It's a shame the Babylonian Empire hasn't come to Civ6 yet. Ever since Civ1, we've had all the original civs in the core games. Babylon is the only one that hasn't been included in Civ6 yet.
Could it be of Sumer? Debatable, because Babylon existed together with Sumer in Civ3 and Civ4.
It's not a shame at all. Sumeria--and for the sake of Zaarin, I will emphasize and qualify this as being specifically within VI's self-apparent design values which are to consolidate multiple polities under a unifying and enduring cultural heritage and represented by a sort of culture hero--quite competently represents the entire Mesopotamian region and the civs which followed in legacy. Gilgamesh encompasses all, and I do not think the devs would have considered Sumeria at all if they hadn't settled on Gilgamesh as vicarious representation of all the subsequent Akkadian civs who perpetuated the culture.
I am not sympathetic to the arguments from tradition. I don't see anything that needs "fixing" given that I am wholly attuned to and supportive of VI's agenda. Nor do I see any point in diluting that agenda by littering the roster with "do-overs" that are aesthetically duplicative, and mechanically overcomplicated, esoteric, or unintuitive. More to the point, Babylon would pale juxtaposed against the uber-ur-civ that is Sumeria, and frankly feels like half a concept when not paired with Assyria. Since I certainly don't think we need three Mesopotamian civs let alone two, and think otherwise Babylon/Assyria are Sophie's choice which only invite fans to then pivot and beg for the other to be included as well, I don't even want to open that door. Gilgamesh was equally an Assyrian and Babylonian figure. This is enough.
More to the point, Babylon and its achievements are already in the game. The Ishtar Gate is in the Hanging Gardens. We have a city-state. It's not like it's missing. It's just been properly re-tooled for a game which already presumes that Babylon is a successor state to the more regionally influential Sumeria.
One region. One civ. One culture. It's elegant. It's practical. It's just. It's perfect.
City-states can become civs in later DLCs. We saw that with Stockholm, Amsterdam, Carthage, Jakarta, Seoul, and Toronto in Civ6. We now have such like Lisbon, Babylon, Cardiff, Fez, Preslav, Hattusa, Kabul, Palenque, Vilnius and Yerevan. Not impossible if any of these would become civs if Civ6 are about to develop even further.
I definately find Portugal, Morocco and Maya missing. Remember that the devs wrote that they wanted to make different approaches when it comes to civs, civs that wasn't as remembered in history, for instance Georgia which no one could predict. It might as well be something absurd as Hitties, Durrani or Wales making an appearance.
Just saying. (Btw I was pretty drunk when I made this thread, so idk why I even made a poll, lol)
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say at this point I believe that Assyria might definitely be more probable as the other Ancient Mesopotamia Civ.
I am going to agree that Babylon being a city-state doesn't necessarily rule it out, but I believe the inclusion of Akkad as a city-state makes it hard to justify a full on Babylonian Empire as that would have been a prominent city on it's city list.
Akkad could have easily been named Nineveh or Assur while having the same unique ability, but to me it's funny that they decided against that.
Also there is less overlap with the core territory of Assyria and Sumeria.
UI: Kudurru - boundary stele, used for gobbling up bordering hexes
UU: Qurubuti - elite royal soldiers (could be an archer, spearman, or horseman, depending on whatever works the best for balance)
UA: Hammurabi's Code - start with Code of Laws
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say at this point I believe that Assyria might definitely be more probable as the other Ancient Mesopotamia Civ.
I am going to agree that Babylon being a city-state doesn't necessarily rule it out, but I believe the inclusion of Akkad as a city-state makes it hard to justify a full on Babylonian Empire as that would have been a prominent city on it's city list.
Akkad could have easily been named Nineveh or Assur while having the same unique ability, but to me it's funny that they decided against that.
Also there is less overlap with the core territory of Assyria and Sumeria.
I'm inclined to agree for the same reasons. I don't like Babylon being excluded, but if given the choice of only one Mesopotamian empire I'm also inclined to prefer Assyria. As you say, the Assyrian heartland is further from Sumer than Babylon, whether its capital is Aššur or Ninua. Assyria also has a wealth of leader choices, so I hope they don't rehash Ashurbanipal--Tiglath-Pileser III would be nice.
I feel like we should have one more Mesopotamian civ. Sumer can't represent the entire Iraq and Syria alone. So yes, Assyria does sound like a better choice in order to cover north/northwest Iraq and east Syria.
Speaking of, there was tweet Ed made shortly after Gathering Storm was released, mentioning that they didn't make a Nabataean civ after a storm called Petra occured. The Nabataeans would cover Jordan, and since their capital was named Petra or, "Raqmu" they would need to change the name of the wonder itself to "Al-Khazneh".
UI: Kudurru - boundary stele, used for gobbling up bordering hexes
UU: Qurubuti - elite royal soldiers (could be an archer, spearman, or horseman, depending on whatever works the best for balance)
UA: Hammurabi's Code - start with Code of Laws
Hypothetically, although they’d need to be a lot less generic than in previous games.
Qurubuti were the royal elites, but if I understand correctly, they were the elite of each type of warrior, so it could be whichever Firaxis prefers. The bowman unit fits with Babylon’s position as an “early riser” in the game. Plus a horseman would fit Assyria better, although Babylon had them too.
Rhye called the unit “Asharittu” in his Rhye’s and Fall mod for Civ4, but that unit name sounds like it fits the Assyrians better.
Speaking of, there was tweet Ed made shortly after Gathering Storm was released, mentioning that they didn't make a Nabataean civ after a storm called Petra occured. The Nabataeans would cover Jordan, and since their capital was named Petra or, "Raqmu" they would need to change the name of the wonder itself to "Al-Khazneh".
I would be astonished if we got a pre-Islamic Arabian civ. Personally I'd rather see Palmyra, which would be our first Aramaic-speaking civ in Civ6, would be a nice stand in for the various Aramaean petty kingdoms and city-states that dominated the region between Mesopotamia and the Levant for centuries, and has a compelling leader in Zenobia. I'd also prefer to see the civilization called "Aram" or "Syria" rather than "Palmyra" or "Palmyrene Empire."
I would be astonished if we got a pre-Islamic Arabian civ. Personally I'd rather see Palmyra, which would be our first Aramaic-speaking civ in Civ6, would be a nice stand in for the various Aramaean petty kingdoms and city-states that dominated the region between Mesopotamia and the Levant for centuries, and has a compelling leader in Zenobia. I'd also prefer to see the civilization called "Aram" or "Syria" rather than "Palmyra" or "Palmyrene Empire."
The odds of them calling it that over Palmyra are probably low but I agree with you. It would be astonishing, but also very welcome. Especially with Zenobia.
The odds of them calling it that over Palmyra are probably low but I agree with you. It would be astonishing, but also very welcome. Especially with Zenobia.
The issue with Palmyra is that the empire lasted about three years. The issue with Aram is that finding an interesting leader is pretty nearly impossible. Calling the civ "Aram" but choosing Zenobia as the leader stones two bushes with dead birds. It's comparable to choosing Dido as leader but calling her civ Phoenicia, so I'm not entirely without hope. Plus we have solid records of Zenobia's existence, so that's a nice bonus. Calling the civ "Syria" opens up another can of worms, particularly that it was a very vague Greek term for the region of the Levant, southern Anatolia, and Syria/Jordan and rather a misnomer as the Assyrian core territory was not actually in Syria, but I wouldn't object to the name per se.
The issue with Palmyra is that the empire lasted about three years. The issue with Aram is that finding an interesting leader is pretty nearly impossible. Calling the civ "Aram" but choosing Zenobia as the leader stones two bushes with dead birds. It's comparable to choosing Dido as leader but calling her civ Phoenicia, so I'm not entirely without hope. Plus we have solid records of Zenobia's existence, so that's a nice bonus. Calling the civ "Syria" opens up another can of worms, particularly that it was a very vague Greek term for the region of the Levant, southern Anatolia, and Syria/Jordan and rather a misnomer as the Assyrian core territory was not actually in Syria, but I wouldn't object to the name per se.
Yeah...Aram is more accurate and inclusive of the whole culture of that area. I'd be down for this choice.
Yes the Empire did last for three years, but that's still three times as long as Boudica's revolt and we've had her in the series 2 or 3 times now. Plus, it was still a kingdom with a great amount of sovereignty, nominally in fealty to rome, for at least another decade, and was always a powerful city state so we could fudge it XD
Lets also not forget that the reason it fell was because it was facing the world's superpower (aka not just anyone could have stopped them). An Aram/Syria led by Zenobia would be a fun addition.
Back to the main topic, I'd love to have Babylonia return but if I really had to choose only 1 Mesopotamian civ right now then I'd pick Assyria as well.
I would prefer pre-Christian Armenia to all of this, really. Covers the same geographic region as Assyria, but with a more unique culture as compared to Sumeria, Phoenicia, and Georgia.
Actually, if I were perfectly honest, given that nothing in the region comes close to being as enduringly influential as Phoenicia, Sumeria, Persia, and Georgia, if indeed there are only eight civs left I would rather we skip out on the levant altogether, because nothing, not the Hittites, not Palmyra, not Armenia are on the same level. Not even Assyria or Babylon or Akkadia if they are presumed to be extensions of Sumeria. BUT since it is incredibly unlikely the devs would do that, I would prefer Armenia. Or even Oman, really, which opens up its own bag of worms. Something from a different era. We can pull enough ancient civs together from other regions of the world; I don't see much point in trying to compete with Sumeria for design space.
And while I laud the considerations of Nabataea and Palmyra, I don't think we will get any separate Arabic civ. Be it Sabaea or Saud, I think any new Arabic civs will be alternate leaders under the Arabia umbrella. Is this right or just? Idunno. But Arabia is begging for an alternate leader so I strongly suspect the devs will jump on the first opportunity.
I don't believe pre-Christian Armenia is necessary, or even preferable. Uraratu is sketchy in historical veracity compared to many other civ's in that area, and many believe may not even be the actual true ancestors of the Armenians, and their biggest standout leader was only famous for being handsome enough to start a war by the son of a spurned "homewrecking cougar" of an Assyrian Queen. Plus, the oldest sovereign nation in the world to adopt Christianity makes their post-conversion history VERY interesting, as well, MUCH more so, in my opinion.
I don't like this. Sure, it makes perfect sense, but God is it lame! On a scale from Passive (-10) to Active (10), this is a clear Passive (-10) ability!
It needs to be something the player can actually engage with or make use of on some level.
I don't like this. Sure, it makes perfect sense, but God is it lame! On a scale from Passive (-10) to Active (10), this is a clear Passive (-10) ability!
It needs to be something the player can actually engage with or make use of on some level.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
