Which Civ we should have before Civilization VI?

[PhilBowles]

Indonesia essentially a Dutch creation = no.

Indonesia an extension of the Majapahit and its previous Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, and Dutch rules = yes. The Dutch have special status within this list as a colonizer, but the concept of a unified Indonesia on a geographical and social scale had begun to form during the Majapahit era. The Dutch were merely responsible for strengthening this platform of ideas into something more tangible when Indonesian intellectuals declared independence in the wake of Dutch rule

But to be fair you did say partly

I also said "is seen" - it's the perception that counts. Quite apart from the Mughals, India came close to unified pre-colonial rule under the Maratha; the concept of "India" was certainly there. But as I note India is still seen by many people here as a bad representation because it prioritises the post-colonial (hence Europeanised) state. The 19th Century imperial holdings weren't created from scratch in areas with no prior nations, as in the Americas or Australia - by and large the Europeans got their concepts of which area belonged to which territory from the residents, particularly in Asia but largely also in Africa, and just consolidated the government.

 

[poom3619]

Popular choices are often the most reviled of them all. I don't mind Canada.

If anyone feel bothered by fan-service civ, I would sing "Ooooh, Shaka." (Whatever it's name is)

If anyone justify that Canada and Australia should be included simply because fan want it ,I would have no objection.

By the way, in Dutch people have a saying "zo dronken als een Maleier" ('as drunk as a Malay'), which obviously is an expression from the colonial past of the Dutch Empire. Totally irrelevant of course.

Totally irrelevant of course, I wonder why the word "Dutch Courage" came from.

 

[seancolorado]

But not its UA.

Nope, UA is actually also Majapahit - technically speaking

They were trading their spices on ships to the Arabs, Indians, and some historians argue further out to Africa and Polynesia and so on

It just so happens to be that they also traded their spices when the Portuguese came, and later on the Dutch - just in different ways. This European part of history is known as "Spice Islands," hence the UA name, but other than that Indonesia has always been the Spice Islands, always trading their valuable resources with other nations as far back as records indiciate

 

[Danielion]

Totally irrelevant of course, I wonder where the word "Dutch Courage" came from.

From the Thirty Years' War.

Because of the effects of Dutch gin English soldiers fighting in the Dutch Republic in the 17th century apparently called the drink "Dutch Courage".

By the way, gin was orignally based on the Dutch drink jenever (Dutch gin). Gin is more like English jenever, than the other way around. Not that it matters. I personally am more of a beer drinker myself and I associate jenever with winter.

 

[Civ'ed]

Nope, UA is actually also Majapahit - technically speaking

They were trading their spices on ships to the Arabs, Indians, and some historians argue further out to Africa and Polynesia and so on

It just so happens to be that they also traded their spices when the Portuguese came, and later on the Dutch - just in different ways. This European part of history is known as "Spice Islands," hence the UA name, but other than that Indonesia has always been the Spice Islands, always trading their valuable resources with other nations as far back as records indiciate

I always found the UA to be more something Gajah Mada - y'know, the legendary "I won't taste any spice until I've conquered all of Indonesia" thing.
I mean, you build a city on a different island ("conquering" it) and then POW you get a new spice. It makes sense. Somehow.
Anyway, let's not derail the thread with talk about Indonesia. It's already in the game

 

[otaman1]

Nope, UA is actually also Majapahit - technically speaking

They were trading their spices on ships to the Arabs, Indians, and some historians argue further out to Africa and Polynesia and so on

You forgot China. But that was after the Mongol Empire had fallen (or you can argue that paying tribute is a trade)

 

[Louis XXIV]

Hittites please. Some UA having to do with iron monopoly, that would be awesome.

While there has been talk about the Hittites using iron first, they didn't use it extensively. They were predominantly a Bronze Age civilization. Really, the first to use iron extensively were the Assyrians (part of the reason for the science bonus they get). Really, the biggest knock against the Hittites are the Assyrians, who had a more impressive Mesopotamian Empire and were better at conquest. The Hittites had better Chariots, though. A voice actor might be a bit tricky. People can read and speak Hittite. There was a cool program about the Hittites on the Smithsonian channel the other day and they had Hittite dialog. That being said, it's still uncommon, to say the least. I'm going to take a different approach instead:

Civilization: Hatti or The Hittites
Leader: Suppiluliuma I or Hattusili III

Spoiler Leader :

That's supposed to be a picture of Suppiluliuma. The Hittites had a very cartoonish look to their art. There's good merit to either leader.

