7 New Civs You'd Like to See in Civ7

[BackseatTyrant]

I'm of the opinion that Civ essentially got rid of all the blob civs in this iteration. Yes, even India I don't necessarily consider a blob civ because it's not like it doesn't exist today.

That being said, I'd be all for splitting India, China, Persia etc. into separate civilizations based off of dynasties as long as we have at least 70 civs or more. Until then I'm fine with representing them as multiple leaders.

I don't really consider Persia to be a blob civ, as much as I think it shouldn't cover all of Iran. It would be neat to have Persia alongside Parthia, Elam, Media, Kurdistan, Mazandaran, Khorasan etc

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't really consider Persia to be a blob civ, as much as I think it shouldn't cover all of Iran. It would be neat to have Persia alongside Parthia, Elam, Media, Kurdistan, Mazandaran, Khorasan etc

Anshan is a city-state in Civ 6, so I believe that the Bronze Age civilizations of Iran isn't covered by Persia. Whether these will be included as full civs is anyone's guess.
Parthia might also be interesting, as an alternative to Scythia, but I'd also love to see Sarmatians.

 

[Evie]

There are reams to be written about what is or is not a civilization, or which group belong together, but I cannot agree with the idea that dynastic change should be held equivalent to civilization change, and I cannot agree that two states that have been separate, speaking separate languages for nearly a millenia at this point can reasonably be grouped as the same civ (whether both equally need to be in the game is a separate question).

I'm also a firm advocate that civilizations should represent the whole history of a group or people, rather than the notion of making civilization snapshot of a culture frozen as it was at a specific point in time. It is better for game design (as it makes the civilization less of a single-era pony), and better for historical accuracy, as most civilizations have experienced multiple golden ages at multiple points in history.

 

[pokiehl]

I can’t agree that there’s any hard and fast criteria for selecting who should be in a civ game as a faction. The only real rule is “do we have enough to implement all of the unique components that comprise a new faction?”

I don’t think anyone was arguing “dynastic change —> always a new civilization”, so I’m not sure why you brought that up as a point.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

There are reams to be written about what is or is not a civilization, or which group belong together, but I cannot agree with the idea that dynastic change should be held equivalent to civilization change, and I cannot agree that two states that have been separate, speaking separate languages for nearly a millenia at this point can reasonably be grouped as the same civ (whether both equally need to be in the game is a separate question).

I'm also a firm advocate that civilizations should represent the whole history of a group or people, rather than the notion of making civilization snapshot of a culture frozen as it was at a specific point in time. It is better for game design (as it makes the civilization less of a single-era pony), and better for historical accuracy, as most civilizations have experienced multiple golden ages at multiple points in history.

Thoroughly agree, with one little caveat:

The game's Immortal Leaders, at least as they have been implemented, up to now, all too often are fixed in Time and represent only a small part of the Civ's existence, which, at least to me, makes it difficult to see them as part of representing "the whole history of a group or people."
Some of them, yes: Ivan IV would fit right in to modern Russia as Tsar, President, or whatever (among other things, he started the institution of a Secret Police, which surprisingly has not been modeled in any version of Russia in the game, as far as I know). Others, not so much.
Frankly, I would prefer that they downgrade or even eliminate much of the Leader Uniques and leave the Leader as an occasionally-amusing/Iconic Face of the Civ and its Diplomatic Relations. Or at least, find some way to make the Leaders more universal to the time frame of the game (but Please God, don't make them change costume: that was neither iconic nor amusing as implemented)

 

[Evie]

I'm not wholly sold - by the same standard few units, abilities or infrastructure can encompass all of a civ's history. Rather, each of them can represent a different part thereof.

France with a medieval leader, Napoleonic UU, Renaissance UB and Third Republic UA works well for me.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I remain unconvinced. Too often a mixture of Uniques from different eras simply results in a Civilization Pastiche of influences centuries apart. It can also (to me, at least ) negatively influence game-play: if you have a Unique or Uniques that are particularly effective in one timeframe, you can find yourself planning your game around taking the greatest advantage of that Era/time and on the other hand, trying very hard to hamstring the opposing Civs in their most Uniquely-inhanced Eras/time periods. You pick fights either before or long after their UU arrives, as an obvious example. I can't help but think this is Game Mechanics unduly influencing in-game play where the in-game situation should have the most effect.

It's not a huge matter. The interaction between Unique aspects of a Civ and its actual in-game development and situation will always be problematic, because Civs and factions cannot be guaranteed to develop in lockstep with their actual history - and trying to obtain that result would be extremely bad game design and eliminate replayability almost completely.

 

[Patine]

I remain unconvinced. Too often a mixture of Uniques from different eras simply results in a Civilization Pastiche of influences centuries apart. It can also (to me, at least ) negatively influence game-play: if you have a Unique or Uniques that are particularly effective in one timeframe, you can find yourself planning your game around taking the greatest advantage of that Era/time and on the other hand, trying very hard to hamstring the opposing Civs in their most Uniquely-inhanced Eras/time periods. You pick fights either before or long after their UU arrives, as an obvious example. I can't help but think this is Game Mechanics unduly influencing in-game play where the in-game situation should have the most effect.

