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

[Zaarin]

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.

This. 100% this. Chances are that any Native American civilization (unless it's the Iroquois Confederacy or the Muscogee Confederacy) is going to be politically disparate--and even the Iroquois and Muscogee are linguistically and (to some extent) culturally disparate. To then lump them further is absolute insanity.

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.

I'm a big fan of Barbarossa, but I would have been delighted with Frederick II of Prussia or Frederick II of the HRE and Sicily, too (and if the devs don't object to multiple Fredericks or multiple Medieval German rulers, I'd welcome either as a second leader). Bismarck is one of my favorite individuals in history, but I don't mind seeing him take a break--while brilliant, I don't think he would have fit well for the "big personality" theme Civ6 has going: any of the three Fredericks are a better choice in that regard. Plus seeing Medieval Germany represented is a welcome change. If we get into third leaders for civs, I wouldn't object to seeing his rival Louis-Napoleon for France, though (but I'd rather see Louis XIV or a Medieval king like Louis IX or Philip II Augustus before we get to Napoleon III).

 

[SMcM]

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.

I realise Tamerlane was not an Uzbek. But, the Khanate of Bukhara is too small to warrant being in the game in my opinion; therefore I was wondering if the suggestion of Uzbekistan was actually referring to Tamerlane, an interesting leader of a significantly more major empire. I feel like either Tamerlane leads Uzbekistan (as that was the core of his Islamic empire), or he leads the Timurids, and Uzbekistan is not in the game- this would probably make more sense. What would not make sense I feel would be the inclusion of a leader like Shaybani Khan, with Tamerlane not being in the game. I'm sure someone will want to point out that being significant does not make someone the best choice, but what makes Tamerkane less interesting?

Tamerlane leading Uzbekistan would not be without precededant; Gajah Mada ruled Indonesia in Civ V, in spite of Indonesia not yet existing.

As for the Polynesia thing; no I don't think all Polynesian islands should be represented in the game. But neither do I think being related is a good reason to merge multiple Civs. I think, in a way similar to North America in Civ V, one native Polynesian Kingdom should be in the game to represent the pre-colonial history of that region- blob Civs are ugly and unimmersive. I hated the Civ V Celts and Polynesians. Or they could just include Australia this time; this would seem in line the inclusion of Brazil as opposed to an indigenous South American culture.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

Like I said in my first post, I totally get why people don't like it. I just personally don't care. In my mind it just seems like an odd thing to get ruffled over so I don't.

I do hope that future Celt blobs at the very least include a little more continental flair. The Gauls need representation too. The way its been done in the past feels more like an attempt to placate Scottish, Welsh and Irish players while ignoring a huge group of Celts.

 

[Zaarin]

Like I said in my first post, I totally get why people don't like it. I just personally don't care. In my mind it just seems like an odd thing to get ruffled over so I don't.

I do hope that future Celt blobs at the very least include a little more continental flair. The Gauls need representation too. The way its been done in the past feels more like an attempt to placate Scottish, Welsh and Irish players while ignoring a huge group of Celts.

Frankly, the real Celts. The Insular Celts weren't associated with or called Celts until the 18th century; the Keltoi (or Galli, in Latin) were the Gauls and Celtiberians. Not even the Britons (Pritani) were called Celts by the Romans, even though their language seems to have closely resembled Gaulish.

 

[Lord Lakely]

In no order:

1. Bulgaria
2. Hungary
3. Kilwa
4. The Sioux
5. Parthia
6. Judea
7. Nubia
8. Tibet
9. Manchuria
10. Belgium (mostly because I live there but: they could have abilities centered around colonization, overseas trade, settling near rivers, state reforms, tourism or building alliances with stronger powers and it would all be viable/in concordance with Belgian history. Plenty of possibility to make an interesting civ for the peaceful player)

Not doing the "Civs you don't want to see thing" because I don't really care that much about historical accuracy - as long as the Civ is fun to play with, and -different- enough, I'm happy

I will however note that I would love to see different varieties of already existing Civs: Merovingian or Carolean France, Prussia, the Soviet Union, the Abbassid and Almohad Caliphates, The Mughals, The Timurids, Turkey under Atatürk, etc.

 

[ViterboKnight]

Out:
Holy Roman Empire
Native America
Huns

In:
Phoenicians
Nubians
Apaches



To reply other poster's comments:
I like Zulus, they have become iconic with the Civ series. A Civ game wouldn't be the same without good old Shaka, been in Civ since Civ1. Keep him, please!!

