Civilisations and leaders you would NOT like to see in game

[Krajzen]

Title. Civs may be never seen before but also even ones already present, or even mainstays. Also: your reasoning why, calm and reasonable. Bonus points if the civiliations you have a grudge against are not obscure but somewhat popular on these forums, as this may lead to interesting debates

Also, please keep far from injecting modern political views here.

Me: Inuits, Harappa

Harappa - I was supporter of this cov until I learned its language is (one of very few) completely undecyphered, so we know nothing of Indus Valley civ beyond archeological remains. No leader names, biographies, nothing.
Inuits - no candidate for leader, no cities, no state structures - easy points. My biggest problem with them is however how people dream of Inuits because they'd populate snow areas. Uhm, Inuits are still humands and they don't magically grow yield out of barren wastelands, they adaptation means "they can survive in those awful conditions" but "survive" doesn't mean "building cities"... Even them cannot do that. Some parts of the planet are simply unsuitable for urbanization.

 

[clapyourhands]

For me it's any post-Industrial leader for a Civ whose Golden Age most definitely wasn't post-Industrial, at least as its sole leader. America or Australia, sure. 19th/20th century unified Germany, sure (probably under Bismarck). Unified instead of Renaissance Italy, or post-colonial over pre-colonial SEA, not so much. Even someone deserving like say, Churchill for England, I wouldn't want to see as England's only leader in a Civ game, though he'd be perfectly fine as an alternate.

 

[halfhalfharp]

I think its a personal question so I don't expect everyone to agree with me.

Any Civs brought into the game merely to fit Nationalistic bias or Fans support (look at Macedon), or part of a unified entity (like Basque/ Catalon of Spain)

Any leaders that has a yawning background. (like inherited the throne --> won great battles --> died). Military valiancy is nice but it bores me a lot.
I prefer to see leaders with plenty of interesting rumors or had extraordinary characteristics (elements of Love, Plotting, Betrayal, Violence, Brutality, Lust and Desires).

And I don't want to see Mao nor any pre-modern leaders for Chinese, when there are tons of Chinese emperors never shown up in game. Moreover, the CUA "Dynastic cycle" does not fit when there is no dynasty.

Also Arabic Egyptians will be among the least possible civ option in my mind, except when they are categorized as part of Arabian civ.

 

[Basileus Rhomaion]

I think the people from the Byzantium suggestion thread already know about my grudge with Justinian as a potential pick for a leader. My explanation is over there so:

Spoiler Rant :

There's a lot of buzz about Justinian being a good emperor, but he's by far the most overrated and by extension the one whose flaws are most glaring. His campaigns to restore the empire's western territories were uncalled for strategically since the empire was not in danger from the Germanic kingdoms controlling them at he time. So he wasted over 50% of the empire's treasury on funding campaigns that a) drained the empire's manpower to the point of being unsustainable for the next generations allowing Avar and Sassanian expansion and b) completely ransacked the territories he wanted to recover. Italy went from being the richest region in the world to rubble within a decade.

His response to the Nika riots was appallingly bad and only made a sensible choice with Theodora changing his mind. And when he did change his mind to stay and actually deal with the riots, his response was to slaughter thousands of his own citizens to cease hostilities. Similarly, following the Samaritan revolt, he committed an effective genocide not much different to the one the ancient Romans did at the Jews' expense.

And the most frustrating thing is that he received the empire at its absolute peak, it was the richest nation in the region by quite a margin and projected power throughout the entirety of the Mediterranean. His purely sentimental, nonsensical ambitions left the empire in a considerably worse state than the one he started with. Maximum territorial extent =/= maximum power.

/endrant

Other than that, I can't think of any civ that I would actively avoid being in the game. Perhaps Canada or other post-colonial nations and that's mostly due to having plenty of them already in the game that are very similar.

Any Civs brought into the game merely to fit Nationalistic bias or Fans support (look at Macedon)

There's quite a bit of inane brouhaha in the Civilopedia going on with Macedon indeed, but that's not why they're in the game. Ed Beach has cleared that out it back in the livestream when they were first showing the Conquests of Alexander scenario. He said that Greece as a civ wouldn't fit the all-out war style they intended for Alexander, hence they created an entirely new civ geared completely towards his style and history. Not necessarily good either, one-man civs kind of defeat the purpose, but at least the reasoning is gameplay-oriented rather than ideological.

 

[Greywulf]

I'm actually not really a big fan of any post-colonial civ ideas. It would make more sense if they reintroduced what the had in Civ 4, where colonies can break away and become their own civs, which would represent history far better, and then it would make sense to name them based on colonies of the historical civ (the issue with that is not all the civs had colonies, so it might get problematic naming all the new colonial civs). America really is quite significant, so I'm more accepting of that one, and well once you have one colonial civ in the game it does open the door for the rest. This would all work quite nicely for a specific historical scenario, but it feels odd to start out as neolithic nomads that are founding their very first city with a name like "Australia", lol..

I wouldn't be excited about adding several new civs all from within the region of modern-day Italy. Two would be nice (including Rome), but let's not get overboard. I know they were all their own independent civs, but there is too much of the world to look at instead of focusing on one little slither within Europe.

I agree with halfhalfharp regarding not wanting civs motivated by Nationalistic bias. Not into Nationalism at all. (Add that to my criticism for Australia as a civ)

Also utterly in agreement regarding not wanting leaders such as Mao, but also Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. I would seriously not buy the game if they added these leaders.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I never really looked much into the Timurids, but you have convinced me. Best to leave that for the modders if they really want it.

Civs that I don't want:

• Byzantium - This may have been a must-have in older Civ games that limited themselves to Euro History all-stars, but in a game where Greece is represented by both Athens and Sparta and India is represented by both Gandhi and Chandragupta, this is one that is best consolidated as an alternate leader for Rome. It had baths, and legions, and trade routes. A naval/religious leader would make Rome feel Byzantine enough. If V was any indication, Byzantium is a boring standalone civ that struggles to carve a unique niche for itself without being one of the worst civs in the game. Let them lean on Rome as a crutch. It's okay, the world will keep turning.
• Vietnam - It will happen, but I don't want it. I'd rather have the Chola from that region. At least they did things beyond mere obstinance and have so many better rulers to choose from than the Trung sisters. Tell me, fanboys, which Trung sister do you want for the leader? No idea? I thought so.
• Austria - It's just so...German. What does it have? Composers? Not really, because although waltzes and twelve-tone music are nice, Mozart and Beethoven are still actual Germans. Chocolate? Swiss. Coffee? Dutch. Hussars? Poles. The only thing Austria has is Maria Teresa, and it is only by her sheer gravity that anyone believes this civ deserves inclusion. I for one would rather have Switzerland or Hungary, which have much more unique cultural identities to build from. And before either of those, I would rather have Bulgaria.
• Celts - Why? Why does anyone still think this is possible when Firaxis has stuggled so hard to distill a discernable, specific, yet game-functional identity from these guys? Why, when the mods themselves, although fun, are stretching beyond belief to make something like the Gauls, Cornwall, Wales, the Iceni playable? Why, when there is so little that is culturally unique about them compared to so many other disorganized barbarian civs of the time, like the Germans, the Slavs, the Goths? Why do you need this specific, arbitrary non-civ so badly? Just ask for Ireland. We all know that's what you actually want. And you can probably get it now that Scotland is in the game.
• Huns/Babylon/Assyria - I'm tired of these guys taking up space. I can live with them in the game, but like Byzantium I want them consolidated. Make Atila a Scythia alternate leader, given that Scythia is such a generalized civ it can cover pretty much any horse-archer, kurgan culture in the Scythian region. Make Hammurabi and Sargon dual leaders for an Akkadian civ. Make space for more interesting civs.

