Which Civ we should have before Civilization VI?

[PhilBowles]

Overlap like that makes it impossible for Mali and the Songhai to coexist in one game. Same with Phoenician and Carthaginians. So much is obvious. I wonder whether they could implement Khmer or Vietnam next to Siam. Perhaps they could, but I'm not well-versed enough in their history and possible overlap of their city names.

They actually seem to have left some scope for including Mali by using invented spellings for several major cities (at least Djenne and Timbuktu) that would have to be in the Malian city list, so these cities could both conceivably be added to a Malian civ with their conventional spellings. And as the two societies did briefly co-exist, there's certainly scope for taking the Malian city list predominantly from cities that were in parts of the Malian empire during that period.

There's no overlap at all with Siamese city names and those of the Khmer or Vietnam. All but two of the Siamese cities are in modern Thailand, mostly northern Thailand, and the two exceptions are from Laos. The list also scrupulously avoids Khmer sites in Thailand, such places as Phanom Rung, Phimai or Preah Vihear in northern Thailand alone (although that last may be partly because it would incite controversy in its own right), as well as Peninsular Thailand Khmer sites such as Lopburi (as the Siamese city list almost wholly avoids Peninsular Thailand).

EDIT: Rechecking, actually Lopburi (as Lap Buri) is in the Siamese city list, however it's hardly critical to the Khmer list and in any case could be included under the spelling Lopburi (or, as in Civ IV, as Lavo). There is also a third non-Thai city, but that's in Myanmar. Checking the Civ IV city list, the only shared city between Civ IV Khmer and Civ V Siam (discounting cities with different names that represent the same place) is Sukothai itself. The Civ IV list needs quite a few changes to remove temples in Angkor Thom (already represented as a city in its own right, making separate cities for temples within the complex bizarre) and the removal of Angkor Thom itself (it's a duplicate name for Yasodharapura, the Civ IV Khmer capital), but there's no shortage of possibilities. None of the members of the Rolous Group is in the Civ IV list, for instance. Other temples such as Ta Keo (just outside Angkor Thom) are possibilities (although Ta Keo itself was never actually used, not having been completed when the king who commissioned it died). There is some overlap in cities between the Civ IV Khmer list and Vietnam (for instance Saigon is in the Khmer city list), but again not under the same names a Vietnamese civ would use.

Vietnam has as much overlap with Thailand as Scotland does with France. Culturally Vietnam's also the oddball in SE Asia, being the only SE Asian culture not influenced by India, and instead being influenced by China, so I don't think there's much overlap when it comes to Vietnam and the rest of SE Asia.

I don't think it's particularly informative to keep making this point. For all the Indian influence, Thailand and Cambodia diverged from Indian culture a very long time ago (as far as Cambodian origin myths would have it, at least a millennium), and having lived in both today they are very different even from one another. A visit to somewhere like Ayutthaya, where Thai architecture is found alongside both surviving and imitation Khmer structures, is sufficient to indicate just how divergent their monumental traditions are. Both countries today are almost wholly Buddhist in common with Vietnam, as was the Khmer empire during its greatest period of expansion and monument construction (although postdating the most famous monument of all), while India remains predominantly Hindu. The Southeast Asian cultures are highly distinct from one another and it does them a disservice to lump them together as either "Indian" or "Chinese" as though their defining cultural feature is whether they use forks or chopsticks. While I never visited, I strongly suspect it's an equal disservice to Vietnam to portray its major distinguishing accomplishment relative to the rest of the region as not being Indian.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I don't think it's particularly informative to keep making this point. For all the Indian influence, Thailand and Cambodia diverged from Indian culture a very long time ago (as far as Cambodian origin myths would have it, at least a millennium), and having lived in both today they are very different even from one another. A visit to somewhere like Ayutthaya, where Thai architecture is found alongside both surviving and imitation Khmer structures, is sufficient to indicate just how divergent their monumental traditions are. Both countries today are almost wholly Buddhist in common with Vietnam, as was the Khmer empire during its greatest period of expansion and monument construction (although postdating the most famous monument of all), while India remains predominantly Hindu. The Southeast Asian cultures are highly distinct from one another and it does them a disservice to lump them together as either "Indian" or "Chinese" as though their defining cultural feature is whether they use forks or chopsticks. While I never visited, I strongly suspect it's an equal disservice to Vietnam to portray its major distinguishing accomplishment relative to the rest of the region as not being Indian.

