7 New Civs You'd Like to See in Civ7

[pokiehl]

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).

Literally all of this applies to Persia and China except the arbitrary “region” criteria, which isn’t relevant since Civ is not designed around a TSL map.

 

[awesome]

Sealand

 

[pineappledan]

I would argue Iran already enjoys a level of “peripheral” representation that India and China do not. If you view Iran as the imperial core then there are several groups that already have been in the game which existed in the orbit of an Iranian empire, fought against, or controlled all or part of Iran at various times:

- Macedon was a persianized satrapy at the western edge of Persia’s empire, and conquered the whole empire.
- Assyria was the Persian’s ancient foe. Cyrus led a coalition of nations to defeat and destroy them, which was the beginning of Persia’s imperial presence in Mesopotamia.
- The Romans and Byzantines fought bitterly with the Persians for control of the Middle East and eastern Anatolia for centuries.
- the Arabs conquered all of Iran and incorporated much of the Sassanid culture, architecture, and administration into their own newly formed empire.
- The Ottomans, a heavilly persianized and Arabize Turkic group, were constantly fighting the Persians after the reemergence of Iranian self-rule by the Safavids.

For China, the only equivalents are Japan, who did manage to conquer almost all of China in the 20th century, and Mongolia (but Mongolia conquered Iran too, so that’s a wash). Maybe Korea, the perpetual satellite and tributary, if you’re feeling generous.

For India, the closest thing you have had in any game is England.

I have also seen two other thoroughly persianized groups make it onto some peoples lists, like the Gurkhani/Mughals and Afghans/Durrani.

So no, I don’t think Iranian history is particularly underrepresented, or their situation is Comparable to India and China.

 

[pokiehl]

I would argue Iran already enjoys a level of “peripheral” representation that India and China do not. If you view Iran as the imperial core then there are several groups that already have been in the game which existed in the orbit of an Iranian empire, fought against, or controlled all or part of Iran at various times:

- Macedon was a persianized satrapy at the western edge if Persia’s empire, and conquered the whole empire.
- Assyria was the Persian’s ancient foe. Cyrus led a coalition of nations to defeat and destroy them, which was the beginning of Persia’s imperial presence in Mesopotamia.
- The Romans and Byzantines fought bitterly with the Persians for control of the Middle East for centuries.
- the Arabs conquered all of Iran and incorporated much of the Sassanid culture, architecture, and administration into their own newly formed empire.
- The Ottomans, a heavilly persianized and Arabize Turkic group, were constantly fighting the Persians after the reemergence of Iranian self-rule by the Safavids.

For China, the only equivalents are Japan, who did manage to conquer almost all of China in the 20th century, and Mongolia (but Mongolia conquered Iran too, so that’s a wash). Maybe Korea, the perpetual satellite and tributary, if you’re feeling generous.

For India, the closest thing you have had in any game is England.

I have also seen two other thoroughly persianized groups make it onto some peoples lists, like the Gurkhani/Mughals and Afghans/Durrani.

So no, I don’t think Iranian history is particularly underrepresented, or their situation is Comparable to India and China.

This is utterly bizarre reasoning to split hairs with this arbitrary notion of "peripheral representation." It's moving the goalposts at its finest.

You've listed a bunch of other groups that various Iranians throughout history had war with. What does that have to do with anything? How on earth is Rome a representation of Iran because of fights between Romans and Sassanians? How does the Mongol Empire have ANYTHING to do with Iran in the game?

Apply this logic to the representation of African or Mesoamerican civs. "Spain conquered the Aztec, so the Aztec are overrepresented via 2 factions now! Africa was colonized by Portugal, France, Germany, and so on, so the continent is already fully represented in Civ!"

This is the strangest, most specious reasoning I've come across here in a very long time.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Sealand

you’re not the only one who wants a Sealandic Civilization (a city state would do fine too)

 

[pineappledan]

That is a straw man, plain and simple. Iran has representation in the form of Persia/the Achaemenids, and you are advocating for the addition of 2 more Iranian dynasties. You used China and India as comparable groups and… no they’re not. Not even close.

But whatever. If you have dug in your heels this deep that you’re willing to say such things then there is no debate to be had here.

 

[pokiehl]

That is a straw man, plain and simple.

I'm pointing out the flaws of your above reasoning. What, precisely, is the strawman I've used? I don't think you know what that term means.

Iran has representation in the form of Persia/the Achaemenids, and you are advocating for the addition of 2 more Iranian dynasties. You used China and India as comparable groups and… no they’re not. Not even close.

You haven't even attempted to refute my reasoning. You're just reasserting yourself.

But whatever. If you have dug in your heels this deep that you’re willing to say such things then there is no debate to be had here.

