1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    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. TahamiTsunami

    TahamiTsunami Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    276
    Gender:
    Male
    Definitely agreed, both with Cleopatra as average yet iconic and with Senusret III being perhaps the best choice. He certainly has my vote for the alternate leader of Egypt (he sounds cooler and cooler every time I hear about him)!

    It is a bit tricky trying to find someone who was both historically a bad leader and who would also have a boring personality. Under that criteria I have a hard time finding out who the worst leader for Egypt would be.

    Edit: One option I found on a quick search was Psamtik III but I do admit it is a bit of an unfair assessment due to how little we know about his personality. I wouldn't vote for him as an alternate leader, but I do sympathize that, like Cleo, he had the misfortune of ruling at a time when an arguably more powerful civilization wanted his lands. And while Cleo ruled for over 2 decades and could seduce others to keep her power, Psamtik III only had 6 months and didn't seduce Cambyses II (though that could've been an interesting Shakespeare play too).
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2018
    Morningcalm likes this.
  2. Greywulf

    Greywulf Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    680
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Earth
    I'm not a fan of colonial civs being in a game where you start the game from the neolithic, merely because it doesn't make sense from a historical point of view. They should make such civs have the potential to appear later on in the game as breakaways from older civs, but not as fundamental civs...That being said, it'll never happen the way I want it to. They will always have America as a fundamental civ. It is their largest fan-base after all.
     
  3. awesome

    awesome Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,643
    Location:
    behind you
    I don't want to see Theodora.
    Or, like, Emperor Hui of Jin, but I don't see that one happening.
     
  4. Uberfrog

    Uberfrog Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    2,214
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    England
    Well, I find the problem with this argument is that very few of the civs in game can be said to have existed in Neolithic times. The civs we recognise as "France" and "England", for instance, have their origins in the 4th and 5th centuries AD. When they didn't exist as cultural entities until 4000 years after the game started, what difference does another millennium make until you have the first American colonists establishing that culture? :p

    We tend to think of America and Brazil as somehow being exceptional because of the greater distance crossed by the colonists in order to establish those nations, and because they were established more recently. But loads of civilisations were formed by non-indigenous colonisation, whether its the Franks and Anglo-Saxons moving into modern France and England from what is modern Germany; the Carthaginians settling North Africa from the Levant; or the Central Asian Seljuk Turks paving the way for the establishment of the Ottoman Empire and, later, modern Turkey in Anatolia. It is not historical to have any of those civs starting in their capital territory in 4000 BC.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2018
  5. Krajzen

    Krajzen Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    2,153
    Location:
    Poland
    Overall that's a good post.

    Hell, even Sumer and Egypt were established iirc around 3000 BC, not 4000, and they are earliest civilisations :p (except some occasional neolithic proto city)

    However...
    ...for some reason it simply feels slightly weird for me to see America appearing in ancient era, without the entire European-emigrants-gone-wild colony story. As if it was England 2.0.

    And yet its importance is so enormous it always did and always will appear in civ series *sigh*
     
  6. Uberfrog

    Uberfrog Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    2,214
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    England
    :D As indeed they should! Even if you remove the inevitable bias from the fact that this game is made by an American company for what is in large part an American audience, it is impossible to discount the United States from any list of major civilisations on any grounds other than (the spurious and arbitrary basis) that they were late starters.

    Significant cultural and technological legacy? Check.
    Influential regional (and indeed global) culture? Check.
    Regional or global superpower? Check.
    Impact on world history? Check.

    Like 'em or not they're here to stay :lol:.

    In any case, moving back to the OP, there aren't too many civs I would vehemently object to being included. I'm not sold on Gran Colombia (although I may be convinced by the time I get to the end of series 5 of the Revolutions podcast, which I've just begun :p), for the simple reason that it seems a little silly to attempt to "stand the test of time" with a nation that existed for just 12 years. Everything else is really a question of priorities - e.g. there's a lot I'd like to see included long before an "Italian" civ makes the cut, but I don't object to them in principle. Likewise I think we have enough post-colonial civs for the foreseeable future, even if I've spent the last post arguing that they shouldn't automatically be discounted. :lol:

    Leaders, on the other hand, there's obviously a ton of useless or otherwise lacklustre picks, but I'm not really concerned that many of them would make the grade anyway.
     
    IgorS and TahamiTsunami like this.
  7. Sarin

    Sarin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2013
    Messages:
    290
    As for civilizations...any civilization that existed only as nomadic tribe should not be incuded. So most American indians, barring Maya, Inca, Aztec, maybe Anasazi (or Puebloans, or how's the civilization called now) and some smaller urbanized tribes like Mixtec. Also, India. Unified India is very recent frankenstein created by British Empire. Instead, there should be several pre-British kingdoms represented. Mughal empire, Gupta empire, Mauryan Empire, even Vedic civilization would be, at least for me, more acceptable.
     
  8. IgorS

    IgorS Your ad could be here!

