Honestly, I wouldn't mind the idea of having the Goths instead of Gaul, as the "barbarian" raiding civ. Then of course for the "Celtic" civ we could still have Medieval Ireland over Scotland.
7 New Civs You'd Like to See in Civ7
- Thread starter Bonyduck Campersang
- Start date
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
Advantages of the Goths are that they can actually be set up as an Alternate Civ with different characteristics depending on which Goths you are playing: Visigoths or Ostrogoths. This would be a neat variant on the Alternate Leaders system.
And Goths provide distinctive graphic options as well: Roman writers describe 'Goth Specific' hairstyles, clothing, etc that could be incorporated into a game civilization.
To quote the shirt my wife gave me for Christmas:
"Real Goths don't wear black, they sack Rome."
But for a Celtic Civ, may I suggest an off-beat alternative:
Picts.
They occupied the area of Scotland from at least mid-Imperial Roman to mid-Medieval Eras, again have distinctive graphic characteristics, but also a bunch of Celtic as well as Unique military characteristics (In brief, they used elite aristocratic warriors like typical Celts, but also infantry armed with half-pikes - extra long spears - that kept cavalry away from the swordsmen in a mixed formation. With that combination they dominated northern Britain for centuries, and the half-pike, not the regular pike, was the weapon that emerged again as the weapon of the later Scottish schiltrons at Bannockburn)
And the Pictish 'main city' (capital) was Dun Eid, which later became the modern Scottish capital of Edinburgh, so the 'Celtic Capital' could either be modern generic or Pictish original.
1. Italy: being a nation of great historical influence and the only one of the great European nations that has never been in the game completely, its inclusion is completely overdue. We can have a Renaissance Italy led by someone from Venice or Florence and the fact that they are organized by city-states should not be an impediment to such a thing, since we have Pericles (Athens) leading all of Greece and Lady Six Sky (Wak Kab' nal) leading all Mayans.
2. Ashanti: an African civilization with an extraordinary political, military and economic organization, Ashanti is another overdue inclusion. Kumasi has been present in Civ6 since the base game, we cannot deny that the devs have their eyes on the Ashanti. That way, I wouldn't be surprised to see it in Civ7, even in the base game.
3. Amazigh (Berbers): the Maghreb is a very interesting and important region, so it would be a glaring omission not to have at least one representative from it. Amazigh would be my choice here, but I wouldn't complain about something more specific like Morocco again.
4. Muisca: perhaps the most solid option for South American natives after the Incas. Muisca could fill an interesting niche that would not be redundant with any other civ in the region: ore trade with a moderate war focus.
5. Argentina: this one competes directly with Gran Colombia and Mexico for the slot as a Hispanic colonial nation and, being South American, it's the main candidate to replace Gran Colombia. Argentina stands out enough on the continent to deserve inclusion in Civ, and would possibly be a cultural Civ with some commercial bonuses. I wouldn't complain if they chose Mexico, though.
6. Navajo: to be honest, I don't have much knowledge about the native people of North America. I always thought, however, that the Iroquois should be a staple in the game, with the second slot alternating between some civ from the American Southwest. A third slot could be held by someone from Canada.
7. Swahili: this one, or Somali, could occupy the slot of maritime commercial African civilization. Personally, I would like this slot to be a staple and for Swahili and Somali to alternate in it.
Honorable mentions: 8. Armenia (very interesting history that deserves to be represented in Civ), 9. Taino (my first choice to represent the Caribbean. Haiti is also interesting) and 10. Romania (personal interest, although I wouldn't want it to replace Hungary).
Marajoara would be interesting for a city-state, however: "Os Camutins" could be a trade city-state (agrarian would be more appropriate, I hope they include this type of city-state in Civ7) that would allow the construction of the Teso improvement on floodable lands.
2. Ashanti: an African civilization with an extraordinary political, military and economic organization, Ashanti is another overdue inclusion. Kumasi has been present in Civ6 since the base game, we cannot deny that the devs have their eyes on the Ashanti. That way, I wouldn't be surprised to see it in Civ7, even in the base game.
3. Amazigh (Berbers): the Maghreb is a very interesting and important region, so it would be a glaring omission not to have at least one representative from it. Amazigh would be my choice here, but I wouldn't complain about something more specific like Morocco again.
4. Muisca: perhaps the most solid option for South American natives after the Incas. Muisca could fill an interesting niche that would not be redundant with any other civ in the region: ore trade with a moderate war focus.
5. Argentina: this one competes directly with Gran Colombia and Mexico for the slot as a Hispanic colonial nation and, being South American, it's the main candidate to replace Gran Colombia. Argentina stands out enough on the continent to deserve inclusion in Civ, and would possibly be a cultural Civ with some commercial bonuses. I wouldn't complain if they chose Mexico, though.
6. Navajo: to be honest, I don't have much knowledge about the native people of North America. I always thought, however, that the Iroquois should be a staple in the game, with the second slot alternating between some civ from the American Southwest. A third slot could be held by someone from Canada.
