Ancient Civs or Modern Civs

[Silverman6083]

So in general, there is quite a but of overlap in civs that prevent us from having all the civs we want. But which do you prefer? For instance we can't have the Roman Empire andItaly, we can't have England and the UK, Siam and Vietnam, etc.
Also, would you rather have modern renditions or ancient? This includes Egypt, America, France, China, India, Sweden, Israel, Japan, etc.
So which one & why?

 

[TPangolin]

Some are more appropriate than others to be honest and some can be just amalgams civs that can encompass large periods of time (i.e Russia, Ethiopia, Japan).

I think we can go through this list though quite easily:

Arabian Peninsula: Hosts a myriad of civs that can be split. Modern inclusions are great in the form of Arabia as the Saudis are certainly not in any form of candidacy for being a fleshed out civ.

Nice Splits: Arabia, Assyria, Sumer, Babylon, Nabatea, Persia, Selucids, Greece, Ottomans

English Isles: Scotland is enough worthy of a civ, it has the opportunity to spout a whole lot of unique flavor. As does the Irish. UK wouldn't make sense as an individual civ seeing as England is more of an empire on the fringes of Medieval right through to the 1800s

Nice Splits: Scotland under James IV, England, Ireland under Brian Boru

Spain: Portugal and Spain are easy to split - but the question rather lies whether or not it is appropriate to split Spain up further. The basques are nice and flavorful, as is Castille, Leon and Aragon. Isabella does do a great job at representing a unified and utterly powerful Spanish empire. I would rather elements of each of these minor Spanish civs to pop up as flavor throughout Spains unique attributes or via social policies.

Nice Splits: Portugal and Spain.

France: The big one here is the splitting of the Franks and France. Is it justified? Of course it is. Each is systematically different and privdes flavor thoughout. Other candidates could be a Shoshone-esque (i.e oddball tribe) germanic/gothic tribe such as the Gauls. The Swiss are also nice as more of a flavorful inclusion as a touch of salt rather than a fleshed out empire.

Nice Splits: Franks under Charlemagne, France under Napoleon, Oddball barb tribe, Switzerland

Germany: Germany is really nice and has the opportunity to be split up a thousand times over. Obviously the big one here is the HRE and Germany. HRE, although not lasting all too long was an amazing political institution with considerable influence unlike the world has seen before. It'd be nice in a scenario though. The HRE I feel would be better replicated in the form of a complex game mechanic or a social policy which turns things upside down as they did in real life. Currently I feel the HRE is already represented in Germany via the Hanse (as are the Germanic tribes and the Nazis in the UA).

Nice Splits: Bohemia, Austria, Germany

Italy: Rome and Italy in my personal opinion are warranted a split alongside Venice. Rome is fantastic as a Classical era powerhouse - but the references to Italy stop there. 3 Major Renaissance Italian states stick out. Venice is an obvious one. Less obvious are the Papal States. JFD has a mod which other than the leaderscreen looks and feels as if it slides into Civ V absolutely perfectly and thus proves it's worthiness for it's inclusion in civ. The third one is the one which people fight over: Italy. The argument for not including Italy is in my opinion ridiculous. To say that Italy is represented by the Romans is the same as saying that Mexico as a modern state is represented by the Aztecs. Italy's great states (Sicily, Tuscany, Milan etc.) would be nice individually (if there were just one of them) but would also be nice to represent Italy as a whole. I'd combine the three states into a fully fleshed out Italy civ that represents Italy from the Renaissance to around <1900.

Nice Splits: Rome, Venice, Papal States, Sicily/Tuscany/Milan (mutually exclusive) or as a Ren-1900 Italy civ focused on Golden Ages/Wonders.

I might continue this list further later on if it's wanted.

 

[ACivFan]

Since when Siam and Vietnam overlap?

 

[sukritact]

^ I'm wondering that as well, Siam and Laos, yes. Siam and Khmer, maybe. But Siam and Vietnam?

I don't see why we can't have both in any case; we have Egypt and Arabia, Denmark and Sweden, England and the US, etc.

 

[Veras]

I would go further and say that we should have Siam, Vietnam and Khmer.

 

[lindsay40k]

I'm less concerned by the naming controversy than I am by the way a civ that historically had a slower economic development and was conquered or exterminated by a civ that developed faster generally ends up with powerful early units and/or buildings that enable it to steamroller their rivals before they have a chance of rolling out their post-Renaissance deathstars.

I'd prefer stuff like New World civs to have a strong compelling reason to delay their Iron Age rather than give them a brutal pre-Iron advantage that enables them to crush a neighbour with a post-Bronze UU that chronologically came, saw and conquered before the other civ even existed.

 

[lindsay40k]

I mean, don't get me wrong, it's a spectacular sight to see Jaguar warriors pwning Spain before they have even heard of gunpowder, but I think there's better ways to convey the distinct characteristics of cultures than giving those that developed without iron working an extremely powerful ancient military.

