Which Civ we should have before Civilization VI?

[superliminal]

I don't understand the parts of this thread regarding controversy. I mean, being able to play as the slave-owning Confederate South isn't controversial? And it's not like all Civ leaders were ideal figures of leadership. I mean Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun certainly won't "good" guys. And it's not as though Civ developers seem to shy away from controversy. "Scramble for Africa" being a prime example of European imperialism systemically dismantling and exploiting Africa (though thank God they didn't have a "slave trade" mechanic.)

No matter what you think of Castro, he'd certainly be an excellent choice for leader of a Cuba civ, given that he's importance in the region. Likewise, I stand by Israel as a reasonable addition. No matter what you think of the legitimacy of the state, it's certainly had a significant impact on modern global politics, and I don't think including it as a civ, demonstrates any particular "stand" on Israel any more than including Genghis Khan constitutes a "stand" on mass rape/pillaging.

Almost unrelated, I do think Canada would be a good choice as well, simply because, as of yet, there's no civ representing that pretty extensive region, and could offer some interesting gameplay based on a wide empire/trade focus. (I'd like to see Hudson Bay Company as a UA or UB.)

 

[ehecatzin]

Weather or not you think controversy is important, Firaxis does, if they didnt risk including Popé because the Pueblo council found it offensive, I at least cant imagine them adding Castro and risking a response of the rather vocal cuban american community in the US. Same scenario for Tibet.

The thing is, if they want to add a latin american civ with a revolutionary leader, there are other options, no need to go for Castro.

 

[Danielion]

The Cuban alternative of José Martí has been proposed, and personally I think he'd be more fitting then Fidel Castro for a possible Cuban civ.

I don't understand the parts of this thread regarding controversy. I mean, being able to play as the slave-owning Confederate South isn't controversial?

Well, the game allows you to play as the slave-owning George Washington in the main game, so I don't see what's the problem. Of course, people view him in a positive light, because aside from owning slaves, he was one of the most important figures in what shaped the US. One shouldn't think exclusively in terms of good and evil, for the world nor history isn't that binary.

For what concerns the Scramble for Africa scenario, I think the most controversial addition is King Leopold II (the evil bastard).

 

[PhilBowles]

I don't know that Firaxis did this intentionally, and I certainly can't speak for everybody, but in the parts of the world that are covered by the Polynesian in-game civ that I'm most familiar with, people don't really identify themselves as strongly as associated with particular towns/cities as they seem to in the United States (where I live now). The one Polynesian city name that really makes no sense to me is Oahu, because Honolulu, the city used as the capital for the Civ, is ON Oahu.

Could be worse - they could have had a city called Big Island...

For me it's not a matter of whether people associate with cities or not, but merely that cities ought to - where possible - represent exactly that. You don't found an island (although I'll grant that in the Polynesian case it actually does make sense for the settlers to found different ethnic groups, and perhaps not so much for them to found European-derived cities). Then again, all but two of the Iroquois cities are named for modern US cities that have no relation to the Iroquois at all.

The city list also contains a ton of stuff in and around New Zealand, because New Zealand is huge.

I'll have to look out for that - it occurred to me while writing the above that I couldn't recall seeing any NZ city names, despite the Maori UU.

Weather or not you think controversy is important, Firaxis does,

Which is key. It's why the game no longer has Mao or Stalin (and why Mao was removed from the Chinese version of Civ IV), why Lhasa as a city-state is not in the Chinese version of the game, and (I cynically speculate) quite possibly the removal of explicit references to evolution (a Wonder in Civs II and III) and the pollution/global warming mechanic (present in Civs I-IV)

 

[Depravo]

Weather or not you think controversy is important, Firaxis does, if they didnt risk including Popé because the Pueblo council found it offensive, I at least cant imagine them adding Castro and risking a response of the rather vocal cuban american community in the US. Same scenario for Tibet.

The difference being that Firaxis apparently ditched Pope for fear of offending the bizarre cultural sensibilities of whoever represents that branch of the Pueblo Indians these days. (I don't think that was the right decision, but that's beside the point.) Tibet on the other hand is apparently out of the equation for fear of upsetting the Chinese government. Discarding a civ because its modern advocacy group doesn't want their leader represented is one thing, discarding one because it will supposedly lead to trouble with the leadership of ANOTHER 'civilisation' is something else again.

