1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Civilisations and leaders you would NOT like to see in game

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Krajzen, Feb 1, 2018.

  1. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    189
    Putting things that way, I'm not sure why it wasn't included in the first expack, since resistance seemed to be a running theme. Then again we could make similar arguments about Tamil, Maori, Maya, Tibet, Finland, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Bolivia...

    Idk, I still think that several "civs" ride the line between a good civ and a good city-state. Several have already been included that I'm dubious of as "civs," particularly with how they are represented (Robert the Bruce, Wilhelmina, and Seondeok did not rule "empires;" the Cree and Mapuche I'm willing to accept as a matter of territorial expansion). Vietnam rides that line for me even moreso than a Korea which at least did have an "empire" at some point. I guess in a game where Scotland is a civ, Vietnam can exist, but then how do you prioritize this new category of "stubborn" civ when there are literally dozens of them? The whole decision process starts to feel arbitrary and more motivated by popular appeal than actual historical impact, since the only historical impact in the case of many of these smaller civs is contemporary national pride.

    Thank you for the write-up. You have made me less averse to a Vietnam civ, if only on the similarly dubious merits that the Zulu were included.
     
  2. Cossackaiser

    Cossackaiser Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2016
    Messages:
    21
    Location:
    Königsberg, Germany
    for me, i think america is overused, and should not be in the next game.
     
  3. AnonymousSpeed

    AnonymousSpeed Pink Plastic Army Man

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2014
    Messages:
    370
    Gender:
    Male
    I would like to avoid bringing back anymore leaders from Civ5. I prefer when Civ6 focuses on new faces, and everyone I think we needed back has been brought back already.
     
  4. NavyPaladin

    NavyPaladin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2017
    Messages:
    13
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Bangkok, Thailand
    I'm from Thailand so I can confirm that the news was true. The leader face is similar to ex-prime minister who is full of controversy. If Firaxis want to add Siam/Thailand in next installment, I recommend King Rama I or King Rama V because we have their portrait so they are easier to make a model and less likely to be a problem
     
    TahamiTsunami likes this.
  5. clapyourhands

    clapyourhands Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2017
    Messages:
    310
    Gender:
    Male
    I personally don't see a pressing need for Vietnam in VI now that we have the Mapuche and Scotland filling the resistance civ roles, but I maintain that if we're going to have a civ that focuses on aggressively maintaining cultural and/or political independence, Vietnam is the best choice. Siam and Ethiopia are admirable for resisting colonization and deserve spots of their own for being real empires, but focusing their design on colonial resistance does a disservice to centuries of culture. A Vietnam focused on resistance, though, is perfectly accurate historically. The pop culture depiction of 20th Vietnam doesn't even scratch the surface.
    Where the American cultural narrative holds up "liberty" as the core ideal with a legacy created by the Founding Fathers and subsequent presidents, the Vietnamese narrative holds up "rebellion" as the keystone of history, and rather than focusing on its emperors, it frames history through a succession of rebel leaders. From a modern political perspective this might sound odd, as military commanders aren't always the best at governing, but the way history is told is just as important. Where American presidents might harken back to George Washington as an appeal to historical legitimacy, Vietnamese leaders uphold the Trung Sisters, Ly Bi, or Le Loi for the same reasons--and uphold these figures over strictly political leaders in many cases.The only civ I would argue whose historical narrative comes close to the length and consistency of Vietnam's is Poland, but Poland's implementation in Civ usually is based on one of its times of prosperity, and it arose as a cohesive polity much later. Plenty of civs have resisted other powers, some for longer than others. But none have succeeded as often, as unexpectedly, and as stubbornly as Vietnam.

    So I don't think we need to see Vietnam in VI, but I think it fills a niche well and is one of the oldest surviving polities still not in the game. Krajzen did a great writeup that I won't repeat about its cultural continuity. I would much rather see a pre-colonial Siam/Ethiopia/Maori/etc. that didn't relegate them to a playstyle of their actions in the face of colonization. But a pre-colonial Vietnam, or practically a Vietnam in any age, could easily be the "snapping turtle" civ while still being historically accurate.
     
  6. Ezumiyr

    Ezumiyr Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2013
    Messages:
    87

    Netherlands had a colonial empire under the reign of Wilhelmina.

    Anyway, you seem to have quite a biased definition of what an empire is. In civ, it doesn't mean much more than the control a state has over territories (not even cities! look at Scythia). All you need is a leader and a territory that isn't limited to one capital or one place. It doesn't have to be very big either, like Sparta.