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

Belgium (mostly because I live there but: they could have abilities centered around colonization, overseas trade, settling near rivers, state reforms, tourism or building alliances with stronger powers and it would all be viable/in concordance with Belgian history. Plenty of possibility to make an interesting civ for the peaceful player)

Belgium might be cool. I usually avoid suggesting them since it will usually attract the cranky "Eurocentrism" fist shakers but I'd be pretty pleased to see them.

They could even do an industrial revolution centered UA since Belgium was right at the forefront with Britain and Germany. Also since I'm a big beer geek I'd love a Trappist brewery UB.

 

[SMcM]

In my mind it just seems like an odd thing to get ruffled over so I don't.

Well, I don't think its odd. I just find these blob Civs really un-immersive; something I really like about the Civilization series is competing with real historical nations. Fictional empires like the 'Polynesian empire' bug me therefore. It doesn't completely ruin my enjoyment of the game, but is annoying enough that I've deactivated Boudica from being in my games.

Fictional empires seem out of place. For me, its a little like AK-47s being an available weapon in Skyrim would feel like; sure they could be fun to use, but I wouldn't find it worth it when it completely ruined immersion. And, yeah, I realise Civ games aren't meant to be immersive in that way, but I like them to feel immersive at least to some extent.

 

[IgorS]

Well, I don't think its odd. I just find these blob Civs really un-immersive; something I really like about the Civilization series is competing with real historical nations. Fictional empires like the 'Polynesian empire' bug me therefore. It doesn't completely ruin my enjoyment of the game, but is annoying enough that I've deactivated Boudica from being in my games.

Why deactivate if you can download mods that make Kamehameha lead Hawaii and Boudicca lead the Iceni/Britons.

 

[Zaarin]

For me, its a little like AK-47s being an available weapon in Skyrim would feel like; sure they could be fun to use, but I wouldn't find it worth it when it completely ruined immersion.

There's immersion in Skyrim? I find it difficult immerse in a puddle.

 

[AliasMittens]

Never Again
1. Native Americans - No ignorant aggregates of vastly different cultures, please. Include multiple, different Native American civs instead.
2. Celts - See above. Split into Gauls (Continental Celts) and maybe an Insular Celtic civ (Britons/Wales, or Ireland).
3. Huns - A lame choice all around. Scythia is a much better fit for this niche.
4. Austria - Too much Europe, too much Hapsburg.
5. Holy Roman Empire - See above.

Fresh Meat
1. Georgia - All Hail King Tamar!
2. Tamils - separate from India (which I think should be split into anywhere from 3-6 civs).
3. Bulgaria - (Or Serbia, or Hungary; something from the medieval Balkans/Pannonia at any rate).
4. Cherokee - (Or Seminole, or both!)
5. Nubia - It's overdue, imho.
6. Kushans - Or something else based in Afghanistan.
7. Asanteman - Fill out West Africa!
8. Kilwa/Swahili - Fill out East Africa!
9. Mapuche - More South American natives!
10. Haiti - Adds something to the Caribbean, lots of cool things could be done with it.

Bonus 1: One-Off Civs I Want Back
1. Hittites <3
2. Mali
3. Morocco
4. Khmer - (or Siam)
5. Indonesia
6. *Polynesia - Not aggregated "Polynesia", but rather Hawaii, Maori, or another more specifically localized Polynesian culture.
7. *Vikings - I'd actually rather have an aggregate Old Norse/Viking Civ than have Scandinavia occupied by 2+ civs...

Bonus 2: Never Under Any Circumstances
1. Australia - Cry me a river... I'd be down for an Aboriginal group like the Nyoongar or the Gunditjmara though.
2. Belgium - Brussels can be a city state... That I will go out of my way to conquer whenever I play as Kongo.
3. Gran Colombia - I'd rather a local indigenous Civ like the Muisca.
4. Canada - And I'm Canadian... Again, better to include more indigenous civs. Replace "Canada" with Haida (or Tlingit) and Anishinaabe (or Cree).
5. South Africa/Boers - I'd rather have the Zulus back, supplemented by Great Zimbabwe so that Southern Africa has more competition.

 

[Zaarin]

Bonus 2: Never Under Any Circumstances
1. Australia - Cry me a river... I'd be down for an Aboriginal group like the Nyoongar or the Gunditjmara though.
2. Belgium - Brussels can be a city state... That I will go out of my way to conquer whenever I play as Kongo.
3. Gran Colombia - I'd rather a local indigenous Civ like the Muisca.
4. Canada - And I'm Canadian... Again, better to include more indigenous civs. Replace "Canada" with Haida (or Tlingit) and Anishinaabe (or Cree).
5. South Africa/Boers - I'd rather have the Zulus back, supplemented by Great Zimbabwe so that Southern Africa has more competition.

I'm Zaarin and I endorse this list.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

Old civs I DON'T want:
1. Holy Roman Empire
2. Native Americans
3. Vikings
4. India
5. The Zulu

HRE had more in common with the EU, than any of the other civs, which are supposed to represent nation-states. 2-4 are civs which I consider too wide to be grouped into one respective. The significance of the Zulu Kingdom is dwarfed in comparison to the Mutapa Kingdom.

New civs I DO want:
1. Bulgaria (ZADADE SE OBLÅK TEMEN!)
2. Punjab
3. Tamils
4. Bengal
5. Mutapa
6. Asanteman
7. Dahomey
8. Mbundu (Nzinga!)
9. Vietnam
10. Cherokee

 

[SMcM]

Never Again
1. Native Americans - No ignorant aggregates of vastly different cultures, please. Include multiple, different Native American civs instead.
2. Celts - See above. Split into Gauls (Continental Celts) and maybe an Insular Celtic civ (Britons/Wales, or Ireland).
3. Huns - A lame choice all around. Scythia is a much better fit for this niche.
4. Austria - Too much Europe, too much Hapsburg.
5. Holy Roman Empire - See above.

Fresh Meat
1. Georgia - All Hail King Tamar!
2. Tamils - separate from India (which I think should be split into anywhere from 3-6 civs).
3. Bulgaria - (Or Serbia, or Hungary; something from the medieval Balkans/Pannonia at any rate).
4. Cherokee - (Or Seminole, or both!)
5. Nubia - It's overdue, imho.
6. Kushans - Or something else based in Afghanistan.
7. Asanteman - Fill out West Africa!
8. Kilwa/Swahili - Fill out East Africa!
9. Mapuche - More South American natives!
10. Haiti - Adds something to the Caribbean, lots of cool things could be done with it.

Bonus 1: One-Off Civs I Want Back
1. Hittites <3
2. Mali
3. Morocco
4. Khmer - (or Siam)
5. Indonesia
6. *Polynesia - Not aggregated "Polynesia", but rather Hawaii, Maori, or another more specifically localized Polynesian culture.
7. *Vikings - I'd actually rather have an aggregate Old Norse/Viking Civ than have Scandinavia occupied by 2+ civs...

Bonus 2: Never Under Any Circumstances
1. Australia - Cry me a river... I'd be down for an Aboriginal group like the Nyoongar or the Gunditjmara though.
2. Belgium - Brussels can be a city state... That I will go out of my way to conquer whenever I play as Kongo.
3. Gran Colombia - I'd rather a local indigenous Civ like the Muisca.
4. Canada - And I'm Canadian... Again, better to include more indigenous civs. Replace "Canada" with Haida (or Tlingit) and Anishinaabe (or Cree).
5. South Africa/Boers - I'd rather have the Zulus back, supplemented by Great Zimbabwe so that Southern Africa has more competition.

I think the obsession on these forums with splitting India is weird. Splitting China would make a lot more sense; Tibet and Xinjiang/East Turkestan are to this day distinct nations, and due to 20th century conflicts and the Dalai Lama, Tibet is a well known entity, more so than any previous Indian states. China is also a far larger video game market, so adding extra Chinese Civs like Manhuria would seem to be far more viable than adding extra Indian Civs. Splitting India would not make sense commercially I would imagine; it may be a big country, but it's video game industry is very small considering that due to poverty.

They could add another novelty Indian Civ; Kanishka leading the Kushan empire or Raja Raja leading the Chola for example, but more than that they would seem to be overdoing it. And Mughals should not be another Civ I feel, as those went on to rule pretty much all of India, so Mughal leaders would make more sense as alternative leaders for Gandhi's Civ. As would Maurya rulers and Delhi sultanate rulers. Maybe India could have a few leaders.

Why deactivate if you can download mods that make Kamehameha lead Hawaii and Boudicca lead the Iceni/Britons.

Yes, but sometimes I want to play the game un-modded. Also, I would not find Boudicca leading the Britons an improvement; that is no more an accurate description of the area she held influence over.

There's immersion in Skyrim? I find it difficult immerse in a puddle.

What do you mean by that? That the game is a mess? That it is dreary? Well, I don't really agree in either case (haven't played in a while, but most of the major glitches were gone several years ago, and if you think it is boring, I suppose it just isn't really your type of game).

 

[AliasMittens]

I think the obsession on these forums with splitting India is weird. Splitting China would make a lot more sense; Tibet and Xinjiang/East Turkestan are to this day distinct nations, and due to 20th century conflicts and the Dalai Lama, Tibet is a well known entity, more so than any previous Indian states. China is also a far larger video game market, so adding extra Chinese Civs like Manhuria would seem to be far more viable than adding extra Indian Civs. Splitting India would not make sense commercially I would imagine; it may be a big country, but it's video game industry is very small considering that due to poverty.

I'd be so down with Tibetan, Uyghur, and Jurchen/Manchu civilizations (plus a few historical Tocharian city states), but that would never fly in China - the PRoC and RoC governments don't event recognize each other, they (especially the former) would not accept the notion that those regions could ever be independent from China.

Also, China has a long history of being a single state. The idea of "India" as a monolithic entity is a very recent phenomenon and a largely Western idea. Splitting India just makes more sense from a cultural and historical perspective.

If I were to split India, I would do it like this:
India - specifically representing North India/the empires of the Indo-Gangetic plain. It would have multiple leaders, representing the Mauryan, Mughal, and Maratha Empires (so basically Ashoka, Akbar, and Shivaji), and possibly also the modern Republic (so Nehru as a DLC leader, though we would probably get Gandhi ). Focused on Faith and a "wide" playstyle.
Tamils - Representing the Chola/Pandyan dynasties. Focused on culture and maritime trade/naval combat.
Karnataka - Representing the Deccan states - the Hoysala/Vijayanagara Empires, maybe third leader representing Mysore or Hyderabad. Focused on culture and city-state interactions.
Punjab - Representing the Sikh Empire - focused on Faith and War.

And MAYBE...
Bengal
Nepal
Kushans - Though these guys could easily be counted as a Civ distinct from India.

City states would fill important gaps like Kerala, Odisha, Gujarat, Lanka, etc.

 

[Zaarin]

What do you mean by that? That the game is a mess? That it is dreary? Well, I don't really agree in either case (haven't played in a while, but most of the major glitches were gone several years ago, and if you think it is boring, I suppose it just isn't really your type of game).

Mostly I mean that I've read picture books with deeper stories, deeper lore, and more complex characters.

As for splitting up India, I somewhat concur: at least in the sense that I think multiple Indian rulers would be a better solution that multiple Indian civs.

 

[DudewiththeFood]

Out:
Native Americans
Holy Roman Empire
Celts (Scotland/Gauls/Whatever would be fine)
Brazil
Vikings (Norse/Denmark would be fine)

In:
Seljuks - Massively overlooked by history in favour of the Ottoman dynasty
Armenia - In terms of importance/significance is comparable to Ethiopia but is unfortunately located in the crowded Middle East
Georgia - Tamar
Saxons - Distinct culture and focus from England
Dacia - Fairly civilized as far as barbarians went and I'd like to see an official take on them
Chola - Split India and navy/religion focus would be new
Apache - My favourite American tribe since M2TW
Frankia - European dark ages are overlooked in favour of colonial empires but arguably Frankia deserves its own place in Civ
Garamantia - They had an empire in the Sahara desert. That's different
Wales - Personal interest

 

[IgorS]

Armenia - In terms of importance/significance is comparable to Ethiopia but is unfortunately located in the crowded Middle East

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

 

[Zaarin]

Dacia - Fairly civilized as far as barbarians went and I'd like to see an official take on them

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.

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

True, but the Caucasus is certainly a satellite zone or arguably even the fringe of the Near East: note that the Armenian's predecessors the Urartians were a province of Assyria and the Armenians themselves were for a very long time a province of Persia. (The "Middle East" is a modern political concept and the Near East is a more useful concept when discussing the region historically.)

 

[Phrozen]

Out:

Native Americans: Huge stupid blob.

Huns: Might as well put the Sea Peoples In

HRE: Germany and/or France covers it fine.

Vikings: Again blobbish and reduces Scandinavia to one period in history.

Celts: You can make a case for a Scot or Irish civ. While neither was the power in an age they do have outstanding cultural influence in the world compared to their actual population size.

In:
Mapuche- Resisted both the Inca and the Spanish.

Cherokee- The known written historical record for the Mound Builders/Mississippian is quite small if existent at all, so one of the "5 civilized tribes" should be a civ.

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.

Vietnam- With Khmer and Siam in Civ4 and Civ5 respectively, it is Vietnam's turn.

Swahili/Kilwa Sultanate- Large East African trading culture made up of city states. Lack of actual written historical record could be a problem.

Hungry- Like Poland, a European county whose power has waxed and waned through out history.

Moche- Pre Incan civilization in northern Peru. Very skilled ceramic workers. Only archaeological record exists so not even names for a leader.