It is a rather odd choice and I must say I disagree with it. Australia is the 53rd country if sorted by population, though 12th by GDP. But I think there are better and less Anglo choices, many of which are not represented in the Industrial Age and thus could easily make an appearance. Of the first 13 most populous only Russia and Mexico appear in the Industrial Age, leaving 11 possible picks from all corners of the world.

Including Austrialia means that a more outstanding people will be excluded. Personally, I would have compiled the list of contemporary cultures along more broad lines, and not bind them to the borders of nation-states that exist in the real world (as done with "Greeks" etc. in previous eras). The nation-focused approach makes it harder to justify the exclusion of aspiring countries in Asia and Africa, while probably forcing at least some congruence of political system and cultural identity into a game that's supposed to be a sandbox (e.g. China, many people also talk about the Soviets making an appearance).

My picks for contemporary cultures:

Africans (Argrarian)

Americans (Expansionist)

Europeans (Scientist)

Indians (Argrarian)

Indonesians (Merchant)

Japanese (Aesthete)

Latins (Argrarian)

Russians (Militarist) (probably in need of replacement as they appear in the Industrial Age)

List of most populous countries:

China

India

EU

USA

Indonesia

Pakistan

Brazil

Nigeria

Bangladesh

Russia

Mexico

Japan

Philippines

Egypt

Vietnam

Congo

List of countries by GDP:

EU (4 of them in the top 15)
USA
China

UK

India

Canada

South Korea

Russia

Australia

Brazil

Mexico

Indonesia

Mausklickmoerder wrote:

It is a rather odd choice and I must say I disagree with it. Australia is the 53rd country if sorted by population

Having a large population or high GDP is not a criteria from which the cultures are picked I am afraid, its having a prominent impact within the era that makes the deal (afaik). Just look at the inclusion of Zulu in Industrial Era.

And you are proposing lumping different cultures together based on their location instead of celebrating each culture individually? Really? I highly disagree with that.

Oh yeah, list of G20 countries probably helps making sense of that choice: Canada, USA, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Italy, Germany, France, UK, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, China, India, Japan, SK, Indonesia, Australia.

Condensing those into regions and leaving out the cultures from the previous era we'd still get Americans, Brazilians, Europeans, South Africans / Africans, Saudi Arabians / Arabians, Chinese, Indians, Japanese / Koreans, Indonesians and... Australians. So its probably not that odd a choice, but I'd still rather see South Korea, Vietnam or one of the upcoming African countries like Nigeria and Ethiopia represented than another direct descendant of the British Empire.

Salterius wrote:
Having a large population or high GDP is not a criteria from which the cultures are picked I am afraid, its having a prominent impact within the era that makes the deal (afaik).

That is certainly true, but there isn't any hard data on future cultural impact of contemporary cultures, so that's why I tried to approach this from other measures of prominency.

There's also a thing about that corner of the world not appearing earlier. It's kind of consolation prize ;)

Honestly, "Why XYZ?" thread can be created about most of the cultures, with only ten per era you'll have to omit some that "would fit better".

Well, I think Australian is an interesting culture pick. There exist 3 cultures, which must be included in Contemporary Era: Soviets, Americans, Chinese. Then add certain cultures, which compete with those 3 choices as we have already seen in Industrial Era (e.g. Zulu). Currently (in real world) Australia is having some troubles with China (due to political and diplomatic backgrounds), thus Australian culture in Contemporary Era sounds very plausible choice.

Sublustris wrote:

Soviets aren't a culture and there are nothing contemporary about them, unless you mean soviet russia.

Contemporary Era - 1920-2020,  USSR - 1922-1991. And why isn't it a culture? In HK, the concept of "culture" is not identical to the concept of "nation".

Its funny that so many people expect Soviet *Russia* to be a culture, when its clearly tied to a very specific ideology and thus to the civics system.

Sublustris wrote:

Cause it isn't, it's a totalitarian state that absorbed fifteen+ multicultural nations and ethnicities, that ceased to exist thirty years ago. Its parts shared nothing common apart from government body and its maleficent ideology - nor language, nor customs, nor history, nor folklore etc. Russian culture was predominant, but it was native only to russians and forcibly imposed on the rest.

You are manipulating the facts.

First, there was a common history. Most republics were part of the Russian Empire. And Russia, Ukraine and Belarus had a common religion, very similar languages and cultures.

Secondly, Russian culture was not imposed by force. Of course, such a multiethnic country needed a single language. However, language is not a culture. Other cultures developed in the USSR, for example, in 1924, writing was created for the Kyrgyz language.

