5 used Civs you don't want, and 10 new ones you do

[IgorS]

OK, read carefully before replying.
The rules are simple, you need to answer the next two questions:
1. Which 5 civs that appeared in previous Civ installments (including Civ VI) you would prefer not no have in Civ VI.
2. Which 10 civs that have never appeared in the Civ series (including vanilla Civ VI) would you most want to see added to Civ VI.

Note: This thread is NOT about designing civs, although you can briefly suggest UUs, UBs, UAs, leaders, and stuff, but don't elaborate. Keep it short, and to the point.

Here is what I think:

Question 1:
1. Native Americans (Civ IV) - I think it is an obvious choice, we want separate civs, not all-inclusive "what if" civs.
2. Holy Romans (Civ IV) - Not a civ, simple as that. Just an excuse to have Charlemagne as a leader, and cities like Prague in the game before city states were invented.
3. Huns (Civ V) - The absolute focus on conquest and lack of city names kept me away from playing as this civ.
4. Celts (Civ II, III, IV, V) - See "Native Americans".
5. Polynesians (Civ V) - See "Celts" and "Native Americans".

Question 2 (the fun part):
1. Hungarians - They were requested for so long. I think that if they are not in Civ VI Hungarian gamers will boycott the Civ series forever. But seriously, a super important civ that must be included.
2. Muisca - Gran Colombia? Why?! If you want a civ from the northern parts of South America, you have the Muisca. They are a fascinating civ that has been ignored for so long, and I am sure will be fun to play as.
3. Armenians - First nation to adopt Christianity, a great empire under Tigranes the Great before that. Would be awesome to have.
4. Haida - Here is an awesome Native American civ from an area that has been ignored so far by the series. The Haida were very powerful, and had some strong naval units and land fortifications. I would love to have them as a civ.
5. Australians - If Brazil is in, Australia should be added too. In my opinion, these are the three modern states (the third being the United States) that absolutely deserve to be in the game.
6. Bulgarians - Another civilization that has been largely ignored so far. Can be a really badass civ if made correctly.
7. Lithuanians - Not the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, as some people suggest, but two separate civs - one for Poland (like in Civ V), and one for Lithuania.
8. Scots - Not pseudo-Celts with a capital in Edinburgh (Civ V), but a real Scottish civ.
9. Georgians - Yes, I also want King Tamar to be in the game, and no, I was not influenced by the people in these forums.
10. Myanma - or Burmese, or Pagan... Whatever, you got what I am talking about, right?
There are other civs that did not make the list, such as the Nabataeans, Israelites, Hawaiians, Maori, Dahomey, Malagasy, they are also cool.

 

[SMcM]

Not again:

Native Americans
Celts
Vikings
Polynesians
Shoshone (Cool, but only makes sense as a one-off; maybe Sioux, Navajo, Apache or another Native American Civ this time)

New:
Malaccan Sultanate (Civ called be called Malaysian empire, Mansur Shah would be cool leader)
Palymara (With Zenobia as leader, Civ could be called Syria)
Madagascar
Wallachia
Berbers (Dihya/Kahina would be a cool leader, her Civ could be called Algeria)
Tibet
Burma
Navajo
Phillipines (Mactan under Lapu Lapu could also be cool)
Armenia

Also, am I the only person on these forums who thinks the inclusion of Attila and the Huns in Civ V was cool? I like 'play the barbarian' being an option, even if I don't usually play domination.

 

[IgorS]

Vikings

I, personally, am going to change the Norse to Norwegians in my game, just like I changed Celts into Britons, and Polynesians to Hawaiians in Civ V.

Shoshone (Cool, but only makes sense as a one-off; maybe Sioux, Navajo, Apache or another Native American Civ this time)

Totally agree about the Shoshone. Not a great choice at all.

Also, am I the only person on these forums who thinks the inclusion of Attila and the Huns in Civ V was cool? I like 'play the barbarian' being an option, even if I don't usually play domination.

I would prefer a different civ to "play the barbarian". The Scythians actually seem interesting. Too bad we do not know the real names of their cities, but at least they did have cities we know of.

 

[Zaarin]

No:
Native Americans
Celts
Brazil
Austria (I have mixed feelings about this one--I really like Austria but they just overlap too much with Germany; I'd actually kind of like to see Maria Theresa as a DLC leader for Germany, though...)
Sioux (they're overrepresented in the media--share the spotlight)

Yes:
Gauls
Zapotec
Haida
Creek/Muscogee
Cree/Anishinaabe/Ojibwa
Georgia OR Armenia
Palmyra/Syria
Judah
Nubia
Elam (this one, I concede, would be a stretch, but I'd still love to see what they'd do with it)

Not too hard to deduce where my central historical interests lie, is it?

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

Also, am I the only person on these forums who thinks the inclusion of Attila and the Huns in Civ V was cool? I like 'play the barbarian' being an option, even if I don't usually play domination.

Nope, loved them. One of my favorite G&K civs...screw it, really one of my favorites from V overall.

Don't care to see again, honestly I'm not anti- any Civ, these are just the ones I really could care less about or would be fine to just see as a city state:
Venice, Poland, Morocco, Songhai, Native American (normally not against blob civs but this is just stupid.)

New: Navajo, Cree(trade based NA Civ which would be quite different from other NA civs), Apache, Hungary, Nubia, Georgia under Tamar(new for me, seriously interested once I did some reading) Scots under Robert, Gauls under Vercingetorix, Vietnam under the Trung Sisters(could be a sweet leader head) and Goths under Alaric.

 

[SMcM]

I, personally, am going to change the Norse to Norwegians in my game, just like I changed Celts into Britons, and Polynesians to Hawaiians in Civ V.

They'll be likely to already be called Norway in the first place. Why would they be called Norse instead of Vikings (the usual blob Civ for that region), and Vikings does not fit alphabetically on the leader poster.

Native American (normally not against blob civs but this is just stupid.)

How come? Polynesian Civ is equally weird surely; New Zealand, Hawaii and Easter Island are all ridiculously far apart, so to me them being one Civ makes very little sense.

 

[Martinus]

Never again:

1. Holy Roman Empire
2. Native Americans
3. Vikings
4. Huns
5. Zulus

New ones:

1. Thai
2. Nubians
3. Goths
4. Scots
5. Phoenicians
6. Hebrews/Judeans
7. Burmese
8. Olmec
9. Bohemians
10. Burgundians

 

[IgorS]

New ones:

1. Thai

The Thai were in Civ V.

 

[IgorS]

They'll be likely to already be called Norway in the first place. Why would they be called Norse instead of Vikings (the usual blob Civ for that region), and Vikings does not fit alphabetically on the leader poster.

Because Norse is a better term for the people.
Here is how Wikipedia describes them: Vikings [...] were Norse seafarers, speaking the Old Norse language, who raided and traded from their Scandinavian homelands across wide areas of northern, central and eastern Europe, during the late 8th to late 11th centuries.

 

[IgorS]

Austria (I have mixed feelings about this one--I really like Austria but they just overlap too much with Germany; I'd actually kind of like to see Maria Theresa as a DLC leader for Germany, though...)

Having Maria Theresa as German leader would be wrong. She was queen of Austria. I don't really understand why you think Germany and Austria overlap, but if you look at Austria beyond the HRE, you will see it is a different civ, and I think Maria Theresa is one leader that emphasizes this. Of course, having a more "purely Austrian" leader, such as Franz-Joseph could also be a good idea.

 

[Ikael]

Out:

Vikings, Native Americans, Celts, Polynesian, every blob civ
Soshone: No cities + no agriculture = no civ, sorry

In:

Araucans
Ashanti
Igbo
Harappa
Pueblo
Philiphinnes
Uzbeks
Afganistan
Gran Colombia
Vietnam

 

[otaman1]

Never:
1. Holy Roman Empire (just overlaps too much with Germany and Austria, and it's not an excuse to make Charlemagne a leader. At least make him a German or French leader)
2. Celtic (Celtic is such a broad term to group all Celtic tribes into one. I would suggest dividing them up)
3. Native Americans (again with Celtic, too broad of a term)
4. Shoshone (there are way better tribes than the Shoshone such as the Pueblo and Apache)
5. Polynesia (again, a very broad term to define all Polynesian cultures)

New:
1. Hungary
2. Pueblo (the ability to build cities in cliffs/on mountain tiles sounds like a cool UA)
3. Gran Colombia
4. Scotland
5. Vietnam (this civ has been requested a lot)
6. Israel (it may cause a lot of controversies in the Arab world but the Kingdom of Israel played a huge role in the ancient Levant)
7. Ashanti
8. Zimbabwe (this kingdom was the one most prominent kingdoms in precolonial sub-Saharan Africa)
9. Tibet (long requested civ although it may cause controversies or possible bans in China)
10. Lithuania (played a major role in eastern Europe)

Other new civs I want in:
Armenia, Georgia, Akkadia, Argentina, Ireland, Serbia, Bulgaria, Kanem-Bornu, Somalia, Myanmar, Malaysia, Tonga, and Tahiti.

 

[nzcamel]

3. Armenians - First nation to adopt Christianity, a great empire under Tigranes the Great before that. Would be awesome to have.

Hell yes to Armenia!
How many of you here had ancestors who (mostly) successfully held off the Romans? Not to mention the other various empires that encircled them for much of their existence.

 

[Xandinho]

Question 1:
Shoshone: Its inclusion occupied a space that would be more interesting civ, and there are better options even for Indigenous peoples.
Holy Romans: It is not necessary, since we already have Germany and the Roman Empire.
Huns: I like it, but the lack of cities is a problem, unfortunately.
Native Americans: I prefer separate inclusions.
Vikings: Nothing against it, but I prefer Denmark, Sweden and Norway separate.

Question 2:
1- Hungary: I agree to its inclusion is delayed, It should have been included in the game.
2- Israel: It would be a religious power ruled by King Solomon.
3- Empire of Benin: Large African nation that can not be neglected, and can represent the modern Nigeria, the most populous country in Africa.
4- Arawak: If Indigenous tribes of North America can be included as playable civ, why not South American tribes as well? The Arawak is a great Indian nation that reached much of South America and the Caribbean. And if the developers do not intend to neglect the South America, the Arawak, Tupi or other large South American Indigenous nation can not be forgotten.
5- Olmec: I love It, but I do not believe that their addition may be possible one day, since we know very little about it
6- Ashanti Empire: Other great African empire that can not be forgotten.
7- Vietnam
8- Bulgaria
9- Goths
10- Aborigines: Would cover the continental mass of Oceania and could represent modern Australia in the game.

 

[SMcM]

Because Norse is a better term for the people.
Here is how Wikipedia describes them: Vikings [...] were Norse seafarers, speaking the Old Norse language, who raided and traded from their Scandinavian homelands across wide areas of northern, central and eastern Europe, during the late 8th to late 11th centuries.

Yes, but Norse does not only refer to Norwegians. You are assuming Firaxis wants to make a blob Civ; they may, but they could just as easily

9. Tibet (long requested civ although it may cause controversies or possible bans in China)

Yeah, everyone says that. I think that theory is silly though; China does not deny that Tibet has been separate at points in its history, It just denies the existence of 20th century independent Tibet. And how many Tibetans do you think would be playing Civ VI anyway; I'd wager that there would be very few, so I can't see that it could stoke up Tibetan nationalism or anything.

Uzbeks

Tamerlane?

Having Maria Theresa as German leader would be wrong. She was queen of Austria. I don't really understand why you think Germany and Austria overlap, but if you look at Austria beyond the HRE, you will see it is a different civ, and I think Maria Theresa is one leader that emphasizes this. Of course, having a more "purely Austrian" leader, such as Franz-Joseph could also be a good idea.

Austrian has more recently been famously weak- Hitler is a good example being born into a homogeneous German speaking, culturally German nation, which had for much of its history been part of the HRE along with Germany, he saw himself as German. Though he later forced anschluss on the Austrians, there was clear support for unification already. Even if the majority were against anschluss (which possibly is not true), their reasoning would be more likely to be due to dislike for Hitler's policies (though anti-semitism was rampant in Austria too) than fondness for their nation. The reason anschluss was strictly forbidden after Versailles was because this was seen as being a likelihood; the two nations had so much in common that unification would otherwise seem logical.

I think Austrian nationalism has taken off more recently though, especially with the rise of 'Freedom Party of Austria'; with Merkel seeming to represent everything that is seen as wrong with the EU for Austrians, further distance from Germany is likely becoming more popular in Austria. It may be that Austria has been a proud nation at other points in its history also.

 

[jsciv69]

Question 1. None I like the 18 that are slated for the base game.

Question 2. 1-Mexico 2-Colombia 3-Canada 4-Souix 5-Phillipines 6-Australia 7-Romania 8-Phoenicia 9-Israel 10-South Africa

 

[Zaarin]

How come? Polynesian Civ is equally weird surely; New Zealand, Hawaii and Easter Island are all ridiculously far apart, so to me them being one Civ makes very little sense.

I'd say there's a big difference between a "Native American" civ and a "Polynesian" civ. For one thing, Native Americans are not all culturally or linguistically related (unless you buy into Greenberg's insanity); the Polynesians all speak Polynesian languages and have related cultures. Likewise, while the accomplishments of the Polynesians are probably worth including, I can't think of an individual Polynesian civ that really stands out as worthy of inclusion on its own. As far as blob civs go, I'd say the Polynesians make far more sense than most.

Having Maria Theresa as German leader would be wrong. She was queen of Austria. I don't really understand why you think Germany and Austria overlap, but if you look at Austria beyond the HRE, you will see it is a different civ, and I think Maria Theresa is one leader that emphasizes this. Of course, having a more "purely Austrian" leader, such as Franz-Joseph could also be a good idea.

Austria is part of the German civilization; it was always a leading member, along with Prussia, of the Germanies. The only reason Austria is not part of the modern nation-state of Germany is that the Prussian Otto von Bismarck wanted to guarantee Prussian primacy within Germany, which obviously meant excluding its chief rival, Austria (which also had plans to unite Germany). I think having Barbarossa as Germany's leader just underscores that the German civilization does not represent the German nation-state, and in that context Maria Theresa or Franz-Joseph would be perfectly logical choices for Germany--more logical than a separate Austrian civ.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

How come? Polynesian Civ is equally weird surely; New Zealand, Hawaii and Easter Island are all ridiculously far apart, so to me them being one Civ makes very little sense.

Size, population and scope. Don't get me wrong I'd love to see them split into Maori Hawaiian, Samoan etc but if its easier to represent small groups as a larger ethnic group I say go ahead.

The Native Americans though, that's basically lumping half the Western Hemisphere into one blob. Some of the larger tribes/confederations like Sioux, Cree, Cherokee, Iroquois, etc. were probably larger on an individual level than all the Polynesian ethnic groups combined.

There's only going to be so many civs in each game. Nature of the beast IMO. I get why people don't like the blob civs. They just do not bother me. Except the NA one. That felt like a massive cop out, lumping an entire continent into one Civ. That's a sin on an entirely different level.

Even civs like Cree, Iroquois, Sioux are large groups that could theoretically be split into their constituent parts if we got technical. Lumping them into one blob Civ is like lumping multiple blob civs together. A comparison would be lumping Polynesia, indigenous Australians and Indonesian islanders into one lump Pacific Islands Civ.

 

[IgorS]

I think having Barbarossa as Germany's leader just underscores that the German civilization does not represent the German nation-state, and in that context Maria Theresa or Franz-Joseph would be perfectly logical choices for Germany--more logical than a separate Austrian civ.

Yep, this was the case in Civ II, where Germany's two leaders were Barbarossa and Maria Theresa. I actually don't like Barbarossa as a German leader too. I would prefer the other Friedrich - the great. But Bismarck is definitely the best choice for Germany.

 

[IgorS]

Tamerlane?

It is tempting to have Tamerlane, but I am against adding him for two reasons:
1. He was not a leader of the Uzbeks, he is just regarded as a national hero for playing a super important role in their history, ruling from Samarqand, and building so much.
2. The Timurids are like the Holy Roman Empire for me - not a civ, but just a political entity.

I would love to see an Uzbek civilization, but it should be about the history of the Uzbeks per se. Their leader should be their unifier - Shaybani Khan.
I actually made an Uzbek civ for Civilization IV, back in the day.