And again, where's the evidence the PRC will ban the game in China if a civ clearly based on pre-modern Tibet is included?

 

[PhilBowles]

And again, where's the evidence the PRC will ban the game in China if a civ clearly based on pre-modern Tibet is included?

Companies consider that they can't afford the investment of creating something on the offchance it might be banned in a major market, they don't wait on evidence. Take Creative Assembly: they're on record as stating that the reason they've never (and will never) set a Total War game during the Japanese invasion of Korea is because it may offend Korean sensibilities. However Civ V has a scenario with that very setting, included as part of a Korean DLC aimed at targeting that very market. As far as I know that passed the censors without the scenario being removed from Korean versions (let alone versions sold to Korean Americans). So in this case CA's self-censorship appears to be misguided and unnecessary.

The same might well be true for Firaxis. I don't know if any market research informed the changes they made to the Chinese versions of the game, or if they took Lhasa and Mao out pre-emptively.

 

[Tiggurix]

I don't understand the parts of this thread regarding controversy. I mean, being able to play as the slave-owning Confederate South isn't controversial? And it's not like all Civ leaders were ideal figures of leadership. I mean Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun certainly won't "good" guys. And it's not as though Civ developers seem to shy away from controversy. "Scramble for Africa" being a prime example of European imperialism systemically dismantling and exploiting Africa (though thank God they didn't have a "slave trade" mechanic.)

No matter what you think of Castro, he'd certainly be an excellent choice for leader of a Cuba civ, given that he's importance in the region. Likewise, I stand by Israel as a reasonable addition. No matter what you think of the legitimacy of the state, it's certainly had a significant impact on modern global politics, and I don't think including it as a civ, demonstrates any particular "stand" on Israel any more than including Genghis Khan constitutes a "stand" on mass rape/pillaging.

Almost unrelated, I do think Canada would be a good choice as well, simply because, as of yet, there's no civ representing that pretty extensive region, and could offer some interesting gameplay based on a wide empire/trade focus. (I'd like to see Hudson Bay Company as a UA or UB.)

OMG... Well, first of all, suffice to say that neither Attila nor Genghis Khan were as bad as the stories portray them, and that their feats of brutality were often highly exaggerated, probably in large part by themselves.

Also, secondly, there's a large disparity between your examples of supposed "controversial" issues that are included in the game and those that aren't. Can you guess what? I'll give you a hint: All of those "controversial" issues included in the game are well over a century old, while cases such as Israel and Cuba are modern controversies. Like it or not, Firaxis has to consider the current political climate of the world of today.

 

[superliminal]

Weather or not you think controversy is important, Firaxis does, if they didnt risk including Popé because the Pueblo council found it offensive, I at least cant imagine them adding Castro and risking a response of the rather vocal cuban american community in the US. Same scenario for Tibet.

The thing is, if they want to add a latin american civ with a revolutionary leader, there are other options, no need to go for Castro.

My point was to it being somewhat frustrating that what is deemed "controversial" appears to be so arbitrary, especially if you leave off historically relevant material in order to avoid the potential for offense. The other point I was trying to make, is I don't have a clear understanding of where that offense is coming from, since inclusion in the game does not mark any sort of advocacy i.e. Genghis Khan.

 

[superliminal]

OMG... Well, first of all, suffice to say that neither Attila nor Genghis Khan were as bad as the stories portray them, and that their feats of brutality were often highly exaggerated, probably in large part by themselves.

Also, secondly, there's a large disparity between your examples of supposed "controversial" issues that are included in the game and those that aren't. Can you guess what? I'll give you a hint: All of those "controversial" issues included in the game are well over a century old, while cases such as Israel and Cuba are modern controversies. Like it or not, Firaxis has to consider the current political climate of the world of today.

I understand that. The point I was simply trying to make is that inclusion doesn't constitute advocacy. In most circles it wouldn't be a controversial statement that "Israel exists, whether you believe it's legitimate or not, and has existed for a while."

