Why upset for European Civs?

[mitsho]

I agree that their goal wasn't to avoid diversity and so the eurocentric-focus of the expansion is merely due to two facts: that they had a renaissance-scenario with many of those civs and that they had good creative ideas for gameplay for them. If you split up the new civs by gameplay focus, you'd get:

• Religion: Celts, Byzantines
• City States: Austria, Sweden
• Naval: Carthage, Byzantines, Dutch
• Conquest: Huns (and all the other two UU-civs, f.e. Sweden)

these are all areas where G&K makes major changes, only Maya doesn't seem to fit with it's culture focus, but we know next to nothing about them. As with the Ethiopians, they seem to be focused on the Later ages (with their infantry and leader), another area enhanced by G&K.

So while the eurocentrism is a pity, it's not that bad, if the gameplay is right with the new civs (and I'm only worried for the Ethiopians atm, passive bonusses are not much fun).

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Considering the ratio of European to non-European history we have recorded, we have an incredibly diverse ratio of civs.

I am disappointed, but it really just makes me think that if they want better diversity in their civs they're gunna need better historians (By the way 2K, I am available).

 

[Nevyn]

As a Swede I found it mildly amusing in CiV where you could build the ABBA wonder for One Hit Albums. That was wicked. =)

But while Sweden was a major superpower back in the days, I really don't see how it qualifies as a Civ. In Swedens golden era it was the poorest region in Europe, and when the 'empire' fell it was becuase it was thought to contain 20 milliojn people when it in reality was actually close to 2 million. And while The Caroline Troops was successful, it used standard military practices with a lot of mercenaries. Nothing unique at all.

While Norway and Denmark became fully fledged nations in early history, nobody hardly even lived in Sweden at the time. Records from Rome mention 'Svecia' that gets translated into 'Island of Death'. And despite Birger Jarl and Gustav Vasa some historians would claim that Sweden wasn't truly formed as a whole nation until the 1930ies.

What would Sweden possibly add to the game?

Are there any stats on what Sweden will have? Ikea instead of workshops? Ace of Base instead of ABBA? A friendship modifier for being humble and kind? Olof Palme as a great general? Give me a break.

---
Daily show made a special that I found hilarious. Enjoy:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-21-2009/the-stockholm-syndrome-pt--1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-22-2009/the-stockholm-syndrome-pt--2

 

[oliver]

I would not count the Huns as a European civ, there more of a central Asian civ/nomadic civ.

 

[Grubnessul]

Gustavus II Adolphus "The Lion From the North" was a boss. For the Into the Renaissance scenario, Sweden makes sense given their involvement in the 30 years war.

 

[EEE_BOY]

Probably the 3rd expansion will feature the return of African civilizations and other primitive civs, and the ancient and classical eras will be extended and enriched a lot in the 3rd expansion, as most players play from ancient era

 

[Krzowwh]

It is an expansion pack that emphasizes religions. Did you all really expect many non-European civilizations?

 

[SalmonSoil]

If you want a less Eurocentric selection of civs then you need to give the entire population of the West an understanding of world history. The civs which are selected are the ones which will sell, which are the ones people recognise and because our understanding of history is Eurocentric, the civs which people recognise have a Eurocentric bias.

 

[CivOasis]

Most people can probably recognize 3-4 major African civs not represented, 2-3 American ones, and point to the map and ask "why all the holes?"...
Historical knowledge isn't the issue here, there are still several well-known and unique candidates that could be done completely and well. We're just a bit disappointed at the OVERrepresentation of European civs.

 

[King of Prussia]

14 / 34 = 43% - Fourty-three percent of all civilizations in the game are European.
Land area of Europe = 6.3% Land area of Earth
Population of Europe = 10% Global population

They are horribly over-represented, and this can be seen by playing a TSL Earth Map

While I agree that there should be more non Euro countries, a good chunk of the world is represented in the game. India and China have about a third of the worlds population? Russia also covers a good amount of asia along with China, the middle east is represented by the Arabia and Persia, NA is covered pretty well by the US, and SA is is also covered well between Inca and the Mayans.

