Vote for your 3 civs you would most like to see : Final Results

[Liufeng]

Hello everyone ! In this thread, I will show you the final results of each poll that have been going on for 15 weeks now ! Thus, I will present you the number of participants (more or less) and the top 5 of victors of each poll, and the top 3 of the civs that have never made into Cvilization series for now ! Of course, I'm taking off the results Poland and Australia, as they've been added into the roster of civs. Comment, discuss, do everything you with these.

Poll 1 : Western Europe (170 participants)
1 - The Netherlands with 50,3 % of votes
2 - Portugal with 41,3% of votes
3 - Celts (as a whole) with 26,9%
4 - Austria with 19,2%
5/6 - Sweden/Italy with 18,6%

Top 3 never been into Cvilization
1 - Italy with 18,6%
2 - The Goths with 16,2%
3 - Scotland with 12,6%

Poll 2 : Eastern Europe (136 participants)
1 - Byzantium with 59,3 %
2 - Hungary with 31,9%
3 - The Huns with 25,2%
4 - Armenia with 22,2%
5 - The Czech (or Bohemia) with 17%

Top 3 never been into Cvilization
1 - Hungary with 31,9%
2 - Armenia with 22,2%
3 - The Czech (or Bohemia) with 17%

Poll 3 : Western Asia (106 participants)
1/2 - Ottomans (or Turkey)/Babylon with 68,3%
3 - Phoenicia with 51,9%
4 - Assyria with 33,7%
5 - The Hittites with 24%

Top 3 never been into Cvilization
1 - Phoenicia with 51,9%
2/3 - Palmyra/Nabateans with 7,7%

Poll 4 : Central Asia (90 participants)
1 - The Mongols with 70,5%
2 - Persia (either as a whole or solely pre-islamic) with 54,5%-34,1% respectively
3 - The Mughals with 13,6%
4 - The Afghans (Ghaznavids, Durrani) with 11,4%
5/6/7 - Khazaria/The Timurids/Indus Valley with 10,2%

Top 3 never been into Cvilization
1 - The Mughals with 13,6%
2 - The Afghans with 11,4%
3/4/5 - Khazaria/The Timurids/Indus Valley with 10,2%

Poll 5 : Eastern Asia (82 participants)
1 - Korea with 65,9%
2 - Vietnam (or Dai Viet) with 43,5%
3 - Indonesia with 37,6%
4 - The Khmer (or Cambodia) with 30,6%
5 - Tibet with 29,4%

Top 3 never been into Cvilization
1 - Vietnam (Or Dai Viet) with 43,5%
2 - Tibet with 29,4%
3 - Burma (or Pagan, Ava, ... ) with 9,4%

Poll 6 : Maghreb and Western Africa (68 participants)
1 - Carthage with 53%
2 - Mali with 48,5%
3 - Morocco with 39,4%
4 - Berbers with 27,3%
5 - Ashanti with 15,2%

Top 3 never been into Cvilization
1 - Berbers with 27,3%
2 - Ashanti with 15,2%
3 - Yoruba with 12,1%

Poll 7 : South, East and Central Africa (46 participants)
1 - Ethiopia (or Aksum) with 85,1%
2 - Zulu with 51,1%
3 - The Swahili (as a whole) with 42,6%
4 - Zimbabwe (or Mutapa or Great Zimbabwe) with 34%
5 - Madagascar with 25,5%

Top 3 never been into Cvilization
1 - The Swahili with 42,6%
2 - Zimbabwe with 34%
3 - Madagascar with 25,5%

Poll 8 : Native North American (58 participants)
1 - The Iroquois with 49,1%
2 - The Sioux (or Lakota) with 47,4%
3 - The Cherokee with 31,6%
4 - The Apache with 28,1%
5 - The Inuit with 21,1%

Top 3 never been into Cvilization
1 - The Cherokee with 31,6%
2 - The Apache with 28,1%
3 - The Inuit with 21,1%

Poll 9 : Native Mesoamerica and Caribbean (41 participants)
1 - Mayans with 92,9%
2 - The Olmecs with 35,7%
3 - The Zapotecs with 31%
4/5 - The Arawak (as a whole)/Taino with 16,7%

Top 3 never been into Cvilization
1 - The Olmecs with 35,7%
2 - The Zapotecs with 31%
3/4 - The Arawak (as a whole)/Taino with 16,7%

Poll 10 : Native South America (36 participants)
1 - The Inca with 97,2%
2 - The Mapuche with 41,7%
3 - The Tupi with 27,8%
4 - The Muisca with 22,2%
5 - The Nazca with 19,4%

