Which Polynesian civ?

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That list has much more to do with culture than resource problems. Texas however is a bit of a joke in that Texas is so big that it could actually split into several distinct cultural entities.

This is accurate. Also somewhat accurate for Polynesia as well.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I cut out the political things.

That list has much more to do with culture than resource problems. Texas however is a bit of a joke in that Texas is so big that it could actually split into several distinct cultural entities. The others you are looking at cultures who historically were independent and in the case of Scotland and Catalonia suppressed by the states they currently are incorporated into. Bavaria, Catalonia, and Venice have economic reasons for split as well and I know there is a decently sized cultural gulf between Bavaria and the rest of Germany.

They cite economic reasons, but really it's just general civil unrest. Either way, isn't economic inequality function similarly as resource scarcity for the majority of the public? I'm not saying poverty is quite the same as having no resources, but if the quality of life drops substantially (like, say, environmental and health policies are thrown out the window because the president doesn't understand science), you get roughly the same sort of civil unrest, high mortality and crime rates, and threats of economic/resource collapse.

Also, of course the idea of Texas secession is stupid. Just like Quebec and Vermont and California and many of the other regions I mentioned. Texas just happens to be stupider than the others.

The statistics on Tongans and Samoans are highly distorted. Most casual sources (such as the one you've quoted, judging by the number you gave and the fact you said it was the population of Tonga) is not accurate, especially when the "Maori," and "Native Hawaiian" are based on claimed ancestry and geographical place of residence. There are more ethnic Tongans, who fully recognize themselves as such, and maintain significant cultural and (in may cases) linguistic integrity, but who permanently in New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, and Fiji, collectively, than in Tonga itself, and, likewise, the Samoans between the American Samoa and the sovereign and independent Samoa together is significantly less than ethnic Samoans living in New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, Hawaii, Guam, the United States (in fact, ethnic Samoans are the most disproportionately represented ethnic group in the world, compared to their tiny global population, for playing all three of Association, Rubgy, and Gridiron Football at the professional level, even though no professional team, field, or stadium for any of the three types of football exist on the actual islands of Samoa). So, if you included Samoans and Tongans by total heritage, wherever they may live (like you did with Hawaiians and Maoris), and not just those who actually live in Tonga or Samoa (which is what you did), their numbers are actually much closer.

Okay, but aside from football they haven't had much global presence in wars or politics, not to mention don't have the same sort of memetic draw as haka warriors or Kamehameha.

I wouldn't be disappointed at all if Polynesia were just represented by a single Tonga civ, complete with tikis and outriggers. If we only get one civ, I would vastly prefer Tonga over only Hawaii or Maori. HOWEVER, if by some extremely likely chance they just "split" V's Polynesia in two, we are far more likely to get Maori/Hawaii, since they include everything (except Moai) that people liked about Polynesian civ, as well as represent the furthest extents of the "Polynesian empire." It would be a much safer design decision (although, Mapuche and Cree are decidedly not safe, so there is hope).

It really comes down to how they want to represent Polynesia. Do they want one, fundamental civ, or do they want multiple, differentiated civs? Do they want modern, globally significant civs, or do they want an older "origin" civ? I'm not even sure if I'd be disappointed either way, as long as the end result didn't feel blobby like in V.

 

[Phrozen]

They cite economic reasons, but really it's just general civil unrest. Either way, isn't economic inequality function similarly as resource scarcity for the majority of the public? I'm not saying poverty is quite the same as having no resources, but if the quality of life drops substantially (like, say, environmental and health policies are thrown out the window because the president doesn't understand science), you get roughly the same sort of civil unrest, high mortality and crime rates, and threats of economic/resource collapse.

Actually the only one you listed that is poorer than average is Scotland. Catalonia, Bavaria, Texas, and Venice are actually richer than the average polity of their parent country and that is part of their complaints along with the cultural fit.

Also, of course the idea of Texas secession is stupid. Just like Quebec and Vermont and California and many of the other regions I mentioned. Texas just happens to be stupider than the others.

