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

[otaman1]

You're right. But they can add Skënderbej as a Great General.

 

[jimkirk]

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?

think queen zenobia to represent palmyra/syria
i would like them to add assyria and israel/judea and the chaldeans

 

[jimkirk]

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...

dunno about georgia .. but what about the tatars or khazars or uzbekhs

 

[IgorS]

What do you think about having "minor civs" in the game? You know, something between "major" civs and city-states. They could have their own leaders (but not animated ones), their own unique units, and their own city lists (but they are only limited to, say, five). I think it could be an interesting concept, especially for civs like Albania. Switzerland, for instance, could benefit a lot from this. Instead of having every Swiss city as a city-state, they could be combined into a Swiss mini-civ, thus making room for other city-states to appear in the game.

 

[Zaarin]

What do you think about having "minor civs" in the game? You know, something between "major" civs and city-states. They could have their own leaders (but not animated ones), their own unique units, and their own city lists (but they are only limited to, say, five). I think it could be an interesting concept, especially for civs like Albania. Switzerland, for instance, could benefit a lot from this. Instead of having every Swiss city as a city-state, they could be combined into a Swiss mini-civ, thus making room for other city-states to appear in the game.

Honestly, isn't that what city-states already represent? If a minor civ has five cities, they're already going to be larger than some real civs in the game, so how does this distinguish them from major civs? I think the current system works fine as it is.

 

[IgorS]

Honestly, isn't that what city-states already represent? If a minor civ has five cities, they're already going to be larger than some real civs in the game, so how does this distinguish them from major civs? I think the current system works fine as it is.

What would distinguish them is having a leader and a UU, unlike city-states that are just cities.
I'm not saying the current system is bad. I was just thinking that people want so many different civs, maybe the best way to include those would be by making them minor civs that are unplayable, like city-states, but have more to them than city-states. It is just an idea.

 

[Mobfire]

That would mean there's less effort going into making the actual playable civs, which wouldn't be good. If they still had a leader and a UU, all they'd be missing is a civ UA and unique infrastructure. Might as well just make it a full-on playable civ at that point. I'd much rather have 2 well-rounded, interesting and unique playable civs than 3 or 4 civs that you can't even select.

 

[jimkirk]

What do you think about having "minor civs" in the game? You know, something between "major" civs and city-states. They could have their own leaders (but not animated ones), their own unique units, and their own city lists (but they are only limited to, say, five). I think it could be an interesting concept, especially for civs like Albania. Switzerland, for instance, could benefit a lot from this. Instead of having every Swiss city as a city-state, they could be combined into a Swiss mini-civ, thus making room for other city-states to appear in the game.

5 cities would be a major civ .. but an in between might mean the ability for its troops to leave its boundries and get involved in some serious fighting like helping an ally

 

[IgorS]

5 cities would be a major civ .. but an in between might mean the ability for its troops to leave its boundries and get involved in some serious fighting like helping an ally

I say five, because I play on huge maps with 8 civs tops, so all the civs in the game have at least 7 or 8 cities. But, yes, five could be a lot on smaller maps, or more crowded maps, so it should depend.
And, yes, helping an ally would be one thing minor civs could do. Another thing I thought about is if you befriend a minor civ you could use its unique units as mercenaries, or maybe even make this civ part of your empire, like an autonomous province, or something.
Again, this is just an idea, that could perhaps be implemented with a mod, turning city states into those "minor civs".

 

[Moriboe]

My "never again" list would look like the average of the ones before me so I'll skip it.

The new civs:
1. Khazaria: Very interesting case of nomads settling down and in a niche geographic location. Not going to happen in Civ6 due to Sythia though.
2. A Nigerian (sub-) civ: the Edo (Benin empire), Yoruba (Ife, Oyo) or Igbo (Nri, Biafra).
3. Sri Lanka or Myanmar for some hard core Buddhism
4. Any native American civ others suggested
5. Belgium: An experiment uniting two communities at odds. Something Belgium has in common with many African countries. And we already have Congo, so there is the possibility to offend .

 

[CaiusDrewart]

The Civs I would like to go away are mostly the horrible conglomerations of diverse cultures into one very artificial Civ. Lots of Civs do that to some degree, but here are the worst offenders:

1) Native America (yikes!)
2) Polynesia (yikes again!)
3) India (this shouldn't be one Civ)
4) Celts (this is a mess. Boudica with a capital in Edinburgh? Yuck.)

And one Civ that I think doesn't fit the model of what a civilization should be:

5) Huns (if you never built cities and settled down... you probably don't belong in a civilization game)

A few random Civs I would like to see:

1) Mughal Empire (giving Islamic India representation)
2) Mauryan Empire (as the first major Indian empire, and a representation of Buddhist India)
3) Chola (giving southern India and Hinduism representation)
4) Seleucid Empire (a really interesting mix of Greek and Persian elements. Seleucus I or Antiochus III as leader)
5) Some sort of ancient Israelite civ (too important to world history not to include, imo)
6) Hungary
7) Arverni under Vercingetorix (replacing the Celtic civ. If you wanted to keep Boudica an Iceni civ would be OK.)
8) Cherokee
9) Argentina
10) Haiti

 

[Guandao]

The Civs I would like to go away are mostly the horrible conglomerations of diverse cultures into one very artificial Civ. Lots of Civs do that to some degree, but here are the worst offenders:

1) Native America (yikes!)
2) Polynesia (yikes again!)
3) India (this shouldn't be one Civ)
4) Celts (this is a mess. Boudica with a capital in Edinburgh? Yuck.)

And one Civ that I think doesn't fit the model of what a civilization should be:

5) Huns (if you never built cities and settled down... you probably don't belong in a civilization game)

A few random Civs I would like to see:

1) Mughal Empire (giving Islamic India representation)
2) Mauryan Empire (as the first major Indian empire, and a representation of Buddhist India)
3) Chola (giving southern India and Hinduism representation)
4) Seleucid Empire (a really interesting mix of Greek and Persian elements. Seleucus I or Antiochus III as leader)
5) Some sort of ancient Israelite civ (too important to world history not to include, imo)
6) Hungary
7) Arverni under Vercingetorix (replacing the Celtic civ. If you wanted to keep Boudica an Iceni civ would be OK.)
8) Cherokee
9) Argentina
10) Haiti

I think Gauls would be a better name for the Arverni civ. People would scratch their heads if they heard that the Arverni civ is in Civ6.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

I think Gauls would be a better name for the Arverni civ. People would scratch their heads if they heard that the Arverni civ is in Civ6.

"Gauls" would at least be a step up from Celts. I'd be OK with that.