7 New Civs You'd Like to See in Civ7

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And as for evolutions, if SEA is treated the same way as Mesoamerica, South America, West Africa, SS Africa, and Austronesia, I would sooner predict the devs will just settle for ??? (Mon? Champa? Srivijaya?) -> Khmer + Burma/Pagan + Vietnam/Dai Viet -> Siam and be done with the whole region. Maybe Vietnam as a modern civ instead of an exploration civ. I just would be very surprised if the devs put more effort into the granularity of SEA (or most regions) than that.

There's a good chance that they put the Khmer in Antiquity, at least according to gameplay footage. Which means I could easily see a Khmer>Burma/Pagan>Siam route.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Generally yes. I don't really find much pleasure in it myself. I don't think Civ has ever really been about those sort of rivalries the way AoE and other games are. And, I think even if they were considering it, the idea would fall further down the list than civs which could plausibly connect to each other across eras.

And as for evolutions, if SEA is treated the same way as Mesoamerica, South America, West Africa, SS Africa, and Austronesia, I would sooner predict the devs will just settle for ??? (Mon? Champa? Srivijaya?) -> Khmer + Burma/Pagan + Vietnam/Dai Viet -> Siam and be done with the whole region. Maybe Vietnam as a modern civ instead of an exploration civ. I just would be very surprised if the devs put more effort into the granularity of SEA (or most regions) than that.

Put another way, not only do I think that the base game is going to try to cram in a lot of returning civs to try to reach parity with VI sooner, but I also suspect new civs are being targeted based primarily on what appeared on a lot of player wishlists. That is likely why we have Chola and the Mughals. That is likely why we have the Mississippians and Mexico. It might even explain Amina and Himiko to some extent. So I do expect a lot of new additions to reflect older discourse before the implementation of separate eras: i.e. players wanted "Burma" generally, and weren't really concerning themselves with Pyu vs. Pagan vs. Toungoo or whatever. I will be surprised if we see things like Sukothai/Ayutthaya when Siam is perhaps the best modern option to for that region.

^ So Siam is best being Third Era civ and representing East Bangkok era? where much of national 'Highs' and 'Lows' happens in this era and not the Second?

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

There's a good chance that they put the Khmer in Antiquity, at least according to gameplay footage. Which means I could easily see a Khmer>Burma/Pagan>Siam route.

And not Dvaravati at either Era 1 or 2 ?

 

[RedCourtJester]

There's a good chance that they put the Khmer in Antiquity, at least according to gameplay footage. Which means I could easily see a Khmer>Burma/Pagan>Siam route.

Ugh. I really, really hope they don't settle for only three civs here. Though that may just be what we get, given Mexico. I would consider it a waste of the whole era progression system if these regions didn't at least get a fourth civ (imo, both antiquity civs like the Olmec and Mon/Champa/Srivijaya) to better represent the historical continuity of the region.

It's not like I'm asking for three entirely new civs like Hausa AND Oyo/Benin AND Nigeria to justify Amina as a leader. Just a simple, little fourth civ in SEA and Mexico. Humankind already designed the Olmecs for you, Firaxis. Sukritact already designed Burma for you (and Khmer, and Siam). Most of the work is already done, history is all in the public domain. It shouldn't be that hard to put your resources toward one legitimately new civ for the sake of not shortchanging Southeast Asia yet again.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Ugh. I really, really hope they don't settle for only three civs here. Though that may just be what we get, given Mexico. I would consider it a waste of the whole era progression system if these regions didn't at least get a fourth civ (imo, both antiquity civs like the Olmec and Mon/Champa/Srivijaya) to better represent the historical continuity of the region.

I never said that they would only have three civs from that area. I just mentioned a potential path, if the Khmer are indeed playable at the beginning of a game. Besides we already know of at least the Majapahit in the Exploration Era as well.

It's not like I'm asking for three entirely new civs like Hausa AND Oyo/Benin AND Nigeria to justify Amina as a leader. Just a simple, little fourth civ in SEA and Mexico. Humankind already designed the Olmecs for you, Firaxis. Sukritact already designed Burma for you (and Khmer, and Siam). Most of the work is already done, history is all in the public domain. It shouldn't be that hard to put your resources toward one legitimately new civ for the sake of not shortchanging Southeast Asia yet again.

Well, Firaxis never designed Burma so that would be a potential fourth new civ, especially if we get some form of Vietnam again.

 

[Blue whale]

6. Timurids (into the Durrani!?) (this would feel weird against Mongolia in exploration, but I want Registan wonder) - exploration

The Timurids and durrani were not civilizations they were dynasties and it would make more sense to have an Uzbek and Afghan civilization to represent the region

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The Timurids and durrani were not civilizations they were dynasties and it would make more sense to have an Uzbek and Afghan civilization to represent the region

I think we're past the point of dynasties can't be considered as civilizations when we have multiple instances of this happening in Civ 7. There's the Maurya, Chola, and Mughals for the Indian subcontinent, as well as the supposed Han, Ming, Qing for China. There is also the Abbasids, and of course the Ottomans, at least, for the Islamic world too.

 

[Lord Lakely]

There's a good chance that they put the Khmer in Antiquity, at least according to gameplay footage. Which means I could easily see a Khmer>Burma/Pagan>Siam route.

I think Khmer => Majapahit => Siam will be the South East Asian pipeline which... offends me almost as much as Greece into Normans, so let's hope a few DLCs roll along to pad out some of these regions.

