7 New Civs You'd Like to See in Civ7

[BuchiTaton]

What I was talking about harks back to my 'Mapping Peoples and States' thread: that the inclusion or representation of certain groups ends up excluding (implicitly) the inclusion or representation of other groups. Or to speak more lucidly, are the Achaemenid Persian and Roman civs actually meant to represent every ethnic group in their respective empires? Is the inclusion of Achaemenid Persia meant to include Babylon and Assyria as well? Or the Romans meant to include the various peoples they ruled over? Because I feel that is what is happening with an India civ. Now, to use your example of Achaemenid Persia, if the game were featuring Gupta India or Mauryan India or Mughal India that were another matter, but it doesn't, so the comparison doesn't work for me.

Agree. I think that assume the Roman or Persian civs as multiethnic from what they turned to be is a very questionable notion. Both Romans and Persians started as local entities, the later resulting empire was a product of their conquests. In the same way the players in CIV start with only a bunch of settler to found a single city, here is were the players build their empires with the uniques from your own civ and that is what is mostly portrayed by civs designs, so both Roman Roads and Persian Satrapies make sense as uniques that allows you to expand and control your conquered territories, making clear than any cultural diversity is a product of their conquest and not the source of the empire in the first place.

Similarly, talking about the British Empire or Later America have points to question. For example the civ in CIV is not British is English, again we have the roots of the empire not the result, and of course England have Celtic, Roman, Norman, French elements not just Anglo-Saxon ones, but all civs would have in some way or another some diverse origin, but still what we can keep as evident is the role of the later heritage as particularly defining. Funny thing CIV6 have Victoria as the leader of England, but not of Scotland, India, Canada or Australia.
For America, I agree that the immigration is a very relevant part of USA identity and ideals, but again these would be perfect as in-game design were you build an empire based on pioneers and immigrants, so these American ideals let you build and get a diverse America as the result of your uniques. As a 4X player you whould feel more rewarding to build your empire in the American, Roman or Persian way than just play as the leader of an already finished empire.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

Imo I’m fine with India but would desire a subcontinent civ like the Chola or Mughals to join in next game so that there would be more representation and a more varied civ 7.

I'm probably repeating myself once too many, but I really do not approve of having these featured as separate civs, since much like the Sassanids, those were the names of the ruling families rather than the people they ruled over. Again, I'd much rather see a Tamil civ, a Hindustani civ et cetera, representing the various cultural subregions of South Asia, rather than any historical states that may have existed there

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Are you sure about that? Because from what I understand Hindi and Urdu are mutually intelligible to a significant degree.

They are related languages, but Urdu borrows a lot of vocabulary from Arabic or Persian, Hindi from Sanskrit, so while 'mutually intelligible' it was described to me as being the mutually intelligible of, say, French and Spanish, or German and Dutch. More importantly, the 'standard' Hindi in India is based on the Delhi dialect, which is, roughly, 1500 km north-northwest of where the one family lived, and so quite different from the Hindi they spoke 'at home'. At the other end, Amajit's dialect of Urdu is heavily influenced by Dari (Farsi) and Pashtu, because the languages of Pakistan and Afghanistan that those represent do NOT stop at the modern national borders, and so languages from virtually the opposite ends of India have a lot of 'outside India' influences on them that don't help mutual intelligiblity at all.

 

[reddishrecue]

I would like it if bringing Afghanistan and Kennedy into civ 7 because they come out on civilization in mobile devices.

 

[Patine]

They are related languages, but Urdu borrows a lot of vocabulary from Arabic or Persian, Hindi from Sanskrit, so while 'mutually intelligible' it was described to me as being the mutually intelligible of, say, French and Spanish, or German and Dutch. More importantly, the 'standard' Hindi in India is based on the Delhi dialect, which is, roughly, 1500 km north-northwest of where the one family lived, and so quite different from the Hindi they spoke 'at home'. At the other end, Amajit's dialect of Urdu is heavily influenced by Dari (Farsi) and Pashtu, because the languages of Pakistan and Afghanistan that those represent do NOT stop at the modern national borders, and so languages from virtually the opposite ends of India have a lot of 'outside India' influences on them that don't help mutual intelligiblity at all.

Also, the issue is further complicated by the pesky human problem of politization of linguistics due to latter-day acrimony. Your comment on Tyrannus Rex's thread about litigation over the spelling of Kyiv/Kiev, even over the city as it appeared 700 years ago. Or, another good example is, for centuries, no one disputed that Serbo-Croatian was one language with several distinct dialects - a language that, along with Greek, Bulgarian, and Romanian, were the languages of Balkan Anti-Ottoman Nationalism and Independence Wars, a laguage of Nationalist resistance to Austro-Hungarian hegemony (the mother tongue of Gavrilo Princip), and the language Josip Broz Tito commanded and organized the Yugoslav Partisans - one of only two resistance groups under whose hiome nation was under Axis occupation in WW2 to liberate themselves without Allied forces entering or have to wait for the Instrument of Surrender - in. But, after the bloody civil wars of the '90's in Yugoslavia, even though linguists know what's above is still true, for political reasons, there is no such thing as Serbo-Croation - there are four completely separate languages of Croatian, Bosniak, Serbian, and Montenegrin.

 

[Vahnstad]

One for each continent

1. Muisca (South America)
2. Tlingit (North America)
3. Bulgaria (Europe)
4. Armenia (Middle East)
5. Vijayanagar (India-East Asia)
6. Hawaii (Oceania)
7. Kilwa/Swahili (Africa)

Am in favour of splitting up India.

 

[GeneralZIft]

4. Armenia (Middle East)

Armenia, middle east?

