Antiquity Civs as Regional "Wellfonts"

[RedCourtJester]

So I've been thinking more on some of the design philosophy behind civ choices in VII, and there definitely seems to be a sort of loose utilitarian "meritocracy" to how civs are being selected (which seems to be holding, for now, and might be expanded outward depending on how long development for the game goes on):

* Modern civs - clearly the defining regional powers (usually imperial or revolutionary) which defined modern political powers/peoples. Pretty clear-cut. Expect to see Canada, Australia, Sweden, Brazil, Ethiopia, Morocco, Poland-Lithuania, Austria-Hungary, Netherlands return if they aren't represented in exploration era.
* Exploration civs - seem to be going for good "transitionary" civs which represent good crossroads between cultures/polities, either by virtue of taking up a lot of territory (Spain, Mongolia, Majapahit, Normans, Abbasids, Songhai, Inca, Bulgaria), or being good pseudo-imperial "throughpoints" connecting larger, more nomadic regions (Hawaii, Shawnee, Iceland). Again, thoroughly expecting civs like the Franks/HRE, Byzantium, Portugal, Venice, Mapuche, Cree (or equivalent), and England/Scotland to return, alongside pretty obvious "sprawl" newcomers like Swahili/Kilwa, Almohad/Almoravid/Cordoba, Timurids/Sasanids/Seljuks, etc. etc.
* (note, for both of these, we are still seeing the introduction of some highly distinct cultural "isolates" like Nepal and Vietnam, so it's not a hard rule and we will totally see the occasional Georgia or Switzerland, just appears to be a general guiding principle, don't @ me).

What I find most interesting about this is the prioritizing of Antiquity era civs. There appears to be a similar balancing of "regional dominance" and "sociopolitical overlap" as in the prior eras, as well as a desire to give each region at least one solid starting point. As it stands, the base game gave most regions roughly one solid "wellfont" to start from: Europe (Rome), Middle East (Persia), Northern Africa (Egypt), Southern Africa (Aksum), India (Maurya), China (Han), Khmer (Southeast Asia), Latin America (Maya), and North America (Mississippian). Greece is the only civ to really prove an exception in the base game and fits the usual Euro/ME-bias of history games, and we are seeing some selective efforts to flesh out other regions with Carthage (West Africa/West Europe), Assyria, (Levant), Tonga (Polynesia), and prossibly Silla (Korea-Japan). But unlike the other eras, the timeline of what constitutes "antiquity" has been extremely liberally interpreted in order to satisfy this in some areas, the most obvious examples being Khmer and the Mississippians. What I think we can presume is that other regions will be given the same approach depending on when the idea of territorial expansion and coalescing into empires/federations occurred. What I think we can't presume yet is how late the devs are willing to push this idea for each region; 800 AD may not be the latest we will see.

Anyway, given the wonky balancing of reality and gamified functionality that uniquely plagues the Antiquity era, I am curious to see members' more consolidated efforts to figure out (a) what civs we really want/need in the game as good historical startpoints for exploration era civs, and (b) whether there are any compromises needed (blobbification, reconstruction, pivoting to later civs like the Maya or Khmer) to satisfy that.

Currently, I think very safe predictions for antiquity civs are:

* Norse - just overall the best antiquity representation of Northern Europe, despite being comparatively very late.
* Scythia - I've been balancing this against the Xiongnu and Huns (and Sogdia), and while I'm not precluding an upset or subsequent additions, I do think it's just the most solid first pick for an antiquity steppe civ given a balancing of overall territory and attested infrastructure.

That still leaves a few regions lacking solid "wellfonts." So here's some guesses, roughly in order of likelihood, of what I think we might see (curious to hear opinions):

Primary Wellfonts (Pretty Likely Priority Civs):