I would like to see more African civs and more Pacific region countires. I feel that they aren't as well represented.

 

[blackcatatonic]

As I said in the other thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11437914&postcount=234

 

[nokmirt]

Probably the 3rd expansion will feature the return of African civilizations and other primitive civs, and the ancient and classical eras will be extended and enriched a lot in the 3rd expansion, as most players play from ancient era

I hope they concentrate on the early eras too, rather than the future.

Also, we should certainly see DLCs for Gods and Kings. I hope they add Tibet, Zulu, and the Sioux, or some other American Indian tribe.

 

[bite]

Well at the moment European Civilizations make up about 41% of the total civilizations in Civilization 5 (this count includes America and conversely does not include the Huns) which is down compared to the first Civilization (something that has been trending down in every instance). Of the Six Civilisations that have been new to Civilization 5, 4 out of the 6 have been non-European (and that goes down further is you include Austria as being part of Civ 3 and Sweden being represented in Scandinavia previously). So can they do better to represent the other non-European, of course, but in relation to the past there doing a really good job introducing new and interesting civilizations to those who never would have heard of them before.

 

[Louis XXIV]

And aren't Carthage originally from Europe?

Carthage is originally from Phoenicia, i.e., modern Lebanon.

I think people who are upset fall into two categories (probably with a big overlap).

Those who play on an Earth map, who will honestly never be completely satisfied because it's inevitable that Europe will be more crowded and places like Australia, Africa, and North America will have significant gaps.

Those who want exotic cultures. I'd argue the biggest concern here are Enlightenment era civs - England, France, Russia, Germany, Spain, Austria, Netherlands, Sweden rather than classical (Rome, Greece, Celts) or Late Roman/Medieval (Byzantium, Huns, Danes).

There's also a tendency to overvalue European diversity. I think Sumer, Babylon, Assyria, Persia, Hatti, Egypt, Lydia, Urartu, Elam, Israel/Judah, Mittani, etc. all bring something unique, but nobody would dream of including that many Middle Eastern civs from the same time period. Likewise, I think it's a bit of a shame that India and Arabs are one group.

I think they played it safe with non-European civs, but I think Ethiopia looks wonderful. I'll see more about the Maya when we can learn about their ability and see them in action.

 

[awesome]

Some people react pretty negatively for the European civs in GAK and maybe were expecting the 9th Civ to be non-european.

First, I think it's just supercool to get 9 (NINE!) new Civs, in my head as I played about what a Civ V expansion could be I always thought it might have 2-4 new Civs as there's been so many DLC ones.
But we get so many new leaders to play with, and along with huge features and expansions, gotta be excited.

it might not be seen as worth the money by a lot of people if it had only 2-4 new civs. of course, some people won't get it even now, but moot point. anyway, yeah, i'm glad there are 9, too.

Also when you look at the GAK Civs, you can call Austrians, Byzantine, Dutch, Swedes and Celts europeans I guess. And aren't Carthage originally from Europe?

nope, phoenicia's in western asia. and the city of carthage is in northern africa. part of their empire was in europe, but they weren't from there originally, no.

But when I think of them I see them as a pretty unique nations, can you really say that Celts are culturally like Austrians? Or ancient Byzantine is just like playing Netherlands?
Even on this day and time I think that people in Finland are quite different than the ones living in Italy, don't you think? It's like lumping Chinese, Japanese and Thai people in the same category, those eastern devils..
It's been also confirmed there will be more DLC so this isn't all.

it's not really the point that they're not unique. it's that half of new civs in the expansion pack are from one continent.

******

About Sweden's place in the game, I think they are interesting as they are new to the series, but they also easily earn their place as innovators in military, governing people, culture etc etc. This can be said for many other Civs not yet in the game though, but I think many people not familiar with history just think Sweden as a small country of meatballs, Ikea and Girl with the dragon tattoo..

They were a true powerhouse in 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries and while dropped to a 3rd class power in 19th they are literally one of the happiest countries in the world with little corruption but lots of influence.

In their prime they had even colonies in New world and Africa, destroyed Holy Roman Empire's military power for a while, sank whole third of Russia's whole navy in a single battle and made Peter the Great tremble with fear in the Great northern war.

And the leader representing Sweden in the game was a true military innovator, being one of the influences for Napoleon, Patton and Clausewitz. I was VERY surprised for them to have Hakkapeliitta UU though.

Here's an excellent book detailing a disastrous campaign of Charles XII to Russia that precedes other warmonger nuts, Napoleon and Hitler.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Battle-That-Shook-Europe/dp/1860648479

Easily one of my favorite books of all time, not only in history. Makes you feel the grapeshots and bayonets in your gut..

we'll see if they live up to their history.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Selection of civilizations for a game has nothing to do with regional or ethnic representation. It has everything to do with interesting diversity of play.

I would never have guessed either Austria or Sweden as potential new civilizations, but the play mechanics announced for them sound thus far to be very interesting. And that's all that matters.

Those claiming they will not buy the expansion because it has too many European civilizations are frankly either not at all serious, or are total morons.

I am in complete agreement with this statement. While many players might prefer that Civ are chosen based on geographical representation, ultimately they are not. Compelling and diverse gameplay rules over all other factors.

 

[That nerdy kid]

World's largest empires:

British Empire 33.7 13.01 22.63% 1922[2] 458.0 (in 1938)[3] 20.00% (458 million out of 2.295 billion in 1938)[3]

Mongol Empire 24.0[4] 09.27 16.11% 1270 or 1309[5] 110.0 (in the 13th century)[6] 25.60% (110.0 million out of 429 million[7] in the 13th century)

Russian Empire 23.7 09.15 15.31% 1866 176.4 in 1913 09.80% (176.4 million out of 1.791 billion[8] in 1913)

Spanish Empire 20.0 07.72 13.43% 1740-1790 approx[9] 68.2[10] 12.30% (68.2 million out of 556 million[8] in the 17th century)

Qing Dynasty, China 14.7 05.68 09.87% 1790[4][11] 432.2 in 1851.[12] 36.60% (381.0 million out of 1.041 billion in 1820)[8]

Yuan Dynasty, China 14.0 05.41 09.40% 1310[11] 59.8 in 1291.[13][14] 17.10% (59.8 million out of 350 million in 1290)

Second French Colonial Empire 13.0 05.02 08.73% 1938[9] 112.9 in 1938 05.10% (112.9 million out of 2.295 billion in 1938)

Abbasid Caliphate 11.1 04.29 07.45% 750-850[11] 50.0 (in 850) 20.00% (50.0 million out of 250 million in 850)[8]

Tang Dynasty, China 11.0 04.29 07.45% 663AD 80.0 (in the 8th century) 29.50% (80.0 million out of 210 million[15] in the 8th century AD)

Umayyad Caliphate 10.5 04.05 07.05% 661-750 62.0 (in the 7th century) 28.80% (62.0 million out of 208 million in the 7th century)

Portuguese Empire 10.4 04.02 06.98% 1815[9] — —

Rashidun Caliphate 09.0 03.48 06.04% 654[11][16] — 19.10% (40.3 million out of 210 million in 7th century)

Achaemenid Empire 08.75 03.42 05.85% BC 480[17] 50.0 (in 480 BC)[18] 44.5% (50.0 million out of 112.4 million[19] in 480 BC)[20]

Empire of Brazil 08.5 03.28 05.71% 1880, similar to the Federative

Republic of Brazil of today[9] — —

First French Colonial Empire 08.1 03.13 05.44% 1754[21] 50.0 09.00%

Japanese Empire 07.4 02.86 04.97% 1942[9] 134.8 in 1938 05.90% (134.8 million out of 2.295 billion[8] in 1938)

