[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Zaarin]

In general I wonder if Civ still buys into the silly "Medieval = bad" idea.

I don't think it does. Ed Beach is a big Medievalist. Unfortunately, it's still deeply rooted in pop culture, perpetuated by nonsense like Game of Thrones.

Elizabeth reversed Mary's efforts at restoring Catholicism and is ultimately the reason Protestantism prevailed in the country. It was a major ongoing issue throughout her reign and she engaged in active suppression of Catholics, as well of course as being famously at war with a major Catholic state. Her motives were almost certainly more pragmatic and political than religious, indeed, and she allied herself with Islamic powers because of their shared opposition to the Catholic states - but religion was absolutely the defining issue of her reign in terms of both domestic and foreign policy regardless of her own personal religious convictions.

Fair, but anti-Catholic sentiments notwithstanding, she was a very tepid Protestant.

 

[The Civs 6]

Okay, going in a different direction, we are probably going to get a Roman alt leader. What do you all think of the following choices:

Cincinnatus, Scipio Africanus, Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, Livia, (skipping the 5 good emperors because I don't think Civ can have 2 of them) Diocletian, Constantine, Justinian, Theodora, Heraclius

As someone else in this thread said, I would like to see them give republican Rome a shot. If they don't want to do that, I want to see them do the principate, which they've never done in a Civ game.

 

[Patine]

the moors would be refreshing

"Moors," does not actually refer to a specifically defined and delineated group of people, but a very broad, generic, and - honestly - racist exonym lumping together of a fairly heterogenous group of ethnicities by GEOGRAPHIC REGION, alone (as well as religion). They weren't an actual "people," or "nation," or "culture," in and of themselves.

 

[PhilBowles]

Fair, but anti-Catholic sentiments notwithstanding, she was a very tepid Protestant.

I think if you can have a religious Henry VIII it's no more of a stretch to have a religious Elizabeth. Henry wasn't a Protestant by choice, it was just the only available option once he was forced to break with the Catholic Church, and Elizabeth's anti-Catholic sentiment did at least go deeper than wanting to get a divorce.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

How many civs have been so regionally or internationally influential that they deserve to appear every game? Because if that’s the rule for what civs appear, then that needs to a consistent rule in future games, cuz it hasn’t in 6 necessarily (although it’s been better) and previous games:


NA:
For Sure: USA, Aztecs, Maya, Iroquois, Sioux, Pueblo (can’t be in bcs language)
Likely so: Cherokee + other ‘Five Civilized Tribes’, Canada, Mexico, Olmecs, Toltecs, Mississippians/Cahokia (can’t be in cuz no info, but very influential)
Can make an argument: Greenland, Tlingit Chinook, Cree, Salish, Shoshone, lower-profile native groups

SA:
For Sure: Inca, Brazil, Colombia, Argentina
Likely So: Peru, Chile, Bolivia, Paraguay, Mapuche
Can make an argument: lower-profile native groups

Africa:
For Sure: Swahili, Carthage/Phoenicia, Mali, Berbers, (Ancient) Egypt, Ethiopia
Likely So: Morocco, Ghana, Songhai, Ashanti, Benin, Kongo, Zulu, Nubia
Can Make an argument: Xhosa, Early Bantu ppl (?), Liberia

Western Europe:
For Sure: Rome, England, Spain, Portugal, France, Netherlands, Germany/Prussia/HRE, Austria, Denmark or Norway, Sweden
Likely So: Ireland, Iceland
Could make an argument: Gauls, Italy, Goths, Etruscans

Eastern/Central Europe:
For Sure: Greece, Byzantium, Poland, Russia, Ottomans
Likely So: Hungary, Bohemia/Czechia
Could Make a Case: Lithuania, Estonia, any number of balkan nations

Middle East:
For Sure: Achaemenids, Sassanids, Seljuks, Babylon, Sumer, Assyria, Umayyad or Abbasid
Likely So: Rum, Ancient Palestine, Judea, Nabateans (we probsbly don’t know enough), Akkad, Seleucids, Syria, Oman, Hittites, Ayyubid
Could Make an Argument: minor but influential ancient kingdoms like Elam

Central Asia:
For Sure: Mongolia, Timurids, Armenia, Georgia
Likely So: Oirat, Samanids, Uzbek, Kazakh, Scythia (maybe not as a blob?)
Could make an argument: tbh, don’t know? Local minor kingdoms