I make this point to counter the assumption that Vietnam is the same as the rest of SE Asia - in fact, none of the SE Asian cultures are the same as each other.

However, the fact that Vietnam was Sinicized instead of Indianized is important, and profoundly so for Vietnam's history. I did not say that Thailand/Cambodia are exactly like India, or that Vietnam is exactly China - they were, however, heavily influenced by their respective influences. Vietnam is the only mainly Mahayana Buddhist country in SE Asia, much of it due to Chinese influence - the rest of SE Asia is Theravada, and historically was also mostly Hindu (such as in Indonesia and in the Khmer Empire - it was really only until Jayavarman VII that Buddhism began to get a hold of in the Khmer Empire). Additionally, while their architectural styles are, again, not the same as Indian (anyone can see that), the architectural style from Cambodia and Thailand was profoundly influenced by that of India and reflected common Indian motifs and ideas. Many Khmer temples were built to emulate Indian ideals of heaven and so forth. The same was with Vietnam and China - Vietnamese architecture of course is not the same as the Chinese, but it drew heavy influence from China; for instance, the palace complex of the Nguyen Dynasty was kind of ripped off from the Forbidden Palace, to put it bluntly.

The legends and myths of much of Southeast Asia draws heavy influence from India; the stories of Rama, for instance, are still extremely popular in Indonesian puppet theatre even though the country is mostly Muslim now. Vietnam, in contrast, draws more influence from China; there is a similar current between Vietnamese and Chinese legendary history with a long line of dynasty Emperors, and many Vietnamese stories draw from Chinese influence - the Tale of Kieu, considered the literary magnum opus of Vietnam, was based off a plot from a Chinese story.

And so on.

Again, I think you're making the mistake of misinterpreting when I say India heavily influenced most of Southeast Asia and China influenced Vietnam as India=Southeast Asia and China=Vietnam. I never said that. I just want to emphasize the point, for those who assume or claim that Vietnam=Thailand=Cambodia=Indonesia, etc., that each of those countries have their own uniqueness, and Vietnam's uniqueness stems mostly from the fact that it was in the Chinese cultural and political sphere. Plus, I'm Vietnamese, why would I do disservice for Vietnam by saying we're just another part of China?

 

[ulfulf]

I'd like to see "the vikings" or "the Norse" reintroduced! The problem is offcourse that they've oddly enough chosen denmark as representative for that culture - so that civ would either have to be changed or removed to make room for the norse.

I suppose denmark could have UA, UI/UB representing something more particular danish, perhaps from themed after denmark in late middle ages or the renaissance and onwards?

My main point however is that they are a very poor represenative for the vikings, actually any of the current scandinavian nations would be. The viking age was before any real (nation)state in scandinavia had emerged, and thus can't really be tied to either of them alone. The classic classification of the viking age, begins and ends with raids from warlords that originated from todays norway (it may be a poor classification, though).

But more importantly the historical events that really made a mark for the vikings arent really well represented by denmark, in my humble opinion. The rus, and their heritage in the russian ruling class for the longest time are most likely warlords from what is todays sweden. The written norse culture is largely found in icelandic sources. The great discoveries in the west (iceland, greenland and north america) is based out of norway and iceland, and in the east from sweden. The ties to normandie, from rollo to william the conquerer is also probably from norway. The exploits on (Miklagarðr) Constantinople, and later the elite forces employed by the emperor there (the Varangian Guard), also mostly norwegian and swedes if we were to use todays terms.

The denmark unit norwegain ski inf. also seems like a very strange choice. Sure its based on an historical unit - but the unit can't be said to have had a huge inpact on history.

Give me The Norse please

 

[kingofsealand]

I am afraid you don't understand what "Euro-Centric" means or the context I have been using it in. If we were to get an expansion, we will get European civs - even though the most worthy European civs have been pretty much all included. This fact means that even though pretty much everyone categorically agrees that Europe's best and a good representation of middle-tier civs have been included means that we will see European civs that are fairly insignificant compared to civs we can find elsewhere in the world.