Top 3 never been into Cvilization
1 - The Mapuche with 41,7%
2 - The Tupi with 27,8%
3 - The Muisca with 22,2%

Poll 11 : Native Pacific and Indian Isles (28 participants)
1/2 - Polynesia (as a whole)/Maori with 57,7%
3 - Aboriginals (Australia) with 34,6%
4 - Hawai'i with 26,9%
5 - Fiji with 19,2%

Top 3 never been into Cvilization
1 - Maori with 57,7%
2 - Aboriginals with 34,6%
3 - Hawai'i with 26,9%

Poll 12 : Post-colonial Nations (44 participants)
1 - Mexico with 38,1%
2 - Gran Colombia with 35,7%
3/4- Canada/Argentina with 33,3%
5 - The Boers with 16,7%

Top 3 never been into Cvilization
1 - Mexico with 38,1%
2 - Gran Colombia with 35,7%
3/4 - Canada/Argentina with 33,3%

If you with for the detail of each poll, here are the links to go check on them !
Part I (Western Europe) : https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...ost-like-to-see-part-i-western-europe.606097/
Part II (Eastern Europe) : https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...st-like-to-see-part-ii-eastern-europe.606569/
Part III (Western Asia) : https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...ost-like-to-see-part-iii-western-asia.606991/
Part IV (Central Asia) : https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...most-like-to-see-part-iv-central-asia.607385/
Part V (Eastern Asia) : https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...-most-like-to-see-part-v-eastern-asia.607762/
Part VI (Maghreb and Western Africa) : https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...o-see-part-vi-maghreb-and-west-africa.608143/
Part VII (South, East and Central Africa) : https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...art-vii-south-east-and-central-africa.608904/
Part VIII (Native North America) : https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...to-see-part-viii-native-north-america.609335/
Part IX (Native Mesoamerica and Caribbean) : https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...t-ix-native-mesoamerica-and-caribbean.609605/
Part X (Native South America) : https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...ke-to-see-part-x-native-south-america.609900/
Part XI (Native Pacific and Indian Isles) : https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...rt-xi-native-pacific-and-indian-isles.610208/
Part XII (Post-colonial Nations) : https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...to-see-part-xii-post-colonial-nations.610550/

Analysis :
Well, we have three kind of cases : the regions that have been more deeply covered in former games (Western Europe, Western Asia, Eastern Asia, Maghreb and Northern Africa), the in-between covered regions (Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Native North America) and the poorly represented regions (everything else).
For all cases, except for the a few exceptions (Denmark, Songhai and Shoshone), the most requested civs are the ones that have been formerly been in the game.
In well covered regions, we see that the top five civs are mostly made of former civs, with a few surprises, like Phoenicia or Vietnam). Whole new civs have a hard to make it into the top 5, but it gives us an idea of what do players wish for.
In the more or less covered regions, it's the same result, except that we get more "new" civs into the top 5 because those zones were less exploited. We can also see that former present civs tend to be on first or second place, lilke Persia, the Mongols, Byzantium, Iroquois, ... But we also get to see some civs highly requested, just like Hungary, who has surprisingly many votes ! The last case scenario présents regions that have mostly been represented by one civ, and thus, the toll of participation is lower than ever, the highest ranked civ percentage smash all the others, whose votes are very disperse.

 

[Xandinho]

The most popular percentages were: Incan (97.2%), Mayans (92.9%), Ethiopia (85.1%), Mongols (70.5%), Ottomans/Babylon (68.3%) and Korea (65.9%). We can see that these are the civilizations that stand out most in their respective regions. The Incas receive almost 100% of the votes in the South American vote, proves that this civ is seen as extremely representative in their region.
In the polls of Europe. It is no surprise to see Netherlands, Byzantium and Portugal as the most popular. But I was surprised to see Sweden so far behind in the poll, and Venice not even appeared among the first.
I am not surprised to see that Hungary and Vietnam are so popular, I always note that they are much requested inclusions here in the community. And I am very convinced that we will see both in this edition of the game.
I realize that Phenicia is also a much-wanted civ. Maybe it's time for developers to separate Carthage from Phenicia.
Anyway, the most popular ones have their inclusions basically guaranteed. We can expect new pieces very requested like Hungary, Vietnam, Phenicia, Tibet and some modern civs...