* Wagadu - I think Amina is pointing toward an inevitable "Malian" region which will likely give her a corresponding modern Hausa civ. Wagadu dates back to 700, is clearly the origin point for Mali and what resulted. While I anticipate getting at least one Bight of Benin civ like the Ashanti/Akan or Benin or Oyo, all of these are solidly exploration/modern era civs, and I don't think the Nok are well-attested enough.
* Slavs - I'm putting these above other European antiquity civs because I think they are so much easier to carve out than Western European options.
* Gaul/Celts (Halstatt/Picts/Scots) - It will be interesting to see what they do with this. I think it's extremely likely we will get both "British" and "Continental" Celtic civs, but (a) Firaxis could easily combine both into "Celts" again depending on what lens they are viewed through, and (b) they could easily pivot to Halstatt/La Tene for a continental option, again depending on the lens. Absent more information I am just going to peg Gaul as the first choice, but part of me would love to see them try a "Celtic" civ again that adequately demonstrates the commonality between them (and would sit alongside the Slavs and Goths so much better as much broader "proto-cultures").
* Tiwanaku - Something about the huge number of Peruvian/Bolivian antiquity IPs, along with the positioning of the Inca as the base game South American civ and the quick-to-return Simon Bolivar, gives me huge de la Vega vibes. Compared to Caral and Norte Chico, Tiwanaku feels like a much stronger option as a matter of attestation and overall regional influence. I am hoping we still get an antiquity Amazonian counterpart for western SA and the Caribbean, but this feels like perhaps the best starting "wellfont" for South America.
* Taino/Arawak/Kalinago - And yes, I am also getting vibes that, especially now that there be Pirates, the Caribbean will sorely want an antiquity civ. I think as a matter of infrastructure the Taino are the best option, but as a cultural blob these also constitute the best Amazonian antiquity civ. All of these run a bit late on the timeline, but there is evidence that they spread through the Caribbean quite a bit earlier than the structures we know of. If it is acceptable for the Tongan Empire, est. 950, to serve as an antiquity civ, I think the Taino/Arawak are acceptable in this region.
* Great Zimbabwe - This is probably the latest we will be seeing the antiquity age pushed, but I do think that a Zimbabwe -> Mutapa -> Zulu + Kongo path would make a lot of logical sense. The Zulu are extremely likely to reappear, and while the Swahili are fine as an exploration era connector, a true Shona path would be much, much cooler and representative of Southern Africa. Plus, I struggle to figure out how to get Kongo back into a three-era game (I would prefer if we managed to bring back as many players as possible), and the Mutapa and a Shona region are possibly the only good way to do that. Sorry, not sorry Boers, you should get the British Raj treatment here.
* Papua New Guinea - Presently Macronesia does not have a great start point. I'm placing these lower because Tonga is at least happening, but I still don't think that will be enough for Indonesia. And I think the choice of Tonga instead of Samoa signals, to me, a direct attempt not to consolidate Macronesia and Polynesia with a single wellfont civ. Papua could given that it would be decently satisfying blob/substitute for the Pama Nyungan and a startpoint for Australian civs. Also, when looking at "bigass islands/archies" that are getting representation: Japan, Philippines, Majapahit (Java), Maori (New Zealand), Hawaii; it totally tracks to make this island a civ as well. I don't think this precludes the Cham as a great start point for Vietnam/Philippines further down the line.
* Haida/Tlingit - I'm abstracting away from what is currently in the game a lot here, but there are three things I am expecting to happen. 1. Exploration era Iceland and modern IP Inuit is absolutely signalling a modern Inuit civ. 2. Canada is returning as a modern civ, get used to it. 3. I put odds of modern Anishinaabe being added at roughly 60/40 against the Lakota, as they make a lot of sense as completing "Tecumseh's Blue Wall of Friendship." Given all three of these very likely modern endpoints, the spread and historical migration of northern tribes, and how Polynesia seems very likely getting civs "representing" the Polynesian migration, I think civs up in the general "Aleutian" region are prime candidates for an antiquity startpoint. I would furthermore point out that cultures as far east as the Anishinaabe/Ojibwe inherited the totem pole culture.
* Pueblo/Hohokam - Both of these are antiquity IPs despite being nowhere near the Maya or Mississippians, compared to a lot of the other IPs being neighbors/precursors/successors to existing civs. Yeah you could argue map-filling, blah, blah, but Scandinavia didn't get that kind of treatment. I'm suspicious, and I could easily see some sort of "Western Desert/Plains" path being built out to complement the Mississippian legacy. Frankly, if we are filling out all of the other regions, I would expect this as a matter of fairness.