Using the term Euro-Centric isn't a keyword for "Anti-White" - welcome to the world
----------

There are dozens of civs with historical records, archaeological records, etc. that held massive empires, confederacies, etc. that will never ever come close to getting included or if they do they will come at a sacrifice to other civs.

Examples: Including Siam meant we didn't get to see powerful empires and civs like the Khmer, Burma, Vietnam, the Champa, etc. That's just southeast Asia:

Then ie we get a civ like the Huns primarily because of European focus when we could have gotten civs like: the Khazars, Timurids, Tibet (although unfortunately they won't get in because of Chinese biases)

That's just central Asia and Southeastern Asia - Don't get people started on Africa or the Americas where countless Empires are completely neglected.

Now you may not like, but even a civ like Romania/Hungary in Europe would be preferable because at least they had more influence in their regions than either Canada or Australia. Including Canada or Australia who have little to merit their inclusion except for Euro-Centric bias, is the definition of Euro-Centrism, whether you like it or not. And just because you dislike someone's opinion, it doesn't mean you ought to go playing race cards - especially if you don't understand the crux of what someone's talking about

The above only further demonstrates your ignorance. I never said i liked canada or australia as an idea and actually proposed other slavic/baltic nations earlier in the thread but you obviously arent here for proposing good ideas. I say i want european civs. You come back and say they are "over-represented" and the designers are being euro-centric. On the other hand you could say you want south american civs. I could come back and say THEY are over-represented what with brazil the maya the inca and the aztecs. From either side it is going to look like racism, plain and simple. You could have said, I would like to see more civs from this continent. Instead you said "there are too many civs from this continent and theyre depriving me of "WORTHY" civs" What exactly makes any of the civs you listed more worthy than the various european powers? You give no justification for your opinion other than that the empires contributions were somehow greater in nature. Can you really compare them? If one society invents writing while another invents song are the two comparable to the point of this one is better than the other? I dont think so. The manner in which you approached this topic is the problem i have with your posting, you repeatedly posted multiple rants using the term euro-centric in the same thread obviously trying to get a response from someone so here it is. Im not even from europe im american but my ancestors definitely were and I have a problem with you saying our culture is somehow drowning you. You are a racist, using the term euro-centric in the fashion you used it is racist and dont try to say otherwise. Youre suggesting that the developers are pandering to europeans specifically by trying to include canada and australia. That doesn't even make sense! If im from sweden why do i care if canada is in the game? I agree canada and australia are poor choices but that doesnt make the entirety of europe a poor choice or justify your comments.

 

[SnowKomodo]

I make this point to counter the assumption that Vietnam is the same as the rest of SE Asia - in fact, none of the SE Asian cultures are the same as each other.

However, the fact that Vietnam was Sinicized instead of Indianized is important, and profoundly so for Vietnam's history. I did not say that Thailand/Cambodia are exactly like India, or that Vietnam is exactly China - they were, however, heavily influenced by their respective influences. Vietnam is the only mainly Mahayana Buddhist country in SE Asia, much of it due to Chinese influence - the rest of SE Asia is Theravada, and historically was also mostly Hindu (such as in Indonesia and in the Khmer Empire - it was really only until Jayavarman VII that Buddhism began to get a hold of in the Khmer Empire). Additionally, while their architectural styles are, again, not the same as Indian (anyone can see that), the architectural style from Cambodia and Thailand was profoundly influenced by that of India and reflected common Indian motifs and ideas. Many Khmer temples were built to emulate Indian ideals of heaven and so forth. The same was with Vietnam and China - Vietnamese architecture of course is not the same as the Chinese, but it drew heavy influence from China; for instance, the palace complex of the Nguyen Dynasty was kind of ripped off from the Forbidden Palace, to put it bluntly.

The legends and myths of much of Southeast Asia draws heavy influence from India; the stories of Rama, for instance, are still extremely popular in Indonesian puppet theatre even though the country is mostly Muslim now. Vietnam, in contrast, draws more influence from China; there is a similar current between Vietnamese and Chinese legendary history with a long line of dynasty Emperors, and many Vietnamese stories draw from Chinese influence - the Tale of Kieu, considered the literary magnum opus of Vietnam, was based off a plot from a Chinese story.

