Civilisations and leaders you would NOT like to see in game

[halfhalfharp]

"People disagree with me, therefore they are biased and pro-[insert relevant thing for bashing]".

This is a very unhelpful attitude and completely kills any chance at having rational, scientific discourse. I mean, I'm trying to give you some facts here, but what would be the point if you have a preconceived notion that anyone with a different opinion on the matter than you is biased? Your view on the matter relies on an a priori falseness on my part, regardless of what my arguments are.

Cant agree more. I'd rather debate with someone who gives 10 comments on every of my sentences and plays around with logical fallacies,

than chatting with a heavily conceited mind.

Lets get back to the topic of this thread, if we still remember what it is, the civs/leaders that we don't want to see.

 

[Lord Lakely]

This can easily spiral out of control though. There would be no discernible requirement to be qualified as a civ other than "they are/were a state that exists/-ed". I see no reason not to follow down that path with a Provence, Dauphine, Lorraine, Aquitaine and Burgundy civ so we can completely balkanize France as well.

This is fairly hyperbolic logic that no serious game designer would follow. Slots are limited as they are, I don't think I need to elaborate that selecting with care is important. I personally see no qualms in adding Prussia, Ruthenia (Kyivan Rus), Soviets, Franks/Carolingians, Venetians, Mughals, Han, etc as separate Civs (though not all at once, obviously), provided they are the alt-Civ to another German, Russian, French, Italian/Roman, Indian or Chinese Civ already represented in the game. But they should still function as separate Empires.

 

[halfhalfharp]

This is fairly hyperbolic logic that no serious game designer would follow. Slots are limited as they are, I don't think I need to elaborate that selecting with care is important. I personally see no qualms in adding Prussia, Ruthenia (Kyivan Rus), Soviets, Franks/Carolingians, Venetians, Mughals, Han, etc as separate Civs (though not all at once, obviously), provided they are the alt-Civ to another German, Russian, French, Italian/Roman, Indian or Chinese Civ already represented in the game. But they should still function as separate Empires.

Considering there are more than 20 dynasties for ancient Egypt and China, if we are really taking specific periods of a civilization as a separate civ... that will break the game, even if they are not added all at once. And "dynasties" are arguably not "civilizations".

And debates around the question of how to vaildify a "civ" in the game will reach its very climax than ever.

It is not about they are standing alone as empire at all. Its about the fairness of civ designs.

 

[Phrozen]

A southwestern US tribe that is not the Comanche, who were the dominant power in the region.

 

[Basileus Rhomaion]

This is fairly hyperbolic logic that no serious game designer would follow. Slots are limited as they are, I don't think I need to elaborate that selecting with care is important. I personally see no qualms in adding Prussia, Ruthenia (Kyivan Rus), Soviets, Franks/Carolingians, Venetians, Mughals, Han, etc as separate Civs (though not all at once, obviously), provided they are the alt-Civ to another German, Russian, French, Italian/Roman, Indian or Chinese Civ already represented in the game. But they should still function as separate Empires.

That was the point of my comment there, I wanted to illustrate how fragmenting civs into smaller states is unfeasible for a game like Civ. There are game designers that follow exactly that i.e. Paradox, but that's the thing, Paradox games are supposed to simulate the entirety of history of a certain time period so having completely different entities of the same civ or culture is necessary. For a game like Civ where you have to pick your representatives carefully and inclusively to represent de facto more than state, it's not a very good idea. From your previous posts, you clearly wouldn't want to have Macedon in the game as a separate civ, but that's pretty much equivalent to having both Prussia and Germany in the game.

The states which you offer as possible candidates are not exactly universally accepted in the same manner. Theoretically, there could be someone who claims that having a Prussian civ is not a good idea, but having the kingdom of Leon alongside Spain is. There's no objective parameter or point of comparison that would make one or the other more legitimate.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of Prussia, but we have to draw the line somewhere. Some historical entities simply can't be considered separate civs.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I personally don't mind Macedon in the game. Of course I'm biased and love Alexander the Great as many can probably tell. If he were to be the leader of Greece though I understand why there wouldn't need to be a Macedon.
I was initially somewhat sad when Pericles was revealed as the leader of Greece and then I thought it would even be harder when Gorgo was announced for him to come back. I was probably one of the few people who were ecstatic when he was announced.
That being said there can be enough differences between Macedon and the other Greek city-states to make them distinct Civs, more than maybe others in my opinion mainly because of political and geographic differences more than cultural differences, even though many ancient Macedonians never spoke Greek other than the nobility.
Macedon was a monarchic kingdom north of most of the current city-states and that is my reasoning.
Prussia, Mughals, and the Soviet Union would feel more like extensions or eras of modern day Germany, India, and Russia which we already have. More than Macedon being an extension of Greece or Byzantium being an extension of Rome, and Austria is more easily separate from Germany etc. Of course these are my opinions.

