So, France...

[Knightmage Bael]

Why exactly are they a culture building civilization?

France has fought the most wars out of every European nation historically, and has won most of them (at least from a battles perspective. We know Napoleon didn't "win").

England has redcoats. What about the Bluecoats of France? What about the French Foreign Legion? I know France has delicious food, good music, but I feel like it comes purely from the perspective of the Baroque period when all the symphonies were either in Italy, or France. There's definitely tons of culture there, but so there is also in Spain, Italy, etc.

Obviously nobody could really accurately answer the "why", but I feel like its a worthy discussion point.

I suppose from a more easily directed point would be discussing possible changes for when Civ 7 comes out. (I hope its soon. I haven't googled it at all lol)

[Cryten]

Its a fair comment but would you complain about its lack of culture if it was military focused? France and Italy and Greece are pretty much the first thoughts in peoples minds when it comes to western culture.

[n-j-s]

I am probably over thinking this but I dont think firaxis intention was to develop with 100% historical accuracy in mind. I think they just wanted to have a little fun with this game, i.e the cartoon art style. The civs are portrayed through the lens of stereotypes and the western view which I understand since the developers are westerners. I think this is the situation when creative people, writers ect are writing/creating for themselves rather than for their fans/audience. An example is Naughty Dog and its Last of Us 2. Though this is subtle rather than overt.

[Knightmage Bael]

Originally posted by Cryten:

Its a fair comment but would you complain about its lack of culture if it was military focused? France and Italy and Greece are pretty much the first thoughts in peoples minds when it comes to western culture.

Interesting point.

France does have a lot of world famous places too. Versaille Palace, Catacombs, the Louvre, and many others. I find it interesting that "Oxford" is a "world wonder" but other places which are arguably more famous aren't. Obviously can't have everything though.

People create amazing things with passion and proper funding haha

[tempest.of.emptiness]

It's hard to sum up the entire nature of a culture with two leader abilities and two unique things to build (unit, improvement, district, etc.). There's always going to be things that are left out. I suspect that France's unique unit (Garde Impériale) is intended to be a nod to France's military history.

Because the "version" of each civ presented in the game is necessarily a subset of the entire civ's history, I like to imagine that the devs are deliberately choosing to focus on a particular aspect of each civ by the choices of leaders they offer to the players and by the abilities and uniques that come with those choices. For example, Catherine's France is a cultural civ, with features that complement that type of gameplay. I assume that a version of France with Napoleon as its leader would have been presented with a different set of abilities and uniques to support the very different type of gameplay he would presumably favor.

As you said, they can't give us everything. One of the things that the devs seem to have focused on in Civ VI is giving us unusual leader choices and opportunities to explore aspects of various civs that may not have been well represented in past versions of Civilization.

[ashvandam_uk]

Maybe give them a war focused alterntive leader for actual civ 6. They Could do a DLC 1815 special, because;
France don't have a male leader
Prussia are still not in the game,
Austria are still not in the game,
England doesnt have a male leader

So it kind of fits perfectly for DLC, for an 1815 spin-off as none of the leaders/factions are in the game yet

[blkbutterfly]

Play Elanor.

Very OP. Try TSL Europe. Watch Europe fall through loyalty.

[Lemminkainen86]

Gotta pick your poison. France has an incredibly rich cultural heritage, as do Germany, Poland, Russia, Greece, Britain, China, Korea, Japan, and all the rest. They also have incredibly deep military histories too.

Would you say that the USA is a cultural or a military civilization? Anyone could argue either way (even if you don't like US culture many aspects have been adopted worldwide). Most civs have had technological developments and their religious histories, great people, arts and artifacts too.

[ashvandam_uk]

Originally posted by Lemminkainen86:

Gotta pick your poison. France has an incredibly rich cultural heritage, as do Germany, Poland, Russia, Greece, Britain, China, Korea, Japan, and all the rest. They also have incredibly deep military histories too.

Would you say that the USA is a cultural or a military civilization? Anyone could argue either way (even if you don't like US culture many aspects have been adopted worldwide). Most civs have had technological developments and their religious histories, great people, arts and artifacts too.

I agree with the first paragrath. Actually I also agree with the 2nd parafrath too.

The Issue is whoever is the Superpower in each Era of civilization, not only was advanced in Military, but also advance in Science and Culture at the time. It is not just the USA this applies too.
1918 to 2020 America leads in Military, science, and culture
1800's to 1918, England lead in miltary, but also in science and cutlure
1700's France lead in military, science and culture
1500's Spain lead in miltary, culture and RELIGION
0 - 300's Rome lead in military, science, culture, and religion

3,000bc - 1000bc Ancient Egypt (who are not even in the game) lead in miliary, culture and science, (so the macedonia /greek client state, that manages the egypt terriority in the game, should def be given an Alterntive Egyptian leader).

Maybe each Superpower in History should have at LEAST 2 (amybe 3) alterntive leaders. One def being a Military leader, and the 2nd being either a culture or science leader.

[BlackSmokeDMax]

Originally posted by ashvandam_uk:

Originally posted by Lemminkainen86:

Gotta pick your poison. France has an incredibly rich cultural heritage, as do Germany, Poland, Russia, Greece, Britain, China, Korea, Japan, and all the rest. They also have incredibly deep military histories too.

