7 New Civs You'd Like to See in Civ7

[cupcaketheg]

India includes a *lot* of different peoples just because they lived in the same place in some time period. The mughals are very diferent from the maurya, the chola, the pala... China is a lot more unified. Wu zetian and Qin ruled different dynasties from different time periods but they were still chinese, you know. Having ghandhi lead the same civilization as chandragupta is more similar to Julius Ceaser leading Italy and Poundmaker leading Canada than it is to all the chinese leaders leading china.

 

[pokiehl]

India includes a *lot* of different peoples just because they lived in the same place in some time period. The mughals are very diferent from the maurya, the chola, the pala... China is a lot more unified. Wu zetian and Qin ruled different dynasties from different time periods but they were still chinese, you know.

"Chinese" is not a precise ethnic group any more than "Indian" is.

China has a *lot* of different people too. There are over 50 ethnicities in modern China, and hundreds of languages. Chinese history spans literally thousands of years.

You're making a big mistake by painting China with such a broad brush. Everything you say about India applies equally to China, if not moreso.

Having ghandhi lead the same civilization as chandragupta is more similar to Julius Ceaser leading Italy and Poundmaker leading Canada

...It's also similarly silly to have Nader Shah or Yazdegerd leading Achaemenid Persia

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Hittites
Some form of Habsburg monarchy or Austria or Austria-Hungary

 

[pineappledan]

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.

Untrue. The leader animations, voice work, and soundtrack(s) for each civ are each far more work than 2 additional components. Nevermind having to also come up with a new UA/ULA.

Having designed and built custom civs myself, I can tell you that the UU and UB together are maybe 10% of the total effort involved. That means for 10% more work, players get 33% more gameplay-altering usable components.

 

[cupcaketheg]

"Chinese" is not a precise ethnic group any more than "Indian" is.

China has a *lot* of different people too. There are over 50 ethnicities in modern China, and hundreds of languages. Chinese history spans literally thousands of years.

You're making a big mistake by painting China with such a broad brush. Everything you say about India applies equally to China, if not moreso.

...Or having Nader Shah leading Persia

Didn't really mean to say china only has one ethnic group, the first one that popped up in my mind would be Tibet (which is a civ that i would like to be in the game). The thing is, the China we have in-game represents the various dynasties like the Qin, Tang, Ming, etc. that are commonly refered as china, not just because of their location, but culture. China's ability in civ6 references this: chinese history is known for its hundreds of dynasties, but they still are china. Catherine de Medici is as french as Napoleon or Louis XVI, for exemple. Qin shi huang is a ruler of the Qin dinasty and Yongle of the Ming dinasty, but both ruled china. This is different from Chandragupta, leader of the Mauryan empire, leading Ghandi's Hindustan, Akbar's mughal empire and Rajeandra Chola's chola empire. (Sorry if im not making sense, its late where i live lmao)

 

[cupcaketheg]

...It's also similarly silly to have Nader Shah or Yazdegerd leading Achaemenid Persia

Also, didnt comment on this cuz i forgot :3 i dont really have much knowledge of Persia, but i do agree it is weird Nader Shah having satapries and immortals and pairidaezas. I think he could lead Persia if Civ6's persia wasnt just the achaemenid empire in a different name.

 

[pokiehl]

Untrue. The leader animations, voice work, and soundtrack(s) for each civ are each far more work than 2 additional components. Nevermind having to also come up with a new UA/ULA.

You misunderstood. Yes, the leader art and voicing is very demanding…and it’s already done for an alt leader, so to make it a full civ, especially with leader unique components thrown in already, is incrementally little more effort.

Having designed and built custom civs myself, I can tell you that the UU and UB together are maybe 10% of the total effort involved. That means for 10% more work, players get 33% more gameplay-altering usable components.

The effort spent as an individual modder on a civ is not analogous at all to the dev team making one.