And so on.

Again, I think you're making the mistake of misinterpreting when I say India heavily influenced most of Southeast Asia and China influenced Vietnam as India=Southeast Asia and China=Vietnam. I never said that. I just want to emphasize the point, for those who assume or claim that Vietnam=Thailand=Cambodia=Indonesia, etc., that each of those countries have their own uniqueness, and Vietnam's uniqueness stems mostly from the fact that it was in the Chinese cultural and political sphere. Plus, I'm Vietnamese, why would I do disservice for Vietnam by saying we're just another part of China?

Everything you said is true, but it's also important to remember Southeast Asia is its own pillar despite the borders.

You have five Asian giants:

1. China
2. India
3. Japan
4. Korea
5. Southeast Asia (which currently, modern day, is spearheaded by Indonesia - the nation USA deems most important in balancing China and India, but they also rely heavily on ASEAN and thus the entirety of Southeast Asia as well)

I think it's hard for people to understand that concept because Southeast Asia isn't a name of a country like the other four, which is why I think that is partly why SEA gets neglected and ignored a lot, and why even here on CivFanatics you have history buffs that still undermine the region and its historic influences and interactions with Arabia, Europe, etc

 

[SnowKomodo]

^In other words, yes, the countries are distinct from one other but they all share a common bond that unites them as a region in a very significant way.

Think of it this way: Indonesia's islands are INCREDIBLY different from each other, yet Indonesia is a united archipelago. Southeast Asia is very similar. They are all rising economies and together as ASEAN they form their own political and regional entity - almost "entity of pride" even. But this entity did not just come out of nowhere. It evolved slowly and surely throughout history, throughout the ancient empires, then slowly forming throughout the medieval empires, and modern day really catapulting itself into the light. It is different than the EU in many ways in that it is more tangible

Whether or not that bond lasts is a different story but at least today it is crucial to Asia's landscape and the balancing act between the "five pillars"

 

[cybrxkhan]

Everything you said is true, but it's also important to remember Southeast Asia is its own pillar despite the borders.

You have five Asian giants:

1. China
2. India
3. Japan
4. Korea
5. Southeast Asia (which currently, modern day, is spearheaded by Indonesia - the nation USA deems most important in balancing China and India, but they also rely heavily on ASEAN and thus the entirety of Southeast Asia as well)

I think it's hard for people to understand that concept because Southeast Asia isn't a name of a country like the other four, which is why I think that is partly why SEA gets neglected and ignored a lot, and why even here on CivFanatics you have history buffs that still undermine the region and its historic influences and interactions with Arabia, Europe, etc

^In other words, yes, the countries are distinct from one other but they all share a common bond that unites them as a region in a very significant way.

Think of it this way: Indonesia's islands are INCREDIBLY different from each other, yet Indonesia is a united archipelago. Southeast Asia is very similar. They are all rising economies and together as ASEAN they form their own political and regional entity - almost "entity of pride" even. But this entity did not just come out of nowhere. It evolved slowly and surely throughout history, throughout the ancient empires, then slowly forming throughout the medieval empires, and modern day really catapulting itself into the light. It is different than the EU in many ways in that it is more tangible

Whether or not that bond lasts is a different story but at least today it is crucial to Asia's landscape and the balancing act between the "five pillars"

Of course, I agree that Southeast Asia can be considered it's own thing, but my point wasn't so much that Southeast Asia=India or Vietnam=China (which PhilBowles appears to be implying, even if he doesn't mean that), it's that Southeast Asia has had profound cultural and economic influence from India and Vietnam from China (also political in the case of Vietnam). Sort of like, say, how Russia is profoundly influenced by the Byzantines, or Latin America has been profoundly influenced by Spain and Portugal, but no one would say Russia=Greece or Argentina=Spain obviously.