Double-Ups (Regions Where I Think We May Get Two Antiquity Civs)

* Babylon (Sumeria) - It's tradition at this point, and I think something representing Mesopotamia proper, Akkadian, and Iraq/Qatar is just likely in the antiquity era.
* Goths (Germans/Saxons) - I am not sure how they are going to figure the non-Norse, non-Roman, non-Celtic world out, but the Goths would be a great "antiquity Normans," being able to vicariously and most blobbedly represent antiquity Germany, the Gutes of Sweden, antiquity Balkans/Romania, and Visigothic/Ostrogothic Iberia/Italy under Theodoric. Very efficient, very mindful.
* Yayoi/Jomon/Heian - I think Silla works as a placeholder for a Japan starting point, but I do think, absent something really estoric like Silla being pushed to exploration and both Korea and Japan coming from a shared "Jin" civ, it would just be easier for the devs to make three eras for each.
* Huns/Xiongnu and Celts/Picts/Scots - already discussed above. Ireland/Scotland and Hungary seem quite likely for exploration era civs, could see these getting more specifically-tailored antiquity starts.
* Cham - If we get both antiquity Japan and Korea, then I just don't think Khmer works as a start point for Majapahit and Philippines (and to some extent, Vietnam). Thankfully, the Cham exist.
* Nabataea - I think if we get modern Mamluks, that will give a better indication as to whether we may get a full three-era Arabs path. Would be neat.
* Hittites - also pretty decent odds, I would put their odds between "antiquity Arabs" and "second Egypt."
* Nubia - Odds of returning are decent. I would say less likely than Scotland, but not bad. Although if Nabataea gets in I think its odds plummet, given that it is conceptually very squeezed out between Egypt, Nabataea, and Aksum.
* Numidia/Garamantes - Carthage and Wagadu would certainly suffice for West Africa, but neither really represents the Amazigh/Berber heritage well. Would not be surprised to see this eventually sliding in, especially if after Morocco we see an exploration era civ like Almoravid/Almohad appear.
* Tibet - I'm actually feeling antiquity Tibet, guys. I think this may be its chance. We already have Nepal as a modern Indochine bridge, and very good chances at exploration era Burma with all the Burmese IPs. Tibet -> Burma -> Nepal by itself would just make such a nice, elegant path. Putting it in antiquity probably wouldn't piss off China any more than Mongolia in exploration era. Probably.
* Olmec - I really don't need an Olmec civ, but since I'm mentioning double-ups, I think they stand the best chance of "borderline reconstruction nightmare" civs. Plus I feel like the base-game inclusion of Maya and Mexico might mean something, if not for the Olmec then for the Purepecha, or even Teotihuacan.
* Nok or Kanem-Bornu - Nok seem the obvious choice for a second West Africa antiquity civ, although I'm not sure how well attested it is. Could pivot to Kanem-Bornu, which is a pretty off-beat choice and could really go in any era by West African timelines. I could see it possibly working if I squint, especially as glue for pathways across the whole continent.
* Saami - I wouldn't put their odds as high, however I think if they appeared at all in VII they would be antiquity, as they would compete mechanically with a modern Inuit but have virtually no competition in antiquity. Would be a nice alternate start point for Iceland -> Inuit, and perhaps even could move into a theoretical Sakha/Yakut modern civ depending on how things go.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

* Haida/Tlingit - I'm abstracting away from what is currently in the game a lot here, but there are three things I am expecting to happen. 1. Exploration era Iceland and modern IP Inuit is absolutely signalling a modern Inuit civ. 2. Canada is returning as a modern civ, get used to it. 3. I put odds of modern Anishinaabe being added at roughly 60/40 against the Lakota, as they make a lot of sense as completing "Tecumseh's Blue Wall of Friendship." Given all three of these very likely modern endpoints, the spread and historical migration of northern tribes, and how Polynesia seems very likely getting civs "representing" the Polynesian migration, I think civs up in the general "Aleutian" region are prime candidates for an antiquity startpoint. I would furthermore point out that cultures as far east as the Anishinaabe/Ojibwe inherited the totem pole culture.

I'm not sure if the Haida/Tingit would fit the Antiquity Age. What about Antiquity Dene which could possibly unlock American SW civs considering the Apache and Navajo are related to the Northern Athabaskan languages?

* Nabataea - I think if we get modern Mamluks, that will give a better indication as to whether we may get a full three-era Arabs path. Would be neat.

