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

[Zaarin]

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.

If the Picts were Celtic, they were almost certainly P-Celtic, so having the Picts speak Scottish Gaelic (not even closely related to Pictish, even if Pictish is Celtic) is very different from having Tomyris speak Ossetian (a direct descendant of the Scythian language). Old Welsh might be closer, but that's still speculation. If we're going to see civs we know next to nothing about, I'd personally rather see an Aegean civilization like the Minoans or Etruscans. (We know more than "next to nothing" about the Etruscans, but our limited knowledge of the Etruscan language would still make writing dialogue difficult, and the Etruscans weren't exactly overflowing with standout leaders...)

 

[Krajzen]

There is this civiliation of Cahokia (also known as or related to "Missisipi civiliation" or Mound Builders), iirc furthest northern urban settlement in North America, are any of their leaders known?

They could be very fresh NA civilization, more urbanized than any of the "popular" tribes.

 

[Zaarin]

There is this civiliation of Cahokia (also known as or related to "Missisipi civiliation" or Mound Builders), iirc furthest northern urban settlement in North America, are any of their leaders known?

They could be very fresh NA civilization, more urbanized than any of the "popular" tribes.

We have some leader names or titles--Great Sun, Lady of Cafitachequi--from De Soto's voyage through the region, but they presided over the decline of the civilization. The Mound Builders were already on their way out from social and ecological pressure by the time the Spanish arrived in the New World, and by the time the second round of Spanish explorers passed through about a hundred years later they were gone entirely. The Spanish destroyed quite a few civilizations, but most historians agree this particular collapse wasn't their fault. So, yes, we know some leader names and have a selection of languages they could speak (Natchez, Chickasaw, Caddo), but we don't know the names of any leaders who presided over them at their height* or who had any notable accomplishments or even interesting personalities--especially since everything we know about them comes through the certainly-not-biased lens of Hernando De Soto. We also only know a handful of native city names: Natchez, Chickasaw, Cafitachequi; most have English- or Spanish-language names and are simply archaeological sites. (Most of the Native Americans of the Southeast are confederations of the populations of the collapsed Mississippians, including the Natchez, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, Tunica, Caddo, Mobile, Yuchi, Appaloosa, Appalachee, and probably the Cherokee. The Powhatans and other paramount-chiefdoms in the region might be a late outlying survival of this broad culture zone.)

*Beyond the fact that leader names/titles (there probably wasn't a difference) seem to be inherited and often identical to the name of the people they led: cf. Powhatan of the Powhatans.

 

[Mobfire]

If I was in charge of making a Mississippian civ for Civ 6, I would probably chose Red Horn as it's leader. He's a Pre-Columbian mythic figure, but there's plenty of oral tradition that can be used to give him a personality and a leader ability. He is also depicted in a lot of Mississippian art.

And yes, it would probably be better to call the civ Mississippian instead of Cahokia. While the Mississippians were never really united they shared culture, traditions, often language etc. with each other, much like the Mayans. Calling it Mississippian would allow for a better city list and representation of the civilization as a whole instead of just it's greatest city.

Anyways, my list:
1. Zulus
2. Native Americans
3. Vikings
4. Celts
5. Huns

1. Vietnam
2. Haida
3. Mississippians
4. Muisca
5. Kilwa
6. Hungary
7. Anasazi
8. Zimbabwe
9. Maori
10. Mapuche

 

[Zaarin]

While the Mississippians were never really united they shared...language

Actually, they didn't. They spoke many languages: Caddoan, Siouan, Algonquian, Muskogean, Iroquoian, isolates like Natchez, Timucua, Appalachee, etc. Some we have know way of knowing what language they spoke. The Mississippians were a culture zone, not a unified culture.

 

[Mobfire]

I didn't really mean it in the way that the all had a common language. It was just a general statement to say that the individual cities had many things in common with each other, often including language. Anyways, edited my original post to make that more clear.

 

[Zaarin]

I didn't really mean it in the way that the all had a common language. It was just a general statement to say that the individual cities had many things in common with each other, often including language. Anyways, edited my original post to make that more clear.

