9 Most Wanted Civs Post BNW

Empty spots on the map

Northern North America (Inuit/Canada)
Central Africa (Congo)
Area South of Poland, West of Austria and North of Greece.
Western China
Australia (Unless Polynesia colonizes it early game)

Huge parts of Asia and South America are empty as well.

MantaRevan said:

Stop debating which civs "deserve" to be in. To say that some civilizations are "worthy" to be in the game and others aren't implies that some people are simply better or more important than others. No one civilization of people is better or more inclusion-worthy than any other, so it's pointless to argue over it. Let people have their opinions here.

Click to expand...

Pretty sure Rome deserves to be in more than the Republic of Texas.

I'd like to see:

a modern Italy
Inuit civilization (not enough civs utilize snow)
Australia
either a modern Mexico or Cuba
Switzerland (lots of potential uniques)
a different variation of Germany (Prussia, Bavaria, Hannover, or going back to Germanic tribes)
Canada
Nigeria
a modern Iran or Iraq

In particular, I really want to see a couple of variations of common civs. It's not really fair to say that Rome represents Italy, or that the Aztecs represent Mexico, or that Persia represents Iran. And Germany could really be split a number of different ways, with the most notable being Prussia.

Moreover, I think there could be more in the way of modern African nations. I mean, virtually every African nation in the game is industrial or earlier. Think about it: Carthage, Songhai, Egypt, Zulu, Morocco (has a cavalry unique that at least approaches the modern era), and Ethiopia (every unique is industrial or earlier, though the leader, Haile Selassie I, died in 1975). Hence, why not have a modern Nigeria? Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa, after all.

Just my thoughts. I don't really expect any new civs at this point, but who knows?

Peng Qi said:

Pretty sure Rome deserves to be in more than the Republic of Texas.

Click to expand...

Only based on your internal biases.

ldvhl said:

Only based on your internal biases.

Click to expand...

Only based on common sense. One of the greatest empires ever vs a non-empire who used to belong to Mexico but now the US. Dont sound very civ like to me.

"Common sense" is just agreed-upon standards in a cultural group. On an international forum dedicated to discussing numerous cultures, using such a standard seems futile at best.

And the concept of civilization is much more broad than what you've stated here. Even if it was only for a brief time (just shy of ten years), it still qualifies.

ldvhl said:

"Common sense" is just agreed-upon standards in a cultural group. On an international forum dedicated to discussing numerous cultures, using such a standard seems futile at best.

And the concept of civilization is much more broad than what you've stated here. Even if it was only for a brief time (just shy of ten years), it still qualifies.

Click to expand...

Are you being contrarian, or are you seriously trying to argue against his statement that Rome is a better candidate for a civ than Texas?

I'm arguing that there is no universal standard and one's opinion (and the knowledge that informs said opinion) is the sole arbiter of what one considers a "better candidate".

Personally, I believe that both are dead civilizations existing in a history that matters only because of the value we put on it.

johnny_rudeboy said:

Only based on common sense. One of the greatest empires ever vs a non-empire who used to belong to Mexico but now the US. Dont sound very civ like to me.

Click to expand...

The same could be said against the Iroquois and Shoshone, but I'm not complaining.

crocivfanatic said:

Well,thread asked for 9 civs...so i posted 9 civs
Well primarily i would want to see Croatia,but i would happy with Yugoslavia as well.Kind a strange how it was not included in any of civ games before considering during it's time was one of strongest world nations and founders of non-aligned movement.Plus only nation which said "<snip> you" to soviet union without consequences.Perhaps that could be some sort of trait

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's one of the funniest moments in YU history.

btw, there's already a Belgrade as CS, so it wouldn't be surprised if they turn it into playable civ at one point. I know at least one UB that could be common to all Balkanian civs - kafana.

Moderator Action: You're responsible for everything in your posts, including quoted inappropriate language. Offending word removed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

If I just had to picked 9 I would want (not expect):

No particular order:

1. Sumer
2. Pueblo
3. Israel
4. Tibet
5. Burma
6. Toltecs
7. Kongo
8. Inuits
9. Khmer

ldvhl said:

I'm arguing that there is no universal standard and one's opinion (and the knowledge that informs said opinion) is the sole arbiter of what one considers a "better candidate".

Click to expand...

I haven't read the whole thread but has anyone claimed there is a universal standard? Obviously we all have preferences, which, however well supported, will be based on incomplete information and personal bias. (Not that it matters because Civ doesn't remotely work as, and was never intended to be, a historical simulator.) Does it really need pointing out?

ldvhl said:

Personally, I believe that both are dead civilizations existing in a history that matters only because of the value we put on it.

Click to expand...

"During the period from 1519 to 1848, all or parts of Texas were claimed by six countries: France, Spain, Mexico, the Republic of Texas, the United States of America&#8212;as well as the Confederate States of America in 1861&#8211;65."

Texas has independent history of something like few decades, and while term "civilisation" is unclear, I am absolutely clear this lone state doesn't suit into any definitions. It was not empire, not long - lasting sovereign state, its cultural impact is at least questionable, its impact on world history was no bigger than impact of any US state alone.

Saying this is exactly the same as Roman Empire, which direct or indirect impact on world history has ~2 500 years, and which basically "created" Europe, which created Spain AND which created Texas is laughable. While it is definitely impossible to say "this culture is BETTER than this", saying it is impossible to measure power/impact of political/ethnic groups basically denies whole history, historiosophy and concept of civilisation. No, Rome matters because it had extremely big impact on culture, political history, architecture, militaries, economy, while Texas DIDN'T HAVE IT.

