Which Civ we should have before Civilization VI?

Which Civ we need?

  • Timurid

    Votes: 21 3.5%
  • Khmer

    Votes: 27 4.5%
  • Holy Roman Empire

    Votes: 41 6.9%
  • Australia

    Votes: 33 5.5%
  • Gran Colombia

    Votes: 21 3.5%
  • Sumerians

    Votes: 54 9.0%
  • Nepal

    Votes: 11 1.8%
  • Mughal Empire

    Votes: 15 2.5%
  • Hungary

    Votes: 49 8.2%
  • Hittites

    Votes: 36 6.0%
  • Canada

    Votes: 67 11.2%
  • Argentina

    Votes: 11 1.8%
  • Inuit

    Votes: 38 6.4%
  • Sioux

    Votes: 25 4.2%
  • Mali

    Votes: 10 1.7%
  • Kongo

    Votes: 49 8.2%
  • Swali

    Votes: 5 0.8%
  • Other (I purposely not put Israel and Tibet)

    Votes: 85 14.2%

  • Total voters
    598
I'm just gonna get this out of the way; while I'd love to see Australia represented, I'd feel very uncomfortable making a civ out of Australian history, what with the thousands of years that it was home to a plethora of Aboriginal nations, until the Brits got inand systematically murdered them. As a 'nation', Australia is very young, having only federated in 1901. In additIon to this, there is still no Australian head of state due to still being a part of the British Commonwealth, which makes the choice of leaders a handful of vaguely inspiring Prime Ministers. (That said, I'd totally play a civ run by Bob Hawke.) We also don't have much in the way of unique options, though I suppose like, a Convict Worker would be possible. The closest thing we have to an iconic UU would be Bushrangers, who actively worked against the 'civ'.

All in all, I just don't think Australia (or any Commonwealth nation really, sorry Canada) should be included, both due to historical concerns and simply not making the game any better. Check back in 10 years, maybe we'll be a republic by then.

Our South East Asian neighbors have much more of a vibrant national identity, and I'd be very happy with a khmer and vietnam civ. I'm not too worried about crossover, having played one awkward and confusing game where I owned both Istanbul and Constantinople at the same time. Gran Colombia and Argentina also seem like good options to add in some south american representation, though I feel like a civ like the Nazca would be a lot more interesting rather than two Industrial era nations.

Are you seriously saying you might change your mind about the merits of Australia as an in game civ if Real Australia was to become a republic?

I will bite my tongue on the rest for fear of starting an argument except to say that almost every civ in the game, including our vibrant blameless non-threatening exotics the Viets - who conquered and settled the whole southern half of their country at the expense of the Cham and others - committed gross acts of cultural insensitivity at some point in their history. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Nam_Tien.PNG

Life was tough once.
 
Are you seriously saying you might change your mind about the merits of Australia as an in game civ if Real Australia was to become a republic?

I will bite my tongue on the rest for fear of starting an argument except to say that almost every civ in the game, including our vibrant blameless non-threatening exotics the Viets - who conquered and settled the whole southern half of their country at the expense of the Cham and others - committed gross acts of cultural insensitivity at some point in their history. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Nam_Tien.PNG

Life was tough once.

The whole president thing i think has you missing the point. The fact that they still have the British queen is more symbolic of how much of their culture is based upon that of England, and additional culture it has developed has been very much influenced by America too. Until the 1970's they were a country with a huge white British majority that almost exclusively too immigrant from Britain. Additionally, they have existed as a political entity for less than 100 years in a game that is supposed to represent 6000 years of history. They are not sufficiently unique or successful above and beyond that of other potential civs from various points in history and that to me says they should not next in line for a place.
 
I agree with both of you that Australia shouldn't be a civ, basically for the reasons you gave there.
 
(I think if Siam and Indonesia are in there... and people have suggested putting in Khmer) Burmese empire should be put in.

(They conquered Siam TWICE and was the Sparta to Siam's Athens, personality and culture-wise, until their armies were crushed by the Colonizing English, during which records state that the magnificence of their armies, regalia and elephants and all, made the English general plead them to surrender before he fired upon them, as he did not want to waste their beauty)
 
Top Bottom