• We need to know your opinion about our social media accounts! Tell us here if you follow us on social media and what we could improve.

What leaders and/or nations do you want in Civilization VII?

The strict, academic, racial categorization which uses that term doesn't carry much weight to the people it is applied to. The term "Malay" is more often used as a name for people of that region than this use as a rigid ethnic label. Malay is a cultural, linguistic and regional term, and it's somewhat amorphous because of that, which makes it very useful as a name for a civ.
If I'm trying to understand your thinking, Malay is essentially more of a cultural group than a civilization. Civilizations such as Indonesia/Majapahit and the Philippines, or city-states such as Singapore or Bandar Brunei, would all be lumped into this Malay culture category, therefore sharing common uniques of Malay people?
 
At least as I understand it, yes. I was aware of the Malaysian and Indonesian languages both being referred to as dialects of "Malay", but tbh I wasn't even aware of the term being used as an academically rigorous ethnic category before Fishx3 mentioned it. It's a region that is tied together by maritime trade and contact with India, which has resulted in a zone of fairly uniform material culture. Kris knives, boats with outriggers, syncretic Hindu, Buddhist, and Animist/Folklorist traditions etc.
 
I have never seen or heard the term "Malay" used that way. I don't think we can make up our own ways of using labels, regardless of intention. It'd just confuse players and members of that group both.
 
Last edited:
I see. If we look at "Indonesia" as a civilization (a continuous sociocultural system from ancient times to the present) rather than as an empire/kingdom (a nation that existed only for a limited period of time), then it would certainly be more appropriate to call it "Indonesia" than "Majapahit".

Are not most of these uniques specifically Javanese though, at least in origin, except the Kampung? I don't see why at least the name Javanese could work. Though I guess calling the civ Javanese would still limit the city list and wouldn't include a multitude of cities on other islands like Sumatra and Bali etc.

Although I don't think I'm a hurr-durr type person in particular, I am in favor of civs being designed around one era. But I agree with the rest of your post that with the current way civs are designed, and the implemention of Indonesia in Civ 6 specifically, that a narrower name like "Majapahit" doesn't make sense.

- I might be missing something, but I am a bit confused where people are getting the idea that Malay refers to a broad grouping which covers all of these languages. As far as I am aware, Javanese and the Malay language are only connected by the "Malayo-Polynesian languages" subgroup of the Austronesian languages. Malayic languages split off into their own branch of the Malayo-Polynesian subgroup afterwards. ("Hesperonesian languages" or "Western Malayo-Polynesian languages" are obsolete terms.)

- I find it strange to name the Civ "Malay" just because the Archipelago is called the "Malay Archipelago".

- Malay as a racial group seems to stem from enlightenment-era ideas of biological racism. I would prefer to avoid that.

Wouldn't the inverse also be true? Doesn't "Malay" also prioritize Malays above the rest?
I have never seen or heard the term "Malay" used that way. I don't think we can make up our own ways of using labels, regardless of intention. It'd just confuse players and members of that group both.
"Indonesia," as a nation, was a revolutionary construct by Sukarto in the 1940's and 1950's, built on the chasis and borders of the Colonial Dutch East Indies it replaced. It is one of THOSE artificial post-Colonial nations, like India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Iraq, Syria, Israel (especially in terms of it's claim over Palestine, but in, and, of, itself, too), and most modern Sub-Saharan African Nations, and arguably Burma/Myanmar, and Malaysia (as opposed to Malaya). Which brings us to the Malays, a @FishFishFish claim they are an academically- and rigidly-defined ETHNIC-group covering most people in the region. What FishFishFish is talking about is NOT an ethnic group, and the referrence they used clearly shows the flaw in that claim. They are a branch of LANGUAGES in a LINGUISTIC FAMILY. They are no more a single ethnic group than Germans, Scandinavians, Dutch, Flemish, Scheizerseutch, and Anglo-Saxons are all one ethnicity, and should be one, single civ, for speaking Germanic languages in the Indo-European Family, or Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Serbs, Croatians, Slovenians, Bosniaks, Bulgarians, and those who contentiously call themselves Macedonians, today (at least contended by Greece) are one ethnicity, and should be one civ, and every ethnicity who has lived for the last several centruries, and has their ethnic roots, and ethno-genesis, in, the vast majority of Eastern, Central, and Southern Africa, except speakers of Khoisian languages and Afrikaans, are all one ethnictiy and should be one civ, because they speak languages of the Bantu branch of the Niger-Congo language family, and that speakers of Arabic, Assyrian, Hebrew, most Northern and Central Ethipian langanges, Maltese, several languages still spoken in Yemen, and a bunch of now-extinct and archaeological languages from Middle Eastern civilizations of Antiquity are all the same ethnicity and should all be one civ because they speak languages from the Semitic branch of the Afro-Asiatic Langauge Family. We have exactly the same situation as portrayed by FishFishFish.
 
Last edited:
Okay, now I am officially being trivial for the sake of being trivial.