Texas could actually exist pretty decently on its own. It would be a petro state like Norway and much of the Middle East. It is still stupid for economic reasons though and then the various parts of Texas will want to split. East Texas, Hill Country, West Texas, and North Texas are all very different. If Texas leaves you would probably have Oklahoma and a big part of Louisiana leave with them.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Actually the only one you listed that is poorer than average is Scotland. Catalonia, Bavaria, Texas, and Venice are actually richer than the average polity of their parent country and that is part of their complaints along with the cultural fit.

Well then. I learned a thing.

Texas could actually exist pretty decently on its own. It would be a petro state like Norway and much of the Middle East. It is still stupid for economic reasons though and then the various parts of Texas will want to split. East Texas, Hill Country, West Texas, and North Texas are all very different. If Texas leaves you would probably have Oklahoma and a big part of Louisiana leave with them.

Oklahoma would want to, but I'm not sure Texas would want it since it's kind of a parasitic overflow relationship in the same way Arizona is to California. I'm sure Texas would welcome the world's largest port into its new country, but I'm split on whether Louisiana would join them. Parts of Louisiana are definitely "Texan." Others, particularly the more populated areas, are decidedly Cadian, which has its own weird statist identity. Plus, I have no idea whether Louisiana would abandon its legal structure for the sake of buddying with Texas.

It really depends, I think, on how much they would rather not be lumped in with Dixie. Particularly since they share a coast with the two most backwards states in the country.[/QUOTE]

 

[Phrozen]

West Louisiana and East Texas are basically the same culture.

 

[Greywulf]

Well in a book I'm perpetually about halfway through, Jared Diamond says that there are several factors which contribute to civilization's collapse, and it boils down to a lack of infrastructure. Excluding external factors (which don't apply to the Rapa Nui), these include, if I remember correctly:

• Sprawling settlements too far away from resources.
• Deforestation and depletion of resources.
• Excessive resources spent on monuments.
• Internal warring.

Ultimately this can be broadly categorized as a lack of infrastructure, which although usually isn't the direct cause of collapse, enables one of two things to happen. Either a natural disaster (usually a drought) occurs which naturally decreases resources, and without a robust infrastructure to deal with it (like storing food, transporting water, or simply living closer to reliable resources) things fall apart. Or the civilization itself has such a consumerist, unsustainable structure that it depletes resources to a point where even in good climate the region can't sustain the population (this second model applies to the Rapa Nui).

So, taking into account that Rapa Nui happened in isolation and can basically be boiled down to the population growing larger than they could feasibly model and manage (and on top of that they didn't want to manage consumption); I'd say barring a world government and unprecedentedly massive PR campaign the Earth is basically a larger Rapa Nui waiting to happen.

• More than half the world's population already live in cities, which have to import in many of their resources and would collapse without those supply chains.
• Deforestation has already been happening at an alarming rate in many areas of the world, not to mention several crucial deep earth elements are running low.
• We won't stop building stadia and skyscrapers; in fact half of the American population is oblivious to the fact that the most vile, misanthropic, exploitative real estate owners is currently president and robbing the country of its own tax dollars to grow his penis-empire.
• Nearly every developed country has secession movements going on these days. Texas. Scotland. Bavaria. Catalonia. Veneta. People just want to fight and run away rather than work to fix things, and that's doing nothing except waste everyone's time and money.

So.........the short answer is, if we can only go half a century since near global destruction before we start wrecking the world even worse than before, it's only a matter of time before humans self-destruct.

Yeah, and one of the oddest things about it is it's like we are in a hurry to self destruct. We have the technology now to slow it down significantly and give ourselves hundreds of years more to figure out a solution, and terrans have the ability to behave more sustainably as both individuals and as a society, it's not that we are incapable...the powers that be seem to either not want to, not care, and/or are too greedy and selfish. I think it mostly boils down to hedonism and the love of money. Unfortunately there isn't much at all that we as individuals can do about it, and we cannot escape hedonists and greedy people. If I was to guess from what I've seen, I'd say there are probably more hedonists than ever before.
Also, there does seem to be a truth in the saying that "power corrupts", although I don't think that is always the case. So yeah, we are in quite the mess, and every time we try to claw our way out of it, it's like the world is against us.
Not to go too far off topic, but out of curiosity, do you think there's a way out of all of this?