 

[Siptah]

As much as I wish for it, I doubt that Tibet will happen at any point.
And I think it's interesting that Mongolia 'only' got 70% in central Asia. The incredibly high rates of Inca and Maya are also to be seen with a grain of salt since there are not as many well known and accepted alternatives than, say, in east Asia or Europe.

Nonetheless, thanks for the polls Liufeng!

 

[fcpureza]

I'm a little disappointed that civs like Cuba or Haiti didn't receive many votes. They are one of my favorite suggestions and I was hoping that more people felt the same.

 

[Zaarin]

I like how you separated off "new to Civ" rankings, since that seems to be Firaxis's shtick at the moment. However, Songhai has in fact been in Civ before.

 

[Liufeng]

As much as I wish for it, I doubt that Tibet will happen at any point.
And I think it's interesting that Mongolia 'only' got 70% in central Asia. The incredibly high rates of Inca and Maya are also to be seen with a grain of salt since there are not as many well known and accepted alternatives than, say, in east Asia or Europe.

Nonetheless, thanks for the polls Liufeng!

You're very welcome. It was actually rather fun to do it, depite some (or even many) mistakes I've done during the polls. But I had the chance to learn a lot about other cultures, especially ones that are often forgotten (those being particularly in Africa or America). But as you said, I doubt very much they'll ever add Tibet., since it would mean losing the chinese market ...

I'm a little disappointed that civs like Cuba or Haiti didn't receive many votes. They are one of my favorite suggestions and I was hoping that more people felt the same.

Welcome to the club ... Benin, Bulgaria, Burma, ... so many I was expecting more But oh well, it's part of the game !

I like how you separated off "new to Civ" rankings, since that seems to be Firaxis's shtick at the moment. However, Songhai has in fact been in Civ before.

I thought it would be a good idea to show where players tastes go for new civs ! And that litte mistake has been corrected

 

[Vlado55]

When it comes about South Eastern Europe there is one civilization that could easily be in this game and it is Serbia. Maybe even YUGOSLAVIA for that matter. That would be freakin awesome. I don't know how the people never even look at the Balkan region: Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Albania...would be very good if any of these were added.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Of those listed my top 3 I *really* want to see are:
1. Vietnam
2. The Khmer
3. Korea

Yup, all Eastern Asian

 

[Guandao]

Western Europe:
It's certain Netherlands, Portugal and some forms of Celts will make it into Civ6. Austria and Sweden are likely. Sweden could be used to represent later Scandinavian history (it may have to fight Denmark for that spot). Italy or some form is certainly possible, there are hints Genoa is or was planned to be added Civ6. Goths and Scotland are less likely.

Eastern Europe:
Byzantines will be added eventually, despite some who think they should be one with the Romans. Hungary has a chance. Perhaps Matthias Corvinus could be the leader. Huns got a high score but Scythia fulfills their role basically. If I had to choose between the Mongols and the Huns, I pick Mongols. I wonder if having Armenia in the game would create problems with Turkish players, if there are any. Czech/Bohemia has a small chance. Poor Bulgaria/Lithuania/Serbia...

Middle East:
Ottomans, and Babylon are certain to be in the game. Cyrus's ability is named Fall of Babylon and Babylon has been in the game since the first version. If Firaxis pays attention to these polls, maybe Phoenicia has a chance of becoming a civ. Having both Carthage and Phoenicia would be like having both Rome and Byzantium. Assyria may or may not have a chance. We have a more warmongering Mesopotamian civ now (Sumer). Hittites maybe, depending on whether Firaxis could pull of their language. I would not what the leader to speak Akkadian like Gilgamesh does. Palmyra and Nabataeans have little chance judging by the votes, but perhaps Firaxis would be interested in putting a leader like Zenobia in the game.

Central and South Asia:
Persia is now confirmed. Mongols have a good chance of being added to the game, but Firaxis has to find a way to differentiate them from civs like Scythia, Persia and Macedon. Mughals could become a separate civ from India. Afghans are in the game as Kabul, so they have a small chance of becoming a full civ. Khazaria has the barely known language problem (maybe use Chuvash! ). Timur is an interesting leader, but perhaps they would think Mongols are enough. Indus Valley has the least chance of them all. Unknown language and no known leader names.

East and SE Asia:
Korea are almost guaranteed a spot in the game. Vietnam has a chance due to demand, though I'm not sure if they would use both Trung sisters. Hopefully there would be at least two SE Asian civs like in Civ5. Indonesia and the Khmer are good choices for the second civ. Angkor Wat and Borobudur are mysteriously absent from the game at the moment. Tibet has no chance of being in the game without getting banned in China. Burma is also a decent choice. I can't see Burma, Siam, and the Khmer all getting into Civ6. I like the idea of Philippines as a Civ as well, it has pre-colonial history as well. My preference would be for the Philippines to have a pre-colonial leader like Dayang Kalangitan.

