Why upset for European Civs?

[dagriggstar]

You can take almost ANY nation that ever existed in history and make it fun and unique to play as. I mean, the Aztecs could easily have the Austrian UA for instance (Triple Alliance), a potential civ like Sri Vijaya could have the Dutch UA etc

I always like to generate my maps randomly in worldbuilder, then place civs that were historically together, together. Not only is there an absence of civs outside Europe, there's an absence of City-states outside europe.

It seems to be an attitude where "oh, since after Columbus found America, Europe dominated everything" reflected in Europeans having the only UU's or UB's (with the exception of Japan and the Ottomans, who are probably the most European of the non-European civs). To me, they've already missed an opportunity to style the Iroquois and Siam in that fashion (think about what time period those civs are from and when their uniques are in game, bit of a mis-match ?). I find that frustrating...

 

[bcaiko]

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

It's mostly this. I'm certainly disappointed by the over-saturation of the European Civs. In part, Civ is a fun game to play "What if...?" with. But that's much more fun with Civs who aren't as well known to Western history.

Plus, I love the Zulu. Did we really need both the Netherlands and Sweeden in one expansion?

 

[Pangur Bán]

It's really silly to have TWO Scandinavian civs, a traditionally poor and not a particularly important part of the world anyway, but this is the kind of the thing the current developers do and Sweden was to be expected anyway after the inclusion of Denmark.

Wish they'd rename this game Sovereign States V and give the "Civilization" naming/branding rights over to a more Civilization-spirited developer.

 

[AriochIV]

I have to say I think it's funny that the harshest of the anti-European venom seems to come from Europeans.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

But I'm not so sure there will be another formal expansion... I don't see an obvious feature theme.

Global war'ming currently only has a lonely GDR to take pot-shots beyond Future eras!

 

[Krzowwh]

I have to say I think it's funny that the harshest of the anti-European venom seems to come from Europeans.

Not to mention that the non-Europeans are those who do not mind so much.

 

[Scaramanga]

Europe is still under-represented. Need Portugal.

 

[King Kalmah]

Europe is still under-represented. Need Portugal.

And Hungary!

oh and throw in Bulgaria and Poland too just to piss off all the anti european people

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Familiarity breeds contempt, I suppose. They savor the exotic, while their own neighborhood seems mundane.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

Or because this is English language using forum and CiV, while holding some fame in non American/European markets, isn't really the big deal when it comes to say, east Asia where free to play games are dominant force of PC gaming

 

[Louis XXIV]

I have to say I think it's funny that the harshest of the anti-European venom seems to come from Europeans.

Except when nationalism kicks in, then it's "they shouldn't add so many European civs and how could they add these ones when X is still missing?"

 

[sumodaz]

It's really silly to have TWO Scandinavian civs, a traditionally poor and not a particularly important part of the world anyway

You sir, are a ruffian and a scoundrel No, in all seriousness I was surprised by Sweden's inclusion with Denmark already being there. The way I see it is that this is a western game and if adding more euro civs help the game sell, then i'm all for it... I still want to be playing civ games when i'm 80!

 

[janboruta]

Sweden proposes a totally different gameplay to Denmark, despite being also a Scandinavian civ. I am not upset with getting more Euro civilizations, as there are still some important players lacking (Portugal, Poland, Hungary, Serbia/Bulgaria for southern, heavily religious Slavs). What I'd like to see the most are some ancient Fertile Crescent, Near East and medieval African civs - they will probably be DLC or in a second expansion in the next year.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I have to say I think it's funny that the harshest of the anti-European venom seems to come from Europeans.

It's because we're sick of each other.
In all seriousness, I don't perceive most other european countries as very different from Germany apart from some national stereotypes and cultural quirks (everyone who's not German drives like a madman, McDonalds serves wine in France...).

Except when nationalism kicks in, then it's "they shouldn't add so many European civs and how could they add these ones when X is still missing?"

As others have pointed out, if you're going to cram the game full of Europeans at least spread it out a bit. Denmark and Sweden ? And Germany and Austria ? Austrians are just Germans with funny accents.
Too many Germanic barbarians, while Slavs only have Russia. I would have been happier with Poland and Bulgaria or Serbia. That way we would have had one Eastern Slavic one Western Slavic and one Southern Slavic nation.

 

[Scaramanga]

If I can recognize the greatness of an empire and it's leaders (ie. Portugal), I feel the need for it's inclusion. I don't find nobility in included civs out of pity (Timbuktu should just be a city-state).

Denmark set the stage for a Swedish civ. They could've named the DLC 'Vikings' but that would've kept the Scandinavian civs to one. Specifying Denmark created a vacuum for Sweden to fill; although I find Portugal to be the more influential empire.

 

[JFD]

I thought that to. Ed Beach designed the DLCs, at least the Denmark one, and I thought that he may have had something in mind.

I don't oppose so many European civs, but I do think they could have at least gone with an Eastern European civ rather than another Western. Out of Poland, Hungary and Serbia, I would've liked Hungary.

 

[Fabiano79]

My major complain is not about the inclusion of another european civ, but about the behavior of some people on this forum. Including Mods.

When we were talknig about the surprise 9th civ and names like Gran Colombia, Brazil and Indonesia were considered, some people started to scream about "historic relevance", "cultural importance", "uniqueness" etc...and we needed to defend the incluison of these civs against all kind of critics.

Now that the chosen one is Sweden, wich dont fill most of the conditions that people around here set for the game, people are surprisenly fine with it.

I can see why the Devs choose Sweden, Im not very happy about it, but I understand their reason. What I cant understand is where are all the pleople that were so strongly against the inclusion of "minor civs"? Why they are content with Sweden?

The only conclusion I can think of is that people had problems about certain civs because they are full of prejudices.

 

[Cía]

I am also suprised that not so many people are complaining, cause when BTS was getting released and everyone discussed what civs it would contain people were raging hardcore when I named Sweden as a possible choice.

But still there is some opposition left, and although it's mostly because of the rising number of european civs added, it's also for adding Sweden in particular. And many people around here who complain on adding Sweden say that they would rather have gotten civs like brazil, gran colombia or australia. Sweden beats those civs any day of the week when it comes to how much they deseves to be in the game. Sweden's history isn't that well known outside of Sweden and I guess thats the reason why people think brazil is better for civ.

 

[Fabiano79]

I really dont want to start to compare Sweden with others civs, because its mater of opinion.

I can say easily that: Brazil's history isn't that well known outside of Brazil and I guess thats the reason why people think Sweden is better for civ.

As I said, the problem is that Sweden have the same kind of weakness people point out when we were talking about Brazil or Gran Colombia. Why those people are not complaing now? Because of the topless blondes on the parks of Stockholm? Hey, Brazil have gorgeous women with little cloths on the beaches you know.

 

[Louis XXIV]

When we were talknig about the surprise 9th civ and names like Gran Colombia, Brazil and Indonesia were considered, some people started to scream about "historic relevance", "cultural importance", "uniqueness" etc...and we needed to defend the incluison of these civs against all kind of critics.

Now that the chosen one is Sweden, wich dont fill most of the conditions that people around here set for the game, people are surprisenly fine with it.

Well, historic importance and longevity are two factors that always concern me. Specifically, a period of time where a civilization, state, or empire is among the most important among its known world. Sweden did have this period. Brazil strikes me as someone that could approach that point in 30 years, but isn't there yet. And I think it's risky to project ahead like that.