Suppiluliuma came to the throne when the Empire was nearly destroyed - attacked by Egypt, the Mittani Empire, and enemies to the west and north. He beat them all back and became the most powerful empire in Mesopotamia. He cemented an alliance with Babylon and almost had his son rule over Egypt.

Hattusili is an interest figure. More pious than most. He fought at the battle of Kadesh and is responsible for the famous treaty with Egypt - the oldest known peace treaty in the world. He also conquered Carchemish, a major Mittani city and important city on the Euphrates river. He would be more of a Bismark than a Shakah. A thinking conqueror who prefers diplomacy.

Unique Unit: Three-Man Chariot. Replaces Chariot. One less move, can attack both ranged and melee the same turn (does not have to attack the same unit when doing so).

Spoiler Unit :

Like most Mesopotamian civilizations (until the Neo-Assyrian Empire), the Hittites used Chariots. Unlike others, they moved the axial farther back, allowing for a larger, more stable chariot. Because of this, they were able to fit more people inside the chariot, which usually had both an archer and a spearman).

Unique Building: Bit-Hilani or Lion's Gate:
Replaces Walls. +10 experience. +1 Production for Iron.

Spoiler Building :

I wanted to avoid using Firaxis's idea, partly because I wanted something with iron (like a forge replacement). However, a search of Hittite architecture showed that this thing was clearly the most important. Assyrians literally wrote that they would build palaces in the "Hittite Style." This was at the gates of their cities. I gave it an iron bonus so there could be some relation to iron. Mostly, it's to make sure they're a military civ.

And here's my idea for the Unique Ability. Something unrelated to Iron.
Land of A Thousand Gods: All cities gain the Pantheon beliefs of a city with at least one follower in their territory.

Spoiler Ability :

This is basically religious tolerance on steroids, which makes sense because Hittite religion was marked by religious tolerance on steroids. Whenever they conquered a people, they incorporated their pantheon of gods. They literally had thousands of gods and it was so complex that Hattusili's wife was tasked with organizing and simplifying their religion. The treaty with Egypt invoked probably 10 or 15 different storm gods alone.

Like the Hittites, it's also designed to reward conquest. As you conquer, you can incorporate other religions into your own, just like the Hittites did.

 

[geoaraujo]

While there has been talk about the Hittites using iron first, they didn't use it extensively. They were predominantly a Bronze Age civilization. Really, the first to use iron extensively were the Assyrians (part of the reason for the science bonus they get). Really, the biggest knock against the Hittites are the Assyrians, who had a more impressive Mesopotamian Empire and were better at conquest. The Hittites had better Chariots, though. A voice actor might be a bit tricky. People can read and speak Hittite. There was a cool program about the Hittites on the Smithsonian channel the other day and they had Hittite dialog. That being said, it's still uncommon, to say the least. I'm going to take a different approach instead:

Civilization: Hatti or The Hittites
Leader: Suppiluliuma I or Hattusili III

Spoiler Leader :

That's supposed to be a picture of Suppiluliuma. The Hittites had a very cartoonish look to their art. There's good merit to either leader.

Suppiluliuma came to the throne when the Empire was nearly destroyed - attacked by Egypt, the Mittani Empire, and enemies to the west and north. He beat them all back and became the most powerful empire in Mesopotamia. He cemented an alliance with Babylon and almost had his son rule over Egypt.

Hattusili is an interest figure. More pious than most. He fought at the battle of Kadesh and is responsible for the famous treaty with Egypt - the oldest known peace treaty in the world. He also conquered Carchemish, a major Mittani city and important city on the Euphrates river. He would be more of a Bismark than a Shakah. A thinking conqueror who prefers diplomacy.

Unique Unit: Three-Man Chariot. Replaces Chariot. One less move, can attack both ranged and melee the same turn (does not have to attack the same unit when doing so).

Spoiler Unit :

Like most Mesopotamian civilizations (until the Neo-Assyrian Empire), the Hittites used Chariots. Unlike others, they moved the axial farther back, allowing for a larger, more stable chariot. Because of this, they were able to fit more people inside the chariot, which usually had both an archer and a spearman).

Unique Building: Bit-Hilani or Lion's Gate:
Replaces Walls. +10 experience. +1 Production for Iron.