Which us to the Malays, anf @FishFishFish's claim they are an academically- and rigidly-defined ETHNIC-group covering most people in the region. What FishFishFish is talking about is NOT an ethnic group, and the referrence they used clearly shows the flaw in that claim.

Malays are indeed an ethnic group.

What FishFishFish is talking about is NOT an ethnic group, and the referrence they used clearly shows the flaw in that claim. They are a branch of LANGUAGES in a LINGUISTIC FAMILY

No, Malay is the language. Malays with an S cannot refer to the language. (Both Malays and Malay can refer to the ethnic group but I will try to use the S to refer solely to the ethnic group from now on.)

Regardless, "Malay" is NOT a linguistic family. Malay is just a regular language. I spoke of Malayic which is a which is a sub-group of a sub-group that contains the language known as Malay.

Making a Civ out of the Malays is not comparable at all to making a civ out of the entire Niger-Congo language family.
 
Last edited:
Malays are indeed one rigidly defined ethnic group.



No, Malay is the language. Malays with an S cannot refer to the language. (Both Malays and Malay can refer to the ethnic group but I will try to use the S to refer solely to the ethnic group from now on.)

Regardless, "Malay" is NOT a linguistic family. Malay is just a regular language. I spoke of Malayic which is a which is a sub-group of a sub-group that contains the language known as Malay.
The Malay ehnicity in this article, and the Malay language, proper, are not remotely expansive or exhaustive enough to be any better of a universal term for the people and area of the modern nation of Indonesia. They, like the, "Majapahit," or the Javanese, are only part of it, and a big enough part to claim to stand in for the whole (Modern construct on Coloniial borders) nation of Indonesia.
 
Yeah, that is what I've been arguing this entire time.
Well, who were you initially arguing against? I apologize if I got confused in the trail of conversation.
 
Okay, now I am officially being trivial for the sake of being trivial.



Malays are indeed an ethnic group.



No, Malay is the language. Malays with an S cannot refer to the language. (Both Malays and Malay can refer to the ethnic group but I will try to use the S to refer solely to the ethnic group from now on.)

Regardless, "Malay" is NOT a linguistic family. Malay is just a regular language. I spoke of Malayic which is a which is a sub-group of a sub-group that contains the language known as Malay.

Making a Civ out of the Malays is not comparable at all to making a civ out of the entire Niger-Congo language family.
Actually, according to our lord and savior pineapple dan, you are wrong. And yes, all Northern European languages are German. (No offense to Pineappledan, sorry if you were offended)
 
It's a region that is tied together by maritime trade and contact with India, which has resulted in a zone of fairly uniform material culture. Kris knives, boats with outriggers, syncretic Hindu, Buddhist, and Animist/Folklorist traditions etc.
I do think that this idea may have merit in future iterations. Similar cultures already share city graphics, so I don't see why they couldn't go even further. I've advocated it before that all the Mesoamerican cultures, civilizations and city-states, could have unique looking arenas that resemble the ballcourts, instead of it only switching between unique infrastructure of the Aztec and Maya, which would inevitably leave it out for one of them.

Now as far as Indonesia, and the rest of the region is concerned, I'm not sure exactly if Malay would be the right word to use but I don't have any better suggestions for a word that might encompass them. As you said earlier Austronesian is too broad and also encompasses Polynesian, which definitely should be their own separate one.
 
Last edited:
If "Majapahit" should be "Indonesia", then "Aztec" should be renamed "Mexico", and "Byzantine" / "Ottoman" should be "Turkiye".
Perhaps the development team was not familiar with the history of Southeast Asia, so they turned Majapahit into Indonesia.
Since Firaxis is an American company, it is no wonder they are ignorant of the history of non-Anglo-Saxon countries.
I think there are some people on the staff who are familiar with Southeast Asian history.
 
Indonesia and Mexico are not historical countries? :crazyeye:

Also, "Indonesia" in civ6 and civ5 is simply not reducible to Majapahit. Rulers in both games are Majapahit rulers, but neither Jung Ship, nor Kampung, Kris Swordmen or Candi are Majapahit - specific uniques, and neither is city list. The name is correct - it is broad umbrella civ combining different civs from the area of modern Indonesia, not Majapahit.

Of course some people may complain about this, how hurr civs should durr be entirely based about one era only, although I completely disagree with that and I prefer civs (my own Poland included) to mix all eras at once, bc we don't have space to have 5 separate Polands for 5 separate eras. But your basic premise about civ6 and civ5 depicting "Majapahit" is simply wrong - it is the same anachronistic mix of elements as all civs in the game, Western and non - Western alike.
Apart from the hasty assumption that Firaxis dont have historical advisors about SEA. The point about the awful contemporary nation name over a medieval entity is pretty valid.

Beyond the obvious convenience of use the better know name Indonesia over the unfamiliar (also kind of tongue twister) Majapahit, the use of non exclusive to Majapahit elements is irrelevant when there are not other civ in the game tha can use them, if there are not others on-game like Malay or Tagalo civs Indonesia/Majapahit can use those elements like the Maori civ use a design that fit better for a Tonga civ just because is the "Polynesian" representative. And we all know tha is not the only case, for example the Mesoamerican ball game court was not exclusive to Aztecs, and even worse Maya have older and more impresive ones, in such case it should be a Mayan not Aztec building.

Also the example of Poland is not the best. First in-game Poland is about the catholic kingdom from late medieval to early modern period, that anyway was and still is know under that indentity Poland/Polish. Meanwhile this "Indonesia" in game have elements that perfectly work for Majapahit, a period before the Islamic and contemporary Nation-State with a western influenced name and institutions.
The example about Mexico was kind of exagerated, since the cultural and ethnic change since the Spanish conquest is bigger than the one in Indonesia with Islamic conversion and European colonialism. But it is also wrong to ignore the point that the changes between Mesoamerican states and modern Mexico would make ridiculous to mix both in game (despite Mexico in fact take its name from Mexico "Aztec" state proper name).

Are not most of these uniques specifically Javanese though, at least in origin, except the Kampung? I don't see why at least the name Javanese could work. Though I guess calling the civ Javanese would still limit the city list and wouldn't include a multitude of cities on other islands like Sumatra and Bali etc.
About the list of names Java is one of the most populous places in the whole world, there are enough historical names. Also a lot of civs have lists of cities that were not culturally theirs but just conquered cities, the empire of Majapahit also conquered and controled others areas that would still be in their list of possesions.
Again obviously since anyway the decision to name the civ "Indonesia" for market recognition was likely done, then add names from all around the contemporary nation is a minor task with little effects over the real work put into the true design, is not like they decide to add uniques and bonuses to a list of cities (as if they decided this first).
 
Last edited:
Am I the only one here who actually like relatively broad-spectrum civs that draws on multiple aspects of a people or area's history, and is not enamored of narrow-focused civs that are all about representing the one very specific political incarnation of the same region or people?
 
Am I the only one here who actually like relatively broad-spectrum civs that draws on multiple aspects of a people or area's history, and is not enamored of narrow-focused civs that are all about representing the one very specific political incarnation of the same region or people?
Huh? I think I am the only one in this entire thread who has voiced support for narrow-focused, cohesive civ designs. I think everyone else shares your viewpoint. I didn't interpret BichiTaton's post that way.
 
Am I the only one here who actually like relatively broad-spectrum civs that draws on multiple aspects of a people or area's history, and is not enamored of narrow-focused civs that are all about representing the one very specific political incarnation of the same region or people?
I am in the middle of this opinion.
 
Am I the only one here who actually like relatively broad-spectrum civs that draws on multiple aspects of a people or area's history, and is not enamored of narrow-focused civs that are all about representing the one very specific political incarnation of the same region or people?
If civ 6’s UA and ULA dichotomy is used in a more coherent fashion you can have both the broad and the specific. Civ 6 already introduced a 2nd UU tied to certain leaders, but didn’t give them to everyone, and didn’t give leaders unique infrastructure.

Adding more components for each faction at the leader level frees up the civilization-level bonuses to portray broader cultural components while the leader bonuses can focus on specificity and tie-in to the chosen leader’s time and place. It is also a great way to add more content to the game for relatively little work. I bet the devs could make 20 new units in the time it takes to rig, texture, and animate a new leader, and 20 more in the time it takes to write, coordinate, and record voice lines and music.
 
Last edited:
I'm not really sure what it would mean for civ and leader abilities to be "more coherent." They already act exactly as you're suggesting. (Also there is leader unique infrastructure; Kristina has the Queen's Bibliotheque).

I think the leader and civ ability split contributed to a lot of the bonus bloat Civ 6 suffers from. That could be rectified by simplifying and toning down bonuses, but loading up leader abilities with even more unique units and unique infrastructure on top would just add to the problem. I also don't think adding a ton of unique units would be very satisfying. Additionally, units are the most boring part of a civ's loadout to me (and to other players who don't have a domination-centric playstyle).

I'd rather we get rid of the leader and civ split versus doubling down, but that's another topic.
 
Am I the only one here who actually like relatively broad-spectrum civs that draws on multiple aspects of a people or area's history, and is not enamored of narrow-focused civs that are all about representing the one very specific political incarnation of the same region or people?
My take is focused just a bit differently, but reaching the same conclusion.
I prefer broad-spectrum simply because a narrow focus is also ephemeral in any game. Any set of Uniques focused on a single Era becomes less and less relevant in other Eras, especially preceding ones. Any Unique Unit has (usually) a very narrow window when it is useful. It is very difficult to design specific historical aspects of a Civ that are also general enough to apply throughout the game - or even for any large percentage of a game that stretches for 6000+ years.

I think, therefore, that especially in regards to Unique aspects, the game has to find a way of better balancing specific historical aspects of the Civs with the requirement (or the preference) that they be at least marginally applicable over a much wider time span than they actually were.

And more specifically, a bunch of Uniques associated with a single Leader who lived for a tiny fraction of the game's time span are going to have to be really, really carefully designed. Right now, frankly, most of the Leader Uniques are only marginally important when compared to the entire time-span of the game.
 
Top Bottom