CIV6 Civs and Leaders

[darko82]

If Germany is even in

All the civs from civ 1 will be in

 

[Bast]

I want Queen Victoria for Britain. She ruled when it was a true British Empire and ruled for a long time.

I want to see interesting new civilizations like Burma (Myanmar), Tibet etc...

 

[killmeplease]

I want Queen Victoria for Britain. She ruled when it was a true British Empire and ruled for a long time.

I want to see interesting new civilizations like Burma (Myanmar), Tibet etc...

tibet would anger china so no way

 

[Bast]

tibet would anger china so no way

I was thinking that actually. Good point.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I want Queen Victoria for Britain. She ruled when it was a true British Empire and ruled for a long time.

Well, she reigned when it was a true British Empire for a long time, but she did not rule. She was pretty firmly a figurehead.

I want to see interesting new civilizations like Burma (Myanmar), Tibet etc...

I've suggested Pagan before. I think that would be fun even if the average consumer wouldn't know how to pronounce it or who they were.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

All the civs from civ 1 will be in

You say hopefully and unconfirmedly

Genuinely, cannot see England France and Germany all making it in vanilla this game

 

[SMcM]

I want Queen Victoria for Britain. She ruled when it was a true British Empire and ruled for a long time.

But she didn't rule. She was a figurehead. Much like the current British Monarch. When was the last time Elizabeth II decided British foreign policy? George III was the last monarch to have any real power.

That isn't neccasserily a reason not to include Victoria; the leaders are only figureheads for their civilizations anyway; it's not like it makes sense for anyone to rule a civilization from the dawn of man to the future. But I just felt a need to point out that she was not a ruler. She didn't govern the British Empire. We already had prime ministers which did that.

 

[SMcM]

tibet would anger china so no way

And? They could release a different version in China. That regularly happens for both films and video games. Anyway, they included Hawaii in civ 5 and some would argue that was encouraging Hawaiian nationalism, which is not in United States interests.

I feel like Tibet should be included just to challenge China. The west needs to get a spine and start standing up to bullies in the east like Russia, China and North Korea. Why should we be willing to bend over backwards to please an oppressive nation like China.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

And? They could release a different version in China. That regularly happens for both films and video games. Anyway, they included Hawaii in civ 5 and some would argue that was encouraging Hawaiian nationalism, which is not in United States interests.

I feel like Tibet should be included just to challenge China. The west needs to get a spine and start standing up to bullies in the east like Russia, China and North Korea. Why should we be willing to bend over backwards to please an oppressive nation like China.

US doesn't really care about Hawaiian nationalism.

And China is rich.
I personally would love to buy a civ game that had 3-5 separate "Chinese" civs from the warring states period/other time periods, but no unified China. However I don't have a few tens of million to spend on a strategy game, so the devs will only put in things that the broader market likes instead of just me.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

And? They could release a different version in China. That regularly happens for both films and video games. Anyway, they included Hawaii in civ 5 and some would argue that was encouraging Hawaiian nationalism, which is not in United States interests.

I feel like Tibet should be included just to challenge China. The west needs to get a spine and start standing up to bullies in the east like Russia, China and North Korea. Why should we be willing to bend over backwards to please an oppressive nation like China.

[Head]
^^^^^























[clouds]

Tibet is a completely different situation to Hawaii, and Firaxis are not a geopolitical entity with the power to influence international politics. The 'west' isn't a cohesive thing either, and certainly doesn't include video game companies. Companies like 2k are multinational these days and deal in an entirely different kind of politics that completely disregards territory. They just want to make some dollar, and China is a huge growth market, so no tibet.

 

[bite]

Moderator Action: please discus civs and leaders and not other forum members
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Krajzen]

Hawaii analogy is nonsensical lol. Hawaii nationalism isn't serious thing and even if it was US couldn'y care less about it - hell, Confederacy secesionism is almost mainstream nowadays and Confederacy almost destroyed US as a nation.

