Third XP: Yay or Nay?

[Alexander I]

Now here's a Civ5 idea.

Since many of the in-game civs are really just "parts" of a different states but still part of a greater Anglo-Saxon civilization), maybe the next game could have culture groups, like the Slavs, Mesopotamians, Indo-Aryans, Celts, etc. You could a +1 to diplomatic relations with another civ because of shared culture group.

But it'd be easier to have leaders with much more divergent backgrounds in the same civ (e.g. Robert the Bruce of the Scots, Brian Boru of the Irish, Brennus of the Gauls and Boudica of the Britons would all be leaders in the greater Celtic civ, but they'd each maybe have their own "nations").

It would mean redefining the concept of what a civilization is in-game. I don't know, maybe that'd be hard to implement or not as fun to play. But it was some brainstorming.

[Niall Becc]

Originally posted by Alexander I


There's not just Gaulish cities in the list. There's Verulamium and Camulodunum and Isca, for example (though those all have Latinized names). I would've wished for more Briton towns, but oh well, I'll take what I can get.

Yes, Brennus is likely a title, possibly originally "Brenin." And there were two of them, at least two going by "Brennus" that were famous. IIRC, one sacked Rome, the other invaded Greece.

I still like Vercingetorix better, as we simply know more about him, and he's got a good personality for the game, cantankerous and independent.

But you're right, the "continental" Celts came to Britain much later than the earlier Gaelic Celts.

Yes, thank you Alexander. The Gaulish title is almost certainly Brennos - you've gotten Brenin from modern Welsh. Gaulish is actually very similar to Latin and in most cases the Latinized Gaulish names are close or identical to original Gaulish/Britonnic.

BTW, Tara is also weirdly inserted somewhere near the bottom of the city-list.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Niall Becc
Well, I feel I need to respond to the allegations that we've run out of civs to add. Perhaps to a Westerno-centric POV giving priority to colonialist European civs, yeah, but most of the great civilizations of the rest of the world haven't been touched yet.

It all depends on how you define 'great'. I mean, when starting a game against random opponents would you really want to end up playing the Buryats, Champa, Gaels, Maygar and Kanem? Or would you rather play against the Romans, Chinese, Arabs, Mayans and English? Of course, maybe you're a weirdo like me and wouldn't mind the former, but the vast majority of people would prefer the latter. One of the chief criticisms of the Call to Power series is it's choice of obscure civs. For the main game that just won't do, freaks like us can always resort to mods

The civs in Civilization (with a few exceptions for PC reasons or due to popular demand) and the three I mentioned have all had a significant impact on world history (India is home to several of the world's largest religions, without the Arabs 90% of our records about the ancient Romans and Greeks would have been lost for good, the Khmer were the most prolific builders in history and created several of the largest temples known to man, the Phoenicians invented the alphabet and created the first colonial empire, etc). Some of the ones you suggest barely had a regional importance.

For most people civs like the Khmer and Ethiopians are obscure enough as it is, an expansion that adds a whole bunch more of such civs would be very hard to sell. The Nubians, Assyrians and Phoenicians are big enough to carry an expansion, the Buryats and Uighurs aren't.

The rest of the world didn't know about them any more than the rest of the world knew about the French, Germans or English before the modern period.

That would be a very valid point if we were living in 1207 AD

There's not just Gaulish cities in the list. There's Verulamium and Camulodunum and Isca, for example (though those all have Latinized names). I would've wished for more Briton towns, but oh well, I'll take what I can get.

I made the Celtic city list, the distribution between Gaulic and Briton towns is pretty even, if you count the Irish cities as Briton ones both have 13 city names. There are also 17 other cities: Iberian, Cenomani, Central European, Galatian. I'd like to think that that's a pretty even distribution of all Celtic people. And yes, by Celtic people I mean the Hallstatt/La Tene Celts, the Gaels are a different people entirely. Trying to merge/mix up the two is only done for nationalistic reasons, that has little to do with history (and no, that's not a debate I'm getting into).

[Will9]

Originally posted by Alexander I
I still like Vercingetorix better, as we simply know more about him, and he's got a good personality for the game, cantankerous and independent.

The only problem with Vercingetorixis that the French claim him as part of their heritage which would create another riot at CFC. On second thought, let Firaxis add Vercingetorix

[Niall Becc]

Originally posted by Locutus


It all depends on how you define 'great'. I mean, when starting a game against random opponents would you really want to end up playing the Buryats, Champa, Gaels, Maygar and Kanem? Or would you rather play against the Romans, Chinese, Arabs, Mayans and English? Of course, maybe you're a weirdo like me and wouldn't mind the former, but the vast majority of people would prefer the latter. One of the chief criticisms of the Call to Power series is it's choice of obscure civs. For the main game that just won't do, freaks like us can always resort to mods

Well, I tried very hard to emphasize - though clearly unsuccessfully - that I didn't want to spam the game with "obscure" civilizations (I wouldn't say Hungary is obscure to most civers btw) ... even if you added all the civs I suggest with only one leader, chances are you'd get no more than one or two per normal game. If it's not already there (and from my experience it seems to be there already), then a random game should select randomly from leaders, meaning the more leaders the more chance of a civ appearing in the game. This is ignoring preset selections.

But please see my posts ... I merely provided a long list of other civilizations possible arguing that another 6 to 10 civs, only a few of which need be as obscure as the Buryats, could easily be in the game without overly-diluting the "quality" of appeal.

Originally posted by Locutus
The civs in Civilization (with a few exceptions for PC reasons or due to popular demand) ...

Most civers find out about the civ when they get the game; civilopedia definitely helps with that, just so long as they're not overloaded. After all the Zulu and the Mali were introduced, neither being more or much more famous than half the civs I listed, and are now favorites.

Originally posted by Locutus the Khmer were the most prolific builders in history and created several of the largest temples known to man, the Phoenicians invented the alphabet and created the first colonial empire, etc). Some of the ones you suggest barely had a regional importance.

I think they all have regional importance, otherwise I wouldn't have suggested them.

First colonial empire? I don't wanna get bogged down in obscure historical points, but at the very least you should say "first known" colonial empire. And since that "empire" wasn't centralized (thus stretching to breaking point the meaning of the word "Empire"), you mean the diffusion of a culture over a certain area, in which case the statement is patently false ... and I needn't name any examples.

As you said for the Khmer, let's not delude ourselves, the Khmer had no world impact, which strictly speaking is unattributable to any civilization until the 2nd half of the 20th century. Their distinctiveness and regional importance gets them in the game, and many of the cultures I mentioned to you, such as the Uighurs, Moors, Gaels and Hebrews had far more impact on the later course of world history, and civilizations , not to mention cultures like Srivijaya, Sogdia, Polynesia, Kanem, Vietnam, who had just as much regional importance in their own area as the Khmer.

I myself can't understand the mentality that puts a hoard of generic European civs in the game for no other reason than being well known the western European and North Americans, and then rejects civilizations who form the distinct indigenous background for millions and millions of people in other, larger parts of the planet. Unique cultures such as Polynesia and Srivijaya should get there way before the Dutch even get suggested. But believe me, the expansion of third world economies and internationalization /dewesternization of the gaming market will bring about my dream world soon enough.

Originally posted by Locutus without the Arabs 90% of our records about the ancient Romans and Greeks would have been lost for good

That's a rather unfair and rather Westernocentric summary of the Arab achievement in history. The Arabs created a world empire that stretched from the Atlantic to the boundaries of Tang China, conquered the Persian and most of the Roman Empire, created the world's second largest religion, controlled most of the most important urban centers in Western Eurasia, etc, etc.

And, anyways, it's also not true. The vast majority of classical sources transmitted to the Western world did so through preservation in western (usually Italian) churches and from the Byzantine Empire; this is commonly said though because the Arab ... correctly Islamic ... world transmitted some key Greek texts indirectly to the West at key points in time (many of these texts also surviving in the Byzantine Empire, but not emerging until centuries later).

Originally posted by Locutus
For most people civs like the Khmer and Ethiopians are obscure enough as it is, an expansion that adds a whole bunch more of such civs would be very hard to sell. The Nubians, Assyrians and Phoenicians are big enough to carry an expansion, the Buryats and Uighurs aren't.

You mix and match, like I suggested. Most people who know enough to go on forums will buy a new expansion in any case, the others will look at the box and see "8 new civs, including Assyrians, Huns and Poland". Quite enough to sell. And I'm not sure most people are that hostile to "obscure" civs as you think; you just need, I think, one or two mass appeal civs. I look at the civs added to the Cossacks XPs, I'm not sure any of them had mass appeal, but the XPs still sold. Extra civs would, as you acknowledge earlier in the thread, form only part of the XP.

Also, I'm pretty sure CtP2's selling problem had little to do with the number of civs in it. Besides, I personally remember that being one of its strong points, though Nigeria I think was rather uncreative.

Originally posted by Locutus

That would be a very valid point if we were living in 1207 AD

... in south-eastern Asia.

That point was a response to a particular comment Alexander I made about Srivijaya.

Originally posted by Locutus

I made the Celtic city list, the distribution between Gaulic and Briton towns is pretty even, if you count the Irish cities as Briton ones both have 13 city names. There are also 17 other cities: Iberian, Cenomani, Central European, Galatian. I'd like to think that that's a pretty even distribution of all Celtic people. And yes, by Celtic people I mean the Hallstatt/La Tene Celts, the Gaels are a different people entirely. Trying to merge/mix up the two is only done for nationalistic reasons, that has little to do with history (and no, that's not a debate I'm getting into).

Well, Pre-Roman Gauls/Britons are just one element of the "Celts"; I see only one Irish location, no Scottish locations; and one (?) Welsh location ... given that these three nations are the three places in the world most strongly associated with Celts, and where, along with Brittany, "Celtic civilization" lasted longest, the statement "even distribution of all Celtic people" is rather hard to accept, esp. for a medieval Celticist like myself. And for instance, a locations like Burdigala, lying on the edge of non-Celtic Aquitaine, certainly aren't strongly Celtic in association.

The only location of any significance in the post-Roman Celtic world is Tara, whose place in the list looks kinda weird. The list is otherwise essentially Gaulish, and has no relevance, as neither do the UU or leaders, to the golden age of Celtic cultures in the middle ages.

Possibly in the effort to make a cool Roman enemy, the "Celtic" civ has been deprived of its greatest era of cultural and intellectual efflorescence as well as doubling up on an already well-covered geographical area (the Scots and Irish are covered by no other civ; the French by four!).

Not though attacking the pre-Roman Gauls and southern Britons being included in Civ 4; I'm very much happier with them than without (see my avatar!) ... just don't expect people to regard them as a representation of anything else. Or is that not the point you were making? I'm rather confused, since you also said "the Gaels are a different people entirely".

Anyways, thanks for your comments.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Niall Becc
chances are you'd get no more than one or two per normal game.

As you said there are plenty of civs in the game already that many would regard obscure, adding more of them worsens the problem considerably, I'd say almost exponentially: few people will mind one obscure-ish civ but three in a 7-civ game is waaayy overboard. Getting at least one such civ is already pretty much a given in BtS, two certainly not unheard of (assuming games with under 10 civs).

First colonial empire? [...]

One cannot possibly hope to summarise the accomplishments of any major civilization in half a sentence like I did but I think few will argue that civs like the Phoenicians, Romans, Arabs, etc were hugely important.

As you said for the Khmer, let's not delude ourselves, the Khmer had no world impact, which strictly speaking is unattributable to any civilization until the 2nd half of the 20th century.

Depends on how you measure world impact. If the Celts had razed Rome to the ground back in 390 BC and destroyed the Roman civilization world history would certainly have unfolded in a profoundly different way. So I would argue that the Romans most certainly had a major impact on the history of the world, yes.

The Khmer might not have had the military might to conquer a huge empire, but their engineering skills are almost unprecedented in human history, that itself is a significant accomplishment in my book as well. That a bit of a subjective claim perhaps, but anything related to history is subjective of course.

The Gaels or Uighurs OTOH never did anything greatly significant in the scheme of things. Yes, they were fascinating cultures with unique histories, but being unique alone doesn't cut it.

Well, Pre-Roman Gauls/Britons are just one element of the "Celts";

That's a modern interpretation. The 'Celtic' people of modern Britain never called themselves such until the 18th century, which is little more than jingoistic propaganda. They are no more Celtic than the modern Spanish are Phoenician. The best description for people of medieval Ireland, Scotland and Wales would probably be Gaelic, but certainly not Celtic.

I see only one Irish location, no Scottish locations; and one (?) Welsh location

There are two Irish cities: Eblana is in there as well. Wales is represented by Isca, Venta (although there were several towns of those names, but I deliberately refer to all) and Moridunum.

And for instance, a locations like Burdigala, lying on the edge of non-Celtic Aquitaine, certainly aren't strongly Celtic in association.

Aquitane wasn't predominently Celtic but Bordeaux *was*, it was an important oppidum and port of the Bituriges, one of the more powerful tribes in Gaul.

The only location of any significance in the post-Roman Celtic world is Tara, whose place in the list looks kinda weird.

I'd consider cities like Paris, Milan, Ankara, Vienna quite important post-Roman cities. But yes, the Celts were a pre-Roman people, they were absorbed by the Roman empire. Adding medieval cities to an ancient civ would be nonsense.

The list is otherwise essentially Gaulish, and has no relevance

That's blatantly false. Again, only 13 cities are Gaulish, the other ones represents Celts from all corners of Europe.

[Niall Becc]

Originally posted by Locutus


As you said there are plenty of civs in the game already that many would regard obscure, adding more of them worsens the problem considerably, I'd say almost exponentially: few people will mind one obscure-ish civ but three in a 7-civ game is waaayy overboard. Getting at least one such civ is already pretty much a given in BtS, two certainly not unheard of (assuming games with under 10 civs).

I don't see it as a problem. To be honest, I'm sad someone with so much influence on the game does. I mean, besides anything else, this "problem" is solved by leader spam for the "great" civilizations, and preselecting civs before hand.

Originally posted by Locutus
One cannot possibly hope to sum

marise the accomplishments of any major civilization in half a sentence like I did ...

No, but one can apparently dismiss civilizations in half a sentence.

Originally posted by Locutus
Depends on how you measure world impact. If the Celts had razed Rome to the ground back in 390 BC and destroyed the Roman civilization world history would certainly have unfolded in a profoundly different way. So I would argue that the Romans most certainly had a major impact on the history of the world, yes.

If the butterfly hadn't flapped its wings in Java, there'd have been no hurricane to destroying x civ's fleet in the Mediterranean, which means y civ would have disappeared, and we'd all still be living in the middle ages. One can make these arguments about anything.

Originally posted by Locutus
The Khmer might not have had the military might to conquer a huge empire, but their engineering skills are almost unprecedented in human history, that itself is a significant accomplishment in my book as well. That a bit of a subjective claim perhaps, but anything related to history is subjective of course.

The Gaels or Uighurs OTOH never did anything greatly significant in the scheme of things. Yes, they were fascinating cultures with unique histories, but being unique alone doesn't cut it.

Maybe a read of "How the Irish Saved Civilization" may change your mind about the Gaels (certainly you'd either have to change your mind or drop the butterfly argument above), or maybe a google search on the "Uyghur Khaganate" about the Uyghurs. I think your opinion of various civilizations' worth is being severely limited by your knowledge of all but the few you've actually read about ... no offense intended here. Wouldn't be a problem, but you're making declarations when you really don't know, and applying arguments inconsistently ... such as the butterfly argument above.

Originally posted by Locutus
That's a modern interpretation. The 'Celtic' people of modern Britain never called themselves such until the 18th century, which is little more than jingoistic propaganda. They are no more Celtic than the modern Spanish are Phoenician.

The 'Celtic' people of ancient Europe never called themselves such either. There's no argument here.

And it's definitely not jingoistic propaganda, as it was based on linguistic and cultural observations being made since George Buchanan in the 16th century (and in fact, earlier: e.g. Cormac mac Cuilennáin, Gerald of Wales, even Edward I!); all these nations took their national identity from living Celtic languages and until in the 16th century all had Celtic languages as majority languages, and until the 19th century all but Scotland had Celtic languages as majority languages. Comparison with Phoenician in Spain is hence completely preposterous, since that was never more than a colonial language of a minuscule minority in the south and has been dead in Spain for nearly 2 millennia; truly stunned you thought such a comparison worth making.

Originally posted by Locutus
The best description for people of medieval Ireland, Scotland and Wales would probably be Gaelic, but certainly not Celtic.

Hardly. The people of Wales are not, were not and never have been Gaelic.

There's no problem not knowing something ... we all know almost nothing about virtually everything ... but maybe we should all be more careful about giving information people will trust when we don't actually you. Just a friendly good-faith piece of advice which I only give because it seems so many here regard you as an authority.

BTW, 'Celtic' is a scientifically accurate linguistic description of the Celtic people of medieval Britain; the idea of the medieval Celts rests on the same idea as the idea of the ancient Celts. You've not got any arguments here, and it looks to me that you've run yourself into a hole. Was there some crucial missing argument in your head that I need to know to make sense of all this?

Originally posted by Locutus
There are two Irish cities: Eblana is in there as well. Wales is represented by Isca, Venta (although there were several towns of those names, but I deliberately refer to all) and Moridunum.

You see, the only thing I could see saving your argument was the idea that maybe the Romans thought of them all as Gauls, but with two Irish cities this blows that - already weak argument - totally out of the water.

I.e. you're using an argument to dismiss the medieval Celts when exactly the same argument could be used to dismiss the pre-Roman Celts. No sense that makie.

Originally posted by Locutus

Aquitane wasn't predominantly Celtic but Bordeaux *was*, it was an important oppidum and port of the Bituriges, one of the more powerful tribes in Gaul.

Aquitaine wasn't Gaulish, that's explicitly stated by several ancient writers (and confirmed by linguistic evidence which shows the area to be Vasconic), and Burdigala is in Aquitaine. One would need textual or linguistic evidence that being a centre for the Bituriges-Vivisci at one point in time made the location Celtic. Do you have any?

Originally posted by Locutus
I'd consider cities like Paris, Milan, Ankara, Vienna quite important post-Roman cities. But yes, the Celts were a pre-Roman people, they were absorbed by the Roman empire. Adding medieval cities to an ancient civ would be nonsense.

The Celts were not just Pre-Roman; you've got this nonsense that "ancient Celts" exist and medieval ones don't. The civ is as fictional and factual for both eras, two eras essentially meaningless for the development for Celtic history.

Originally posted by Locutus
That's blatantly false. Again, only 13 cities are Gaulish, the other ones represents Celts from all corners of Europe.

Just to inform, I'm using the word 'Gaulish" as an inclusive term ... the way it is often used by scholars ... for Roman/pre-Roman Continental Celts.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Locutus
That's a modern interpretation. The 'Celtic' people of modern Britain never called themselves such until the 18th century, which is little more than jingoistic propaganda. They are no more Celtic than the modern Spanish are Phoenician. The best description for people of medieval Ireland, Scotland and Wales would probably be Gaelic, but certainly not Celtic.

Sounds analagous to the "Byzantines".
(quote marks intentional)

Wodan

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Niall Becc
I don't see it as a problem. To be honest, I'm sad someone with so much influence on the game does.

Then that's where you differ from the average player.

I doubt I would have any influence at all if I kept insisting that Mandara and Tibet needed to be in the game. I try to think from Firaxis' perspective and find a balance between well-known leaders/civs and (what in my view are) important ones (which in any instance neither Mandara nor Tibet is). If it were solely up to me Monomotapa and Srivijaya would definitely be in the game but as I said, that's for history buffs like you and me, not for the average gamer.

If the butterfly hadn't flapped its wings in Java, there'd have been no hurricane to destroying x civ's fleet in the Mediterranean, which means y civ would have disappeared, and we'd all still be living in the middle ages. One can make these arguments about anything.

It's not about what-if scenarios, it's about the fact that Rome had an undeniably huge role in the history of the world. Their influence might not reach to every corner of the planet but it still far, far outstripped that of the Gaels or Tibet.

Maybe a read of "How the Irish Saved Civilization" may change your mind about the Gaels (certainly you'd either have to change your mind or drop the butterfly argument above), or maybe a google search on the "Uyghur Khaganate" about the Uyghurs. I think your opinion of various civilizations' worth is being severely limited by your knowledge of all but the few you've actually read about ... no offense intended here. Wouldn't be a problem, but you're making declarations when you really don't know, and applying arguments inconsistently ... such as the butterfly argument above.

I'm well aware of the history of Ireland and Central Asia. Yes, anyone who knows anything about history will immediately acknowledge that there is far more that they don't know than that they know about the subject -- there is just way too much history in the world for any one person to learn about in a lifetime. However, even without knowing absolutely everything about the history of the world you can still distinguish between civilizations that had large impact on the world and ones that had a much smaller impact. If you're under the impression that the Romans or French were not hugely more important than the Irish then it's the limitations of your knowledge that are showing: too much specialisation in any one area of history might cause one to overvalue the overall importance of that topic in the scheme of things, a common phenomenon that I've been guilty of myself.

Realistically there's only room for 30-40 civs in Civilization before you start diluting things too much, so you have to make a choice somehow. In my opinion there are about 30 civilizations in history that clearly and without question left a hugely significant heritage, which includes most of the 30 civs in currently Civ4 + XPs and the three that I mentioned are still missing. There are hundreds if not thousands of other potential civs that all have their own merit, but their overall importance in the scheme of things is much more debatable. They do not clearly stand out and are therefore best left out of the game. Yes, that's a highly subjective assessment but any other assessment is just as subjective.

And it's definitely not jingoistic propaganda, as it was based on linguistic and cultural observations being made since George Buchanan in the 16th century (and in fact, earlier: e.g. Cormac mac Cuilennáin, Gerald of Wales, even Edward I!);

These observations are highly disputable since we have no primary sources on the ancient Celts. Very little concrete evidence links the Hallstatt/La Tene Celts to the medieval and modern people of Britain, that's mostly nationalistically-motivated wishful thinking. The people and cultures of Britain are just that, British. They're unique and interesting in their own way, but they don't stand out as particularly important in world history. Granted, the same can be said of the Celts but at least they inhabited an enormous geographic area, represent a lot of ancient European cultures in the same way that the Native Americans do (or in the way that Mali also represents the other West African empires) and are generally considered one of the most important 'might-have-beens' in history: especially the Cisalpine and Gaulic Celts were in many ways just as advanced or even more so than the Romans, Phoenicians and Greeks; they just lacked the governmental and military organisation to form a true empire, although the beginnings of that were starting to form by the time the Romans conquered them. Although they're not in my top ~30 of big civs, they're a much better fit for Civilization than the British 'Celts'.

BTW, 'Celtic' is a scientifically accurate linguistic description of the Celtic people of medieval Britain;

As with just about any scientific issue, especially historical ones, there are plenty of people who will disagree with that, of which I am living proof However you see it though, you can either represent the La Tene/Hallstatt Celts or the modern ones, one Civ to represent them both is historical fiction.

[Niall Becc]

Originally posted by Locutus


Then that's where you differ from the average player.

I doubt I would have any influence at all if I kept insisting that Mandara and Tibet needed to be in the game. I try to think from Firaxis' perspective and find a balance between well-known leaders/civs and (what in my view are) important ones (which in any instance neither Mandara nor Tibet is).

That's exactly what I'm doing. I've repeatedly insisted that Civ 4 not be spammed by what to its audience are obscure civs. And besides, if people don't mind tiny unimportant "civilizations" like the Dutch, I don't see them minding 3 or 4 of the civs I suggested (you're always giving the most obscure civs I gave as examples by the way).

Originally posted by Locutus

It's not about what-if scenarios, it's about the fact that Rome had an undeniably huge role in the history of the world. Their influence might not reach to every corner of the planet but it still far, far outstripped that of the Gaels or Tibet.

That's got nothing to do with the comment I responded to. And I didn't say the Gaels or anyone else in my list was as "important" as the Romans or any of the other 10 or so top-importance civs in the game. I even backed the idea that civs like that should get more leaders to balance the addition of new civilizations. 40 or 42 civ game with 2 to 3 leaders for the 10 to 20 top-importance can easily incorporate more. I fail to see why the Vikings or the Dutch are supposed to be more important that the Gaels or LIthuanians or Poles. Those civilizations are perfectly acceptable entrance civs to the game, just so long as there ain't 50 of them.

Originally posted by Locutus
I'm well aware of the history of Ireland and Central Asia. Yes, anyone who knows anything about history will immediately acknowledge that there is far more that they don't know than that they know about the subject -- there is just way too much history in the world for any one person to learn about in a lifetime. However, even without knowing absolutely everything about the history of the world you can still distinguish between civilizations that had large impact on the world and ones that had a much smaller impact. If you're under the impression that the Romans or French were not hugely more important than the Irish then it's the limitations of your knowledge that are showing: too much specialisation in any one area of history might cause one to overvalue the overall importance of that topic in the scheme of things, a common phenomenon that I've been guilty of myself.

I never said that.

And besides, civilizations get into the game because of their fame with Westerners ... not merely or majorly because of their importance; although people like then to defend them with spurious importance arguments ... and then cite fame only when their arguments can't be sustained.

Originally posted by Locutus

Realistically there's only room for 30-40 civs in Civilization before you start diluting things too much, so you have to make a choice somehow.

See comments I've made from post dot .... e.g.

*"The following list may look like it spams out on civs most people have never heard of, but all I'm saying is that there are enough for a new XP without significantly diluting the average greatness of the civs already in the game. 8 new civs could be 4 obscure (to Americans/Westerners) and 4 famous ones (e.g. Israel, Hittites, Polynesia, Poland) is pretty close to the way it normally goes."
*"But my list post was not saying that all should be included. I said four of those plus four more famous civs would work, or at least three of each, preferably five". *"I'd be happy with an XP that included 3 of these".
*"I am actually in favor of adding more civs and leaders to the game, I just feel that if they are going to do it, they should do it in a manner that diversifies the current content without making it esoteric."

I mean, I don't know how often I can fairly be asked to repeat this before expecting it to be understood.

Originally posted by Locutus
In my opinion there are about 30 civilizations in history that clearly and without question left a hugely significant heritage, which includes most of the 30 civs in currently Civ4 + XPs and the three that I mentioned are still missing. There are hundreds if not thousands of other potential civs that all have their own merit, but their overall importance in the scheme of things is much more debatable. They do not clearly stand out and are therefore best left out of the game. Yes, that's a highly subjective assessment but any other assessment is just as subjective.

Most of the civs in the game are either civs of regional importance who because of time, technology and circumstance, changed the world little (e.g. Aztecs, Maya, Zulu, Mali, Khmer, etc - that's assuming huge regions like central Asia, south-east Asia, don't count as part of the world ) and spammed European civilizations whose real importance is regional or their "world" importance ( ) derives from their part in greater European or Middle Eastern civilizations and/or butterfly arguments (e.g. Vikings, Carthage, Celts, Sumer, Dutch, etc). Most of the civs I list .... and remember I only suggested 3 to 6 be picked ... easily ....EASILY ... fit into one or the other of those categories.

Originally posted by Locutus
These observations are highly disputable since we have no primary sources on the ancient Celts. Very little concrete evidence links the Hallstatt/La Tene Celts to the medieval and modern people of Britain, that's mostly nationalistically-motivated wishful thinking.

No, they speak related languages (demonstrably original to modern ones), share the art, pre-Christian/Roman social structure, etc. We do have sources on the ancient Celts. We have several ancient ... rather long ... Roman commentaries on them, we have written down oral epics from the Iron Age (in Ireland), we have many short Gaulish texts, etc. These are infinitely more than we have on the ancient Slavs, pre/early-Republic Romans, Carthaginians, etc. Do some better reading, man. I don't know where you get this stuff from. True, it's pretty spurious to count the La Tene Celts as the same as the early modern Highlanders, but it's pretty spurious even to have the ancient Celts as one Civ, and after all, Civ 4 is a game with a 6050 year time-span.

Originally posted by Locutus
The people and cultures of Britain are just that, British.

Maybe to day they are, but before the modern period that would have made no sense either to any British person or to any continental European; and coming from a Dutch person, this statement has more historical irony than you apparently know.

I know continental Europeans think the British Isles are all the same, have always been the same and always spoke English, but until quite recently the British Isles had no cultural let alone linguistic unity (English wasn't even the majority language of the British Isles until roughly the 13th cent.). I mean, seriously, Sutherland Gaelic is more distinct linguistically from Lewis Gaelic (check a map to see how close these areas are!) than Dutch is from High German, or Spanish from Portuguese, and English is closer to Russian and Polish than Gaelic and Welsh.

I mean, less seriously, the medieval Scots at one point called you all "French" ... that's what they thought of the obscure subtle differences between English, Flemings, Germans and French. And the comparatively minuscule differences between Flemish/Low Germans and English settled in late medieval Lowland Scotland led them to form their own distinctive identity separate from the indigenous Scots. So, while the British Isles may be a Anglo-Saxon blur with tartan on the edges, people from the Low Countries had a lot to do with that, and not so long ago it was the other way around.

So here's an idea for a medieval English UU: a Flemish/Dutch/German/English spy/settler who spreads English culture. That, as any recent British medievalist will tell you, did more to create the modern Anglo-Saxon British Isles than any military unit.

Originally posted by Locutus
The people and cultures of Britain are just that, British. They're unique and interesting in their own way, but they don't stand out as particularly important in world history. Granted, the same can be said of the Celts but at least they inhabited an enormous geographic area, represent a lot of ancient European cultures in the same way that the Native Americans do (or in the way that Mali also represents the other West African empires) and are generally considered one of the most important 'might-have-beens' in history: especially the Cisalpine and Gaulic Celts were in many ways just as advanced or even more so than the Romans, Phoenicians and Greeks; they just lacked the governmental and military organisation to form a true empire, although the beginnings of that were starting to form by the time the Romans conquered them. Although they're not in my top ~30 of big civs, they're a much better fit for Civilization than the British 'Celts'.

These arguments are BS ... you could use them to argue a place for another 50 to 100 civs I didn't include. Admit fame to modern Westerners gets them in!

I mean, this passage destroys almost everything else you've already been arguing. E.g. the Mali "represent other West African Empires" ... I mean, what do you think the role of Srivijaya is? And surely if the Native Americans get in, Native Siberians are a shoe in (since Siberia is larger than the US, its tribes more advanced). And how can you keep a straight face and argue for the Gauls because they compare well at one point or had influence on the Romans, Phoenicians and Greeks, and ignore the much larger role the Uighurs or Sogdia had for instance of a much larger parts of the world, and on a more significant civilzation like China.

And also, if I wanted to, I could easily show that the Atlantic Celts had more influence on European civilization and the world than the Gauls who you rather bizarrely think monopolize the meaning of the word Celt. This simply your personal preference. I imagine you just like more or know more about ancient history more than medieval or modern history, so prefer the Gauls; but you shouldn't try and cover that up with bad arguments about Celticness and claims of greater significance.

And if nothing else, people all round the world go into MacDonald's, not Vercingetorix', to buy their unhealthy Fast Foods ... and they drink Whisk(e)y, not Gaulish broth.

Seriously though, "British Celts" isn't really a good term, since most people will think you're talking about the Welsh (Britons).

Originally posted by Locutus
Although they're not in my top ~30 of big civs, they're a much better fit for Civilization than the British 'Celts'.

Like I said, don't buy that argument in any intellectual manner. Plus, think wold map wise, the ancient Gauls double up of several civilizations .... the Atlantic Celts double up on none. I mean, I think it's Eurocentric to have either civ taking up a place, but I think the Atlantic Celts are much better than the ancient Gauls.

Originally posted by Locutus
As with just about any scientific issue, especially historical ones, there are plenty of people who will disagree with that, of which I am living proof However you see it though, you can either represent the La Tene/Hallstatt Celts or the modern ones, one Civ to represent them both is historical fiction.

Well, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. No salaried Celticist or linguist in the world argues that the Gauls or the Atlantic Celts don't share a language group (one comparable with the Germanic or Slavic family).

[Locutus]

I'm not getting into circular arguments, so I'm wrapping this up.

Originally posted by Niall Becc
That's exactly what I'm doing. I've repeatedly insisted that Civ 4 not be spammed by what to its audience are obscure civs.

Yet you suggest including a whole bunch of them. We'll have to agree to disagree on where you can draw the line

And besides, civilizations get into the game because of their fame with Westerners ... not merely or majorly because of their importance;

Funny, considering many of the Civs in BtS were added on my recommendation and familiarity with Westerners was not a major issue for me (an issue, but not a major one) whereas their importance *was* indeed my primary consideration.

that's assuming huge regions like central Asia, south-east Asia, don't count as part of the world )

Last time I checked those regions were covered by the Mongols and Khmer (and to a somewhat lesser extend others such as India, China and Persia).

and spammed European civilizations whose real importance is regional or their "world" importance ( )

You need to do some reading up on European history yourself apparently. Last time I checked we were on an English forum, I'm Dutch, you're British (Scottish?), the other owners and staff of this site all have European heritage, as do about 80% of our visitors -- and that extends far beyond this website. Europe ended up (at least for now) ruling the world. Almost all of the European civs in the game had huge colonial empires which had a enormous impact on world history. It's by no means the whole story of world history, but it's a damn important chapter. If you're not aware of how profound the impact of that era and those nations was you need to do some reading of post-medieval history and travel the world a bit.

No, they speak related languages (demonstrably original to modern ones), share the art, pre-Christian/Roman social structure, etc.

Again, we have no primary sources and very limited useful archeological findings for this purpose, that's highly speculative and not at all a widely accepted point of view outside of the modern 'Celtic' countries.

We do have sources on the ancient Celts. We have several ancient ... rather long ... Roman commentaries on them

Yes, I've actually read most of those, they have to be taken with a giant mountain of salt.

we have written down oral epics from the Iron Age (in Ireland),

Oh yes, that's something to go by if we want to learn about Celtic society

we have many short Gaulish texts, etc.

Short blurbs here and there are nothing to go by if you want to analyse a complex and widespread culture.

We by a long stretch lack the sources to make any kind of meaningful comparison between the ancient Celts and the modern people of Britain. What little we have would by no means be considered very convincing in a discussion among Middle Eastern or Greek historians, why would it suffice when talking about the Celts? But I'm sure there's a lot of pseudo-science going on to prove otherwise, nationalism can thankfully magically solve a lot of issues...

These are infinitely more than we have on the ancient Slavs, pre/early-Republic Romans, Carthaginians, etc.

1) Just because it's more than some other sources doesn't mean it's in any way useful.

2) I'm no expert on Slavic history but we actually have quite a bit on the early Romans and Phoenicians, both from primary and secondary sources.

Do some better reading, man. I don't know where you get this stuff from.

I could say the same for you. Is Celticism is an actual science or it is more like a cult? The cult-like nature of the 'Celtic' British trying to link their own culture to the ancient Celts is definitely why I usually shy away from these types of discussion, rationalism and reason tend to work poorly against zealots. You're free to believe whatever you want, but don't pass it off as science, that's just embarrassing the scientific community.

Maybe to day they are, but before the modern period that would have made no sense either to any British person or to any continental European;

You misunderstand. A 1000 years ago the people living in Britain were also British. You may want to call them differently, you may subdivide them in subcultures however you like, they may have had any kind of mixture of origins, but they were by definition British, as in living in Britain.

And as eager as you are to point out just how different and distinct the various British people were from each other, you as just as easy to dismiss any differences between European peoples as 'minuscule' and 'unimportant'. That is as hypocritical as it is ignorant. As I pointed out before, you are apparently so deeply steeped in British history and culture that you grossly overvalue it's importance compared to the rest of the world, certainly the rest of Europe.

These arguments are BS ... you could use them to argue a place for another 50 to 100 civs I didn't include. Admit fame to modern Westerners gets them in!

Yes, the argument is weak. As I already said, they're not in my top ~30 of big civs, if it were entirely up to me there would be no Celtic civ in the game (if you're right about anything it's that that spot would be much better filled by Srivijaya or Monomotapa). However, given the choice between a La Tene civ and a medival British civ I feel that the La Tene Celts are a much better choice for the reasons I cited. Of course the reasoning is going to be weak, it's gonna be based on BS arguments either way, it's a BS civ.

I mean, what do you think the role of Srivijaya is?

What do you think the role of the Khmer is?

And surely if the Native Americans get in, Native Siberians are a shoe in (since Siberia is larger than the US, its tribes more advanced).

There's a wide variety of reasons why this isn't true. I'm not gonna defend yet another bad choice by Firaxis, but to address the points you mention the Native Americans represent Canada also so Siberia is not bigger at all (far from it) and it would be very conservative to say that the more advanced cultures of North America were at least as advanced as any native Siberian tribe (Iroquois, Pueblo people, Mississippi and other mound builders, etc). But of course the only reason the Native Americans were really included was for PR, so there's hardly a point in arguing about this.

And how can you keep a straight face and argue for the Gauls because they compare well at one point or had influence on the Romans, Phoenicians and Greeks, and ignore the much larger role the Uighurs or Sogdia had for instance of a much larger parts of the world, and on a more significant civilzation like China.

I never said they had an influence on anyone, which I definitely would never say either. But I wouldn't say that the Uighurs or Sogdians had a significant impact on China either, that's just as much of a stretch.

Seriously though, "British Celts" isn't really a good term, since most people will think you're talking about the Welsh (Britons).

No, I agree. Celt is a very bad term to describe any post-Roman British person, since most people will think you're talking about the same people as the La Tene/Hallstatt Celts

The word Celts to refer to the ancient Celts has continuously and fairly consistently been in use since at least the 5th century BC. No, they weren't a terribly unified people and there are problems with it, but the same is truy of many other names. To refer to the medieval/modern people of Britain as Celts is a modern concept that was devised specifically and quite misleadingly to create a link between these modern people and the ancient Celts. As I've pointed out, it's jingoistic propaganda. If you want to find a name to describe the medieval 'Celts' that's perfectly fine, but find one based on history, not on fairy tales (I've suggested Gaels, it still has its problems in that it doesn't include Welsh but is much better than Celts which doesn't cover anyone; the term British itself isn't too bad either TBH).

[quote]Well, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.[quote]

Right back at ya.

No [...] linguist in the world argues that the Gauls or the Atlantic Celts don't share a language group (one comparable with the Germanic or Slavic family).

You would be very wrong there. Ignoring people who disagree with you doesn't make them go away, you know. Well, maybe it does for you, but you're not convincing anyone else.

[monkspider]

Locutus pwnage total confirmed.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Couple thoughts for a hypothetical subsequent XP:

- Aircraft that can sink ships - assuming that hasn't been added already to BtS. Without getting into too much detail, I'd be fine with a specific unit (e.g. "Torpedo Plane") which is useless against anything but ships.

- Workshops should develop the way cottages do.

[Virdrago]

@ Niall:

Locutus always makes some very good points. I know, he and I got into a discussion over the Native Americans some time ago... but that's over now. Needless to say, I can vouch that he knows what he's talking about.

If we can, the community in general who may be interested should create regional mods. If anyone is interested in learning more about the cultures of a certain area, I'm certain they'll be downloaded, just as the American Civil War and others. I'm not very good at mods, but I'd love to help out with background research like UU's, UB's, and cities, as well as leader history and each culture's history. I don't know about you, but that may help people understand about the Uighers and Monomotapa, for instance.

[Niall Becc]

Originally posted by Locutus
I'm not getting into circular arguments, so I'm wrapping this up.

Well, I think you have gotten yourself into many circular arguments in the last and previous post, which is not really my fault.

Originally posted by Locutus

Yet you suggest including a whole bunch of them. We'll have to agree to disagree on where you can draw the line

I gave a list of civilizations from which a few could be debated and/or picked. I then gave my own list that I'd want because I was asked to.

Some might say that your opinions, like mine, represent your own, what they might call limited Eurocentric knowledge base, but I wouldn't comment, and don't disagree that you represent the average user better than I do.

Originally posted by Locutus
Funny, considering many of the Civs in BtS were added on my recommendation and familiarity with Westerners was not a major issue for me (an issue, but not a major one) whereas their importance *was* indeed my primary consideration.

No, but you are a Westerner; your own idea of "importance" is very much shaped by that; not to mention you need to have heard of them to recommend them.

Originally posted by Locutus
Last time I checked those regions were covered by the Mongols and Khmer (and to a somewhat lesser extend others such as India, China and Persia).

Hardly; this seems very ... and I hate to use that awful word ... Eurocentric. Mongolia is not really central Asia, and Sogdia is almost as close to Egypt as to Mongolia. The Khmer represent Srivijaya not more than the Russians represent Germany. I mean seriously ... apply those kind of standards to Europe and you'll end up with only one or two civs there.

Originally posted by Locutus
You need to do some reading up on European history yourself apparently. Last time I checked we were on an English forum, I'm Dutch, you're British (Scottish?), the other owners and staff of this site all have European heritage, as do about 80% of our visitors -- and that extends far beyond this website. Europe ended up (at least for now) ruling the world. Almost all of the European civs in the game had huge colonial empires which had a enormous impact on world history. It's by no means the whole story of world history, but it's a damn important chapter. If you're not aware of how profound the impact of that era and those nations was you need to do some reading of post-medieval history and travel the world a bit.

Well, my two degress in history have kept me busy enough in the past, as my Ph. D. keeps me busy now. I'm not British, nor Scottish really for that matters, though I live now and study in Scotland. And I've travelled the world plenty, for all that matters. I just don't using supreme technological power derived being part of greater European civilization, then taking over some stone-age brown people armed only with melons and mangos is an impressive civilizational achievement. International history is so much deeper than a few transient colonial Empires. Yes the Dutch controlled Indonesia for a little while, but if that's what gets them in the game, surely a native Indonesian civilization would be more worthy. Still, one has to cater to various tastes; the Dutch are there and I accept it. But don't expect me to buy any "importance" arguments you throw at me if I don't agree with the reasoning.

Originally posted by Locutus

Again, we have no primary sources and very limited useful archeological findings for this purpose, that's highly speculative and not at all a widely accepted point of view outside of the modern 'Celtic' countries.

We have plenty of primary sources, your claim simply isn't true (I recommend Koch and Carey's Celtic Heroic Age which contains a good range of them). And we have enough linguistic evidence to be absolutely certain the people the Romans called Galli spoke a Celtic language, and the people the Romans called Britones spoke an almost identical Celtic language as ancestral to Welsh as Latin to Italian. Your claims to the contrary ... and I really don't want to upset ... reveal only that you don't know what you're talking about. If you think you do, why don't you put forward the names of some historians and linguists who back you up (I already know btw you won't be able to give any ).

Also, you're just about to contradict yourself:

Originally posted by Locutus

Yes, I've actually read most of those, they have to be taken with a giant mountain of salt.

Everything has to be taken with a giant mountain of salt; basic historiographic practice. Don't see what the point of that assertion was. YOu're arguing that the ancient Celts weren't the same people as the medieval Atlantic Celts. Of course they weren't, but both are linguistically Celts. That's just a fact. If it turned out some of the Celts called Celts by archaeologists because of archaeological styles and geographical locations, these people would cease to be regarded as Celts. Celts are Celts in modern studies primarily because of language.

Originally posted by Locutus
No, I agree. Celt is a very bad term to describe any post-Roman British person, since most people will think you're talking about the same people as the La Tene/Hallstatt Celts

Would they? I think most people (that's your basis of logic here) would think of the Irish before they'd think of obscure cultures like La Tene and Hallstatt. If you think Celt is a bad term to apply to post Roman Celtic people, then maybe you should start a campaign to rename the couple dozen Celtic university departments in the world who call themselves that and study primarily the medieval and modern Celts. But none of the suggestions you made later on (such as British) would be acceptable, for reasons that I'll explain.

Originally posted by Locutus
Oh yes, that's something to go by if we want to learn about Celtic society

Well, a "window on the Iron Age" as one scholar put it. Sources like that, though almost impossible for the non-historian to handle properly, can actually be used to yield a lot of good information if one uses the correct textual, linguistic and historiographic methodology.

Originally posted by Locutus

Short blurbs here and there are nothing to go by if you want to analyse a complex and widespread culture.

No, you've misunderstood. Whatever the the historical worth of these "short blurbs", but them being written in Gaulish gives enough information to determine that Gaulish was a Celtic language, like later Welsh. Simply fact my friend.

Originally posted by Locutus


We by a long stretch lack the sources to make any kind of meaningful comparison between the ancient Celts and the modern people of Britain. What little we have would by no means be considered very convincing in a discussion among Middle Eastern or Greek historians, why would it suffice when talking about the Celts?

Sources for the Celts are pretty good in fact, in comparative terms, both ancient and medieval. The amount of information in JUlius Caesar, for instance, is virtually unheard of for any native European people (Tacitus' account of your own ancestors, the ancient Germans, doesn't compare) and for instance, a study by Posidonius, mostly non-extant today, was used by many later historians and provides a great deal of information about Gaulish society. We really can say quite a bit about the ancient Celts. The greatest dividing line in source material is not, as you think, between the ancient and medieval Celts, but between the Celts living before c. 100 BC, and those living after. FOr the former, you'd be correct to say, we know virtually nothing except extrapolation from later sources and archaeology.

Originally posted by Locutus
But I'm sure there's a lot of pseudo-science going on to prove otherwise, nationalism can thankfully magically solve a lot of issues...

Yes there is, and Celtic scholarship, like all scholarship of the earlier European peoples, has been severely mired by racism, nationalism and other such things. Celtic studies today however do not suffer from this any more than Germanic, Slavic or even classical studies. Most of the greatest Celticists have not been Scottish, Irish or Welsh, but German, English or American. To give you another example, the leading Celticist in Scotland, Prof. Thomas Owen Clancy at Glasgow, is American; Dr. James Fraser at Edinburgh is Canadian. I could go on.

Originally posted by Locutus
1) Just because it's more than some other sources doesn't mean it's in any way useful.

Of course it doesn't; I never claimed that quantity is better than quality.

Originally posted by Locutus
2) I'm no expert on Slavic history but we actually have quite a bit on the early Romans and Phoenicians, both from primary and secondary sources.

For both groups we are reliant on foreign sources (all those "early Roman histories" everybody reads date from the Augustan era); after Polybius I'd agree, the Romans are better documented than the Celts. But I'd venture to say the Celts after 100 BC are much better documented than the Romans before 200BC. Celtic society without question is better documented textually than Phoenician society at any stage.

Originally posted by Locutus
I could say the same for you. Is Celticism is an actual science or it is more like a cult? The cult-like nature of the 'Celtic' British trying to link their own culture to the ancient Celts is definitely why I usually shy away from these types of discussion, rationalism and reason tend to work poorly against zealots. You're free to believe whatever you want, but don't pass it off as science, that's just embarrassing the scientific community.

I shouldn't take those comments seriously. I'm going to refrain to responding as I could, but rather I'll try to educate you. There are scores, maybe hundreds, of Celtic scholars (Celticists) and dozens of peer reviewed academic journals devoted to the subject. Labelling them cultists because a few neo-pagan/druid groups exist well outside any academic community, or because some non-educated Irish, Welsh and Scottish nationalists call themselves pure Celts, makes no more sense than calling all German historians Nazi occultists.

You have some serious issues with your prejudice about this subject. This is prolly as a result of getting most of your experience of historical debate on computer game forums. Not a good standard may I venture. I suggest very strongly you take a serious academic course or do some serious reading before you go on spouting off to people who're going to take your views seriously. Like I said before, and always say, there's nothing bad about not knowing something ... we all know virtually nothing about almost everything .... but the bad thing comes when you don't recognize it.

Originally posted by Locutus

You misunderstand. A 1000 years ago the people living in Britain were also British. You may want to call them differently, you may subdivide them in subcultures however you like, they may have had any kind of mixture of origins, but they were by definition British, as in living in Britain.

If living in Britain is what makes them British, then sure; but that's hardly the starting point for any of the arguments you put. Living in the geographical boundaries of later France makes the Gauls French in the same way, but that's hardly meaningful, and certainly hasn't prevented them being in the game.

Originally posted by Locutus

And as eager as you are to point out just how different and distinct the various British people were from each other, you as just as easy to dismiss any differences between European peoples as 'minuscule' and 'unimportant'. That is as hypocritical as it is ignorant. As I pointed out before, you are apparently so deeply steeped in British history and culture that you grossly overvalue it's importance compared to the rest of the world, certainly the rest of Europe.

I'm not eager to exaggerate the distinctiveness, not even being British I don't see where such an impulse would come from. In that particular instance I was just pointing out that in the era you referred to, it made more sense to group the Dutch/Flemish/Low Germans, the English and even the French together, than to group the Celtic and Germanic people of the islands as "British". You were the only one making such "hypocritical" and "ignorant" statements (rather strong language if you don't mind me saying ).

Also, I don't "overvalue" the importance of British history to the world. If you've gotten that impression, I don't know how; and if you haven't, and are claiming to for other reasons, then I can't really say that much. Not really the kind of thing one can deny. I honestly don't though take "importance" as a serious intellectual issue when thinking about world history. This is really your language that I'm attempting to converse in order to add my input to this thread.

I will say though that any argument which successfully or unsuccessfully tried to make British history unimportant (which I guess it was until the modern era, but little more so than the rest of North-West Europe), is not an argument for grouping everyone who lived in the medieval British Isles together. In fact, there is no political or cultural reason to do the latter. Take, say, the year 800. The British Isles were just as, if not more, politically and culturally diverse as/than the area of continental Western Europe between the Pyreness and the Elbe. This is not an argument for getting another geographically "British" civilization in the game, but it is an argument against your attempts to group the people of those islands together in any seriously meaningful way.