 

[IgorS]

I have mixed feelings regarding "civ" character of Tamerlane's realm. I think it could pass for a civ, just barely, as Central Asian empire with center in modern-day Uzbekistan (Samarkand, Bukhara). It collapsed relatively quickly, but not immediately - and Macedon of Alexander and Mongolia of Temujin are in game anyway because of their scale and impact (Timurids have one additional overlooked aspect, they produced Mughals). IMO Timurids could be the civ if "Ottomans" are the civ, I have personal issues with Tamerlan and personal distaste towards his evilness

I think Uzbekistan could be an awesome civ in its own right, without Tamerlane. I may be a little biased, though, because I was born there)

Here's how I would make them (just a quick idea I did not really think too much about, there is room for improvement):
Civilization ability: Silk Road - +1 gold, + 1 culture and + 1 science for every trade route to another civ or city-state.
Unique unit: Nuker - Replaces the knight, and has both a melee and a ranged attack.
Unique infrastructure: Aryk - Replaces the aqueduct, and provides +2 food in addition to housing. (Ideally, the Madrasa should be the Uzbek UI, but the Arabs already got it)

Leader 1: Shaybani Khan
Ability: Unifier - Units receive a boost to combat strength in enemy territory adjacent to or a few tiles away from Uzbekistan's borders.
Agenda: Book of Victories - Will try to attract as many great writers, will be always willing to pay gold to patronize them, and dislikes leaders who do not share his love for literature.

Leader 2: Abdullah Khan
Ability: Avaz Ghazi - Gain great scientist, great merchant or great writer points when conquering a city.
Agenda: Glory of Bukhara - Will invest heavily in both the military and science, does not like civilizations with weak armies that also do not invest in science.

 

[Karpius]

I personally have no bias against any civ being added to the line-up.

Interestingly, when I first played Civ1 so very long ago, I was rather surprised at the more specific identity applied to the several civs included. In my mind, a civilization was not a single nation-state but more a cultural dynamic that might span several nation-states. On the flip side, I didn't view any civilization as spanning several millenia, but being rather confined to certain eras. I suppose one might say I was *expecting* overarching blob civilizations in the game.

Very quickly, I realized such an approach would not have been very popular with players seeking a greater affinity with the game. Simply playing the "Medieval Western European Civilization" against the "Ancient East Asian Civilization" or the "Pre-Colonial Meso-Amercian Civilization" would not do. Certainly doesn't roll off the tongue, does it?

I never got around to playing Civ4 or Civ5, nor did I previously engage in the CivFanatics forum where ideas and opinions are so ardently expressed. I am often rather taken aback by how emphatically opposed people can be against the inclusion of certain 'civilizations' for a variety of reasons. Some are opposed to 'blob' civilizations, others are opposed to offshoot civilizations. Some people are opposed to certain leaders purely on taste. In the end, aside from some 'unique' differences designed in by the developers, each civilization plays much like another with essentially the same goal (game wise). Its pretty much just names and labels that separate one civ from the next in our game, but that certainly doesn't stop us (nor should it) from having our preferences. I just don't understand how anyone can be against the inclusion of any particular civilization.

 

[steveg700]

Timurids - I was supporter of this civ until I read more detailed biography of Tamerlane. I'm sorry, I can take a lot of moral ambiguity, but while I can stomach Genghis - Timur is too much to me, it's the only potential civ leader that left me with such personal distaste. Timur was simply bad human - obsessed with power, egotic, cynical, opportunist who didn't represent any peoples, any "higher good" or any civilisation, he carved empire for his own vanity and it declined immediately after his death. Not to mention his extreme savagery - I can stomach a lot of moral ambiguity, betrayal and political calculation, but Timur was personally murdering civilians for sheer sadism, and specifically genociding Christians. And the most pathetic part of his personality is his utter obsession with eclipsing Genghis... And yet he failed.

Timurids is one-man civ, and that man was savage, petty and terrible.

The Zulu are even more of a one-man, one-note civ. Shaka was a lunatic who, in a fit of pique, ordered his people to leave their fields fallow and to have pregnant women killed. Sorry to say, but his inclusion sets the bar pretty frickin' low.