EDIT: What each SE Asian culture did, of course, was take profound influence from either India or China, and then recreate it, contextualize it, in their own local cultures. The traditional dominance of women in Southeast Asian culture, for instance, is pretty standard throughout many Southeast Asian cultures, but in the case of Vietnam, for instance, it resulted in an interesting confrontation and interaction with Chinese-based Confucianism. The result of this conflict and interaction can be seen in the Tale of Kieu, where the eponymous heroine acts rather strong (much stronger than hardline Confucians would be comfortable with) in a clearly Southeast Asian tradition, yet still attempts to adhere to Confucian codes of morality. That's what I'm talking about when I say China profoundly infulenced Vietnam. I'm not saying Vietnam became China, I'm saying Vietnam took in a lot of things from China and produced their own spin on it, similar to how many Southeast Asian cultures took things from India and put their own spin on it, so to speak.

 

[ACivFan]

Everything you said is true, but it's also important to remember Southeast Asia is its own pillar despite the borders.

You have five Asian giants:

1. China
2. India
3. Japan
4. Korea
5. Southeast Asia (which currently, modern day, is spearheaded by Indonesia - the nation USA deems most important in balancing China and India, but they also rely heavily on ASEAN and thus the entirety of Southeast Asia as well)

I think it's hard for people to understand that concept because Southeast Asia isn't a name of a country like the other four, which is why I think that is partly why SEA gets neglected and ignored a lot, and why even here on CivFanatics you have history buffs that still undermine the region and its historic influences and interactions with Arabia, Europe, etc

I don't disagree with your message, but I don't really sit well with the way you list "the five asian giants". This is the very thought that has been limiting SEA from being amply represented in the game.

Hey, there's China; 1 ticket to China. There are also Japan, India, and Korea; ok, 1 ticket to each. Oh, btw there's also Southeast Asia; ok, 1 ticket to SEA. And that's why it takes five iterations of the game to finally have two SEA civs represented simultaneously.

SEA is home to 10 different countries (11 now); each deserves to have its name mentioned.

Btw, I don't think SEA can currently be treated as a single political and economical entity. At least not until the Thais, Khmers, and Viets sort out their beef, the same applied for the bickering between Indonesians, Malaysians, and Filipinos.

 

[SnowKomodo]

I don't disagree with your message, but I don't really sit well with the way you list "the five asian giants". This is the very thought that has been limiting SEA from being amply represented in the game.

Hey, there's China; 1 ticket to China. There are also Japan, India, and Korea; ok, 1 ticket to each. Oh, btw there's also Southeast Asia; ok, 1 ticket to SEA. And that's why it takes five iterations of the game to finally have two SEA civs represented simultaneously.

SEA is home to 10 different countries (11 now); each deserves to have its name mentioned.

Btw, I don't think SEA can currently be treated as a single political and economical entity. At least not until the Thais, Khmers, and Viets sort out their beef, the same applied for the bickering between Indonesians, Malaysians, and Filipinos.

There is bickering, but at a very superficial scale (at least among the Indonesians, Malaysians, Filipinos - as much as these three countries bicker, there is actually a very strong bond. We are like brothers and sisters). When it comes down to it Southeast Asia is very much a single entity. That much is clear to me from my time working in Jakarta, and traveling between Singapore and a little bit of Thailand. There has always been a strong level of diplomacy in and around the region dating back to the old empires. That set up the platform for modern day ASEAN, hence the development into its own pillar. A pillar that the United States is trying their hardest (or say they claim) to take advantage of in order to establish a foothold in Asia. The purpose? Beyond of course friendly relations, they do it in order to balance the rising Indian and Chinese giants. (If there is a threat in the divide, I would say it's ASEAN's inability to take decisive actions. But at least in principle there is a shared unity that allows us to look at the entire region as one economy)

Southeast Asia is simultaneously an Asian pillar as well as a group of many different countries each of whom have carved out its own legacy on the international stage. Calling it a pillar is not undermining the individual countries. It's like the Indonesia example I gave before - many different islands under one name.

 

[SnowKomodo]

This conversation has made me realize just how complicated the dynamics of Southeast Asia are.

When you think about it you can't really blame the average Westerner for neglecting the region. It's not exactly the most straightforward of histories. To understand the area is to devote hours of reading as the levels of pluralism are truly unmatched.

I guess the Mediterranean is the closest example, but even there the divides are much more clear cut. I wonder why that is - stronger tradition of the written history perhaps?

