What Civ Would you Cut?

[Evie]

It's not about signing a paper, it's about when the songs stopped being recognizable Scottish/Irish/English/French folk songs brought here by immigrants and became their own songs. That has nothing to do with signing a paper, and everything to do with how long it takes in a pre-mass media world for culture to change and evolve.

And most sources I can find on the french and french canadian side credits the origin of M'en revenant de la joli Rochelle (the more accurate title of Aviron) to western France (seems to be a bit of a theme here: english sources try to credit songs to french canada, french canadians don't agree with the credits and believe the song is from older french sources, as with Alouette). Much of its lyrics and tune can certainly be found in Breton folk song, and the very title of the song (la joli Rochelle, that is La Rochelle, France), which is also a verse that's still present in the French-Canadian version, leans toward a French origin. Coureur des bois and Voyageurs adopted the song, and quite possibly replaced some of the older lyrics with the part about aviron, but it's at best a French Canadian development of a song (and, more importantly, an air, since that's what's used tl make civ music) from France.

And that's exactly the problem here. A lot of early folk songs in Canada might have some changed Canadian lyrics, but they have airs from the country of origin of the people who sang then, and since it's the air that matters to making a civ 6 song, that's a serious obstacle.

 

[Patine]

I stridently reject the notion that Canadian identity and culture didn’t exist until some paper was signed in 1867. No one disputes the American-ness of "Oh Shenandoah" just because it was probably composed before 1776

There are plenty of folk songs, nursery rhymes, and work songs that have their origins in Canada. Even Alouette, the song you mentioned, has a disputed origin, and is likely to have originated in Canada, so I don't think it's ruled out. C'est L'Aviron would be another candidate which is explicitly and indisputably set in Canada, written by a French-Canadian fur trapper. But regardless, there are countless Canadian folk encyclopedias and songbooks to reference rather than defaulting to the national anthem, of all things.

It's not about signing a paper, it's about when the songs stopped being recognizable Scottish/Irish/English/French folk songs brought here by immigrants and became their own songs. That has nothing to do with signing a paper, and everything to do with how long it takes in a pre-mass media world for culture to change and evolve.

And most sources I can find on the french and french canadian side credits the origin of M'en revenant de la joli Rochelle (the more accurate title of Aviron) to western France (seems to be a bit of a theme here: english sources try to credit songs to french canada, french canadians don't agree with the credits and believe the song is from older french sources, as with Alouette). Much of its lyrics and tune can certainly be found in Breton folk song, and the very title of the song (la joli Rochelle, that is La Rochelle, France), which is also a verse that's still present in the French-Canadian version, leans toward a French origin. Coureur des bois and Voyageurs adopted the song, and quite possibly replaced some of the older lyrics with the part about aviron, but it's at best a French Canadian development of a song (and, more importantly, an air, since that's what's used tl make civ music) from France.

And that's exactly the problem here. A lot of early folk songs in Canada might have some changed Canadian lyrics, but they have airs from the country of origin of the people who sang then, and since it's the air that matters to making a civ 6 song, that's a serious obstacle.

There were some jaunty Metis folk songs out of the Red River Colony with no known origin in tune or lyrics from elsewhere, but, given the antagonistic relationship of Red River with the Canadian Federal Government at the time of the Red River Rebellion and the Establishment of the Province of Manitoba, these songs are highly dubious as iconicallly, "Canadian," as a whole.

 

[Evie]

Yes.

Not to mention that the Metis are considered one of Canada's indigenous people, and I don't even want to imagine the backlash if we were to represent Canadian culture using anything that's distinctly indigenous.

Now, if we were talking a separate Métis civilization...

...actually, maybe we should talk about a separate Métis civilization, because that doesn't sound like a half-bad alternative to all the warts of trying to make Canada work, if the Métis were onboard with it.

 

[Xandinho]

I'm fine with all civs (maybe not all are designed as I'd like, but anyway...). But if I were to pick one, no more than one, to cut out, this would possibly be Scotland, for the following reasons:

1- It's boring to play. The LUA is practically non-existent. Golf Course is boring as a unique improvement, why not a castle/fort since Scotland is renowned for its castles? This would be a lot more interesting.

2- Before the Gauls, Scotland was the only Celtic representation in the game, but after the Gauls (which for me is a much better Celtic representation), Scotland became kind of "unnecessary".

 

[reddishrecue]

Which was the worst, laziest, and most parodical part of the whole mess. Our national anthem as our theme music motif? Are you serious? Could the devs have given less of a toss to demonstrate even a fraction of the care they took in choosing traditional folk music for any of the other extant civs? If they had so much as talked to a Canadian they could have rattled off a dozen folk tunes that fit alongside old folk melodies like England's 'Scarborough Fair' or Germany's 'Ich hab die Nacht Getraumet'. Instead we got a loud, garish patriotic mashup of two French Canadian patriotic anthems, both of which were at one point the national anthem. Blegh.

I liked how the devs used America's theme in Arkansas. I usually just see New York, California, Texas and Florida. I hardly see other states. Using Arkansas Traveler like that was a great job by the developers when they developed America. The song may seem political and bring many political thoughts but they aren't.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

1- It's boring to play. The LUA is practically non-existent. Golf Course is boring as a unique improvement, why not a castle/fort since Scotland is renowned for its castles? This would be a lot more interesting.

I agree with everything you said except the golf course. I think if they designed it in a way like I did in the redesign thread, where they can be built in your allies' cities giving you culture/tourism, it would at least be more interesting then another castle/fort improvement.

 

[reddishrecue]

I agree with everything you said except the golf course. I think if they designed it in a way like I did in the redesign thread, where they can be built in your allies' cities giving you culture/tourism, it would at least be more interesting then another castle/fort improvement.

I kind of agree also but I think they didn't put castles on there because many civilizations have castle uniqueness. Not to say that they left out Scotland but putting a golf course uniqueness made it seem more unique. However, I also agree that Scotland was more for its castles even though golfing is really popular there.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Canada/Australia

I customized Civ 2 and made Canada a civ. The leaders were Gretzky and Shania, with the latter being the default. Did it that way so I could look at her during negotiations.

 

[Patine]

2- Before the Gauls, Scotland was the only Celtic representation in the game, but after the Gauls (which for me is a much better Celtic representation), Scotland became kind of "unnecessary".

I'd rather see a return of Boadicea than either of them, frankly.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I kind of agree also but I think they didn't put castles on there because many civilizations have castle uniqueness. Not to say that they left out Scotland but putting a golf course uniqueness made it seem more unique. However, I also agree that Scotland was more for its castles even though golfing is really popular there.

Yes there's only so many different types of unique castle's that you can do before they start to get redundant. The only way I would have accepted a Scottish castle is if it required to either be built next to a lake tile, or on a lake tile.

 

[Patine]

Yes there's only so many different types of unique castle's that you can do before they start to get redundant. The only way I would have accepted a Scottish castle is if it required to either be built next to a lake tile, or on a lake tile.

And then it would get a free cryptid pleseiasaur?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And then it would get a free cryptid pleseiasaur?

Anything to boost tourism would be appreciated.

 

[Krajzen]

Zulu are such a miserable recurrence in this series, they always get the exact same set of stuff and the exact same one dimensional perks personality, by far the most boring and tired faction. You know they'll be here every time, tou known they'll have the same leader with his hyper agressive blunt personality, you know they'll have impi and ikanda, and you know they'll do nothing but heavy infantry bonus. The boringest civ design ever, and it repeats every iteration despite so many interesting African cultures.

I am in the club of "please no Canada and Australia". Ar least Australia had a decent design, but Canada was a miserable stereotype (I also think no civ in the game should flourish at tundra, period, there is no culture that can magically turn useless frozen soil into El Dorado). But seriously, this is just too much Anglo - Saxons in one game.

Muisca seems to me like a one - time civ, I can't imagine doing with them anything more than what was done with them in civ6

Two Scandinavian civs in two games in a row is fairly ridiculous, just give one per game please

Babylon has no damn business outnumbering Assyrian appearances so hard, I'm perfectly fine with next two civ games featuring Assyria instead of it

Despite me being Polish I wouldn't have anything against Poland being replaced by Bohemia and/or Ukraine this time, or at least let's make 15th - 17th century Poland which actually had some historical importance unlike medieval one

I absolutely agree that Rome is the exact same civilization as Byzantium in every single aspect, therefore Byzantium should replace it and Rome should never ever reappear since Byzantium has more swag and is more flamboyant and fabulous

He's a leader not a civ but obligatory mention, Gandhi should disappear from the series for 15 years, being replaced by some other Indian leaders, and only reappears after erasing that insulting caricature meme and reintroducing him as a respected great man, not a joke

 

[Leucarum]

I guess that raises the question of how much deference should be given to the original lineup. Ultimately as we saw with the hype for Babylon in the NFP players don't seem to take the franchise as finished until the OG civs are all there.

There's arguments that could be made that other civs might be better representatives for their region/culture, but at this point excluding civs like Zulu leaves a noteworthy gap. No real judgement call here, just that there'll probably always be a lot of call from fans for firaxis to round out the roster of regulars.

 

[Evie]

Again, Krazjen, given that forest tundra exist, it’s pretty obvious game tundra does NOT represent (only) perpetually frozen soil. Otherwise trees wouldn’t be able to grow on it.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Muisca seems to me like a one - time civ, I can't imagine doing with them anything more than what was done with them in civ6

Did you mean the Mapuche?
I think the Muisca could actually take their spot in Civ 7.

 

[Krajzen]

Again, Krazjen, given that forest tundra exist, it’s pretty obvious game tundra does NOT represent (only) perpetually frozen soil. Otherwise trees wouldn’t be able to grow on it.

IIRC 60-70% of Russian land is permafrost, despite the fact most of Russia is also covered by dense forests; rwlisient trees can grow there, but agriculture is almost completely unsustainable, hence super low pop density

Obviously I meant Mapuche, not Muisca, which would be a great idea to replace them in civ7

 

[Patine]

Zulu are such a miserable recurrence in this series, they always get the exact same set of stuff and the exact same one dimensional perks personality, by far the most boring and tired faction. You know they'll be here every time, tou known they'll have the same leader with his hyper agressive blunt personality, you know they'll have impi and ikanda, and you know they'll do nothing but heavy infantry bonus. The boringest civ design ever, and it repeats every iteration despite so many interesting African cultures.

Subsaharan Africa does, indeed, need more variety of civ's.

I am in the club of "please no Canada and Australia". Ar least Australia had a decent design, but Canada was a miserable stereotype (I also think no civ in the game should flourish at tundra, period, there is no culture that can magically turn useless frozen soil into El Dorado). But seriously, this is just too much Anglo - Saxons in one game.

As a Canadian, I agree that both Canada and Australia should go. My idea (which no one commented on or acknowledged) of maybe not having any civ's based on having been another's colony, but have a Revolution, "Commonwealth," and/or Conquered Civ Independence War mechanism for civ's that overextend themselves across multiple continents through rapid city-building and conquest, regardless of whom that civ is, become a workable feature, somehow, instead.

Babylon has no damn business outnumbering Assyrian appearances so hard, I'm perfectly fine with next two civ games featuring Assyria instead of it

Babylon has so much more grandeur, and more popular culture appeal, than Assyria.

Despite me being Polish I wouldn't have anything against Poland being replaced by Bohemia and/or Ukraine this time, or at least let's make 15th - 17th century Poland which actually had some historical importance unlike medieval one

There has never really been a distinct and separate Ukrainian nation and civilization outside of some Cossack hosts until the end years of WW1, to be honest.

I absolutely agree that Rome is the exact same civilization as Byzantium in every single aspect, therefore Byzantium should replace it and Rome should never ever reappear since Byzantium has more swag and is more flamboyant and fabulous

I stand by EVERYTHING I said on the Constantinople/Istanbul in Civ7 thread about the distinct and separate nature, completely, of the Romans and Byzantines from each other, and the great majority of historical consensus actually stands with me.

He's a leader not a civ but obligatory mention, Gandhi should disappear from the series for 15 years, being replaced by some other Indian leaders, and only reappears after erasing that insulting caricature meme and reintroducing him as a respected great man, not a joke

Gandhi should be replaced permanently as a leader in Civ.

 

[Evie]

Two-third has permafrost, BUT *not* two thirds has permafrost on (or close) to the surface preventing agricultural or forest growth. For huge stetches of that area, the permafrost is buried deep under non-permafrost fertile soil.

Less than *one-tenth* of Russia is actually Tundra (https://www.britannica.com/place/Russia/Climate#:~:text=are ice-covered.-,Tundra,(500 km) in Siberia. ), and it's not where the trees are, and in Canada it's much the same outside the Arctic island.

And that's the other problem with the mistaken idea that tundra in-game only represent actual ecological tundra: there's just not nearly as much tundra in the real world as in the game.

So yes, it's pretty clear in-game tundra represent a much wider variety of terrain types than just unusable close-to-surface permafrost.

Tundra terrain very clearly includes the *Taiga* (boreal forest in Canada) which is much more hospitable, can in fact be cleared for agriculture, and is the most common ecological zone in both Russia and Canada.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Two-third has permafrost, BUT *not* two thirds has permafrost on (or close) to the surface preventing agricultural or forest growth. For huge stetches of that area, the permafrost is buried deep under non-permafrost fertile soil.

Less than *one-tenth* of Russia is actually Tundra (https://www.britannica.com/place/Russia/Climate#:~:text=are ice-covered.-,Tundra,(500 km) in Siberia. ), and it's not where the trees are, and in Canada it's much the same outside the Arctic island.

And that's the other problem with the mistaken idea that tundra in-game only represent actual ecological tundra: there's just not nearly as much tundra in the real world as in the game.

So yes, it's pretty clear in-game tundra represent a much wider variety of terrain types than just unusable close-to-surface permafrost.

Tundra terrain very clearly includes the *Taiga* (boreal forest in Canada) which is much more hospitable, can in fact be cleared for agriculture, and is the most common ecological zone in both Russia and Canada.

The agricultural system in much of the central Russian 'forest zone' (the southern boundary line of which runs about 150 - 200 km south of Moscow, for example) is very different from what prevails further south or in western Europe. The German Wehrmacht found this out the hard way in 1941: preliminary German planning had assumed that their forces could 'live off the land' for most of their rations and horse fodder and thus save shipping space for their stretched logistical apparatus by not shipping either types of food to the front. Came the end of September, and they started their last great offensive on Moscow only to discover that the only crops/foodstuffs left anywhere in the Moscow area were potatoes, turnips and a bit of cabbage: grains were conspicuously not planted in the area, so there were no oats which their heavy draft horses required, no wheat, rye or anything else to make bread out of. By the end of October the average German infantry division had lost up to half of their heavy horses to starvation and could no longer move their artillery forward, and a large percentage of the men in each division were spending a percentage of their time scouring local farms for largely non-existent food. The German officers blamed 'mud' for stopping their Moscow offensive: in fact, it was their own amateurish supply planning and ignorance of the terrain they were invading.