Austria, with Maria Theresa
The Byzantium, with Theodora
Carthage, with Dido
The Celts, with Boudica
Ethiopia, with Haile Selassie
The Huns, with Attila
The Maya, with Pacal
The Netherlands, with Willem of Oranje
Sweden, with Gustav Adolphus
None; I am far too disheartened by the exlusion of another civ (such as the Zulu)
See my post directly above this one, as it's relevant here too. If we are talking actual history, Chris is right. If we are talking entertainment (which IS what Civ is), then lucifer is right (about the planet being too big). He's wrong about the racist label, however.Originally Posted by luciferkid
Implying that most or all non-Europeans live in mud huts and stab things with spears all day is very ignorant of you, not to mention showing your very narrow and biased opinion on what a civilization is.
Correction: this is the game's appeal to you. Personally, I feel the thought that this game could simulate history in any way is ridiculous. It's merely history-themed entertainment, like period pieces. Appealing to The Expendables, an R-rated movie that met mixed reviews and almost won a Razzie, isn't going to help your argument for fewer women in Civ. Alienating a whole gender is just bad business.
Last edited by zephyrtr; 04-23-2012 at 08:12 AM.
Ethiopia, definitely. I love the defensive advantages. Mehal Sefari come kind of late unfortunately. I hope they have some other early UU.
Please don't get into the whole "Noble Savage Theory" which no one has cared about for at least 3 decades. You got a trolling/flaming infraction earlier for descending into this debate. The Noble Savage theory is a disgrace in the history of anthropology (admittedly a field I have never looked to fondly upon). I find most people (thankfully) no longer adhere to this out of date and simply wrong idea.
Ahem...Byzantium has Theodora as a leader...note to self...look up "facts" in the dictionary...
I agree with much of your overall argument in the post where this comes from, but I'd suggest that you avoid hyperbole such as "never" in the future. With regard to women...it really depends on the country, society and time period. There have been quite a few female rulers in history, and although in numbers they are without any doubt outnumbered substantially by male rulers, Elizabeth and Catherine are far from "lonely exceptions to the rule." Some societies were matriarchal early in history, and numerous other female rulers existed much later from all over the world.Women have never really lead in any consistent, meaningful way until very recently (Elizabeth and Catherine being such lonely exceptions to the rule)
However, I largely agree with the other things you said, especially in regard to Civ V being a game of entertainment and this being a greater concern than historicity. I wish more people saw that...
Uh, no I didn't. Maybe you WISH that I had, but I didn't. In any event, I was simply giving another example of the kind of revisionist history that people are trying to push, similar to the "women did a lot historically!" malarky that some people believe and that RideASpaceCowboy was pushing back against. There are tons of other examples of it, too.
In the future, if you want to respond to a post of mine, maybe try to grapple with my main point, and not fixate on one small support example. My post was not about Noble Savage theory, it was about history vs. entertainment.
Apparently I was unclear. I was referring to historical facts in the former post, as opposed to liberal political correctness. When I play as Byzantium and Carthage after their release, I will use the Advanced Settings to change my leader's name to the more historically appropriate leader (Justinian and Hannibal). This seems pretty consistent to me.
The Zulu, for example, are a discrete culture. That's fine. They are even entitled to prefer their primitive lifestyle to our modern one. But to describe them as a "civilisation" does nothing except make that word meaningless. You could as easily describe an ant colony as a civilisation.
China and India and Egypt and Persia etc etc are all ancient and honourable civilisations. But they deserve to be included because they are civilisations, not to "represent". The fetish of representation can only be fulfilled by elevating spear-chuckers like the Zulu.
Are you saying that an Ant Colony should not be represented in a game of Civ? That seems a little harsh. That is just a humanist approach to what it means to be civilised. /sarcasm.
I think you'll be playing Carthage as Dido and Byzantium as Theodora, as they're the leaders of their respective civs. Unless you're playing civ4, of course.
There is nothing incorrect about any of this.
I don't know. Its fairly easy to forget that you are playing as a specific historical figure. The blatant resistance to Dido and Theodora aside, it's not unreasonable to change your leader name. I play as Nicholas II sometimes, just for a larf.
I agree with you chrisjwmartin. There are other contenders for African civs for those who want more African civs. Needless to say I think the inclusion of the Huns as a civ is a bit of a joke.
To what end?
When I am playing, I never see my leader's name come up. The scores in the corner say 'You', I can only meet the other leaders and all the pop-ups say 'You'.
The only exception is when a Great Project like Manhattan Project or the Apollo Programme are finished, and sometimes I think, 'crap, where the hell are they?' before I realise it means I've finished it.
In other words, I don't associate myself in any way, shape or form with the leader I am playing as, and have chosen that leader based on the abilities/buildings/units that could make the difference, so why rename?
I choose civs in a way completely different than your own. Renaming leaders accomodates that playstyle. I rename it for personal preferences, sometimes out of principle, sometimes for personal validation. It serves no practical purpose, but it doesn't hurt the game in anyway.