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Okay, I've finally voted. For Tonga.

My reasoning:

• The Polynesian blob civ I drafted as a mental exercise, although something I'd be extremely happy with, seems to only exist for the sake of modern tourism and the popularity of Civ V's Poly blob. Mechanically it is forced in two drastically different directions (military and hospitality), which is something I would only be fine with if we had a lot of other civs represented this way (Italy as religious and mercantile, France as shifty and lawful, Arabia as scientific and militaristic, Japan as imperialistic and religious, etc.) In absence of that, I don't think this schizoid sort of representation, particularly the Maori part, suits the otherwise very trade-oriented and peaceful Polynesian islands very well. It could work, especially if we want the warship side of Polynesia, but I don't like it as much.
• The two most unique things to Maori and Hawaiians--tikis and outriggers--are also common to Tonga/Samoa. This is because it is generally agreed upon that after spreading eastward from Melanesia, it was the Tongan islands at which Polynesians spread out to colonize what is known as the "Polynesian Triangle," defined by Maori, Hawaii, and Rapa Nui. Meaning that the entirety of the Polynesia civ as represented in V derived completely from Tonga anyway. The most unique things about either culture that aren't tikis and outriggers--like the Maori tattoos or Hawaiian hula--also derive from Tonga (albeit, substantially more developed than their Tongan counterparts).There would be nothing historically dishonest in representing the entirety of modern Polynesia by its common ancestor the Tongans.
• The Tongans actually had the closest thing resembling an "Empire" at some point. They actively expanded, they united islands under a single crown, and they maintained positive intra-island political and trade relationships. While conquering and trade happened in New Zealand and Hawaii, the degree of unification is decidedly less, what with having multiple chieftans and periods of intertribal war. And, on top of that, they were relatively short-lived monarchies that were both ultimately incorporated into larger colonial powers; Tonga endured longer and remains independent.

So, I vote for Tonga. I think tikis and outriggers are far more iconic than haka warriors and Kamehameha, and that players wouldn't miss them as much as they think. I'd still support a Moai wonder, however.

 

[Greywulf]

Alright, I'll concede the Rapa Nui weren't the best alternative. BUT, as for "keeping it as purely Maori and Hawaiian as possible," I'm afraid I can't fully agree there with any good conscience. The Tongans, Samoans, and Tahitians are just as important, if not moreso, in the Polynesian legacy, as the Maoris and Hawaiians. The Tongans ruled most other Polynesians in a big seafaring empire for a period of time prior to Magellan, Van Deiman, and Cook's voyages, the warrior techniques, tattoos, and traditions the "Maoris made famous" were in fact originally Samoan and Tahitian warrior techniques, tattoos, and traditions later emulated by the Maoris, the roles, rituals, castes, traditions, and ideals of the Hawaiian monarchy and traditional Hawaiian society were dictated to them in the 13th Century (by open, long-standing admission in the Hawaiians' own oral traditions) by a Tahitian mystic-priest, and, it's unclear exactly which Polynesian culture specifically innovated their famous outrigger canoe, but it was NOT the Maoris or Hawaiians, given they were, as I've been implying, later down the cultural development chain from most other Polynesian cultures.

The statistics on Tongans and Samoans are highly distorted. Most casual sources (such as the one you've quoted, judging by the number you gave and the fact you said it was the population of Tonga) is not accurate, especially when the "Maori," and "Native Hawaiian" are based on claimed ancestry and geographical place of residence. There are more ethnic Tongans, who fully recognize themselves as such, and maintain significant cultural and (in may cases) linguistic integrity, but who permanently in New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, and Fiji, collectively, than in Tonga itself, and, likewise, the Samoans between the American Samoa and the sovereign and independent Samoa together is significantly less than ethnic Samoans living in New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, Hawaii, Guam, the United States (in fact, ethnic Samoans are the most disproportionately represented ethnic group in the world, compared to their tiny global population, for playing all three of Association, Rubgy, and Gridiron Football at the professional level, even though no professional team, field, or stadium for any of the three types of football exist on the actual islands of Samoa). So, if you included Samoans and Tongans by total heritage, wherever they may live (like you did with Hawaiians and Maoris), and not just those who actually live in Tonga or Samoa (which is what you did), their numbers are actually much closer.