Third, you miss such a positive moment in the USSR as the general rise in welfare.

Why does the USSR, Soviet Union whatever you want to call it, needs to be a culture. There is no Soviet 'culture'. Its all Russian with extra steps. The food, traditions, language are all the same.

Mezzy wrote:

Why does the USSR, Soviet Union whatever you want to call it, needs to be a culture. There is no Soviet 'culture'. Its all Russian with extra steps. The food, traditions, language are all the same.

There is no British culture - it is English culture with extra steps. There is no Greek culture - it is a Mycenaean culture with extra steps. There is no Byzantine culture - it is Roman culture with extra steps. There is no German culture - it is a Teutonic culture with extra steps. There is no American / Australian culture - it is British culture with extra steps.

Do you even understand the absurdity of your statement?

Zumwalt wrote:

Mezzy wrote:

Why does the USSR, Soviet Union whatever you want to call it, needs to be a culture. There is no Soviet 'culture'. Its all Russian with extra steps. The food, traditions, language are all the same.

There is no British culture - it is English culture with extra steps. There is no Greek culture - it is a Mycenaean culture with extra steps. There is no Byzantine culture - it is Roman culture with extra steps. There is no German culture - it is a Teutonic culture with extra steps. There is no American / Australian culture - it is British culture with extra steps.

Do you even understand the absurdity of your statement?

My point still stands. The culture is really similar to russian just with a really messed up government.

My question is, why does it need to be a culture?

Zumwalt wrote:

Do you even understand the absurdity of your statement?

If you don't understand absurdity of yours, then what there is to discuss with you.

Mezzy wrote:

My question is, why does it need to be a culture?

Soviet culture is not just the development of the culture of the Russian Empire. Soviet culture is very different in many respects from Russian. For example, in the worldview of people. In the Russian Empire, a very important role was played by the Orthodox Church, which was supported and supported by the emperor. Therefore, society in critical moments turned to God for help. At the same time, there was atheism in the USSR, so people could only rely on themselves.

Therefore, to claim that Soviet culture is simply Russian with a few extra steps is absurd.

Sublustris wrote:

Zumwalt wrote:

Do you even understand the absurdity of your statement?

If you don't understand absurdity of yours, then what there is to discuss with you.

Then explain why I am absurd.

Zumwalt wrote:

Mezzy wrote:

My question is, why does it need to be a culture?

Soviet culture is not just the development of the culture of the Russian Empire. Soviet culture is very different in many respects from Russian. For example, in the worldview of people. In the Russian Empire, a very important role was played by the Orthodox Church, which was supported and supported by the emperor. Therefore, society in critical moments turned to God for help. At the same time, there was atheism in the USSR, so people could only rely on themselves.

Therefore, to claim that Soviet culture is simply Russian with a few extra steps is absurd.

But the history of the cultures don't exist in-game as you are creating history. For example you mentioned the Orthodox Church. It might not even exist in your save game as you are the one creating history along with the other players. The country existed for a short period of time and is basically just a symbol of Leninism and Stalinism ( or simply communism ) which once again might not even exist in your save game. Another small problem is that their EU would most likely be the T-34 which would be a slightly weaker EU than any other contemporary era culture for one simple reason, the T-34 will be useful for a small amount of time until you research modern tanks while the other EU's like Lightning II would be useful until the rest of the game which might be a longer time than that of the T-34 and a modern tank, and if the T-34 had stats that would make it as strong as a modern tank so its just as useful as the other EU's it would be ABSURD. Next is the fact the soviet union existed for a much shorter period of time than most cultures of the world therefore they didn't even have enough time to develop an actual culture unlike for example the Americans. Next piece of history is that the soviet union was formed because of a civil war ( The October Revolution ) therefore both sides must be from the same nation, therefore they are probably both from the same culture ( In this situation Russian ) main difference is that Lenin was communist. And that's how we come to the conclusion that you are A B S U R D.

I am pretty certain that Soviet culture is included in Contemporary Era, since Devs left a comment about the special ability of Soviet Emblematic Unit-T-34 on the forum. At that time they mentioned "mass-produced" trait did not satisfy them, so they were considering some tweaks. (ironically the original author of the thread is Zumwalt, whom you are discussing with.)

If you would like to check that by yourself, go to this thread. At the end of comment section, there is a comment made by The-Cat-o-Nine-Tale(DEV): https://www.games2gether.com/amplitude-studios/humankind/forums/168-general/threads/39023-t-34-is-not-the-best-choice-for-the-ussr