 

[pokiehl]

The thing is, the China we have in-game represents the various dynasties like the Qin, Tang, Ming, etc. that are commonly refered as china, not just because of their location, but culture. China's ability in civ6 references this: chinese history is known for its hundreds of dynasties, but they still are china. Catherine de Medici is as french as Napoleon or Louis XVI, for exemple. Qin shi huang is a ruler of the Qin dinasty and Yongle of the Ming dinasty, but both ruled china. This is different from Chandragupta, leader of the Mauryan empire, leading Ghandi's Hindustan, Akbar's mughal empire and Rajeandra Chola's chola empire. (Sorry if im not making sense, its late where i live lmao)

"The thing is, the India we have in-game represents the various dynasties like the Maurya, Chola, Mughals, etc. that are commonly referred to as India, not just because of their location, but culture. India's ability in civ6 references this: Indian history is known for its many religions and cultures, but they are still India."

There's no coherent logic to wanting to split up India but not China or Persia. If I boil down your argument, it's simply: "India just feels different" which isn't true or a satisfying answer.

Also, didnt comment on this cuz i forgot :3 i dont really have much knowledge of Persia, but i do agree it is weird Nader Shah having satapries and immortals and pairidaezas. I think he could lead Persia if Civ6's persia wasnt just the achaemenid empire in a different name.

It's equally silly to try to lump Persia as one civ. Iran, again, has thousands of years of history, many different ethnicities, languages, and religions, etc. Same exact things that apply to India and China.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

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.

While I do generally agree, I guess what this argument ultimately has going against it, is that it's a very nationalistic definition of what a "civilization" is. Playing as specific, historical dynasties would be more honest as to who you're "really" playing as; that is, the state's ruling class rather than as the people, given how the victory conditions throughout the series has revolved around dominating everyone else through various means (be it militaristic, scientific, cultural, diplomatic, economic etc), rather than doing the things that would actually be good for everyone, like feeding the hungry, saving the environment and/or curing diseases. On top of that, why even play as a specific faction in the first place? Why not play as the entirety of the human race? Personally, I'm fine with the direction Firaxis has been taking in regards of what each civ is meant to roughly represent, specifically because it provides a much more tangible cultural diversity than the playing-as-everyone alternative I proposed, which would realistically just result in a "All of Earth is just America"-slop that I'm really sick and tired of.

It might sound like I'm getting out of topic, but I do think asking those broader, more fundamental questions and properly addressing them, is really the only viable alternative to the game dropping the pretence of being an ode to mankind's greatest achievements and pivoting entirely to the "one civ to rule them all"-narrative that has been there from the very beginning but never officially recognized. Again, I do suggest moving away from the wargame model and adding more explicitly humanitarian goals, more unique win conditions for each player in the same game that don't necessarily conflict with one another's. Playing as dynasties makes more sense in era- and region-specific scenarios than in standard rulesets.

Finally, I do want to stress how important real, tangible diversity is to me; it is, more than anything else, what gives me the sense I'm truly playing the world. So it has always bothered me when fans have, not just in this thread but also constantly prior to it, offered suggestions that very much sacrifices and/or ignores said diversity, in favour of giving representation to this one guy who during his reign had control over this and that land and thus couldn't be tied down to any specific nationality as we know it today.

 

[BuchiTaton]

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

Exchange Teddy for Franklin so we can have both Republican and Democratic civs.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Also, didnt comment on this cuz i forgot :3 i dont really have much knowledge of Persia, but i do agree it is weird Nader Shah having satapries and immortals and pairidaezas. I think he could lead Persia if Civ6's persia wasnt just the achaemenid empire in a different name.

But including Nader Shah made it to where it wasn't just the Achaemenid Empire.

"The thing is, the India we have in-game represents the various dynasties like the Maurya, Chola, Mughals, etc. that are commonly referred to as India, not just because of their location, but culture. India's ability in civ6 references this: Indian history is known for its many religions and cultures, but they are still India."

There's no coherent logic to wanting to split up India but not China or Persia. If I boil down your argument, it's simply: "India just feels different" which isn't true or a satisfying answer.

I'm probably one of the few outliers here who wouldn't mind keeping India the way it is as well.
The Mughals to me are interesting because I could possibly see them as a separate civ from India, however. At least to me it's similar to the Macedon/Greek split where the original power was outside of the current borders of India.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

I'm probably one of the few outliers here who wouldn't mind keeping India the way it is as well.
The Mughals to me are interesting because I could possibly see them as a separate civ from India, however. At least to me it's similar to the Macedon/Greek split where the original power was outside of the current borders of India.

