1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Well-known civs/wonders vs less-known ones

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by ViterboKnight, Jul 19, 2019.

  1. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,320

    In Civs 1 and/or II, the Civilopedia entry showed whenever you researched a tech - aside from the lower quality of the modern Civilopedia entries, it's a shame they don't do more to draw attention to themselves especially as Wonder quotes often don't refer to the building itself or make sense out of context, and at least one (Great Zimbabwe) is both misleading and confusing to anyone who doesn't know the backstory it's referencing (while potentially offensive to those who do): a colonial-era myth that it was built by the Queen of Sheba rather than local Bantus, propagated by a German explorer. It doesn't help that the first link a search for 'Great Zimbabwe Queen of Sheba' comes up with in Wikipedia is the UNESCO page which describes this late 19th Century concoction as an "age-old legend". Maybe it's expecting too much to hope a Civ game would do a better job than UNESCO.

    The (very) potted leader history on the loading screen is a nice touch, but it would be good if it also contained a brief description of the civ being led.
     
    ChocolateShake and SeelingCat like this.
  2. Troy Bruckner

    Troy Bruckner Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2019
    Messages:
    433
    Gender:
    Male
    It really wasn't much of a thing from what I read. It is vastly more impactful to a game of Civ than it was in real life...
     
  3. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,320
    It's unusual enough as an example of monumental architecture in that region of Africa that a country was named after it (almost uniquely - as far as I know the only other archaeological site to give its name to a country is the Sumerian city Uruk). Wonders are selected for cultural significance among other things, so that seems to qualify. It's not as though the Pyramids or Colossus served much practical function. It certainly elevates it above tourist attractions like Cristo Redentor.

    It's thought likely to have been a palace, but the lack of documentation attests only to the fact that it was built by a pre-literate culture, not to any lack of importance - we have no idea how significant it or the culture that built it was. If you look at something like Stonehenge we have similar problems, or when reconstructing Anglo-Saxon history prior to the introduction of writing in the Christian era.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2019
  4. Boris Gudenuf

    Boris Gudenuf Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    3,448
    Location:
    north of Steilacoom, WA
    As said, it's all "what if?" but in the 1680s one reason the Ottomans got as far as they did - to Vienna - was that Vienna as capital of the HRE was opposed by a number of strong German states who did not want to be entirely subservient to the HRE, like Brandenburg-Prussia and Saxony, and by France, who actually regarded the Ottomans as a useful counter to the HRE and Austria. Should the Ottomans succeed in crushing Austria at and past Vienna, then inevitably they become the enemy that Austria was, and have to face Bavarian, Prussian, and Saxon armies that all have much better infantry than they do, Poles who have much better cavalry, and France who can put a bigger army in the field (over 100 regiments of infantry alone in 1690) and has the best defensive and offensive engineers in the world - look up 'Vauban' and remember that taking and defending fortified cities was the essence of warfare at that time.
    Yes, it could have been an interesting next 50 years, but also note that except for France, none of those states named were involved in settling the Americas, so English, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, - even the Swedes put a colony into New Jersey - would have kept right on colonizing away.
     
  5. stefanos85

    stefanos85 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    Messages:
    33
    Gender:
    Male
    Except England, Prussia, Muscovy, Spain, Portugal, the Dutch, quite a few German princes, Denmark, Sweden (Charles XII died the year before so no more alliance probably); and how about France and a little known king named Louis XIV?

    In any case, back on topic the inclusion of Civs such as Canada, Australia, or the Mapuche (Chile) are obvious attempts to please players in those countries; specially when there are several examples of empires that were global powers still missing such as Portugal, Babylon, Assyria, Hittite, Maya, Inca, Timurids/Mughals, Sassanid Persia, Seleucid, Eastern Roman Empire, and many more I'm forgetting right now.

    I don't really mind since I don't play Civ for the historical accuracy since the game has little of it anyways; and I would play any Civilization as long as it's fun, strong, or I happen to draw it in multiplayer. :lol:
     
  6. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,320
    The Inca are in the game and Civ has never distinguished different eras of Persian history.
     
    Icicle likes this.
  7. S1AL

    S1AL Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2018
    Messages:
    134
    Gender:
    Male
    Other people have managed to highlight it already, but there's an interesting category here of civs that are highly influential in regional history, but never really qualified as empires par excellence. Poland is one of those. Korea is another. Sweden would also fall here.

    Another problem is trying to conceive of historical empires in terms of the Westphalian nation-state. It simply doesn't apply. But... It's a 4x game. Lots of concessions have to be made to that fact (and this is not a bad thing).

    Now, I'm one of those people who thinks the game should have 100 civs and 200 leaders, so I don't really care about whether any particular civ is a "grand empire" type... Especially given that Greece never qualified but is considered mandatory due to cultural influence and continuous, derivative, small empires.

    I do, however, find it annoying that the series approach to civs - rather than simply adding more and more over time - is to use a civ once and call it a day. If you want to use exclusively/primarily major empire civs in your games, you can do that.
     
  8. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    6,232
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    I for one like the fact that South America is receiving more than 2 Civs. The fact that the Mapuche resisted two "global" powers such as Spain and Inca and cover a geographic region not yet explored is a great inclusion in my opinion. I put "global" in parentheses because I wouldn't call the Inca a global power like you did, but definitely the most worthy of South American regional civ in history second to modern Brazil.
    Persia is in the game, just in the form of the Achaemenid Era which to me is fine, and I don't expect the Mughals to arrive as a separate Civ long as India remains a Civ.
    As much as I like Hellenistic culture I don't think we need the Seleucid Empire who was a break off of Macedon's. If we get another Hellenistic Civ I expect it to be the Byzantines.
    Timurids are a long shot as are maybe the Hittites who have been forgotten for a while and are competing for another Near Eastern/Anatolian slot with other Civs.
    I agree with the rest though I think it will come down to either Assyria or Babylon with maybe Assyria having the upper hand to return but Babylon has the legacy factor too being in Civ from the beginning.
     
    Icicle likes this.
  9. Kevdood83

    Kevdood83 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2019
    Messages:
    31
    Gender:
    Male
    The only Civ that leaves me disappointed it was not included in Civ 6 is... the Celts!

    They’ve been in previous games. Even with all the DLC I’m bummed they weren’t included.

    My mother always told me “the Lord invented beer so the Irish wouldn’t conquer the world.” Well, I’m happy for the existence of Guinness, but I still think the Celts should be in Civ 6. That way I can have my beer and drink it too.
     
  10. Denkt

    Denkt Left permamently

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    3,654
    Civilization is not a game about what have but a game about what if. All civilizations start in a similar situation and depending on numerous factors during the game, some will do better than others. The famous civilization would be the ones that had the best starts or other things happen and many of them did not even exist in 4000 bc when the game start and many of them such as several of the european civilizations are basically offshots of older civilizations such as Rome while other such as India is basically modern Constructions and don't really represent their history as India could be made into several civilizations.

    Basically the game represent all of the civilizations existing continusly from start to finish while in reality many of them only existed during a part of the game and mostly not at the start of the game while others have developed into other civilizations such as Rome basically becoming a part of many of the European civilizations.
     
    CoconutTank and BuchiTaton like this.
  11. BuchiTaton

    BuchiTaton Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2019
    Messages:
    187
    Gender:
    Male
    Is not Scotland supposed to take Celts place this time?
     
  12. Boris Gudenuf

    Boris Gudenuf Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    3,448
    Location:
    north of Steilacoom, WA
    Quite possibly, but the same type of thinking could lead to Aztecs taking the place of all other cultures and civs in Mesoamerica or the Scythians taking the place of every other pastoral group in western Asia or Sumer taking the place of every other culture or civ in ancient/Bronze Age Mesopotamia.

    Possible, but not necessarily a Good Thing for the game.
     
  13. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,320
    I don't think the Mapuche 'resisted' the Inca. There's a report that there was a battle between them but given how little documentary evidence there is for the pre-Colombian period it's not clear the Inca ever had territorial designs on areas south of the Maule - the Mapuche just mostly fell outside the Inca sphere of influence.

    I think a lot of the reason the Mapuche weren't a popular addition is that they were in the series before the Inca and are perceived to have taken a slot from the Maya, as Firaxis has traditionally treated South and Central America as the same geographic region in terms of civ representation. Personally I'm not a fan of civs representing ethnic groups rather than kingdoms or empires, but in an area like South America that's largely going to be unavoidable.

    I value Civ tradition and think Babylon ought to be in - they keep bringing back the Zulu for no other reason than they were in Civ I (though Shaka is a popular figure as a Civ leader in a way that none of the Babylonian leaders have been). Babylon certainly belongs in the series, but I'd hope that if they find a way to add more civs to Civ VI (which I don't particularly expect at this stage) they treat them as a culture civ to both better-reflect their legacy (such things as the way we measure time, early legal codes, and wonders like the Ishtar Gate are cultural more than scientific achievements) and distinguish them from the Sumerians.

    The Celts were a very divisive civ among the community, as they didn't represent either a real state or a (once)-living cultural group but are a material culture defined by archaeological remains. The Civ V implementation was especially unpopular, as a mix-and-match civ of assorted island 'Celts' with mostly non-Celtic cities.

    The modern notion of 'Celts' as a cultural identity linking Ireland, Scotland, Wales and sometimes a couple of mainland cultures is an anachronism - there was no such historical entity and the modern cultures of these societies have different and mostly more recent origins.

    Geographically, but the Scottish civ isn't Celtic (and, obviously, also doesn't incorporate Ireland). Scotland in game represents a culture dominated by the modern Scots, whose cultural ancestry is Germanic.

    Given that the only real reason to have Celts in the game is as a sop to Scottish and Irish audiences, I think it's safe to say the Scots have replaced them.

    It's more a case of Firaxis reacting to community dissatisfaction with "dustbin" or "blob civs", of which the Celts were among the last to be excised. They'd previously replaced the Vikings with named Viking-era states and the "Native Americans" with named North American indigenous groups. Most civs now in the game represent a single defined territory, state or historical culture, and replacing "the Celts" with Scotland follows that trend.

    Oddly, the two exceptions have both been introduced in Civ VI: the Scythians, like the Celts, are a material culture rather than a definable group of people; and more strangely still they actually took the defined Carthaginian civ and turned it into a Phoenician blob.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2019
    Boris Gudenuf and BuchiTaton like this.
  14. BuchiTaton

    BuchiTaton Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2019
    Messages:
    187
    Gender:
    Male
    Considering CIV5 I see something like this:
    CIV5 to CIV6
    - America, Arabia, Aztec, Brazil, China, Dutch, Egypt, England, France, Germany, Greece, Inca, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Mongolia, Ottoman, Persia, Poland, Rome, Russia, Spain, Sweden and Zulu repeating.
    - Austria = Hungary
    - Carthage = Phoenicia
    - Celts = Scotland
    - Danish = Norway
    - Huns = Scythians
    - Polynesians = Maori
    - Shoshone = Cree
    - Siam = Khmer
    - Shongai = Mali
    - Assyria = Say Sumer
    - Babylonia = They could come again (or Assyria/Hatti)
    - Byzantium = Probably would come again (or are they Macedonia?)
    - Ethiopia = Another that would come (maybe they were remplazed by Nubians)
    - Iroquois = Almost sure we would have USA natives but not sure about Iroquois again
    - Morocco = This ones are hard. Not sure if we get another Magreb civ this time.
    - Portugal = Highly probably to come again.
    - Maya = Classic civ, could see them coming again easily.
    - Venice = Georgia? Macedonia?
    - New North America = Canada
    - New Europe = Georgia
    - New Africa = Kongo
    - New South America = Mapuche
    - New Oceania = Australia

    So if we got 8 more civs I dont see many slots for really new "regions".
    RETURNING (4):
    - Portugal and Byzantium are big european empires.
    - Maya are classic, well know and represent what most people think is South America.
    - Ethiopia is also kind of traditional and relevant for Africa.
    NEW REMPLACEMENTS (4):
    - Some of the many USA natives would probably represent North America.
    - Who know, maybe we get something new from Ancient Middle East, there are some options.
    - If some form of Berber civ still make it on game, the only free slot could be for a new Asiatic (probably Far East) civ.
     
  15. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    6,232
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    I don't think having not having the Celts is a bad thing. People wanted the blob to be broken up but what they got was Scotland instead of Gaul and I'm sure there would be a lot less people complaining about it if we got Gaul instead. The golf course improvement didn't help either.
    On the flip-side the Maori took the place of Polynesia and most people are fine with it. And if getting Scythia means no Huns I'd take them any day.
    I don't mind these two personally. The Scythians were a step up from the Huns as I've stated and Phoenicia is no different as Greece always has been or even the Maya which everyone wants: individual city-sates turned into one political entity.
     
    Eagle Pursuit likes this.
  16. Kevdood83

    Kevdood83 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2019
    Messages:
    31
    Gender:
    Male
    @PhilBowles... if you ever go to Ireland and talk about them being a material culture, nice knowin’ ya

    Also, if they’re so unable to “be defined” as a culture, how are you so sure they weren’t included in Civ VI? Or were they ever really in Civ II or III?

    I guess you’ll never know.
     