7. Swahili: this one, or Somali, could occupy the slot of maritime commercial African civilization. Personally, I would like this slot to be a staple and for Swahili and Somali to alternate in it.
Honorable mentions: 8. Armenia (very interesting history that deserves to be represented in Civ), 9. Taino (my first choice to represent the Caribbean. Haiti is also interesting) and 10. Romania (personal interest, although I wouldn't want it to replace Hungary).
Unfortunately, there is not much to create a Marajoara Civ. The leader would be fictitious or not historically appropriate. The list of cities would be predominantly modern Brazilian. I don't even know if there is enough information for a unique unit for something other than "Amazon Warrior".
Marajoara would be interesting for a city-state, however: "Os Camutins" could be a trade city-state (agrarian would be more appropriate, I hope they include this type of city-state in Civ7) that would allow the construction of the Teso improvement on floodable lands.
Caesar of Bread
Ronald Reagan's #1 Hater
Nice, however I don’t think it’s that needed
We really need Ashanti
Agreed here
Also agreed here
I mean Argentina isn’t the best choice because I don’t know if I can trust Civ
*Dine, and agreed! (Navajo = Dine, and Iroquois = Haudenosaunee)
Agreed here!
Armenia, Taino are ones I also concur with
Caesar of Bread
Ronald Reagan's #1 Hater
Nice India representation
Cherokee are a great addition!
i’d rather have Manchu than Qing (with Qing elements)
Interesting!
I love these two especially
Maybe
I’d rather not this
ehecatzin
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,863
haha Its fine, HRE I can see how It's so tied to the German identity. but yeah India and China, absolutely need more representation. If Firaxs must absolutely have Gandhi for the memes, have postcolonial India, and give him a civ that makes sense
Caesar of Bread
Ronald Reagan's #1 Hater
I’m fighting myself over china but India should definitely be split up into at least three civs.
Bonyduck Campersang
Not staring into the distance
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2022
- Messages
- 4,837
Bonyduck Campersang
Not staring into the distance
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2022
- Messages
- 4,837
But why
Well, the HRE could also be tied to Austria, especially if you make Frederick the Great leader of Germany.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2017
- Messages
- 4,111
Because they both warrant their own fully fleshed out designs.
pineappledan
Deity
You could argue this already happened with civ 5. There were separate German and Austrian factions in that game.Well, the HRE could also be tied to Austria, especially if you make Frederick the Great leader of Germany.
I could see the possibility of Persia being split with one civ portraying the Achaemenid and Sassanid empires (Persia), and the other one after the Muslim conquest (Iran?). Though in my opinion I'd just keep it as one Persian civ.
It actually happened in Civ 4 with Germany and HRE being separate.
Bonyduck Campersang
Not staring into the distance
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2022
- Messages
- 4,837
But they're practically the same nation, and occupy the same geographical area. I'd rather we had one Persian civ with alternate Achaemenid (or preferably Safavid) and Sassanid leaders rather than two Persian civs.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2017
- Messages
- 4,111
They’re not the same nation, and the same geographic area is hardly a dealbreaker (Ottomans and Byzantium for instance). There’s plenty to give them totally distinct city lists and unique components.
The Achaemenids and the Sassanids were both Persian, though, unlike the Ottomans who were Turkish and the Byzantines who were Greeks/Romans.
To me that's like making the Song and Ming separate civs, because there was a break in between them thanks to the Mongol controlled Yuan Dynasty.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2017
- Messages
- 4,111
When did Civ stop delineating factions by "civilization" and start delineating them by ethnicity? The Sassanians and Persians were distinct civilizations by any metric.
America, Canada, and Australia were all founded by the English. Does that disqualify them? Byzantines considered themselves Romans. Does that disqualify them?
Last edited:
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
Defining 'civilization' and 'ethnicity' is a bag of worms. By sheer chance, I'm currently reading Roman Provinces to Barbarian Kingdoms, a collection of academic essays on precisely the question of the ethnicity of the 'barbarian' successors and successor states to the Roman Empire. 150 pages and 6 different essays into the book, and it's still all competing definitions and no definitive answers.
But given that Civ the game has included such various parties as Romans, which started out with a distinct 'ethnic' component but during the Empire expanded the definition to 'Roman citizenship' that had virtually no ethnic component, China which mixed ethnicity with numerous 'foreign' or semi-foreign Dynasties (Yuan, Manchu, etc), and Arabs and Ottomans, who expanded dramatically precisely because they included a wealth of different ethnicities in their polities, and I don't think pure ethnicity is much of a determinator for included Civs in the game. A potential component, perhaps, but no more than that.
Especially in the case of the Achaemenid/Sassanid split in the Persian tradition, which represents some very different approaches to cultural, scientific, religious and military aspects of both groups - precisely the determinators that appear to be causing so much discussion among the academics studying the 'barbarian' post-Roman states and peoples!
Similar threads
