Why upset for European Civs?

[King Kalmah]

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.

1.The Axis powers were called Huns in WW1.Plus modern media seems to just lump them together and that never helps people learn the difference that Huns spoke Hunnic and Hungarians speak Finno-Uglar based langauge is just the main difference alone.Plus don't forget that Huns were Asian and Magyars just decided to settle in the "Huns" land.

If anything the Kzahks should be in the game since they shaped both Eastern Europe and the Middle East,but that won't happen since people can't even figure out who the Huns are.

2.As for Poland they are waiting for DLC just like Hungary...

EDIT culture time

Also food for thought Black Metal music from Sweden has influenced not only American metalheads,but also Brazilian metalheads and Japanese and yada yada....

Just saying that even today or in the 80s or even in the 1700s Sweden had Cultural sway in not only their backyards,but in their continent and even now globally...

 

[JFD]

1.The Axis powers were called Huns in WW1.Plus modern media seems to just lump them together and that never helps people learn the difference that Huns spoke Hunnic and Hungarians speak Finno-Uglar based langauge is just the main difference alone.Plus don't forget that Huns were Asian and Magyars just decided to settle in the "Huns" land.

If anything the Kzahks should be in the game since they shaped both Eastern Europe and the Middle East,but that won't happen since people can't even figure out who the Huns are.

2.As for Poland they are waiting for DLC just like Hungary...

Well, at least the Hungarian Kings were successful in trying to get everyone to think they descended from Attila. I would hope that Poland and Hungary are DLCs nonetheless.

 

[JFD]

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 ?

Why did they pick the Huns? To be funny. Likely its the same reason they chose Sweden - for a scenario. And the Celts are a very popular civ. People would be starting threads like "Why no Celts?" instead, I'd imagine, just like the "Why no Zulu?" thread.

Maybe the arguement should that be there are too many European civs; they should have kept to their own continent, then we'd have more civs from Asia, Africa and the Americas. Then one could say, "well, if they did that, we would have no game." In summary, there are not too many European civs, there are just not enough non-European civs.

 

[Liex]

In summary, there are not too many European civs, there are just not enough non-European civs.

And adding Sweden as the 9th Civ. didn't changed that. That's why people are upset.

(...) then we'd have more civs from Asia, Africa and the Americas. Then one could say, "well, if they did that, we would have no game."

I don't think I got this. Why would people say that?

 

[JFD]

And adding Sweden as the 9th Civ. didn't changed that. That's why people are upset.



I don't think I got this. Why would people say that?

Yeah I realise that, but I still wish Sweden didn't get the backlash. It wasn't Sweden's fault it was revealed last.

And I mean because the US was founded by Europeans, and wouldn't have been had Europeans kept to themselves. CiV is an American game. Thus, without so many Europeans influencing the world, and in particular the Americas, there would be no game - at least not one in a recognisable fashion as we have today. It's a stretch of a statement, but true nonetheless.

 

[elprofesor]

1.The Axis powers were called Huns in WW1.Plus modern media seems to just lump them together and that never helps people learn the difference that Huns spoke Hunnic and Hungarians speak Finno-Uglar based langauge is just the main difference alone.Plus don't forget that Huns were Asian and Magyars just decided to settle in the "Huns" land.

I am confused. Before coming to this forum, Huns and Hungarians were completely dissociate people in my mind, whose only point in common was a relatively similar name.
Aside from the demagogical use of "huns" in WW1 by the USA, are there any reasons to lump them together? I know nothing about Hungary's history.

 

[JFD]

I am confused. Before coming to this forum, Huns and Hungarians were completely dissociate people in my mind, whose only point in common was a relatively similar name.
Aside from the demagogical use of "huns" in WW1 by the USA, are there any reasons to lump them together? I know nothing about Hungary's history.

Well, that's a good thing that you don't associate the Huns and Hungarians interchangeably. But from what I've observed, some, especially those not particular into history, are thrown off by the "Hun" in "Hungary," which ranges from thinking that they are the same, or that they are at least somehow tied together. On a side note, the Hungarian Grand Prince Arpad, the first ruler of Hungary when it was a Principality, claimed that he was descendant from Attila the Hun. Although I'm not entirely sure how fabricated this story is, from either perspectives.