Though, on a separate note, in some circles that would be controversial, which I think is a sometimes unfortunate aspect of contemporary politics. For instance, I was fascinated by China's choice to change the title of the Tintin comic Tintin in Tibet to Tintin in Chinese Tibet. You can essentially unacknowledge Tibet out of existence. I'm not sure if catering to these attitudes are positive in either political discourse or game design, but also, I understand the market-driven necessity to do so.

 

[Godmother]

The awful truth is the majority of the people who play civ 5 couldn't care less about the historical controversy of the civs and leaders in the game. I doubt the average player will rant about the idea of an Indian civ being an anachronism on it's own, etc.. I think we also need to keep in mind that our judgement of these civs and leaders is often based on 21st century psychology and eurocentrism.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I understand that. The point I was simply trying to make is that inclusion doesn't constitute advocacy. In most circles it wouldn't be a controversial statement that "Israel exists, whether you believe it's legitimate or not, and has existed for a while."

Though, on a separate note, in some circles that would be controversial, which I think is a sometimes unfortunate aspect of contemporary politics. For instance, I was fascinated by China's choice to change the title of the Tintin comic Tintin in Tibet to Tintin in Chinese Tibet. You can essentially unacknowledge Tibet out of existence. I'm not sure if catering to these attitudes are positive in either political discourse or game design, but also, I understand the market-driven necessity to do so.

Inclusion does constitute advocacy to a certain extent. At the very least it serves as recognition (sea the sealand debacle )

The main problem i have with Israel is despite whether or not it exists there is also then a question as to whether it should exist. The conflict there is ongoing, and felt every day.

Additionally a great many people see Israel as an apartheid state. The last one of those was South Africa, which was broken in part by embargoes and boycotts on trade, sport and culture. A growing number of organisations and individuals, including Steven Hawking now are taking part in a mass intellectual boycott of Israel. There is pressure to steer clear of the issue if not to actively denounce one side or the other and face the consequences from the offended parties followers.

The awful truth is the majority of the people who play civ 5 couldn't care less about the historical controversy of the civs and leaders in the game. I doubt the average player will rant about the idea of an Indian civ being an anachronism on it's own, etc.. I think we also need to keep in mind that our judgement of these civs and leaders is often based on 21st century psychology and eurocentrism.

That's the worst excuse for poor research that there can ever be. "Most people won't care, so we didn't need to try"...

 

[ehecatzin]

My point was to it being somewhat frustrating that what is deemed "controversial" appears to be so arbitrary, especially if you leave off historically relevant material in order to avoid the potential for offense. The other point I was trying to make, is I don't have a clear understanding of where that offense is coming from, since inclusion in the game does not mark any sort of advocacy i.e. Genghis Khan.

I think Gucumatz summed up nicely why el Che Guevara would be a terrible choice. Castro is controvertial for its tense relation with the US, human rights violation in Cuba, and the waves of cuban refugees in the US and latin america (besides he is still alive, would be a first in civ). Also considering that only one latin american civ will make it (if any) choosing Cuba lead by Castro over Mexico, Argentina and Colombia (and their respective leaders) would probably disapoint most latin american players (except for the minority that worships him).

So there, as I said, adding Cuba and Castro is asking for trouble. Better question would be, why should Cuba make it to civ over other latin american candidates?

 

[PhilBowles]

I understand that. The point I was simply trying to make is that inclusion doesn't constitute advocacy. In most circles it wouldn't be a controversial statement that "Israel exists, whether you believe it's legitimate or not, and has existed for a while."

Though, on a separate note, in some circles that would be controversial, which I think is a sometimes unfortunate aspect of contemporary politics. For instance, I was fascinated by China's choice to change the title of the Tintin comic Tintin in Tibet to Tintin in Chinese Tibet. You can essentially unacknowledge Tibet out of existence. I'm not sure if catering to these attitudes are positive in either political discourse or game design, but also, I understand the market-driven necessity to do so.

