CIV6 Civs and Leaders

[Hannibal XIII]

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

Are you thinking, like, different Chinese dynasties? Or more Kingdom of Nanzhao/Dali, the Tanguts and the Manchus?

 

[ldvhl]

Are you thinking, like, different Chinese dynasties? Or more Kingdom of Nanzhao/Dali, the Tanguts and the Manchus?

I was thinking more of peoples and states from the Sixteen Kingdoms and Five Dynasties/Ten Kingdoms periods, as well as indigenous peoples from what is now modern China.

 

[j51]

What if China had multiple leaders (like 3-4) from different Dynasties that you could switch between once, or twice per game as a special Mandate of Heaven ability? Like from Qin Shi Huang to Yongle, or Taizong to Kangxi?

 

[MadDjinn]

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?

Monotheistic Judaism came from the Polytheistic set of deities of the area. Yahweh was only one of the 'deities' at the time. That sect won.

Christianity came from a Judaism via a 'prophet' and/or rabbi and/or 'god' depending on which religion talks about it. The 'old testament' literally is the Judaic version and 'God' is Yahweh.

Arabs come from Abraham (Jew), and they founded Islam. They themselves consider it as an extension (3rd prophet and all that).

 

[Krajzen]

For the love of God, no Zulu please.

I never understood West's fascination with Zulu and using it as an example of 'African power'. There were a lot of cool Subsaharan empires and actual CIVILISATONS with urban centres, long range trade, great kings, warriors etc who also often managed to put actual long term resistance to colonization.

Queen Nzinga and Kingdom of Kongo
Nyatsimba Mutota and the Great Zimbabwe
Kilwa Sultanate or general Swahilli Civilisation
of course Ethiopia which actually managed to repeal European invasion
tons of cool empires from West Africa (Mali, Ghana, Songhai, Hausa, Yoruba, Ashanti - who were FAR more impressive in their resistance vs British than Zulus)
ancient (conquered Egypt) or medieval (resisted caliphates for centuries) Nubia

If you wanna historical examples of 'succesfull African resistance to Europeans' you have badass examples of Nzinga of Kongo, Ethiopia or Asante Wars (those guys actually managed to win versus British empire first two wors they fought, on bigger scale and in better style than Zulu too)

Instead of those civilisations - actual developed civilisations - we get Zulu. Very small, ephemeric primitive kingdom which was on the tech level or spear and shields, with economy and politics based around cattle. In the goddamn industrial era. IIRC, on area smaller than Wales. Lasting for few decades. No written language or cities.
"Great military" which managed to get one or two victories over incompetent, greatly outnumbered, exhausted, lost British soldiers, and then was completely annihilated with minimal losses by extremely minor British forces led by some second-class officers and few gatling guns.
Then its capital was burned and state never resurrected, after breatktaking imperial legacy of few decades of cattle wars, terrible losses to numerically inferior enemies (Boers - battle of Blood River, totally pathetic Zulu loss, even worse than Rorke's Drift)

Not only all that, but on top of this fail, expansion of "brave warrior Shaka" is IIRC considered a genocide of other neighboring tribes.

So, to sum up, very small, primitive tribe, which managed to get 1-2 victories in insignificant skirmishes (because let's be honest, what is loss of 1000 British men? In Napoleonic Wars European states had armies of hundred thousands of men) and then be completely annihilated by the first competent modern force.

Please no Zulu, for the love of God, I don't care about "it's civ tradition" in the slightest (I also strongly dislike Gandhi as Indian leader and would love him changed). It's very good you wanna include civilisations from outside of Europe, Firaxis, I applaud that as staunch anti-eurocentrist, but if you wanna include something from black Africa make it an actual civilisation. Kongo, Swahilli, Ashanti, Ethiopia, Nubia, Ghana, whoever, just let it be actual empire.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

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.

I know all the European powers are white, but I feel excited to play a civ like Rome or Greece, or England, because I feel like I'm playing as an historical power. That's true for Egypt and Babylon as well. But the Zulu? Shoshone? There is no feeling of greatness playing one of those civs.

We don't need a Zulu specifically, but Zulu in the game needs a spiritual successor. I've always liked Shaka in the games because he's such a toolbag/hateful presence nearby. Monty didn't have the same kind of threat level, neither in IV nor V.

