Ukrainian civilisation (mainly based on Cossacks)

Krajzen

Deity
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
3,294
Location
Poland
Hello
Personally I'm Polish, not Ukrainian, but it is enough for me to get invested about our eastern eighbors who share cuisine with us

There are many negative associations around Ukrainian history, which actually ma be connected to certain political events and agenda of their actors, and which shoot down interest in Ukrainian nation making it barely ever apear in discussions like this, silently treating it as "not as real" nation as other European peoples:
- "Ukrainian language is just an offshoot of Russian": no it isn't, they are highly different languages evolving separatedly since the medieval era
- "Ukrainian culture is just an offshoot of Russian culture": no it isn't, it is quite different since the medieval era in writing, pronunciation and vocabulary (which contained a ton of Polish, Latin and Turkish influences, not seen in Russian)
- "Ukraine has little history": Ukraine has very rich ancient history (Tripolye culture, Bronze Age, Scythians, Greeks), it was the center of Kievan Rus in the early medieval era instead of Russia, it was a huge part of Poland - Lithuania, and since 16th century Cossack leaders and states and very strong Ukrainian identity emerged. Certain Cossack states were also independent or highly autonomous for 100 - 150 years. And then as a part of Russian and Soviet empires...
- "What have Ukrainians ever done for us?" a ton of top tier "Russian" or "Soviet" famous people, scientists etc were actually Ukrainian. Ukraine was super important for Eastern Europe, Russian military relied on Cossacks (Napoleon feared them), they have settled Siberia etc. Ukraine had flourishing higher education since 16th century, which turned it into the relay of Western civilisation to Russia.


- "Okay but do they have something interesting to offer games like this?"

Cossack culture was a super unique stratocratic, egalitarian society of lightning fast warriors, ruled to a large degree by a military democracy and accepting refugees wanting to be free. Cossack armies (usually given as a military unit to Russia) were very powerful, as I said, and you could find a lot of unit diversity within them, not being limited to one generic unit. Architecture, music and art were very distinctively different from Russia and Poland. And as I said, the image of brutish warriors collides with the flourishing of education under their rule. They also had many powerful personalities leading them, so they are not only limited to Bogdan Khmelnytsky but have several other candidates, such as Ivan Mazepa for example.

Also Ukrainian people would love to appear as a separate, respected nation in a game like this, so it would be a nice gesture.



#####
Usually I have advocated for Kievan Rus instead, but then I have realized that 1) It doesn't represented Ukraine at all, 2) It really collides with Russian city list and stuff, 3) Ukrainian civ would be far more spectacular and interesting and 4) Regarding delicate political stuff, Ukrainians themselves wouldn't necessarily be happy when presented as "the exact same people as Russians, under one umbrella"
 
Last edited:

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
11,260
Location
Babylon 5
TBH there are so many more interesting Eurasian steppe peoples that I wouldn't be very excited to see Ukraine/Cossacks vs., say, Khazars, Cumans, or Alans/Sarmatians.

Usually I have advocated for Kievan Rus instead, but then I have realized that 1) It doesn't represented Ukraine at all
Doesn't it? It seems to me it's as much Ukraine's heritage as Russia's, and as far as I'm aware Ukrainians consider it as such. Now it's true that I've personally been advocating for a Ruthenian-flavored Russia, but I'd be open to seeing Kyiv as its own civ. (Though again this runs into problems. Europe is always going to be overrepresented. To some degree I'm okay with this even as I want more non-European civs. But this also makes new European civs a very competitive slot, and I don't see either Ukraine or Kyiv as a high priority there when Kyiv could easily be represented under the banner of Russia. From Southern and Central Europe, I'd be much more interested in Bohemia or Romania/Wallachia/Transylvania [for the love of Vlad, without vampires or any reference there to--even sans Vlad Tepes would be nice--Romania has a rich history--it's not just a bunch of superstitious peasants stuffing corpses' mouths with garlic!]. I think Bulgaria would be interesting, but it's just overshadowed by Byzantium.)

Also Ukrainian people would love to appear as a separate, respected nation in a game like this, so it would be a nice gesture.
IMO pandering is not a compelling reason to include a civ.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
11,260
Location
Babylon 5
I would prefer a Lithuanian civ
I think we can count on Poland becoming a staple at this point, which I'm okay with, and as long as Poland is a civ, Lithuania remains unlikely since the better part of its history was spent as the Poland-Lithuania Commonwealth.
 

