TSL not possible in Civilization

[killmeplease]

Edit: I also had a lot of trouble figuring out what TSL means. I had to read through the first 5 or 6 posts before someone actually spelled it out. Explaining it in the original post should be a common courtesy if you want to attract new members to the forum.

same problem

 

[True_Candyman]

Genuine question here, I don't wanna come across as sarcastic. So your definition for a civ is longevity and the prevalence of unesco heritage sites so far, are there any other big requirements you'd need to be satisfied to accept a civ from around the world? I have a particular set of talents that make me a nightmare for Civs trying to hide. I will find them, and I will post them.

 

[Krajzen]

peoples like french, english, russian formed in medieval times and have existed for around millenia even if they not always were "imperial".

"existed for around millenia"

Actually, all three examples you gave have "only" around one millenium of history (Charlemagne's empire wasn't 'France' etc) so if you would like to base civilisations on the lifetime length they would be far behind Egypt, India, China, Iran, Korea etc

did anybody heard of seljuks or khazars after their empires fell? they were assimilated into other cultures.

This argument is ridiculous because it hides an assumption that french, english, russian people will never fell or be assimilated because apparently we live at the end of history By taking this argument to logical extremes one could argue that no civilisation deserves to be in game as eventually all empires fall and all cultures change or are assimilated.

I'm pretty sure that by the year 4 000 AD one could say as well "did anybody heard of French after their empire fell? they were assimilated into Zentraedi Northern culture". By this time all their achievements would be vain -

and seljuks were persianized even before that. those buildings were created by persian architectors, not seljuk. and khazars havent built anything noteworthy. earthworks - ok, not impressive. craft, trade? everyone did that.

"And europeans were latinized even before that, they were based on greek-roman culture. Oh and they havent built anything noteworthy. Skryscrapers - ok, not impressive, we have structures 10 000 metres high. Science, conquests? Everyone did that. English don't deserve to be on the same list as Zentraedi - after all Zentraedi build 100x greater structures and still exist as a culture!"

My point is, you enter dangerous territory, because once we look from the perspective of dozens of thousands of years, every human culture change, become assimilated, their achievements are "not impressive" from current technological point of view etc.


Also, if you are going to be strict about criteria of inclusion of civ series - only long-living civs, only famous and known civs, only civs with monumental architecture, only super exceptional civs, only civs which influenced their continent etc - then it will turn out we are left with less than a dozen of civs that "truly" qualify. That would be boring. I prefer a game with 40 "medium" nations to the one which has only "grestest of greatest historian approved stricly measured most influential civilisations"... 10 of them because other were not good enough.

I don't like going extreme and including fictional (united Polynesia of civ5) civilisations, or societies which clearly didn't qualify as civilisation (often proposed Inuits, Aborigines etc) in a "CIVILIZATON" game but I ultimately don't care about some too criterias of inclusion based on unclear notions of historical significance. This is a game about various exotic, interesting, unique civilisations and great people of all parts of the world across the entire history, not G8 elite club of measuring what historical empires were most influential. I prefer to see big empires and civilisations here, as they tend to be the most interesting, but if there were smaller societies with some very distinctive/cool flavour/characteristics then why not let them in.

 

[Staler87]

Many errors here, let's start with first paragraph:
The Americas were "easy to colonize" because the Europeans, who did not bathe, brought scores of horrific diseases which they were immune to and that absolutely decimated the Amerindian population. Africa was not easy to colonize, and actual "colonialism"-- the settlement of the land by a non-native population-- only really occurred on a relatively large scale in the south. Most of Africa was "colonized" in a system known as New Imperialism, which did not occur because of "uncivilized nature" of Africans, but rather because the Europeans used violent technology and firepower overwhelm tactics to beat back the African populations. In fact, in the one region where the natives had anything near equivalent technology, IE Ethiopia, European imperialism was totally prevented in the earlier stages.

Second paragraph: Nope. There are many civ mods in the steam workshop that prove you wrong here, such as Colonialist Legacies. There are literally thousands of cultures in the world, and classifying "civilizations" based on Eurocentric conceptions of the world will obviously belittle the non-European civilizations.

Third paragraph: While it's true that Europeans have had more global geopolitical influence than many others, it's actually laughable to say they have more "history". History is linear and occurs across the world, and every culture in the world has just about the same amount of history. While it's true the popular conception is that history is always written, most history in the world has been oral for most of the existence of humans. But regardless, it is very Eurocentric, because it relies on the assertion that places conquered by Europe had no civilized history before the Europeans came. I mean look at a civ like the Aztecs; they were completely conquered by Europeans (due to disease) but they still merit a civilization based on their achievements before European interference.