I would like to split India, but not in that way. My suggestion would be to go with ethno-cultural regions (roughly coinciding with states of modern India but not entirely) rather than any historical empires. In the hopes of covering enough of south Asia, here would be my shortlist:

1. Bengal
2. Gujarat
3. Hindustan
4. Kerala
5. Maharashtra
6. Punjab
7. Tamilakam

The issue I have with the Mughals is, as I've stated, how much they weren't really the people who lived there, or where they "came from". It's for the same reason I'd very much be in favour of ditching the "Ottoman Empire" for simply Turkey, and why I often find myself having trouble justifying the game including the Byzantines as a playable faction (especially if it's instead of a southern Slavic country).

 

[cupcaketheg]

"The thing is, the India we have in-game represents the various dynasties like the Maurya, Chola, Mughals, etc. that are commonly referred to as India, not just because of their location, but culture. India's ability in civ6 references this: Indian history is known for its many religions and cultures, but they are still India.

The india we have in game is a combination of various empires and cultures located on the indian subcontinent. India's ability references dharma: a concept present in buddism, hinduism and other religions in india (which is probably too complicated for me to explain in a single forum post imo)

There's no coherent logic to wanting to split up India but not China or Persia. If I boil down your argument, it's simply: "India just feels different" which isn't true or a satisfying answer.

I guess that could be it, i haven't really been making a good job in explaining my logic XD
From what i read china just seems like a more unified civilization than india is (admitily, i havent read enough chinese history, and the indian history i know is mostly empire-specific)

 

[cupcaketheg]

But including Nader Shah made it to where it wasn't just the Achaemenid Empire.

I can see that, but i feel it wasnt enough? Yeah, its not just the achaemenid empire, but its still the civ ability, the unique unit, the unique improvement and the other leader. Nader Shah still feels very out of place from civ6's Persia imo (Still think he should lead Persia, just think firaxis should make a more "diverse" persia for civ7)

I'm probably one of the few outliers here who wouldn't mind keeping India the way it is as well.
The Mughals to me are interesting because I could possibly see them as a separate civ from India, however. At least to me it's similar to the Macedon/Greek split where the original power was outside of the current borders of India.

I honestly dont really mind an India blob either. Its more something on the back of my mind like "i guess it makes sense" but in practice they would have the "replace" a lot of other civs just to split India (i would prefer something like India, Khmer and Vietnam than Maurya, Mughal and Tamils).
I think it would be a bit weird to have a mughal civ and an India civ, but i do agree its similar to the whole macedon situation so i wouldnt really mind either.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

Okay, so as for Persia, the reason I would disagree with it being led by Nader Shah, is not because he wasn't Acheamenid, but because he wasn't Persian. He was Turkmen, he came from a Turkmen family and the empire he ruled wasn't called Persia but Iran. Trouble is, the general public (at least here in the West) assumes all of Iran to be Persian, the same way Americans calls all of Britian 'England', or how almost all non-Dutch call the Netherlands 'Holland'; in all three cases, it's people through their general ignorance assuming the country's most powerful region to be fully representative of the country as a whole.

Then again, Saladin was Kurdish and saw himself more as a ruler of Egypt than of Arabia...

 

[pineappledan]

Yes, the leader art and voicing is very demanding…and it’s already done for an alt leader, so to make it a full civ, especially with leader unique components thrown in already, is incrementally little more effort.

Then don't have multiple leaders. Have 1 leader with more uniques. That's the fun, interactive part of a civ anyways.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Trouble is, the general public (at least here in the West) assumes all of Iran to be Persian

Oh God, I had a torrid time trying to point this out to a bunch of Redditors, but all I got was 'no, same people, different name'.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

"Chinese" is not a precise ethnic group any more than "Indian" is.

China has a *lot* of different people too. There are over 50 ethnicities in modern China, and hundreds of languages. Chinese history spans literally thousands of years.

The difference is that India represents a hodgepodge of different people. Which people does China represent? Are the 50 ethnicities in China all mashed up in the China civ? Which of those ethnicities or people should have their own civs?