 

[Calouste]

HRE, although not lasting all too long ...

Charlemagne was crowned as the first Holy Roman Emperor in 800 AD. The Holy Roman Empire was disbanded by Napoleon in 1806. 1006 years is quite a long time.

 

[shaglio]

^ I'm wondering that as well, Siam and Laos, yes. Siam and Khmer, maybe. But Siam and Vietnam?

I would have said Siam and Thailand would overlap, but I'm not well versed in SEA history.

 

[Calouste]

I would have said Siam and Thailand would overlap, but I'm not well versed in SEA history.

Siam was the name of the country that is now called Thailand until 1939. It's not just overlap, it's literally the same country.

 

[johnny5000]

Are we just talking different empires that spanned the same landmass?

Off the top of my head...

We have Rome, which at its peak would have encompassed Spain, England, Greece, Egypt, Byzantine Empire, etc.

And speaking of the Byzantine Empire, there's overlap with the Ottoman Empire, who considered themselves heir to the Byzantine (and therefore Roman) Empire.

Mongolia, whose empire spanned China, Korea, Russia, Poland, Arabia, etc.

Where do we draw the line?

 

[FuRRie]

I love history so I prefer old civilizations.

I think a good mix of old and new make the best games.

 

[DaNuke]

I prefer the old ones too!

 

[Tandaw]

I've always loved the ancients much more than the modern civs. There is always overlap, but I think if done with the right flavour some overlapping civs could be a lot of fun. I've always thought that both Thrace and Scythia should be added

 

[cpm4001]

I like modern civs, but I sincerely hope that we see more Ancient/Classical-era civs in Civ VI (along with those gameplay eras being more fleshed out.) Always find it more fun to keep an ancient nation alive for millennia than play a modern nation.

 

[magritte]

Ancient Civs all the way. I don't think any culture that shares a language or religion with another should be considered a distinct civilization. Nations are not civilizations. And since the game is about guiding a civilization from the ancient era and there were no ancient Spanish or ancient Americans. Give me Celts and Native American tribes.

Actually, I think it would be interesting to change the game so that you could change your civilization at the change of eras--for example, if you were playing Celts or Germans, you could have the option of becoming "English" in the medieval era.

 

[Sagax]

I like ancient renditions, but there is a problem: the Ancient-Classical eras pass too fast in this game, so you just don't have enough time to play with Hoplites, Immortals, Bowmen and so on. In contrast, Medieval-Renaissance civs are in a sweet spot.

I hope the double-leader thing will actually be implemented in Civ6: you have an ancient leader and then get an option to switch to a modern unique features (let's call it "Succession").

 

[Janskey]

I generally like the ancient civs more. But if we are going to have modern civs, Finland should be included as well. The UA could have something to with this:

"The Finnish bombers navigated their way into middle of the Gulf of Finland, all lights off, looking for a suitable Soviet bomber formation...

Finding one, the Finnish Dornier pilots joined the enemy bombers unnoticed, slowly creeping their way inside the Soviet formation. It took a lot of skill and nerves (a lot of nerves, when thinking about it 60 years later) to stay in the formation, as the Soviet pilots might recognize the strange looking bombers at any moment. After all, the German built Dorniers had completely different outlooks to the Soviet bombers, consisting primarily of Li-2s, B-25s, IL-4s and A-20 Bostons, with two squadrons of heavy Pe-8s.

After crossing the front lines the Soviet planes suddenly turned their navigation lights on, feeling safe over their own side of the front lines. With sudden inspirations the Finnish pilots followed the example. With all lights on the huge bomber formation consisting of both Soviet and Finnish bombers flew eastwards, more and more inside the enemy territory, shining brightly in the dark sky.

The Soviet bombers arrived to their home field and readied themselves for landing. The Finnish pilots kept their nerves - and actually joined the Soviet night bombers in their landing circuit, still navigational lights on. One by one the Soviet bombers landed, with the rest - Finns included - approaching the field. The bombers circled the Soviet airfield, brightly lit in the winter night of the northern hemisphere, landing one by one. And finally - the last Soviet bomber had landed and the bright lights of the field welcomed the last four bombers seen circling in the landing pattern. But instead landing these bombers opened their bomb bays, throttled up and filled the field with 80 shrapnel bombs, filling it with destruction...."

 

[ArguCa]

Old civilizations. I don't like to play as modern nations.

 

[beetle]

I hope the double-leader thing will actually be implemented in Civ6: you have an ancient leader and then get an option to switch to a modern unique features (let's call it "Succession").

That is the best idea for VI that I have read! Each civ would be twice as interesting! Even if that meant half as many civs (which it would not have to), the long game would be significantly more engaging. If you think about GnK being needed to buff the middle game, then BNW to buff the end-game, this one change would allow VI a very strong launch.