Spoiler Building :

I wanted to avoid using Firaxis's idea, partly because I wanted something with iron (like a forge replacement). However, a search of Hittite architecture showed that this thing was clearly the most important. Assyrians literally wrote that they would build palaces in the "Hittite Style." This was at the gates of their cities. I gave it an iron bonus so there could be some relation to iron. Mostly, it's to make sure they're a military civ.

And here's my idea for the Unique Ability. Something unrelated to Iron.
Land of A Thousand Gods: All cities gain the Pantheon beliefs of a city with at least one follower in their territory.

Spoiler Ability :

This is basically religious tolerance on steroids, which makes sense because Hittite religion was marked by religious tolerance on steroids. Whenever they conquered a people, they incorporated their pantheon of gods. They literally had thousands of gods and it was so complex that Hattusili's wife was tasked with organizing and simplifying their religion. The treaty with Egypt invoked probably 10 or 15 different storm gods alone.

Like the Hittites, it's also designed to reward conquest. As you conquer, you can incorporate other religions into your own, just like the Hittites did.

Very interesting!

 

[Louis XXIV]

I'm always bored and like thinking of things. My view is that the Hittites are not necessary before Civ6. My guess is about three Civs DLC, assuming the plan is to have any. The Sumerians are a better choice of they add any Mesopotamian Civs (not saying they necessarily will dd even that).

 

[hobbsyoyo]

One thing I think an Aussie or Canadian civ would have going for them are late-game UA's, UB's or UU's. It seems that for the most part we get a lot more ancient civs with various bonuses that are only useful for the early game. I'd welcome more late-game variety.

Yes, I do understand there is a lot more ancient civs irl than present-day civs.

 

[Louis XXIV]

That's part of the reason I'm in favor of Vietnam. I think they should represent the whole history and have Trung Trac or both Trung Sisters as the leader, but Viet Minh would be a good UU. My suggestion has been bonus movement over rough terrain and a combat bonus against Civs with a different ideology.

 

[Keirador]

You know, I think we actually have too many civs already. Some of them stretch credulity. This is inherently a city-based game with a Scientific Revolution focus on a sorta Western idea of "progress," and some of the current civs just don't fit this model of what a "civilization" is.

For example, the Huns are legit barbarians. They are so bad at cities that history knows of no Hun permanent settlements of any kind, so in-game their capital is just called "Attila's Court." They were a coherent empire for, historically speaking, one second. They weren't a "civilization," they were a loose alliance of tribes held together by one dude. What the actual . They were basically Dothraki.

I love playing the Shoshone, but including them as a "Civilization" has some weird implications, like imagining that the Shoshone base their culture around large permanent settlements, when they more typically slept in make-shift roofless huts. I get trying to be culturally sensitive, but I find it a little disrespectful to the actual living Shoshone to just shoehorn their way of live into how their colonizers view civilization.

If we were gonna add more Civs, there are plenty of African political unities that actually did fit the model of empires based on large permanent settlements. Songhai's predecessor state Mali was at least as powerful as Songhai in its heyday, and you've got also the Kingdom of Zimbabwe, the Sultanate of Zanzibar, the Kingdom of Kongo, and political entities in the Horn of Africa that predate Ethiopia could be considered their own civilizations rather than just the early stages of Ethiopia itself (Nubia, Aksum) especially if we're going to consider every possible European political entity ever its own Civilization.

And Africa's under-represented anyway.

 

[Henry_VI]

This is inherently a city-based game with a Scientific Revolution focus on a sorta Western idea of "progress," ...

Not to mention the endpoint of that 'progress' being the reflection of a certain worldview----the stock exchange brings happiness to the masses; future technologies are introduced with a quote from 'that guy'; everything can be made into a commodity; faith points buy great scientists, and so on.

Though, to me the most absurd incongruity is the fact that we start off with essentially a nation state ... in 4000BC.

But then again, these should serve as reminders of the fact that this is nothing more than a computer game----although it has captured our imaginations so thoroughly, that we demand more of it...

 

[Keirador]

Not to mention the endpoint of that 'progress' being the reflection of a certain worldview----the stock exchange brings happiness to the masses; future technologies are introduced with a quote from 'that guy'; everything can be made into a commodity; faith points buy great scientists, and so on.

Though, to me the most absurd incongruity is the fact that we start off with essentially a nation state ... in 4000BC.

But then again, these should serve as reminders of the fact that this is nothing more than a computer game----although it has captured our imaginations so thoroughly, that we demand more of it...

Agreed on all counts. Before BNW, the Culture victory seemed to be more in line with non-Hegelian, non-linear, non-materialistic ideas, but they replaced the concept of Utopia with fracking tourism, so yup, right back to Western standards.