Putting Shoshone in you might as well include nations like Bengal, Manchu, etc. I like representing the North Americans somehow, but multiple civs or as you say Zulu is kind of rough when we're leaving out nations like Mughals, Mali, Ethiopia, Khmer, and oversimplyfing China.

Inca are the most impressive of the pre-colonial nations in the Americas, and I'd probably place Maya a little higher than Aztec.

 

[j51]

Spoiler :

For the love of God, no Zulu please.

I never understood West's fascination with Zulu and using it as an example of 'African power'. There were a lot of cool Subsaharan empires and actual CIVILISATONS with urban centres, long range trade, great kings, warriors etc who also often managed to put actual long term resistance to colonization.

Queen Nzinga and Kingdom of Kongo
Nyatsimba Mutota and the Great Zimbabwe
Kilwa Sultanate or general Swahilli Civilisation
of course Ethiopia which actually managed to repeal European invasion
tons of cool empires from West Africa (Mali, Ghana, Songhai, Hausa, Yoruba, Ashanti - who were FAR more impressive in their resistance vs British than Zulus)
ancient (conquered Egypt) or medieval (resisted caliphates for centuries) Nubia

If you wanna historical examples of 'succesfull African resistance to Europeans' you have badass examples of Nzinga of Kongo, Ethiopia or Asante Wars (those guys actually managed to win versus British empire first two wors they fought, on bigger scale and in better style than Zulu too)

Instead of those civilisations - actual developed civilisations - we get Zulu. Very small, ephemeric primitive kingdom which was on the tech level or spear and shields, with economy and politics based around cattle. In the goddamn industrial era. IIRC, on area smaller than Wales. Lasting for few decades. No written language or cities.
"Great military" which managed to get one or two victories over incompetent, greatly outnumbered, exhausted, lost British soldiers, and then was completely annihilated with minimal losses by extremely minor British forces led by some second-class officers and few gatling guns.
Then its capital was burned and state never resurrected, after breatktaking imperial legacy of few decades of cattle wars, terrible losses to numerically inferior enemies (Boers - battle of Blood River, totally pathetic Zulu loss, even worse than Rorke's Drift)

Not only all that, but on top of this fail, expansion of "brave warrior Shaka" is IIRC considered a genocide of other neighboring tribes.

So, to sum up, very small, primitive tribe, which managed to get 1-2 victories in insignificant skirmishes (because let's be honest, what is loss of 1000 British men? In Napoleonic Wars European states had armies of hundred thousands of men) and then be completely annihilated by the first competent modern force.

Please no Zulu, for the love of God, I don't care about "it's civ tradition" in the slightest (I also strongly dislike Gandhi as Indian leader and would love him changed). It's very good you wanna include civilisations from outside of Europe, Firaxis, I applaud that as staunch anti-eurocentrist, but if you wanna include something from black Africa make it an actual civilisation. Kongo, Swahilli, Ashanti, Ethiopia, Nubia, Ghana, whoever, just let it be actual empire.

This! This! 99% this! (Not 100, because Nzinga wasn't Kongo but of nearby vassal kingdoms.)

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I have druthers about the Zulu as well, but they are a Civ institution (like Gandhi).

Remember when Sweden was announced as the final G&K civ and this site went on a 3 day rage bender because a lot of people just assumed it would be the Zulu? People like the Zulu.

 

[Krajzen]

I have druthers about the Zulu as well, but they are a Civ institution (like Gandhi).

Remember when Sweden was announced as the final G&K civ and this site went on a 3 day rage bender because a lot of people just assumed it would be the Zulu? People like the Zulu.

If civ5 survived its catastrophic release (technically unstable unbalanced bug-ridden mess with completely zero diplomacy and AI + with 1UPT controversy on top of that + no religion or espionage + broken multiplayer), I think civ6 would survive lack of one of 30-40 civilisations easily. Very easily, in comparision to the armageddon that was civ5 release.

 

[sherbz]

For the love of God, no Zulu please.

I never understood West's fascination with Zulu and using it as an example of 'African power'. There were a lot of cool Subsaharan empires and actual CIVILISATONS with urban centres, long range trade, great kings, warriors etc who also often managed to put actual long term resistance to colonization.