 

[RedCourtJester]

The Timurids and durrani were not civilizations they were dynasties and it would make more sense to have an Uzbek and Afghan civilization to represent the region

In all likelihood, if we do see the Durrani empire, it might just be called Afghanistan. Egypt is still called "Egypt" in VII. Unlikely, given that we still haven't seen an actual modern polity in the game and I think especially the name Afghanistan might be a little taboo. But for regions of the world that are less granularly depicted, we may get exploration "Indonesia" again instead of "Majapahit" or even antiquity "Persia" instead of "Achaemenids." I hope not, but it is possible.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I think Khmer => Majapahit => Siam will be the South East Asian pipeline which... offends me almost as much as Greece into Normans, so let's hope a few DLCs roll along to pad out some of these regions.

very off to me.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I wonder if the revelation of civ-switching would have any effect on your lists

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ it would. but i don't know if FXis will keep 'Dai Viet, Xiao Xian' policy as in Civ6?

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

You've not posted your list, Lonecat?

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Mine?

Dvaravati => Ayutthaya => Siam
Dvaravati => Khmer => Siam

just my thoughs.

 

[Xandinho]

Siam will be enough for me. I don't need every civ to have contemporary rivals/allies. Just getting one Burmese and one Thai civ in SEA will be enough progress for me, ideally we may see other things like the return of Vietnam, maybe Malaysia or even Champa. Ideally we would have more than one civ per SEA region, but again I just don't think the numbers are favoring chances of getting a LOT of new civs in any given region.

Ideally, we could have Ayutthaya Siam in the exploration era and Rattanakosin Siam in the modern era. I have no problem with Civs having multiple versions of themselves in different eras, as the big markets will certainly have them at some point. I'm even in favor of having an Itza Maya for the exploration era. I think the more we have multiple versions of the same civ, the more interesting the historical path will be.

 

[Mudokon Pop]

Civs I'd love to see....

1. Chimú - a contemporary of the Inca, their capital had a pop larger than Cusco before their demise - they could have a maritime/naval focus
2. Kanem-Bornu - one of Africa's largest and longest lasting empires - never depicted in a civ game
3. Ashante - i've been in love with their architecture since I'd first seen it and their bureaucracy was impressive
4. Minoan - this would be difficult since their military is unknown. Perhaps they used mercenaries to fight for them like Carthage did - a 'sea people' unique naval unit?
5. Timurids - yes I'm using dynasty names - come at me bro
6. Mississipian - i don't care if this is a blob civ - better known cultures could suceed them in later eras
7. Gaels - the Brehons of Ireland, Scotland and Man met every 3 years to standardise their laws/discuss new rulings - a building/unit to represent this instead of a Ceilidh Hall please or else a Bardic school.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Ideally, we could have Ayutthaya Siam in the exploration era and Rattanakosin Siam in the modern era. I have no problem with Civs having multiple versions of themselves in different eras, as the big markets will certainly have them at some point. I'm even in favor of having an Itza Maya for the exploration era. I think the more we have multiple versions of the same civ, the more interesting the historical path will be.

I could see that happening. Although, considering SEA has never had many civs in the past having a choice between Ayutthaya Siam and Pagan Burma, I think it would be easier to choose the latter considering Siam would still get representation in the Modern Age.

 

[Xandinho]

Seven unlikely Civs I'd like to see in Civ7:

Olmec
Harappan
Mixtec
Tibetan (I think this one is impossible for obvious reasons).
Teotihuacan (I don't think the Pyramid of the Sun is a clue that this civ will be in, as it will most likely be a disassociated wonder).
Paraguay (Guarani is reasonably likely. The state of Paraguay most likely won't happen, unfortunately).
Caral

 

[Patine]

1. Chimú - a contemporary of the Inca, their capital had a pop larger than Cusco before their demise - they could have a maritime/naval focus
4. Minoan - this would be difficult since their military is unknown. Perhaps they used mercenaries to fight for them like Carthage did - a 'sea people' unique naval unit?
6. Mississipian - i don't care if this is a blob civ - better known cultures could suceed them in later eras

Olmec
Harappan

These would all be very interesting, but, like other equally fascinating civilizatios, like the Norte Chico, Nazca, Wari, Tiwanaku, Ancestral Pueblo (formerly called, "Anasaszi," until it was grasped that term was a perjorative by their enemies at the time, the Navajo - similar to how, "Eskimo," was such a perjorative for the Inuit by the Gwi'chin - another Athabaskan-speaking group, interestingly), and whomever builtt that built city in the Amazon or Great Zimbabwe, and the speakerso of the North Picene language. Even without the theoretical need for a leader speaking a language, I fear there's not remotely enough to work with, and that is truly tragic. ;(

 

[Lord Lakely]

i'm going to do this again, but this time around i'm going to include paths (so it's technically 21 Civs, but some of them won't be new as you'll see )

1. Gaul => Ireland => Scotland (associated leader: Grace O'Malley)
2. Greece => Bulgaria => Yugoslavia (associated leader: Simeon the Great)
3. Ghana => Mali => Ashanti (associated leader: Yaa Asantewaa)
4. Nazca => Muisca => Gran Colombia (associated leader: Simón Bolivar)
5. Dai Viet => Burma => Siam (associated leader: Bayingnaung)
6. Caddo => Apache => Diné (associated leader: Manuelito)
7. Sogdia => Timurids => Mughals (associated leader: Tamerlane)