BuchiTaton

King
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
695
I think we can count on Poland becoming a staple at this point, which I'm okay with, and as long as Poland is a civ, Lithuania remains unlikely since the better part of its history was spent as the Poland-Lithuania Commonwealth.
Well if CIV7 have this civ named Poland-Lithuania with Vytautas as their leader and capital at Vilnus for an interesting diplomatic civ then that would be nice.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
11,260
Location
Babylon 5
Well if CIV7 have this civ named Poland-Lithuania with Vytautas as their leader and capital at Vilnus for an interesting diplomatic civ then that would be nice.
I'm still hoping for Sigismund II Augustus because that era of Polish history is really cool and fascinating, but Vytautas would be cool as well. Could be a neat idea for an alternate leader, in fact.
 

Krajzen

Deity
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
3,294
Location
Poland
TBH there are so many more interesting Eurasian steppe peoples that I wouldn't be very excited to see Ukraine/Cossacks vs., say, Khazars, Cumans, or Alans/Sarmatians.

Honestly all those steppe peoples seem very similar to me and very badly documented (and yes I have read basic history about them), while Ukraine would be both very unique and - comparably - far more documented than aforementioned ones; I'd also wager significantly more important. These are also completely overshadowed by Mongols and Scythians in scope, importance and our level of knowledge. We know next to nothing about Khazar language, and after enormous hype of 20th century and these forums I have discovered we know next to nothing about their supposed Judaism (to the point some scholars completely question anything beyond "there was a significant Jewish minority here"). Also half of text written on them is endless battle of discussing their Jewishness and Khazar antisemitic theories anyway. I'd rather have Manchus, Muslim Tatar civilization, or especially Timurids as much more distinctive and documented "Eurasian steppe empires".

Doesn't it? It seems to me it's as much Ukraine's heritage as Russia's, and as far as I'm aware Ukrainians consider it as such. Now it's true that I've personally been advocating for a Ruthenian-flavored Russia, but I'd be open to seeing Kyiv as its own civ.

I may have communicated not clearly; it definitely is considered by Ukrainians as 'theirs' but it is also shared with other peoples and not exactly "Ukrainian", in the same way French =/= Gauls etc. Explicite Ukrainian civ to me would be more, well, Ukrainian (that culture has a great charm) and simultaneously more interesting and more emotionally touching in all aspects. Also Firaxis avoids political drama at all costs, and there would totally be a metric ton of it here, because of course Russia - Ukraine modern political conflict extends into their ancient history and its interpretations. I'd have no idea how to write Kievan Rus' city list to begin with - their spelling is already a political problem (there is simply no way to go into East Slavic linguistics here without greatly angering some faction), Russian cities under Kyiv instead of Novgorod leadership is a political problem, Russian cities not present at all is a political problem, and so on, and so on, relationship between Kievan Rus and Russian civ etc etc.

But this also makes new European civs a very competitive slot, and I don't see either Ukraine or Kyiv as a high priority there when Kyiv could easily be represented under the banner of Russia.

After reading how Russia treated Cossacks, Ukraine and Ukrainian identity for centuries, I'd say it wouldn't be much different from putting Tbilisi under Russian banner, Wrocław under German banner, Dublin under English banner, Lhasa under Chinese banner etc... I mean, all those cultures controlled these places for centuries, had at least some or a lot of support in those cities and had close cultural and linguistic ties across history. Didn't mean all of (most of? any?) Irish under English rule had a fun time and considered themselves English.

From Southern and Central Europe, I'd be much more interested in Bohemia or Romania/Wallachia/Transylvania [for the love of Vlad, without vampires or any reference there to--even sans Vlad Tepes would be nice--Romania has a rich history--it's not just a bunch of superstitious peasants stuffing corpses' mouths with garlic!]. I think Bulgaria would be interesting, but it's just overshadowed by Byzantium.)

Romania would be awesome, another nation with undervalued history, especially if it had no mention of vampires at all. Bulgaria is not overshadowed by Byzantium as it was very different and alien in a ton of ways (not to mention it has actually survived Ottomans unlike Byz identity and has been very much alive since 19th century till today, Bulgaria 1870 - 1918 kicked a lot of ass militarily, you could make it a civ just basing on this and 20th century).