That it exists, per se, may not be the issue. Civilization does have a limited number of civ slots and, as seen routinely here, that is taken as an implication of worthiness of recognition. Plenty of cultures and nations exist that aren't in Civ so why favour Israel, a state of essentially no relevance in its own right beyond its immediate region, its impacts on which (whether or not one supports Israel) have predominantly been as a destabilising influence? - beyond which the controversies of concern aren't generally controversies among unbiased observers, but rather people who would see the inclusion of an Israeli but not a Palestinian civ as an attack.

Similarly for China - Lhasa is removed from Chinese versions of the game, not because it's sensitive to suggest that it exists, but because it's sensitive to suggest that it exists as an entity separate from the in-game Chinese civilization.

Though I suspect it's not deliberate but is done for consistency with the way our database is set up, I've had Chinese consultants fill out species data for their region who refer explicitly to "Taiwan, Province of China" rather than merely the neutral descriptor "Taiwan". To a Westerner that's just the name of an island free from connotations about its political ownership; to the Chinese, I suspect, not including the qualifier is tantamount to acknowledging a separate Taiwanese state.

 

[superliminal]

Inclusion does constitute advocacy to a certain extent. At the very least it serves as recognition (sea the sealand debacle )

The main problem i have with Israel is despite whether or not it exists there is also then a question as to whether it should exist. The conflict there is ongoing, and felt every day.

Additionally a great many people see Israel as an apartheid state. The last one of those was South Africa, which was broken in part by embargoes and boycotts on trade, sport and culture. A growing number of organisations and individuals, including Steven Hawking now are taking part in a mass intellectual boycott of Israel. There is pressure to steer clear of the issue if not to actively denounce one side or the other and face the consequences from the offended parties followers.

That's the worst excuse for poor research that there can ever be. "Most people won't care, so we didn't need to try"...

I feel like you moved around my point. Including Israel as a civilization, in my opinion, constitutes a admission of its existence and relevance in the world stage, which is indisputable. The fact that some would see this as advocacy, to me, represents a counter-factual impulse that's frequently used in political discourse. Saying "There is no Israel" is a metaphor that people then extrapolate to being literal truth. Same goes for Tibet. Is acknowledging the existence of a (once) independent Tibet really that controversial? It's controversial using a peculiar brand of politics that, as one of its rhetorical tools, attempts to change or eliminate facts.

Again, I can see the economic reasons for avoiding these things, it just strikes me as a worrisome trend in contemporary discourse.

 

[otaman1]

We really need Bulgaria or Hungary, Vietnam, and Kongo

 

[loserforsale]

The general principles I'd support would be a) go for civs from areas which are not greatly represented, and b) go for civs which allow new mechanics. Even of those principles, a) is somewhat expendable. If you're that eager to play a civ, then look for a mod or find a proxy. Shoshone, if you change the city names, could be a reasonable approximation of Canada - vast amounts of land, the Pathfinder could represent the long-standing alliance between Canadians (under both French and British rule) and Native Americans against the USA, while you can pretend the Comanche Riders are Mounties. If you're more confident on that kind of thing, you could even delve into the files and change the unit names and city list.

In terms of civs which go into new areas: the new Great People and Great Works haven't been used much yet, and bonuses which can affect the World Congress are all indirect (e.g CS buffs, exploration/science buffs to make it easier to found it). I'll apologise for a very eurocentric set of suggestions - these are what I'm familiar with, and I'm quite open to alternative civs from elsewhere which fit the roll.

Great Writers: currently only relevant boost is the Assyrian Royal Library. I propose that Iceland would be a good civ for this area - the medieval Icelandic sagas are my main thought here, but even now one in ten Icelanders will write a published book and they publish more books and magazines per capita than any other nation.
Great Artist: tougher. The obvious choices would be Italy or Holland, but Holland already exists in CiV and Italy seems unlikely to appear, for better or for worse, given the existence of Rome and Venice. Currently France has a slight boost to this, but it's not much. Any lesser known civs with interesting artistic traditions?
Great Musicians: sounds like an excellent role for a reworked Germany (Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, etc). However, like Great Artists, this could be an excellent opportunity for a cultural civ from a less-known place.