Fourth paragraph: Not much of anything wrong here, I agree Southeast Asia could use some love. We need Tagalog civs!

Fifth paragraph: Strongly disagree. More from a marketing standpoint, because Americans wanna play America, Germans wanna play Germany, Brits wanna play Britain, etc. However if you dial back the OVERWHELMINGLY DISPROPORTIONATE number of Euro civs then it's very easy.

EDIT: Also obviously this entire thread is at its core riddled with Eurocentric inaccuracies but it seems as though other users have already broken down some of the OP stuff. So no need for me to.

I would say that just as an eurocentric bias is wrong, an anti-euro bias is just as bad.

The Europeans conquered Africa using superior technology. You can argue it was disease but in many instances (such as the Zulus) the tribe was wiped out by guns before any disease could settle in. In North America Disease definitely had a large role to play in European dominance. To say that this was the case for all the American civilizations is wrong. The Inca's were subjugated before any disease took hold. Africa wasn't easy to colonize for the Europeans not because subjecting the African tribes was difficult, as you seem to suggest here, but because of various diseases and the unfamiliarity of Europeans with the land. The Americas often had similar climates to Europe as Africa usually did not. The reason South Africa was more directly colonized by the Europeans is because it had a climate very similar to England and other European countries. The Europeans didn't just use "violent technology", which is in itself a very bias term implying that their technology was evil, they also used trains and infrastructure. Ethiopia was eventually conquered. I think you recognized this, but I wouldn't really qualify it as an example of African success against European colonialism.

I think we can all agree that this is a city-building game. It seems reasonable to assume that civilizations that built, larger, better, cities would be a better choice to include. I wouldn't want nomadic tribes in the game because they are not accurately represented by the game mechanics not because I don't think they have unique cultures. Nomadic tribes, and semi-sedentary tribes, are best represented by the barbarians or whatever equivalent this has in cVI. I also think that for a civilization to merit inclusion it has to have made somewhat of a contribution to world history and the Europeans shaped most of the post-industrialized world history. Asian civilizations also shaped much of the pre-industrial world history which merits there inclusion. Unfortunately, most central and south African civilizations did little to nothing in the grand scheme of world history. Some did, but Eurasian civs have really directed the course of world history for pretty much all of history.

Actually your suggestion is pretty laughable. History, is, a eurocentric concept that in essence means written history. The Greeks invented history by writing it down. Everything recorded before that in pictures and oral stories is referred to as proto-history and everything before most forms of basic recording is referred to as pre-history because is not actually considered part of history. History is about 5000 years old. There is a reason that people who study pre-historic peoples aren't referred to as historians but archaeologists. Therefore it is actually factually correct that Europeans, and Asians, have more history. The Aztecs do merit a civilization, I'm not arguing against putting in civilizations such as the Aztecs, however, we know more about Europeans and Asain civilizations, therefore there will be more Asain and European civilizations. And the assertion that many Africans had no civilized history before Europeans is kind of true. Many existed as nomadic (or sedentary) tribes-people, rather than an organized civilization. While this is not true for all it is true for many. Again I'm nt saying that these tribes did not have unique cultures, and traditions, and a unique past, but that they do not warrant inclusion in a city building game.

Unfortunately, as I've explained before, the Europeans played an overwhelmingly disproportionate role in world history, as did the Asians, so they warrant an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of civs.

I just want to clarify that I do not believe Europeans and Asians are somehow innately 'better' than other cultures but were given the best spots on the real earth.

 

[m15a]

I think we can all agree that this is a city-building game. It seems reasonable to assume that civilizations that built, larger, better, cities would be a better choice to include.

No, I don't think we can all agree that this is a city-building game. It's a game where you build cities, but that's not the same for two reasons: first, because "city-building game" is a separate genre, and second because in Civ you do things other than building cities.

Supposing Civ were a "city-building game", it would not be "reasonable to assume that civilizations that built, larger, better, cities would be a better choice to include". There's a relationship between the two statements, but it's still a non sequitur.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

How Seljuks and Khazars are relevant? What technologies had they developed, what great works and wonders created? killing and plundering does not count for being civilized.

This is so ridiculous it's hard to take seriously.

What technology, great works, and wonders did those barbarians north of Rome ever do? Killing and plundering doesn't count. --> similarly informed and constructed question.

The bias towards familiarity in discussing potential nations is comical. Scotland/Gaul getting consideration over half a dozen empires in India ?

I ultimately don't care about some too criterias of inclusion based on unclear notions of historical significance.

I care, because so far the results have been showing heavy bias and ducking inclusion of numerous impressive nations with potentially interesting/informative uniques because of that bias. Using some criteria would push them to be a bit more level about which nations to represent, rather than exactly 1 nation each in India/China but double digits out of Europe..........

