10 Civs you miss the most post R&F (and which ones you would remove)

[IgorS]

So, the civs of R&F have been revealed, and here is what I think: the lineup is interesting, but still there are too many questions as to the path the developers have decided to take with Civ VI. So far, I love the game gameplay-wise, but I am very disappointed lineup-wise.

So, which 10 civs do you miss the most and would like to be in the game (these civs could be both civs from past games as well as new civs that have never been in the game before).
And the second part of the question: which are the top 5 civs you would remove from the lineup, either completely or to be added at a later addon?

 

[IgorS]

Here's my list (and an example of what I mean):

10 civs I miss the most:
1. Inca - How come we don't have them yet?! How come we have Brazil and the Mapuche before them?
2. Hungarians - The most overlooked civilization by the developers. Why do they refuse recognizing it?
3. Ethiopians - Should be the Sub-Saharan African civ in the base game.
4. Portuguese - How come we have Brazil before Portugal? I know it is a bigger market, but these two should be in the game together.
5. Babylonians - A better choice than the Sumerians. Plus, you cannot make a Civ game without all the 14 (15 with Japan) original civs. This is blasphemy!
6. Turks - We still have no civs from Turkey, and among the Hittites, Byzantines, and Turks, I want the Turks the most. The Ottoman Empire was too important to ignore.
7. Iroquois - With all respect to the Cree, the Iroquois are perfect for Civilization.
8. Malians - I wouldn't mind a blob Malian-Songhai civ. West Africa is not represented as of yet.
9. Muisca - Another civilization that gets ignored by the developers. Why did we get the Mapuche if South America has two better choices - the Inca and the Muisca, who actually had cities, and that have more to them than an uprising against colonial powers.
10. Hawaiians - Australia is great, but we also need a native civ from Oceania, and the Hawaiians are the best choice. And no Polynesian blob civs, please!

5 civs I would remove from the game:
1. Scythians - The most useless civ in Civ VI, the Huns of Civ VI, a bad choice.
2. Mapuche - As I have stated above - the Inca and the Muisca are more important and doable. Say no to civs without city lists!
3. Macedonians - I would be OK with them if they were not European, but this Macedonian civ occupies a slot that could be used for a more unique civ. Let's face it, this is a civ made just so Alexander would be in the game. Just like the Huns were made in Civ V for Attila, and the HRE in Civ IV for Charlemagne. I hate it that the developers make the same mistake over and over.
4. Sumerians - Yes, they were the first civilization, but I'd rather have them as a city-state with Babylonia and Assyria representing Mesopotamia.
5. Cree - As much as I like having new civilizations, I prefer ones with better city lists, and among the Native Americans/First Nations there are better choices.

 

[Naktis]

Some civs must be kept for next expanssion , you cant stuff the best/most known in single release.

I dont agree with youre removable list.

 

[conorbebe]

10 civs I miss the most:
1. Hawaii - I love this archipelago with all my heart, and the Pacific is entirely unrepresented. Their culture is beautiful and I want more than anything to see Kamehameha return to Civilization. No more blob civs.
2. Inca - Nothing against the Mapuche, but they can't really compare to the largest pre-Columbian American empire. They are conspicuous by their absence.
3. Turkey/Ottomans - A region steeped in history and a country far too involved to be left out of Civilization ever again.
4. Carthage - I'm a sucker for ancient civilisations and Carthage was in the big league. Also my friend would kill me if I didn't put them high on this list.
5. Māori - Did I mention I love Polynesian civilisations? Two civs from this region is unlikely but I'm holding out hope.
6. Iroquois - One of the most powerful native American entities that should make its return.
7. Italy - A Renaissance/modern Italy civilisation is deserving of inclusion in my opinion. They could be made distinct from Rome and represent the great strides taken in the arts during this era.
8. Portugal - Another highly-significant colonial power which has somehow been beaten to inclusion by Brazil.
9. Mali - More African civilisations are needed, and Songhai had their shot last time. Let's bring back Mansa Musa.
10. Gauls - Having Scotland in the game doesn't mean a Celtic civ won't be added. The Gauls are the most sensible choice here.

