Ideally, a nomadic civ might remain pretty much sedentary until faced with some other pressure, forcing it to seek new territory even if it means taking someone else's territory. This could emulate the great domino effect of the Steppe peoples in central Asia around 200 A.D. (and even earlier) and lasting even into the middle ages. By and large, they would be content until they felt pressure on their 'range', or they simply saw the wealth in that new found city over there and decided to help themselves.
Civilisations and leaders you would NOT like to see in game
- Thread starter Krajzen
- Start date
orasis
Prince
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2006
- Messages
- 441
Really? Don't they have better things to do? I'm still waiting for Adolf Hitler. Why not? I mean, it's been almost a hundred years. Stalin was in 4.
Guandao
Rajah of Minyue and Langkasuka
New Zealand. I have a feeling they're going to do it.
Why? Because of the Auckland City-State?
There's quite a bunch of New Zealander posters on these forums though.
Alexander's Hetaroi
Deity
Is the Maori close enough>. I feel that might be more practical after Australia, even though I would prefer Samoa a little bit more. In the end any Polynesia representation would be good.New Zealand. I have a feeling they're going to do it.
awesome
Meme Lord
Stalin was also in 1.
Guandao
Rajah of Minyue and Langkasuka
Plymouth
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2017
- Messages
- 24
Personally, I don't care very much about city lists, save for seriously flawed ones.
Historically, nomads of various extents existed in pretty much every "civilization", so unless the people depicted don't even qualify to be a civilization, I'll accept them.
To the point of the thread, I'd rather not see any blob civs (Celtic, Polynesia, etc.) or any "controversial" modern leaders like Mao, Hitler, or Stalin. Many modern leaders are fine, like Nelson Mandela, for instance.
Other than that, my only issues are typically with civs of lesser significance or purpose that take up slots of very important civilizations. However, I also am a fan of cultural and geographic diversity, so I'm honestly pretty happy with VI's roster as of R&F.
Historically, nomads of various extents existed in pretty much every "civilization", so unless the people depicted don't even qualify to be a civilization, I'll accept them.
To the point of the thread, I'd rather not see any blob civs (Celtic, Polynesia, etc.) or any "controversial" modern leaders like Mao, Hitler, or Stalin. Many modern leaders are fine, like Nelson Mandela, for instance.
Other than that, my only issues are typically with civs of lesser significance or purpose that take up slots of very important civilizations. However, I also am a fan of cultural and geographic diversity, so I'm honestly pretty happy with VI's roster as of R&F.
TyrannusRex
Warlord
I can see the opposition to including hunter-gatherer cultures and the like, but some of them deserve less scrutiny than others. On one end of the scale, we've got, let's say, the Inuit. While it would be great to have a civ that can work snow (and I've seen some pretty cool Civ V mods showing how they'd do that), I can see why people would be opposed to a civ with little impact on world culture and no established cities... although a lack of major cities didn't stop the Scythians...
As for Australian Aboriginal people, I'm kind of for, kind of against. It'd be hard to pull a UU/UI out of it, so maybe just include an Aboriginal leader as an alternate for John Curtin? I can see Windradyne taking that place. (Also, I have no problem with Australia being in Civ the same way I don't have a problem with America being in Civ.)
Setting aside the need for there to be a leader and significant historical record of the civ (to pull uniques and abilities from), I think it comes down to a strong internal culture vs a strong impact on world culture. Take for instance, the Cree. Rich history and culture to draw inspiration from? Most certainly. Overall impact on the history of the world? No offense, but, not much. Most likely, they were included because 1) Everyone wants at least one Native North American civ (sorry, Aztec, you kind of straddle north/south), 2) They'd never been included in Civilization before, and 3) The Cree were Civ's answer to Canada, as the Aztec are their answer to Mexico.
Heck, one could make an argument that the ancient Indo-European (or Proto-IE) people(s) had a major impact on the world's culture, language, and history. We've been able to find out a surprising amount about their culture by studying their artifacts and burial sites, and, while a UU/UI would be hard to devise, we already know of at least one man who, given the rare (at the time) copper axe he was found with, could very likely have been a chieftain. His true name is lost to history, but the modern world knows him as Ötzi the Iceman. They'd be the blob civ to end all blob civs, but who's to say the Indo-Europeans are no less deserving, simply because they don't have as great a record as Egypt or Sumer, or even the Cree?
(Postscript: Wow, I wasn't even angry, yet that turned into more of a rant than I expected...)
As for Australian Aboriginal people, I'm kind of for, kind of against. It'd be hard to pull a UU/UI out of it, so maybe just include an Aboriginal leader as an alternate for John Curtin? I can see Windradyne taking that place. (Also, I have no problem with Australia being in Civ the same way I don't have a problem with America being in Civ.)