The Inca's were subjugated before any disease took hold.

Not even remotely true. Disease and civil war were both central to their failure. It's unlikely Spain could have made serious headway there if both weren't true, and would have struggled with even one. Inca was larger and more advanced than the other new world populations, and Spain's conquest there was pre-industrial (most successful conquests in Africa were post-industrial or close, both due to disease and improved firearms).

 

[killmeplease]

Krajzen, there are civs which had their great moments, and its a relative greatness (related to the time and the region). modern day latvia is an economic giant compared to the old kingdom egypt. but it does not mean that latvia is greater than egypt. maybe in 5000 AD latvia will rule the earth then ofc it will be included in Civ CCXXXIV.

Skryscrapers - ok, not impressive, we have structures 10 000 metres high

i see no problem here. if such achievements will be made, ofc france or egypt wont be interesting for most people. like today almost nobody is interested in neolithic cultures - natufians, catal hoyuk, jericho etc.
but actually my argument was different. if khazars lived in 3000 bc and did what they did they were one of the core civs. but its medieval era! its like today somebody will prove the pythagorean theoreme and pretend he's a genius.

i know "what if" etc, but for my taste its immersion breaking, fighting for the world domination vs inuit and latvia. why not ants and dolphins?

 

[killmeplease]

Scotland/Gaul getting consideration over half a dozen empires in India ?

i have never stated anything like that
i dont think we need scotland or ghaul or even spain in the game
while iroquis are ok as otherwise america will be empty

 

[historix69]

I think the whole discussion can be easily solved by providing a custom civ with different art styles to choose from (european, asian, african, middle east/arabian, american, native/nomadic, ...) incl. male/female custom leader as part of the main game. (no modding) The player would be able to choose a custom UU, UA, UB with generic strength like +15% Combat Bonus for UA or +2 Yield for UB and would pick UA from a list.

If a player wants to play the Khazars, Achaemeniden, Parther, or Saxons, Angles, Pictes, Jutes ... why not ... Civ is not like chess where it is always black against white ...

 

[Thormodr]

Actually your suggestion is pretty laughable. History, is, a eurocentric concept that in essence means written history. The Greeks invented history by writing it down. Everything recorded before that in pictures and oral stories is referred to as proto-history and everything before most forms of basic recording is referred to as pre-history because is not actually considered part of history.

The Greeks invented history, did they?

You'll need to tell the Sumerians and other Mesopotamian civilizations as well as Egypt who were writing down historical events long before the Greeks ever did.

Historical accounts
Main article: Historiography – The history of written history

The earliest chronologies date back to the two earliest civilizations: the ancient Sumerians of Mesopotamia and the Early Dynastic Period of Egypt[3] which emerged independently of each other from roughly 3500 B.C.[4] Earliest recorded history, which varies greatly in quality and reliability, deals with Pharaohs and their reigns, made by ancient Egyptians.[5] Much of the earliest recorded history was re-discovered relatively recently due to archaeological dig sites findings.[6] Since these initial accounts, a number of different traditions have developed in different parts of the world in how to handle the writing and production of historical accounts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorded_history

 

[killmeplease]

And europeans were latinized even before that, they were based on greek-roman culture.

yes they were based, but they developed it, not blended into it with little impact. a nomadic tribe overtaking a declining civ is not an uncommon occurence. seljuks are pretty similar to goths in this regard (built a mausoleum too, and there are samples of some craft and art). well if there was nothing more worthy than goths in europe, seljuks would be a perfect choise. their mausoleums were larger and there were more of them, i admit it but i think its just because persia was wealthier than western roman empire these days.
but why say france is special? because its history does not end with charlemagne (in this case it would not be better than khazar kaganate). france is known for the enlightment period. without it it would be just an ordinary medieval people survived to modernity, like austria, poland, or say vietnam. Its not that these countries didnt have their great people and stuff they just werent as important. and now, we dont want austria in the game, with its mozart, kafka etc, but want seljucs? with what? a couple of stone tombs they didnt even built for themselves but ordered a conquered people to do that? and seljuks are more important than france or germany? this wild postmodernism makes me laugh, its rediculous. you guys went completely nuts with your anti-europeanism.

 

[Sobornost]

As long as the resulting game is fun and interesting, I don't think it matters too much how the geographical balance works out in the end.

You can take any obscure group, accentuate certain cultural traits and historical circumstances, and make an interesting Civilization out of them. Venice isn't a civilization in the real context for instance, but look what an interesting idea they made out of them.