My thinking exactly, although I agree with PhoenicianGold that it's a great deal more likely that we will see Maori/Hawaii rather than Tonga, Samoa, or Tahiti. If they pick out one kingdom, then I would say that Tonga is the most deserving historically speaking, and wayfinding would be an important feature for them, while the Maori would be far less likely to have such an ability. For just a single Polynesian kingdom, I would choose Tonga.
That being said, Hawaiians and Maori represent two different sides of the Polynesian world, so if there were two Polynesian civs (either as "Polynesia" with two leaders, or as two separate individual civs), I can see why they might still choose the Hawaiians and the Maori...Besides the fact that these two are quite popular. They'll never include all the Polynesian kingdoms together, even in a Polynesian scenario (like we only got 4 of them in the Civ V scenario. They were Tonga, Samoa, Hiva, and Tahiti), and so not everyone will get included either way.

If we got a single Polynesian civ, I would wholly support Tongans (who also incorporated Samoa at some point).

I was merely taking Greywulf's prompt to make a Polynesian civ, not a Tongan civ. And Tonga simply can't represent modern Polynesia in its entirety, not when the Maori and Hawaiians make up over half of the native Polynesian population. Much as we've seen with the Cree and Mapuche, Firaxis are consulting with and representing large native populations. Tahiti only has a population of less than 300,000, Tonga less than 200,000. over 500,000 people claim Native Hawaiian race, and approximately 600,000 claim Native Maori race in censuses. Since the measure of tribes this time around seems to be modern success, I have no doubt that Firaxis will try to represent both Maori and Hawaii first (and gain all of that sweet, sweet vacation publicity) before they resort to doing extra research for a single Tonga civ.

You also have to acknowledge the civ player demographics and what they will respond to. Maori is by far the most requested Polynesian civ, for several reasons. It's iconic militarism. It fills New Zealand and Australia on TSL maps. And because the haka warriors were popular in V. Hawaii is the second most requested civ because Kamehameha was so popular in V. Because it's an insanely popular tourist destination that is only getting more and more prominent in the public sphere with things like Pokemon Sun/Moon and Moana. And because Hawaii is a memetic powerhouse in Battle Royale, alongside Brazil, the Boers, the Inuit, and Sparta.

I think Vanuatu was generally credited as being the "spawn point" for Polynesian exploration, so they probably deserve credit for the outrigger more than anyone.

Indeed, not to mention surfing, and their linguistic influence on English, I think Hawaii will always be a major contender for the Civ series (since Civ V that is).

Regarding Vanuatu, technically that is in Melanesia.

 

[Greywulf]

Okay, I've finally voted. For Tonga.

My reasoning:

• The Polynesian blob civ I drafted as a mental exercise, although something I'd be extremely happy with, seems to only exist for the sake of modern tourism and the popularity of Civ V's Poly blob. Mechanically it is forced in two drastically different directions (military and hospitality), which is something I would only be fine with if we had a lot of other civs represented this way (Italy as religious and mercantile, France as shifty and lawful, Arabia as scientific and militaristic, Japan as imperialistic and religious, etc.) In absence of that, I don't think this schizoid sort of representation, particularly the Maori part, suits the otherwise very trade-oriented and peaceful Polynesian islands very well. It could work, especially if we want the warship side of Polynesia, but I don't like it as much.
• The two most unique things to Maori and Hawaiians--tikis and outriggers--are also common to Tonga/Samoa. This is because it is generally agreed upon that after spreading eastward from Melanesia, it was the Tongan islands at which Polynesians spread out to colonize what is known as the "Polynesian Triangle," defined by Maori, Hawaii, and Rapa Nui. Meaning that the entirety of the Polynesia civ as represented in V derived completely from Tonga anyway. The most unique things about either culture that aren't tikis and outriggers--like the Maori tattoos or Hawaiian hula--also derive from Tonga (albeit, substantially more developed than their Tongan counterparts).There would be nothing historically dishonest in representing the entirety of modern Polynesia by its common ancestor the Tongans.
• The Tongans actually had the closest thing resembling an "Empire" at some point. They actively expanded, they united islands under a single crown, and they maintained positive intra-island political and trade relationships. While conquering and trade happened in New Zealand and Hawaii, the degree of unification is decidedly less, what with having multiple chieftans and periods of intertribal war. And, on top of that, they were relatively short-lived monarchies that were both ultimately incorporated into larger colonial powers; Tonga endured longer and remains independent.