I think Nabataea is the least likely to get in, if we are also considering all the Mesopotamian civs on top of Hittites, and we already have Persia. Plus, all new civs will need to have associated wonders not already in the game, and they surely would have had Petra, right?

* Tibet - I'm actually feeling antiquity Tibet, guys. I think this may be its chance. We already have Nepal as a modern Indochine bridge, and very good chances at exploration era Burma with all the Burmese IPs. Tibet -> Burma -> Nepal by itself would just make such a nice, elegant path. Putting it in antiquity probably wouldn't piss off China any more than Mongolia in exploration era. Probably.

Like above, I'm not entirely sure Burma will get in the game because of them already having the Shwedagon Zedi Daw in the game. I think it's more likely that Tibet would be Exploration, and you would go Maurya>Tibet>Nepal.

 

[Evie]

I'd say that (ignoring twentieth century polities) the chief and principal candidate for Modern Arabs is not Mamlukes (who have zero fit for modern) - it's Oman.

However, by the same token...I'd have to say Nabatea is going to have though competition from Saba for the Ancient Arabian slot (if we get one), because the words "Queen of" rather comes into play at this point for major recognition value, and the M'arib dam is actually a strong competitor to Petra for an associated wonder.

 

[untitledjuan]

* Taino/Arawak/Kalinago - And yes, I am also getting vibes that, especially now that there be Pirates, the Caribbean will sorely want an antiquity civ. I think as a matter of infrastructure the Taino are the best option, but as a cultural blob these also constitute the best Amazonian antiquity civ. All of these run a bit late on the timeline, but there is evidence that they spread through the Caribbean quite a bit earlier than the structures we know of. If it is acceptable for the Tongan Empire, est. 950, to serve as an antiquity civ, I think the Taino/Arawak are acceptable in this region.

The Taíno are well known for their interaction with the Spanish during the real Exploration Era. I bet they will feature in the in-game Exploration Era for this reason. I think that a more appropriate Ancient Era Civilization for the Caribbean would be the Carib peoples (aka. Kalina people and all other Cariban speaking groups in mainland South America and the Caribbean). Both the Taíno/Arawak and the Muisca can "evolve" from them in the Exploration Era, considering that various Cariban groups lived around and were enemies of the Muisca and the Muisca conquered regions were various Cariban tribes existed.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I'm not sure if the Haida/Tingit would fit the Antiquity Age. What about Antiquity Dene which could possibly unlock American SW civs considering the Apache and Navajo are related to the Northern Athabaskan languages?

I had also considered the Dene.

I think Nabataea is the least likely to get in, if we are also considering all the Mesopotamian civs on top of Hittites, and we already have Persia. Plus, all new civs will need to have associated wonders not already in the game, and they surely would have had Petra, right?

Like above, I'm not entirely sure Burma will get in the game because of them already having the Shwedagon Zedi Daw in the game. I think it's more likely that Tibet would be Exploration, and you would go Maurya>Tibet>Nepal.

I don't think every new civ is going to get a totally new wonder. We don't know to which civs that statement will apply after Crossroads of the World, but particularly in the case of the wonders which already exist on the map, I don't think many of their "associated civs" have many strong options beyond what we already have. For example, I will be extremely surprised if Burden of Maui is not assigned to Tonga; it is much easier to just make a Star Mound replacement wonder to represent Samoa than try to figure out another Tongan wonder. And I think the same thing would largely apply to Petra and Shwedagon Paya for Nabataea and Burma, along with other likely and less-likely civs like Goths, Teotihuacan, Qin, Gupta, etc. etc. etc.

Tibetan Empire was roughly 600 - 800, which pretty comfortably puts it before Chola, Ming, and Mongolia, and well before Khmer and the height of Silla. I think it would be quite happy in antiquity, not to mention much less controversial to modern China if it could be eaten up by the Ming in exploration. I know Potala Palace contradicts this, but Jokhang and a few other monasteries would work just as well for the antiquity era (and then get an unassociated Potala Palace in modern era, perhaps).

We could easily just not get Tibet, I recognize, but I do think that its best odds are going to be antiquity.

I'd say that (ignoring twentieth century polities) the chief and principal candidate for Modern Arabs is not Mamlukes (who have zero fit for modern) - it's Oman.

