Which Polynesian civ?

[Zaarin]

Hey! Austronesians don't look alike! Gitarja lacks Moana's beautiful hair.

Yeah, we're looking at Moana twenty or thirty years later.

 

[Greywulf]

Hey! Austronesians don't look alike! Gitarja lacks Moana's beautiful hair.

I just thought, what about Melanesians? They've never been represented in the game before...

Yeah, we're looking at Moana twenty or thirty years later.

I dono...her eyes are too close together.

 

[Zaarin]

I dono...her eyes are too close together.

Not when you take into account that Civ6's art style makes her head narrower.

 

[Greywulf]

Not when you take into account that Civ6's art style makes her head narrower.

True true. Now we just need to figure out how Moana managed to become the Queen of Indonesia...

 

[Uberfrog]

I think the most interesting thing about a Polynesian civ, from a gameplay perspective, would be the ability to settle small islands, so that would absolutely need to be a feature of any civ they included - which probably steers them away from the Maori in particular. Hawai'i or Tonga would be my picks.

 

[Patine]

I don't see Rapa Nui on that poll list. The Moa'i statues are downright awesome - and very iconic and recognizable as an image, even to people who have no idea where in the world thy actually are. And, don't forget the old Rongorongo language whose name is one of the most commonly used examples of a "mysterious, lost language." Plus, Rapa Nui successfully prevented a Tongan invasion with a successful bluff...

 

[Krajzen]

Maori, they have decent size, documentation, potential, depth, advancement. Oceania in general has, and always had incredibly small population for obvious reasons. I have read about Tonga and Hawaii and was rather unimpressed, I mean its not that hard to be "major states in history of Oceania" if Oceania is so awful to civ building they are almost only states that ever existed here before 20th century.

I never was fan of featuring too many indigenous tribes and prefer stricter criterias of civilization, I basically only expect like 3 civs in total to represent tribal Americas and Oceania.

 

[Patine]

Maori, they have decent size, documentation, potential, depth, advancement. Oceania in general has, and always had incredibly small population for obvious reasons. I have read about Tonga and Hawaii and was rather unimpressed, I mean its not that hard to be "major states in history of Oceania" if Oceania is so awful to civ building they are almost only states that ever existed here before 20th century.

I never was fan of featuring too many indigenous tribes and prefer stricter criterias of civilization, I basically only expect like 3 civs in total to represent tribal Americas and Oceania.

Which three would you limit it to, if I may ask?

 

[Guandao]

I just thought, what about Melanesians? They've never been represented in the game before...



I dono...her eyes are too close together.

Does Fiji count as a Melanesian Civ?
I've had enormous trouble in locating historical Papuan leaders. It's understandable given how divided linguistically they were. Contact with Westerners were pretty infrequent until the 20th century.

 

[conorbebe]

I'm not against just calling them "Polynesia", and part of me is more supportive of doing that instead. I just wanted to explore other possibilities, and I do like the idea of specific Polynesian kingdoms as well...Guess I'm a little torn on this. It's more inclusive of all of the Polynesians to just keep the blob name, and fits especially well with the wayfinding ability, and most importantly, it allows the devs to grab parts of all of Polynesia ~ Hawaiian leader, Maori UU, Rapa Nui UI...How cool was that! If we just had one culture, we couldn't do that, and we might not get the Moai statues at all (the Rapa Nui are not very likely to be included otherwise), or we might not get Maori warriors who dance the Haka, or we might not have a cool and recognizable Hawaiian leader...I think that choosing just one culture within Polynesia would mean we would sacrifice something that we may want in the civ. The alternative is impossible: We are most likely not going to get more than just one Polynesian civ.

You make good points, and I'm sure that's exactly what Firaxis were thinking when they added Polynesia in Civ V, but for me it's immersion breaking. Yes, all Polynesian cultures employed wayfinding navigation and originated from the same region, but you could make a similar argument about North American tribes, or no doubt countless other cultures that I'm not even aware of. But just because a region contains common ancestors doesn't mean it is united in government, history, practices or beliefs. To me it's exactly the same as having a Native American civilisation, but we don't think that's acceptable, so why make the exception here?

Hawaii could be lead by the highly-recognisable Kamehameha I, and Law of the Splintered Paddle could be his LA. Wayfinding could be their UA, outrigger/war canoes could be their UU, and fish ponds could be their UI.
The Māori could be lead by countless influential chiefs such as Hongi Hika, Te Rauparaha, or Te Wherowhero. Kaitiakitanga could be their UA, Māori/Taiaha warriors could be their UU, and the Pā could be their UD.
And if you miss having Moai in the game, add them as a suzerain bonus to a Hanga Roa city-state, just like how Colossal Heads are for La Venta.

 

[Guandao]

But Polynesians all speak/or at least spoke related languages (in the Austronesian language family), as opposed to the Native Americans of North America who once spoke languages from many families, in addition to language isolates.