World Congress: to my mind, Switzerland seems like an excellent fit for this. I'm primarily thinking of the Geneva Convention and of the International Red Cross, but the whole ethos of neutrality might also tie in.

What with Arabia, Carthage (sort of), Morocco, Portugal, and Venice, Trade routes are very well covered already (though a UU replacing either the caravan or the cargo ship might be interesting), and I would be very wary of having a UA based around ideology. Tourism is very slightly used by India now, but there might be room for a civ there. Archeology might possibly work as part of a civ, but you probably wouldn't base a civ around it.

I'd note that, currently, no UI gives faith. Might that work as part of a civ?

Finally, if we're just naming civs we like for whatever reason, then I propose the Kingdom of Kush, based around the capital of Meroe.

 

[Thuellai]

I'd love a Czech/Bohemia civ, entirely on ethnic bias.

Barring that, I agree that Sumer seems like an obvious missing option.

 

[poom3619]

Boudicca, meet True_Candyman. True_Candyman, meet a bizarre agglomerate civ loosely-based on (mostly) British Celts of the Roman period, led by an East Anglian general (who speaks modern Welsh) with a capital in a medieval Scottish city, a UA "Druidic Lore" based on a religious caste that never reached Scotland, a Pictish Warrior UU that - by contrast - is Scottish, a UB for the same ancient/classical-era civ that replaces a Renaissance building, and with a city list that also includes such inappropriate city choices as Dublin (a medieval Norse city) and Cardiff (which didn't even become a city until 1905, although an older Norman-founded castle and town existed there from the 12th Century onwards).

Well. Even though I am not hardcore history fan, I knew something is wrong when I found out Celt's capital is Edinburgh.

{...}

{...}
or Siam representing (in its leader, UA and city list) a non-Siamese society the Siamese conquered, and with consequently anachronistic Siamese uniques (one of which has to be the worst-conceived of any unique in the game, based as it is on a legend of a single king's ride into battle on an elephant). It's certainly nothing to compare with the Celtic abomination.

As a technically Siamese. I can't object most of it. I can say that most of Siam's city list is Sukhothai-based modern Thailand. I still don't think Siam's UA and AI playstyle is compatible with the history and culture (AFAIK, "Father Governs Children" is actually the legal system, not something related with CS)

I feel like you moved around my point. Including Israel as a civilization, in my opinion, constitutes a admission of its existence and relevance in the world stage, which is indisputable. The fact that some would see this as advocacy, to me, represents a counter-factual impulse that's frequently used in political discourse. Saying "There is no Israel" is a metaphor that people then extrapolate to being literal truth. Same goes for Tibet. Is acknowledging the existence of a (once) independent Tibet really that controversial? It's controversial using a peculiar brand of politics that, as one of its rhetorical tools, attempts to change or eliminate facts.

Again, I can see the economic reasons for avoiding these things, it just strikes me as a worrisome trend in contemporary discourse.

Mmm. I personally feel like including Israel as non-OCC (Venice-ish) major civ is simply... uncanny. Although if Tibet is major civ would be nice, and with CiV inclusion of City-States. There are lot of "proto-civ" that is at last represented in Civ serie which they would hardly have a chance otherwise. So IMO, There IS Israel, representing anything in stripped border of City of Jerusalem, but as Wikipedia pointed out that Jerusalem is captured and recaptured 44 times. It's up to one's interpretation that what Jerusalem is representing which also applied to any CS, anything in Civ actually.

The awful truth is the majority of the people who play civ 5 couldn't care less about the historical controversy of the civs and leaders in the game. I doubt the average player will rant about the idea of an Indian civ being an anachronism on it's own, etc.. I think we also need to keep in mind that our judgement of these civs and leaders is often based on 21st century psychology and eurocentrism.

I changed my signature exclusively for you (and anyone who overvalue their own opinion, not superliminal BTW).

 

[ParadigmPlague]

What about Emilio Zapata and Mexico?

 

[Thuellai]

What about Emilio Zapata and Mexico?

But no, really, there are some interesting possibilities. Mexico's early years were politically pretty fascinating.