Setting aside the need for there to be a leader and significant historical record of the civ (to pull uniques and abilities from), I think it comes down to a strong internal culture vs a strong impact on world culture. Take for instance, the Cree. Rich history and culture to draw inspiration from? Most certainly. Overall impact on the history of the world? No offense, but, not much. Most likely, they were included because 1) Everyone wants at least one Native North American civ (sorry, Aztec, you kind of straddle north/south), 2) They'd never been included in Civilization before, and 3) The Cree were Civ's answer to Canada, as the Aztec are their answer to Mexico.
Heck, one could make an argument that the ancient Indo-European (or Proto-IE) people(s) had a major impact on the world's culture, language, and history. We've been able to find out a surprising amount about their culture by studying their artifacts and burial sites, and, while a UU/UI would be hard to devise, we already know of at least one man who, given the rare (at the time) copper axe he was found with, could very likely have been a chieftain. His true name is lost to history, but the modern world knows him as Ötzi the Iceman. They'd be the blob civ to end all blob civs, but who's to say the Indo-Europeans are no less deserving, simply because they don't have as great a record as Egypt or Sumer, or even the Cree?
(Postscript: Wow, I wasn't even angry, yet that turned into more of a rant than I expected...)
I'd rather not see any civs picked over another just because they conveniently happen to have had a female leader, or leaders picked just because they were female. Doing things like picking Cleopatra over for example Tuthmosis III or Catherine over someone like Louis XIV makes no sense for any other reason than to appease the easily offended.
bonafide11
Worker
I just don't like modern post-colonial Civs, like Brazil and Australia. The US I'm okay with because of its significance as a global super power, but I was never thrilled to see Brazil or Australia included.
halfhalfharp
Prince
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2016
- Messages
- 517
ZeroSuitSenpai
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2017
- Messages
- 135
I like Catherine De Medici and I'm glad she's in the game. There I said it. Was she the best ruler of France? No. But she was an refreshing choice after seeing Napoleon for the umpteenth time. Furthermore, her historical use of spying gave way to a civ that really feels unique in its gameplay.
I think CdM is one of the "spiciest" choices in Civ 6. Unique choice with unique gameplay. She adds more flavor to the cast of characters than most of the other leaders. I'll also never understand the hate for her being Italian. Napoleon was also essentially Italian, and he is beloved. Often he's suggested as the leader that should have been chosen over her, because he's a "real" French leader.
I think CdM is one of the "spiciest" choices in Civ 6. Unique choice with unique gameplay. She adds more flavor to the cast of characters than most of the other leaders. I'll also never understand the hate for her being Italian. Napoleon was also essentially Italian, and he is beloved. Often he's suggested as the leader that should have been chosen over her, because he's a "real" French leader.
Last edited:
awesome
Meme Lord
She's still better than Gandhi
Philip Augustus would of been a better choice. Still has a sly and somewhat sneaky personality but actually accomplished things. Turned the French crown from being way less powerful than several French baronies to perhaps the strongest in Western Europe. Turned Paris from a somewhat unimportant mining city to the center of French culture and power.
Agreed, although America opened the door for these modern colonial civs. I would have been quite happy without any colonial civs, but I understand that they are also trying to make money, even if it means bending the rules a bit. Anyway, that's two spots taken that could have been better selected..
awesome
Meme Lord
They probably should've gone with the Maori, instead of Australia.
I think they wanted to fill the continental mass of Australia, so they must have thought that Australia would be more marketable than the Aborigines.
Maori is definitely a good choice, but I think the inclusion of Australia does not exclude them. We can still wait for Maori.
Maori is definitely a good choice, but I think the inclusion of Australia does not exclude them. We can still wait for Maori.
MetalmindStats
Chieftain
Some of the few civs I would not want to see added by Firaxis are the Olmecs and the Harappans / Indus Valley, for the substantial lack of crucial information regarding both.
As for leaders, there's just no place for modern dictators who murdered millions by their policies and actions - Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Leopold II, etc. In addition, I don't think it would be appropriate for anyone who is still alive today to be added as a leader in a game that is all about the history and legacy of its various civilizations. Both of those groups are fine as mods, though - they just wouldn't be mods I would ever be interested in using.
(Edit): I forgot about North Korea, as well as minor historical states like the two separate Yemens, which have no reason to be in the game. Also, I would much prefer Firaxis stays away from Tibet (due to the Chinese government and their likely reaction) as well as any permutation of an Israeli or Palestinian nation (due to the controversy that would result).
As for leaders, there's just no place for modern dictators who murdered millions by their policies and actions - Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Leopold II, etc. In addition, I don't think it would be appropriate for anyone who is still alive today to be added as a leader in a game that is all about the history and legacy of its various civilizations. Both of those groups are fine as mods, though - they just wouldn't be mods I would ever be interested in using.
(Edit): I forgot about North Korea, as well as minor historical states like the two separate Yemens, which have no reason to be in the game. Also, I would much prefer Firaxis stays away from Tibet (due to the Chinese government and their likely reaction) as well as any permutation of an Israeli or Palestinian nation (due to the controversy that would result).
Last edited:
