Why upset for European Civs?

[Inhalaattori]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalmar_Union

You would be right if they had chosen Margaret as the ruler of Denmark. But they chose a Viking age leader.

 

[carm3]

You would be right if they had chosen Margaret as the ruler of Denmark. But they choose a Viking age leader.

And in any case, that was basically a Denmark-headed union (note that Norway remained under Danish rule for a few hundred years after Sweden split), so I think can still be counted as a continuation of Denmark.

 

[Domen]

Sweden was a natural choice. The number of times it has revolutionised the military,

One ??? Or zero ???

Well, certainly not more than one.

and defeated foes usually on the winning side (such as the HRE or Russia),

Am I missing something? Did Sweden win the Thirty Years War or the Great Northern War? As far as I know the Thirty Years War ended with a diplomatic agreement, rather than evident victory of any of the states involved, while the Great Northern War ended with Russian victory over Sweden.

Then on the political side of things, it is often considered an example of the first pre-modern government.

Care to elaborate?

Not to mention it has one of the highest standards of living in Europe and the world, and a beloved Princess and raunchy King.

A good reason to add it in the game - Swedish people are rich, so all of them will have enough money to purchase the game.

There may be too many European civs against non-European civs, but Sweden definitely deserves its spot regardless.

For inventing Temeprature and Skype - I say yes.

And please add "Skype" as a special unit for Sweden.

 

[Pangur Bán]

But they do between Medieval Denmark and Reformation Sweden.

I would disagree with that - given their leader, unique ability, and one of their unique units, I think it's pretty clear that the primary inspiration for the Denmark civ is the Viking age, even if they did draw from later history for the second unique unit. The Sweden civ, on the other hand, is based on the country from (approximately) the Thirty War period onwards. In light of that, I'd say they actually fulfil all of the points that were raised.

EDIT: Looks like lots of people already beat me to it .

Superficially appears to be a good argument, but could also lead to a civilization under Athelstan and another under Elizabeth (differences between times and kingdoms way bigger than the cherry-picked Den and Swed differences here) or two Russias one under Vladimir the Great and another under Ivan the Great.

 

[Domen]

Aztecs ? The empire that got wiped out by the Spanish.

Or rather, by the Spanish supported by dozens of city-states previously subjugated and oppressed by the Aztecs.

 

[carm3]

Superficially appears to be a good argument, but could also lead to a civilization under Athelstan and another under Elizabeth (differences between times and kingdoms way bigger than the cherry-picked Den and Swed differences here) or two Russias one under Vladimir the Great and another under Ivan the Great.

No, as both Aethestan and Elizabeth bore the title of King/Queen of the English - Elizabeth is a later ruler of a continuous political entity. Obviously the nature of this kingdom changed quite a lot (600 years will do that), but to distinguish between those two is much different than distinguishing between separate states like Sweden and Denmark. This is the thing about a lot of the criteria brought up to defend civ selection that are then criticised: it's not just the difference in time period, and it's not just the difference in culture, and it's not just the political separation that make Sweden separate from Denmark, it's all of them together.

You can still disagree with the selection in the end, but taking any of these characteristics in isolation, then showing how they also apply to civilizations/nations/cultures/etc. that patently should not be in the game is not a valid way of refuting them.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Superficially appears to be a good argument, but could also lead to a civilization under Athelstan and another under Elizabeth (differences between times and kingdoms way bigger than the cherry-picked Den and Swed differences here) or two Russias one under Vladimir the Great and another under Ivan the Great.

England under Athelstan isn't being represented and probably wouldn't be represented even if, for some reason, the later England were left out. I think the same can be said for Russia. However, if they were to include the Kievan Rus, I'd argue that it's distinct enough and important enough to warrant separate consideration (from both Russia and the Scandinavian civs).

 

[CivOasis]

Or rather, by the Spanish supported by dozens of city-states previously subjugated and oppressed by the Aztecs.

Nevermind that the Aztecs almost booted Cortés out on multiple occasions, left a large cultural footprint, and turned into a puppet state, rather than total annihilation.

EDIT:
Where was the op that was even in response to?

 

[GenjiKhan]

However, if they were to include the Kievan Rus, I'd argue that it's distinct enough and important enough to warrant separate consideration (from both Russia and the Scandinavian civs).

If they do this,this civilization would be renamed "Ukraine" . If there was any chance of them for being represented,they would add Kiev as a city-state before,which didn't happen yet . And since Europe is crowded,I don't think they would be represented until Civ7 at least .