IMO pandering is not a compelling reason to include a civ.

Same pandering as Polish or Hungarian desire to appear as a civ, they weren't crazy popular among playerbase or super powerful or super distinctive, Firaxis has simply opened to include more Eastern European nations than just Russia (thank God denying that ancient trend of East = Russia), seeing enough cool stuff there and enough marketing potential for 'patriotism - attracted' players ;) Firaxis since civ5 always bothers to include two new Amerindian civs per game despite them not exactly fitting any classical definitions of 'civilization' and having very small Impact on the Global Scale, just because they are cool enough and it is kind of nice to do this honor to part of the world disrespected for centuries. So I see no reason why Ukraine shouldn't also get there because it is cool, distinctive, has a playerbase that would love to appear in the game, and we are being nice to include everybody to the club at this point.

I mean I know chances are small bc Ukraine has very little popularity among the general demographic (though I suspect the awareness and sympathy around its culture and history has risen greatly in the world over last few years or so...) but I think it is about the same 'tier' in general as Romania. Not exactly the most ancient or mighty civ ever, but cool enough to consider it among club of ~50. And personally I think it's more interesting and historically 'spectacular' than Romania, which I also like very much.
 
Last edited:

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
11,260
Location
Babylon 5
Honestly all those steppe peoples seem very similar to me and very badly documented (and yes I have read basic history about them), while Ukraine would be both very unique and - comparably - far more documented than aforementioned ones; I'd also wager significantly more important. These are also completely overshadowed by Mongols and Scythians in scope, importance and our level of knowledge. We know next to nothing about Khazar language, and after enormous hype of 20th century and these forums I have discovered we know next to nothing about their supposed Judaism (to the point some scholars completely question anything beyond "there was a significant Jewish minority here"). Also half of text written on them is endless battle of discussing their Jewishness and Khazar antisemitic theories anyway. I'd rather have Manchus, Muslim Tatar civilization, or especially Timurids as much more distinctive and documented "Eurasian steppe empires".
I certainly didn't have the Khazars alleged Jewish conversion in mind. If we want a Jewish kingdom outside of Israel we basically have Adiabene, which...would not be that exciting. TBH I think you underestimate the significance of Cumans and of the Alans/Sarmatians, though you are correct on our lack of knowledge of the Alans/Sarmatians. (The Cumans, on the other hand, have been a gift to Turkic studies with their early-attested language.) I also agree that they're all overshadowed by the Mongols and that I'd prefer the Timurids (though not at the expense of the Afghans or a pre-Islamic Central Asian civilization.) And finally the Scythians, as a Classical people, don't really fit in this category; also, as Civ6 has adequately shown, we don't really know much about them at all. At any rate, none of this really convinces me that a Cossack civilization would be more interesting than alternative steppe peoples, who in general don't make interesting civs IMO.

Bulgaria is not overshadowed by Byzantium as it was very different and alien in a ton of ways (not to mention it has actually survived Ottomans unlike Byz identity and has been very much alive since 19th century till today, Bulgaria 1870 - 1918 kicked a lot of ass militarily, you could make it a civ just basing on this and 20th century).
TBH the Bulgaria that would interest me would be the early Medieval Orthodox Turko-Slavic Bulgaria, which ticks a lot of the same boxes as Byzantium from a gameplay perspective. I do think it would be an interesting civ, but, again, only so many European slots to go around.

Same pandering as Polish or Hungarian desire to appear as a civ, they weren't crazy popular among playerbase or super powerful or super distinctive, Firaxis has simply opened to include more Eastern European nations than just Russia (thank God denying that ancient trend of East = Russia), seeing enough cool stuff there and enough marketing potential for 'patriotism - attracted' players ;)
I guess the difference from my perspective is that Poland and Hungary were major players in European history, even if Westerners often aren't familiar with that history. I don't see Ukraine on the same tier of historical significance as Poland, Hungary, or Austria or cultural distinctiveness as Bohemia or Romania. I grant that's a personal perspective; I just wouldn't be terribly excited by them. It wouldn't ruin my game--it would be far, far preferable to, say, ugh, Australia again. It just wouldn't be my preference for a newcomer from Europe. Especially since it would be edging out my top choice for European newcomer, fellow Slavs Bohemia (albeit granted they would fill very different gameplay niches). :p
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,610
Location
Texas
I think the only compelling reason for a Ukrainian civ would be that Russia wouldn't get Cossacks as their unique unit. :mischief:

Of course that's not a big enough reason for me to necessarily want it, compared to other European civs. I wouldn't mind Kiev as a city-state though that gave Cossack UUs. :)
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
11,260
Location
Babylon 5

Henri Christophe

L'empereur
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,073
Location
Rio de Janeiro, K11 (Kwanza)
I think is better to avoid politics in the game. An Ucranian civilization can be problematic.

Moderator Action: Oops I thought this was a the War thread. Birdjaguar :(
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Krajzen

Deity
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
3,294
Location
Poland
I think is better to avoid politics in the game. An Ucranian civilization can be problematic.

With all respect sir, this is the most offensive thing I have ever heard on these forums. How is a mere existence of a nation and culture 'problematic', and how talking like this is supposed to be allowed regarding Ukrainian. The existence of any civilization is only the problem to those who wanna genocide it. Basically your reasoning is to care more about political regimes opressing people than both the game and fun themselves as well as victims in question.

Imagine you said one of the following:
- "Subsaharan civilization can be problematic, there can be no black skinned civs in the game because of politics."
- "Muslim civilizations can be problematic, Muslim civs cannot be in the game because of politics."
Saying that about Eastern European people os exactly as terrible.

Ukrainian people are not politics, they are people with beautiful and long history and a lot of cool distincrive traits worthy of a game, and I have posted this idea before Putin's despicable invasion, and I haven't even touched this subject before. But if I had to bring politics into this then I'd support inclusion of Ukrainian civ twice MORE now than before, because many companies did wonderful gestures towards Ukrainian people and against Putin's regime, so why Firaxis couldn't do that as well in civ7? And I remind that we are talking about mere inclusion of a legit historical faction to the game, which can be a basis of a cool gameplay, so it would still be a legit addition to the game by itself, outside of all political stances.

The amount of players who would boycott the game just by the sheer existence of Ukrainian faction is a) Financially negligible and b) Good riddance. And today we see many companies which have some decency rather than being financially blackmailed by a political regime.
 
Last edited:

Henri Christophe

L'empereur
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,073
Location
Rio de Janeiro, K11 (Kwanza)
So what the plan? Substitute Russia for Ukraine? Because they share the same Unique Unit (The Cossacks). Or have plans to Unique Units for each one?

Before the war I would be against Ukraine civ because Europe is already overrepresented in this game. (What the plan, have every single Europe nation in this game while Africa and Americas is mostly forgoten?)

After this war, I would agree substitute Russia for Ukraine in the game. But this obvious a politic action.
I'm against Russia and Ukraine in the same game, one need to substitute the other. Europe is already overrepresented.
 

Evie

Pronounced like Eevee
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Messages
10,188
Location
Ottawa, Ontario
Europe may be overrepresented, but the idea that Ukraine has to replace Russia is gobbledygok - it's basically buying into the Putinist propaganda that Ukraine and Russia are really both Russia.

The "but cossacks are the Russian UU" defense is weak - Russia has plenty of non-cossack options for a UU, and cossacks are associated with multiple empires. And the Russians spent at least as much time oppressing the cossacks as using them as military forces, so, you know.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
11,260
Location
Babylon 5
I'm with Evie on this. Replacing the Cossack as Russia's UU is overdue anyway, and the Strelets would make a fine replacement, among other options.

I've also changed my position on a Ukrainian civ since I last posted, having done some reading on Ukrainian history. I think it would be an interesting addition, though probably not a civ I'd play. (A militarist/defensive/minor religious Ukrainian Cossack civ would also be a strong argument for a religious/cultural Russia, which suits me.) Also, I think it's fair to say Western Europe is overrepresented; in Eastern Europe we have Russia and Poland. (You can make arguments for Greece/Macedon/Byzantines/Ottomans, but I consider the first three Southern Europe and the latter the Near East.)
 