 

[Staal]

I think the whole discussion can be easily solved by providing a custom civ with different art styles to choose from (european, asian, african, middle east/arabian, american, native/nomadic, ...) incl. male/female custom leader as part of the main game. (no modding) The player would be able to choose a custom UU, UA, UB with generic strength like +15% Combat Bonus for UA or +2 Yield for UB and would pick UA from a list.

If a player wants to play the Khazars, Achaemeniden, Parther, or Saxons, Angles, Pictes, Jutes ... why not ... Civ is not like chess where it is always black against white ...

I've always been intrigued by a civilization-type game where you start off as an unnamed or base culture like Celtic or Germanic and then evolve into separate civilizations. Unique civ abilities will then be based on in-game actions, driven by geography etc.

 

[Staler87]

The Greeks invented history, did they?

You'll need to tell the Sumerians and other Mesopotamian civilizations as well as Egypt who were writing down historical events long before the Greeks ever did.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorded_history

I know the Sumerians invented writing before the Greeks. I even pointed that out in another thread, however, our modern perception of history along with the details that go with that was largely a Greek invention. Yes the Sumerians and Egyptians 'wrote'things down but it wasn't nearly to the extent that the Greeks did. Paper helped a lot in this matter. So yes I was not technically correct in saying that. A more accurate statement would have been a long the lines upon the Greeks invented comprehensive history. However, I think this technicality does little to detract from my original idea.


With the Inca thing I truly did get my facts muddled. The guy who conquered the Inca's went to South America twice and the first time brought disease with him. I did not realize this and was only aware of the second voyage where he did conquer the Incas fairly quickly. The Incas empire was not doing well before the Spanish arrived, however.

 

[killmeplease]

sumerians and others were just making boastful inscriptions about their kings' deeds
so there was no written study of the past before herodotus as far as i know

 

[Thormodr]

I know the Sumerians invented writing before the Greeks. I even pointed that out in another thread, however, our modern perception of history along with the details that go with that was largely a Greek invention. Yes the Sumerians and Egyptians 'wrote'things down but it wasn't nearly to the extent that the Greeks did. Paper helped a lot in this matter. So yes I was not technically correct in saying that. A more accurate statement would have been a long the lines upon the Greeks invented comprehensive history. However, I think this technicality does little to detract from my original idea.


With the Inca thing I truly did get my facts muddled. The guy who conquered the Inca's went to South America twice and the first time brought disease with him. I did not realize this and was only aware of the second voyage where he did conquer the Incas fairly quickly. The Incas empire was not doing well before the Spanish arrived, however.

Well, the Chinese were writing some pretty sophisticated historical accounts around the same time as the Greeks, as well. It seems the idea sprang up independently in the two areas.

Yeah, the Incas had already been ravaged by disease by the time the Spanish showed up.

 

[Staler87]

No, I don't think we can all agree that this is a city-building game. It's a game where you build cities, but that's not the same for two reasons: first, because "city-building game" is a separate genre, and second because in Civ you do things other than building cities.

Supposing Civ were a "city-building game", it would not be "reasonable to assume that civilizations that built, larger, better, cities would be a better choice to include". There's a relationship between the two statements, but it's still a non sequitur.

I didn't mean the genre, in fact I wasn't aware there was such a genre. I was stating that as a way of saying that one of, if not the main, component of civ is building and developing cities.

How is it not logical to assume civs that built cities, and built better cities should be included over civs that did not? The only category for inclusion, probably not, but should that not be considered?

 

[m15a]

How is it not logical to assume civs that built cities, and built better cities should be included over civs that did not? The only category for inclusion, probably not, but should that not be considered?

It just doesn't follow. Just because your civilization builds cities and tries to make them larger and better, it doesn't mean that real world civilizations with cities or "larger, better" cities are better for the game. You're missing at least one point in your argument to make it logical.

If you said that (1) in Civ, it is preferable for the players (and AI) to build cities and try to grow them *and* (2) it is preferable for the civs in the game to emulate their real world equivalents, then it would be good to have civs in the game that represent real world civs that built cities, and larger and better cities. Without (2) or a similar point, this is not a reasonable assumption. And (2) is not something that we will all necessarily agree upon.

 

[Staler87]

I would assume that that is implied. Since you knew exactly what my point was, and explained it well in your second paragraph, I think it is safe to say that the connection, although implied and not directly stated, was obvious to you and you're now just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

 

[m15a]

I would assume that that is implied. Since you knew exactly what my point was, and explained it well in your second paragraph, I think it is safe to say that the connection, although implied and not directly stated, was obvious to you and you're now just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

Yes, I knew what you meant, but that intermediate point you left out is crucial to the discussion because it's not something that everyone agrees on. By leaving that point out, it's not clear that your "obvious" conclusion is only obvious if people share your opinions about what the game should be.