 

[NukeAJS]

It's time for Canada. They are culturally unique enough to be a stand-alone. They have a world wonder, and several CSs already in the game. They have an interestingly unique place in world diplomacy -- basically being genuinely peaceful while also backing the most militaristic Civ in current times.

Also, some people have said they want to see a civ that does something with tundra tiles. Most of the time, people talk of the Inuit. Canada would be a logical second alternative for some kind of tundra-specialization.

 

[fuzzatron717]

It's time for Canada. They are culturally unique enough to be a stand-alone. They have a world wonder, and several CSs already in the game. They have an interestingly unique place in world diplomacy -- basically being genuinely peaceful while also backing the most militaristic Civ in current times.

Also, some people have said they want to see a civ that does something with tundra tiles. Most of the time, people talk of the Inuit. Canada would be a logical second alternative for some kind of tundra-specialization.

You think my idea in my signature would suit a Canada civ?

 

[Liufeng]

I'd like to see "the vikings" or "the Norse" reintroduced! The problem is offcourse that they've oddly enough chosen denmark as representative for that culture - so that civ would either have to be changed or removed to make room for the norse.

I suppose denmark could have UA, UI/UB representing something more particular danish, perhaps from themed after denmark in late middle ages or the renaissance and onwards?

My main point however is that they are a very poor represenative for the vikings, actually any of the current scandinavian nations would be. The viking age was before any real (nation)state in scandinavia had emerged, and thus can't really be tied to either of them alone. The classic classification of the viking age, begins and ends with raids from warlords that originated from todays norway (it may be a poor classification, though).

But more importantly the historical events that really made a mark for the vikings arent really well represented by denmark, in my humble opinion. The rus, and their heritage in the russian ruling class for the longest time are most likely warlords from what is todays sweden. The written norse culture is largely found in icelandic sources. The great discoveries in the west (iceland, greenland and north america) is based out of norway and iceland, and in the east from sweden. The ties to normandie, from rollo to william the conquerer is also probably from norway. The exploits on (Miklagarðr) Constantinople, and later the elite forces employed by the emperor there (the Varangian Guard), also mostly norwegian and swedes if we were to use todays terms.

The denmark unit norwegain ski inf. also seems like a very strange choice. Sure its based on an historical unit - but the unit can't be said to have had a huge inpact on history.

Give me The Norse please

Actually, I'm glad Vikings are represented by Denmark. In fact, I'm happy they took out such broad concept as "Viking civilization". Adding Vikings makes as muh sense as adding the Celts : a vast non-united group with cultural similarities. With Denmark, not only you can focus on "what kind Vikings we're talking about", but also, Harald and his father Gorm the old, and latter's legendary father, Harthacnut, really were kings of the called Denmark, they called it Denmark in their days, and were Vikings (Perhaps Harald was little less as he forced christianism to his kingdom).

All that to say that I pretty much agree that Denmark, with its UA, UUs problems aside, should remain the Viking civ.

 

[poom3619]

This conversation has made me realize just how complicated the dynamics of Southeast Asia are.

When you think about it you can't really blame the average Westerner for neglecting the region. It's not exactly the most straightforward of histories. To understand the area is to devote hours of reading as the levels of pluralism are truly unmatched.

I guess the Mediterranean is the closest example, but even there the divides are much more clear cut. I wonder why that is - stronger tradition of the written history perhaps?

It's would help if Southeast Asian nations aren't happen to locate on tropical rainforest where it's very hard to preserve most kind of paper for hundreds of years.

It's time for Canada. {...}

NO.

 

[regalman]

mughal empire, they already have 2 WONDERS in civ!

 

[BackseatTyrant]

Split India. Having it as one civ makes about as much sense as having Europe as one civ.

Oh, and to those demand "The Vikings", *SLAP*. 'Viking' is a verb! Not a civilization!

 

[IkM]

mughal empire, they already have 2 WONDERS in civ!

Yes, Mughal must be in game. not sure if they add them to Civ V but I hope for Civ VI.

 

[o.pwuaioc]

I would pay double what I paid for BNW (which was full price!) if Firaxis put out an Ancient Mediterranean expansion. Definitely needs more ancient.

(Voted for Hittites, but also would have voted for Sumerians and other ancient civilizations of the Mediterranean and old world in general).