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,177
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rishon
    Agree on the Native Americans.
    Disagree on India. While it is true that India is a mixture of cultures, languages, religions, and polities, it is still one country that has eventually chosen to stay united and create what we call India. Historically, certain Indian kingdoms were not too far.
    Here is the Maurya Empire:
     
    Meluhhan likes this.
  9. Krajzen

    Krajzen Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    2,153
    Location:
    Poland
    Personally I treat Native Americans as a special case "eh, they aren't exactly a civilization, but we wanna include native North America in some way and civ4 Native American blob was the worst thing ever" :p

    Also rule of cool: "yeah... but they were so cool!" :p

    But I agree in general, "civs" that were nomadic tribes should be mostly excluded. One or two native american nations as an exception and that's it.
     
    TahamiTsunami and altayrneto like this.
  10. TahamiTsunami

    TahamiTsunami Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    276
    Gender:
    Male
    As cool as I find many Native American groups, I can agree that to a minimal amount of the more nomadic ones as long as we get more of the ones that lived population centers like the Iroquois, the groups in southeast and the Pacific coast, etc.
     
    Alexander's Hetaroi and Guandao like this.
  11. IgorS

    IgorS Your ad could be here!

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,177
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rishon
    The thing is that not every civilization can be in "Civilization". This is a game with its own rules, and some civilizations just don't fit (like the Huns, the Mapuche, etc.) "Civilization" is not "Age of Empires".
    It looks somewhat pathetic when a civilization city list consists of names of tribes and bands instead of actual cities and villages. I'm sorry, but for me city lists have always been an integral and important part of the game. Probably because I have been playing since Civ I, where the only difference between the civs was city lists.
     
  12. awesome

    awesome Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,643
    Location:
    behind you
    I mean, using tribes as names for places does happen in the real world, but I guess that a native tribe wouldn't be doing that.
     
  13. Phrozen

    Phrozen Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    767
    The Powhatan Confederacy did to a point. Each tribe had a river, bay, or inlet that they settled along. The English ended up naming these geographic features after the tribe supposedly because the natives simply called the place 'river/bay/inlet where the x tribe lives'.
     
  14. Guandao

    Guandao Rajah of Minyue and Langkasuka

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,120
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City
    The thing about the Mapuche is that they actually weren't nomadic and lived in settlements. I wonder why whomever Firaxis hired to create the Mapuche city-list didn't just copy and paste the Mapuche city-list for Leugi's Civ5 mod.

    Puren
    Pilmayken
    Perkenco
    Killin
    Kulshe
    Shiliwe
    Koz Koz
    Penko
    Curarewe
    Neuken
    Shaura Kawin
    Wenu Leufu
    Kalbuko
    Mewin
    Anil Leufu
    Newken
    Tucapel
    Boroa
    Kilshe
    Likan Ray
    Chos Malal
    Karenleufu
    Tapiwe
    Kinshamali
    Marishiwue
    Duao
    Likine
    Malalkawuelo
    Wapi
    Puyewe
    Kellon
    Mafil
    Rari
    Anticura
    Reinowelen
    Cumpeo
    Ninhue
    Lolol
    Lautaro
     
    TahamiTsunami likes this.
  15. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    2,035
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    Wasn't Temuco founded in the 1800s though and many of the cities that are named with the Mapudungun language are not necessarily inhabited by the Mapuche people. Even though they did somewhat live in settlements, the names aren't known unfortunately.
     
    TahamiTsunami likes this.
  16. Guandao

    Guandao Rajah of Minyue and Langkasuka

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,120
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City
    It's still better than the Civ5 Huns' City-List or Civ6 Scythian's City-List. :p
    You say "somewhat live in settlements". Were the Mapuche part-nomadic then?
     
    TahamiTsunami likes this.
  17. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    2,035
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    That is true. I would have liked that list, but the developers had other ideas in mind.
    The ones that expanded into the Patagonia in Argentina adopted a more nomadic lifestyle I believe. It even says it on the Civ Wiki entry for the Mapuche.
     
    TahamiTsunami likes this.
  18. Guandao

    Guandao Rajah of Minyue and Langkasuka

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,120
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City
    LacisiraxAriscal on Reddit managed to "locate" all of the Mapuche "city"-names except for two. Some are merely the same name with alternative spellings. :wallbash:
     
    Alexander's Hetaroi likes this.
  19. Karpius

    Karpius Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    623
    If I can get past American warriors with clubs in 4000 B.C., I can get past the notion of nomadic civs with a made-up city list. The game is, afterall, fantasy.

    What would be nice, however, is if Firaxis could design and implement a slightly different mechanic for the nomads of history. Encampments could relocate ( not cities) and they could raid any civ without declarations of war, or could even hire out their warriors for the right price. They could also start to 'settle' down at some point and grow into a more stationary civ. Conversely, empires affecting such roaming raiders could send expeditions against them. Though, to be historically accurate, there should be little benefit to such an expedition beyond the possibility of reducing the raids and thereby recovering some economical potential.

    In fact, I wouldn't mind the option of choosing whether to start your civ (any civ) as nomadic or stationary just to see how it would play out.
     
  20. Phrozen

    Phrozen Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    767
    How nomadic and how sedentary do you want to get? The Eastern American tribes were for example more sedentary than the plains tribes but they still moved every couple of years as soil got depleted. Even some plains tribes had territory and bands in that territory had their own territory within the overall tribes territory. For example we have a treaty between a Comanche band and a German homesteading company defining what territory the company owns and what territory the Comanche band owned and that neither would start hostilities against the other.
     

Share This Page