Would you say that the USA is a cultural or a military civilization? Anyone could argue either way (even if you don't like US culture many aspects have been adopted worldwide). Most civs have had technological developments and their religious histories, great people, arts and artifacts too.

I agree with the first paragrath. Actually I also agree with the 2nd parafrath too.

The Issue is whoever is the Superpower in each Era of civilization, not only was advanced in Military, but also advance in Science and Culture at the time. It is not just the USA this applies too.
1918 to 2020 America leads in Military, science, and culture
1800's to 1918, England lead in miltary, but also in science and cutlure
1700's France lead in military, science and culture
1500's Spain lead in miltary, culture and RELIGION
0 - 300's Rome lead in military, science, culture, and religion

3,000bc - 1000bc Ancient Egypt (who are not even in the game) lead in miliary, culture and science, (so the macedonia /greek client state, that manages the egypt terriority in the game, should def be given an Alterntive Egyptian leader).

Maybe each Superpower in History should have at LEAST 2 (amybe 3) alterntive leaders. One def being a Military leader, and the 2nd being either a culture or science leader.

It is a great point and a great idea. And I wouldn't doubt that is partly what they had in mind with setting up the system how it is to have multiple leaders per civ. I think way back when the first civ was made available with two leaders they mentioned they did it partly with modders being able to fairly easily add more leaders themselves.

[Knightmage Bael]

Originally posted by ashvandam_uk:

Maybe give them a war focused alterntive leader for actual civ 6. They Could do a DLC 1815 special, because;
France don't have a male leader
Prussia are still not in the game,
Austria are still not in the game,
England doesnt have a male leader

So it kind of fits perfectly for DLC, for an 1815 spin-off as none of the leaders/factions are in the game yet

Makes me wonder about Denmark, by the way.

Denmark was one of the strongest nations for centuries in Europe. Though conversely, There's a bunch of nations left out, and if you included them all it would get too bloated, I think.

[ashvandam_uk]

Good point Denmark is another big hitter. The thing is games like EU4 and CK3 manage to include all the important nations in. So I think, they can easily do another 8 new nations, before doing an Alterntive leaders pack.

My main reason, why I am scared of this, not happening, is because of the
''Why no... omec, byzantium, portugal, tanu tavu'' post. I know the devs pop into the forum on this post once a month, and have a look around. If they go into this thread, they just see pages and pages of people discussing tiny tribes, (that where not even big enough to ever create a civilization)

If the devs pop in and have a look at that thread, they will just see lots of people saying tiny amazon tribes or native american tribes, getting suggested.. And there is a massive danger the devs will see this.... and just think ''ALL OUR WORK IS NOW DONE'' because all the suggestions that are being talked about are just tiny tribes, so it must mean we have done enough.

Thats why its a big shame, not enough people are talking about actual civilizations, like Austria (a main civ, of WORLD WAR ONE),
Denmark,
the Huns (destroyed the Romans),
Thailand, Italy, Judea, Papal States,
the Hittites (first ever white people Civ),
Morocco, Portugal, Mexico, Romania, Assriya... I mean thats just 13 civilizations that have been a major influence on Civilization... so actual civs that make them, doing another 8 will be easy.

But no for the past 8 or 9 pages in that thread, people just talk about tiny tribes like tupi, muisca, wazimakers, taino, lakota, navajo, ollywards, iroquois, tabagooes, LIKE how is that going to encourage the Devs to do another 8 civs???

[Knightmage Bael]

There are a few rather large Native American tribes though. The Navajo, Cherokee, and some central American ones that spread quite far. Though we do have Aztecs, yeah? So there's that.

I get what you mean though. The vast majority of the native american tribes were smaller. The aztecs actually built up, and built far and wide. I think Navajo and Cherokee just had territory and nothing else. Sort of like the Mongols to be fairly honest. Yeah, big Empire, but did Gengis Khan actually -build- anything? I feel like his legacy one of conquering more so than anything else. I should probably watch Extra Credits on that. I htink they have a good video series on historical stuff.


-What about the Ottoman Empire?
We do have Sumeria, but is that considered just Babylon, or is Persia also included in that?

[🅺🅴🆁🅸🆅🅴🅽]

Ottomans are already in the game. People can ask for any civ/tribe they want imho but tbh I don't think that the devs really take into acct the steam forum requests that much (if at all). Personally, I think in the game should be included The Bulgarian Empire at some point cos it was pretty significant during the middle ages and it has long history of wars, culture, etc.

[eternien]

I am French and what bothers me the most is that they gave us two of the most hated queens in our history as leaders.
Instead of a more logical choice like Louis XIV or Napoleon (you have to go to the Workshop to get them)

[Knightmage Bael]

Originally posted by eternien:

I am French and what bothers me the most is that they gave us two of the most hated queens in our history as leaders.
Instead of a more logical choice like Louis XIV or Napoleon (you have to go to the Workshop to get them)

Napoleon would be cool.

You could also take two different leaders for a different type of victory-focus for the civilization.

Napoleon revolutionized artillery in warfare, so you could definitely use him for more expansionist/domination victory.

You could then take someone else who was a king during a period of (relative) peace, and use that for a religious or cultural victory.

Your comment inspired that idea, I think that could be a good one.