 

[PhilBowles]

I make this point to counter the assumption that Vietnam is the same as the rest of SE Asia - in fact, none of the SE Asian cultures are the same as each other.

However, the fact that Vietnam was Sinicized instead of Indianized is important, and profoundly so for Vietnam's history. I did not say that Thailand/Cambodia are exactly like India, or that Vietnam is exactly China - they were, however, heavily influenced by their respective influences. Vietnam is the only mainly Mahayana Buddhist country in SE Asia, much of it due to Chinese influence - the rest of SE Asia is Theravada, and historically was also mostly Hindu (such as in Indonesia and in the Khmer Empire - it was really only until Jayavarman VII that Buddhism began to get a hold of in the Khmer Empire).

This is true, but Jaryavarman VII was hardly a minor figure - while he marked the end of the Khmer golden age, he also marked its greatest extent and its greatest period of monument-building.

Additionally, while their architectural styles are, again, not the same as Indian (anyone can see that), the architectural style from Cambodia and Thailand was profoundly influenced by that of India and reflected common Indian motifs and ideas. Many Khmer temples were built to emulate Indian ideals of heaven and so forth.

That's a Hindu mythological arrangement - a consequence of sharing that religion rather than following Indian styles (I don't know whether Indian temples do follow the Mt Meru layout). The Champa site Myson in northern Vietnam is architecturally close to contemporary Khmer architecture, and if Wikipedia is to be believed Champa was also predominantly Hindu until the 15th Century.

The legends and myths of much of Southeast Asia draws heavy influence from India; the stories of Rama, for instance, are still extremely popular in Indonesian puppet theatre even though the country is mostly Muslim now. Vietnam, in contrast, draws more influence from China; there is a similar current between Vietnamese and Chinese legendary history with a long line of dynasty Emperors, and many Vietnamese stories draw from Chinese influence - the Tale of Kieu, considered the literary magnum opus of Vietnam, was based off a plot from a Chinese story.

True, Rama is ubiquitous in Cambodia as well, and in oft-copied palace murals in Bangkok despite the latter dating well into the Buddhist era. The new Bangkok airport even has a sculpture of another Hindu myth - the Churning of the Sea of Milk - as a prominent centrepiece. But differences in mythological traditions are not something that can well be represented in a Civ game, so these particular influences are an interesting aside when arguing for Vietnam in the game.

Again, I think you're making the mistake of misinterpreting when I say India heavily influenced most of Southeast Asia and China influenced Vietnam as India=Southeast Asia and China=Vietnam. I never said that. I just want to emphasize the point, for those who assume or claim that Vietnam=Thailand=Cambodia=Indonesia, etc., that each of those countries have their own uniqueness, and Vietnam's uniqueness stems mostly from the fact that it was in the Chinese cultural and political sphere.

I think that the bolded part is more relevant than the latter to the discussion than the latter.

I'd like to see "the vikings" or "the Norse" reintroduced! The problem is offcourse that they've oddly enough chosen denmark as representative for that culture - so that civ would either have to be changed or removed to make room for the norse.

I suppose denmark could have UA, UI/UB representing something more particular danish, perhaps from themed after denmark in late middle ages or the renaissance and onwards?

That would defeat the point since Denmark was specifically chosen to represent the Vikings. I agree with others that this was a better move, and "The Norse" and "The Vikings" are not really synonymous for reasons you ably point out below - the Rus were Norse, but not Viking, ditto Rollo and his Normans. From what people want and expect a Viking civ to represent, Denmark makes a lot of sense and especially from an essentially Anglocentric viewpoint where it was the Danes who were of most relevance as Viking raiders, the source of the Great Army that briefly invaded Britain, and also the culture that occupied much of the north of the country for a couple of centuries. British history considers that the "Viking Age" began with the 793 raid on Lindisfarne, described as having been the work of the Danes (although quite possibly nobody knows). Rightly or wrongly, the Danes are seen as the quintessential Vikings while the Swedes were Byzantine mercenaries and ultimately the founders of Russia, and the Norwegians colonists who founded Iceland, Normandy and settlements in Ireland.