South Asia:
For Sure: Mughals, Ghaznavids, Maurya, Chola, Tibet (prob can’t appear bcs irl China tho)
Likely So: Kushan, Republic of India, Kingdom of Jaffna, Sri Lanka in some capacity, Pashtun, Sikh Kingdoms, Pallava, Gupta, Vijayanagar
Could make an argument: literally any indian kingdom that isn’t here lol

Southeast and East Asia:
For Sure: Korea, Japan, Khmer, Han, Tang, Ming, Qin, Blob China (if they went that route), Majapahit, Blob Indonesia (if they went that route)
Likely So: Qin, Vietnam, Siam, Burma, Champa, Srivijaya, Malacca, Brunei, Bali
Could make an argument: Ainu, any other chinese dynasty, more regional south east asian kingdoms

(You could also split up Korea and Japan like I did for China, I guess)

Oceania:
For Sure: Maori, Tu’i Tonga, Australia, Hawai’i
Likely So: Samoa, Papua
Could make an argument: New Zealand, any other oceanic people or kingdom that had a big influence, an aboriginal people if they were willing to be in the game.

So if every ‘For Sure’ civ except for selectively choosing overlapping civs (and any exceptions I made) made the cast, you’d have:
USA, Aztecs, Maya, Iroquois, Sioux, Inca, Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Swahili, Phoenicia, Mali, Berbers, Egypt, Ethiopia, Achaemenids, Sassanids, Seljuks, Babylon, Sumer, Assyria, Umayyad or Abbasid, Rome, England, Spain, Portugal, France, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Denmark or Norway, Sweden, Mongolia, Timurids, Armenia, Georgia, Greece, Byzantium, Poland, Russia, Ottomans, Mughals, Ghaznavids, Maurya, Chola, Korea, Japan, Khmer, Han, Ming, Majapahit, Maori, Tu’i Tonga, Australia, Hawai’i

and you’d get a great set of 55 civs, without any lesser known civs at all, that’s more geographically and culturally balanced than the current cast.

You could mix in some of the ‘Likely So’ civs too if you want, especially both North and South American natives to push it up to 60 and it would be even more diverse.

Don’t get me wrong i like surprises of lesser known civs but this would be a really fun set of options

 

[PhoenicianGold]

How many civs have been so regionally or internationally influential that they deserve to appear every game? Because if that’s the rule for what civs appear, then that needs to a consistent rule in future games, cuz it hasn’t in 6 necessarily (although it’s been better) and previous games:


NA:
For Sure: USA, Aztecs, Maya, Iroquois, Sioux, Pueblo (can’t be in bcs language)
Likely so: Cherokee + other ‘Five Civilized Tribes’, Canada, Mexico, Olmecs, Toltecs, Mississippians/Cahokia (can’t be in cuz no info, but very influential)
Can make an argument: Greenland, Tlingit Chinook, Cree, Salish, Shoshone, lower-profile native groups

SA:
For Sure: Inca, Brazil, Colombia, Argentina
Likely So: Peru, Chile, Bolivia, Paraguay, Mapuche
Can make an argument: lower-profile native groups

Africa:
For Sure: Swahili, Carthage/Phoenicia, Mali, Berbers, (Ancient) Egypt, Ethiopia
Likely So: Morocco, Ghana, Songhai, Ashanti, Benin, Kongo, Zulu, Nubia
Can Make an argument: Xhosa, Early Bantu ppl (?), Liberia

Western Europe:
For Sure: Rome, England, Spain, Portugal, France, Netherlands, Germany/Prussia/HRE, Austria, Denmark or Norway, Sweden
Likely So: Ireland, Iceland
Could make an argument: Gauls, Italy, Goths, Etruscans

Eastern/Central Europe:
For Sure: Greece, Byzantium, Poland, Russia, Ottomans
Likely So: Hungary, Bohemia/Czechia
Could Make a Case: Lithuania, Estonia, any number of balkan nations

Middle East:
For Sure: Achaemenids, Sassanids, Seljuks, Babylon, Sumer, Assyria, Umayyad or Abbasid
Likely So: Rum, Ancient Palestine, Judea, Nabateans (we probsbly don’t know enough), Akkad, Seleucids, Syria, Oman, Hittites, Ayyubid
Could Make an Argument: minor but influential ancient kingdoms like Elam

