7 New Civs You'd Like to See in Civ7

[Caesar of Bread]

Imo I’m fine with India but would desire a subcontinent civ like the Chola or Mughals to join in next game so that there would be more representation and a more varied civ 7.

 

[Henri Christophe]

my main objection, in the end, comes down to the inexplicably popular choice for Argentina's leader.

I agree with you that Eva Peron should be a poor choice, but Argentina can have another names as Bartolomé Mitre. But I would agree he isn't that special since is just another mainly man of military on power, but it will give space to Argentina appear on the game, since it's a very relevante country of South America.

Thinking just in name of leaders, I would argue Uruguay is more appealing then Argentina because José Artigas, who was a real freedomfighter with a lot of amazing qualitities.

Why Paraguay, out of curiosity?

Paraguay intermix also the Guarani culture and should be made as two civ as one, anchored in the Germany interpretarion in civ who have leaders and units who cross the German unification, I mean... German have abilities of the Ostroghodos times and Panzer tanks.
Why Paraguayans can't have native american abilities, Unique Units and so on? Or vice versa, a Guarani civ with military of Paraguayan war.
By the way, Paraguay was the first country to use air planes in a international war (against Bolivia), and could have theses airplanes as Unique Unit a long side of units of Guarani infantary of XVI sciecle.

Also Paraguay/Guarani civ is essential to do some scenarios of South American.
Maybe a colonization time where Brazil have Bandeirantes and Paraguay/Guarani civ should to protect their Reduciones from Brazilians raids.
Also revive the M'bororé war where the Guarani indeed kick out Bandeirantes from the Silver Mesopothamia.

Other obvious scenario should the war of Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil against Paraguay who is know in Paraguay as Guerra Guazú and was the greatest war untill the first world war.

 

[Foxforch]

Ireland (Celts, Scotland and Gaul got their spotlights, time for another...)
Finland (A rather young nation, but one I believe would be fun to play as)
Malta (Forming a military order and go domination from a tiny island is a funny thought.)
Bohemia (C'mon, man...)
Zimbabwe (I'd much like to pick up a chaotic country in the real world and turn it into the best there is in a simulation)
Navajo (A rather established people today, I'd like to bring them to glory)
Armenia (Georgia had its time, now it's Armenia's turn!)
Hittites (Bring them back, please!)

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Zimbabwe (I'd much like to pick up a chaotic country in the real world and turn it into the best there is in a simulation)

Are you talking about the modern Zimbabwean state? Because most people choose the Kingdom of Zimbabwe

 

[Henri Christophe]

Are you talking about the modern Zimbabwean state? Because most people choose the Kingdom of Zimbabwe

Both should be nice, but I guess to be made for a game just the ancient one are viable.
But of course, if I'm developer I would intermix ancient with modern Zimbabwe as they made with Germany.

 

[Patine]

Regardless of the reason, India exists and is united. It could just as easily not remain united (see the Balkans), so its continued existence means something relevant.

And there is shared culture and history across every group within India.

It is united now, politically (for now, but current events with Modi's Hindu Nationalism and at least five etno-linguistic separatist that are currently being stirred up, as well as the sentinent by many in India that that unity, even politically, was never achieved,Post-Independence, because of the Partittion). Also, "shared culture across every group within India?" What bad, uninformed stereotype is this? And, a true, shared history across ALL of India only begins with the (insert colonial power) East India Companies and then the British Raj, not originally of the making of every group within India in and of themselves.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

My wife and I have friends from India: one family from southeastern India, one from the Punjab in the northwest. One family is Pentacostial Christian, the other Sikh. One spoke Hindi at home, the other a dialect of Urdu. The only language the two have in common is English

Are you sure about that? Because from what I understand Hindi and Urdu are mutually intelligible to a significant degree.