Saying "Rome is considered more important than Texas only because of value we put on it" is pure logical absurd, it is like saying "1000 dollars is more than 10 dollars only because of value we put on it". Uhm, yes, exactly, so? Maybe I am unclear but to be honest I am astonished by concept of water being more wet than sand only because we put value on it

Sorry, Rome was simply more important than Texas and it is regarded as more interesting. For most of customers and creators of Civ series Roman Empire is waaaaay prefered over Texas State, so I wouldn't expected it unless developers start making Civ XIV with 150 civilizations, including Texas, Masovia, Northumbria, Xibei Sai Ma, Vladivostok, Neanderthals, Hessen, West Steppe Under Control Of This Unnamed Horse Tribe, and so on.


My own 9 favourite civs to appear in the series:
- Great Zimbabwe/Monomatapa/Mutapa
- Kilwa
- Ghana/Hausa/again Mali
- Cahokia
- Hungary
- Tartars
- Vietnam
- Khmer again after CivIV
- Israel

Depravo said:

I haven't read the whole thread but has anyone claimed there is a universal standard? Obviously we all have preferences, which, however well supported, will be based on incomplete information and personal bias. (Not that it matters because Civ doesn't remotely work as, and was never intended to be, a historical simulator.) Does it really need pointing out?

Click to expand...

When people are claiming that some civs are more or less "deserving" as if it's a clearly obvious matter, I believe it is.

MantaRevan said:

Stop debating which civs "deserve" to be in.

Click to expand...

So now we come back to this. No good can come from debating which civ deserves to be in the game. It leads to nationalism and people getting offended that their favorite choice was not included.

That said, I demand a Neanderthal civ. Thank you.

Well, I know that the most important factor of civ appearing in the series are fan favourites divided by developers' fabourites, I am only against total egality of Rome and Texas in amatheur discussion about historical significance

Krajzen said:

"During the period from 1519 to 1848, all or parts of Texas were claimed by six countries: France, Spain, Mexico, the Republic of Texas, the United States of America—as well as the Confederate States of America in 1861–65.

Click to expand...

I'm assuming this uncited quote is from the Wikipedia page for the history of Texas. I don't believe anybody is arguing the facts of the Republic of Texas.

Krajzen said:

Texas has independent history of something like few decades, and while term "civilisation" is unclear, I am absolutely clear this lone state doesn't suit into any definitions.

Click to expand...

It meets the criteria set forth in the definitions on Wikipedia and Mirriam-Webster.

Krajzen said:

It was not empire, not long - lasting sovereign state, its cultural impact is at least questionable, its impact on world history was no bigger than impact of any US state alone.

Click to expand...

All of those points are irrelevant to whether or not it is a civilization. Your final statement is also false, as it had a direct impact on the start and result of the US Civil War as well as ramifications for relations between the US, Mexico, Britain, and France.

Krajzen said:

Saying this is exactly the same as Roman Empire, which direct or indirect impact on world history has ~2 500 years, and which basically "created" Europe, which created Spain AND which created Texas is laughable.

Click to expand...

I'm saying that as both dead civilizations remembered and valued by individuals as they choose to, they are equal. We're simply using different criteria.

Krajzen said:

While it is definitely impossible to say "this culture is BETTER than this", saying it is impossible to measure power/impact of political/ethnic groups basically denies whole history, historiosophy and concept of civilisation.

Click to expand...

I never said it is impossible.

Krajzen said:

No, Rome matters because it had extremely big impact on culture, political history, architecture, militaries, economy, while Texas DIDN'T HAVE IT.

Click to expand...

Had being the operative word. Some people value Rome for what they choose to value it for. Likewise for Texas.

Krajzen said:

Also, for most of customers and creators of Civ series Roman Empire is waaaaay prefered over Texas State, so I wouldn't expected it unless developers start making Civ XIV with 150 civilizations, including Texas, Masovia, Northumbria, Xibei Sai Ma, Vladivostok, Neanderthals, Hessen, West Steppe Under Control Of This Unnamed Horse Tribe, and so on.

Click to expand...

First, you're using the bandwagon fallacy to make your case. Second, conflating the Republic of Texas (not State) to Neandarthals and "Unnamed Horse Tribe" (among others) seems like you're missing the point.

You cannot compare Texas to Rome, that is crazy. As much as the Texas could be made into an interesting civ, it cannot come before countries like England, France, Germany, Russia, China or Japan. There is a good reason why the original 18 civs in the game where what they are (except Songhai was there just as a darkhorse civ, and Iroquois where the representatives of Native American culture). So there is a criteria why some civs come before the others. And somewhat it is better to view civs as certain cultures, that's why civ is quite eurocentric. As much as the European civs have something in common they are culturally very specific. You could never say that Germans are English or French are Polish or Spanish are Russians. Asian countries are big, take Russia, Iran, India, China, Japan and Thailand and you have about 75-80% Asian landmass covered. It would be pointless to take every small country that existed in India, every country that China was split to in it's history, or every samurai clan from Japan. It is the Indian, Chinese and Japanese people that live here that make up the culture of these civilizations. With BNW the world is already quite well covered, we may be still missing perhaps one more civ from S. America, some Central-asian civ, Australia, Congo valley civ, one Balkan civ etc. But they are all already very well covered, plus the city-states. Texas is basically America, but what is more important in Texan culture is specific in it's own way, and could be made as a civ. But saying that it is better or at the same level as some civs that have shaped the history of the world is pointless. That's why some civs have an advantage over the others.

Please stop breaking up all the posts, it makes yours unreadable.