Why upset for European Civs?

[Stefanskantine]

Really? The occasional oversized telegraph pylon or well-restored aside, the most notable architectural styles in both countries tend to be Norman-era castles and Gothic religious architecture, both of which have essentially French origins, and the occasional Roman ruin. Both countries have majority populations who are ethnically Germanic.

As neither of these is very arguable, that leaves culture, which I've argued before it's hard to see as very distinct on the scale of inter-civ differences we see when considering the scope of civs in the game. 80% of words in the English language are of French origin, and many of the remainder are shared due to a common Latin or Greek root (in contrast the Khmer and Thais don't share a common alphabet and their languages have different roots); the major linguistic differences are in grammar. French was the national language in England throughout the Norman period.

Both have similar political outlooks, histories shaped by similar struggles for dominance on the European stage (the main difference being that France has been more successful), both were major players in the age of European colonialism (the main difference being that the British were more successful).

What we recognise today as cultural differences between the countries - such as foods (which aren't very distinct any longer as French cuisine is a significant component of internationalised Western cuisine) and, someone mentioned on another thread, family traditions - aren't things that are 'visible' on the scales Civ games deal with.

Personally, I've found the modern French to be more culturally familiar as a Briton than I find the Americans (although admittedly that may be due partly to long exposure and due partly to having lived in the US and become more aware of the differences).

Food and architecture are not culture. They are cultural products. Culture is the way ordinary people structure their worldview, or their "enjoyment," from a psychoanalytic perspective. Art and architecture may have some bearing on this, but it is by no means dispositive. The way people structure their lives in Germany, England, France, and the USA are totally different.

[Crude generalizations incoming] Honestly living in Korea, I found more similarities between Koreans and Americans than between Americans and most Europeans, if you cut past the surface level art and architecture. The "work hard always and succeed at any cost" mentality they both display would probably horrify most people in France. And the importance of politely lying to keep up a certain face socially (in both Korea and America) will not win you any friends in Germany.

That being said, I'm in favor of including more non-European civs in the game. For no other reason than I like them and think it would be more fun.

 

[carm3]

Really? The occasional oversized telegraph pylon or well-restored aside, the most notable architectural styles in both countries tend to be Norman-era castles and Gothic religious architecture, both of which have essentially French origins, and the occasional Roman ruin. Both countries have majority populations who are ethnically Germanic.

As neither of these is very arguable, that leaves culture, which I've argued before it's hard to see as very distinct on the scale of inter-civ differences we see when considering the scope of civs in the game. 80% of words in the English language are of French origin, and many of the remainder are shared due to a common Latin or Greek root (in contrast the Khmer and Thais don't share a common alphabet and their languages have different roots); the major linguistic differences are in grammar. French was the national language in England throughout the Norman period (fair enough, you can point out that the Thais spoke Khmer during the Khmer period, but that was during the period of Khmer rule. French was the national language of an independent England for over two centuries).

Both have similar political outlooks, histories shaped by similar struggles for dominance on the European stage (the main difference being that France has been more successful), both were major players in the age of European colonialism (the main difference being that the British were more successful).

What we recognise today as cultural differences between the countries - such as foods (which aren't very distinct any longer as French cuisine is a significant component of internationalised Western cuisine) and, someone mentioned on another thread, family traditions - aren't things that are 'visible' on the scales Civ games deal with.

Personally, I've found the modern French to be more culturally familiar as a Briton than I find the Americans (although admittedly that may be due partly to long exposure and due partly to having lived in the US and become more aware of the differences).

With regard to the languages, while there are indeed a good number of shared words (though nowhere near the 80% mark - estimates of French-derived English words are usually closer to 30%), the same can be said of Thai and Khmer, which also have a long history of linguistic cross-pollination. However, like those two languages, English and French belong to fundamentally different linguistic groups, with English being a Germanic language and French a Romance language.

And as for other aspects of culture, there will always be a good number of similarities between neighbours, but there are also a huge number of divergences, from the political organisation (England has a strong tradition of strong local government, compared to France's history of centralisation) to the economic focus (where somewhat paradoxically the English system is disproportionately centred on the capital), to the general outlook (with England's maritime prowess differing sharply with France's continental - their respective successes imperially and on the continent are not coincidental).

Anyway, as I said originally, I agree with your main point that there is a problematic tendency to downplay the differences of cultures that are different form our own. But it's also possible to go too far in the other direction and place undue importance on every divergence while ignoring similar patterns closer to home.

 

[carm3]

And with that I think I've probably side-tracked the thread enough. With respect to the original question, though - I think it's probably fairly obvious by this point that I'm loving the inclusion of all these European civs. Austria especially I can't wait for.

 

[PhilBowles]

Food and architecture are not culture. They are cultural products. Culture is the way ordinary people structure their worldview, or their "enjoyment," from a psychoanalytic perspective. Art and architecture may have some bearing on this, but it is by no means dispositive. The way people structure their lives in Germany, England, France, and the USA are totally different.

[Crude generalizations incoming] Honestly living in Korea, I found more similarities between Koreans and Americans than between Americans and most Europeans, if you cut past the surface level art and architecture.

This is precisely my point. When I'm living outside the UK, or travelling, I find myself defaulting to a 'European' identity which is far easier to distinguish than a 'British' one. It appears to be the sense among Americans I meet as well, who remark on my European (not specifically British) view of the world. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many societies that have been historically separate entities for as long as the UK and France yet are as similar to one another culturally.

Though I concede that America provides an instructive example, if we were to take the English and French civs in the game as literally representing the specific time periods of their leaders rather than as these nations throughout their history.

Due I suspect to geographic isolation and a traditionalist cultural mentality, America is still very much a reflection of its Puritan origins, which extends to such things as its focus on family values, its work ethic and its sense of self-reliance as well as obvious differences in religious culture while the European nations, which have always been strongly defined politically by demographic and cultural interchange between close neighbours, have modernised to a common Western European template. The result being that the difference between modern America and modern Britain or France is likely to be not dissimilar from the difference between Elizabethan England and Napoleonic France, separated as they are by a similar length of time.

 

[carm3]

It appears to be the sense among Americans I meet as well, who remark on my European (not specifically British) view of the world.

I'm not sure that this really proves anything - as we've discussed, there's a tendency to assimilate people from unfamiliar backgrounds into oversimplified cultural groups, and I would imagine that a Chinese person in the States would similarly find their Asian worldview remarked upon. It doesn't mean that East Asian cultures are virtually identical, but rather that this is a convenient category of culturally-related countries into which people can be organised. It also works in the other direction, namely that individuals will then often identify themselves according to those broad categories in order to make themselves more intelligible (e.g. many of my Korean, Chinese, and Japanese friends will often default to an "Asian" identity not because they consider the differences between the countries irrelevant, but because it's simply an easier category for many people to understand).

 

[Camikaze]

It's been also confirmed there will be more DLC so this isn't all.

Where exactly did they say that? I'm intrigued...

Yeah, I don't recall that being confirmed either.

 

[Pouakai]

I'm pretty sure Dennis mentioned it off-hand in the PAX interview

 

[Louis XXIV]

DLC was mentioned by a poster who asked the people at PAX. He came and posted drunk after partying with people from a different game. All he remembered was that he asked about something and got a response involving DLC. He doesn't remember anything else. I'll let others judge how reliable this source is.

 

[Pouakai]

Vodka & Mayonaise - Not a good mix.

I'd be surprised if they didn't have more DLC and another expansion

 

[Liex]

DLC was mentioned by a poster who asked the people at PAX. He came and posted drunk after partying with people from a different game. All he remembered was that he asked about something and got a response involving DLC. He doesn't remember anything else. I'll let others judge how reliable this source is.

Ah, I remember the drunk guy, it was quite the drama that day.

Anyway, unless they indeed confirmed it or already got something done to release as a DLC in the future (was that the case of Spain and the Inca?), I'd say that before analyzing G&K's sales results they won't know whether to release DLCs or not. But I think things are going to end up very well.

 

[Camikaze]

Vodka & Mayonaise - Not a good mix.

I'd be surprised if they didn't have more DLC and another expansion

Yeah, I'd be surprised too (especially given the options they haven't exhausted), but that's far from being confirmed.

 

[Gucumatz]

Ah, I remember the drunk guy, it was quite the drama that day.

Anyway, unless they indeed confirmed it or already got something done to release as a DLC in the future (was that the case of Spain and the Inca?), I'd say that before analyzing G&K's sales results they won't know whether to release DLCs or not. But I think things are going to end up very well.

But I think it was also the drunk guy who mentioned we were getting a Northern/Nordic/Ice based civ. He thought it would be Sweden. So also take that with a grain of salt.

 

[AriochIV]

I fully expect more DLC -- it's much more profit for them to sell each civ at $5-6 rather than bundling 9 (plus a ton of other features) at $30. But I'm not so sure there will be another formal expansion... I don't see an obvious feature theme.

 

[janboruta]

I fully expect more DLC -- it's much more profit for them to sell each civ at $5-6 rather than bundling 9 (plus a ton of other features) at $30. But I'm not so sure there will be another formal expansion... I don't see an obvious feature theme.

The area that is underreprested in Civ 5 is the Classical Age (though one may argue about that). I'd hope to see more Middle Eastern ancient and classical civilizations, as well as some African civs to fill the blank space that Africa is. An expansion focused on "Rise of Alexander" and "Rise of Rome" would be equally as good as a Renaissance scenario, although the topic of ancient warfare in games other than Civilization is omnipresent.

I'm fine with DLCs - the more civilizations and scenarios, the better.