Tactlessness aside, there's some sentiments here that seem reasonable, at least from the perspective of this game. Civilizations are supposed to produce culture and conduct research, for instance, and the Huns and Zulu can scarcely be said to have done this. They just built hordes and raised hell.
It's almost like the game should be split into "shirts" and "skins" now, giving some players the option of playing a horde rather than a fully-realized civilization.
There are actually tons of examples of Hunnic jewelery still surviving in museums throughout the world and the Huns introduced advances in composite bow design into the West. The Huns also had a unique language, government structure, engaged in diplomacy with surrounding powers, etc.. Much the same can be said about the Zulu. They also have a unique religion, cultural events, etc. and Shaka similarly introduced advances in military tactics.
That seems like examples of producing culture and research to me. (Especially when talking specifically within the scope of the game, as was said, where advances in military tactics are treated as specific and unique technologies).
There are also many historical examples in antiquity (and pre-antiquity) where a nomadic group was actually more advanced than contemporary settled groups.
Heck, the Vedic-Aryans were a "nomadic horde" yet they composed the Vedas and were advanced in mathematics and astrology. But maybe we should just discount all their achievements because they were nomadic and done long before the people ever settled. Okay, well, then Hinduism, Buddhism, and Zoroastrianisms would never have existed. Were the Huns and Zulu the Vedic-Aryans? No. But the idea of dismissing the possibility that a group of people could significantly contribute to world culture and technology just because they were nomadic or tribal is absurd. Nomadic peoples didn't "just built hordes and raise hell".
The definition of civilization as specifically requiring cities has fallen out of favor in academics in place of the more general idea of cultural and organizational structure.
Last edited by istry555; 04-24-2012 at 09:16 AM.
Specific, exclusive words always fall out of favor because people feel "excluded". Academics, especially, love to make words useless, such as "art". It all ties back to Kant and the anti-conceptual movement.
Black Gate, as mentioned above I will be using the Advanced Settings to change my leader's name. I don't object to the use of female leaders where they are one of the best choices, e.g. Liz and Cath. But I will better enjoy playing as Justinian and Hannibal. I do this with other civs too, and for civs I play often, I use a variety of leaders. I enjoy the loose thematic overtones of the game and the Civ I play as. Otherwise, why not play "Spreadsheet Optimizer V" instead?
I never said that civilisations had to have cities. But failing to develop by 1900AD what the great civilisations had managed two thousand years before is an absolute exclusionary factor for the title. Nonetheless, I won't complain much about the Zulu being included. It'll make a tonne of money, and this isn't a charitable foundation. I will merely wrinkle my nose in smug condescension and reinforce my unjustified sense of overwhelming intellectual superiority.
Well it also fell out of favor (outside of and in addition to the general trend of moving away from specifics that you cited) in the face of new evidence from advances in anthropology, linguistics, archeology, etc. when they saw that there actually were some nomadic peoples more advanced than some contemporaneous urban peoples. There aren't many academics that will seriously call a group "barbarians" anymore, either (unlike this board which loves to throw around the term when describing groups). Primitive, yes, but "primitive" has different connotations than "barbarian".
So calling a group of people "primitives" is accurate and acceptable? I'm not so sure many academics would agree with you. From what I understand any descriptor that has even the hint of a negative connotation (meaning someone, somewhere used it as an insult), academics would label you racist for using. I'm pretty sure "primitives" would be on that list.
Pretty soon we are going to be calling cave men "differently-minded ancestors".
Depending on how far back you go it's either Archaic Homo Sapiens or Early Hominids
And no, most of them did not live in caves.
I didn't say "primitives", I said "primitive". Primitive is still used when talking comparatively between specifics (that can be compared, usually an advance that specifically required the previous item before it could develop). There is nothing racist in academia (or otherwise) to say Civilization A had primitive weaponry when compared to Civilization B. Granted there is the problem where sometimes things are compared which can't really be compared.
Seems like a farily equivocal response to me. In fact, I could have sworn we've had this exact discussion before. Diplomacy can mean "you pay us tribute, we don't sack you"? Government can be "I'm biggest, so you better do what I say".
Some did, like the Huns.Nomadic peoples didn't "just built hordes and raise hell".
All kinds of vague assertions can be made about how academics are currently trending, but the bottom line is that in the context of this game, civ's are supposed to have cities.The definition of civilization as specifically requiring cities has fallen out of favor in academics in place of the more general idea of cultural and organizational structure.
I view that more as the game-play limiting how a civ can be implemented, rather than limiting which civs are worthy of inclusion. But I get you view this (and the Huns) differently and that's fine.
To be fair, that is exactly what diplomacy means in Civ V Vanilla.
^^ Something Rome would say. The Huns disagreed. civis mean city in latin, so yes they should have cities, but this is predicated upon the Roman belief in their cultural superiority over the heathenous barbarians.
Comparing culture's at all is usually a form of ethnocentrism, as most people directly compare them to a different culture. In this case people are comparing the Huns to the Romans. Which is not fair to the Huns, whose lifestyle, culture and society were built upon how they survived in their environment.