    It's just that they can't say "we're gonna add all civs which fall under those criteria!". They decide to pick civs from all over the world, and they have to make choices.
     
    IgorS likes this.
  7. IgorS

    IgorS Your ad could be here!

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,148
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rishon
    Wait, so the game was banned because nobody knows what Ramkhamhaeng looked like?
     
  8. Lord of War N02

    Lord of War N02 Lord of Southeast Asia

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2010
    Messages:
    80
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Somewhere on Earth
    I think Vietnam should be in Civ VI either DLC or second expansion

    Vietnam has many achievement about military revisiting many invaders like Chinese for many times, Mongols, French in Indochina War and American in Vietnwm War. I would pick Vietnam over Burma if I choose between 2

    I think Vietnam should lead by Gia Long or Trung Sister or even Le Loi cuz if Firaxis choose Ho Chi Minh I think it's will be banned in Vietnam and its will spark negative affect from Vietnamese especially in America and Western Europe.

    For DLC I think Vietnam should came up either alone for scenario of Le Loi against Ming or along with Siam which it possible for scenario of Siamese-Vietnamese War of 1831/1845 or even extend to Asia in19th century for survival against colonization or play as imperial powers.
     
  9. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    189
    Barely compared to its former extent. And she was the one who began decolonization. More to my point, the Netherland as portrayed in Civ VI is a rebel civ. It's entire presence in the trailer to some extent its mechanical identity are design in juxtaposition to Nazi Germany. It still fits the theme, even if at the time it was still to some extent a colonial empire.

    And I do not have a biased definition at all. I am merely characterizing the sort of "civs" that have tended to receive piority by Firaxis. Aside from a couple of memetic throwaways like the Zulu and Huns (and by proxy Scythia), for the most part--prior to R&F--have prioritized "empires" over anything else. Even the Native American civs they tended to pick either needed a strong centralized government or massive swathes of land to suit their design sensibilities. I make no value judgment on that either way, nor the interesting decision to make R&F mostly about smaller kingdoms with strong and resiliant cultures.

    What I find interesting though is how much more opened up the design space is now that they have made the Zulu civ model not an exception, but a concurrent "rule" alongside their traditionalist "empire" concept. It's both exciting and frustrating, because now there are even more civs that could be included; most of which, again, will not be. Not to mention the increasing likelihood that some heavy hitters may miss the cut in favor of more diverse options.

    It's interesting, but that doesn't mean I'm biased about what a civ is; I'm just biased about what a good civ is, which is something I'm still not convinced about with regard to Vietnam. I think would make much more sense contextualized by a theme than as its own thing, so maybe if it were released in a DLC pack with, say, Tamil or Tibet or Siberia/Sakha, or an expack with Finland, Aksum, Morocco, Maori, etc., then exactly what role it is supposed to represent in the context of a game might be more clear to me (much like how I'm making peace with the choices of Scotland and Georgia against the greater "rebel" theme of R&F). Vietnam alone, in a vacuum...I'm finding it much less compelling.
     
  10. NavyPaladin

    NavyPaladin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2017
    Messages:
    13
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Bangkok, Thailand
    Maybe. For some reason, Thai people is not a big fan of making sculpture for their leaders. The statue ,which you found when search Google, was made in modern time. Also the ban was only temporary, now you can buy the complete edition without any problem at all.
     
  11. Krajzen

    Krajzen Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    2,138
    Location:
    Poland
    I was going to add "Andalus" (I mean, medieval Islamic civilization in Iberia) because "city names overlapping with Spain", but then I checked and they do not exactly overlap as they look significantly different in their old Arabic and modern Spanish forms; more importantly, it is always how Byzantium and Ottomans worked in civ series - Byzantium had Constantinople and Ottomans had Istanbul, and same with many other city names... And everybody was fine with that due to drastic cultural differences between two civilizations. So nevermind, I am fine with seeing the game feature Andalusian/Cordoban Caliphate/Almohad/Almoravid civ in some form. Similarly, I'd love to see Italy despite being "covered" by Rome, due to extreme differences between the two, and both being very deserving and cool.

    The same is not the case with Mughals, and that's worrying me - I'd love to see Mughals in game, but their city list pretty much exactly overlaps with Indian one (Delhi, Agra etc) unless you did something stupid like making all their city names being from current Afghanistan and Pakistan. Does anybody have better idea how to handle the problem?