So, I vote for Tonga. I think tikis and outriggers are far more iconic than haka warriors and Kamehameha, and that players wouldn't miss them as much as they think. I'd still support a Moai wonder, however.

I'm very happy to get behind that. I really think that individually the Tongans are the most deserving, but also would represent a Polynesian civ the way that I would want to play as a Polynesian civ, and wouldn't be at risk of having that awesome wayfinding ability replaced (which I suspect would happen for the Maori), and I am mainly supporting Polynesia because of wanting a similar experience that I had in Civ V. I think that the very reason why Polynesia ended up being so popular is because of wayfinding, and therefore we might want to move away from the Maori as our first choice for a Polynesian civ (unless we are getting 2 civs, or 2 leaders, in which case they would be cool as the second one).

I'm changing my vote with you to support Tonga being included. If not Tonga, then I would vote to either keep it "Polynesia" with 2 leaders, or have two individual Polynesian civs (which doesn't seem likely).

Now for the next important question: Which Tongan leader should they have?

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I think it mostly boils down to hedonism and the love of money. Unfortunately there isn't much at all that we as individuals can do about it, and we cannot escape hedonists and greedy people. If I was to guess from what I've seen, I'd say there are probably more hedonists than ever before.

It's really just the sheer incompatibility between leisure culture and our stupid monkey brains. We are designed to only look at local problems and constantly "survive." This presents a problem when there is no surviving to do. We want to feel like we're still getting ahead, so we buy distractions that we have been told are important. But we also aren't used to looking at the broader context and recognize that our attention spans are being exploited by the aristocracy. The larger a company grows, increases middle men, affiliates, house marks, positive PR, the harder it is for consumers to notice that all of their expendable income is monopolized before they even spend it.

And it works both ways, because I honestly think the stupid monkey brains at the top of the food chain don't actively think of how many civilians they are screwing over by hoarding wealth. If most of your assets are held in stocks, you have no assets if the consumer class can't afford to buy your goods/services. You need to circulate money back into the economy for there to be a consumer class at all. Every smart enduring power structure has recognized the difference between wealth and income; wealth accumulates and is eventually overthrown, while income can be sustained almost indefinitely if you reinvest into the economy. The problem is the aristocracy is already pretty solidified and so much of the rest of the upper class pursues wealth over income in a (futile) attempt to usurp the powers that be. They're all in the same rat race, and they will all be toppled at once if faith in the dollar ever crashes.

Not to go too far off topic, but out of curiosity, do you think there's a way out of all of this?

There really isn't because that requires believing in humanity as a whole, and I think that's impossible with how poorly educated large swathes of first world populations are.

But, if there is, staunch voting with your dollar. Do not enable monopolies and actively work to hinder or break them up, because they always attract more money to them than the conveniences they put out. Don't go see that Disney movie that everyone else is seeing or buy their horsehockey merchandise and games. Don't buy that Apple product made from so much exploited third world labor. Don't buy food from franchises that rent to and extort managers (Subway, McDonalds) or national grocers who extort employees (Walmart). Invest in alternative energy wherever you can to dethrone the big oil and coal companies. Be extremely dubious of the conveniences of Google and Amazon and be prepared to drop them at a moment's notice if they ever abuse their newfound power. Delete Facebook and Twitter, probably the two biggest forces against free, reasoned discussion in the world outside of China. Let monopolies form, but only let them live for so long before you destroy them.

The other three biggest changes I believe would help force wealth circulation would be:

• The substantial reduction of corporate rights as pseudo-individuals. This extends to taxes, property holdings, etc.
  