 

[King Kalmah]

Well, that's a good thing that you don't associate the Huns and Hungarians interchangeably. But from what I've observed, some, especially those not particular into history, are thrown off by the "Hun" in "Hungary," which ranges from thinking that they are the same, or that they are at least somehow tied together. On a side note, the Hungarian Grand Prince Arpad, the first ruler of Hungary when it was a Principality, claimed that he was descendant from Attila the Hun. Although I'm not entirely sure how fabricated this story is, from either perspectives.

That is the thing that bugs me not only as a minor History buff,but as a Hungarian.

Was he really a descendent or was it just used by him to legitimatize his rule as Prince?

We may never know...

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Yeah I realise that, but I still wish Sweden didn't get the backlash. It wasn't Sweden's fault it was revealed last.

Agree.
Let's all bash Austria !

 

[JFD]

Agree.
Let's all bash Austria !

Lol. My thoughts exactly.

 

[Dragonflow]

I'm just going to say that Austria deserves more to be in-game than Sweden and wait for the reaction of the "Swedish forum defence force".

 

[JFD]

It depends upon how you define "deserves more." After all the first tier civs are in the game, it doesn't really matter so much. I think they both equally deserve to be in the game, as I think does Hungary and Poland. Like I've said, it doesn't matter so much the specific accomplishments of second tier civs.

 

[Liex]

To be fair, I'd say Portugal "deserves more". It fits the Gods and Kings theme (their as religious as Spain), the Renaissance thing, the naval changes (School of Sagres), the city states changes (Portugal loved to bully cities off the coast of Africa and Asia, and established an extensive system of cooperation instead of direct domination) etc. Perhaps I'm biased, but to me Its footprint in the world is far more obvious than Sweden's, Hungary's or Poland's. The only reason they were not included is probably because they seems to be popular enough for a DLC.

 

[Grubnessul]

I think Austria-Hungary will cover Hungary. At least, I give it 70% chance the Austrian UU is the Hungarian hussar.

 

[JFD]

To be fair, I'd say Portugal "deserves more". It fits the Gods and Kings theme (their as religious as Spain), the Renaissance thing, the naval changes (School of Sagres), the city states changes (Portugal loved to bully cities off the coast of Africa and Asia, and established an extensive system of cooperation instead of direct domination) etc. Perhaps I'm biased, but to me Its footprint in the world is far more obvious than Sweden's, Hungary's or Poland's. The only reason they were not included is probably because they seems to be popular enough for a DLC.

Frankly, a lot of things you listed are also within Sweden's book of accomplishments. However, Portugal's globetrotting was far more successful and influential than Swedens, so I'd agree that Portugal actually "deserves" to be in the game (hence I specifically left them out in my previous post). But as you say they are a perfect DLC civ.

 

[Louis XXIV]

To be fair, I'd say Portugal "deserves more". It fits the Gods and Kings theme (their as religious as Spain), the Renaissance thing, the naval changes (School of Sagres), the city states changes (Portugal loved to bully cities off the coast of Africa and Asia, and established an extensive system of cooperation instead of direct domination) etc. Perhaps I'm biased, but to me Its footprint in the world is far more obvious than Sweden's, Hungary's or Poland's. The only reason they were not included is probably because they seems to be popular enough for a DLC.

I'd also argue that their playstyle would be very similar to both the Spanish and Dutch (with a bit of English mixed in). They might not have been included because others civs would feel more unique.

 

[elprofesor]

Well, the way I see it, right now there are only 2 "exploring civs": Spain and Polynesia; the later can explore way earlier, the former gets boni if he does explore (and some advantages in the form of conquistadores).
So a third one, if done right, could still feel very unique.

 

[Louis XXIV]

How many exploring civs do you need? There are also only two religion civs. Plus, I think America is an exploring civ too with their extra sight for units.

 

[bonafide11]

Yeah I realise that, but I still wish Sweden didn't get the backlash. It wasn't Sweden's fault it was revealed last.

You make it sound like people are blaming Sweden itself. Nobody is accusing the country of Sweden of any wrong doing to earn its inclusion in the game. There are just other civs that we would rather have seen than Sweden. But we're not saying it's "Sweden's fault." That sounds a bit melodramatic.

 

[CivOasis]

To be fair, some of us (maybe even more of us) were unhappy when we saw Byzantium. I'd rather not see more European nations for now, there's so much of the world gone ignored, but I actually prefer Sweden to the Byzantines.