5 civs I wouldn't miss:
1. Macedon - Although I'm glad Alexander has made his return, having 3 Greek leaders in one game is overkill. Macedon isn't a must have.
2. Nubia - Too similar to Egypt to warrant taking up a slot. Sorry.
3. Brazil - I'm not particularly interested in colonial civs.
4. Australia - See above.
5. Scotland - I would prefer a united Great Britain civilisation over having England and Scotland as separate entities.

 

[IgorS]

Some civs must be kept for next expanssion , you cant stuff the best/most known in single release.

Yes, you can. The number of "best/most known" is more than the seven or eight civs we get in an EP. Look at Civ III, IV and V.

10 civs I miss the most:
5. Scotland - I would prefer a united Great Britain civilisation over having England and Scotland as separate entities.

Can't agree with that. Scotland is one of the new civs I welcome with open arms. Even in a united Great Britain Scotland is its own thing with its own parliament, football team and the like. A British civ would be wrong. It should be England and Scotland as two separate civs.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Hungary was never in the game. Unless you count Austria. And frankly I'd rather have Switzerland or Bulgaria over either of them, now that Poland stole their hussars.

My 10 Civs:

1. Mali - I need my Musa fix.
2. Maya - The new research everyone has been talking about makes me really want an updated Maya portrayal.
3. Turkey - I need onion hat guy.
4. Inca - Love these guys.
5. Tonga (or Hawaii/Maori) - I would be very sad if we didn't get a single Polynesian civ.
6. Ethiopia - I want more Aksum influence this time around.
7. Phoenicia - I want Carthage to be just a tad more blobby this time around, and no elephants please.
8. Sweden - I want them to do something unique with Scandinavia. Make Margaret I a second leader for both Norway and Sweden.
9. Akkadia - blob Babylon and Assyria please and thank you.
10. Portugal - if Scotland and Netherlands can make it in, I guess Portugal can come too.

5 Civs I wouldn't miss from V:

1. Byzantium - just give Rome an alternate leader, guys. Let Byzantium have baths and legions too instead of pulling from the bottom of the idea barrel.
2. Celts/Gauls - I don't like vaguely defined civs and this is probably the worst of them. I similarly don't ever want the Germans, Franks, Goths, Slavs, or Saxons as a civ.
3. Austria - Outside of the fatass baby-making machine, I don't see anything culturally or mechanically distinct about this civ.
4. Venice - Italic League or bust!
5. Huns - They really only have the leader going for them. Atila would be better as an alternate leader for Scythia and Hungary if it every made it in.

5 Civs I wouldn't miss from VI:

1. Nubia - you should have been Aksum with Makeda.
2. Georgia - you should have been Khazaria.
3. Scythia - you should have been Khazakhs.
4. Macedon - you should have been a third Greek leader.
5. Scotland - you should have been blobbed with England as "Britain" and led by James VI. Unless we get Ireland, then you're fine as you are.

I also wouldn't miss Catherine de Medici or Seondeok at all.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Here is the 10 I want the most.
1. Mali- Why hasn't this happened yet?
2. Italy- It's about time for them to appear.
3. Inca- Surprised this wasn't at least the 2nd SA Civ but oh well.
4. Ottomans- Missing staple. We don't have a Civ from Anatolia.
5. Ethiopia- Askum please.
6. Austria- Maria Theresa please.
7. Byzantines- Greek fire.
8. Assyria- I'd take this a little over Babylon.
9. Gran Colombia- Best Spanish speaking Colonial Civ. (Would please me if this was the last one)
10. Carthage- Since Phoenicia most likely won't happen.

I'm not quite so sure I would want to remove any of the Civs that we have right now at least permanently. It's too early to tell but...
1. Nubia or
2. Kongo ? I listed them just in case these do end up replacing Mali and Ethiopia. When Mali and Ethiopia do come later they're fine.
3. Mapuche? Could they of given us the Inca instead? Yes, but I'd still like the Mapuche down the line.