Finally, if we can include the over-arcing Empires like the Achaemenid Persian and Roman, both multi-ethnic and multi-cultural entities,

What I was talking about harks back to my 'Mapping Peoples and States' thread: that the inclusion or representation of certain groups ends up excluding (implicitly) the inclusion or representation of other groups. Or to speak more lucidly, are the Achaemenid Persian and Roman civs actually meant to represent every ethnic group in their respective empires? Is the inclusion of Achaemenid Persia meant to include Babylon and Assyria as well? Or the Romans meant to include the various peoples they ruled over? Because I feel that is what is happening with an India civ. Now, to use your example of Achaemenid Persia, if the game were featuring Gupta India or Mauryan India or Mughal India that were another matter, but it doesn't, so the comparison doesn't work for me.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Hittites (Bring them back, please!)

Brand new civs only

(Though I would love to see the Hittites too)

 

[Patine]

I am not sure what this has to do with what I said.

You suggested India’s political unification is completely arbitrary and says nothing about their shared culture, but it’s not.

My point is that this is being framed entirely incorrectly and rather pedantically.

Put another way, I don’t think the majority of Indian people are up in arms about being Indian.

I would like to see a non-modern representation of India in Civ. Not sure what this has to do with the conversation.

Please try to stay focused on what we’re actually talking about. It’s frustrating to talk about one thing and be confronted with a strawman about something else (intentional or not). I’m generally careful to make sure my posts are precisely worded to reflect specific points.

I’ve already explained that I was specifically challenging the notion that modern India is solely an arbitrary state that doesn’t reflect the history or culture of its inhabitants. Diversity does not preclude a shared culture and heritage.

You just did to Boneyduck here, twice, what I brought up you doing to me two days ago. The noxious habit of declaring responses that responses to your posts that don't fit, or agree with, your narrative as lacking relevane or validity, regardless of the fact they very much don't. And, the response you gave me two days ago when I called you out that, "every response I made to you was personal," was not only ridiculous and a blatant, insulting falsehood, but a flimsy diverrsion from being called out. It rREALLY is time to retire this noxious debating habit of yours.

 

[Patine]

Both should be nice, but I guess to be made for a game just the ancient one are viable.
But of course, if I'm developer I would intermix ancient with modern Zimbabwe as they made with Germany.

I don't think modern Zimbabwe would add much to a portrayal of the Pre-Colonial Kingdom. Failed state despotisms built from post-colonial constructs don't tend to enhance Ancient edifices of wonder. And this is the second you've brought up Germany, today, as a comparison to this sort of thing. What is that about?

 

[pineappledan]

It is united now, politically (for now, but current events with Modi's Hindu Nationalism and at least five etno-linguistic separatist that are currently being stirred up, as well as the sentinent by many in India that that unity, even politically, was never achieved,Post-Independence, because of the Partittion).

The modern Indian state is very weird in this respect, because their constitution outright makes it illegal for states to secede.

My personal connections to Indian people and culture are predominantly Tamil and Malayali, and they have very different views on Indian national character than you are likely to find from a North Indian. Many South Indians make a point of not teaching their children Hindi as a 2nd language, in favor of English, French, etc. It's a point of pride not to give into the demands for a cohesive, singular national identity, which is overwhelmingly North Indian in character. Southern, Dravidian people (correctly, imo) interpret any call for a singular Indian cultural identity as a demand that they relinquish their own culture and assimilate into of a northern, Indo-Aryan hegemonic identity. A blob, if you will.

I don't think modern Zimbabwe would add much to a portrayal of the Pre-Colonial Kingdom.

Maybe they could build a unique Safari Park?

 

[Henri Christophe]

And this is the second you've brought up Germany, today, as a comparison to this sort of thing. What is that about?

Isn't clear? Because Germany have an interpretation of it's civ with leaders, abilities and other stuffs of a time before of the unification of Germany of 1871.

That's why I think some others civs could have this privilege, as Paraguay and/or Zimbabwe.

I don't think modern Zimbabwe would add much to a portrayal of the Pre-Colonial Kingdom.

I think Mugabe could be a cool leader.
But if we could do an ancient Zimbabwe full civ, i'm cool too.