 

[PhilBowles]

While this is true, all of the civs you listed, and likely many that you haven't, don't fit so well as Sweden with this expansion. It is this synergy with the expansion that people are ignoring. I am merely saying that no one should be disappointed with Sweden before they are disappointed with the expansion and its theme. Although I'm sure that there are plenty of people who are disappointed that the expansion itself is so eurocentric, seeing as Sweden was the final civ released, and the eurocentricity of the expansion has only been accepted as sensible in hindsight, it is she that has received the backlash. I wasn't trying to say that Sweden deserved to be in civ more than X civ, because of X reason. I was merely dispelling the opinon of a few that Sweden has done nothing, and is but a neutral, unimagined country, and that for this expansion and its specific theme/s Sweden is a natural fit.

I'm not yet sure where Sweden really fits in terms of synergy with the expansion - I would presume, like Ethiopia, it's due to being a civ with a religiously-themed leader. Now that we have the list of achievements for the "Into the Renaissance" scenario it's evident that (a) it's set long before the 30 Years War, (b) Sweden is not one of the civs represented, and (c) that there are civs in this and the other scenarios which are scenario-specific rather than main game civs, all contrary to speculation that Sweden's inclusion was due to its role in the Renaissance scenario and a design decision to only use main game civs for those scenarios (hence including Spain as free content).

 

[Pangur Bán]

England under Athelstan isn't being represented and probably wouldn't be represented even if, for some reason, the later England were left out. I think the same can be said for Russia. However, if they were to include the Kievan Rus, I'd argue that it's distinct enough and important enough to warrant separate consideration (from both Russia and the Scandinavian civs).

I think you are wrong there on several grounds. England under Athelstan and Russia under Vladimir are far more powerful and significant than Sweden under Gustavus. Neither of which is the point incidentally.

 

[Pangur Bán]

No, as both Aethestan and Elizabeth bore the title of King/Queen of the English - Elizabeth is a later ruler of a continuous political entity. Obviously the nature of this kingdom changed quite a lot (600 years will do that), but to distinguish between those two is much different than distinguishing between separate states like Sweden and Denmark. This is the thing about a lot of the criteria brought up to defend civ selection that are then criticised: it's not just the difference in time period, and it's not just the difference in culture, and it's not just the political separation that make Sweden separate from Denmark, it's all of them together.

You can still disagree with the selection in the end, but taking any of these characteristics in isolation, then showing how they also apply to civilizations/nations/cultures/etc. that patently should not be in the game is not a valid way of refuting them.

Well, no, your are wrong on many points. GA's Sweden had more of the old Danish realm in it than the Denmark of his own era. There are no significant and coherent cultural differences between "Sweden" and "Denmark"; Scandinavia is a cultural continuum. Scandinavian political boundaries have generally been fluid except when protected by a common ruler, which they had for much of the period before GA. Athelstan was a king of English Saxon Kingdom and for a time of Northumbria. And so on.

 

[Louis XXIV]

If they do this,this civilization would be renamed "Ukraine" . If there was any chance of them for being represented,they would add Kiev as a city-state before,which didn't happen yet . And since Europe is crowded,I don't think they would be represented until Civ7 at least .

While I don't think they'll be in, Amsterdam and Carthage were never added as City-States. Adding City-States and turning them into civs seems to be the exception, not the rule. I suspect this is partly because it's a bit of a pain to go to all the trouble of finding music for a city-state and then replace them (and, half the time, the old music doesn't fit the new civ).

 

[JFD]

I'm not yet sure where Sweden really fits in terms of synergy with the expansion - I would presume, like Ethiopia, it's due to being a civ with a religiously-themed leader. Now that we have the list of achievements for the "Into the Renaissance" scenario it's evident that (a) it's set long before the 30 Years War, (b) Sweden is not one of the civs represented, and (c) that there are civs in this and the other scenarios which are scenario-specific rather than main game civs, all contrary to speculation that Sweden's inclusion was due to its role in the Renaissance scenario and a design decision to only use main game civs for those scenarios (hence including Spain as free content).

Sweden fits in well with the themes of religion, renaissance, and social policies effecting diplomacy. It may yet take special advantage of the latter, which is something I expect.