Sure, lest you yet again go into my DMs to send me another emotional, angry private message because I disagreed with you about a videogame. What weird, weird behavior. (To be clear, that's not an invitation. Don't ever DM me again.)

If talking about a videogame gets you that worked up to the point of sending people angry, personal messages, maybe you should take a break from here.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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 don't disagree with this. I do wish Nader Shah could have at least got a UU, like the Zamburak.

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.

I think the ethnicity, or original nationality, of a leader is a moot point. Nobody claims that Catherine the Great shouldn't lead Russia because she was actually German.

For China, the only equivalents are Japan, who did manage to conquer almost all of China in the 20th century, and Mongolia (but Mongolia conquered Iran too, so that’s a wash). Maybe Korea, the perpetual satellite and tributary, if you’re feeling generous.

What about Vietnam? And then you could also argue Indonesia under the Yuan Dynasty. I do have to agree that this is a weird reasoning especially because you could apply that logic to any civ in the Middle East.

 

[pineappledan]

Apply this logic to the representation of African or Mesoamerican civs. "Spain conquered the Aztec, so the Aztec are overrepresented via 2 factions now!

No, that’s not an application of that logic. Not even close. That’s why I say it’s a straw man. Aztecs and Maya representing mesoamerican self-rule, and Spain conquered them. Civ has had Achaemenid Persia representing Iranian self-rule and Macedon, Arab, Ottomans as civs that have at various points conquered it and adopted various parts of its culture.

A more consistent application of the same logic would be saying that Spain and Aztecs already being in the game is a reason not to have Mexico in the game. And yes, I would say that.

Africa was colonized by Portugal, France, Germany, and so on, so the continent is already fully represented in Civ!"

Iran is a region in west Asia. Africa is an entire continent. If you need to conflate the two to make your point then it’s not a point worth making.

You've listed a bunch of other groups that various Iranians throughout history had war with. What does that have to do with anything?

I’ve listed groups that have controlled all or part of Iran, adopted cultural and administrative practices. The Ottomans used Persian as the language at court until the 16th century. Arabs have had the Bazaar as a UB in a few games, a Persian market, even using the Persian word for it as opposed to the Arab “Souk”. In civ 5, the Arabs were led by Harun Al Rashid, an Abbasid caliph born near present day Tehran. In civ 6 the Arabs are led by Saladin, a Kurd.

Iranian culture is well-represented in civ even without more explicit Iranian representation, because Iranian influence in the Middle East is so pervasive it shows up everywhere.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

When did Civ stop delineating factions by "civilization" and start delineating them by ethnicity? The Sassanians and Persians were distinct civilizations by any metric.

The Sassanians were a dynasty, not a separate ethnicity. It's like arguing that instead of having England and Scotland, we should split Britain into Tudor England and Victorian England. It's for the same reason I really disapprove of having Gaul be a separate civ from France

 

[pineappledan]

I think the ethnicity, or original nationality, of a leader is a moot point. Nobody claims that Catherine the Great shouldn't lead Russia because she was actually German.

… I would, kinda. It’s not disqualifying by any means, but in comparison to someone like Ivan IV, who is my favourite pick for a Russian leader, I would certainly make the argument that Ivan actually being a Russian from Russia is a point in his favour.

What about Vietnam? And then you could also argue Indonesia under the Yuan Dynasty. I do have to agree that this is a weird reasoning especially because you could apply that logic to any civ in the Middle East.

TBH I forget Vietnam exists as a civ sometimes. I never bought that DLC.

 

[pokiehl]

The Sassanians were a dynasty, not a separate ethnicity. It's like arguing that instead of having England and Scotland, we should split Britain into Tudor England and Victorian England. It's for the same reason I really disapprove of having Gaul be a separate civ from France

That wasn't the point of what I said at all. Go back and read again. Nowhere did I say they were different ethnicities.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

That wasn't the point of what I said at all. Go back and read again. Nowhere did I say they were different ethnicities.

Okay, to directly answer your question:

When did Civ stop delineating factions by "civilization" and start delineating them by ethnicity?

I would say in Civ 5, when Firaxis made the right decision to no longer call the Scandinavian civilization "Vikings" but an actual Scandinavian country, in this case Denmark. Also, I think geographical and ethno-cultural splits take HUGE priority over time splits.

 

[pokiehl]

No, that’s not an application of that logic. Not even close. That’s why I say it’s a straw man. Aztecs and Maya representing mesoamerican self-rule, and Spain conquered them. Civ has had Achaemenid Persia representing Iranian self-rule and Macedon, Arab, Ottomans as civs that have at various points conquered it and adopted various parts of its culture.

A more consistent application of the same logic would be saying that Spain and Aztecs already being in the game is a reason not to have Mexico in the game. And yes, I would say that.

I thought you said I was "digging my heels in" and "there is no debate to be had here." Yet here you are again.

At any rate, that was an extremely precise application of your logic. Macedon in Civ 6 has nothing to do with Iran. The Arabs in Civ 6 have nothing to do with Iran. The Ottomans in Civ 6 have nothing to do with Iran.

The logical endpoint of your reasoning is "If these 2 groups ever interacted throughout human history, then the inclusion of one is also the representation of the other." It's simply an absurd arbitrary point you're making that has no actual bearing on the game.

Iran is a region in west Asia. Africa is an entire continent. If you need to conflate the two to make your point then it’s not a point worth making.

That has nothing to do with the application of your specious reasoning at all.

I’ve listed groups that have controlled all or part of Iran, adopted cultural and administrative practices. The Ottomans used Persian as the language at court until the 16th century. Arabs have had the Bazaar as a UB in a few games, a Persian market, even using the Persian word for it as opposed to the Arab “Souk”. In civ 5, the Arabs were led by Harun Al Rashid, an Abbasid caliph born near present day Tehran. In civ 6 the Arabs are led by Saladin, a Kurd.

You listed groups that interacted with Iran then said they are valid in-game representations of Iran in Civ 6, despite having nothing to do with Iran in-game and doing nothing to represent Iranian culture in-game. I applied that same logic to other cultures to provide the absurdity.

Using this reasoning to argue against the inclusion of underrepresented aboriginal or native peoples would swiftly be met with opposition, so why is it OK for you to do it to Persia?

The United States and Canada subsumed every North American native culture north of Mexico. Are these cultures all now represented in Civ somehow? Come on.

Iranian culture is well-represented in civ even without more explicit Iranian representation, because Iranian influence in the Middle East is so pervasive it shows up everywhere.

It doesn't "show up everywhere." That's such a sweeping claim as to be meaningless. Iranian influence in Civ 6 is limited to Persia.

 

[pokiehl]

Okay, to directly answer your question:

My question was rhetorical to prove my point that delineating factions by ethnicity is silly and has never been how it works in game.

I would say in Civ 5, when Firaxis made the right decision to no longer call the Scandinavian civilization "Vikings" but an actual Scandinavian country, in this case Denmark. Also, I think geographical and ethno-cultural splits take HUGE priority over time splits.

Again, you have mistaken my rhetorical question as an actual question, which missed my actual point.

Going down the path of focusing on ethnicity is perilous. I advise not doing it. To use an example, Catherine the Great's ethnic background has nothing to do with her appropriateness or inappropriateness as a ruler of Russia in this videogame.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

It's for the same reason I really disapprove of having Gaul be a separate civ from France

This thread is going in so many directions all at once, but I can't help but step in here to say that the Gauls make sense as a separate civ from France, as modern and medieval France is 'derived' (for want of a better word) from the Franks, not the Gauls. French connections to the Gauls are mostly nation-mythology. In the same vein I would say Ancient Britons ≠ England.

It's for the same reason the idea of having an Italian civ separate from a Roman one makes sense for me, considering medieval and modern Italy owes much to the Germanic influx in the last days of Western Rome

 

[pokiehl]

Focusing on ethnicity as some red-line, whether for which factions to include or which leaders to include, is really silly and is in fact fundamentally racist. To again use the example of Catherine--you have no standing to wipe away her Russianness because her relatives were ethnically German. Imagine someone talking down to you like that about your belonging in your self-identified in-group.

Ethnic categorization is ultimately arbitrary and is extremely imprecise, and says nothing about the culture of a given person or people.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It's for the same reason I really disapprove of having Gaul be a separate civ from France

I mean Gaul has a "Belgian" leader and a "Swiss" UU too.
The Gauls are a Celtic people that occupied more territory than just France.

I would say in Civ 5, when Firaxis made the right decision to no longer call the Scandinavian civilization "Vikings" but an actual Scandinavian country, in this case Denmark.

Vikings were never a civilization though. A Viking was just an occupation, as in a sea raider. A more appropriate name would have been the Norse, though using the name Denmark/Norway is fine as that also opens up having early modern Sweden in the game as well.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

The Sassanians were a dynasty, not a separate ethnicity. It's like arguing that instead of having England and Scotland, we should split Britain into Tudor England and Victorian England. It's for the same reason I really disapprove of having Gaul be a separate civ from France

In the name of all the gods the Gauls and the French are wayyyyy different from each other. The Gauls are Celts, and the French are French.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

tbf, my reasoning is basically that:

1. Celtic culture is something I explicitly associate with Ireland, which I much rather would have represented
2. The Greeks call France Galia

Not the most sound reasoning, I must admit