Central Asia:
For Sure: Mongolia, Timurids, Armenia, Georgia
Likely So: Oirat, Samanids, Uzbek, Kazakh, Scythia (maybe not as a blob?)
Could make an argument: tbh, don’t know? Local minor kingdoms

South Asia:
For Sure: Mughals, Ghaznavids, Maurya, Chola, Tibet (prob can’t appear bcs irl China tho)
Likely So: Kushan, Republic of India, Kingdom of Jaffna, Sri Lanka in some capacity, Pashtun, Sikh Kingdoms, Pallava, Gupta, Vijayanagar
Could make an argument: literally any indian kingdom that isn’t here lol

Southeast and East Asia:
For Sure: Korea, Japan, Khmer, Han, Tang, Ming, Qin, Blob China (if they went that route), Majapahit, Blob Indonesia (if they went that route)
Likely So: Qin, Vietnam, Siam, Burma, Champa, Srivijaya, Malacca, Brunei, Bali
Could make an argument: Ainu, any other chinese dynasty, more regional south east asian kingdoms

(You could also split up Korea and Japan like I did for China, I guess)

Oceania:
For Sure: Maori, Tu’i Tonga, Australia, Hawai’i
Likely So: Samoa, Papua
Could make an argument: New Zealand, any other oceanic people or kingdom that had a big influence, an aboriginal people if they were willing to be in the game.

So if every ‘For Sure’ civ except for selectively choosing overlapping civs (and any exceptions I made) made the cast, you’d have:
USA, Aztecs, Maya, Iroquois, Sioux, Inca, Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Swahili, Phoenicia, Mali, Berbers, Egypt, Ethiopia, Achaemenids, Sassanids, Seljuks, Babylon, Sumer, Assyria, Umayyad or Abbasid, Rome, England, Spain, Portugal, France, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Denmark or Norway, Sweden, Mongolia, Timurids, Armenia, Georgia, Greece, Byzantium, Poland, Russia, Ottomans, Mughals, Ghaznavids, Maurya, Chola, Korea, Japan, Khmer, Han, Ming, Majapahit, Maori, Tu’i Tonga, Australia, Hawai’i

and you’d get a great set of 55 civs, without any lesser known civs at all, that’s more geographically and culturally balanced than the current cast.

You could mix in some of the ‘Likely So’ civs too if you want, especially both North and South American natives to push it up to 60 and it would be even more diverse.

Don’t get me wrong i like surprises of lesser known civs but this would be a really fun set of options

Well the problem is that we can't necessarily have all of these "staples" every time. The cast can only be as mechanically diverse as there are diverse mechanics available, and different iterations of the franchise have included different mechanical expansions, which in turn favored the design and inclusion of certain civs over others. Not to mention that the franchise is still quite slow to expand outside the idea of "expansionism" as qualifying a civ in a 4X context, meaning that civs which weren't very aggressive about spreading their culture and establishing control over large regions (particularly island kingdoms subject to larger powers like Iceland, Ireland, Hawai'i, Brunei) probably aren't "for sure" or even "likely so."

Granted, I think many of your choices would make for interesting designs. But either the entire design of the game would need to change to include twice as many civs for the same development cost, or otherwise the franchise's self-apparent goals would need to shift away from expansionism and into....something else in which, say, breaking up China, India, Persia, and Arabia into different dynasties, or including tiny kingdoms like Bohemia or Finland make sense while still satisfying fans with enough big guys.

I would like for a middle ground where we just include more city states and elevate them a bit, add static leader portraits and limited soundtrack representation to make all of these smaller guys feel like they have a greater presence on the map than just pawns moving around.

 

[PhilBowles]

How many civs have been so regionally or internationally influential that they deserve to appear every game? Because if that’s the rule for what civs appear, then that needs to a consistent rule in future games, cuz it hasn’t in 6 necessarily (although it’s been better) and previous games:

I don't think it is a rule. It's a preference a lot of fans have had, but I threw in the towel on hoping that would be the direction they went with Civ VI when they revealed Australia.

What's more the actual presentation of Australia, while it didn't make me a fan of fan-service civs, did at least make me accepting of them. As someone who doesn't like Civ VI's leader screen style I think they did one of the best jobs with John Curtin, I think he's particularly well-scripted with good voice acting, and I adore the treatment of Waltzing Matilda. I'm indifferent to the civ in game terms, though.