However, by the same token...I'd have to say Nabatea is going to have though competition from Saba for the Ancient Arabian slot (if we get one), because the words "Queen of" rather comes into play at this point for major recognition value, and the M'arib dam is actually a strong competitor to Petra for an associated wonder.

Hmmm, you are probably right with respect to Mamluks versus Oman. I do still think the Mamluks retained enough semi-autonomous influence in Egypt and Iraq (and India, for that matter) post-1500 that they could still work as an Ottoman alternative in modern era. Maybe.

I would be fine with Saba. I think both Saba and Nabataea, but especially Saba, bump up against Aksum. The defining factor I think as to whether we get either is to what extent techs and uniques can be devised. Instinctively I feel like Nabataea gives more to work with and comfortably transitions to more exploration era civs, while M'arib Dam could easily be a replacement wonder for Petra. But I wouldn't mind a well-designed Saba at all.

The Taíno are well known for their interaction with the Spanish during the real Exploration Era. I bet they will feature in the in-game Exploration Era for this reason. I think that a more appropriate Ancient Era Civilization for the Caribbean would be the Carib peoples (aka. Kalina people and all other Cariban speaking groups in mainland South America and the Caribbean). Both the Taíno/Arawak and the Muisca can "evolve" from them in the Exploration Era, considering that various Cariban groups lived around and were enemies of the Muisca and the Muisca conquered regions were various Cariban tribes existed.

I think especially for "history being built in layers" it's a bit weird to be going into this expecting a bunch of contemporaries one can pit against each other. A lot of that can be achieved with IPs (and indeed, there is an exploration era Taino IP for that sort of fantasy).

What I think will be taking precedence is what that civ represents with respect to that region. Was it the exploration/settling or imperializing of the region? Or was it a layering and shake-up of the region? The defining Taino features, and particularly all of the expected Taino uniques, definitely fit antiquity better than exploration era, imo.

Looking at this another way, certain regions and peoples are going to be a lot more flexible with how they can be represented in three-era timelines. Khmer was able to push backward into pseudo-Funan territory due to a lack of large, regionally influential cultures for mainland Southeast Asia and mandala states. Same thing with Tonga as a "wellfont" for Polynesia. The Maori look like they will be pushed into the modern era as when they established territorial dominance of New Zealand, as well as came out as a frontrunner for native political recognition as the majority ethnicity in NZ. We can see similar indications for why Mapuche will more likely be exploration while Guarani will be modern, or why Inuit stand good odds of being modern.

Part of why I am discussing this is hashing out this kind of argument. Because, if it isn't the Taino, who is going to represent the Caribbean in antiquity? The Maya and Mississippians are terrible start points for any civs that end on, say, Cuba or Haiti. Is there a compelling argument that the Caribbean can't have an antiquity civ at all? I don't think so if we are already considering Tonga and Khmer in antiquity.

I could see some semblance of an argument of having Arawak/Carib in antiquity and Taino in exploration, but do we have enough to work with for that split to build out a full Arawakan/Carib civ without resorting to blobbing them with Taino? I don't think we do?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'd say that (ignoring twentieth century polities) the chief and principal candidate for Modern Arabs is not Mamlukes (who have zero fit for modern) - it's Oman.

I didn't realize it was Modern Mamluks. I would think if they chose a Mamluk civ it would be the Mamluks Sultanate of Egypt and that would have to be Exploration.
At the same time, I'm not expecting it considering the Mamluks are already the UU for the Abbasids, and it would be weird to have a Mamluk civ with no Mamluk UU.

I don't think every new civ is going to get a totally new wonder. We don't know to which civs that statement will apply after Crossroads of the World, but particularly in the case of the wonders which already exist on the map, I don't think many of their "associated civs" have many strong options beyond what we already have. For example, I will be extremely surprised if Burden of Maui is not assigned to Tonga; it is much easier to just make a Star Mound replacement wonder to represent Samoa than try to figure out another Tongan wonder. And I think the same thing would largely apply to Petra and Shwedagon Paya for Nabataea and Burma, along with other likely and less-likely civs like Goths, Teotihuacan, Qin, Gupta, etc. etc. etc.

Was that only in regards to CotW? Well in that case it would make me feel better, though I still think Nabataea might be outshined by the sheer number of civs in that region. I honestly wouldn't mind Samoa over Tonga, personally.
But I do think it's already weird how much SEA love is in this game, and there are no signs of Burma yet. I'd still think Burma and Tibet should share the Exploration Age though.