Ming Dynasty, China 06.5 02.51 04.36% 1450[4][11] 110.0 in 1600.[22][23] 28.80% (160.0 million out of 556.2 million in 1600)[8]

Han Dynasty, China 06.5 02.51 04.36% 100[24] 74.0 in 2[13][25] 26.00% (59.6 million out of 230 million[8] in 2 AD)

Roman Empire 06.5 02.51 04.36% 117[26] 65.0 to 88.0 (in 2nd century AD)[27][28][29] 29.20% to 39.50% (out of 223 million[27] in the 2nd century AD)

Nazi Germany 06.4 02.47 04.30% 1942 75.4 million out of 2.295 billion in 1938 —

Göktürk Khaganate 06.0 02.32 04.03% 557[4][24] — —

Golden Horde Khanate 06.0 02.32 04.03% 1310[4][11] — —
Macedonian Empire 05.2 02.01 03.49% BC 323[4][30]

8 of these are European, and most of the others overlap with themselves (caliphates, khanates)

 

[ehecatzin]

I would be annoyed by the amount of europeans if the Into the renaissance and fall of rome scenarios didnt exist. But from what we've heard they are pretty big, (specially renaissance), so, I understand why they focus on Europe.

However now that they've pretty much filled Europe I would like them focus on DLC scenarios from all around the world.

 

[bonafide11]

It's not just about the expansion, it's the whole game. European civs are already overrepresented in civ games because our understanding of world history is mostly european history and how european civs met/clashed with the others.
The Persians ? Enemies of the Greeks.
Carthage ? Enemies of Rome.
Aztecs ? The empire that got wiped out by the Spanish.
It's a bit frustrating and a lot of people would like to see more exotic civilizations for lack of a better word, but there's also tunnel vision at play.
Civ 4 had Khmer and Mali, Civ 5 has Siam and Songhai. Those civs are rather obscure to most people and if a game had both Khmer and Siam or Mali and Songhai some people would complain they are too 'similar', so that's why we get one token civ from each region, but it would be equally valid to complain that that the Romans and Greeks, the Germans, English and French, or the English and the Americans are too similar to be in the same game.

14 / 34 = 43% - Fourty-three percent of all civilizations in the game are European.
Land area of Europe = 6.3% Land area of Earth
Population of Europe = 10% Global population

They are horribly over-represented, and this can be seen by playing a TSL Earth Map

Selection of civilizations for a game has nothing to do with regional or ethnic representation. It has everything to do with interesting diversity of play.

This just isn't true. To an extent, the game has always attempted to include diverse regional and ethnic civs, which is why we had the Zulu in the first place.

Also, what makes adding Sweden provide any more "interesting diversity of play" than adding a more diverse civ would? The overabundance of Renaissance Era European civs does not provide much of a interesting diverse style of play. I enjoy having leaders look significantly different instead of blending together from similar regions and eras. They could just as easily, if not easier, add an interesting diverse style of play to a South America or African civ. It's a baseless argument to assume that Sweden (or one of the many other European civs) provide a more interesting diversity of play than one of the other potential civs that could've been added.

World's largest empires:

The game isn't about including the largest empires ever, and if it were, many of the European ones included would not be in the game. Also, "empire" is a subjective term: the U.S. is not an empire in those terms, but considering the amount of global influence the U.S. has militarily and economically, many would argue it is an empire.

Finally, my own point: How can Firaxis justify having so many European civs without the inclusion of Portugal? I wanted a non-European civ, but if it had to be a European one, couldn't they have at least made it Portugal? They are far more deserving than Sweden.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Well, if you want to talk about diversity of gameplay, Sweden will actually contribute more to that. Portugal is very similar to the Netherlands and where they are different, they are similar to Spain. Plus, there seems to be a desire to include new European civs rather than the old ones. That's why they added Austria, Sweden, and the Huns.

I suppose you could ask why Byzantines, Celts, or Netherlands over Portugal, but I think each is more interesting and, certainly, the Dutch are more deserving.