NA:
For Sure: USA, Aztecs, Maya, Iroquois, Sioux, Pueblo (can’t be in bcs language)
Likely so: Cherokee + other ‘Five Civilized Tribes’, Sioux, Canada, Mexico, Olmecs, Toltecs, Mississippians/Cahokia (can’t be in cuz no info, but very influential)
Can make an argument: Greenland, Tlingit Chinook, Cree, Salish, Shoshone, lower-profile native groups

Personally I always put the Aztecs in the 'maybe' camp. Their inclusion in Civ I I put down to pop culture familiarity - in an era when neither the Maya nor the Inca had a big pop culture footprint, they were the best choice for Central and South America (despite not technically occurring in either, that was how they were perceived). The Aztec civilisation was however very short-lived and geographically restricted despite a large network of tributary tribes. The main thing it has in its favour is that it was an urban society with known leaders (while the Toltecs, although likely more significant, have a largely unknown history).

SA:
For Sure: Inca, Brazil, Colombia, Argentina
Likely So: Peru, Chile, Bolivia, Paraguay, Mapuche
Can make an argument: lower-profile native groups

I still don't particularly like having Brazil in the game - it is indeed of major regional significance and the barrier to post-colonial civs that aren't America has been comprehensively smashed, but that doesn't make it a 'For sure' in my book.

Western Europe:
For Sure: Rome, England, Spain, Portugal, France, Netherlands, Germany/Prussia/HRE, Austria, Denmark or Norway, Sweden
Likely So: Ireland, Iceland
Could make an argument: Gauls, Italy, Goths, Etruscans

I think where Europe is concerned you can't usefully use 'regional significance' as the standard - that's to put the multiple colonial empires in the same category as Sweden (thanks mostly to its record in the 30 Years War) or Denmark (due mainly to the Viking era, and secondarily to the 30 Years War).

I'm also not sure by which standard Iceland warrants a slot but Scotland, Italy, or the Gauls don't.

Central Asia:
For Sure: Mongolia, Timurids, Armenia, Georgia
Likely So: Oirat, Uzbek, Kazakh, Scythia (maybe not as a blob?)
Could make an argument: tbh, don’t know? Local minor kingdoms

How would you define a Scythia that's 'not a blob'? It's an artefact culture - we don't know anything significant about Scythia as a historical civilisation and the city names are all sites with Scythian-style artefacts, which is all we have to go by in terms of defining what is or is not Scythian.

South Asia:
For Sure: Mughals, Ghaznavids, Maurya, Chola, Tibet (prob can’t appear bcs irl China tho)
Likely So: Kushan, Republic of India, Kingdom of Jaffna, Sri Lanka in some capacity, Pashtun, Sikh Kingdoms, Pallava, Gupta, Vijayanagar
Could make an argument: literally any indian kingdom that isn’t here lol

Why would Sri Lanka be 'likely' rather than 'for sure'? And why wouldn't the Maratha be among the most notable Indian states to include? They were the closest to actually unifying India and may have done so without British interference, as well as being the best precolonial modern option.

USA, Aztecs, Maya, Iroquois, Sioux, Inca, Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Swahili, Phoenicia, Mali, Berbers, Egypt, Ethiopia, Achaemenids, Sassanids, Seljuks, Babylon, Sumer, Assyria, Umayyad or Abbasid, Rome, England, Spain, Portugal, France, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Denmark or Norway, Sweden, Mongolia, Timurids, Armenia, Georgia, Greece, Byzantium, Poland, Russia, Ottomans, Mughals, Ghaznavids, Maurya, Chola, Korea, Japan, Khmer, Han, Ming, Majapahit, Maori, Tu’i Tonga, Australia, Hawai’i

While that is a nice mix, I don't see any real merit to splitting up the Persian, Chinese or Indian civs - and Oceania would be heavily overrepresented since 'regional significance' means something very different to regional significance in South America or Africa. Yes, the Han and Ming were ethnically different - but so were the Anglo-Saxons and the Anglo-Normans and there's no call to split up the England civ. Aksum, while made of ethnic Ethiopians, is culturally very different from medieval or modern Ethiopian civs and all three were significant - but no one's asking for three Ethiopia civs. We've seen with India that they can fit a civ that's pretty much wholly Maurya into an 'India' framework and still allow an admittedly anachronistic modern leader option. I think continuity of a civ name is useful even if they treat it differently in different iterations of the game.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I don't think it is a rule. It's a preference a lot of fans have had, but I threw in the towel on hoping that would be the direction they went with Civ VI when they revealed Australia.

