Tweet
civ is a game about civilization - it models technological advance, city and terrain improvement, the construction of wonders - it attempts to model the growth of civilization.
however the protagonists are STATES. They have leaders, capitals, ministers, armies. These are things that belong to states, not civilizations.
In some cases there is a one - to - one match of civ to state, but in most cases in history not. Some civs had multiple states - in the hellenistic era there were 3 major greek states, and several minor ones. At various times china has been one, two, or many states. Similarly many states have participated in more than one civilization, there own culture being a a mix and/or blend of 2 or more civilizatons - thus ptolemaic egypt was greek AND Egyptian,
medieval france was Latin AND Germanic (and maybe a little bit celtic) Byzantium was Greek AND Roman, Russia was Byzantine AND slavic. And in many cases a state had only a limited degree of cultural distinctiveness while sharing the language and religion of another. Thus Assyria was in many ways quite distinctive, yet had a language very close to babylonian, shared a religion and high culture. Similarly for the Americans and English. Japan was more distinctive from china, but shared a written language, and much high culture.
All this could be evaded in civ2 - a "civ" there was almost generic, distinctive for leader and city names, easily changed. and placement on the map on some real world maps. SO it didnt much matter. It was trivial to create a new civ oneself.
CSU's however raise the question of what is a civ. The ambiguity is forced into the open, with the debates of what "civs" or should not be included. before anything intelligble can be said on that, there must be some clarification of what is meant, a state or a civ.
LOTM
however the protagonists are STATES. They have leaders, capitals, ministers, armies. These are things that belong to states, not civilizations.
In some cases there is a one - to - one match of civ to state, but in most cases in history not. Some civs had multiple states - in the hellenistic era there were 3 major greek states, and several minor ones. At various times china has been one, two, or many states. Similarly many states have participated in more than one civilization, there own culture being a a mix and/or blend of 2 or more civilizatons - thus ptolemaic egypt was greek AND Egyptian,
medieval france was Latin AND Germanic (and maybe a little bit celtic) Byzantium was Greek AND Roman, Russia was Byzantine AND slavic. And in many cases a state had only a limited degree of cultural distinctiveness while sharing the language and religion of another. Thus Assyria was in many ways quite distinctive, yet had a language very close to babylonian, shared a religion and high culture. Similarly for the Americans and English. Japan was more distinctive from china, but shared a written language, and much high culture.
All this could be evaded in civ2 - a "civ" there was almost generic, distinctive for leader and city names, easily changed. and placement on the map on some real world maps. SO it didnt much matter. It was trivial to create a new civ oneself.
CSU's however raise the question of what is a civ. The ambiguity is forced into the open, with the debates of what "civs" or should not be included. before anything intelligble can be said on that, there must be some clarification of what is meant, a state or a civ.
LOTM
Beware the wrath of Wernazuma. I'll soon sacrifice you and LA to the higher glory of Huitzilopochtli.
Comment