 

[Patine]

Isn't clear? Because Germany have an interpretation of it's civ with leaders, abilities and other stuffs of a time before of the unification of Germany of 1871.

You still seem too hung up on Bismarck's purely political and triumphal pronouncement being a, somehow, fundamental change in the notion of self-perceived, or externally-perceived, German national concept, which it definitely wasn't. As Evie and I said, the Holy Roman Emperors had the title, "King of Geramy," as their most important subsidiary title, and the term, "German Conffederation," from 1815-1871 was not an empty gesture. But yet you cling to this bizarre notion.

I think Mugabe could be a cool leader.

No, he wouldn't really.

 

[pokiehl]

You still seem too hung up on Bismarck's purely political and triumphal pronouncement being a, somehow, fundamental change in the notion of self-perceived, or externally-perceived, German national concept, which it definitely wasn't. As Evie and I said, the Holy Roman Emperors had the title, "King of Geramy," as their most important subsidiary title, and the term, "German Conffederation," from 1815-1871 was not an empty gesture. But yet you cling to this bizarre notion.

I have read this 3 times and I cannot for the life of me figure out what you're trying to say.

@Henri Christophe was simply saying that elements of Civ 6 Germany predate modern unified Germany, and he's absolutely right: the Hansa, the concept of the Free Imperial Cities...I don't see what's incorrect about his point.

You just did to Boneyduck here, twice, what I brought up you doing to me two days ago. The noxious habit of declaring responses that responses to your posts that don't fit, or agree with, your narrative as lacking relevane or validity, regardless of the fact they very much don't. And, the response you gave me two days ago when I called you out that, "every response I made to you was personal," was not only ridiculous and a blatant, insulting falsehood, but a flimsy diverrsion from being called out. It rREALLY is time to retire this noxious debating habit of yours.

Dude all your posts come off so aggressively, like you're always looking for a fight. Calm down my guy. We're talking about a videogame.

 

[Patine]

Dude all your posts come off so aggressively, like you're always looking for a fight. Calm down my guy. We're talking about a videogame.

Not all of my posts are aggressive and looking for a fight (another falsehood to try and divert me). But it's easy to get annoyed with some who perennially arrogantly dismisses others' points as being invalid and irrelevant just because they don't like them or they don't fit their narrative. It IS a noxious habit, and there's no pretending otherwise, or trying to turn things on highly exaggerated, portrayals of attitudes I occassionally show that don't change the situation.

I have read this 3 times and I cannot for the life of me figure out what you're trying to say.

I don't believe I am, at all, unclear, and I think this is yet another insulting, arrogant of a response that doesn't fit your narrative.

 

[Patine]

@pokiehl Now, I am done with this topic. Please, seriously consider watching for, and retiring this bad debate habit. I am actually working on my Internet anger. Adieu.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Brand new civs only

(Though I would love to see the Hittites too)

It's been so long at this point I think they might count as new.

Maybe they could build a unique Safari Park?

If we ever get a modern African civ, besides Ethiopia, I think a unique Safari Park could work. But I associate Safari Parks more with countries like South Africa, Tanzania, or Kenya. I think a Zimbabwe civ would be fine just being represented by the Medieval kingdom.

 

[pokiehl]

It's been so long at this point I think they might cou

I was really disappointed when the Hattusa city-state was revealed in Civ 6 I remember holding out hope with each DLC release that we'd get the Hittites.

 

[pineappledan]

But I associate Safari Parks more with countries like South Africa, Tanzania, or Kenya.

If you look at a map, Kenya, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, and South Africa are all in a line together. They all have Safari parks and have played host to that form of tourism. If you recall the story of Cecil the Lion, that controversy happened in Hwangwe Park in Zimbabwe. Though admittedly Zimbabwe hasn’t been thought of much as a tourist destination since Mugabe’s rule.

 

[Evie]

I mean, I'd argue that the line is more South-Africa - *Mozambique* - Tanzania - Kenya, but close enough. And there are, in fact, Safari parks in Zimbabwe (and Botswana), so entirely agreeing with your essential purpose, just being nitpicky.