 

[lolno]

Its always funny to read about how the Tibetan Empire of the 700s marched into Chinese territory razing and pillaging their land How the tides of history change .

Yes, it is pretty funny - they murder and pillage and are repaid in the future with running water, electricity, booming economy, free defense, free education, affirmative action for jobs and post-secondary schooling, subsidized food health and housing, and the Chinese are called genocidal, evil, subhuman etc for doing it.



According to some people, China was being punished in 642 apparently for the good deeds they're doing in Tibet in the modern era

That said it'd be great if Tibet (and Jurchens/Manchuria) were added, eventually. I doubt most people in China would mind.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Now that we know all 9 GK civs, I made twin polls about additional civs for Civilization V
Maybe it will also settle this debate over European civs

Multi-option poll:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=460009

Single-option poll:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=460012

 

[PhilBowles]

Yes, it is pretty funny - they murder and pillage and are repaid in the future with running water, electricity, booming economy, free defense, free education, affirmative action for jobs and post-secondary schooling, subsidized food health and housing, and the Chinese are called genocidal, evil, subhuman etc for doing it.

This is somewhat santised. The Chinese were called genocidal for wiping out entire villages as punitive action for Tibetan armed resistance in the '50s and '60s, for targeted religious oppression, and more recently for essentially using the plateau as lebensraum for Han Chinese, marginalising Tibetans in the cities and largely confining them to poorer rural areas.

Does this mean that everything China has done in Tibet is unjustified? Not necessarily. The Tibetan occupation was unnecessary and unwelcome for the Tibetans, but it certainly wasn't the unprovoked aggression against a peaceful culture the West has tended to portray it as. The Tibetans themselves have been known to say "No one wants the old theocracy back". It's out of fashion in the West to consider occupation of enemy territory justified, but while this is fair enough it should also be recognised that China was taking action against a persistent rival and sometime aggressor.

At the same time, this doesn't justify China claiming the action was taken to benefit the Tibetans, that it has had that effect to a substantial degree, or that discrimination in the region is evident. There isn't a simple fix either way to Tibet. Can, or indeed should, it become independent? Not realistically. It was annexed during a period of Chinese history that, with the Bo Xilai case, the government has very publicly declared was disastrous, but as the UK government has found, just because it no longer agrees with the territorial claims of Oliver Cromwell and has no strong territorial interest in Northern Ireland, it can't resolve tensions or injustices in the region just by giving it back to the Republic. Modern Tibet is dominated by Han Chinese who have every right to be there, having been encouraged to migrate to an area that was at the time part of China, just as Northern Ireland is dominated by Protestants who favour unification with Britain. These people can't fairly be dispossessed for actions that were no fault of theirs, or handed over to a state that may simply discriminate against them in the way China has discriminated against Tibetans. The Dalai Lama's favoured solution of greater autonomy within China and and end to discrimination is the only tenable way forward, but by its nature will take time to accomplish.

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: This is not a history or a genocide discussion, so please back to topic.

 

[sukritact]

A wat isn't a particular style - it's simply a word meaning "temple" (strictly, it translates as 'school' because the temples acted as monasteries), and is of neither Thai nor Khmer origin. Arguing that the two countries overlap because of their shared word for temple is like arguing that you shouldn't have more than SE Asian civ because all these countries have guesthouses called "Same Same But Different". A temple like Angkor Wat plainly differs architecturally from one like Wat Phra Si Sanphet. Angkor Wat, the most famous Khmer monument, was constructed as a Hindu temple, and the Suryavarman II (the Khmer leader in Civ IV, and builder of Angkor Wat) was Hindu. By the Sukothai period the Khmer and Thais were Buddhist. The two groups are ethnically distinct.

I'm backtracking a bit, but thank you for saying that! It's not often someone recognizes the differences between Siam and the Khmer.

The Khmer would have been a great inclusion in any case, they were monument builders, much like the Egyptians, and the switching between the construction of Hindu and Buddhist structures depending on what the current king liked would have made for an interesting civ.

Much of the world is underrepresented, I'd still like to see Brazil or Gran Colombia, the Pueblos or Mississippians, the Majapahit and Khmer, The Mali and Bantu, etc.

I wonder if they still have any other European civs to make? Western Europe is well represented (save for the Portuguese), Scandinavia has two civs, and Russia. I suppose this still leaves room for something from eastern or central Europe.

 

[Steamwerks]

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.

I'd be ok with that.

Frankly, the current pre-Islamic lineup is downright paltry.

Likewise, I think it's a bit of a shame that India and Arabs are one group.

Agreed.

@OP: I think the issue isn't that people don't dig the (medieval->modern) European civs, but that they come at the expense of the rest of the world. It also has the effect of under-representing the civilizations of antiquity. I'd consider the Goths a more compelling choice than Austria, for instance.