Queen Nzinga and Kingdom of Kongo
Nyatsimba Mutota and the Great Zimbabwe
Kilwa Sultanate or general Swahilli Civilisation
of course Ethiopia which actually managed to repeal European invasion
tons of cool empires from West Africa (Mali, Ghana, Songhai, Hausa, Yoruba, Ashanti - who were FAR more impressive in their resistance vs British than Zulus)
ancient (conquered Egypt) or medieval (resisted caliphates for centuries) Nubia

If you wanna historical examples of 'succesfull African resistance to Europeans' you have badass examples of Nzinga of Kongo, Ethiopia or Asante Wars (those guys actually managed to win versus British empire first two wors they fought, on bigger scale and in better style than Zulu too)

Instead of those civilisations - actual developed civilisations - we get Zulu. Very small, ephemeric primitive kingdom which was on the tech level or spear and shields, with economy and politics based around cattle. In the goddamn industrial era. IIRC, on area smaller than Wales. Lasting for few decades. No written language or cities.
"Great military" which managed to get one or two victories over incompetent, greatly outnumbered, exhausted, lost British soldiers, and then was completely annihilated with minimal losses by extremely minor British forces led by some second-class officers and few gatling guns.
Then its capital was burned and state never resurrected, after breatktaking imperial legacy of few decades of cattle wars, terrible losses to numerically inferior enemies (Boers - battle of Blood River, totally pathetic Zulu loss, even worse than Rorke's Drift)

Not only all that, but on top of this fail, expansion of "brave warrior Shaka" is IIRC considered a genocide of other neighboring tribes.

So, to sum up, very small, primitive tribe, which managed to get 1-2 victories in insignificant skirmishes (because let's be honest, what is loss of 1000 British men? In Napoleonic Wars European states had armies of hundred thousands of men) and then be completely annihilated by the first competent modern force.

Please no Zulu, for the love of God, I don't care about "it's civ tradition" in the slightest (I also strongly dislike Gandhi as Indian leader and would love him changed). It's very good you wanna include civilisations from outside of Europe, Firaxis, I applaud that as staunch anti-eurocentrist, but if you wanna include something from black Africa make it an actual civilisation. Kongo, Swahilli, Ashanti, Ethiopia, Nubia, Ghana, whoever, just let it be actual empire.

This is largely down to the british i think. And in particular a certain film by the namme of ZULU

 

[PhilBowles]

I was thinking more of peoples and states from the Sixteen Kingdoms and Five Dynasties/Ten Kingdoms periods, as well as indigenous peoples from what is now modern China.

The latter in particular would be politically very sensitive - China's a big market and I doubt Chinese censors would look favourably on anything out of whack with the 'One China' narrative, especially if it places pre-eminence on non-Han ethnic groups.

But from a gaming perspective alone China is the best way to represent the country - it has recognition among players both within and outside the country, it has the largest and most recognisable city list where as some of these smaller territories may not, and it's consistent with the way almost every other large or ethnically/historically diverse state is represented (look at Germany, India, Indonesia...). I consider the England/Celts division a bad thing - call the civ England by all means for wide recognition if nothing else (as many languages have no distinction between 'England' and 'Britain'), but a bizarre conglomerate Scottish/Irish/Welsh civ representing 'the other bits' (and with half of the city names representing Norman-founded cities) is just a hopeless mishmash.

 

[Civciv5]

I completely agree with the argument about not including the Zulu.
Better include an actual civilization like Kongo or The Swahili instead.

 

[ferros]

The Zulu, and Shaka, are very iconic for the Civilization-franchise and that's why they should be in Civ6, just like they have been in all other Civ games.

Sure, they might not be very famous to non-"Civers" or a large/noticeable empire IRL but they have a place in most Civ-gamers hearts. There's no other leader that you hate to meet as much as Shaka and anyone that has ever played Civ has been killed by the Zulu at least once.

A Civlization game without the Zulu and Shaka wouldn't be a complete Civlization game.

 

[PhilBowles]

This is largely down to the british i think. And in particular a certain film by the namme of ZULU

Indeed - and more specifically it's an artefact of the fact that Civilization was originally designed as an Anglophone game which wasn't expected to have a broader circulation - or indeed to survive so long that a generation of players unfamiliar with the film would emerge in the US and Britain. Pretty much the whole of Civ I's target audience could be expected to know who the Zulu were from pop culture knowledge - we've just moved to an era where it's likely that a minority of players know of them (or would do if not for Civ).

Of course it could be time to retire them altogether on that basis, but so far no Civ I civilisation has ever been dropped from an incarnation of the series as far as I can recall.

 

[EulerMcE]

This is largely down to the british i think. And in particular a certain film by the namme of ZULU

The film is definitely the main reason I'd say.

People seem to want a nuanced and well thought out ranking of the civs that are added, but you're never really going to get that. Civ's approach to its historical flavour has always been very casual and focused around mechanics, pop culture or marketability. The developers themselves probably only have a passing knowledge of most of the factions they add to the game. It seems a bit odd to get worked up about things like the Zulu, or Gandhi, they are pretty indicative of the franchise.

 

[King William I]

I don't think it's so much the Zulu as it is Shaka. I mean the guy came from practically nothing, united the Zulu under one banner (during a time of intense European expansion) and (arguably) was the sole reason the Zulu held off the British. So yeah, I think Shaka should keep coming back, but I'd prefer in base game or DLC. Gives us one more civ to argue about when the time comes for expansions.

On another note, why were the devs reading up on Teddy Roosevelt. Could we be seeing a new American leader. I hope so he is by far my favorite person in American history

 

[noto2]

I wasn't aware that "impact on imperialist expansions throughout history" was the sole qualification for being included in Civilisation.

Not just imperialist expansion, but contribution in any way to the story of the human race.

Did the Shoshone invent anything? Did they write any great songs/poems/epics? Hell, did they even have a written language at all? Who were their great artists/poets/writers... anything? Did they build anything that is still standing? Did they paint anything?

Now, the funny thing is that in the game the Shoshone have a very good UU and UA. What annoys me is that England's UA is terrible, as is the UA of other great powers, like Spain. If they didn't have enough good ideas to go around for civs, they should have given important civs good UAs and left it at that. I only want to see the Shoshone in the game if all the civs are interesting, unique, and balanced.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

The film is definitely the main reason I'd say.

People seem to want a nuanced and well thought out ranking of the civs that are added, but you're never really going to get that. Civ's approach to its historical flavour has always been very casual and focused around mechanics, pop culture or marketability. The developers themselves probably only have a passing knowledge of most of the factions they add to the game. It seems a bit odd to get worked up about things like the Zulu, or Gandhi, they are pretty indicative of the franchise.

The only reason why we even had Assyria was due to luck of having one of the developers/people working on BNW having background in their history.

I wouldn't expect Civ to really ever fille that niche in terms of accuratly portraying civs. They're, 90% of the time, just archetypes. We will see China, and we will see it ignore it's history (although a changing leader type for a unique ability would actualyl be pretty good)

In addition, it's pretty confirmed that Gandhi has his nuke thing as his agenda (or a bonus agenda) and we will probably see Zulu in this iteration.

As much as Civ is a vibrant game, it will never be historically accurate. It's always been and always will be a simplified game (not that I fault it)

If you want a more of a simulation game, Europa Universals has that covered.

 

[ldvhl]

Now, the funny thing is that in the game the Shoshone have a very good UU and UA. What annoys me is that England's UA is terrible, as is the UA of other great powers, like Spain. If they didn't have enough good ideas to go around for civs, they should have given important civs good UAs and left it at that. I only want to see the Shoshone in the game if all the civs are interesting, unique, and balanced.

I am really, really glad V went away from this line of thinking and hopefully VI will continue to as well.

 

[noto2]

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.

This is a good point. I'll grant you that.

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.

Well Civ4 tackled this problem by having multiple leaders. So the Indian player could choose Ghandi or Asoka.

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

I've had this thought before too. We've got both the Roman empire and Byzantines, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to have more than one Chinese civilization in the game.

It's very good you wanna include civilisations from outside of Europe, Firaxis, I applaud that as staunch anti-eurocentrist, but if you wanna include something from black Africa make it an actual civilisation. Kongo, Swahilli, Ashanti, Ethiopia, Nubia, Ghana, whoever, just let it be actual empire.

Exactly!!