Fabrics from Colombia and Venezuela are particularly valuable. Local natives had been weaving the same patterns of rich dyes and weaves for centuries. An American corporation, seeking to make a profit, decided to invest. One of the problems with these fabrics was that the colours would slowly fade because all the dyes they used were organic. So the company provided them with hardier american chemical dyes that wouldn't fade as fast, hoping to increase their productivity and ultimately make both the weavers and the company better off. No one ever bothered to actually go to Venezuela to see how the clothes were made.
Suffice to say there are now quite a few desolate lakes and streams that are chemically quarantined because they have excesses of artificial dyes in them.
TLDR "Primitive" is a derogatory term, because it implies the connotation of inferior. But "primitive methods" are usually the most efficient ways of doing things in many parts of the world, as they have been refined for millennia.
Now now. Sometimes it means "I'm your friend, so gimme stuff for free or I'll denounce you".To be fair, that is exactly what diplomacy means in Civ V Vanilla.
I swear I didn't consult any Romans before formulating my POV.
There's just a limit on how much a collection of people can evolve if they remain nomadic. Kind of hard to carry libraries or laboratories or hospitals around on your back.
Yup, there's a definite ceiling there. Sure, they had a culture, but nothing you would consider enlightened.
Fixed that for you. Ants are certainly very good at surviving in their environment, and have been doing so for millennia. By your logic, that makes them a civilisation.
The people of Central Asia had a greater role in history than most people acknowledge.
That having been said, I don't think the Huns had a particularly remarkable civilization. They had a period of ethnogenesis under Atilla/Bleda, a brief period of dominance and then basically fell apart or were culturally absorbed.
There are so many other worthy groups from Central Asia that actually did build cities or had a more significant role in history, but oh well. It is what it is. Gameplay wise, I think they are intriguing and very well designed. That means that overall, I guess they are a pretty good addition to the game.
Ant Empire
Leader: Z-4195
UA: Hive Mind - Happiness is always 0
UU: Warrior Ant - Replaces Warrior, can attack twice per turn
UI: Hive - Counts as a 1-population city. Can be built in any hex
Cities: Antwerp, Antium, Antioch...
I agree! I'm looking forward to them.
I laughed pretty hard at the cities.
Edit: (I just checked the rules and am not allowed to talk about past infractions so I will leave this be).
You mentioned in your post about the "liberal" idea that Native Americans were all just hippies in communes. And to be fair, that is an outdated vision of history that no one has seriously put up for decades. And yet despite the lack of people believing in this you keep using this as a point (whether to contradict or support) as if anyone put any merit in it. And this hippy style belief goes back tot he Noble Savage Theory.
======
Now that being said I do agree with you this game is of course primarily geared on entermainent. But the fact is it is different that at the very minimum there is a historical flavor which the Developers must use. So while the Zulu may not deserve it (due to both length, limited impact on the greater world, and the fact there are civs who have had both greater impacts, longer lengths, built more, etc. in front of them doesn't make them unlikely to get in).
Please do find the link. I'll be happy to say I was wrong if I am. I don't think I am.
Sorry, no, I know for a fact that in many public schools and even some private ones, Native Americans as hippies is still being taught (well, as of about 5 years ago). Also, you are now telling me you know that no one believes in this? How can you even begin to guess what people believe about Native Americans?
Kukulcan, here is the problem with the vast majority of your posts. You are positively swimming in false consensus theory. You think you know what most people think and you seem to think that most people agree with you on everything. You never have a shred of actual evidence to back up anything you say. You believing it strongly means everyone else must obviously agree with you. It's getting to the point where I'm just going to have to ignore your posts altogether, because you just make up consensuses at the drop of a hat.
As to your second point, I'm not really even sure what you were trying to say. You agree with me? But not entirely? The whole paragraph is hard to understand.
How on earth did I manage to miss chrismartin? Holy ☺☺☺☺.
So, what happened to the UK being an enlightened and civilized place? Have you people always been this ethnocentric? I thought that all changed after decolonization. Apparently not.
As to the ongoing Steth/Kukulcan argument, you both have points. Kukulcan, I've met many an unfortunate person who was a bleeding heart liberal hippie who thought that the native americans were peaceful and happy. Steth, there are many people and some schools who absolutely could not disagree more. The difference generally falls along the traditional urban/rural and liberal/conservative lines.
His second paragraph is his agreeing with you that if it sells it's in. If they thought they could make a lot of money with a Texan civ, they'd throw in Texas.
You say the word ethnocentric like it's a bad thing.
Ok sending you a message showing you wrong. But won't post about it anymore on the forums, apparently its against the rules to talk about infractions.
And anyways I don't understand whats hard to read about my post haha... I split the post into 2 sections, one regarding our earlier discussion. The other regarding the discussion on the Zulu. And I often post statistics, historical documents, etc. in my posts. Not sure where you are going with this
You are either joking, trolling, or I have been giving you credit for being far more intelligent than you actually are.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote