An Analysis of Returning Civs

clapyourhands

Prince
Joined
Jul 16, 2017
Messages
412
I thought it would be interesting to rate each of the series' civs in the frequency and timespan of their returns and create a descending list of sorts to see if there would be any predictive value in it. The two points of interest were 1) if the civ returned at all in a subsequent game and 2) whether the return was in vanilla, pre-expansion DLC, the first expansion, or the second expansion.

To calculate the values, I assigned each civ's appearance per game a point value. Being in the vanilla version of a main series Civ title was 3 points; being introduced in pre-expansion DLC was 2.5 points; first DLC was 2 points; second DLC was 1 point. As edge cases, pre-order bonuses (Civ V Babylon and Civ VI Aztecs) received 2.75 for their respective titles since they were "released" the same time as the rest of the base games, but still were "left out" for many players one way or another. Finally, Austria got 0.75 points for Civ III for a similar reason, being technically part of the second expansion but being cut as a "secret" civ over the civs that did make it to official release. Each successive title is weighted 0.2 more than the previous one, as in my opinion it is more telling for future games if a Civ is included in vanilla, for example, from III - VI than if it is for I-III but not later ones.

Spoiler Rankings :

NOTE: There is a small error with Japan in that it had a score of 0 for Civ I even though it was present in the SNES version; it should have a score of 25.5, though its placement is correct.



1 - 12. (America, Aztec, China, Egypt, England, France, Germany, Greece, Japan, India, Rome, Russia):
Civ staples. Have been vanilla* in every main title without fail.
*The Aztecs were close enough...

13-16. (Persia, Spain, Nordic, Arabia):
Either vanilla or pre-expansion DLC. A vanilla release would most likely include the 12 from the previous group, 2 from this group, 1 or 2 from any of the lower groups, and around 3 new civilizations.

17-18. (Babylon and Mongols):
Pre-expansion DLC or first expansion.

19-33:
First expansion-tier civs, with a few coming earlier as pre-expansion DLC.

34-52:
Second expansion-tier civs, OR new civs that haven't appeared in enough sequels to warrant generalization as a series mainstay. Two or three civs from here usually make it into vanilla and/or the first expansion as surprise early returns.

53 (Hittites):
Alas, poor Hittites. Not a blob civ like the Native Americans, nor one subsumed into another like the HRE, they're the only other civ to not return for multiple installments in a row.

Obviously, the biggest flaw with this analysis is that Civ VI simply isn't done, and when you get to the lower parts of the chart (ie: 6 and below), you really start to notice oddities like Civ VI newcomers being higher than returnees (ie: Scythia over Portugal). This should remedy itself over time, as the Civ VI civs currently released essentially have an entire game over those that have not yet been released but will be. To counteract this, here's a bonus chart from pre-Civ VI release (Japan should be at 19.5 on this one, and Zulus at 15.2 and lower than Spain); this would have been the scores of each civ post-BNW but before any Civ VI civs were revealed:
Spoiler :




It does seem to line up relatively well with general consensus, with some aberrations (ie: Portugal and Austria). Anything else stand out to you guys? Will the Hittites finally be dredged up from the bottom of the list in the coming expansions?
 
Last edited:
In my CIV 1 version the Zulus were in while the Japanese were out. What is correct here?

I had Zulus too. However, the version I had was a Russian 'adaptation' with some changes (e.g. American space and nuke related wonders were changed to Soviet ones :D ).
 
In my CIV 1 version the Zulus were in while the Japanese were out. What is correct here?

The wiki says the Japanese replaced the Zulu in the SNES version of Civ I; I guess they're in the right spot after all, then, but with a higher score (idk what being on a console-specific version would be, 1.5 points? It would be under the Aztecs, once again putting it in the same group as them instead of the perfect scores.
 
Nice analysis. The top ones not yet included (Mongols, Babylon, Zulu, Carthage, Celts, Ottoman, Inca) seem like they would be the top candidates for the first expansion based on the history of the series. However, if the focus of the expansion is diplomacy and the late game, many of them don't fit with that theme - none are significant powers post WWI and most peaked long before then.

Makes me wonder if we'll see a few of them show up as DLC, either before or after the first expansion.
 
Interesting. Which release was the Hittites in anyways? I can't actually remember what game they were in.
 
Biggest surprise for me is actually Assyria. I've played all the civ games and could have sworn they appeared before V.

Interesting. Which release was the Hittites in anyways? I can't actually remember what game they were in.
civ III

Nice analysis. The top ones not yet included (Mongols, Babylon, Zulu, Carthage, Celts, Ottoman, Inca) seem like they would be the top candidates for the first expansion based on the history of the series. However, if the focus of the expansion is diplomacy and the late game, many of them don't fit with that theme - none are significant powers post WWI and most peaked long before then.

Makes me wonder if we'll see a few of them show up as DLC, either before or after the first expansion.
I can see Babylon getting a diplomatic ability or leader with such an ability.
The Ottomans seem more unlikely for that, but if you really want to do it, you could.

It seems plausible that a theme of the expansion might be exploration as well. Colonies might be more interesting in the late game and added because of that, but they may choose a mechanic that could influence the earlier game as well. Carthage seems a good candidate for an ability in the region of exploration and colonization (even if their parent civ might be a better fit).
 
Last edited:
Nice analysis. The top ones not yet included (Mongols, Babylon, Zulu, Carthage, Celts, Ottoman, Inca) seem like they would be the top candidates for the first expansion based on the history of the series. However, if the focus of the expansion is diplomacy and the late game, many of them don't fit with that theme - none are significant powers post WWI and most peaked long before then.

Makes me wonder if we'll see a few of them show up as DLC, either before or after the first expansion.

I don't think every civ in the expansion will be focused on that. In some ways, it sounds like the expected theme of the expansion will be like Brave New World, but if you look at the civs included in that expansion, virtually none of them actually had any bonuses related to the new mechanisms. It appears that the selection of civs and the selection of main "theme" for the expansion are fairly distinct.
 
Biggest surprise for me is actually Assyria. I've played all the civ games and could have sworn they appeared before V.


civ III


I can see Babylon getting a diplomatic ability or leader with such an ability.
The Ottomans seem more unlikely for that, but if you really want to do it, you could.

It seems plausible that a theme of the expansion might be exploration as well. Colonies might be more interesting in the late game and added because of that, but they may choose a mechanic that could influence the earlier game as well. Carthage seems a good candidate for an ability in the region of exploration and colonization (even if their parent civ might be a better fit).

The Ottomans are a prime candidate for diplomatic abilities. The term "suzerain" was invented to describe their relationship with smaller states in the region.
 
Top Bottom