  17. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,320
    "Material culture" means a culture defined by archaeological remains. The identification of modern Irish, Scots and Welsh with 'Celts' is a neologism, based on the name given to the language group to which Gaelic and Welsh belong. It doesn't correspond to the Celts as an archaeological culture, which is based on similarity of metalwork and pottery, and common artistic patterns, across much of Western Europe. The shared history of modern Scotland and Ireland is due to Scotland taking its name from a Germanic group called the Scots who migrated from Ireland to Scotland at the end of the Roman period, and neither is culturally close to the Welsh or Cornish who have a more direct line of descent from Roman-era Celtic societies.

    The point is, there was never at any point in history a living cultural group that can be defined according to the modern notion of who the 'Celts' are - which is the source for the complaints about the Civ V 'Celts' in particular with their anachronistic mix of Norman and Nordic cities (some admittedly built on the sites of older hillforts) taken from modern Scotland, Wales and Ireland and led by an East Anglian speaking modern Welsh. It's not clear, for instance, that druids (namechecked in Civ V), best-known from Roman testimony about the priest caste in Gaul, ever occurred in Scotland or were analogous to the people the name was given to in Ireland or Wales - it seems the name may have referred to a different type of shaman or priest in Wales than in Ireland.

    Gaul wasn't going to happen with France in the game, but I expected Ireland rather than Scotland to replace the Celts - aside from Scotland being unplayable on a TSL map in which England is involved, they could have made a Celtic-era Irish civ rather than a medieval Scottish one.

    Yep, Polynesia's another blob that was broken up. I like the Maori in-game, but I'm still unconvinced they're the best way to reskin the Polynesian civ - the most sedentary of the Polynesian cultures fronting a civ that still plays like Civ V Polynesia.

    Both Hellenic Greece and - from what we can tell - the Maya saw themselves as discrete cultural entities greater than individual cities, and the Maya may have had a more structured multi-city level of government than has traditionally been recognised, if not actually an empire. It's not as clear that this was the case for the Phoenician cities as far as I'm aware. It might have been, but then we know for sure that Carthage was a single centralised state so why change it at all?
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2019
  18. Ziad

    Ziad Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2013
    Messages:
    1,893
    Location:
    Lebanon
    That's not a fair comparison really. Carthage was a Phoenician city state founded by Phoenician settlers with a distinctly Phoenician culture that rose to prominence. Most of its satellite cities were originally Phoenician settlements that were absorbed into its sphere of influence after the fall of the Levant. The only new Carthaginian settlements were a few settlements on Iberia and Western Africa.

    It's not even comparable to Greece, as those city states were often at war, fought for independence, and forged their own distinct identities. You had the Spartans, the Athenians, the Macedonians, Pergamon, Pontus, etc... and even Ptolemaic Egypt and all the Successor Kingdoms... all "Greek".

    While Carthage did eventually form its own identity, one could argue it was simply a continuation of Phoenicia after the latter fell in the east.

    It's interesting you bring this up in this thread though, as the romantic focus on Carthage is nothing more than categorization and bias by Western historians. They were the big antagonist to their dear Roman empire. The same thing happened to the Eastern Roman Empire, now called "Byzantium" (they literally never called themselves Byzantines; Byzantium is the name of the peninsula where Constantinople lied) because historians wanted to divorce them from association with the Roman Empire.

    I think they did a great job melding Carthage into Phoenicia this time around. The civilization ability is distinctly Phoenician, and the leader is someone associated with both Phoenicia and Carthage.

    I wouldn't object to a Hannibal DLC though. :lol:
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2019
    Equilin and Alexander's Hetaroi like this.
  19. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    6,232
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    Personally I would have chosen the Samoa. They got a nickname which was the "Navigator Islands" which would have been a good UA. But I don't mind since the Maori ended up not being as militaristic and way more culture oriented than I imagined and they received the wayfinding ability in Kupe. Any representation of a Polynesian culture was good for me.

    That's the same reason why I have said it wouldn't be crazy for this game if the Byzantines would be represented by an alt leader for Rome since it was a continuation.
    I guess the same could work for Hannibal leading Phoenicia since he was of Phoenician origin. And we could get the elephants back and he would play as a more aggressive version.
     
    Ziad likes this.
  20. Ziad

    Ziad Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2013
    Messages:
    1,893
    Location:
    Lebanon
    Agreed. I'm not sure what their focus would be as Trajan has the culture thing down and Georgia has the faith. Perhaps a mix of the two?

    I really appreciate the nod to Phoenicia's expansionism. Dido right now has the trade aspect with the extra trade routes and core city buffs via Colonialism policies/wonders.

    Perhaps Hannibal could be more militaristic with a mercenary focus. Maybe it's cheaper to purchase units overall, or they come with bonus promotions if purchased.
     

Share This Page