It's a lot easier for me to choose Civs from Civ 5 I wouldn't want in the game now.
1. Huns- Scythia is great as their replacement.
2. Shoshone- There are better plains tribes and we do sort of have it with the Cree.
3. Venice- Better as Italy.
4. Siam- Region is better with Khmer. Also Vietnam would be preferable if we do get another for the region.
5. Songhai- Region would be better with Mali.
Also these I wouldn't miss but wouldn't mind having as well.
6. Morocco- Can live with it. Can live without it.
7. Celts-We have Scotland, so I necessarily wouldn't need a classical Celts or Gaul Civ

 

[fredrikslicer]

10 Civs I miss the most
- Turks
- Inca
- Maya
- Hungary
- Sweden
- HIttites
- Mughal
- Iroqouis
- Ethiopia
- Oyo empire


5 Civs I could be without
- Mapuche
- Scythia
- Austria
- Brazil
- Australia

 

[Vahnstad]

Inca
Ottomans
Hungary
Muisca
Maya
Mughals
Ethiopia
Babylon
Sweden
Gauls

Those ten. Of course i want more, but you can see them in my signature anyway, those are the ones i want most. (Byzantium and Mali for example).

 

[The Kingmaker]

10 I Miss/Want the Most:
1) Babylon: a favorite and a classic, going back to Civ1. Mesopotamia needs help desperately.
2) Maya: the Mesoamerican juggernaut has yet to reach its full series potential. They should be a mainstay, not XP fodder.
3) Inca: Ditto. The dearth of Pre-Columbian civs in the game right now is criminal.
4) Ottoman Turks: Islamic civilization deserves more than just the Arabs.
5) Carthage: Seafaring explorers and traders who dominated the Mediterranean, and Hannibal is just so much fun.
6) Gaul (Celts): medieval kingdoms like Scotland don't adequately represent ancient/classical Europe, which has NO current representatives outside the Mediterranean right now. The Gauls are the easiest pick to accomplish this.
7) Byzantium: what can I say? I'm a sucker for the tantalizing Eastern Empire. Dromons with Greek Fire are FUN!
8) Mali: Africa's richest empire is still unrepresented!
9) Italy: still wondering why Renaissance Italy has never been featured when the game is rife with its wonders and great people!
10) Assyria: We hardly knew you. Been waiting to see them since the beginning of the series. Should've been added ages ago.

Now far be it from me to denounce any civ. More is almost always more. So if I had to spell it out...

5 I Could Do Without:
1) Native American Blob (Civ4). Give me 3-4 individual tribes instead. Much more diverse, and not as ridiculous as trying to cram a whole continent into one civ.
2) The Holy Roman Empire (Civ4). As much as I am intrigued by Charlemagne, I much prefer the current iteration of the Germans. Civ4's "Holy Rome" was absolutely absurd.
3) Vikings (Civ2-Civ4). First, that's a profession, not a civ. At least call them Norse. Civ6's Norway is much better.
4) Huns (Civ5). The very definition of barbarians. Civ5's portrayal was too stilted and hokey. Just let us play the barbarians in-game if that's what you want. Don't try to fit a square peg in a round hole.
5) Venice (Civ5). Did not like the one-city gimmick. Just give us Italy instead.

 

[Greywulf]

I miss Polynesia most of all, however I would like to see the Tongan Empire specifically this time, but only as long as they keep their wayfinding ability.

 

[clapyourhands]

Civs I miss (in no particular order):

• Ethiopia/Axum: I'm of the seemingly majority opinion that Ethiopia should be a series regular, along with Mali/Songhai. Subsaharan Africa is still lacking in civs in general, and especially so when it comes to non-hypermilitaristic ones, which we also need more of in VI.
• Mali: :See above.
• Iroquois: I miss the Shoshone, but the Cree + Russia's UA seem to be filling their niche pretty well with land-grabbing and a scout replacement; and even then I'm pretty sure I miss the Shoshone playstyle more than the Shoshone as a civ. The Iroquois though were quite different. Though the Cree do have the hypothetical alliance bonus that might have fit the Iroquois, with new diplomatic mechanics come new civs that utilize them, so I won't count them out for VI yet.
• Maya: Fun playstyle in V, regionally important culture, distinct niche both in gameplay and art/flavor/music. A no-brainer for me.
• Inca: See above. The Mapuche are decidedly anti-colonial/loyalty-oriented in their execution, which leaves plenty of space for a SA culture focusing on developments in pre-colonial times, even if they might be geographically close.
• Ottomans: Globally influential power that deserves inclusion by almost any of the numerous definitions people use to qualify a 'civ'. Not much I can say here that hasn't already been said.
• Portugal: Another global colonial-era power, but none of the civs in VI have really explored the concept of exerting influence through maritime trading post footholds; Spain and England push inwards into a continent while the Dutch seem to be focused on the trade routes themselves, which leaves a historically-accurate niche for Portugal to fill if/when it returns.
• Babylon: I like science civs, and even though we can debate whether Babylon should be a science civ, it's quite likely it will be at least somewhat-science oriented if it does return, which is enough for me. Sumer alone isn't enough representation for ancient Mesopotamia when previous games have had 2 spots at least, and going by past implementations Babylon holds the most weight for me. Of course a new execution for Assyria or the Hittites or another group would be interesting as well.
• Austria: I'll throw Austria a bone here even though it's not a popular choice in this section. Few groups have held such widespread power over an otherwise disparate collection of polities as the Hapsburgs, and there's a reason their holdings are sometimes referred to in retrospect as the "Hapsburg Empire". I don't want the HRE back and definitely don't want a new civ called "the Hapsburgs", but Austria's a good way of acknowledging them. A second leader might be enough in this case, but I would much rather them just be one civ under Maria Theresa or someone else instead of taking up leader spots in countries that really do have better options.
• Stick Morocco here as #10 if we're sticking with returning civs, but since the OP says new civs are a possibility I'd rather than a Spanish colonial or Vietnam/Burma. Obviously I'd prefer if all of them could make it in, but if we're limiting it at 10, I'd probably want Burma as the last slot for VI since I wouldn't want another colonial until late in the game's life, and Vietnam's gameplay niche is satisfactorily split between Cambodia and the Mapuche (probable jungle start bias, loyalty bonuses, anti-colonial, guerilla-warfare-esque UU, if it was less forwardly aggressive and had a water-based ability it could probably pass for Vietnam with new music and artwork).

Civs I don't really want back:
Native Americans and Vikings are a given for pretty much everyone so I won't bother counting them here.

• HRE: Austria's probably as far as I'll go in regards to civs that represent multiple polities at once.
• Shoshone: They were my favorite civ in V, Russia and the Cree split the difference between their abilities in VI, and if we're going to have a plains tribe I'd rather it be the Sioux this time around.
• Macedon: The only two real positives I see for Macedon is that 1) it widens the possibility for the Mughal civ people have been wanting in addition to India and 2) I will concede that Macedonian culture is not entirely identical to Greek culture. But still, it was quite similar, and far more disparate cultures have and continue to be blobbed together as one (India, as an example from this same bullet point).
• Siam: Siam and Khmer are probably the two major countries in SE Asia with the most similar cultures (I'm not counting Laos here, since their pre-colonial history doesn't stretch back nearly as far as the others). An argument could be made for Indonesia and Malaysia being similar before modern times (obviously the two countries went under very different colonial experiences and thus are dissimilar today), but I wouldn't want Majapahit and Srivijaya in the same game, either.
  
• Songhai: Nothing against Songhai in a vacuum. But we have enough militaristic civs in VI at the moment, let alone militaristic African civs. And I would much rather have Mali return after sitting out the last one.

Civs I feel like other people listed that I don't feel as strongly about in top 10 or bottom 5:

• Venice: Honestly, I don't mind Venice coming back as-is or as Italy, works for me either way as long as there is some acknowledgement of the many globally-important things that happened in that area post-Rome.
• Sweden: Modern Scandinavian representation is nice and I don't not want to include it in VI, it's just not top 10
• Assyria and Hittites: As said above I'd rather have Babylon, but I'm not against them specifically.
• Celts: I'd be OK with them as a de-blobbed representation of classical/medieval Celts.
• Polynesia: Blobbed or de-blobbed, I just think this region really should be represented somehow.
• Huns: I don't mind the somewhat inaccurate pop-culture representation, but if they do return it definitely should be a last-xpac sort of deal. I'm certainly not going to advocate for their inclusion or anything.
• Carthage: A powerful African/Mediterranean force, I'd just rather have Ethiopia/Mali/Morocco (I realize many people place Carthage over one or more of these, but if you couldn't tell I was toning down the militaristic civs in general with my selections, and Carthage has historically been quite militaristic in previous installments).

 

[Havendish]

Top 10 missing Civs in Civ6 including R&F and DLC released so far:

1 INCA - Inca should be in every Vanilla civ in my opinion. More accomplished than Aztec empire in my humble opinion, yet Montezuma and his people have been in every iteration and the Inca only in Civs 3, 4 and 5 to date, that's 6-3 for Aztecs and it should be the other way around. Besides, they include the Aztecs in vanilla versions and give us Incas in expansions, not fair for the Tawantinsuyu empire.

2 MAYA - pretty much like the Incas. Should be in among first few dlc releases or in first expansion. Great cities (ruins) they left behind, dozens of cities for city list, lots of great leaders and uniques available.

3 BABYLON - ancient Mesopotamia is underrepresented with just Sumeria being in, although it's great that Sumer made it in after their omission in CV. However, Babylon has been in every iteration to date and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't disclude them this time around. Known for their scientific and cultural addtions to the history of civilization, but not only, famous great leaders, city list, just do it Firaxis.

4 ASSYRIA - Ancient Mesopotamia's Sparta (or Rome). Militaristic, Aggressive and Ruthless. Forged a great empire before collapsing. Too significant historically to omit. City list, Leaders, Uniques, all there...

5 HATTI (Hittites) - They appeared once to date, in expansion of Civ3. That's daylight robbery for those into ancient history of civilizations. Really disappointed with the lack of the Hatti in the game. As with the above 4 civs: Long City List available, several Great Leaders, Uniques, it's all there, hopefully they can figure out the linguistic problems for the GL and unit speech in the game.

6 BYZANTIUM - NOT THE SAME AS ROME AT ALL!!! First of all: Rome was Polytheistic!- throughout almost its whole history, Byzantium, right at birth was Christian. Byzantine Uniques differ from Roman ones especially in UNITS! No Legions, but Dromons, Cataphracts and Varangian Guard. A mix of Greek and Latin cultures, with the added Christian (Eastern Orthodoxy). This empire lasted for a thousand years, centuries after Rome fell. Those who claim it being the same as Rome are plain wrong. Byzantium more than deserves to be included again due to its originality. Hundreds of cities on city list, at least a dozen worthy great leaders and the uniques, it's all there...

7 Turkey/Ottomans - Baffling omission in CVI to date. Historically a very long lasting and powerful empire. I was sure that we'd see the Ottomans and Byzantium included in R and F and we got squat... Just like Byzantium; hundreds of cities they can include in the city list, dozen or more great leaders and several uniques to choose from.

8 ETHIOPIA - others have said enough already about it. Would have been a better choice than Nubia to add early into the game. Very long lasting history, defied western colonization, until Italy-finally unified and seeking to expand its "empire" attacked Ethiopia (or Abyssinia as it was also know, or Axum in the classical period) and USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON ETHIOPIAN CIVILIANS - don't believe it? Read about it. Anyway, getting back to Ethiopia, also the fact that they converted to Christianity as one of first nations in the world (Armenians were the first) and remained Christian ever since, although surrounded by non-christians, is quite an achievement in itself. Original culture, lots of cities for city-list, leaders to pick from from centuries of existence and uniques as well. Ethiopia should be in if not in every civ, then in 2 out of 3 at the very least.

9 MALI - or Ashanti (Ghana) should represent Western Sub-Saharan Africa. Just incorporate the Songhai into Mali, fine by me. MUSA was one of most Civ fans favorites to play as in CIV.

10 ITALY - at least as Venice or Genoa, but should be included. Cultural additions to history of civilization originated in Italy cannot be denied, and yet have been by Civ designers to date (except that 1 city Venice experiment in CV) Most fans want united Italy, just like Germany, although not united as a single entity till the 19th century, Germany has been in 6 times (every iteration) already and Italy not at all (discounting Venice and HRE from CIV, in which case it's Germany 7 and one-city Italy 1) Michaelangelo's Chapel, Da Vinci, Columbus-Genoese, right? Great craftsmen, builders, art, culture... hundreds of cities, a few leaders (I'd side with Garibaldi here) and uniques available

Besides the above 10, the other obvious choice is CARTHAGE! (and Phoenicia, although I have little to no hope of ever seeing Phoenicia as separate tribe added to the civ roster)

I would not exclude a single Civ which has already appeared in the game so far. Doing so would be inappropriate. Although the usual suspects come to mind: Huns (only because more like a barbarian state than a civilization and no city list)

 

[PhoenicianGold]

6. BYZANTIUM - NOT THE SAME AS ROME AT ALL!!! First of all: Rome was Polytheistic!- throughout almost its whole history, Byzantium, right at birth was Christian. Byzantine Uniques differ from Roman ones especially in UNITS! No Legions, but Dromons, Cataphracts and Varangian Guard. A mix of Greek and Latin cultures, with the added Christian (Eastern Orthodoxy). This empire lasted for a thousand years, centuries after Rome fell. Those who claim it being the same as Rome are plain wrong. Byzantium more than deserves to be included again due to its originality. Hundreds of cities on city list, at least a dozen worthy great leaders and the uniques, it's all there...

Just calling an idea original doesn't make it so. Byzantium is probably the least original concept you could add to a game about empires, right after Rome itself.

The Qin dynasty was Buddhist. Wu Zetian, the most popular choice for a second alternate Chinese alternate leader, implemented Taoism as a state religion. They also ruled over substantially different territories. Yet they are still both "China." Egypt is represented under a Ptolemaic dynasty, yet it's still going to be "Egypt" when we get a pharaoh from the Kingdom of Egypt. The religious argument for Byzantium is tired and exceptionalist.

Not to mention there's nothing preventing an alt Roman leader from getting a Dromon. Cataphracts were a lazy unit choice for V and shouldn't be included. The Varangian Guard would be a better unit choice, but would it really be all that different from the legion?

No one is saying Byzantium is the same as Rome. They are saying that they are an extension of Rome, in the same way that Sparta and Athens are Greek and the Maurya are Indian. It was the "Eastern Roman Empire," the counterpart to a "Western Roman Empire" for its first 200 years. And that it makes sense to consolidate in this instance instead of wasting design space on the always overrepresented Mediterranean region. Just because the majority of consumers can't think outside of tiny, pedantic, habitualistic boxes doesn't mean that every civ is as important to VI as it was in previous games.

Byzantium should be retired as a full civ in VI. And I continue to insist that I would never, ever miss it. A Byzantium called "Rome," with baths, legions, and trade bonuses would still be Byzantine. Early Byzantine, but still Byzantine.

 

[Zaarin]

10 civs I want:
1) Maya
2) Babylon
3) Gaul
4) Carthage
5) Goths
6) Austria
7) Inca
8) Powhatan
9) Byzantium
10) Ethiopia

5 civs I wouldn't miss:
1) Australia
2) Brazil
3) Zulu
4) Macedon
5) The Celts

 

[The Kingmaker]

Just calling an idea original doesn't make it so. Byzantium is probably the least original concept you could add to a game about empires, right after Rome itself.

The Qin dynasty was Buddhist. Wu Zetian, the most popular choice for a second alternate Chinese alternate leader, implemented Taoism as a state religion. They also ruled over substantially different territories. Yet they are still both "China." Egypt is represented under a Ptolemaic dynasty, yet it's still going to be "Egypt" when we get a pharaoh from the Kingdom of Egypt. The religious argument for Byzantium is tired and exceptionalist.

Not to mention there's nothing preventing an alt Roman leader from getting a Dromon. Cataphracts were a lazy unit choice for V and shouldn't be included. The Varangian Guard would be a better unit choice, but would it really be all that different from the legion?

No one is saying Byzantium is the same as Rome. They are saying that they are an extension of Rome, in the same way that Sparta and Athens are Greek and the Maurya are Indian. It was the "Eastern Roman Empire," the counterpart to a "Western Roman Empire" for its first 200 years. And that it makes sense to consolidate in this instance instead of wasting design space on the always overrepresented Mediterranean region. Just because the majority of consumers can't think outside of tiny, pedantic, habitualistic boxes doesn't mean that every civ is as important to VI as it was in previous games.

Byzantium should be retired as a full civ in VI. And I continue to insist that I would never, ever miss it. A Byzantium called "Rome," with baths, legions, and trade bonuses would still be Byzantine. Early Byzantine, but still Byzantine.

For some reason, I was reminded of the above: "Daddy says dice are wicked!" "We just move one space at a time -- it's less fun that way!"

There are several good reasons for including Byzantium in a future DLC or XP.

1) They've been included in several previous games and are popular.
2) They're interesting and fun, so people will enjoy playing them.
3) People would buy them because they are popular, interesting and fun. Devs will make money.

Less is not more, more is more.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

For some reason, I was reminded of the above: "Daddy says dice are wicked!" "We just move one space at a time -- it's less fun that way!"

There are several good reasons for including Byzantium in a future DLC or XP.

1) They've been included in several previous games and are popular.
2) They're interesting and fun, so people will enjoy playing them.
3) People would buy them because they are popular, interesting and fun. Devs will make money.

Less is not more, more is more.

It wouldn't be bad DLC, especially if released towards the very end of the product's life cycle. It would just be extremely boring and probably be one of the worst civs like in IV and V.

Mostly, I'm just tired of having people attack me with thinly veiled conservativism every time I mention the option of giving Rome a Byzantine leader. To them it's like heresy, or claiming that gravity doesn't exist. Such is simply not the case given VI's design philosophy, and I shouldn't need to repeatedly defend what would be a very responsible decision from a game design perspective. And in most cases only because so many Civ players can't wrap their tiny brains around geographical and cultural consolidation in a series that everyone has complained with every installment is too Mediterranean-centric.

I find the implementation of Greece and India elegant. I want more of that, and less of "but X famous series staple" civs like Macedon.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Mostly, I'm just tired of having people attack me with thinly veiled conservativism every time I mention the option of giving Rome a Byzantine leader. To them it's like heresy, or claiming that gravity doesn't exist. Such is simply not the case given VI's design philosophy, and I shouldn't need to repeatedly defend what would be a very responsible decision from a game design perspective. And in most cases only because so many Civ players can't wrap their tiny brains around geographical and cultural consolidation in a series that everyone has complained with every installment is too Mediterranean-centric.

I find the implementation of Greece and India elegant. I want more of that, and less of "but X famous series staple" civs like Macedon.

Nothing wrong with a game being Mediterranean centric in my opinion.
Give the Byzantines the Macedon treatment and not the India treatment.
It worked out before for me anyway. Of course I'm probably in the 1% of people on here who love both Macedon and Australia.

 

[Havendish]

It wouldn't be bad DLC, especially if released towards the very end of the product's life cycle. It would just be extremely boring and probably be one of the worst civs like in IV and V.

Mostly, I'm just tired of having people attack me with thinly veiled conservativism every time I mention the option of giving Rome a Byzantine leader. To them it's like heresy, or claiming that gravity doesn't exist. Such is simply not the case given VI's design philosophy, and I shouldn't need to repeatedly defend what would be a very responsible decision from a game design perspective. And in most cases only because so many Civ players can't wrap their tiny brains around geographical and cultural consolidation in a series that everyone has complained with every installment is too Mediterranean-centric.

I find the implementation of Greece and India elegant. I want more of that, and less of "but X famous series staple" civs like Macedon.

You are going over the line bby tending to denounce civilizations you know little about and your knowledge of history is quite poor.

Rome was conquered in 410 AD. It wasn't the capital of the Western empire at that time anymore, but still, the heart of it. From 410 AD you cannot talk about the existence of Rome anymore!

Constantinople was founded by the Roman Emperor Constantine I (272–337 AD) in 324 on the site of an already-existing city, Byzantium, which was settled in the early days of Greek colonial expansion, in around 657 BC, by colonists of the city-state of Megara.
So, founding/renaming of Constantinople in 324 AD and fall of Rome in 410 Ad. Difference? 86 Years, not 200 years like you claim in one of your above posts!

Since 410 AD Rome is gone and only Byzantium remains, got it?
Byzantium is Christian (Eastern Orthodoxy) from the beginning, not polytheistic like Rome for its almost entire existence.

The official language in Roman empire? Latin
1st Language of the Byzantines? Greek (true, Latin was common, especially in the first half of empire's existence, in the 2nd half though mainly only by nobility and the common people spoke Greek)

Fall of Constantinople? 1453 AD.
So, Byzantium lasted (with the brief period of the the treacherous Venetian conquest-created Latin Empire) from 324 AD till 1453 Ad, that's over a millennia! And you dare and deny its rightful place in the game, really? 1000 years of unique history, great emperors and unique buildings, religion and units available, You dare to say Byzantium was nothing but an extension of Rome! The sheer size of Byzantium at its peak was enormous, and was never the same as Rome at its peak centuries earlier.

Good thing Firaxis designers rarely listen to the likes of you, they do their proper research and are open minded.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

You are going over the line bby tending to denounce civilizations you know little about and your knowledge of history is quite poor.

And yours seems isolated to AP Euro History, it seems.

Constantinople was founded by the Roman Emperor Constantine I (272–337 AD) in 324 on the site of an already-existing city, Byzantium, which was settled in the early days of Greek colonial expansion, in around 657 BC, by colonists of the city-state of Megara.
So, founding/renaming of Constantinople in 324 AD and fall of Rome in 410 Ad. Difference? 86 Years, not 200 years like you claim in one of your above posts!

So I miscalculated. It still ran concurrent for some time.

Since 410 AD Rome is gone and only Byzantium remains, got it

The first time the word "Byzantine" was used to refer to that empire was in 1557. After it's fall. It was known to its own citizens as "Rome." GOT IT?!?

Byzantium is Christian (Eastern Orthodoxy) from the beginning, not polytheistic like Rome for its almost entire existence.

The Qin dynasty was polytheistic. The Tang dynasty was Taoist. The Qing dynasty was Buddhist. I guess we should just have three or four different Chinese civs too.

The official language in Roman empire? Latin
1st Language of the Byzantines? Greek (true, Latin was common, especially in the first half of empire's existence, in the 2nd half though mainly only by nobility and the common people spoke Greek)

The official language of the Mauryan Empire was Magadhi. The predominant language of modern India is Hindi. The two derive from Sanskrit but otherwise come from completely different language branches and cultures. I guess we should have a few different Indian states as well.

Good thing Firaxis designers rarely listen to the likes of you, they do their proper research and are open minded.

Yes, thankfully they are open-minded and do their proper research. Furthermore, I am not responding to your posts anymore, which are inflammatory and full of ad hominems. Not to mention some of the whiniest, impressionistic arguments I've seen for Byzantium thus far. Take care.