Tamerlane was well-known for his architectural projects. The Gur-i Amir mausoleum, the Bibi Khanum mosque, and Shah-i Zinda necropolis are all arguably wonder-class buildings. So, Tamerlane did have values other than sadism, and at the very least bringing the great minds of his conquests back to Samarkand showed more civilized behavior (and even a potential for a unique ability) than Shaka's simple desire to kill for mommy.

As to whether Tamerlane failed at emulating Genghis, who's to say that? As to him being pathetic for using Genghis as a measuring stick, I suspect many leaders look to their forebears.

 

[steveg700]

1) Nomadic civ's that never had any cities.
2) Tribal civ's that might have gotten past #1, but didn't build things (like, you know, buildings) or make it to the most basic of techs (writing, the wheel).
3) Postage-stamp civ's that managed to get past #2, but never did anything besides continue to eke out an existence, and only had occasional flirtations with being out from under an emperor's bootheel.

So, clearly, I'm totally out of tune with the design mentality that is currently trendy.

 

[Manifold]

After all, I can choose the leader/opponents in the start menu, then I have to see only the icon

 

[steveg700]

Prussia, Mughals, and the Soviet Union would feel more like extensions or eras of modern day Germany, India, and Russia which we already have. More than Macedon being an extension of Greece or Byzantium being an extension of Rome, and Austria is more easily separate from Germany etc. Of course these are my opinions.

Macedon was spun away from Greece solely for reasons having to do with mechanisms. It was a bizarre refutation of their own leader system, given that Greece's unique ability is so flexible.

Similarly, if implementing the Mughals means stepping away from India's religion UA, it makes sense to do so. I think the Mughals should probably have a focus on luxury resources, strategic resources, wealth accumulation, gunpowder units, and even wonders.

 

[Greywulf]

1) Nomadic civ's that never had any cities.

While your comment makes complete sense, they do still add nomadic civs, such as the Huns in Civ V and the Scythians in Civ VI. A while ago I had an idea for how they could have a more literal play-style for a nomadic civ, and that is to allow them to move their cities (similar to how you can move water cities in Civ Beyond Earth). This would make for a rather unique civ for the game, and would make the nomadic civ a little more true to history.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

While your comment makes complete sense, they do still add nomadic civs, such as the Huns in Civ V and the Scythians in Civ VI. A while ago I had an idea for how they could have a more literal play-style for a nomadic civ, and that is to allow them to move their cities (similar to how you can move water cities in Civ Beyond Earth). This would make for a rather unique civ for the game, and would make the nomadic civ a little more true to history.

This seems really difficult to manage with districts and improvements, given that they would lose bonuses every time they moved. Plus many nomadic civs like the Scythians and Huns actually made settlements, they just migrated frequently between them. Maybe a simpler solution is just to allow nomadic civs to change their capital at will. And maybe only allow them to benefit from their current capital's resources/production/bonuses, forcing them to switch capitals often to utilize resources effectively (like players already frequently switch policy cards).

You'd need to introduce a mechanic to balance that out, however, because they would consistently fall behind in all areas without some sort of artificial buff. My solution would probably be to encourage them to keep their population low (enough for a single city to sustain), and push them toward victories that don't imply higher populations. So, no cultural victory. No domination victory. No scientific victory. Maybe just say that every city they acquire in their empire generates additional faith and gold. This way they have the ability to achieve a religious victory, but still have plenty of gold to manage everything else. So, somewhat similar to how Scythia is already designed to work.

 

[Greywulf]

This seems really difficult to manage with districts and improvements, given that they would lose bonuses every time they moved. Plus many nomadic civs like the Scythians and Huns actually made settlements, they just migrated frequently between them. Maybe a simpler solution is just to allow nomadic civs to change their capital at will. And maybe only allow them to benefit from their current capital's resources/production/bonuses, forcing them to switch capitals often to utilize resources effectively (like players already frequently switch policy cards).

You'd need to introduce a mechanic to balance that out, however, because they would consistently fall behind in all areas without some sort of artificial buff. My solution would probably be to encourage them to keep their population low (enough for a single city to sustain), and push them toward victories that don't imply higher populations. So, no cultural victory. No domination victory. No scientific victory. Maybe just say that every city they acquire in their empire generates additional faith and gold. This way they have the ability to achieve a religious victory, but still have plenty of gold to manage everything else. So, somewhat similar to how Scythia is already designed to work.

Yeah, actually I had thought of it for Civ V. Not sure how it would work in Civ VI, but if they can manage something like that it would be interesting. Keeping their population low would make sense for a nomadic culture anyway, but it would be a shame to rule out a victory condition, and would make it pathetic to rule out multiple victory conditions.