So yeah, I figure if we're basically all agreeing to a distinctly Westernized framework here, we shouldn't be bending over backwards to imagine that every historically-significant group of people ever should perfectly fit this framework, and just stick to the nation-states that actually operated this way.

This is part of the reason I like scenarios so much. More specific victory conditions and more realistic settings.

 

[Gyra Solune]

The Shoshone are a very odd choice, yes, and I sorta feel like they should've been replaced, at the very least by say, the Sioux or so since they have precedent in the Civ series, but preferably by a group who built up more. But then, in terms of native Americans, those can be a little spare, and the big three of the Maya, Aztec, and Inca are already covered, and for North America, the Iroquois are easily the biggest one I can name, and they're in as well. The Mississippi have been put out as an idea, and while they'd definitely be hard to cover for lack of real knowledge about them, they are definitely a big prospect. Comparitively, while the Shoshone are cool to play as, as an actual inclusion it doesn't fit well.

The Huns are similar, though I feel a bit more warm to them mostly because of how notorious Attila is, he's definitely woven into the fabric of history, and really he pretty much makes the Huns more valid. Out of all the "barbarian" tribes in existence, the Huns are certainly the most famous. They're enough of a notable force that I think they work, though the lack of settlements is certainly a dubious point.

I'm mostly in favor of the Hittites because I'm OCD and they've been included in the past and should thusly return. Same with the Khmer and Sioux and Sumer. The Holy Roman Empire and Mali I'm a bit ambivalent about because they're kinda covered by existing civs. Austria feels very HRE-like in execution and territory, and the Songhai are basically a direct successor to the Mali Empire in a way, with the big three wealthiest cities of that area being the first in the Songhai's list.

 

[DonStamos]

The Frankish Empire.

In addition to several others from my sig list.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Agreed on all counts. Before BNW, the Culture victory seemed to be more in line with non-Hegelian, non-linear, non-materialistic ideas, but they replaced the concept of Utopia with fracking tourism, so yup, right back to Western standards.

So yeah, I figure if we're basically all agreeing to a distinctly Westernized framework here, we shouldn't be bending over backwards to imagine that every historically-significant group of people ever should perfectly fit this framework, and just stick to the nation-states that actually operated this way.

This is part of the reason I like scenarios so much. More specific victory conditions and more realistic settings.

I'm confused. Are you saying that non-westerners don't engage in tourism? Is that a western phenomenon and concept all of a sudden?

 

[otaman1]

Neanderthal

 

[Keirador]

The Huns are similar, though I feel a bit more warm to them mostly because of how notorious Attila is, he's definitely woven into the fabric of history, and really he pretty much makes the Huns more valid. Out of all the "barbarian" tribes in existence, the Huns are certainly the most famous. They're enough of a notable force that I think they work, though the lack of settlements is certainly a dubious point.

Being historically significant is not the same as being a historically significant civilization though. There are plenty of groups who were, historically, a big fracking deal, that wouldn't really qualify as Civilizations. The Catholic Church. Al Qaeda. The Knights Templar. The Confederate States of America. The Irish Diaspora. The European Union. Buddhist monks. The Holy Roman Empire. The Kuomintang. I think the Huns, who were not a coherent "civilization" but rather a loose confederation of tribes united under strong leaders in the hope of lucrative pillaging, fit under this banner of being historically important, but not a civilization.

I'm mostly in favor of the Hittites because I'm OCD and they've been included in the past and should thusly return. Same with the Khmer and Sioux and Sumer. The Holy Roman Empire and Mali I'm a bit ambivalent about because they're kinda covered by existing civs. Austria feels very HRE-like in execution and territory, and the Songhai are basically a direct successor to the Mali Empire in a way, with the big three wealthiest cities of that area being the first in the Songhai's list.

Holy Roman Empire, I agree. That was an odd, often powerless, political structure that didn't encompass people of the same language, culture, or loyalty. Mali, I'm willing to accept it along with Songhai. They existed in the same place, but at different times. Rome is an active Civ that, at different times in history, consisted of France, Carthage, Spain, Portugal, England, Egypt. . . not to mention Byzantium is just an outgrowth of Rome.

 

[Keirador]

I'm confused. Are you saying that non-westerners don't engage in tourism? Is that a western phenomenon and concept all of a sudden?

The way it's presented? Yeah, it's a Western phenomenon. Blue jeans and pop music and all that.