting. I mean something on Maori level of uniqueness.I think Cuba could be a very interesting and colorful entry. Got to be honest though, despite all of the recent discussion I'm still having a real hard time with Gran Columbia.
Agree. Unique designed Cuba would be very interesting. I mean something on Maori level of uniqueness.
Philippines - I'd include them in Civ but only if they were mostly based around their pre-colonial history, which is very unique and interesting, while also being unknown to the general public which assumes Philippines were "savage until colonized". It'd be also really good if Philippines had alternative name which didn't sound so weird in Civ naming format and wasn't such blatant exonym ("islands of Spanish king Philip" - honestly I am quite surprised Filipino people themselves accept this name).
Besides, post colonial history of Philippines was not exactly impressive enough to warrant them being civ. Australia and Canada are very highly advanced, developed and influential and bled heavily in both world wars, while Philippines spent last two centuries mostly on foreign domination, violent insurgencies and Third World poverty. The country definitely has great perspectives in AD 2018 (much better than many other South Asian countries) but...
Thing is though there wasn't a single pre-colonial state that would be considered a predecessor state to the Philippines today. The Philippines was composed of a lot of kingdoms, sultanates and tributaries, each distinct from one another because of outside cultural influence or ethno-linguistic group.
View attachment 511759
The Philippines didn't become one entity until the arrival of the Spaniards. When we had our revolution against the Spaniards, it was sporadic and wasn't based on one ethnic group, contrary to what many history school books in the Philippines would tell you. It was only (ironically) when we were being colonized by the Americans that we actually considered ourselves as one entity (because we were given freedom of expression by the Americans while the Spanish obviously didn't).
Part of the reason why we kept the name "Philippines" I think is because the Spaniards created the Philippines as a singular entity. There were attempts in the 1970s to change the name to "Maharlika", which in Tagalog is the name of a pre-colonial warrior class. However, considering that there are 80 languages spoken in the country, each of which is in itself a distinct ethnic group, I think you would encounter a lot of problems when you use that name.
Besides, we Filipinos have a knack of accepting what's foreign and making it our own. Like... most post-colonial peoples?
For people who are saying that modern nations are replacing the old names. If the Mayans did not make their appearance in civ6, it is probably because the devs chose another pre-Columbian nation in place, perhaps Mapuche? If Ethiopia does not make its appearance, this may be due to Nubia. And some people have already said that the Byzantines may have been replaced by Georgia. The inclusion of Brazil in civ5 did not replace Portugal, so it does not make sense to say that Brazil is replacing Portugal. If this is true, even with the exclusion of Brazil/Canada/Australia would not mean that we would have Maia/Ethiopia/Byzantines/Portugal back.
Yeah, using Castro would be very touchy considering the anti-Castro Cuban populations in parts of the US.For Cuba, I can picture the devs doing something with Luxuries as a nod to sugar and tobacco industries (and Cuba's coveted rum and cigars), something about coast and/or rainforest, and something to do with alliances. To have anyone other than Castro be the leader would be very eyebrow-raising and yeah, it would have to be done very very carefully. And even what I described is halfway to "Island Brazil," as pgm123 said.