    As for the thread, I sadly have to add I am not the biggest fan of Phoenicia in game. Or rather, I could kinda like them (although Carthago is essentially "Phoenicians on steroids"), but Phoenicia has horrible lack of well recorded leaders and their accomplishments. Seriously, the most I could find was how one of their kings allegedly sold Solomon Temple's construction materials to Israel (allegedly, according to Bible). And this is the leader civ5 Phoenician mod went with, meaning they too couldn't find another one lol.
     
    TahamiTsunami likes this.
  12. Phrozen

    Phrozen Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    645
    Italy is easy if you base it on the Italic/Lombard league. It would be all Northern Italian cities:

    Venice
    Genoa
    Milan
    Florence
    Bologna
    Verona
    Turin
    Padua
    etc.
     
  13. awesome

    awesome Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,638
    Location:
    behind you
  14. Krajzen

    Krajzen Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    2,138
    Location:
    Poland
    "Nunavut is the second-least populous of Canada's three territories with 35,944 residents as of 2016, but the largest territory in land area[a] at 1,877,779 km2. Iqaluit is the only city in Nunavut, with 7,740 residents"

    So, practically two million square kilometres of a useless wasteland (excluding nature and mineral resources) impossible for humans to live in.

    Seriously, at this rate we may as well make a civilization out of Antarctic or Pacific Ocean :p
     
    IgorS likes this.
  15. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,336
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    Not going to lie, that's a more compelling city list than what the Mapuche or Scythia have and I like their inclusion.
     
    TahamiTsunami likes this.
  16. awesome

    awesome Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,638
    Location:
    behind you
    I mean, I don't think they will, or even should, be in the game for at least another 30-50 years because of pretty much the same reasons, but they do have a city list.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2018
    Krajzen likes this.
  17. TahamiTsunami

    TahamiTsunami Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    120
    Gender:
    Male
    @Alexander's Hetaroi Which is quite a shame since, if I recall correctly, they did have settlements. Its just that we don't know what their names were.

    I'm not entirely sure on which civs I would absolutely not want to see in the game, I'll have to give it some more thought.

    As for leaders, the threads on a preferred leader for Byzantium and an alternate leader for Egypt got curious about who would be the worst/least fun choices to lead those civs. I'll admit that I'm a bit unfamiliar with who those choices could be so I thought I'd ask here to find out.
     
    Alexander's Hetaroi likes this.
  18. IgorS

    IgorS Your ad could be here!

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,148
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rishon
    Cleopatra)
     
  19. TahamiTsunami

    TahamiTsunami Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    120
    Gender:
    Male
    I personally don't see Cleopatra as a bad choice, as far as pharaohs go she seems like she's in the middle of the pack. Yeah, she may look bad next to the likes of Ramesses II, Senusret III, Thutmose III, etc. but any building will look short next to a skyscraper. I think she's a pretty fun choice with her personality and being so iconic of classical Egypt. When I mean the worst choice, I mean someone who was a boring/uninspired leader who wouldn't really provide much in the way of fun game play or memorability.
     
  20. Morningcalm

    Morningcalm Keeper of Records

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,318
    Location:
    Abroad
    The problem there is that while Cleopatra is certainly not a boring choice, neither is say Senusret III or Rameses II or Hatshepsut etc (even though Rameses II and Hatshepsut have been featured in Civ before). Firaxis could have their cake and eat it too by bringing in iconic excellent pharaohs like Rameses II and Hatshepsut, and giving them flavorful abilities to make them fun.

    Senusret III, while less iconic, was one of Egypt's absolute best, deified and worshipped as a god in his lifetime by Egyptians (this was a rare honor) and even worshipped as a god by his enemy Nubians. He would have an amazing leaderscreen with his grim, wise face, and definitely have an dual economic/military bonus (and could easily have had the same agenda as Cleopatra's--saying something like "You too make ready to protect and extend your borders. You know this duty of the pharaoh, and I approve."). Hatshepsut would get bonuses not just for trade routes but also for getting specific luxuries at particular times, etc.

    Realistically I think they picked Cleopatra because she's arguably even more iconic than Rameses II--everyone knows her name (even if Shakespeare helped a lot with that).

    Certainly not the worst Egyptian choice though. I would argue Akhenaten is one of the worst pharaohs possible, though he too would not be boring (then again, neither Nero or Montezuma II would be boring either lol).
     

Share This Page