 

[IgorS]

The Zulu are even more of a one-man, one-note civ. Shaka was a lunatic who, in a fit of pique, ordered his people to leave their fields fallow and to have pregnant women killed. Sorry to say, but his inclusion sets the bar pretty frickin' low.

The Zulu are definitely not a one-man civ. Cetshwayo could easily be another leader for the Zulu.

 

[steveg700]

While your comment makes complete sense, they do still add nomadic civs, such as the Huns in Civ V and the Scythians in Civ VI. A while ago I had an idea for how they could have a more literal play-style for a nomadic civ, and that is to allow them to move their cities (similar to how you can move water cities in Civ Beyond Earth). This would make for a rather unique civ for the game, and would make the nomadic civ a little more true to history.

Sure, Endless Legend has this already. In general, however, Civ VI abilities are just heavy-handed clubs, not scalpels. They just hand out "easy buttons", and certainly there are fans here that favor that (insomuch as any ability that seems to require tactical precision is consequently deemed weak).

The Zulu are definitely not a one-man civ. Cetshwayo could easily be another leader for the Zulu.

a.k.a. "Shaka Lite"

 

[IgorS]

a.k.a. "Shaka Lite"

a.k.a. the Battle of Isandlwana - the most famous episode in Zulu history.

 

[conorbebe]

• Celts - Give us Gauls.
• Polynesia - Give us Hawaii, Māori, and/or Tonga.
• Venice (Or any other Italian city-state civ) - I would prefer to have a unified renaissance Italy. I also don't see the city-state playstyle gimmick working in Civ VI.
• Mexico - The Aztecs and the Maya fill this space.
• Denmark - I don't think it would be worthwhile to have both Norway and Denmark in the same edition of Civ. Sorry Danes.
• Ireland - England and Scotland is quite enough representation for the British Isles.
• USSR - Russia is already in the game.
• Vietnam - I don't get the appeal? From what I understand the region was under Chinese occupation for the majority of history. I'd rather see Siam return or Burma.
• Huns - I'm not distinctly against the Huns themselves, but we already have Scythia and Mongolia which pretty much fill this spot.
• Really obscure tribes or cultures that we know little about or that don't have noteworthy leaders.
• There are probably a bunch of countries I can't even think of off the top of my head that should be on this list, and that's probably why they should be on it.

 

[Krajzen]

Vietnam - I don't get the appeal? From what I understand the region was under Chinese occupation for the majority of history.

Ironically, at least for me, that's partially the point lol.

Let me explain the appeal of Vietnam: this little, tiny nation was under control of Chinese civilization for thousand years. Freakin China. The biggest ethno-cultural juggernaut in human history. They spent entire period from 1st century BC to early 10th century AD under China, and they still managed to resist being consumed by its culture, language, identity, state etc. I may be wrong but I think Vietnam is they only major ethnic group that was under Chinese control for so long and still emerged as rebellious separate nation. Manchu conquered China and still were very quickly dominated by its culture.

After this thousand years of control by the most powerful ethnic group on Earth, Vietnam managed to rebel succesfully and for the majority of next 1000 years it was independent. This hilarious tiny strip of land has managed to routinely defeat:
- several Chinese invasion attempts, from medieval era all the way to 1970s war w
- Invasion by Mongol Empire which had numerical superiority. Mongol Empire. Largest land empire in history, which managed to conquer China with inferior numbers, which managed to conquer Korea, Tibet, Burma, all nomadic horsemen, Persia, Middle East, Rus, Poland, Hungary. Mongols were devastating everybody - with only exceptions being naval invasions of Java and Japan, and battles with Mamluks, Delhi and Vietnam. Of all those instances, Vietnam was the tiniest, poorest underdog, and had to battle the biggest and strongest Mongol invasion, and achieved the best victory over it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bạch_Đằng_(1288)
- Laotians
- Champa
- Khmer
- Thai
It finally fell to French - in late 19th century, when Europe had devastating advantage over the world thanks to industrial revolution. Doesn't matter though, because Vietnam managed to defeat French colonial empire in open independence war soon later.
Oh, and then Second Indochina War happened, when lone North Vietnam managed to simultaneously defeat South Vietnam, United States of America and its allies, and afterwards invade Laos and break Khmer regime in Cambodia.

Vietnam has ridiculously succesful military history. Otherwise, it is simply quite unique culture. It is a mix between Confucian cultures and Buddhist states of South-East Asia; unlike its neighbors it didn't rely on trade but instead had autarkic tendencies; had strong, centralized state unlike mandala model of tributaries and relationships. It also has water puppet theatre, rich culture, and is very numerous ethnic group.