CIV6 Civs and Leaders

[sherbz]

Ryuu Falconwing, Denkt,

Ghandi indeed has a very good chance to be there. Would be surprised if he diddnt show up on vanilla.

What do you guys think will happen PR wise with civ 6. Will we see small bits every week till launch. Like a small reveal each week.
Do you guys think it will go the same way as Beyond earth for civ 6?

Judging by recent firaxis releases, they may invite certain YouTubers to their office to showcase the game.

 

[Talcove]

Judging by recent firaxis releases, they may invite certain YouTubers to their office to showcase the game.

I have a YouTube account.

 

[sherbz]

I just don't understand this way of thinking. Instead of finding excuses to exclude peoples based on subjective values, why aren't we thinking of how to include everybody possible?

To be fair, I agree a little bit with both on this. A similar line is that we must have women in the game, so pick some women leaders. But is that justified based on the fact that aside from one or two exceptions, women have played a very minor role in world history because it was such a male dominated society.

I think you should at the least have the great empires in world history represented. And by that I mean:

Rome
Greece
Mongolia
Britain/England
Ottoman

There can't be that many arguments here. Then you should also include the other big players in world history, like:

America
Russia
China
Japan

Then you have a load of other nations and empires who were great, and also have fair shout:

France
Spain
Portugal
Egypt
Babylon
Persia
Mali
Inca
Aztec

I agree the Zulu position is somewhat inflated in terms of world history. But surely out of the above you can come up with some fair lists that distributes the picks fairly?

But then the game also has to sell, and people from Germany and Poland and so on may get a bit pissed if they are not included.

I'll never forget the poll that was on the civ 5 forum a few years ago when people were asked which is the best civ. And for some weird reason, America came 4th or something. Objectively speaking they are one of the worst, if not the worst. And that is in purely gaming terms. But it does go to show that on such things people tend to vote with their heart and not their head.

 

[m15a]

It is political correctness. Almost no one outside of America has ever heard of the Shoshone, and their total impact on history is possibly less than even that of the Zulu. We have plenty of aboriginal americans in the game that make sense. The Iroquois were a major player, probably the largest and most powerful north american aboriginal peoples, and of course we have the Mayans, Incas, and Aztecs. For Africans, why did we lose the Mali but we kept the Zulu? The Zulu are a mere footnote in history. Yes, there are many Bantu speaking people today, but it's not like they've accomplished anything or had any impact on humanity whatsoever.

Regardless of whether the above historical analysis is true, none of it supports the notion that Shoshone were added for "political correctness". You are just arguing the Shoshone and Zulu aren't historically significant (by some very specific personally selected standards). At best, you've attempted to disprove one of the infinite number of incentives that the designers may have had, which means you are 0% of the way to proving your statement.

There is a video of a panel where the BNW designers actually explained their motivations for choosing the civs. Notably, they had more than one criteria. Because they are actual human designers and not straw men.

 

[TranquilSilence]

I'm pretty sure whether the civs can be designed around a big personality/style/theme that would make them appealing to play is also a huge deal in terms of whether civs get included. Whatever you want to argue about the Zulu they serve a specific thematic purpose and for that reason I think it'd be silly if they did not return.

That said, Mali, Ethiopia and Zimbabwe would be my prime choices for African civs to be included in the base game.

 

[MIS]

Per Wikipedia, Ancient Israel lasted around 500 years (and I think the Bible has it as longer). That's a long time - Rome was about the same. It's linked to both Judaism and Christianity (and Islam came from those). And I don't think Ancient Israel would be controversial with anyone.

 

[sherbz]

Per Wikipedia, Ancient Israel lasted around 500 years (and I think the Bible has it as longer). That's a long time - Rome was about the same. It's linked to both Judaism and Christianity (and Islam came from those). And I don't think Ancient Israel would be controversial with anyone.

Oh Lord, let's please not get started on having Israel as a civ. That's way too political. Their existence as a civ in old times is highly debatable. And as for now, it's about as controversial as including them but having Yasser Arafat as their leader.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

Per Wikipedia, Ancient Israel lasted around 500 years (and I think the Bible has it as longer). That's a long time - Rome was about the same. It's linked to both Judaism and Christianity (and Islam came from those). And I don't think Ancient Israel would be controversial with anyone.

A bit off topic, but I have to respond to this nonsense statement you make. Islam didn't come from Judaism or Christianity. I don't know how you made it up. Or do you suggest that Christianity comes from Judaism too? And from which religion did Judaism come from?

Moderator Action: Be civil when disagreeing with other posters.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[EulerMcE]

I'm surprised people want to be rid of the Zulu so badly. They may not be important in the grand scheme of human history but they are a series staple regardless.

 

[Civciv5]

I'd say about 20 civs in the base game.
Must-haves (in random order):
1.USA (America)
2.Britain
3.France
4.Germany
5.Russia
6.Egypt
7.China
8.India
9.Persia
10.Arabia
11.Japan
12.Ottomans/Turkey
13.Romans
14.Native Northern American people
Nearly sure:
Aztec
Mali/Songhai/Zulu
Incas
Mongolia
Southeast Asian civ (Khmer, Siam, Vietnam, Indonesia, Burma...)
Greece
Spain
The Netherlands
Possible (but likely for later DLC or expansions)
The Maya
The Zulu
Portugal
Poland
Norse/Viking
Korea
Ethiopia
Other Southeast Asian civs
Polynesia
Byzantines
Hittite
Kongo
Babylon
Sumeria
Sweden
Morocco

I also say they will introduce at least one new civ in the base game.

No idea as for leaders. But I hope they will keep their native language and cool 3D screens.
The USA will likely have George Washington or Abe Lincoln
Egypt will likely have Ramesses II, Cleopatra or Hatshepsut
Greece will very likely have Alexander
France will have Napoleon, Louis XIV or Joan of Arc
Mongolia will very likely have Genghis Khan
Spain will very likely have Isabella
The Aztecs will very likely have Montezuma
China will have Qin Shi Huang, Wu Zetian or Tang Taizong
India will have Gandhi or Asoka

I really hope India will have Asoka as their leader or one of their leaders, I don't want to see Gandhi again (since he never really ruled India)

 

[ldvhl]

India definitely needs a split - its current design is kind of embarrassing. Either represent the modern civilization under Gandhi (or whomever), or represent the prior civilizations with leaders that existed within those civilizations.

 

[sherbz]

A bit off topic, but I have to respond to this nonsense statement you make. Islam didn't come from Judaism or Christianity. I don't know how you made it up. Or do you suggest that Christianity comes from Judaism too? And from which religion did Judaism come from?

I think the point was that they are all abrahamic faiths.

 

[EulerMcE]

I don't want to see Gandhi again (since he never really ruled India)

Given the nuclear Gandhi running gag that seems impossible. Gandhi is eternal.

 

[Hannibal XIII]

India definitely needs a split - its current design is kind of embarrassing. Either represent the modern civilization under Gandhi (or whomever), or represent the prior civilizations with leaders that existed within those civilizations.

They need to get rid of Gandhi and have at least two Indias (Mughals, Tamils) and probably a third beyond that. It's a subcontinent as diverse as Europe forced into one civ... ridiculous

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

I think the point was that they are all abrahamic faiths.

Well, then it is a very sloppy way to say it like that.

 

[PhilBowles]

I don't know the exact number, but we do know some of them already:
Egypt, from the screenshot (Borders).
Japan, from the screenshot (Samurai).
England, from the screenshot (Ship of the Line, so I've been told).

I've also seen in an article someone talking about some Civs being in the game:
Greece
Aztecs

From there we can make a few educated guesses as to which other Civs will appear.
First are the obvious ones and the series staples:
America
China
Russia
France
Germany
India
Rome
Persia

That's 13 Civs we either know are in the game, or we can safely assume are going to be. Now, Civ 5 had 18 Civs at launch, so if we assume that number will be more or less the same we can guess at a few other Civs they might want to add.

An African Civ (Zulu, Songhai, South Africa, et cetera).
A native North American Civ (Iroquois, Sioux, et cetera).
A Central American Civ (Mexico, Maya, et cetera).
A colonial South American Civ (Brazil, Argentina, Columbia, et cetera).
An/another Middle Eastern Civ (Arabia, Babylon, Ottomans, et cetera).
Another Mainland east Asian Civ (Siam, Mongolia, Korea, et cetera).
An Australian Civ (Australia or Aboriginal Australian).

Joking aside, as much as I'd like Canada in Civ6, it probably won't happen in the base game.

Arabia is I think a series staple for the base game, as are the Ottomans. That leaves 3 civs, one of which will certainly be African. For Africa the best representative for the base game - assuming only one, which is likely - would probably be Ethiopia; I prefer the Zulus to be left to the expansions as in the past two games.

Though they've used Mali or Songhai in the past, so this is up in the air. They'll probably want one all-new civ for the base game, so maybe Ghana, Kongo or Benin will be their choice.

If Aztecs are in, that takes care of the Central American representative for the base game. A colonial South American civ seems unlikely for the base game following the patterns in the last two games, and Australia also has no precedent in the series so far.

Babylon was a surprising omission from Civ V - that's typically been, with Persia, the series staple for the base game's 'Ancient Near East'.

I'd expect Southeast Asia to get a representative - I'd like the Khmer, but realistically they might go with Pagan (capitalising on renewed tourist access to and visibility of Myanmar, particularly Bagan), Indonesia (as one of their stated reasons for adding civs is the numbers of players from those countries, and this was given as the reason for both Indonesia and Brazil in BNW) or Malaysia (which I believe has the largest gaming audience in SE Asia, and which was one of few countries to have two city states representing it in Civ V).

Mongolia might well be the final civ - it's been in the base game in most incarnations and was I think release-day DLC for Civ V. As the largest contiguous land empire in history it's a bit difficult to justify leaving it out of a game about empire-building.

 

[Ryuu Falconwing]

I accept that Shaka is popular and traditional, but the Zulu as a civ pale incomparison to the true great terrors of the world. There are other warlike civs and African civs that deserve a shot at being in the initial release. I second Mali and/or Mongolia over the Zulu.

I actually have to give props to Firaxis for choosing the Songhai over the Zulu back in CiV

 

[ldvhl]

They need to get rid of Gandhi and have at least two Indias (Mughals, Tamils) and probably a third beyond that. It's a subcontinent as diverse as Europe forced into one civ... ridiculous

Agreed, and in addition we should also see more representation from China. Its entire ancient and medieval period has been ignored.

 

[j51]

I accept that Shaka is popular and traditional, but the Zulu as a civ pale incomparison to the true great terrors of the world. There are other warlike civs and African civs that deserve a shot at being in the initial release. I second Mali and/or Mongolia over the Zulu.

I actually have to give props to Firaxis for choosing the Songhai over the Zulu back in CiV

Thank you! They also did the Mali back in Civ 4 before the Zulu, which, hopefully, points to a West African civ as the opener. I'd love to see the Mali back. Mansa Musa is perfect for trade mechanic bonuses.

 

[PhilBowles]

I accept that Shaka is popular and traditional, but the Zulu as a civ pale incomparison to the true great terrors of the world. There are other warlike civs and African civs that deserve a shot at being in the initial release. I second Mali and/or Mongolia over the Zulu.

I actually have to give props to Firaxis for choosing the Songhai over the Zulu back in CiV

The Zulu and the Aztecs are both minor civilisations that have been included since Civ I based on name recognition - Gandhi is India's leader on the same basis. Basically, Civ I wanted a representative from Africa and one from the Neotropics and those were deemed the most familiar - in terms of overall relevance if you wanted to add a single African civ and discounted Egypt, Ethiopia would be the prime candidate (though I agree that now that a proper trade route system has been implemented in Civ, Mali is a good choice). And the Maya were far more significant than the Aztecs.

It was actually Civ IV that dispensed with the Zulu as a base-game Civ - hopefully they'll continue that tradition this time, for all that when they eventually arrived in BNW the Zulu were well-executed.