 

[Xandinho]

There are a few more names that haven’t been considered but have a good chance of appearing: Armenia, Gupta, Nazca, and the Zapotecs.

* Great Zimbabwe - This is probably the latest we will be seeing the antiquity age pushed, but I do think that a Zimbabwe -> Mutapa -> Zulu + Kongo path would make a lot of logical sense. The Zulu are extremely likely to reappear, and while the Swahili are fine as an exploration era connector, a true Shona path would be much, much cooler and representative of Southern Africa. Plus, I struggle to figure out how to get Kongo back into a three-era game (I would prefer if we managed to bring back as many players as possible), and the Mutapa and a Shona region are possibly the only good way to do that. Sorry, not sorry Boers, you should get the British Raj treatment here.

I find it unlikely that both Zimbabwe and Mutapa will be included. If I had to choose one, I’d go with Mutapa, as it was a prominent regional power at its peak and could easily have Great Zimbabwe as its associated wonder.

* Olmec - I really don't need an Olmec civ, but since I'm mentioning double-ups, I think they stand the best chance of "borderline reconstruction nightmare" civs. Plus I feel like the base-game inclusion of Maya and Mexico might mean something, if not for the Olmec then for the Purepecha, or even Teotihuacan.

Unlikely. Besides not being well-documented, they have the option of going to Teotihuacan, which, along with the Maya, was a major Mesoamerican power.

Like above, I'm not entirely sure Burma will get in the game because of them already having the Shwedagon Zedi Daw in the game. I think it's more likely that Tibet would be Exploration, and you would go Maurya>Tibet>Nepal.

Well, I don’t need Burma right now, since Southeast Asia is already well represented, and it looks like Dai Viet is on the way. That said, I still believe it will appear at some point, as it's frequently requested by fans and it's the last of the region's major players that has yet to make its debut.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Well, I don’t need Burma right now, since Southeast Asia is already well represented, and it looks like Dai Viet is on the way. That said, I still believe it will appear at some point, as it's frequently requested by fans and it's the last of the region's major players that has yet to make its debut.

Oh yeah. I'm quite surprised that we are even getting Dai Viet so soon, since Vietnam just recently debuted in Civ 6 and Trung Trac is a leader in the game.

 

[untitledjuan]

I could see some semblance of an argument of having Arawak/Carib in antiquity and Taino in exploration, but do we have enough to work with for that split to build out a full Arawakan/Carib civ without resorting to blobbing them with Taino? I don't think we do?

I believe the Carib work better in Antiquity, due to them being one of the first settlers of the Caribbean Islands. Then, either a blob Arawak civ or a Taíno civ could follow them in Exploration, as the Arawak/Taíno later migrated into the Caribbean islands from mainland South America and were the dominant group when the Spanish arrived. The Carib could also work as Ancient era predecessors to the Exploration era Muisca and Tupi.

That way, the Carib can work as an Ancient era point in which the Muisca-Colombia and Tupi-Brazil paths can be reached, as well as the Taíno-Haiti one.

It'd work something like this:

Carib>Taíno>Haiti
Carib>Muisca>Colombia
Carib>Tupi>Brazil

 

[RedCourtJester]

There are a few more names that haven’t been considered but have a good chance of appearing: Armenia, Gupta, Nazca, and the Zapotecs.

Unlikely. Besides not being well-documented, they have the option of going to Teotihuacan, which, along with the Maya, was a major Mesoamerican power.

* Armenia - forgot about them! I could see it. What I'm most curious about with Armenia is that, even though it could probably be a full three-era civ (Armenia -> Celicia -> Cyprus), I think it is more likely it will be part of a Georgia chain (Armenia -> ??? -> Georgia).

* Gupta - I'm waiting on other Indian and Chinese civs until we actually see it happen. Technically the Gupta are just as likely as the Qin if we are going by wonders. I am actually totally happy if we don't get anymore of either, and instead use the resources to pivot to Tibet, Burma, etc.

* Zapotecs - A possibility, though I wouldn't expect to see both Zapotecs and Teotihuacan in antiquity. Very slim odds.

* Nazca - I'm curious, do you think Nazca is more or less likely than Tiwanaku? They feel very Olmec/Funan to me, and the devs might have to pivot to a later civ just to have material to work with. Hence why I proposed Tiwanaku.

I find it unlikely that both Zimbabwe and Mutapa will be included. If I had to choose one, I’d go with Mutapa, as it was a prominent regional power at its peak and could easily have Great Zimbabwe as its associated wonder.

Zimbabwe would work fine as a Mutapa wonder, but I don't think the Mutapa fit as an antiquity civ? I agree it's difficult to figure out uniques for both civs, but I figured if either of them were early enough to fit antiquity it would be Zimbabwe, right?

Honestly a full Shona path would be one of the most impressive constructions I think the devs could pull off, and even if they didn't I would hope we could mod one in.

Well, I don’t need Burma right now, since Southeast Asia is already well represented, and it looks like Dai Viet is on the way. That said, I still believe it will appear at some point, as it's frequently requested by fans and it's the last of the region's major players that has yet to make its debut.

I was thinking longer term big picture. I agree I don't expect to see Burma soon, but I do think it's very likely planned.

I believe the Carib work better in Antiquity, due to them being one of the first settlers of the Caribbean Islands. Then, either a blob Arawak civ or a Taíno civ could follow them in Exploration, as the Arawak/Taíno later migrated into the Caribbean islands from mainland South America and were the dominant group when the Spanish arrived. The Carib could also work as Ancient era predecessors to the Exploration era Muisca and Tupi.

That way, the Carib can work as an Ancient era point in which the Muisca-Colombia and Tupi-Brazil paths can be reached, as well as the Taíno-Haiti one.

It'd work something like this:

Carib>Taíno>Haiti
Carib>Muisca>Colombia
Carib>Tupi>Brazil

Do we have enough to work with to make a Carib civ, that's the issue I'm running into in that region. That would also be a very impressive antiquity civ to pull off, as I don't know of any well-documented structures they could use for UBs/UIs. The Taino, by comparison, seem to have better documented culture, evidence of stilted houses which could pass as a UI, and a "wonder" in the Caguana batey site. Plus, they also settled the Caribbean in antiquity, and the Arawak cover much of the same Amazonian territory as the Kalinago.

Again, unless I am missing something, I feel like the Arawak provide more to actually build an antiquity civ than the Caribs, and would still satisfy Muisca/Tupi paths as well.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

* Armenia - forgot about them! I could see it. What I'm most curious about with Armenia is that, even though it could probably be a full three-era civ (Armenia -> Celicia -> Cyprus), I think it is more likely it will be part of a Georgia chain (Armenia -> ??? -> Georgia).

More likely it would be Armenia>Georgia>Russia. The Golden Age was from the 11th to 13th century, and the country was essentially under control of Russia for most of the in-game timeline of the Modern Age.

 

[RedCourtJester]

More likely it would be Armenia>Georgia>Russia. The Golden Age was from the 11th to 13th century, and the country was essentially under control of Russia for most of the in-game timeline of the Modern Age.

Oh sorry you are completely correct. Or Armenia -> Georgia -> Cyprus perhaps.

I had a huge brain fart on that one, I've always thought of Georgia as clearly exploration era. And while I think Russia would be...fine...as a modern transition for Georgia, same with the Ottomans, would not be at all surprised if we got a Caucaus-y modern civ for that region specifically at some point down the line.

(I do wonder if maybe Cyprus could work as an extension of the Crusader States of Cyprus, Jerusalem, and Armenia. It wouldn't be per se a modern civ so much as a vestige of an exploration era civ, but it would work very well as a pivot point from Armenia -> Georgia, Carthage -> Venice (modern single-city/island civ???), as well as the Crusader States if we get them. Plus a nice little modern nod to Balkan Greece separate of Ottomans without actually being modern Greece)

 

[Xandinho]

* Nazca - I'm curious, do you think Nazca is more or less likely than Tiwanaku? They feel very Olmec/Funan to me, and the devs might have to pivot to a later civ just to have material to work with. Hence why I proposed Tiwanaku.

Tiwanaku is indeed better documented and certainly more significant in the region than Nazca was. But look, Nazca appeared in Civ6 as a city-state, one of the very few Andean representations the series has ever had. Maybe this suggests that Nazca is more on their radar than Tiwanaku? Additionally, Nazca is the most popular Andean option after the Incas. I'd prefer to have both, but I think Nazca is more likely to make it into the game.