 

[JFD]

Sweden was a natural choice. The number of times it has revolutionised the military, and defeated foes usually on the winning side (such as the HRE or Russia), makes it a very important military power. Then on the political side of things, it is often considered an example of the first pre-modern government. Sweden was one of the first countries to abolish Guilds, form Trade Unions, and allow women into government. Not to mention it has one of the highest standards of living in Europe and the world, and a beloved Princess and raunchy King. Sweden also invented Dynamite, Zippers, Temperature and Skype.

Just to clarify, as it seems I was not clear enough. These are not reasons for why Sweden should be a civ in the game. These are reasons why Sweden is of note, because some seem to believe that Sweden has accomplished nothing but to remain neutral in WW2 and to NATO. The reason why Sweden should be in the game, and the reason why it has been chosen, is because it fits in with the expansion's central theme. It also does not refute Sweden's claim to the game with that arguement that X country has accomplished X feat that Sweden also accomplished, because Sweden accomplished all these feats and some of them iconically so. More to the point, Sweden was regarded as a Great Power amongst European states, an accomplishment few civs that have yet to be included have achieved. Does this mean that Sweden is the only civ that fits this criteria? Of course not. Both Hungary and Poland come to mind as civs which were prominent enough, and which would fit the same arguements as to Sweden's validity, during the Middle Ages to have been in the expansion. But the Huns precluded Hungary (because there are plenty that would confuse the two, I'm sure), and there is likely some reasonable reason for Poland's exclusion. Sweden is a natural fit. Not the only one which would have been a natural fit, but a natural fit nonetheless.

On the other note, to me saying that Sweden and Denmark are the same is like saying New Zealand and Australia are the same. To be fair, Australia and NZ would likely be wrapped up into one civ, should it ever be, however unlikely, in the game. But having not observed firsthand the Scandanavian cultures, I can't say for sure whether or not they are as alike as is being claimed. But Sweden must be different enough from Denmark that Firaxis decided it was viable to include them, and not just make Denmark apart of the scenario, and at the end of the day that's all that matters. In any case, I don't imagine we will be seeing Sweden again in the series, so just let those who really wanted Sweden enjoy the time they have with them. I mean, there must be something about Sweden that attracts me, and others who also wanted Sweden, that Denmark, or a Viking, or a Scandanavia, does not possess.

 

[carm3]

Well, no, your are wrong on many points. GA's Sweden had more of the old Danish realm in it than the Denmark of his own era. There are no significant and coherent cultural differences between "Sweden" and "Denmark"; Scandinavia is a cultural continuum. Scandinavian political boundaries have generally been fluid except when protected by a common ruler, which they had for much of the period before GA. Athelstan was a king of English Saxon Kingdom and for a time of Northumbria. And so on.

You have missed my point entirely, which was that the political continuum between Athelstan and Elizabeth makes the comparison with Denmark and Sweden invalid. You may think of a title like "rex Anglorum" (vel sim.) a matter of insignificant semantics, but it is not - it is the difference between a society/civ/nation/etc. evolving, and one signalling a break from its predecessor. The title is every bit as important (and, in many cases, more so) than the territory being ruled. As for Scandinavia being a single cultural region, I and several others have made the argument already that the Denmark and Sweden civs clearly represent not only distinct political entities, but also different time periods and civilizations. The point is that both of these factors are very important.

Finally, you say that I am wrong on many points, but your post does not back this up - you say that political boundaries between Denmark and Sweden have been fluid for a long time, but I never claimed otherwise. Similarly, you bring up Athelstan's ruling of the English Saxon Kingdom and part of Northumbria, but entirely miss my point that the title of "rex Anglorum" that he took is one that was kept by future monarchs down to Elizabeth, indicating a political continuity that is very significant in distinguishing between evolving countries and new, distinct entities.

 

[carm3]

It also does not refute Sweden's claim to the game with that arguement that X country has accomplished X feat that Sweden also accomplished, because Sweden accomplished all these feats and some of them iconically so.

Exactly this.

 

[carm3]

More to the point, Sweden was regarded as a Great Power amongst European states, an accomplishment few civs that have yet to be included have achieved.

Also this - the fact that Sweden was regarded as a great power by the internationally dominant powers of the time should count for something. As the author said, this is not an incontestible defence of Sweden being included at the expense of [x civilization], but I also think that many of the criticisms are either overstated or invalid.

 

[JFD]

Plus, under Gustav Adolphus, Sweden became the largest nation in Europe after Russia and Spain. That's certainly nothing to scoff at.

 

[dagriggstar]

I'd prefer to be arguing

There are too many European civs, why did they pick the Celts/Huns ?

Than

There are too many European civs, why did they pick Sweden ?