Evie

Pronounced like Eevee
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Messages
10,188
Location
Ottawa, Ontario
I'm also in agreement. As far as European overrepresentation, I'm more worried about the endless shopping list of minor variations of every single Western (and Central) European civ where every polity has to be its own separate civ (*glares at Italian city states and Holy Roman Empire*). Eastern Europe has room, especially toward the south. Ukraine/Hetmanate/etc are prime candidates.

(And if we really need the extra room, we can always ship Alexander back where he belongs, in the Greek civilization).
 

BuchiTaton

King
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
695
With all respect sir, this is the most offensive thing I have ever heard on these forums. How is a mere existence of a nation and culture 'problematic', and how talking like this is supposed to be allowed regarding Ukrainian. The existence of any civilization is only the problem to those who wanna genocide it. Basically your reasoning is to care more about political regimes opressing people than both the game and fun themselves as well as victims in question.
We must remember that this is accepted by Firaxis and most of the fanbase for obvious perfect civ options like the Tibet just because the fear of lose a big market from a oppresing regime.

The amount of players who would boycott the game just by the sheer existence of Ukrainian faction is a) Financially negligible and b) Good riddance. And today we see many companies which have some decency rather than being financially blackmailed by a political regime.
Gain or lose sells is what matters. If CIV7 have Ukraine instead of Russia at release that would not be a "brave or supportive" action it would be capitalize western market sympathy, at this point be pro-Ukraine make you gain more than be pro-Russia or even be "neutral", right now russian market is not profitable.

Brave and supportive would be put Uyghurs in CIV7.
 

Henri Christophe

L'empereur
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,073
Location
Rio de Janeiro, K11 (Kwanza)
Brave and supportive would be put Uygurs in CIV7.
Uygurs should be very very problematic, they are part of China.
I know West want to desistabilize China, but try to do it via one game just will make it be boicoted by China Market
if put Uygurs, who would be next? Tibet? Taiwan? I don't think that is a good idea to mix modern politics with in this game
 
Last edited:

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
11,260
Location
Babylon 5
Gain or lose sells is what matters. If CIV7 have Ukraine instead of Russia at release that would not be a "brave or supportive" action it would be capitalize western market sympathy, at this point be pro-Ukraine make you gain more than be pro-Russia or even be "neutral", right now russian market is not profitable.

Brave and supportive would be put Uyghurs in CIV7.
Call me cynical, but I've given up hoping for right action for right reasons. (I 100% agree with you; I'm just cynical enough to accept it. Also, yes, brave would be taking an action with real consequences that would negatively affect the bottom line like including the Uyghur Khanate. Including Ukraine would be politically calculating, not brave.)

if put Uygurs, who would be next? Tibet? Taiwan? I don't think that is a good idea to mix modern politics with in this game
Mixing modern politics would be choosing controversial contemporary leaders like Barack Obama, Donald Trump, or Angela Merkel. Not kowtowing to a dictator's sanitized version of history is simply being honest. Granted, an honest corporation is a contradiction of terms, much like an honest politician or an honest journalist...
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,610
Location
Texas
I'm also in agreement. As far as European overrepresentation, I'm more worried about the endless shopping list of minor variations of every single Western (and Central) European civ where every polity has to be its own separate civ (*glares at Italian city states and Holy Roman Empire*). Eastern Europe has room, especially toward the south. Ukraine/Hetmanate/etc are prime candidates.

(And if we really need the extra room, we can always ship Alexander back where he belongs, in the Greek civilization).
There is going to be an overrepresentation of Euorpe in Civ, but most of them at least has had some sort of historical or cultural importance for being in the game. Most of the minor ones will be relegated to city-states.

Though in all honesty I wouldn't mind a separate Frankish civ lead by Charlemagne, separate from France and Germany, but won't cry about it not happening either. I just want an Italian civ made up of all the former Italian city-states.:mischief:

That being said my first choice for Eastern Europe would be Romania, followed by Bulgaria. I'd still love Kyiv to be in the game though as a trade city-state though.

if put Uygurs, who would be next? Tibet? Taiwan? I don't think that is a good idea to mix modern politics with in this game
I personally wouldn't have a problem putting a Tibetan civ in the game, considering they were a powerful empire in their own right when they weren't part of a China.
 
Top Bottom