 

[halfhalfharp]

I never really looked much into the Timurids, but you have convinced me. Best to leave that for the modders if they really want it.

Civs that I don't want:

• Byzantium - This may have been a must-have in older Civ games that limited themselves to Euro History all-stars, but in a game where Greece is represented by both Athens and Sparta and India is represented by both Gandhi and Chandragupta, this is one that is best consolidated as an alternate leader for Rome. It had baths, and legions, and trade routes. A naval/religious leader would make Rome feel Byzantine enough. If V was any indication, Byzantium is a boring standalone civ that struggles to carve a unique niche for itself without being one of the worst civs in the game. Let them lean on Rome as a crutch. It's okay, the world will keep turning.

I have a few points to comment on this.
1, The Roman CUA is named "All Roads lead to Rome". I can't remember any idiom saying "All Roads lead to Constantinople" so the current Roman design won't fit Byzantine, a "Rome" without "Rome".
2, It hardly represents the original Roman Republic or Empire. Though this is debatable.
3, Civ V's Byzantium sucks due to the design, nothing reflecting the future niche it can occupy in Civ VI nor its historical position.
4, The world surely will still turn even if we make an Europe Civ, smashing all England, France, Germany, etc into one. But our mind will surely burst for that.

 

[chronoturner]

Any modern leader post WWII, for me. Leaders during WWII and WWI are already on a line as well for me, but I can make a few notable exceptions in my mind (Wilhelmina, Churchill, Albert I if Belgium is ever released).

Regarding civilizations, I'd rather not have Zulu, or at the very least, not yet. However, it seems inevitable at this point, so I have to simply resign myself at this point to it.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Canada
Vietnam
Argentina
Celts
Yugoslavia
Any of the aboriginal australian civs
Nepal

The Ottomans


Oh and I don't need to see Macedon or Australia ever again thx

 

[fredrikslicer]

Denmark

 

[halfhalfharp]

Denmark

Yes, how sweet it is for Norway and Demark sharing the same leader. Sweden is also culturally highly similar as they all shared the Kalmar Union in the past. But of course Sweden did accomplish much more than the rest of its two neighbors.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I'm fine with Denmark is it's Kalmar Union Denmark under Margaret I ^__^

The Vikings are one of the few cultures I wouldn't mind seeing a blob civ of.

 

[dunkleosteus]

Previous Civ games had "Scandinavia" as a civ, now we have Norway. Civ 6 can have multiple leaders and I wouldn't mind seeing other norse countries as civs if they changed it so that multiple leaders could change the name of their civ without changing the bonuses. Like if Harald leads Norway but if you had a Danish leader, it would change from Norway to Denmark or something without changing any of the bonuses or stats of the civ. Would be an easier way to squeeze Byzantium as an alternate Roman civ.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I have a few points to comment on this.
1, The Roman CUA is named "All Roads lead to Rome". I can't remember any idiom saying "All Roads lead to Constantinople" so the current Roman design won't fit Byzantine, a "Rome" without "Rome".
2, It hardly represents the original Roman Republic or Empire. Though this is debatable.
3, Civ V's Byzantium sucks due to the design, nothing reflecting the future niche it can occupy in Civ VI nor its historical position.
4, The world surely will still turn even if we make an Europe Civ, smashing all England, France, Germany, etc into one. But our mind will surely burst for that.

I see your points, however:

1. If it's still called "Rome," the ability is not a misnomer. And arguably more roads led to Constantinople.
2. It represents the late Roman Empire.
3.Except what could it do differently? The quadrireme is already a universal unit. The cataphract wasn't remotely unique to Byzantium. They can't have baths or trade bonuses because Rome already has that. Identity-wise they've been pushed out culturally by all the Hellenistic civs and religiously by all the eastern European civs. It would be a work of torturous pedantry to try to make Byzantium a unique and fun civ in VI, and again the only reason people want it is to fill out their semantics list. If they actually respected Byzantium as a civ, they would let it exist in some playable form rather than force what is clearly an afterthought civ to stand up on its own in an already developed game.
4. I actually could live with just Spain, UK, and the HRE. France would not be missed. Byzantium won't be missed either if Turkey and Macedon are already in the game.