• The substantial increase of death taxes. All these do is compound and create de facto aristocracies, who then buy political power.
• Banning privately funded campaigning for political office and alotting fair, equal tax-funded stipends to candidates. This would help to reverse so much of the plutocratic stagnancy that has developed in the United States. It might even help if implemented in other countries.

The problem is we're all caught up in the same rat race. Conscientiousness is a luxury, and we are all too busy trying to gain footholds where we can to worry about reform. That and we're distracted by our opiates and circuses.

Tonga is wonderful, though, isn't?

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Now for the next important question: Which Tongan leader should they have?

I think Momo is the clear frontrunner. He represents the height of the Tongan empire, as well as the first (if temporary) union between Tonga and Samoa.

 

[Greywulf]

I think Momo is the clear frontrunner. He represents the height of the Tongan empire, as well as the first (if temporary) union between Tonga and Samoa.

Nice!

I found some articles to share info on the Tonga Empire, and the history of Tonga.

Momo of the Tonga Empire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momo_(Tonga)
Tonga Empire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuʻi_Tonga_Empire
Early history of Tonga: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_history_of_Tonga
History of Tonga: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tonga
Tonga Empire: https://www.sciencealert.com/tonga-...-mighty-trading-empire-in-prehistoric-oceania

Someone has already made a Tonga mod for Civ V too: http://civilization-v-customisation.wikia.com/wiki/Tonga_('Aho'eitu)
They've even provided Tongan music. What do you think of this mod?

Very short clip on the history of Tonga...

Tongans really are an ideal choice for a single Polynesian civ.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Also, of course the idea of Texas secession is stupid. Just like Quebec and Vermont and California and many of the other regions I mentioned. Texas just happens to be stupider than the others.

If you mean by wanting to secede I would say yes it would be stupid of us if we did. I'm not sure of any plans to do it though. There are plenty of us who are intelligent.

West Louisiana and East Texas are basically the same culture.

We basically are.
Btw. I'm still saying I would want Samoa. No idea how to necessarily design it other than being a cultural Civ.

 

[Greywulf]

Btw. I'm still saying I would want Samoa. No idea how to necessarily design it other than being a cultural Civ.

Samoa are a significant Polynesian kingdom, but Tonga appears to have been more historically significant, even having an empire. Would you be willing to back a Tongan vote?

 

[Greywulf]

Ok, so let's try to brainstorm a Tongan civ...

Tonga Empire

UA: Wayfinders - Coast and Ocean tiles act as sources of fresh water. All units can embark across ocean tiles from the start of the game.

UB: Tiki - Replaces the shrine (We need the Tongan word for "Tiki", as that is a Maori term).

UU: Pôpao - (Outrigger canoe) replaces scout. Travels swiftly across ocean tiles with increased line of sight.

Momo

Need to work out a specific Ability and Agenda for Momo of Tonga...


How's that so far?

 

[Greywulf]

~ By the way, I think that a percentage of those voting for the Maori might merely be wanting a New Zealand civ, rather than a Polynesian civ.

 

[Zaarin]

~ By the way, I think that a percentage of those voting for the Maori might merely be wanting a New Zealand civ, rather than a Polynesian civ.

I doubt it. The several New Zealanders I've seen post here have all said they don't want a NZ civ.

 

[Greywulf]

I doubt it. The several New Zealanders I've seen post here have all said they don't want a NZ civ.

Ok, good to know. It's interesting though that one of the youngest Polynesian civs is also one of the most popular choices. There is more history in central Polynesia.

 

[Zaarin]

They still have a rich culture though, and, as I said in my earlier post, a leader with tā moko would look pretty epic. But I'd be content with whatever Polynesian civ Firaxis chose except a return of the blob--though I dislike the Polynesian blob less than some others.

 

[Greywulf]

They still have a rich culture though, and, as I said in my earlier post, a leader with tā moko would look pretty epic. But I'd be content with whatever Polynesian civ Firaxis chose except a return of the blob--though I dislike the Polynesian blob less than some others.

There's a good chance we will see tattoos on a non-Maori Polynesian leader as well.