Cultural regions

[Hawk]

Remember in the Beyond the Sword expansion pack of Civ 4, how the units and buildings of each civilization looked unique to their cultural region/continent? Like if you were Aztec, your units would look like Native Americans, and if you were Roman, your units would like Mediterranean? That was probably my favourite feature of that expansion pack (although they could have gone a little further, making Archers and your first gunpowder units culturally unique as well), and I would really like to see this in Civilization 5. They good news is that the Settlers do look culturally unique already, so it may well be a feature that will be added, but still I'd like to know...will they make your units and buildings culturally unique to your civ's region?

So far this is the amount of civs to each cultural region/continent so far (and it refers to the people's culture, not always where they live. For example, American civ lives in America, but has a European culture, not Native American):

Middle East - 5 (Babylon will make it 6)
Asia - 3
Africa - 1
Mediterranean - 2
Europe - 5
Americas - 2
Polynesia - 0

With this unbalance of cultural areas, they should also consider adding important and worthy civs from some of those areas.

Middle East is fine at 6, but wouldn't be complete without Assyria (the only World Power of history that hasn't appeared in the game), making it 7.
Asia could use Mongolia, Korea and Majahahit to make it 6.
Africa could use Ethiopia, Zululand or Bantu to make it 3.
Mediterranean could use Spain, Phoenicia or Carthage to make it 4.
Europe is fine at 5, but wouldn't be complete without the Norse, making it 6.
Americas could use Inca, Maya and Sioux to make it 5.
Polynesia (if considered), could use Moari, Papuan and Rapa Nui to make it 3.

This would insure a well balanced cultural world.

[sketch162000]

Agreed...

a little confused about your breakdown, tho.

Middle East - Arabia, Ottoman, Persia (India? Egypt?)
Europe - America, England, Germany, France, Russia.
Asia - China, Japan, Siam
Africa - Songhai (Egypt would be grouped here too, arguably)
Mediterranean - Greece, Rome

In any case, yes! a thousand times yes! And don't forget to have the units respond in thier own language when you click!

[Hawk]

Egypt would have to be under the "Middle East" cultural region, since their culture, although unique, closer resembles people from the Middle East than people from the rest of Africa. Also, I imagine the units from the African cultural region to have a darker skin complexion than that of Egyptians.

India is a hard one to place. I put it into "Middle East" because it really is too different from the rest of Asia, and had much more dealings with the Middle Eastern people through history.

The rest are usually quite obvious to where they should go.

Anyway, glad to have someone agree with me on the matter! To me this is very important, since I'm quite a cultured person - at least that's what I've been called.

[MrMT]

I would also like to see great people made culturally specific.

I realise that it is not the top of the list, but it feels weird to have German knights led by a Chinese general.

[Hawk]

I hadn't thought of that, but if they could do that as well it would be great! I don't imagine that would be too difficult to do either.

[Hawk]

The updated list of civs per cultural region is:

Middle East - 6 (Arabia, Babylon, Egypt, India (?), Ottoman, Persia)
Asia - 4 (China, Japan, Mongolia, Siam)
Africa - 1 (Songhai)
Mediterranean - 3 (Greece, Rome, Spain)
Europe - 5 (America (US), England, France, Germany, Russia)
Americas - 3 (Aztec, Inca, Iroquois)
Polynesia - 0

Polynesia could arguably be assigned to the Americas cultural region. India is a cultural region of its own, but I think chances are they'll be assigned to the Middle Eastern cultural region. If another Indian regional civ is added (Sri Lanka, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc...), maybe they could be considered to have their own distinct look to their units and buildings.

[SamBC]

Okay... India really isn't part of the Middle East, either culturally or geographically. They have more in common culturally (eg religions) with elsewhere in Asia. If India only represents only the modern concept and nation-state of India, that's particularly true. Overall, though, it fits best as its own region.

Egypt is only culturally middle-eastern if we're talking about modern Egypt; ancient Egypt had/has more in common with other African cultures.

Ottoman is a complicated one. They're mostly identified among modern countries with Turkey, who aren't middle eastern (from your list they fit Mediterranean), and while they conquered a lot of the Middle East (and Turkey), that's not where they started from.

Lumping Russia in with Western-Europe-Derived stuff is a bit of a squeeze, too; really Slavic culture is fairly distinct - at least as distinct as Mediterranean cultures from northern western Europe.

Spain is awkward too; there's a fair bit of native cultural variation across Spain, and only those regions that are Mediterranean geographically are culturally so. You can really say the same about France, just the Mediterranean areas are a much smaller proportion. The Atlantic (and Bay of Biscay) bits of Spain are quite different.

[Hawk]

I would like India to be given it's own cultural look when they start assigning the civs to cultural regions - like they did in Civilization 4's expansion pack, Beyond the Sword. Unfortunately though, I think they are more likely to just assign them to the Middle Eastern culture. I know it doesn't fit, but the general Asian culture (Japanese, Chinese, etc) have a completely different cultural look to them to that of India as well.

Egypt certainly has had similarities with its African neighbours, but they also have always had characteristics of the Middle East as well, so it would fit into either cultural area. Africa could certainly use another civ, but I think they are more likely to add them to the Middle Eastern cultural region.

Ancient Asia Minor was very Middle Eastern, but you do have a point with the Ottoman Empire. The probably would fit better into the Mediterranean cultural region.

If they could add an Eastern European cultural region I think we'd all be happy, however I don't think that's going to happen. We can always hope, so I will add a new list for you!

Spain is best fitted to Mediterranean, and France to European. They both have variety, but when it boils down to it, that's where they go.

[Hawk]

Refined list:

Middle East - 4 (Arabia, Babylon, Egypt, Persia)
India - 1 (India)
Asia - 4 (China, Japan, Mongolia, Siam)
Africa - 1 (Songhai)
Mediterranean - 4 (Greece, Ottoman, Rome, Spain)
Western Europe - 4 (America (US), England, France, Germany)
Eastern Europe - 1 (Russia)
Americas - 3 (Aztec, Inca, Iroquois)


Possible add ons for more balanced cultural regions (still being debated in other threads):


Middle East - 4 (Assyria, Hittites, Berbers) making it 7.
India - 1 (Nepal, Sri Lanka) making it 3.
Asia - 4 (Korea, Majapahit) making it 6.
Africa - 1 (Ethiopia, Zulu) making it 3.
Mediterranean - 4 (Phoenicia, Byzantines) making it 6.
Western Europe - 4 (Norse, Celts, Netherlands) making it 7.
Eastern Europe - 1 (Hungary, Romania, Poland) making it 4.
Americas - 3 (Sioux, Maya, Polynesia) making it 6.

[zephyrtr]

I think "Near East" is the geographic area you're thinking of Hawk, which actually does include the Nile and Cairo. It's not wrong to include them in this category:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_east

Also, India is often considered a sub-continent but I think should still be counted among Asia. It would seem wrong to sum up Asia simply as Mongol/China/Japan. Europe shows more diversification than Britain/Spain/Greece. I think it's okay that India be counted alongside other Asian Civs, though I see the viewpoint you're taking here.

Also, the better term is Oceania, not Polynesia, as that doesn't include Micronesia, Australia or New Zealand

[Hawk]

I think "Near East" is the geographic area you're thinking of Hawk, which actually does include the Nile and Cairo. It's not wrong to include them in this category:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_east

Also, India is often considered a sub-continent but I think should still be counted among Asia. It would seem wrong to sum up Asia simply as Mongol/China/Japan. Europe shows more diversification than Britain/Spain/Greece. I think it's okay that India be counted alongside other Asian Civs, though I see the viewpoint you're taking here.

Also, the better term is Oceania, not Polynesia, as that doesn't include Micronesia, Australia or New Zealand

The Middle East is the Near East. I would probably feel more comfortable if they assigned Egypt to the Middle Eastern cultural region too though.

Polynesia has it's own distinct cultures, however in some ways can they be compared to the Native American cultures, and that is why I would feel comfortable with assigning them to the Americas cultural region. New Zealand is apart of Polynesia.
Also, you are forgetting Melanesia, which includes New Guinea.
But hey, if they the Firaxis team is happy to make an Oceania cultural region look, then I'm in full support...I just don't see it happening. Australia would be assigned to the European cultural region, since it would be based on Modern Australia.

[SamBC]

"Near east" is mostly only used (geopolitically) by the US, and US != world. I heard a story (no idea if it's true) as to how the UK ended up calling that area "middle east", and briefly the subcontinent "near east", which is insane... but anyway, most commonalities in the historical view between North Africa and the Middle East are natural results of living in semi-arid conditions on the edge of a desert. Convergent evolution and all that.

Really, how you group them depends on what it affects in game (graphics mostly), and could be solved well if you separate the different eras of city appearance and the appearance of different units.

[Hawk]

"Near east" is mostly only used (geopolitically) by the US, and US != world. I heard a story (no idea if it's true) as to how the UK ended up calling that area "middle east", and briefly the subcontinent "near east", which is insane... but anyway, most commonalities in the historical view between North Africa and the Middle East are natural results of living in semi-arid conditions on the edge of a desert. Convergent evolution and all that.

Really, how you group them depends on what it affects in game (graphics mostly), and could be solved well if you separate the different eras of city appearance and the appearance of different units.

As I suggested before, Near East and Middle East are both correct definitions for the geographic region (and from where I'm from, everyone calls the area "Middle East"). Regardless, I'm focusing here on the dominant culture of the region, and which civs fit best into it.
I don't think India fits into the Middle Eastern cultural area (which is where they placed them last time), but they don't really fit into the typical Asian culture either. That's why I'd prefer it if they gave India its own look...which would be more likely if they added a new India region civ.

I would like to know what civs everyone would like to add so the cultural regions are more balanced out, and at the same time the iconic civs (such as Norse) are added too. So people, who would you add to each region?

[SamBC]

I think the thing that removes a lot of confusion and nitpicking is the realisation that culture only really determines appearance, and I maintain that it'd be easier to fit them if you could mix and match. Egypt could happily have middle-eastern buildings, because middle-eastern buildings are really "edge of desert" buildings. It ought to have some units Mediterranean, some middle eastern and possibly some African (for early units). It would make India easier to do similar things, although none of the city looks would fit until the Modern age.

[Hawk]

Just made a poll to decide where to place India on the cultural map, so please visit and vote! Here's the link: http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread...ultural-region.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

Refined list:

Middle East - 4 (Arabia, Babylon, Egypt, Persia)
India - 1 (India)
Asia - 4 (China, Japan, Mongolia, Siam)
Africa - 1 (Songhai)
Mediterranean - 4 (Greece, Ottoman, Rome, Spain)
Western Europe - 4 (America (US), England, France, Germany)
Eastern Europe - 1 (Russia)
Americas - 3 (Aztec, Inca, Iroquois)

Yep. I like this list. Although, if it were possible, with Spain and Egypt they could have two culture looks (Spain West Europe and Med. Egypt ME and Med.)

Possible add ons for more balanced cultural regions (still being debated in other threads):


Middle East - 4 (Assyria, Hittites, Berbers) making it 7.
India - 1 (Nepal, Sri Lanka) making it 3.
Asia - 4 (Korea, Majapahit) making it 6.
Africa - 1 (Ethiopia, Zulu) making it 3.
Mediterranean - 4 (Phoenicia, Byzantines) making it 6.
Western Europe - 4 (Norse, Celts, Netherlands) making it 7.
Eastern Europe - 1 (Hungary, Romania, Poland) making it 4.
Americas - 3 (Sioux, Maya, Polynesia) making it 6.

For India, if you were to include anymore civs I would add the Mughals and Marathas. Also, the Berbers aren't really a civ, more of a people. If you were to include a civ of the Berbers, I would put in Morocco.

[Hawk]

Yep. I like this list. Although, if it were possible, with Spain and Egypt they could have two culture looks (Spain West Europe and Med. Egypt ME and Med.)

For India, if you were to include anymore civs I would add the Mughals and Marathas. Also, the Berbers aren't really a civ, more of a people. If you were to include a civ of the Berbers, I would put in Morocco.

Sounds good! Thanx for your input!
It seems that mixing cultural groups for certain civs might actually be a popular idea. What other civs do you think kinda fit into two cultures?

[SamBC]

Also, the Berbers aren't really a civ, more of a people. If you were to include a civ of the Berbers, I would put in Morocco.

That seems to presuppose that civ's are more about states, or modern nations, than they are about historic nations.

Morocco isn't entirely Berber, nor does it reflect the breadth of the Berber people (yes, they are that too). It would be a bit like basing Greece entirely upon Alexander's empire, or modern Greece.

[Hawk]

Whether they add the Berbers or Morocco, they will still fit into the same cultural region.

I'd also like it if they kept the cultural uniqueness of civs all the way into the Renaissance era. The Renaissance equivalent in Asia looked nothing like the Renaissance era of Europe or the Middle East.
Sure enough though, everyone seems to look the same in our Modern times.

[Vizigot]

Berberi are ethnic group not a nation, i dont see any logic in giving them their own civ. Also, they populated most of north africa, until Arabs islamized most of them, and rest tryed to find sanctuary in Sahara. Today you can find Berberi in Tunisia, Morroco , Algeria , Libya...
I guess my point is Berberi are too old and widespread to put them into single representative civ, just like Slavic people that are today many nations across Europe and Asia even.

[Hawk]

Berberi are ethnic group not a nation, i dont see any logic in giving them their own civ. Also, they populated most of north africa, until Arabs islamized most of them, and rest tryed to find sanctuary in Sahara. Today you can find Berberi in Tunisia, Morroco , Algeria , Libya...
I guess my point is Berberi are too old and widespread to put them into single representative civ, just like Slavic people that are today many nations across Europe and Asia even.

"Too old" hasn't stopped them before (think of Egypt, China, and Babylon), and widespread is probably a good thing.
Which civs would you set up on the list to help balance the cultural regions out a little more?

[Vizigot]

"Too old" hasn't stopped them before (think of Egypt, China, and Babylon), and widespread is probably a good thing.
Which civs would you set up on the list to help balance the cultural regions out a little more?

Well, difference between Chinese people and Berberi is huge, like comparing as.s and eye. China managed to unite and prosper under one flag while Berberi were tribes mostly, assimilated by any invader that would pass thru northern Africa. I made comparison with Slavic people, since they were spread across Europe widely and today form nations like Russia, Ukraina, Poland, Slovenia, Serbia, Czecks, and many others...which is very similar to what happend to Berberi.
It is generally very hard to single out successful nations of north Africa that haven't already been mentioned, between ancient conquests and colonial ages there wasn't much time for indigenous Africans to create alot of unique cultures uninfluenced by foreign impacts.
I cant recall if anyone mentioned them before, but Carthage, Mali and Numidia (biggest ancient Berberi kingdom) would be my personal favourites to spice up variety of Africa cultures.

[NovaCameron]

There are two Africas: North and Sub Saharan. They are completely different. Thus there should be two culture groups for them because that's what they are.

And yes there was plenty of time for them to make there own, they just didn't get around to it till 1000AD. (For a variety of reasons: Environmental, Evolutionary, Cultural)

[Vizigot]

By 10th century whole northern Africa was islamized thus being largely influenced by Arabic culture, south african tribes probably had time needed but only few managed to unite tribes and create larger kingdoms. They were too busy with tribal wars to make any significant progress...

[brxbrx]

this thread wasn't worth the bump.

also, culturally heterogeneous units aren't really needed. Appearances varied greatly even from within your "cultural regions" and the game already provides unique units. Also, you have to consider that such differences are influenced by technology and natural resources, which are different in Civ 5 from game to game.
For example, if the Aztecs could make steel, you can be sure that they would not go into battle with thick cotton armor and obsidian macanas (crudely put: wood with obsidian sticking out from it).
It'd be nice to have such distinctions, really, but the way you organized it isn't much good. sry.


We already have distinct architecture in cities, after all.

what I want is culturally distinguished wonders!
what would the great pyramids look like if they were made with japanese architecture? What would become of an aztec temple fashioned by russians?

[Hawk]

this thread wasn't worth the bump.

also, culturally heterogeneous units aren't really needed. Appearances varied greatly even from within your "cultural regions" and the game already provides unique units. Also, you have to consider that such differences are influenced by technology and natural resources, which are different in Civ 5 from game to game.
For example, if the Aztecs could make steel, you can be sure that they would not go into battle with thick cotton armor and obsidian macanas (crudely put: wood with obsidian sticking out from it).
It'd be nice to have such distinctions, really, but the way you organized it isn't much good. sry.


We already have distinct architecture in cities, after all.

what I want is culturally distinguished wonders!
what would the great pyramids look like if they were made with japanese architecture? What would become of an aztec temple fashioned by russians?

If you have a better idea of organising the civs into which cultural regions then I am all ears, I am not trying to organise the list with any bias, but I'm trying to be realistic. This thread is to discuss this issue, which isn't being fully discussed in other threads. Beyond the Sword had added this feature to Civilization 4, and so there is a good chance that they will be doing this again...thus it is worth talking about it.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

If you have a better idea of organising the civs into which cultural regions then I am all ears, I am not trying to organise the list with any bias, but I'm trying to be realistic. This thread is to discuss this issue, which isn't being fully discussed in other threads. Beyond the Sword had added this feature to Civilization 4, and so there is a good chance that they will be doing this again...thus it is worth talking about it.

With America, is the architecture the same as Europe? I can't remember, I've only played as them once, and it was a while ago. If so, Firaxis may have already decided on the cultural regions with the cities (which would be disappointing, as India's buildings and people shouldn't be Chinese).

[Hawk]

I think they were uniquely Native American looking as well. I'm hoping they are already organising it, but yeah, where India is assigned is a worry.