 

[halfhalfharp]

3.Except what could it do differently? The quadrireme is already a universal unit. The cataphract wasn't remotely unique to Byzantium. They can't have baths or trade bonuses because Rome already has that. Identity-wise they've been pushed out culturally by all the Hellenistic civs and religiously by all the eastern European civs. It would be a work of torturous pedantry to try to make Byzantium a unique and fun civ in VI, and again the only reason people want it is to fill out their semantics list. If they actually respected Byzantium as a civ, they would let it exist in some playable form rather than force what is clearly an afterthought civ to stand up on its own in an already developed game.

I must remind you its always a personal view to see it as fun or not, when looking at a civ design.

And it is also a matter of design when it comes to making their kit as interesting to play.
"When it is made boring, it is boring."
Thats all I can say.

There are always rooms to shape sth into an enjoyable experience. If you want an example of Byzantine's design, you may like to pay visit to my thread:https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/byzantine-ruler-which-one-will-you-prefer.627307/

 

[Morningcalm]

At this stage, I would not want more European nations in the game, or postcolonial civs like Australia (*shudder*). We currently have only four African civs, and only a few Middle-Eastern/Mesopotamian civs.

Some of the obvious civs to avoid are the Inuit and Mississippians, but I also would resent leaders like Leopold II (Belgium's monstrous colonial past embodied), or Akhenaten (an incompetent Egyptian pharaoh overly praised by a select few for neglecting the traditional responsibilities of a pharaoh for the sake of a failed cult). I also would not want Kublai Khan (numerous failures in foreign policy from which he didn't learn, thus repeatedly failing, won a disastrous civil war) or Ogedei (drunkard and a poor follow-up from his father).

Semi-mythical leaders like King Arthur or Shammurat, or poorly attested leaders like Puabi are also to be avoided, but I don't mind leaders like Dido for whom there is *slightly* more agreement among historians as to having actually existed. (That said, for Carthage, I would prefer Hannibal Barca this time around.)

 

[Guandao]

Canada
Vietnam
Argentina
Celts
Yugoslavia
Any of the aboriginal australian civs
Nepal

The Ottomans


Oh and I don't need to see Macedon or Australia ever again thx

Why the hate for Vietnam or Nepal? Might I ask?

 

[Lord Lakely]

I don't hate them, i'm just soooo utterly meh on Vietnam. I don't really see what refreshing new mechanics they would bring to the franchise despite topping all these popularity polls.
Nepal fuctions better as a MinorCiv/CityState, I see no reason to upgrade them.

 

[Guandao]

I don't hate them, i'm just soooo utterly meh on Vietnam. I don't really see what refreshing new mechanics they would bring to the franchise despite topping all these popularity polls.
Nepal fuctions better as a MinorCiv/CityState, I see no reason to upgrade them.

Firaxis should add Kathmandu as a City-State then.

 

[fredrikslicer]

Yes, how sweet it is for Norway and Demark sharing the same leader. Sweden is also culturally highly similar as they all shared the Kalmar Union in the past. But of course Sweden did accomplish much more than the rest of its two neighbors.

I'm fine with Denmark is it's Kalmar Union Denmark under Margaret I ^__^

The Vikings are one of the few cultures I wouldn't mind seeing a blob civ of.

Previous Civ games had "Scandinavia" as a civ, now we have Norway. Civ 6 can have multiple leaders and I wouldn't mind seeing other norse countries as civs if they changed it so that multiple leaders could change the name of their civ without changing the bonuses. Like if Harald leads Norway but if you had a Danish leader, it would change from Norway to Denmark or something without changing any of the bonuses or stats of the civ. Would be an easier way to squeeze Byzantium as an alternate Roman civ.

Its mostly that Im Swedish and spiting danes is something I enjoy