It's not a huge matter. The interaction between Unique aspects of a Civ and its actual in-game development and situation will always be problematic, because Civs and factions cannot be guaranteed to develop in lockstep with their actual history - and trying to obtain that result would be extremely bad game design and eliminate replayability almost completely.

I''m afraid, on the matter of the spread of civ uniques and benefits, I'm firmly with Evie's line of thinking, and always have been, insofar as a game like the Civilization series goes.

 

[Patine]

Alright, to the OP. Let's give this a try. In no particular order:
-Muisca
-Baganda/Bunyoro
-Ashanti (a popular one)
-Etruscans (a tight fit on a standard earth map)
-Maratha Empire (as part of India, "deblobbing")
-First Bulgarian Empire (either the Khanate under Krum or the First Tsardom under Simeon I)
-Saami

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Alright, to the OP. Let's give this a try. In no particular order:
-Muisca

Nice

-Baganda/Bunyoro

Interesting choice

-Ashanti (a popular one)

Most of us put Ashanti so nice pick!

-Etruscans (a tight fit on a standard earth map)

Still a good civ especially if we want a third classical civ in Rome

-Maratha Empire (as part of India, "deblobbing")

Good choice for India deblobbing

-First Bulgarian Empire (either the Khanate under Krum or the First Tsardom under Simeon I)

good idea! (Quite interesting since in my Civ game someone is playing as Bulgaria)

-Saami

Never really seen the Saami suggested but nice

 

[cupcaketheg]

1-Ashanti
2-Swahili
3-Argentina
4-Armenia
5-Inuit
6-Táino
7-Some aboriginal civ (still need to research this topic, but it would be nice to have an oceania civ that isnt post-colonial or polynesian. Also, dont think i need to say this but no aboriginal blob civ! Pick a specific people, please no "native american civilization" or whatever again)

Tried to pick a civ from each continent, but decided to skip Europe and pick an additional one from Africa cuz i fell Europe has too many and Africa too little. (I counted North America, Central America and South America as individual continents cuz latino)

 

[pineappledan]

I'm not wholly sold - by the same standard few units, abilities or infrastructure can encompass all of a civ's history. Rather, each of them can represent a different part thereof.

France with a medieval leader, Napoleonic UU, Renaissance UB and Third Republic UA works well for me.

Can split it by having separate civ uniques and leader uniques.

Several leaders in civ 6 had their own UUs in addition to the civ UU. Pachacuti Inca had a unique leader improvement. Could do that for every civ and have more unique components for everyone, allowing devs to represent more history with each civ.

 

[pokiehl]

At that point, just go the extra step and make it a separate faction.

 

[Patine]

At that point, just go the extra step and make it a separate faction.

That is not as needed or warranted to frivolously as you seem to think. And, as we all know, any iteration of civ has limits on production resources. And, having a different leader, who had notably different focus and methods, even long periods apart, does not inherently make them a different, "civ."

 

[pokiehl]

That is not as needed or warranted to frivolously as you seem to think. And, as we all know, any iteration of civ has limits on production resources. And, having a different leader, who had notably different focus and methods, even long periods apart, does not inherently make them a different, "civ."

Don't understand your first sentence. Giving every leader its own cohort of unique components is the vast majority of the necessary work to make a full civ. That's my point. Every single alt leader would be better served as being able to be its own faction. I think the alt leader mechanic is pretty shallow and leads to incongruous designing.

 

[Patine]

Don't understand your first sentence. Giving every leader its own cohort of unique components is the vast majority of the necessary work to make a full civ. That's my point. Every single alt leader would be better served as being able to be its own faction. I think the alt leader mechanic is pretty shallow and leads to incongruous designing.

We're going to have to agree to disagree, because the alternate leader mechanic works perfectly well, especially for long-extant civ's, and chopping such civ's up arbitrary seems pointless.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Every single alt leader would be better served as being able to be its own faction.

So, who would Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt lead if not America?

 

[pokiehl]

We're going to have to agree to disagree, because the alternate leader mechanic works perfectly well, especially for long-extant civ's, and chopping such civ's up arbitrary seems pointless.

So, who would Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt lead if not America?

Long-extant civs can be easily broken up into different factions. You all frequently talk about "deblobbing" India here for instance.

So I think it's the complete opposite--shorter-term civs are the only ones where it makes sense to have an alt leader of the same faction. I'd rather just not have those at all though.

 

[Patine]

Long-extant civs can be easily broken up into different factions. You all frequently talk about "deblobbing" India here for instance.

So I think it's the complete opposite--shorter-term civs are the only ones where it makes sense to have an alt leader of the same faction. I'd rather just not have those at all though.

I continue to disagree. India is different for well-known reasons.

 

[pokiehl]

I continue to disagree. India is different for well-known reasons.

What precisely makes India's "deblobbing" any different than that of Persia or China, for example?