North and West Africa:
Carthage is guaranteed a spot. Mali might make it to represent West Africa. Morocco has a decent chance of returning. Not sure what to think of the Berbers as a Civ, it's like the Celts and Polynesia in scope. It's a shame the West African coastal nations have so far votes. Ashanti is already in the game as Kumasi. I would like Benin (the Kingdom, not the country) to make it in at least as a CS. Why not represent the West African coast? Many people in the Americas have ancestors from this region...

East and South Africa:
Ethiopia and the Zulus are the likeliest to become civs. Swahili and Zimbabwe have a decent amount of votes, yet their leaders are not that well known. They are still feasible. Zanzibar is a CS and Great Zimbabwe is a wonder. Madagascar is a Civ I would like to see, with a female leader please?

Native North America:
Not too pleased with the results. Sure Iroquois could get it, yet I'm sick of Hiawatha as the leader. Sioux are famous for their buffalo hunting and tipis. They could represent the Plain Indians. Cherokee are famous for the trail of tears and maybe their alphabet. I don't think they represent the Southeast region too well. They are not really descendants of the Mississippians, having linguistic ties to the Iroquois. Apache also doesn't represent the Southwest region well either, being later migrants to the region than the Puebloans (who sadly won't get in, but I respect their leaders' decisions). Inuit have few well-known leaders. No Pacific Northwest civ scoring high makes me sad

Mesoamerica and Caribbean:
Mayans are guaranteed a spot, just not this year (Palenque is a CS). Olmecs have little chance of getting in, we have some idea what language(s) they spoke, but no leader names. La Venta will have to stay. Zapotecs have known leaders but would Firaxis care to add a third Mesoamerican civ after the Aztecs and Mayans. The Arawak/Taino are a decent choice (I like the idea of Anacaona being their leader), but Cuba has a better chance of representing the Caribbean. Maybe even Haiti.

South America:
Incas are certainly guaranteed to be added in the game. For the Mapuche, Firaxis would have to get permission from their leaders to use their language. Tupi could represent Brazilian natives, but their territory is along the coast instead of the Amazon river region, so I wonder if an ability with rainforest would actually fit. The peoples of the Amazon are often little known, with many long gone. Muisca, I approve of to represent the Colombian natives, if Firaxis could find a scholar to recreate their language, it's decently documented (by the Spanish). Nazca is like Indus Valley and Olmecs, no leader names and no definite language. We might just have the Incas to represent South American natives, unfortunately. It's a problem due to the lack of writing systems in pre-Columbian times.

Oceania:
Polynesia has the better chance of being represented as one instead of being split into Maori and Hawaii. The Australian Aboriginals would have to be consulted for permission to be represented in the game. They traditionally generally do not like seeing representations of their ancestors, unless I'm wrong. If the Native Americans can be split, so can the Australian Aboriginals. Fiji is an interesting choice, though I would not want them to go overboard with representing them as stereotypical cannibals.

Post-Colonial Nations:
Not too popular among certain Civ players. Brazil and Australia have paved the way for more post-colonial nations in the game. Mexico, Canada, and Argentina have decent chance to be added. Aztecs does not equal Mexico. Gran Colombia has the appeal of a famous leader, but didn't last too long (so did the Huns and look what happened ). Boers could be controversial in some respects due to their history. Do we really want the orange Boerg in the game?

 

[Zaarin]

@Guandao The Cherokee are almost certainly descended from a Mississippian culture--all the major powers of the historical Southeast are essentially confederations built out of the ruins of the collapse of the late Mississippians--but I agree that the Creek, Choctaw, or Chickisaw would better represent the Southeast. I'm also very sad at how few votes PNW cultures received.

I'm curious, though, why you'd say the Carthaginians are to the Phoenicians as the Byzantines are to Rome. The Carthaginians were Phoenicians: culturally, religiously, ethnically, linguistically; the Byzantines may have called themselves Romans, but they spoke Greek, practiced Greek Orthodoxy rather than Roman Catholicism, and had much more to distinguish them from Rome than Carthage did from Tyre.

 

[Guandao]

@Guandao The Cherokee are almost certainly descended from a Mississippian culture--all the major powers of the historical Southeast are essentially confederations built out of the ruins of the collapse of the late Mississippians--but I agree that the Creek, Choctaw, or Chickisaw would better represent the Southeast. I'm also very sad at how few votes PNW cultures received.

I'm curious, though, why you'd say the Carthaginians are to the Phoenicians as the Byzantines are to Rome. The Carthaginians were Phoenicians: culturally, religiously, ethnically, linguistically; the Byzantines may have called themselves Romans, but they spoke Greek, practiced Greek Orthodoxy rather than Roman Catholicism, and had much more to distinguish them from Rome than Carthage did from Tyre.

Hmm, I was under the impression the ancestors of the Cherokee were later arrivals to the area, unless that's an outdated theory. It seems like the PNW peoples are little known among Civ players, unfortunately. Perhaps, their artwork would be more recognizable?

Carthage as to Phoenicians as Rome as to Byzantines is probably a bad comparison. The Byzantines did started out using Latin as the official language though, despite most of the subjects being Greek speakers. Maybe the Punic language changed somewhat since colonization from Phoenicia? I wonder what would be a better example to compare to Carthage and Phoenicia.

 

[Zaarin]

Re:Cherokee: the Cherokee split from the Northern Iroquois very early, and their ancestors were almost certainly Mound Builders, though we can't directly connect them to a specific mound site the way we can the Chickasaw or the Natchez.

Re:Carthage: Punic was a fairly conservative dialect of Phoenician, much closer to the dialects of Tyre and Sidon than those spoken at Byblos or the Mediterranean isles. Well, conservative with the caveat that Neo-Punic lost a lot of its Semitic character under the influence of Latin, but it was certainly quite conservative prior to the Roman conquest. As for a better comparison, I'd say the early American colonies would be the best analogy: Carthage was a colony of Tyre, their name--Qart Ḥadast, or New City--implied that they were a continuation of Tyre, they called themselves Canaanites or Phoenicians, and they viewed Tyre as their mother city. One could say the analogy continues in that Carthage went on to become an influential power in its own right, but whereas Americans eventually developed their own national identity, the Carthaginians never ceased to think of themselves as Canaanites--even long after being conquered by Rome (viz., St. Augustine's identification of the people of Roman Africa as Chanani).

 

[dunkleosteus]

Personally, I feel like a number of these Civs wouldn't fit terribly well. A lot of them are pretty much existing civs from a different time period. With the option to have multiple leaders for each Civ, I think it would be better to have some of these Civs as reskins of existing Civs. Mexico for example, would be nice as a reskin of the Aztecs, although I suppose the uniques would have to change.

Babylon is also very, very much just a later iteration of Sumeria. Sure, they called themselves something different and the Capital moved, but if we set that as our criteria then we'd have a lot of other problems as well. Babylon largely had the same religion as Sumer, the same alphabet, we believe they had very similar cultures and they even still used Sumerian as one of their languages along with Akkadian.

I think Italy would also be a problem since the capital would be Rome. You can't have Rome twice on the map.

I think the Indus Valley civilization would be better as an alternate version of India, given the stepwells are already present. Perhaps an Indus Valley India would have an ability that worked well with stepwells. But a major problem with adding the Indus Valley is that we haven't deciphered their language and so know very little about their culture or who any of their leaders are. At best, we'd have to make someone up to lead them and that would suck.

 

[Zaarin]

Babylon is also very, very much just a later iteration of Sumeria. Sure, they called themselves something different and the Capital moved, but if we set that as our criteria then we'd have a lot of other problems as well. Babylon largely had the same religion as Sumer, the same alphabet, we believe they had very similar cultures and they even still used Sumerian as one of their languages along with Akkadian.

I disagree with all of this, but I agree with your point--in so far as Sumer as presented in Civ6 really ought to be called Assyria, and Gilgamesh ought to be renamed Ashurbanipal. Babylon built on the foundation of Sumer and ultimately assimilated Sumer into itself; its religion was Semitic in origin but it also adapted elements of Sumerian cults (see Epic of Gilgamesh). There were several centuries of two-way bilingualism during which Semitic Akkadian became heavily Sumerianized (and Sumerian became Akkadianized); long after it ceased to be a vernacular Sumerian continued to be a ritual language in Babylon--which is how we discovered the existence of the Sumerians in the first place. But even despite the Sprachbund and the ritual use of Sumerian, I wouldn't call that a strong bond between the two civilizations (who, I'd also point out, were rivals throughout their mutual existence). So while Sumer profoundly influenced Babylon (and through Babylon virtually every culture that ever held power in the Near East), I wouldn't say they really overlap in influence--the Sumerians were Babylonians by the time Babylon was at its apex. All that being said, however, there is nothing about the Civ6 Sumeria that really has any Sumerian flavor; it really is just Assyria by another name. Very disappointing.

Even if we called Babylon a successor kingdom to Sumer (which is a simplistic description, IMO), I don't see any reason to rule out successor kingdoms. Most European civilizations could be called successor kingdoms to Rome; Persia was a successor kingdom to Babylon and Assyria; Saladin's sultanate could even be called a successor kingdom (via intermediate successor kingdoms) to Cleopatra's Egypt. If we're going to rule out successor kingdoms, we'd basically have Sumer, China, India, Egypt, and the Olmecs.

 

[dunkleosteus]

I think the point is still valid. It's not as simple as a successor kingdom, for a number of reasons. Medieval Europe and Classical Rome existed in different Eras as far as Civ is concerned. Babylon was geographically located exactly where Sumer was, and they'd both be Ancient Era focused.

I don't think we can justify two cultures that occupied the exact same territory at roughly the same technological development with a shared cultural heritage and chronology.

 

[Zaarin]

I think Babylon is far too important to leave out, and Babylon reached its apex a millennia after the complete assimilation of Sumer. It's simply unfortunate that the devs decided to make Sumer in-game so Babylonian. Besides, any fair representation of the Near East is going to be crowded, just like Europe; it's had a lot of very important civilizations. They shouldn't be left out just because of the crowded geography.

EDIT: Besides, it wasn't exactly the same territory: Sumer was centered in the marshlands of southern Iraq; Babylon was centered in northeastern Iraq; Assyria was centered in northwestern Iraq. Yes, they're all close together, but it's impossible to argue that they were a single civilization. One can make that argument for Babylon and Assyria--I'd be fine seeing them represented by separate leaders, just like Greece--but Sumer was entirely distinct from them.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Besides, every Civ game since Civ3 has included two Mesopotamian civilizations.

Civ3: Babylon and Sumer
Civ4: Babylon and Sumer
Civ5: Babylon and Assyria

 

[Liufeng]

The addition of Macedon had made realize more a great unfairness. I never as far as some people over the eurocentrism of the game. But the choice of some civs really makes people that Firaxis really wants to push it in the eurocentrism button. I wouldn't mind that if it wans't for the absence of many others ... Aside the ones that will most certainly appear, like the Inca, Mayans, Portuguese, Netherland, Ottomans, Byzantines, Korea, Ethiopia and so on, there are some civs so unique and important in THEIR space of evolution that it feels like waste to not add them and just having 2 of them. For instance, SE Asia, with Siam being the never colonized, Khmer being one of the most brilliant civs in human history, Burma having spread Theravada Buddhism in SE Asia and having built the greatest in extension empire of the region, Vietnam and its millenial culture, Indonesia and its powerful traders and naval influence, ... Everyone of them is brilliant in its way, and in the end, we'll end up with 2 of them, because of whatever reason. Same goes for Africa, with so many civs like Mali, Benin, Swahili, Madagascar, ... and in the end we'll get the Zulus ...
I was just wondering, does Vietnam ranked so high in the Eastern Asia poll because of its millenial culture or simply because of the eponym war ?

 

[dunkleosteus]

I doubt the Vietnam war had any large impact on a high ranking. It's probably because Vietnam has only made appearances through city states so far, and it would be a nice change to see a full civ.

 

[dunkleosteus]

I think Babylon is far too important to leave out, and Babylon reached its apex a millennia after the complete assimilation of Sumer. It's simply unfortunate that the devs decided to make Sumer in-game so Babylonian. Besides, any fair representation of the Near East is going to be crowded, just like Europe; it's had a lot of very important civilizations. They shouldn't be left out just because of the crowded geography.

EDIT: Besides, it wasn't exactly the same territory: Sumer was centered in the marshlands of southern Iraq; Babylon was centered in northeastern Iraq; Assyria was centered in northwestern Iraq. Yes, they're all close together, but it's impossible to argue that they were a single civilization. One can make that argument for Babylon and Assyria--I'd be fine seeing them represented by separate leaders, just like Greece--but Sumer was entirely distinct from them.

You're right that Babylon and Uruk aren't geographically that close, but maps I've seen of the Babylonian Empire included Uruk- if Babylon was a civ, Uruk and Ur would be cities in their city list. I just think that sort of messes things up a bit.

Hammurabi's Babylonia: