[R&F] Based on the new features - which civilizations and leaders should be introduced in R&F?

Aztec has the leader factor going on though. I'm sure everybody at least has heard of Montezuma and the saying "revenge of Montezuma." Might have not lasted as long as the others but still made a lasting impression on the region afterwards and had one of the largest cities of the world at that time, rivaling European cities.
I would argue almost the same could be said for the Zulu. Not only is Shaka well known, but the Zulu is still the largest ethnic group in present-day South Africa even after their kingdom fell, which is why I'm not as adverse to their inclusion as others.

I'm hoping so. I'm surprised it hasn't yet as Catherine isn't enough.

 

I think it is easier this time, especially with alternate leaders that could represent the different states. It worked with Greece.

 

It would not surprise me if they are going to give Italy the same treatment they've given Scandinavia, Southeast Asia, and Native North America, where they pick one or two entities to focus on each iteration of the game. I'm not saying it's going to happen in R&F, but an Italian city-state civ seems likely to appear at some point. It seems like they might have been considering Genoa, but who knows what they will settle on?

 

I think this is the likely course, if "Italy" is the direction they are going in. The other option is, as @Alexander's Hetaroi mentioned above, a multi-leader "Greek" solution, with the major city-states taking turns as the main "capital" city of an amalagamous Italian city, based on the leader you choose. Different play styles would result, which matches well with the different strengths of the different cities.

 

See, Greece is the argument that I prefer for why an Italy civ WOULD work. Every "Greece" since CIv1 has been based on the ancient Greek city-states, not on anything remotely resembling a unified nation of "Greece". In effect, the Greece civilization is really a Greece culture. So an Italian civ really doesn't need to match history at all.

Civs that really aren't unified civs that have been civs:

Holy Roman Empire / Germany
Greece
Mongols
Native Americans

Civs that use a unified face for several combined culture/civs

China
Polynesia
Celts (although, like Native America, we all admit this one is also atrocious)

 

You forgot India and its numerous loosely unified states like China.

 

I can't believe I didn't include "India" which encompasses about a dozen (viable-civ-sized) ancient-to-colonial-era states.

But because of the Civ1 bug, Ghandi and India are civ locks forever.

 

Grasslands can vary quite dramatically in their fertility. Those in fertile soils (such as North American tallgrass prairies) actually have quite extensive root systems. This is what enables them to persist through winters and fires. When they're able to establish, though, trees do tend to eventually take over- they may grow more slowly, but their height ultimately makes them much better light competitors. This means that the places where grasslands persist are those where trees are't able to establish. In some cases, such as the western US, this is because there isn't enough rainfall to support trees. In others, like tallgrass prairies, it's because fires are relatively frequent, and grasses are more fire-tolerant than most trees.

In grasslands that burned frequently, these fires were probably set by natives in most cases (fire can increase productivity by clearing away the past year's litter, returning nutrients to the soil and increasing exposure to sunlight). How frequent fires would have been in their absence, and how well grasslands would have persisted at these lower fire frequencies, isn't very well known.

 

Yes, Shaivism is one of the three major branches of Hinduism (among other smaller ones). I'm not an expert on Hinduism, though. The Scythians would have practiced some form of Iranian paganism, though--the precursor to Zoroastrianism.

The Maya and Aztec also smelted bronze, but they used it for ornaments, not weapons, tools, or armor. The ready availability of obsidian, which has a sharper cutting edge than bronze or steel, probably diminished the incentive for bronze weapons, as did the impetus to capture enemies alive rather than inflict heavy casualties.

 

I quite agree with this. Sometimes, to discuss merit criteria to be included in civlization is a waste of time, it all boils down to personal preferences, though. The developers will just continue to include the civilizations they want.

I have learned a great deal about the civilizations that have been included, and I quite like that. I simply to give welcome them, and then it will be a good opportunity to learn a little about them. This is the reason that civilization is one of my favorite games.

 

This is my philosophy too. I may raise an eyebrow when I first hear that something like Australia or Tamar of Georgia will be in the game, but once Firaxis rolls them out, I have always been impressed by the quality of research and implementation each civ receives. I learn a lot about each civ, and even if I don't particularly play them, I've never minded them being in the game. Ther are always enough of my own favorites to keep me playing.

 

I see it typically phrased as a proto-Indo-Iranian religion, as I believe there are cognates in religious terms and possibly gods between the Vedic tradition and proto-Iranian beliefs. From what I understand, what made Zoroastrianism special is that it rejected the gods in favor of monotheism with the other gods being lies.

But I was merely saying that the Scythians who formed kingdoms in Bactria and the Punjab often adopted Indian beliefs, primarily Buddhism, but also Hinduism. There is a Scythian coin that might be the first depiction of Buddha on a coin, but it could simply be the king (Maues).

 

I'm not dismissing Georgia outright, and I always considered Venice a natural fit for Civ. I do think it's a reach for people to say Georgia is absolutely certain based on the trailer, which is what we've achieved in this thread as speculation has snowballed far ahead of the evidence at hand.

 

It seems very unreasonable to me.
What about forgotten African and Brazilian tribes, who live by the bow and the river until now?
According to this definition, every homo sapiens who still exists is part of a civilisation.
You actually confuse between civilisation and some later elements of natural selection, which is radical.
Civilisation is not about which nations you appreciate or like, it is a certain form of human society and living.
Not being a civilisation is not necessarily a bad or insulting issue. It is just a different way of human existence.
Many people today would favor "living outside of civilisation", even for a short while.
When saying so, would they mean, for example, living among a Native American tribe? Sure they do.
That's a good example for what people mean when they want to "get away from civilisation".
Would they mean living along the Mesopotamian rivers in ancient Eshnuna or Mari? No.
Would they mean having a vacation at the Medieval Baghdad? Again, No.
Would they mean experiencing life in a distant Chinese village? Possibly yes. After all, those villages alone wouldn't have made China a civilisation if they weren't accompanied by a more urban, political or economical society.

Regardless of our view, in the game, specifically, a civilisation is an entity which builds cities, has a government, influences city states and so on (basically a state, yes, let's change the name of the game...).
This is a point to consider, anyway.

Finally, I would bring up an old post by Plotinus, which, in my opinion can sum up the discussion about "civilisation" as a term.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...ld-civilizations.467504/page-15#post-11765173

As an empire? The Mongol Empire of Genghis Khan and the Kamakura Shogunate of Hojo lasted about the same time.
This is obviously not about the certain prominent state which was led by the certain leader.
It is about the whole civilisation, with a representation of some period, as the alt-Leaders show beautifully.
Aztec (lets call it Mexica) civilisation had its earlier states since the 12th-13th centuries.

 

Not to derail the thread, but the Aztecs are blatantly an empire. They are referred to as the triple alliance, which incorporated three separate 'nations' that combined into one. Essentially, the Aztecs are a blip in the history of the Mexica. I actually just found a great quote on wikipedia (sourced) that explains what I mean:

Also, as a correction, I was wrong in thinking they lasted 150 years. Turns out it was 97(est) (1427 - 1524).

Mongols are not the same. They are a cultural and ethnic grouping of people. Their height of power was during the Mongol Empire, so that's usually what's represented in the game.

Germany and Indonesia make things more complicated. We generally expect the German civ to encompass the Germanic tribes for instance.

So basically, there's no set method of choosing a name for a civ for Firaxis. Sometimss they go by a region thats well known and that civ means 'all the history of that region'. Other times its an ethnic group or an empire. I think recognition of the name plays a big role.

My personal interpretation of civilization encompasses most of what has been said here. I personally like thinking about duration, social structure, impact and size as good indicators of successful civilization. That's just me. You can use whatever criteria you want. Firaxis clearly does the same.

By just about any definition I can think of though, native americans are absolutely worthy of the term. The Aztecs are as well, I just personally would put the Inca and Maya ahead of them.

Back on topic:

I basically feel the exact same way.

I'm still staying with:

Ottomans/Turks
Inca
Africa
Wildcard

For the African nation, I'm feeling better and better about the Ashanti. Mali and Songhai look like they'll be avoided this expansion, since so many economic/trade based civs have already appeared. The same is true of Carthage. We already have a naval civ in the Netherlands and Dido was in Civ V. Ghana is confusing because of the name and doesn't have many known leaders. Based on the CSs remaining, a lot of other African nations have been eliminated. However, Kumasi hasn't been seen yet and was considered important enough to be a CS in the base game. They also have unique bonuses that aren't in the game yet and have a really obvious female leader.

Ethiopia is in a crowded region, but would also fit. I see Ethiopia and the Ashanti having similar bonuses.

[Edit]: thought Kumasi was in civ V, apparently I'm misremembering. Edited for clarity.

 

From your lips to Ed's ears. Really rooting for the Ashanti.

 

Sure, definitely related, but not identical. Of course, we know a lot more about Indic paganism because it developed into Hinduism, whereas Zoroastrianism kept select features but suppressed a lot of others and also developed very early on.

 

Well, there is one unique district and two unique improvements to reveal, some options:

Unique Districts:
Bazaar (Ottomans)
Ikanda (Zulus)
More some option?

Unique improvements:
Dun (Celts)
Terrace Farm (Incas)
Rock-Hewn Church (Ethiopia)
Végvár (Hungary)
Moais (Polynesian civ)
Paya (Burma)
More some option?

Which ones are most likely?

 

I have just realized that there is a significant risk of no civ from West Africa among last three slots...

Please no, I wanted geographical balance here so much, also this area has so many good civs...

 

Maybe Mali is being saved for a DLC or the 2nd expansion?
Or Nubia or Kongo has taken its slot......