 

[Vahnstad]

Armenia, middle east?

Just semantics, i know it's culturally part of Europe, but it's located to the far edge of it, in the Caucascus, it had a strong presence in Anatolia. Technically geologically speaking all of Eurasia is one continent. And geographically Eurasia + North Africa is one biogeographical realm. Defining continents is subjective, and i'm not dividing based on culture here. I had to take a pick since well Antarctica has no humans on it. And Eurasia is very large (though Europe being well represented already).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Armenia, middle east?

It's definitely Middle East adjacent.

 

[Patine]

It's definitely Middle East adjacent.

No, according to the definitive division of continents by international geographers' consensus, the Caucusus Region is part of Europe, along the European part of Russia, just like the Middle East, proper, except Egypt, Cyprus, Istanbul, and Eastern Thrace, are part of Asia (sometimes calleed Sothwest Asia). Australia is it's own continent, and Oceania is not attached to a continent, and Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, Bermuda, and Greenland are part of North America, while South America is just the key-shaped continent to the south, and some South Atlantic islands - by proper definition, those are big tripping points for people.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

No, according to the definitive division of continents by international geographers' consensus, the Caucusus Region is part of Europe, along the European part of Russia, just like the Middle East, proper, except Egypt, Cyprus, Istanbul, and Eastern Thrace, are part of Asia (sometimes calleed Sothwest Asia).

Armenia borders Turkey and Iran, which are a part of the Middle East. That would make it adjacent, right, as in next to or adjoining something else, according to the definition?
I never once said Armenia is part of the Middle East.

 

[Patine]

Armenia borders Turkey and Iran.

And that's where the proper continental border is drawn in that area. Armenia is part of Europe not Asia. Besides, Armenia culture, language, and religion are so very different than Turkish and Iranian culture, language, and religion - much closer to European-type norms, in Armenia's case.

 

[Patine]

Armenia borders Turkey and Iran, which are a part of the Middle East. That would make it adjacent, right, as in next to or adjoining something else, according to the definition?
I never once said Armenia is part of the Middle East.

Wait, wait. Sorry. That rant all should of been direct at valnstad. My apologies.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

One for each continent

1. Muisca (South America)
2. Tlingit (North America)
3. Bulgaria (Europe)
4. Armenia (Middle East)
5. Vijayanagar (India-East Asia)
6. Hawaii (Oceania)
7. Kilwa/Swahili (Africa)

Am in favour of splitting up India.

10/10 cook again.

 

[GeneralZIft]

And for my East Asian rep... it is the United States! Which is East-Russia-adjacent!

 

[Naokaukodem]

Australia is it's own continent, and Oceania is not attached to a continent

Either my memory fails me, either things have changed since my 10 years old days...

 

[AffineConstant]

Am in favour of splitting up India.

I mean, "India" was conquered 4 separate times as a general geographic area yes? And post Independence the fourth time resulted in the leaders we've always had in Civ, but the notable leaders of pre fourth time would also be the leaders that ended up conquering the whole area anyway I.E. Ashoka, Muhammad bin Tughluq, and Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur are the most notable suspects for "Leaders" in the area, and all ended up conquering the whole region, even if you wanted a different Mughal leader they'd still end up with the whole region.

I think the Indus Valley civilization would be neat if we somehow deciphered their language so we could get like, a leader, and some better idea of what they were like beyond the archaeological record. They extended into northern India, so that would be cool one day.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Either my memory fails me, either things have changed since my 10 years old days...

Oceania is a geographical region that Australia, the continent, just happens to be in.

 

[Evie]

Errr, Patine?.

Most generally recognized definitions I'm aware of (there are numerous others, since the precise definition of continent is not a matter of settled science, and certainly not a matter of a definitive definition that is supported by international consensus) put the continental border between Europe and Asia at the height of land of the Caucasus, which is around the border between Russia and Georgia/Azerbaijan. Armenia, even in its modern definition, is solidly on the Asian side of that border, and is considered part of West Asia, same as Turkey. Historically this was even more so since most of historical Armenia is firmly in modern Turkey.

The Middle East is a thorny region that used to lie much further east, but that has evolved to replace Near East (and Levant) as a term largely meaning West Asia (also called southwestern by other sources) except the Caucaus, Egypt and sometimes Libya. Modern Armenia, being in the Caucasus, is usually not considered. It is, however, firmly part of West Asia, and within the context of dividing the world in seven subcontinentsl region, where West-Asia-but-not-Middle East is a tiny subcategory, it's entirely fair to treat "Middle East" and "West Asia and Northeastern Africa" as essentially synonymous. Plus, again, historical Armenia is firmly within what is recognize as the Middle East.

There's no question that, as you say culturally Armenia (and Georgia) are strongly European, and modern Armenia is geopolitically alligned to (parts of) Europe. But cultural, human boundaries do not make good continental definitions. They result in continents that shift and change according to the vagaries of human history - what of the Hellenistic successor states, where they all part of Europe? The Byzantine Empire at its height? Are the Americas now part of Europe due to colonization? No, really, geographic barriers are more suited to continental boundaries than human politics. And again, all those contemporary geopolitical concerns have no bearing on the historical Armenias.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

but the notable leaders of pre fourth time would also be the leaders that ended up conquering the whole area anyway I.E. Ashoka, Muhammad bin Tughluq, and Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur are the most notable suspects for "Leaders" in the area, and all ended up conquering the whole region, even if you wanted a different Mughal leader they'd still end up with the whole region.

Babur never conquered the entire region, only Delhi.

No leader has controlled the entire region corresponding to modern India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Unless you count the British Raj of course, in which case leader Lord Mountbatten.