Fair enough. The heart of Mississippian culture could be said to speak either a Caddoan or Muskogean language (or Natchez-Muskogean, if we accept that Natchez is related to the Muskogean languages, which appears probable but remains to be demonstrated). In some ways, I'm not sure a Mississippian civ is quite appropriate--tantamount to a "Mesopotamian" civ, for example--but on the other hand we don't know enough about any individual Mississippian civilization out of which to make a civ. On the whole, I'd personally prefer to see one of the Mississippian successor civilizations: the Creek Confederacy or the Choctaw or the Chickasaw, for example. I'd also really like to see Natchez as a city-state.

 

[Nikae]

The problem is the 10 'never before' civs. Adding 10 would include some really dubious and ridiculous choices. Many posts before me suggested subgroups of subregions with 100 years of history in isolation on the edge of the known world, what is the point? City states could represent most of them, especially with their new unique bonuses) and it would not feel like putting the insanely interesting Tuptakmok state to the same level as China or Egypt...

No offense, but modding is there for a reason.

Anyway, for new ones:
1. Nubia
2. Hungary
3. Argentina
4. Vietnam
5. Georgia
6. Israel

Maybe ones:
1. Australia or Canada
2. Finland
3. Bulgaria
4. Belgium

Never again ones:
1. Huns
2. Shoshone
3. HRE

People hated Austria mostly because of the UA, and not because it overlaps with Germany. We know almost nothing about the huns that is not speculation or deduction. HRE is part of the civilization history of Germany. Some blobs have the right to stay, for example Indonesia, as they at least are recognizable the way they are in the game, reading the civilopedia page is enough for most included subgroups.

Including the Shoshone is like including every large tribe ever having existed on the face of Earth, plus they were extremely dull. I admit, it is right to include native Americans from the north, but the new leader system would be perfect for it, bringing something new and unique with each leader. Same about the Celts.

Also, no matter what anyone says, there will always be people who think India or Germany should be split into all the included ethnic groups. This is a game, and not an encyclopedia of history...

 

[Inawordyes]

Probably I would go with:

Newbies:
1. Vietnam (under the Trung Sisters)
2. Burma/Myanmar (specifically Pagan, under Anawrahta)
3. Madagascar (specifically Merina, under Ranavalona I)
4. Ghana (under Yaa Asantewaa)
5. Armenia (under Tigranes II)
6. Illyria (under Teuta)
7. Timurids (under Timur)
8. Argentina (under Eva Peron)
9. Cherokee (under Dragging Canoe)
10. Salish (under Chief Seattle)

Which gives 2 for SEA, 2 for Africa, 2 for the Classical Era (in Illyria and Armenia), 1 for Central Asia, 1 for South America, and 2 for North America. If Armenia is, unfortunately, likely to never be a possibility due to the potential for controversy, then of course swap it out for Georgia (under Tamar), and then you get 1 for Europe and 1 for the Caucasus (Illyria and Georgia, respectively).

Not again:
1. HRE - There's too much overlap with Germany and Austria.
2. Native Americans - This is one blob that should have never been made.
3. Vikings - The "Vikings" were actually just what they called Norse seafarers. They weren't a civilization in their own right - that title would go the Norse, or to any of the Scandinavian countries outside of a conglomerate. It's nitpicky, but it counts!
4. Huns - They were nomadic conquerors who weren't really settled anywhere, and while they got in on the merits of Atilla, giving them random cities from other namelists was a silly way to bypass the fact that they didn't really have settled cities of their own. They can't be considered a "civilization" in that sense.
5. Shoshone - A last-minute replacement for the Pueblo. Their bonus was cool, but they didn't really do anything worth including them.

 

[Zaarin]

5. Shoshone - A last-minute replacement for the Pueblo. Their bonus was cool, but they didn't really do anything worth including them.

Well, the Shoshone were a transparent stand-in for the Comanche (no idea why they didn't call them the Comanche in the first place), who were certainly worthy of inclusion, having run a significant empire in the Southwest. I agree that they're best left to a one-off inclusion (though the presence of Brazil and Poland in Civ6 suggests Ed really likes some of his ideas...), but they were definitely worthy of inclusion once.

 

[Xandinho]

Well, the Shoshone were a transparent stand-in for the Comanche (no idea why they didn't call them the Comanche in the first place), who were certainly worthy of inclusion, having run a significant empire in the Southwest. I agree that they're best left to a one-off inclusion (though the presence of Brazil and Poland in Civ6 suggests Ed really likes some of his ideas...), but they were definitely worthy of inclusion once.

Instead of Shoshone, they could have included Inuits or a native Indigenous tribe in South America.

 

[altayrneto]

Not again:
1. Native Americans (I don't care too much with blobs, but this one is too hard to accept...)
2. HRE (Just one germany is enough)
3. Zulu (I dont like pure militaristic civilizations like this one. And if we must to have one, please chose another just for the sake of variety...)
4. Huns (Mostly by the same reason above, but is a little better because they tried something different than Shaka...)
5. Celts (As said before, I don't care with blobs, but I care about age consistency - It's strange to play with a leader and a ability from the Roman age, while the city's name, achitecture and prefered religion are medieval ones... Some remodeling would be welcome for this civ)

New Ones:

1. Nubia
2. Vietnan
3. Hungary
4. Ilyria
5. Palmyra/Syria
6. Kilwa
7. Nabateans
8. Gran Colombia
9. Wallachia
10. Georgia with Tamar!

 

[IgorS]

Also, no matter what anyone says, there will always be people who think India or Germany should be split into all the included ethnic groups. This is a game, and not an encyclopedia of history...

I agree with much of what you said, but especially with this. Some people treat civs in the game as though they represent certain periods in history, while this is absolutely wrong. Civs in the game represent the entire history of the nation, not just a certain time period. It is not like France in Civ V represented the Napoleonic Empire, or Germany represented the Second Reich. I am also against splitting India, China, Germany, Indonesia etc, because a civilization is not a political entity, but the nation itself, even when talking about the USA and Brazil. This is why I hated it when they included the HRE, this is why I don't want them to include the Timurids, this is why I hate it that they call the Turks Ottomans. Having said that, I am also against the so-called "blob civs" such as the Celts and the Polynesians.

 

[Inawordyes]

Instead of Shoshone, they could have included Inuits or a native Indigenous tribe in South America.

The Shoshone weren't bad choices, it's just that they were kind of random haha. It's likely that Pocatello was the lynchpin to including them because his model mirrored the Popay concept art in terms of likeness. They probably had already started to model Popay by the time they learned they couldn't use him or the Pueblo as a civ.

By just looking at pictures of other chieftains and comparing them to both of the above, I definitely think that if they just added a headpiece you could've gotten Sitting Bull or Seattle out of the same civ, with the Sioux and the Salish both having more to merit their inclusion. But we're about 3 years too late for potential hindsight!

 

[Krajzen]

I agree with much of what you said, but especially with this. Some people treat civs in the game as though they represent certain periods in history, while this is absolutely wrong. Civs in the game represent the entire history of the nation, not just a certain time period. It is not like France in Civ V represented the Napoleonic Empire, or Germany represented the Second Reich. I am also against splitting India, China, Germany, Indonesia etc, because a civilization is not a political entity, but the nation itself, even when talking about the USA and Brazil. This is why I hated it when they included the HRE, this is why I don't want them to include the Timurids, this is why I hate it that they call the Turks Ottomans. Having said that, I am also against the so-called "blob civs" such as the Celts and the Polynesians.

While I understand you and partially agree, I also partially disagree, for the simple reason:
Germans are a singular ethnicity which always had close language, identity, mostly being confined to one (HRE, kind of confederation) or few (culturally close) states
Americans are not a singular ethnicity but a singular identity, "civilisation", culture

India not only doesn't have but never had any singular ethnic group, language, culture, or sort of "national identity" similar to those. It has always been a subcontinent of enormous population and enormous number of big and small ethnic groups, huge variations between skin color, religions, languages, and even religion groups (muslim, dharmic, buddhist, animist) and language groups. India has always been divided between various states or regional empires. Across 3000 years of Indian history it was never unified before 1947 (well, it is not unified now, to be exact with Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan being independent), across 3000 years of Indian history there was never a "confederation of Indian states" and only three empires ever before 1947 managed to unite most of (Most of! Not "the entire) subcontinent - Maurya (for few decades), Mughals (for few decades and as outside conquerors, not indigenous people) and Delhi (two decades and also not exactly indigenous).

Before modern nationalism and independence there never was an idea of "Indian state" because "India" is as big and with far bigger variation than the entire Western and Central Europe. Differences between southern Dravidan states and northern Hindustani states were far bigger than differences between Germany and Austria - yet we get separate German and Austrian civs in civ series but not separate Indian civilisations.

Regional differences between Indian regions are so big that carving few separate civilisations from it isn't any more far fetched than naming each separate European country a "civilisation". Differences between Punjab, Bengal, Gujarat and far South are as big as differences between many European countries.

That's not to even mention how different identity Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus have, and how different outside empire (Mughals, Kushans) were culturally from Hindu states like Vijayanagar.

To sum up, yes, I think that idea to make few separate civilisations from India is very legit, because India is not like (ten times smaller) Germany or <input European nation>. In fact your very use of term "nation" for India is rather inappropriate. India is not a nation, it's more like confederation of ethnic groups connected by history and some genetic/cultural/religious identity.

>then why India unified for independence
It didn't - Sri Lanka, Nepal, Pakistan and Bangladesh went into separate ways, Hyderabad initially wanted to be independentand got forcibly annexed, Punjab and Kashmir were separate complicated issues and there were other regions unsure of Indian union. As for the rest, I don't know, but I also have no idea how would European nationalism develop if countries from preindustrial (or even feudal) era got thrown into 200-years long industrial colonialist era.

That's speaking about relatively modern India, because historical states of Muslim sultanates, Kushans, Maurya, Harappa etc etc were so wildly diverse it'd be crazy to not consider them separate civilisations.


tl;dr Smaller civilisations carved from Indian subcontinent's history are entirely legit idea, because India isn't similar to European nation at all.

------------
On top of that I wanted to say that various people from various "interpretations of civ series" fall into the fallacy of seeing far more regularity and sense in the way civs are created by devs than there is IRL. What I'm trying to say, it's popular video game that can't be even called 'historical' (more 'inspired by history' or 'with historical elements') and devs are adding whatever playable factions they want if they a) existed b) seem to be interesting c) would be fun to play. There is no deep philosophy behind this, not strict rules of what constitutes a civilisation and what "civilisation" means, and that's fine because very few people care about that. Some "civilisations" are based on the modern nations and their history since medieval ages (European nations), some are based on modern conglomerates (India) and consist of many sub-civilisations mixed together, some civs are not based on nations but political entities, other are based not on political entities but dynasties, other are based not even on dynasties but cultural or ethnic relations... And this will happen in the future for the simple reason: deep social science discussions "what is civilisation, what is state, what is nation, what is culture" are too complicated, messed up, unclear and controversial to be worth caring about them while creating popular video game.

Ultimately, civilisation in civ series is "historical society" and devs are going to put anything that fits this very open concept - they may divide India on 10 civs, put is next to the united India, particular German city states of HRE era, Islamic dynasties, Canada and Maori confederation, and they will do that because that's fun.

 

[otaman1]

Reminds me of Native Americans in Civ IV

 

[Guandao]

For those suggesting Illyria as a civ, what language would the leader speak? Illyrian is barely attested. Maybe its possible descendant Albanian?

 

[Zaarin]

For those suggesting Illyria as a civ, what language would the leader speak? Illyrian is barely attested. Maybe its possible descendant Albanian?

It is extremely dubious that Illyrian is the ancestor of Albanian, and it becomes more dubious for those linguists who assume, based on Greek commentators, that Illyrian and Massapian were related. Based on how little we know of Illyrian, an Illyrian civ would most likely have to speak Greek or Latin (since Illyria was ultimately Latinized) or Albanian based simply on geography--all of them poor options.

 

[otaman1]

Or just add Albania

 

[Zaarin]

Honestly, I can't think of anything interesting an Albanian civ could bring to the table except for the second weirdest Indo-European language after Armenian.