CIV6 Civs and Leaders

[Ribannah]

No France or Germany whilst including Ghana and Kongo wouldn't be the obvious choice, I have to say. I believe it's most likely that your Europe list plus the two nations I have just mentioned will be in the vanilla; roughly 40% of the civs in the game therefore. But I suppose that cannot be certain; it is possible that the final choices will seems very underwhelming. In Asia, the Ottomans also seems likely; look at this tweet from Civ VI's Twitter- it must be hinting at Ottomans being in the game as it would otherwise seem a strange thing to celebrate considering current tensions in Turkey-Europe relations over disagreements about the migrant crisis: https://mobile.twitter.com/CivGame/status/736968372559040512

I think that Arabia may not be in Vannila, and Iroquois seems unlikely; they will likely choose another North American native civ for variety. I wouldn't bother guessing because there are so many. Brazil shouldn't be in the base game in my opinion.

I'm counting on the Iroquois because Firaxis put a lot of work into getting them right for Civ5, after the mess they made of them in Civ3. Also, they are by far the most significant in the region, with at the height of their power an empire the size of Persia.

With Spain in the vanilla game, the first expansion wouldn't be a new world theme but, I think/hope, center on Europe. Germany, France, the Netherlands, Austria-Hungary, Poland and perhaps even Italy could make an appearance. The Ottomans would fit in there, too.

 

[SMcM]

Oceania does have interesting history. Don't be so quick to dismiss an entire region. But yes, I agree, no Polynesian civ should be represented in the base game or DLC I feel. That should be left to the modding community in my opinion.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If Firaxis is going to use Civ 6 to attract new players as well as returning players, the new civs they add will be ones that will appeal to new-to-civ players. I suspect one will be from Asia and the other from either SA or Africa. My money will be on Africa.

 

[SMcM]

I'm counting on the Iroquois because Firaxis put a lot of work into getting them right for Civ5, after the mess they made of them in Civ3. Also, they are by far the most significant in the region, with at the height of their power an empire the size of Persia.

With Spain in the vanilla game, the first expansion wouldn't be a new world theme but, I think/hope, center on Europe. Germany, France, the Netherlands, Austria-Hungary, Poland and perhaps even Italy could make an appearance. The Ottomans would fit in there, too.

The Iroquis are not significant enough (And I have no idea why you say they ruled an empire the size of Persia? Are you confused with another civilization or something). If any civ has to be removed from the civ 5 roster to be replaced by a new civ, it would be them, and North America isn't lacking in terms of tribes to chose. Songhai will likely be swapped for another African civ too, I imagine. Either a new civ, or an older one (in which case Mali under Mansa Musa seems likely, in line with the 'big personalities' focus of Civ VI).

Australia I am also sure will not be in the base game; that would not make sense- they simply aren't important enough considering there is a limited number of civilizations.

I doubt that, in the run up to the release of a game, it's developers would be teasing DLC for it including the Ottomans, in spite of the Vannila game not even get being released.

Whilst I don't think removing Germany from the base game would be a disaster, I doubt it will be, as German gamers are a hugely important player base for the civilizations (we already knew this, but Ed Beach made sure to mention this in a recent interview with a German journalist). France would be stupid to exclude; were they not the dominant power for Europe for a time? Also, in terms of victory conditions, France's worldwide popularity and its ranking as the most visited tourist destination mean that it is perfect for cultural victory types.

I think it is worth noting though that 18 is possibly a dishonest number; there could be a day one (ish) DLC (like with Civ 5 Mongolia). Likely something that seems like it should have been in the base game. We have no way to know which of the 19 initial civs will be be early DLC. So I think predicting the first 19 civs possibly makes most sense.

 

[Liex]

I'm counting on the Iroquois because Firaxis put a lot of work into getting them right for Civ5, after the mess they made of them in Civ3. Also, they are by far the most significant in the region, with at the height of their power an empire the size of Persia.

I never played Civ3, but I don't know if they got them right in Civ5 either. Look at that city list, for instance. And I was thought the Mohawk Warrior and the Longhouse to be quite generic, uninteresting, but that's my personal opinion.

About their territory, it doesn't look like it was the size of Persia's, even if you're talking about modern day Iran.

Personally, I don't think they should include pre-Colombian tribes (besides the Inca, Maya and Aztec) in the base game, but if they do, I hope and expect it's not the Iroquois.

 

[Mobfire]

I personally hope that the native american civs that they add in Vanilla are all actually civilizations and not just tribes. Inca, Maya, Aztec, Mississippians, and Anasazi/Puebloans come to mind.

 

[SMcM]

Here's a comparison. What do you think?

 

[Zaarin]

Here's a comparison. What d you think?

That map shows how far the made slave raids and what not, but I think it's important to emphasize that they did not administrate such a large swath of territory.

 

[SMcM]

That map shows how far the made slave raids and what not, but I think it's important to emphasize that they did not administrate such a large swath of territory.

Ah, thanks for the explanation. I thought that map looked dodgy, but I really know nothing on this subject, so I just posted the first map I found. So, we can discard the claim that the Iroquois ruled an area the size of Iraq.

 

[Ribannah]

They collected tribute and spoke for the subjugated tribes, rather than 'whatnot', over a considerably larger area than shown in that image.

 

[Liex]

This is the most generous map I could find. I don't know if they effectively controlled this whole area, and for how long, but that's only half the size of modern day Iran, and only 10% of Achaemenid Persia.

 

[Ribannah]

These, I think, were the League's hunting grounds. Keep in mind that the area was quite empty after disease had literally decimated most tribes. The Iroquois drove off the remaining inhabitants (such as the Sioux) or took them in (forcibly), whichever was convenient, so they could control the beaver trade.

They only lived in a relatively small part as they counted no more than 12.000 or so at their peak.

However, in addition to the territory on this map, which the League controlled directly, they also held power over various neighbouring tribes that had to pay tribute to them. Furthermore, not all Iroquois were part of the League. If you count the whole Iroquois civilization and all their influence, you're looking at a considerably larger territory.

 

[Sagax]

Political correctness is one thing and I dislike this phenomenon, but both Stalin and Mao were
a) Psychopathic paranoid tyrants (Stalin more than Mao)
b) Terrible leaders which devastated their nation (Mao more than Stalin, as he completely ruined China which was heading to North Korea level of destruction - the entire rise of China started after death of Mao, begun by Deng Xiaoping, guy who was purged by Mao twice and very specifically denied his policies as for the Stalin I think his slaughter of USSR population screwed the nation far more than industrialization under his rule helped it)

Aaaand......very few in the audience cared about it in the 90s.

"PC" was probably the wrong term to use here, but my point is - cultural awareness and thoughts like "omg maybe we should portray other nations in a better and more accurate light" were far from top priority 25 years ago. And considering that the first Civ games were mostly targeted the the Western audience, it's no surprise that we ended up with the likes of Stalin and Mao - it was an unbelievable mix of cultural ignorance, negligence and a bit of political agenda behind the scenes. Not only did they use Stalin, but they also thought that this was a fair enough representation of the written Russian. Hitler didn't get in because the wounds he caused run WAY too deep in the West. But Stalin and Mao? At that time people probably thought "yeah, they're bad guys, but they don't really bother us, and we do need civs that are a contrast to the West". It's terrible, but it was the unspoken sentiment of that time.

Bottom line - to answer your original question:

I can't understand how they could be in series at any point.

Neither Mao nor Stalin should be the top choices for their respective civs, that's widely agreed on nowadays. But 25 years ago the creators and the general target audience had neither enough knowledge nor strong desire for accurate representation.

 

[j51]

Oceania does have interesting history. Don't be so quick to dismiss an entire region. But yes, I agree, no Polynesian civ should be represented in the base game or DLC I feel. That should be left to the modding community in my opinion.

Their migrational history is fascinating and why I think it's like the only large blob that it's ok to include.

 

[Zaarin]

These, I think, were the League's hunting grounds. Keep in mind that the area was quite empty after disease had literally decimated most tribes. The Iroquois drove off the remaining inhabitants (such as the Sioux) or took them in (forcibly), whichever was convenient, so they could control the beaver trade.

They only lived in a relatively small part as they counted no more than 12.000 or so at their peak.

However, in addition to the territory on this map, which the League controlled directly, they also held power over various neighbouring tribes that had to pay tribute to them. Furthermore, not all Iroquois were part of the League. If you count the whole Iroquois civilization and all their influence, you're looking at a considerably larger territory.

So, despite political enmity and linguistic sundering, the Iroquois civilization is also supposed to include the Huron and Cherokee? By that logic, does that mean Russia represents the entire Slavic world? I think it's safe to insist that the Iroquois civilization as presented in Civ only represents the Five Nations Iroquois (or Six Nations Iroquois), not the Cherokee, Hurons, Erie, Neutral, Susquehannock, Nottaway, pre-Confederacy Tuscarora, etc.

Also, the purpose of the Beaver Wars is generally understood now not in terms of economy but survival: forcibly adopting captives was typical of many Native American cultures and essential to bolster the Iroquois' disease- and war-wracked numbers (I believe 60% of Senece were non-Iroquois at one point); that they then monopolized the beaver trade was a bonus.

 

[killmeplease]

And considering that the first Civ games were mostly targeted the the Western audience

even now 'non-westerners' comprise only about 15% of the civ's audience at best
though Fireaxis may be willing to expand onto new markets..

it's no surprise that we ended up with the likes of Stalin and Mao - it was an unbelievable mix of cultural ignorance, negligence and a bit of political agenda behind the scenes. Not only did they use Stalin, but they also thought that this was a fair enough representation of the written Russian.

in russia stalin is generally considered to be one of the greates rulers (e.g. see here, here). Whereas he was a bloody tyrant hes not really worse than Qin Shi Huang and his empire was definitely more successfull than Qin's or say Napoleon's.
And whats wrong with stylized text?

 

[Civciv5]

Since the Soviet Union no longer exists and China is clearly still on the map, named after Qin Shi Huang himself, I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and say Qin was more succesfull than Stalin ever was.

 

[killmeplease]

Since the Soviet Union no longer exists and China is clearly still on the map, named after Qin Shi Huang himself, I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and say Qin was more succesfull than Stalin ever was.

iirc chinese say Zhongguo referring to their country. and theres no Qin state on the map, its a peoples republic of china. Qin dynasty lasted for only 15 years and was destroyed by an uprising. the next Han dynasty had much more of a cultural value and connection to the current china. stalin's empire didnt collapse just after his death, it lasted for some time and made numerous achievements. and current russian federation still exploits soviet heritage in culture and economy. i'd say its like 3/5 soviet in essence.

 

[SMcM]

This is the most generous map I could find. I don't know if they effectively controlled this whole area, and for how long, but that's only half the size of modern day Iran, and only 10% of Achaemenid Persia.

Given his claim, I went with the most generous map I could find, which as you say, was that one I posted. So the idea that the Iroqouis controlled MORE than that already implausible looking map I posted is silly.

However, I'm still impressed; did they really control 800 thousand km2?

Still, I see no reason why they would be in Vannila civ 6. In civ 4, we had Sitting Bull of the Sioux (though part of a silly 'Native American' civ, similar to the Polynesia one in Civ 5 and the Celt one in both games). It seems very probable that the Native American civ in the game will be switched again; possibly, they'll be innovative and go with a civilization which hasn't even been made as a mod for Civ 5. If they are committed to putting a new civ in civ 6, then they will have to remove some from the civ 5 Vannila lineup, and of those, the Iroqouis are clearly the least powerful. Them, Songai and Siam all seem like civs which are likely to be replaced.

 

[SMcM]

Since the Soviet Union no longer exists and China is clearly still on the map, named after Qin Shi Huang himself, I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and say Qin was more succesfull than Stalin ever was.

The Soviet Union hardly seems to have gone. Just ask the people of Ukraine.

Anyway, whatever conversation you guys are trying to have hardly seems to be going anywhere, just saying.