Meanwhile Tibet is very secessionist, violently rebellious part of autocratic rigid media-controlling Chinese regime - PRC is so dead serious about such things than in case of civ4 they replaced Mao Zedong from original version to some emperor (Taizong iirc) to not offend Great Leader. If they were paranoid about Mao positive appearance in a video game they'd cut entore Tibet if it was a separate civ. Or ban the game. Official propaganda of PRC maintains China liberated Tibet from traditional opression, no way they wouls accept "so this is glorious traditional Tibet of its independent golden age, bravely opposing Chinese dynasties"

Civ series are traditionally pretty politically... maybe not correct but careful (avoiding nazism and all such problematic topics like plague, in civ5 declining to give Prophets historical names to "not offend anybody") so unfortunately I can't see such "modern problem" civs as Tibet, Israel or Armenia to appear.

(In case of Armenia, most of their historical lands are currently in hands of Turkey which is extremely anti-Armenian, denies heritage of those areas, is paranoid and offended by mere mention of Armenian genocide, and is generally unpleasantly nationalist so that'd be guaranteed problem if Armenia appeared - what a pity because I'd loce to see it)

 

[Chrisssand]

If you look back to Civilization III, IV, and V the following civilizations have always made the first release.

United States (Confirmed)
Japan (Confirmed)
Egypt (Confirmed)
China (Confirmed)
Aztecs
England
France
Germany
Greece
India
Persia
Rome
Russia

They announced that there will be 18 civilizations in the first release of Civilization VI. That leaves 5 more civilizations open. My best guess is the 5 unknown civilizations will highlight game mechanic features that would not otherwise be put into play by the aforementioned civilizations.

The new game designer Ed Beach made some of the best new game mechanics including culture/tourism, religion, trade, world ideology. The two mechanics not really highlighted by the civilizations above would be religion and trade. I think at least two of the five missing civilizations would surround those two mechanics.

For religion I think they will introduce the Celts, Byzantium, and/or Arabia as they have always made an eventual appearance in civilization and they focus on that mechanic.

For trade I think they will introduce Portugal and/or the Netherlands as they have always made an eventual appearance as well.

But we will have to see in 4 months!

 

[Zaarin]

You say hopefully and unconfirmedly

Genuinely, cannot see England France and Germany all making it in vanilla this game

I am by no means a fan of overrepresentation of Western Europe, but excluding the three most important players from Western Europe would be equally problematic. England, France, and Germany will all be in vanilla, just like they always have been.

Hawaii analogy is nonsensical lol. Hawaii nationalism isn't serious thing and even if it was US couldn'y care less about it - hell, Confederacy secesionism is almost mainstream nowadays and Confederacy almost destroyed US as a nation.

Meanwhile Tibet is very secessionist, violently rebellious part of autocratic rigid media-controlling Chinese regime - PRC is so dead serious about such things than in case of civ4 they replaced Mao Zedong from original version to some emperor (Taizong iirc) to not offend Great Leader. If they were paranoid about Mao positive appearance in a video game they'd cut entore Tibet if it was a separate civ. Or ban the game. Official propaganda of PRC maintains China liberated Tibet from traditional opression, no way they wouls accept "so this is glorious traditional Tibet of its independent golden age, bravely opposing Chinese dynasties"

Civ series are traditionally pretty politically... maybe not correct but careful (avoiding nazism and all such problematic topics like plague, in civ5 declining to give Prophets historical names to "not offend anybody") so unfortunately I can't see such "modern problem" civs as Tibet, Israel or Armenia to appear.

(In case of Armenia, most of their historical lands are currently in hands of Turkey which is extremely anti-Armenian, denies heritage of those areas, is paranoid and offended by mere mention of Armenian genocide, and is generally unpleasantly nationalist so that'd be guaranteed problem if Armenia appeared - what a pity because I'd loce to see it)

Huh, I'd never considered Armenia as a problematic choice. What a shame, as Armenia is a civilization I've been hoping to see for years. Think they could get around it by calling them the Mitanni?

 

[Veras]

Actually, the no exception rule.... never invade Russia from the west (Russo-Japanese war on top of the Mongols)

Unless you are Sigismund III of Poland

It's a shame that the game probably can't even have the Tibetan Empire from the 7th-9th century, which had nothing to do with China, because of PRC

 

[Thormodr]

tibet would anger china so no way

Stupid authoritarian governments that censor everything to justify their ill gotten gains.

Just make it a DLC that is not available in China.

Also, should definitely have Israel. Absolutely deserve to be in. Kurds, as well.

 

[SMcM]

Hawaii analogy is nonsensical lol. Hawaii nationalism isn't serious thing and even if it was US couldn'y care less about it - hell, Confederacy secesionism is almost mainstream nowadays and Confederacy almost destroyed US as a nation.

Meanwhile Tibet is very secessionist, violently rebellious part of autocratic rigid media-controlling Chinese regime - PRC is so dead serious about such things than in case of civ4 they replaced Mao Zedong from original version to some emperor (Taizong iirc) to not offend Great Leader. If they were paranoid about Mao positive appearance in a video game they'd cut entore Tibet if it was a separate civ. Or ban the game. Official propaganda of PRC maintains China liberated Tibet from traditional opression, no way they wouls accept "so this is glorious traditional Tibet of its independent golden age, bravely opposing Chinese dynasties"

Civ series are traditionally pretty politically... maybe not correct but careful (avoiding nazism and all such problematic topics like plague, in civ5 declining to give Prophets historical names to "not offend anybody") so unfortunately I can't see such "modern problem" civs as Tibet, Israel or Armenia to appear.

(In case of Armenia, most of their historical lands are currently in hands of Turkey which is extremely anti-Armenian, denies heritage of those areas, is paranoid and offended by mere mention of Armenian genocide, and is generally unpleasantly nationalist so that'd be guaranteed problem if Armenia appeared - what a pity because I'd loce to see it)

If I had a golden rule for the Internet, it would be 'don't write LOL'; it is really quite annoying.

Believe it or not, many indigenous Hawaaians don't like having the USA forced on them. Having said that, I recognize that Hawaaian indigenous peoples are not oppressed, and I never claimed it was the same as the situation in Tibet, and if you read that into what I wrote, you are reading too far. Point I was making was it does not matter whether or not a nation is currently independent or not in terms of whether or not it is included in the game. Firaxis does not need to pander to anti-separatism, and the inclusion of Hawaii in spite of some calling for independence shows that they don't care. I realise the Chinese are a much tricker bunch, but Xi Jingping's government pledged to not erode the unique culture of Tibet. This may be empty, but it means that Chinese censors are not likely to be too upset about the release of a game which recognizes that at some point in its past, Tibet was a separate entity. To object would be ridiculous.

And if China did object, it is more than feasible to release a reduced version of the game in China if Tibet is deemed to be a draw in other countries. China will only be a small proportion of civilization sales, and things like this happen all of the time.

Israel is, I would propose, not in the game due to the realm of King David being comparatively small next to other historical nations in that region of the world. I doubt it has anything to do with the Palestine conflict.

In my view, your Armenia arguement is nonsensical. Firaxis would not avoid representing people because they have been or are being persecuted. It's not like Turkey is even going to be that big a market for civilization compared to countries with bigger economies in both the east and the west. Anyway, not representing Armenia due to the massacre by the Young Turks is like not representing Assyria because the genocide being carried out towards Assyrian Christians in Iraq today by ISIS. Obviously when civ 5 Assyria DLC was released, this current genocide was not underway, but they have fared roughly through the years, under Saddam and since, with some in local Sunni populations resenting them.

 

[SMcM]

Stupid authoritarian governments that censor everything to justify their ill gotten gains.

Just make it a DLC that is not available in China.

Also, should definitely have Israel. Absolutely deserve to be in. Kurds, as well.

That makes sense as a solution. Regional specific content is already practiced by civ games, with a special version of civilization revolution for PSVita being released in Japan.

 

[Thormodr]

If I had a golden rule for the Internet, it would be 'don't write LOL'; it is really quite annoying.

Believe it or not, many indigenous Hawaaians don't like having the USA forced on them. Having said that, I recognize that Hawaaian indigenous peoples are not oppressed, and I never claimed it was the same as the situation in Tibet, and if you read that into what I wrote, you are reading too far. Point I was making was it does not matter whether or not a nation is currently independent or not in terms of whether or not it is included in the game. Firaxis does not need to pander to anti-separatism, and the inclusion of Hawaii in spite of some calling for independence shows that they don't care. I realise the Chinese are a much tricker bunch, but Xi Jingping's government pledged to not erode the unique culture of Tibet. This may be empty, but it means that Chinese censors are not likely to be too upset about the release of a game which recognizes that at some point in its past, Tibet was a separate entity. To object would be ridiculous.

And if China did object, it is more than feasible to release a reduced version of the game in China if Tibet is deemed to be a draw in other countries. China will only be a small proportion of civilization sales, and things like this happen all of the time.

Israel is, I would propose, not in the game due to the realm of King David being comparatively small next to other historical nations in that region of the world. I doubt it has anything to do with the Palestine conflict.

In my view, your Armenia arguement is nonsensical. Firaxis would not avoid representing people because they have been or are being persecuted. It's not like Turkey is even going to be that big a market for civilization compared to countries with bigger economies in both the east and the west. Anyway, not representing Armenia due to the massacre by the Young Turks is like not representing Assyria because the genocide being carried out towards Assyrian Christians in Iraq today by ISIS. Obviously when civ 5 Assyria DLC was released, this current genocide was not underway, but they have fared roughly through the years, under Saddam and since, with some in local Sunni populations resenting them.

I see your point but the analogy is a bit off for Assyria. After all, I don't see any ISIS members playing Civ. They truly are barbarians in every sense of the word.

As for Israel, under Solomon it was an extremely prosperous country. In fact, Solomon was one of the richest people that ever lived, if not the richest. His net worth would be in the trillions of dollars today. That is definitely worthy of being a Civ.

http://https://www.wealthresult.com/2013/07/top-10-richest-men-of-all-time-in.html

 

[Krajzen]

Huh, I'd never considered Armenia as a problematic choice. What a shame, as Armenia is a civilization I've been hoping to see for years. Think they could get around it by calling them the Mitanni?

I'd love to see Armenia too. Unfortunately modern Turkey (some say it is turning into autocracy) is very nationalist and, uhm, extremely badly reacts on claims of other nations to the 'Turkish lands' (Greeks on west, Kurds and Armenians on east). Armenian genocide (as well as Assyrian and Greek genocides) are still harshly denied by Turkish mainstream, with intellectuals who dare to oppose this notion facing severe ostracism, relations between Armenia, Greece, Kurds and Turkey are terrible, notions of parts of modern Turkey being uhm not always Turkish lands are met with hostility, and actually huge part of Armenian historical legacy lands was wiped out of their Armenian cultural character - names changed to Turkish, monasteries ruined, Turkish population resettled etc.
Even few weeks ago, there was an official diplomatic anger of Turkey (with withdrewing ambassadors, demanding apologies etc) for mere fact that iirc Germany mentioned something about Armenian genocide.

I can imagine Armenia civilisation with such map (map taken from awesome civ5 Armenia mod, notice how huge part of this historical Armenia is in modern Turkish borders)

could be controversial.

In my view, your Armenia arguement is nonsensical. Firaxis would not avoid representing people because they have been or are being persecuted. It's not like Turkey is even going to be that big a market for civilization compared to countries with bigger economies in both the east and the west. Anyway, not representing Armenia due to the massacre by the Young Turks is like not representing Assyria because the genocide being carried out towards Assyrian Christians in Iraq today by ISIS. Obviously when civ 5 Assyria DLC was released, this current genocide was not underway, but they have fared roughly through the years, under Saddam and since, with some in local Sunni populations resenting them.

On the other hand, Firaxis is so careful regarding potential controversial subjects, it has officially said before G&K release how great prophets aren't going to get names to not offend anybody. For me it is ridiculous, for them was not.