 

[Patine]

But Polynesians all speak/or at least spoke related languages (in the Austronesian language family), as opposed to the Native Americans of North America who once spoke languages from many families, in addition to language isolates.

But, to play the Devil's Advocate (as I'm not in support of a unified Native American civ, but I don't necessarily support a unified Polynesian one, either), how do you know how different Native Americans' languages had yet diverged from each other in the so-called "Paleo-Indian Period" (a term already being acknowledged among archaeologists and paleoanthropologists as anachronistic, but which hasn't officially reached consensus on renaming)?

 

[Guandao]

But, to play the Devil's Advocate (as I'm not in support of a unified Native American civ, but I don't necessarily support a unified Polynesian one, either), how do you know how different Native Americans' languages had yet diverged from each other in the so-called "Paleo-Indian Period" (a term already being acknowledged among archaeologists and paleoanthropologists as anachronistic, but which hasn't officially reached consensus on renaming)?

We don't know, but I dislike Greenberg's Amerind hypothesis, so there's that.
If the Native American language families were related in the distant past, it's almost impossible to prove today.

 

[Zaarin]

But, to play the Devil's Advocate (as I'm not in support of a unified Native American civ, but I don't necessarily support a unified Polynesian one, either), how do you know how different Native Americans' languages had yet diverged from each other in the so-called "Paleo-Indian Period" (a term already being acknowledged among archaeologists and paleoanthropologists as anachronistic, but which hasn't officially reached consensus on renaming)?

Here's the problem with Greenberg's Amerind theory, ignoring the fact that Greenberg is a crackpot and his subgroupings are wrong: even if it's true, it's not demonstrable. We're looking at a similar time depth to Afroasiatic, but where Afroasiatic has been continually attested for the past 4000 years, most Amerind languages have less than five hundred years of attestation and even then many are poorly attested and most are dying. Even establishing families with a time depth of one to two thousand years in the New World is controversial.

 

[conorbebe]

But Polynesians all speak/or at least spoke related languages (in the Austronesian language family), as opposed to the Native Americans of North America who once spoke languages from many families, in addition to language isolates.

Like the Indo-European language family?

 

[Guandao]

Like the Indo-European language family?

Explain please?
You mean the Native American language families are equivalent to the Indo-European one? They've never been convincingly proven to belong to one language family like I-E.

 

[conorbebe]

Explain please?
You mean the Native American language families are equivalent to the Indo-European one? They've never been convincingly proven to belong to one language family like I-E.

You made the point of all Polynesian cultures speaking Austronesian languages as if that was a reason to group them together. There is no Indo-Europe civ, so I don't really see your point.

 

[Guandao]

You made the point of all Polynesian cultures speaking Austronesian languages as if that was a reason to group them together. There is no Indo-Europe civ, so I don't really see your point.

But it's a Polynesian Civ (in Civ5), not an Austronesian Civ. An Austronesian Civ would be equivalent to an Indo-European one. A Polynesian Civ would be equivalent to a Romance Civ or Slavic Civ. It's fine you dislike blob Civs. I'm just saying there was a linguistic basis to grouping the Polynesians together.

Here's a link to Polynesian languages. Vocabulary wise, the Polynesian languages are pretty closely related.

There's no chance of getting two Polynesian Civs (ex: Maori and Hawaii) for Civ6. Heck, I'm not even sure we'll get one Polynesian Civ this time. Australia has seem to replace them (at least geographic wise, while Civ6's Indonesia has taken a potential ability for them). I'm not too hopeful about this.

 

[Patine]

But it's a Polynesian Civ (in Civ5), not an Austronesian Civ. An Austronesian Civ would be equivalent to an Indo-European one. A Polynesian Civ would be equivalent to a Romance Civ or Slavic Civ. It's fine you dislike blob Civs. I'm just saying there was a linguistic basis to grouping the Polynesians together.

Here's a link to Polynesian languages. Vocabulary wise, the Polynesian languages are pretty closely related.

There's no chance of getting two Polynesian Civs (ex: Maori and Hawaii) for Civ6. Heck, I'm not even sure we'll get one Polynesian Civ this time. Australia has seem to replace them (at least geographic wise, while Civ6's Indonesia has taken a potential ability for them). I'm not too hopeful about this.

*grumbles about Australia being considered inherently worthy of a whole civ when Canada is never seriously considered, when historically, culturally, in origin, in political tradition, and in many other ways, the two nations are very similar, and Canada is older in both European settlement and political establishment*

 

[Guandao]

*grumbles about Australia being considered inherently worthy of a whole civ when Canada is never seriously considered, when historically, culturally, in origin, in political tradition, and in many other ways, the two nations are very similar, and Canada is older in both European settlement and political establishment*

You must be Canadian, right?
I guess Firaxis wanted to honor the modder TPangolin, who is Australian. He created an Australia mod with John Curtin as the leader. Here's a link. Plus Civ has a decently large fanbase in Australia. I know Canada has one too.....