Which Civ we should have before Civilization VI?

[seancolorado]

If they do an expansion, it'll be 9 Civs, not 7. They made that clear with the "why 9 for BNW" answer. They can't do more than 9 because it'll take too many resources for the art department and they don't want to do fewer than 9 because it'll suggest an inferior product to the previous expansions.

Thematically, I think the "story" is done. The opening videos have gone to present day. That alone suggests they won't do another expansion (unless they want to create a "Future Era" and space colonization a la Call to Power, which would probably alienate some people). DLC is the better option. They can also start the planning for Civ6 at the same time.

Well put, all of this

 

[Tiggurix]

There is the Aurora Borealis for example, which can provide and bonuses.

The Aurora Borealis is an ephemeral phenomenon instead of a permanent feature of the terrain. And it's not like the rest of the world doesn't experience auroras. When there's heavy solar activity, even areas near the equator have been known to experience auroras.

 

[Tiggurix]

If anything, Denmark would have the cold terrain bonuses, they did settle Iceland, Greenland, and Newfoundland, after all.

You mean Norway. And speaking as a norwegian, I'm a little annoyed that our fellow Scandinavians, the Danish and Swedish, are represented, but not us, though I recognise that, outside of the medieval era, specifically after much of Norway's population was decimated by the bubonic plague, we haven't done much noteworthy, seeing as we've mostly been under the rule of the aforementioned Danish or Swedish since then.

Also, it's kinda rude towards the descendants of a people to say that "not much would be different if they didn't exist at all". Just saying.

 

[Tiggurix]

Neanderthal

That's a subspecies of Homo sapiens, not a civilisation. It would be like lumping all the different civilisations of Homo sapiens sapiens into one big blob, and we can't very well have any of that now, can we?

 

[Tiggurix]

The way it's presented? Yeah, it's a Western phenomenon. Blue jeans and pop music and all that.

That dialogue is obviously meant to be humorous. Just saying.

 

[Keirador]

Something can be, and clearly is, both meant to be humorous and Western-centric.

 

[kingofsealand]

Some places are just categorically worse for intensive human settlement than others. A pure hunter-gathering society in the high latitudes requires about 10 sq km per individual. This is exactly why there has never been a civilisation up there. Same goes for people lobbying for an Australian Aboriginal civ.

And yet some have thrived there? I think we need to define this "snow bonus" civ. Are we imagining a straight up inuit civ of people hunting for seals on endless stretches of ice? Yes they do not make much sense as a world power. Or more along the lines of a norwegian/finnish/swedish civ who has access to vast swaths of otherwise worthless land but still has significant amounts of land not covered in snow 365 days of the year? The snow/tundra bonus can definitely work with the right civ. Any northern european civ would be an excellent choice and it could be reworked onto several already in game. But not canada because then everyone would just hate that idea even more.

 

[Zipa_DH]

Why everyone think the Inuit could only be a snow/ice civ?...They moved very well trough the arctic ocean, they had settlements from Russia to Greenland...Honestly I see Inuit with some minor bonus like pass trough ice or something like that, but focused on sea expansion and exploration

 

[7Akbal]

While the Hittites used seals, I couldn't find anything suggesting a building. The Halentuwa House would work except that makes them too religious when they do need a military advantage.

"Seal House" or "Tablet House" was the Hittite term for state-run warehouses that served as granaries, redistribution centres for raw materials, and armories. The overseers of Seal Houses were high-ranking officials who were appointed by and reported directly to the king. Over a hundred "Seal Houses" are attested in Hittite records, so that's why I figured it would be best suited as a Hittite UB (it doesn't have the same problem as the Lion Gate of being one of a kind, but it IS unique to the Hittite state), and its historical role means it could give them the military edge they need.

 

[Louis XXIV]

OK, that sounds cool. Seems like a good choice. A granary with a military boost perhaps? Maybe something that helps with unit support (logistics and all that)?

 

[PhilBowles]

Why everyone think the Inuit could only be a snow/ice civ?...They moved very well trough the arctic ocean, they had settlements from Russia to Greenland...Honestly I see Inuit with some minor bonus like pass trough ice or something like that, but focused on sea expansion and exploration

Because the only reason anyone wants an Inuit civ at all is because they believe (oddly, I think) that a civ specialised for snow and tundra would be an interesting niche to explore, simply because it hasn't been done.

I have to say that my feeling is that there's often a very good reason why a niche hasn't explored, and a snow civ is a good example of that - in the same way that a civ that can't generate science is a niche that hasn't been explored, but I doubt it's one that's worth exploring.

 

[God of Kings]

Because the only reason anyone wants an Inuit civ at all is because they believe (oddly, I think) that a civ specialised for snow and tundra would be an interesting niche to explore, simply because it hasn't been done.

I have to say that my feeling is that there's often a very good reason why a niche hasn't explored, and a snow civ is a good example of that - in the same way that a civ that can't generate science is a niche that hasn't been explored, but I doubt it's one that's worth exploring.

...or a civ that does not use gold (confer the Harmony in Endless Space).

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

Because the only reason anyone wants an Inuit civ at all is because they believe (oddly, I think) that a civ specialised for snow and tundra would be an interesting niche to explore, simply because it hasn't been done.

I have to say that my feeling is that there's often a very good reason why a niche hasn't explored, and a snow civ is a good example of that - in the same way that a civ that can't generate science is a niche that hasn't been explored, but I doubt it's one that's worth exploring.

Totally agree with this, if the Civs main point is turning tundra and snow tiles into regular, workable tiles, well, what advantage does it have over a civ that just works regular, workable tiles AND has a UA that it can use to its advantage, its utterly pointless and totally uninteresting from a gameplay perspective, and I'm not even gonna mention the problems with classing the inuit as a Civ

And you might say, oh, but morrocco turns desert tiles into useful tiles with its kasbah, how comes you like them so much? (I do, by the way, they're a lot of fun, currently conquering Iberia as them in some sort of backwards reconquista on a huge europe marathon map, but, I digress) but thats because A.) desert tiles are scattered throught the map alongside regular tiles, rather than in enormous desert biomes like tundra tiles are, so morrocco still inhabits the same space as other civs, it can just make better use of land that otherwise wouldnt be worked. B.) Morrocco is known for far more than simply surviving the inhospitable maghreb (which is indeed as much as an acheivement as surviving in the arctic, you ever been to a desert?) but they successfully resisted the ottomans and the europeans, they thrived off of lucrative trade routes and formed an important bridge between Africa and Europe, truly the 'Gateway to Africa' or whatever it was. Among many, many other things. The inuit merely survived in the Arctic, which is impressive, they didn't THRIVE, which is unimpressive.

 

[True_Candyman]

I'm not even gonna mention the problems with classing the inuit as a Civ

B.) Morrocco is known for far more than simply surviving the inhospitable maghreb (which is indeed as much as an acheivement as surviving in the arctic, you ever been to a desert?) but they successfully resisted the ottomans and the europeans, they thrived off of lucrative trade routes and formed an important bridge between Africa and Europe, truly the 'Gateway to Africa' or whatever it was. Among many, many other things. The inuit merely survived in the Arctic, which is impressive, they didn't THRIVE, which is unimpressive.

I've gotta disagree with the first part i've quote. They are a civilization as much as any other organised human society. However, i wouldn't call them a successful civilization in the terms this game series determines to be significant. This is the point you raise in the second part of my quote, and i agree with you 100%.

It's ok to have niche operating civs that utilize tiles in a different way, but only if they've actually had measurable success in some form towards a victory condition in this game.

I'm also ok with adding the Inuit eventually i might add, i just think there are a lot of better options, even amongst native americans and even amongst native north americans, than the inuit.

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

I've gotta disagree with the first part i've quote. They are a civilization as much as any other organised human society. However, i wouldn't call them a successful civilization in the terms this game series determines to be significant. This is the point you raise in the second part of my quote, and i agree with you 100%.

It's ok to have niche operating civs that utilize tiles in a different way, but only if they've actually had measurable success in some form towards a victory condition in this game.

I'm also ok with adding the Inuit eventually i might add, i just think there are a lot of better options, even amongst native americans and even amongst native north americans, than the inuit.

Good point, I didn't really mean Civ as in the encyclopedia definition, I mean Civ as its meant in game, you know, a significant force on the world or whatever, I'm sure I don't need to explain it, its been explained to death when people get into big arguments over wether or not their favorite nation deserves inclusion (yeah, making an excuse to cover my mistake, I know, ahaha thanks for pointing out my mistake though, you're right)

Yeah, thats true, in terms of Native Americans you'd be much better going for a mesoamerican group, though with the Maya and Aztec I dunno if theres much point, which raises the question why go to such effort just to include them becuase there's a geographical gap over north america, love the natives, and think what happened to them is one of the greatest atrocities the earth has ever seen, but still, including them for geographies sake seems a little weird to me, I dunno, I'd rather see some better Asian civs, Vietnam, Oman, Afghanistan, Nepal (not Tibet, great civ, terrible idea ) since these were truly significant, interesting, and successful, despite there being an irritating gap of knowledge there in the public consciousness

 

[True_Candyman]

Just seen your dual pack ideas Urdnot, and they are awesome I'm so surprised we haven't had the Mughal yet in the civ series. They could be implemented in so many different ways - the more of India's history we get the better! I'd also absolutely LOVE to see Oman and Afghanistan

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

Wow, thanks, ahah, I'd like to say I welcome constructive criticism since I didnt get much when I put them up, but at the end of the day, who doesn't prefer to be told their ideas are awesome, eh Yeah, I agree about India, its an amazing place, having it represented in its current way is a bit of a sore spot for me, I hope it gets fixed in civ 6, since obviously I don't see it happening in Civ 5 :L Yeah, with Afghanistan and Oman, when I first saw them proposed here I was like, hmm, those are 2 stupid ideas, but, like a good little boy, I did some research before insulting the poster and by the end I was thinking, god, I have to design these! They're very, very interesting from both a historical and gameplay perspective and I'm surprised they aren't talked about more here, I usually see them lumped in a 'dark horse civ' category along with things like madagascar and I'm like noooo whyyy, do some reaaadddinngg

 

[SolDelta]

I'm just gonna get this out of the way; while I'd love to see Australia represented, I'd feel very uncomfortable making a civ out of Australian history, what with the thousands of years that it was home to a plethora of Aboriginal nations, until the Brits got inand systematically murdered them. As a 'nation', Australia is very young, having only federated in 1901. In additIon to this, there is still no Australian head of state due to still being a part of the British Commonwealth, which makes the choice of leaders a handful of vaguely inspiring Prime Ministers. (That said, I'd totally play a civ run by Bob Hawke.) We also don't have much in the way of unique options, though I suppose like, a Convict Worker would be possible. The closest thing we have to an iconic UU would be Bushrangers, who actively worked against the 'civ'.

All in all, I just don't think Australia (or any Commonwealth nation really, sorry Canada) should be included, both due to historical concerns and simply not making the game any better. Check back in 10 years, maybe we'll be a republic by then.

Our South East Asian neighbors have much more of a vibrant national identity, and I'd be very happy with a khmer and vietnam civ. I'm not too worried about crossover, having played one awkward and confusing game where I owned both Istanbul and Constantinople at the same time. Gran Colombia and Argentina also seem like good options to add in some south american representation, though I feel like a civ like the Nazca would be a lot more interesting rather than two Industrial era nations.

 

[True_Candyman]

I'm just gonna get this out of the way; while I'd love to see Australia represented, I'd feel very uncomfortable making a civ out of Australian history, what with the thousands of years that it was home to a plethora of Aboriginal nations, until the Brits got inand systematically murdered them. As a 'nation', Australia is very young, having only federated in 1901.

Gran Colombia and Argentina also seem like good options to add in some south american representation, though I feel like a civ like the Nazca would be a lot more interesting rather than two Industrial era nations.

You talk about respecting aboriginal history and feeling uncomfortable with Australia, then say Gran Colombia and Argentina are ok?!?

Part of what makes the situation with south american countries arguably so much worse than that of australia is the fact that native americans, particular those of south and central america, have been ostracized from society and from history, portrayed as evil and un-natural.

Worst of all, Gran Colombia may have a lot of significance ideologically, but it's hardly a civ that has stood the test of time... Likewise Argentina has never stood out as a civilization. Other colonial nations like america and now brazil are really having an impact on the world stage, becoming super-nations with mega economies etc, while argentina is trundling along way behind, having done little of significance compared to its contemporaries and showing little signs of anything changing soon. Look back through history and you'll find a lot of polities who were much more competitive and powerful in their time, and that places them way ahead of argentina in my book.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I've given this some more thought. Since the thread title is about Civs before Civ6. I think it likely for Civ6 to bring back the big empires like Khmer and Mali. Civ5 strikes me as having the opportunity to put in Civs that will not see the light of day otherwise. That being said, if it's DLC, they have to attract people to pay for them individually.

Also, in order to get your money's worth, the goal seems to be to have either two UU or a UU and UI. Unique Buildings are a way to save money on production and seem to be disfavored.