Zimbabwe would work fine as a Mutapa wonder, but I don't think the Mutapa fit as an antiquity civ? I agree it's difficult to figure out uniques for both civs, but I figured if either of them were early enough to fit antiquity it would be Zimbabwe, right?

Honestly a full Shona path would be one of the most impressive constructions I think the devs could pull off, and even if they didn't I would hope we could mod one in.

Personally, I would prefer to see Bantu/Shona in Antiquity, transitioning into Mutapa/Zimbabwe, Kilwa, and Kongo during the Exploration, and culminating with Zulu and Buganda in the Modern. The problem is that I'm not sure we have enough information to make Bantu a fully playable civilization with all the elements Civ7 requires. Perhaps Thimlich Ohinga could work as the associated wonder.

 

[Archanist]

But look, Nazca appeared in Civ6 as a city-state, one of the very few Andean representations the series has ever had. Maybe this suggests that Nazca is more on their radar than Tiwanaku?

I wouldn't be surprised if Firaxis just gives things we assume are outside their radar. Rizal is a leader here even though in previous games he would have been an excellent Great Writer, but never appeared officially until now.


On topic, Tondo representing the Kingdom of Luzon can work for another SEA antiquity civ. Butuan can also work for a more southern civ. Khmer (and Cham) so far is mainland SEA, so those two can work for the island parts of SEA (Papua New Guinea can work for this too geographically)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I had a huge brain fart on that one, I've always thought of Georgia as clearly exploration era. And while I think Russia would be...fine...as a modern transition for Georgia, same with the Ottomans, would not be at all surprised if we got a Caucaus-y modern civ for that region specifically at some point down the line.

I mean the problem with that is both the Ottomans and Russia essentially controlled all that region, and Qajar Iran for a little while, so it's hard for me to see a modern civ for that region. The only other independent nation would be Azerbaijan, but it falls into the same category as the others.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Allow me to get my few cents in:

The Middle East is the big area for Antiquity imo. You don't really need strict paths across all regions, as long as the amount of Civs between all three ages is more or less the same. As proven by how most people here have played the game, you can always mix and match if needed.

In the middle east, the clear missing Civs are Babylon and Sumer. Carthage is in the pipeline which is Phoenicia by proxy, as is Assyria. I'd add some regional flavour with a Civ from the Anatolia (Hittites) and the Caucasus (Armenia).

That's in total four Civs. Which is regionally the largest amount.

In Europe, the most glaring omission is Gaul, and then it depends on what type of Civ you want to add which cannot be covered by choices from other regions of the world. Illyria or the Minoans can be naval focused, Thrace, Goths or Dacia military focused, and Norse both at once.

Other than that: Wagadu in Africa, Tonga in Oceania, Moche/Nazca in the America's are the three I want, and I believe all three can provide a unique niche which could translate in synergy with their historical descendant Civs (Songhai, Hawai'i and Inca).

I do not believe we need clear precursors for every region of the world, let along for every major Civ in the longterm. Having interesting designs is more important to me.

 

[Evie]

Whereas I firmly believe that they will try to keep the number of civs mostly even across the ages in the long run (with a possible exception for any additional age later slapped into the game, due to DLC-for-the-DLC concerns), in order to make all ages feature equal diversity, especially once the single-age game feature gets rolled out.

In which case, we will need to add a lot more antiquity civs to keep the numbers even with the later eras (though the regions can vary some).

 

[RedCourtJester]

I mean the problem with that is both the Ottomans and Russia essentially controlled all that region, and Qajar Iran for a little while, so it's hard for me to see a modern civ for that region. The only other independent nation would be Azerbaijan, but it falls into the same category as the others.

I know, nearly all of the options are unsatisfying. Except...Cyprus! Cy-PRUS! Cy-PRUS!

(there are some regions where I suspect we may just not get good modern options, although Nepal gives me hope that maybe not).

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

i think they should have added ottomans and austria-hungary together. they were arch nemesis and would both add vital coverage in their respective regions. it still leaves the issue of no exploration era civ for german speaking peoples, which should be filled with HRE or switzerland for a curve ball.

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

the ottomans are going to be modern right?