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

[DudewiththeFood]

Armenia is not in the Middle East, it is in the Caucasus.

Modern Armenia is in the Caucasus but during ancient times it took up a large part of eastern Turkey and even northern Syria during the Middle Ages. Regardless, it was at times ruled by Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines and Ottomans and with the Arabs/Assyrians/Babylonians/Sumerians close by, there is already a lot of diversity in the region.

Problem is we know nada about the Dacian language, absolutely nothing, not even some minor inscriptions or glosses in Greek historians. Even that it's Indo-European is an assumption, which puts it in a class beyond Thracian, Illyrian, Venetic, Ligurian, Lusitanian, Massapian, Phrygian, and other marginally attested Indo-European languages.

True. It isn't likely that we'll see it unless Scythia is wildly popular and then it might make civ 7 but they have distinctive architecture, unique weapons, a couple of powerful leaders and offer something in Europe that is neither Western nor were colonial.

 

[kul]

OUT
None. Bring all of them boys back. But if I have to choose, then Austria and Norway can take a rest, just for the sake of lessening the European-centric design of Civ series. Oh and blob-like Indonesia needs to go to

IN and RETURNING
Maori
Khmer
Majapahit
Gowa-Tallo
Malay
Dayak
Sioux
Morocco
Mali
Mongolia

 

[JimmyBanks]

Never Again:

1) Holy Roman Empire - Same reasoning as OP.
2) Native Americans - Same Reasoning as OP
3) Polynesia - Same Reasoning as OP
4) India - it would appear that Firaxis are incappable of having an Indian Civ without Gandhi as leader, therefore get them out of the game.
5) Mongolia - Have been in enough. Variety is the spice of life.

New Civs:

1) Kulin Nation, Bunuba or Bidjigal (Indigenous Australians) - I don't care which country but would like to see 1 of the worlds longest most continuous civilizations represented in the game.
2) Tupi - I always liked them in Colonization.
3) Mauryan, Gupta Empire - if your're going to get rid of india you need to replace it with another sub continental civ, so I would choose one prior to "India".
4) Gojoseon
5) Gauls
6) Cherokee, Apache or another native north american Civ that hasn't been in the game before.
7) Seljuk
8) Maori - replace polynesia with an actual civ.

I can't think of any more, I like the idea of going as far back to get better civs, I wouldn't mind them getting rid of Rome and puting in another Italian Civ just to mix it up. Same with Greeks, call them the Spartans or something.

 

[IgorS]

Modern Armenia is in the Caucasus but during ancient times it took up a large part of eastern Turkey and even northern Syria during the Middle Ages. Regardless, it was at times ruled by Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines and Ottomans and with the Arabs/Assyrians/Babylonians/Sumerians close by, there is already a lot of diversity in the region.

I really don't understand the big deal with having many civs from the same region, as long as they are distinct enough. Armenia is certainly distinct from other Near East civs, and also from all other Caucasus civs.

 

[DudewiththeFood]

TSL maps mainly. Also a little bit because creating loads of civs from one region means overlooking other regions.

I agree with you and Armenia is certainly more unique than Rome/Greece/Byzantines or Sumeria/Babylon/Assyria but by the time the important civs are done (mainly European and Middle Eastern), places like Polynesia/Brazil/Zulus get put in the game for the sake of diversity.

 

[Zaarin]

Chinook- The PNW is overlooked. The Chinook tribes were skilled traders reaching down into California and even east to the plains. The Chinook Jargon, a creole trade language based on Chinookan, was at one time the lingua franca of the PNW.

The Chinook aren't PNW, they're Plateau. But the Plateau has also never been represented, so it still works. The Blackfoot were probably the most prominent tribe in the Plateau, but since the Blackfoot assimilated a lot of Plains culture the Chinook would be more representative.

 

[IgorS]

TSL maps mainly. Also a little bit because creating loads of civs from one region means overlooking other regions.

That's the thing, I am not talking about loads of civs. I am talking about getting the most important and distinct civs from a region. This means, of course, I would like at least one civ from every region on Earth, but those civs have to be important, represent a decently long period of history, and be game-compatible (which means we must be able to have a leader, unique components, and a city list of actual settlements' names).

 

[Phrozen]

The Chinook aren't PNW, they're Plateau. But the Plateau has also never been represented, so it still works. The Blackfoot were probably the most prominent tribe in the Plateau, but since the Blackfoot assimilated a lot of Plains culture the Chinook would be more representative.

The Chinook were based along the Columbia river from the Cascades to the Pacific Ocean. They were the tribe that Lewis & Clark met when they made it to the Pacific. They certainly were part of the Pacific Northwest and had a pretty decent chunk of territory between the clans. The Salish had bigger territory but were far less known.

 

[MAHRana]

Don't stress on the order:

OUT:
1. Huns — Something didn't sit right with them (lack of city names + similarity to Mongols maybe)
2. Sweden — Denmark can cover them (or the "Norse" or "Vikings" - yes i know but look at India)
3. Poland — Other civs should have priority over Poland imho, it was fine in CiV but not as a trend
4. Venice — Again, interesting in CiV but other wildcard civs could be viable options in later titles
5. Native Americans — Its actually kinda funny how they included them as they did

IN:
1. Armenia — They should be in by now especially with the religious victory
2. Indus Valley Civilization — But it would be hard until we understand them more
3. Navajo — Would be nice to see more American civs
4. Olmecs — Maya and Aztecs shouldn't get in their way of inclusion, important civ
5. Gran Columbia — If we're including post colonial civs then they should take some priority
6. Tibet — Another nice religious civ
7. Zimbabwe — Overlooked kingdom in Africa that were predecessors to the Mutapa Kingdom as well
8. Afghans/Mughals— Breaks up "India" a bit, i kinda feel that something needs to divide Delhi + lands to its west from the rest of India (finally!)
9. Apache — Serious contenders for a Native American civ
10. Cherokee — Another nice Native American civ choice

There are many more civs in Africa for example (like Benin) or South East Asia and Oceania that i may be unaware of that are warranted inclusion but this is my relatively quick list

 

[Zaarin]

The Chinook were based along the Columbia river from the Cascades to the Pacific Ocean. They were the tribe that Lewis & Clark met when they made it to the Pacific. They certainly were part of the Pacific Northwest and had a pretty decent chunk of territory between the clans. The Salish had bigger territory but were far less known.

We were both right: I was thinking of the Upper Chinook. I don't think the Chinook are ideal representatives of the PNW, though. The heart of the PNW culture area and pinnacle of its cultural achievements were in the north: the Haida, Tlingit, Tsimshian, Kwakwaka'wakw (Kwakiutl), etc. Even the Coast Salish or Nuu-Chah-Nulth would be more representative of the region than the Chinook, IMO.

4. Olmecs — Maya and Aztecs shouldn't get in their way of inclusion, important civ

However, the fact that we know nothing of their language, culture, or history should. Yes, they were important founders of civilization in Mesoamerica, but we know nothing else about them--it would be like trying to make a civilization of the Indus Valley civilization or the Kassites. For an alternative, try the Zapotec.

 

[Xandinho]

However, the fact that we know nothing of their language, culture, or history should. Yes, they were important founders of civilization in Mesoamerica, but we know nothing else about them--it would be like trying to make a civilization of the Indus Valley civilization or the Kassites. For an alternative, try the Zapotec.

Yes, unfortunately.
The lack of knowledge about the Olmcas compromises its addition to the game. We know very little (almost nothing) about its leaders, is not enough to suggest a ability of the leader. Their culture is not well known. We have the colossal heads, and what else? I think we can not even suggest an unique unit for them, unfortunately.
I really want to see the Olmecs in the game, and for me it would be more interesting than the Zapotecs, but I think the maximum representation that they always will have in the game is through city-states. There is no knowledge enough to be added as a playable civ.

 

[Zaarin]

Yes, unfortunately.
The lack of knowledge about the Olmcas compromises its addition to the game. We know very little (almost nothing) about its leaders, is not enough to suggest a ability of the leader. Their culture is not well known. We have the colossal heads, and what else? I think we can not even suggest an unique unit for them, unfortunately.
I really want to see the Olmecs in the game, and for me it would be more interesting than the Zapotecs, but I think the maximum representation that they always will have in the game is through city-states. There is no knowledge enough to be added as a playable civ.

In an ideal world, I'd like to replace the Aztecs with the Zapotec: in the long term, the Zapotec were more significant. But Monty, like Gandhi, has become a Civ staple, and I doubt we'll see him replaced by the Zapotec anytime soon. With that in mind, I think including all three of the Aztec, Zapotec, and Maya is overkill, and of the three the Maya are clearly the most worthy of inclusion. Since the Maya are a must and we will always have the Aztec, the chance of ever seeing the Zapotec is pretty slim. I'd love to be proven wrong, though: IMO you can't have too many indigenous New World civs (nor too many Ancient Near Eastern civs).

 

[Krajzen]

To kick out

1) Celts - ridiculous artificial civ (but I wouldn't like Gauls either as they territorially overlap with France and aren't that distinctive), if anything connected to Celts had to appear in game I'd even prefer small Ireland over absurd 'celts' amalgamate.
2) Polynesia - even more ridiculous artificial civ, the problem is I don't think any Oceanian culture on its own is was big, developed and interesting enough to be in game. I think some areas, which simply didn't have urban centers and technology through the ages, shouldn't appear in civilization game.
3) Zulu - pathetic very small state of very primitive tribe that lasted very short before achieving one insignificant victory against (outmanned) British and being promptly completely wiped out by the first competent expeditionary company. Zulu are the worst african "civilization" one can pick even if seeking "anti colonialism" theme (Ethiopia and Ashanti are much more impressive in this regard, as is Kongo). It is also tired cliche civ with the same playstyle in every game (super agressive infsntry!!1) and no innovation regarding its leaders or uniques is possible because it was so small and so short lived. For the love of God don't add Zulu, as recompensation add two more blck civs instead.
4) Austria - legit empire but I just don't want one more Germanic and European civ when many parts of the world are so underrepresented. Also, Austria isn't that distinctive and exotic to begin with, and in civ5 IIRC was on of least liked civs overall.
5) Huns - what's the difference between them and barbarians? Plus there are many other more nuanced varied or interesting nomad cultures that have depth beyond 'raze'. Plus the idea with their city lists was atrocious and immersion breaking. Plus they are already dead anyway because their entire niche got filled with Scythia.

Honorable mentions: Shoshone (but their chance of returning is none anyway), HRE, "Native Americans", two scandinavian civs in a single game, Siam (very legit civ but I just wanna see other from Indochina), Assyria (very legit too but we got Sumer and I'd prefer more civs from other regions), Venice (Italy needs some representation but this one city weirdo was failed experiment).

Civs that I'd like to see
1) Hungary or Bulgaria (for this part of Europe)
2) Cherokee, probably the biggest and most impressive NA tribe that wasn't in series yet
3) New american indigenous civ "below US" other than inca-maya-aztec trio
4) Kilwa/Swahilli
5) Great Zimbabwe (that'd require assimilating GZ wonder by them as improvement, but similar things happened before)
6) Some civ of Nigeria (based on either Hausa, Yoruba or Igbo culture) or Ashanti
7) Almoravids/Moors
8) Burmese Empire (Alaungpaya or Bayinnaung)
9) Malayan archipelago civ
10) Armenia

Honorable mention: Persia with elements of later (especially islamic) empires, not just achaemenids

 

[Guandao]

1. Huns-Scythia already fulfills its role, and it lacks city names, which always bothered me
2. Celts-a chance to separate this blob civ into Ireland, Scotland, etc.
3. Polynesia-separate it to Maori, Hawaii, etc
4. Native America-please no, it's an even bigger blob than Celts and Polynesia
5. Shoshone-I feel like there are better choices for a Western Native American civ

1. Haida/Tlingit/or Nuuchahnulth-the Pacific Northwest has a distinct culture from the rest of North America, imagine having totem poles as a unique improvement
2. Tupi-best choice to represent Amazonian culture, though they were mainly on the Brazilian coast
3. Nubia-not just a second rate Egypt, offers female leader choices
4. Madagascar-unique blend of Africa and Southeast Asia, has female leader
5. Vietnam-female leader choices, resilient nation
6. Myanmar-famed for Pagan and Schwedagon Pagoda, maybe Shin Sawbu can be the leader (despite the fact she was Mon)
7. Kulin/Noongar/Yolngu/or Murri-to fill out Australia, might be hard to find speakers for the languages though
8. Philippines-I'm more interested in the pre-Spanish culture
9. Benin Kingdom-to represent Nigerian cultures, this is the best choice (other than maybe the Hausa)
10. Shawnee-has a strong leader in Tecumseh, can represent the Eastern Woodlands instead of the Iroquois

 

[Zaarin]

I wouldn't like Gauls either as they territorially overlap with France and aren't that distinctive), if anything connected to Celts had to appear in game I'd even prefer small Ireland over absurd 'celts' amalgamate.

You really think the cultural achievements of Ireland are more significant than the people who populated the majority of pre-Roman Western and Central Europe, with colonies in Asia Minor and northern Italy? No, politically they were not one people, but culturally and linguistically they were. They were educated, urbanized, skilled in metallurgy (Roman ironworking techniques were based on Celtic ones), apparently adept poets (it's a shame none of their poetry has survived), with a unique culture. Yes, their territory overlaps with France and Germany, but that would hardly be unique--we've had all three of Greece/Byzantium/Ottomans in the past and I dare say will have at least two of them in the future. While the Gauls were the dominant culture in Northern Europe for a thousand years, the Irish were a center of learning for a few hundred and then became an isolated backwater. (Also, the Gauls are far less prone to ridiculous and ahistorical stereotypes than an Insular Celtic civ would be. If we must have an Insular Celtic civ, I honestly think Brittany would be more interesting than Ireland or Wales--in Medieval France it was a major center of power and of art, along with Aquitaine and Provence--the Île de France really only came to dominate in the Renaissance.)

Per Assyria, I think they were a really cool inclusion in Civ5 (though I'm a little baffled their favored religion was Zoroastrianism, not Eastern Orthodoxy--the Assyrians were never Zoroastrian, but modern Assyrians are almost universally Syriac Orthodox), but I'd rather see Babylon. That said, they could ditch all of Europe and Africa and just fill the game with Ancient Near Eastern and Native American civs as far as I'm concerned.

 

[SMcM]

I agree no single Polynesian nation is especially significant. Hell, all of Polynesia combined is pretty insignificant. But I don't agree they are not interesting. Their cultures are very distinctive

Zulu - pathetic very small state of very primitive tribe that lasted very short before achieving one insignificant victory against (outmanned) British and being promptly completely wiped out by the first competent expeditionary company. Zulu are the worst african "civilization" one can pick even if seeking "anti colonialism" theme (Ethiopia and Ashanti are much more impressive in this regard, as is Kongo). It is also tired cliche civ with the same playstyle in every game (super agressive infsntry!!1) and no innovation regarding its leaders or uniques is possible because it was so small and so short lived. For the love of God don't add Zulu, as recompensation add two more blck civs instead.

You are thinking only of Zulu in the time of Cetshwayo; Shaka's military campaings took place over a fairly large area of land:

Spoiler :

I don't like how overpowered he was in Civ V though; demonstrated very well his reverse colonisation of weaker European Civs. And I would not really mind if Zulu did not appear in Civ V; I actually wouldn't mind seeing Mandela, though he is likely too recent, so I doubt we'll be seeing him any time soon. Also, Shaka is something of a staple of the series, being in the games from the begging, and so in line with the inclusion of Gandhi, Shaka would seem plausible.

5) Huns - what's the difference between them and barbarians? Plus there are many other more nuanced varied or interesting nomad cultures that have depth beyond 'raze'. Plus the idea with their city lists was atrocious and immersion breaking. Plus they are already dead anyway because their entire niche got filled with Scythia.

The difference between Attila's empire and other 'barbarian' nations like vandals, goths, etc., is the scale of his dominion. He was something of a 'barbarian' emperor. As for Scythia; Tomyris is not really suitable as a substitute for Atilla the Hun; she may have beaten a great empire in war, but did not herself rule a kingdom near the scale of the empire of Attila, or engage in conquests the likes of which Attila did. But it is true that her game-play (even if it makes little sense) is akin to what you would expect from a Hunnic Civ, so we could well not see Huns again.

Venice (Italy needs some representation but this one city weirdo was failed experiment).

Except that IRL, Venetian republic ruled a lot more than a single city. Also I feel that the Romans, contrary to whatever you want to think, are just fine as Italian representation; just because modern Italy is not particularly more related to ancient Rome than other European nations biologically, does not mean that it does not suffice as representation- many Italians see the history of Rome as a very significant part in the history of their own nation. Other Europeans who were ruled by the Romans in most cases see them more as foreign invaders.

And as you earlier pointed out when you said we don't need Gauls and France; the territorial overlap is unnecessary.

 

[Xandinho]

I confess I do not care if the Zulus are in or out of the game, but they have always been included since civ1 even with much better options in Africa.
I like Shaka, and I believe he to be the main reason that the Zulus are added to the game since the first edition, where the three first editions had the Zulus occupying a place that could be of Ethiopia (which is much more worthy to be in the game than the Zulus, in my opinion).
I have no doubt that we will see the Zulus in civ6, I will not to complain by having them, afterall the Zulus is a form of representation of modern South Africa, and Shaka is an interesting leader. However, I must admit that there are better options, such as Benin, Ashanti, Ghana, Mali...
Kongo is also a better option than Zulus, I am very happy to see them in civ6.

 

[UnknownHuman]

New Civilisations

1. Nubia – A rich and ancient history, and my personal favourite.
2. Tibet – A powerful Asian empire and could bring interesting mechanics.
3. Georgia – So far Caucasus civilisations are overlooked, Georgia would probably be the best one to represent them, at least the christian ones.
4. Gran Colombia – If you want to go away from Spanish colonies and from pre-Columbian civilisations it’s probably the best choice.
5. Akkad – A powerful Mesopotamian empire.
6. Mutapa – An influential and powerful African kingdom.
7. Picts – A good alternative to the Celts or Scotland.
8. Aboriginal Australians – It could be a good choice to represent an Oceanian civilisation + aboriginal deserve some recognition.
9. Finland – A European modern state, with the possibility to have interesting diplomatic mechanics if they choose Urho Kekkonen as leader.
10. Franks – An overlooked part of France history which deserve its own civilisation.

Old Civilisations with a Twist.

1. Persia – Under the Sasanian Empire.
2. Siam – Under the Chakri dynasty, so a more modern approach compared to 13th century Ramkhamhaeng.
3. Portugal – Without nutjob Maria, but instead Afonso V, John II, John V, or anyone really.
4. Morocco – Under the Alaouite dynasty.
5. Ethiopia – Becomes the Kingdom of Aksum.

 

[Zaarin]

5. Akkad – A powerful Mesopotamian empire.

Akkad is generally regarded as an early period of the continuity of civilizations that comprise Babylon/Assyria. Including it on its own would be a little odd, and including it alongside Babylon and/or Assyria would just be Balkanization.

7. Picts – A good alternative to the Celts or Scotland.

We don't know for certain that the Picts were Celtic, or even that they were Indo-European. Popular etymology connects their name to either Latin for "painted people" or to Brythonic "Pritani," but that also is not known for certain. We do have a king list to draw leaders from, but we know virtually nothing about their culture or language. Any conceivable representation of the Picts would be based on wild imagination and, most likely, over-the-top stereotypes.

8. Aboriginal Australians – It could be a good choice to represent an Oceanian civilisation + aboriginal deserve some recognition.

...How would that even work? With no disrespect intended to the Aboriginal Australians, they had nothing resembling a civilization in the usual sense--not even compared to the Native Americans.

 

[UnknownHuman]

Akkad is generally regarded as an early period of the continuity of civilizations that comprise Babylon/Assyria. Including it on its own would be a little odd, and including it alongside Babylon and/or Assyria would just be Balkanization.

The Akkadian Empire was the precursor to both of those civilisations but they're still unique on their own way, it also depends on what time period the Assyrian and Babylonian civilisations would be represented if they’re in Civ 6, since the Old Assyrian Empire is significantly different from the Neo-Assyrian Empire, same for Babylon, and this is if they’re in the game, if not Akkad could be an interesting way to represent both of them at the same time.

We don't know for certain that the Picts were Celtic, or even that they were Indo-European. Popular etymology connects their name to either Latin for "painted people" or to Brythonic "Pritani," but that also is not known for certain. We do have a king list to draw leaders from, but we know virtually nothing about their culture or language. Any conceivable representation of the Picts would be based on wild imagination and, most likely, over-the-top stereotypes.

The lack of hard evidence on their Celtic ancestry make them indeed not a good replacement for the “Celtic blob”. However we’ve a king list, some of them come from legends but others come from more serious sources, and we’ve Picts rulers which are pretty much legit, such as Óengus I. We also know enough from their culture and language to rebuild what their civilization could have been like, on that matter this is close to what they did with Scythia, particularly on the language part since they probably mixed up some Iranian languages for Tomyris, for the Picts you could easily borrow most of it from Gaelic.

How would that even work? With no disrespect intended to the Aboriginal Australians, they had nothing resembling a civilization in the usual sense--not even compared to the Native Americans.

Alright, this one is fair enough the lack of tangible structures makes them a bad candidate to be an official civilization, but it’s still a good modding material.