 

[BuchiTaton]

There's no coherent logic to wanting to split up India but not China or Persia. If I boil down your argument, it's simply: "India just feels different" which isn't true or a satisfying answer.

It's equally silly to try to lump Persia as one civ. Iran, again, has thousands of years of history, many different ethnicities, languages, and religions, etc. Same exact things that apply to India and China.

There would always be some relative change of ideologies, politics, cults, dynasties, militar organization, language or incorporation of ethnicites that anybody could arbitrarily decide to be good enough to justify a separation of civs. There is not point to question "why this one could and this one not" if you yourself dont give clear reason to put both at the same level.

PERSIA in CIV
The Persia in CIV6 have in the same civ both a Classical-Zoroastrian*-Iranian leader than a Renascentist*-Muslim-Turcoman leader, why would we expect a separated civ for another Classical-Zoroastria-Iranian leader?
We can question if the proper Zoroastrianism was official or the personal cult of Cyrus but at least in game devs decided to make it his "prefered" one. So whatever early mixed form of Persian belief Achaemenids had for Firaxis these are close enough to be Zoroastrism in-game and that is not far from the obvious fundamental role Achaemenids had in allow Zoroastrianism to mature and expand under their rule. Another close relation is the Persian (proper*) roots for both Achaemenids and Sassanians something that was exploited to challenge the Parthian legitimacy.

What about units? there are leader unique units for these. Persia in game could have Inmortals and Cataphracts with alternate leader for the same civ. We dont really need different civs to have Longbowmen, Seadogs and Redcoats when the first could be the civ UU and the others two the LUU for our favorite English Queens.
Maybe CIV7 or a later version would has two separated Iranian dynasties as civs but I would not put my money in Sassanians being so relatively close to Achaemenids especially when there are also modern muslim options.

INDIA in CIV
One India in civ has a personal name, Mohandas Kamchand Gandhi, the figure, the meme the CIV "mascot". The story of Gandhi for CIV franchise therefore the history of Gandhi for contemporary India are the main reason for Firaxis to keep the unified India tradition. Beyond this, we can have very different civs splited-off from India:
- Magadha, representing the classical indo-aryan dynasties that were fundamental for the rise of Buddhism. Centered at Northeast India and Bangladesh.
- Tamil, representing the medieval dravidian hinduist dynasties with a naval focus. Covering Southern India and SriLanka.
- Hindustani/Gurkani, representing the renascentist* muslim turkic-eastIranian dynasties. With core at Northwest India and Pakistan.
There you have all different eras, religions, cultures, regions and thematics. For a region that by the way has more space to put theirs capitals than the closter around Mesopotamia-Iran were we would have more civs (including a possible Armenia).

CHINA in CIV
The most common suggestion about civs from China are not Chinese dynasties but cultures/peoples from what is now China. Beyond the most popular but also controvesial Tibetan civ there are few regular suggestions, the only close is Jurchen/Manchu that by the way do not cover just current China but also the Russian part of the historical Manchuria. Jurchen fit as the representative of Tungusic peoples, the only ones that actualy did something that fit the gameplay of CIV, confronting Chinese, Koreans, Mongols, Japanase, Russian and Turkic peoples, this confrontational relation with historical chinese dynasties put in context both as different. Now when people say "China is diverse so it cover anything" you are counting either the foreign invasors that were seen as barbarian usurpers or the subjugated minorities that were object of systematic oppresion, so you would be OK with civs like Haudenosaune or Lakota being part of USA because they are part of a diverse country?
If Cree can be their own playable civ then Hmong could be also, since the role as the "native civ resisting an imperial power" is not exclusive to the west.

So in resume, separated Persian dynasties are possible, that is true. But present this as the same for India or China without a proper scale and context is a disproportion.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Also, didnt comment on this cuz i forgot :3 i dont really have much knowledge of Persia, but i do agree it is weird Nader Shah having satapries and immortals and pairidaezas. I think he could lead Persia if Civ6's persia wasnt just the achaemenid empire in a different name.

It's no different from Teddy Roosevelt having Slingers or Robert the Bruce having Tanks, but yes I agree that a Persia blob would benefit from having elements over a broader time period.