My main point however is that they are a very poor represenative for the vikings, actually any of the current scandinavian nations would be. The viking age was before any real (nation)state in scandinavia had emerged, and thus can't really be tied to either of them alone.

As another poster pointed out, kings of Denmark did exist for much of the Viking age - kings of Norway too although I believe their dynasty started later.

But more importantly the historical events that really made a mark for the vikings arent really well represented by denmark, in my humble opinion. The rus, and their heritage in the russian ruling class for the longest time are most likely warlords from what is todays sweden. The written norse culture is largely found in icelandic sources. The great discoveries in the west (iceland, greenland and north america) is based out of norway and iceland, and in the east from sweden. The ties to normandie, from rollo to william the conquerer is also probably from norway. The exploits on (Miklagarðr) Constantinople, and later the elite forces employed by the emperor there (the Varangian Guard), also mostly norwegian and swedes if we were to use todays terms.

Again rightly or wrongly, Vikings aren't in the game because of their admittedly impressive list of historical accomplishments, they're in the game because of their popular image as, well, Vikings, and Denmark is a better representative of that than Sweden and arguably than Norway. All the above can be seen as Norse achievements, but not Viking ones (the word a-viking itself means to go raiding; Vikings were essentially a warrior caste rather than a society in their own right).

The denmark unit norwegain ski inf. also seems like a very strange choice. Sure its based on an historical unit - but the unit can't be said to have had a huge inpact on history.

Just being based on a historical unit puts it ahead of several others in the game...

There is bickering, but at a very superficial scale (at least among the Indonesians, Malaysians, Filipinos - as much as these three countries bicker, there is actually a very strong bond. We are like brothers and sisters).

All of those countries are ethnically Malay, and while under the control of different European powers they do have similar colonial histories. The situation is somewhat complex in Indochina, although being less familiar with local rivalries in the Malay Archipelago I'm not sure I can compare them - the Khmer in particular strongly dislike the Vietnamese, and are not particular fans of the Thais. These are also territories with long-held grudges over historical conquests dating back a very long time, as these countries have existed as discrete entities with more or less recognisable borders for a lot longer than Malaysia and I believe than the Philippines (which as far as I know is a fully colonial construct as a single political entity).

Southeast Asia is simultaneously an Asian pillar as well as a group of many different countries each of whom have carved out its own legacy on the international stage. Calling it a pillar is not undermining the individual countries. It's like the Indonesia example I gave before - many different islands under one name.

The question is, would you include Java and Borneo as separate civs? The argument here - I think justifiably - is that the SE Asian civs are sufficiently distinct to merit individual treatment (and I contend that that's the case regardless of the larger country from which they draw historical influences).

 

[Newfarian]

Everything you said is true, but it's also important to remember Southeast Asia is its own pillar despite the borders.

You have five Asian giants:

1. China
2. India
3. Japan
4. Korea
5. Southeast Asia (which currently, modern day, is spearheaded by Indonesia - the nation USA deems most important in balancing China and India, but they also rely heavily on ASEAN and thus the entirety of Southeast Asia as well)

There is very little justification for such an assessment (whether in terms of economics, culture, history, population, or anything else that I can divine), and furthermore it does a disservice to the countries of SEA by diminishing their individual uniqueness, thereby reducing the likelihood of their inclusion--on their own merits--in any future expansion or CVI. I have been to Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia, and they are incredibly different. In fact, each of the islands of Indonesia alone are distinctive in their language(s), culture(s), history(ies), cuisine(s), ethnic group(s), climate(s), fauna & flora, etc.

Indeed, though an American, I have lived in both SEA (7.5 years) and Europe (4.5 years), and the best analogy for those unfamiliar with SEA is to compare its countries to the members of the EU (although admittedly, SEA has much looser political and economic bonds). There can be no doubt that Germany is not France, and Spain is not Portugal. In the same way, Vietnam is not Cambodia, and Malaysia is not Indonesia.
(There are parallels in the examples I chose.)

But uniqueness alone won't grant the nations of SEA an entry into the Civ universe. Ultimately, as a community of Civ fan(atic)s, we should discuss how the attributes of each nation can be translated into interesting and fun mechanics in-game, and hope that the Civ developers will pick up our ideas.