What's more the actual presentation of Australia, while it didn't make me a fan of fan-service civs, did at least make me accepting of them. As someone who doesn't like Civ VI's leader screen style I think they did one of the best jobs with John Curtin, I think he's particularly well-scripted with good voice acting, and I adore the treatment of Waltzing Matilda. I'm indifferent to the civ in game terms, though.




Personally I always put the Aztecs in the 'maybe' camp. Their inclusion in Civ I I put down to pop culture familiarity - in an era when neither the Maya nor the Inca had a big pop culture footprint, they were the best choice for Central and South America (despite not technically occurring in either, that was how they were perceived). The Aztec civilisation was however very short-lived and geographically restricted despite a large network of tributary tribes. The main thing it has in its favour is that it was an urban society with known leaders (while the Toltecs, although likely more significant, have a largely unknown history).



I still don't particularly like having Brazil in the game - it is indeed of major regional significance and the barrier to post-colonial civs that aren't America has been comprehensively smashed, but that doesn't make it a 'For sure' in my book.



I think where Europe is concerned you can't usefully use 'regional significance' as the standard - that's to put the multiple colonial empires in the same category as Sweden (thanks mostly to its record in the 30 Years War) or Denmark (due mainly to the Viking era, and secondarily to the 30 Years War).

I'm also not sure by which standard Iceland warrants a slot but Scotland, Italy, or the Gauls don't.



How would you define a Scythia that's 'not a blob'? It's an artefact culture - we don't know anything significant about Scythia as a historical civilisation and the city names are all sites with Scythian-style artefacts, which is all we have to go by in terms of defining what is or is not Scythian.



Why would Sri Lanka be 'likely' rather than 'for sure'? And why wouldn't the Maratha be among the most notable Indian states to include? They were the closest to actually unifying India and may have done so without British interference, as well as being the best precolonial modern option.



While that is a nice mix, I don't see any real merit to splitting up the Persian, Chinese or Indian civs - and Oceania would be heavily overrepresented since 'regional significance' means something very different to regional significance in South America or Africa. Yes, the Han and Ming were ethnically different - but so were the Anglo-Saxons and the Anglo-Normans and there's no call to split up the England civ. Aksum, while made of ethnic Ethiopians, is culturally very different from medieval or modern Ethiopian civs and all three were significant - but no one's asking for three Ethiopia civs. We've seen with India that they can fit a civ that's pretty much wholly Maurya into an 'India' framework and still allow an admittedly anachronistic modern leader option. I think continuity of a civ name is useful even if they treat it differently in different iterations of the game.

Yeah for me, China and Persia make less sense to split up than India, which had a lot of merit for deblobbing because the terms of India as one civ don’t begin to cover the various nations, specifically the Maurya and Mughals, who got the closest to unifying the subcontinent, and the Chola, which, at their peak, vassalized much of Southeast Asia and controlled all of south India. I’d say India.

Unless Alt. Leaders allow for more differentiation in future games, and we get at minimum one north indian and one south indian kingdom/leader represented in the game, I’d rather have India deblobbed than remain under one name.

l

 

[riddleofsteel]

The evidence is ambiguous. We can start by writing off anything the Romans said, because the Romans accused all of their enemies of human sacrifice. Phoenician/Punic textual evidence suggests it did occur, but archaeological evidence doesn't support its occurrence on a large scale. So, no, I wouldn't consider it one of the defining aspects of Carthaginian culture.

That, and the fact that there were other cultures who did the same thing. If we were going to rule out historical cultures based on despicable or repugnant habits, it would probably shorten the list in a hurry.

 

[Patine]

That, and the fact that there were other cultures who did the same thing. If we were going to rule out historical cultures based on despicable or repugnant habits, it would probably shorten the list in a hurry.

Aztecs come to mind really quickly there...

 

[The Kingmaker]

A think a “dynasty” feature might be nice, letting you toggle between a handful of leaders for the more long-lived or infamous civs.

 

[riddleofsteel]

Aztecs come to mind really quickly there...

Quite a few south and central American indigenous cultures that some people are probably keen to include in Civ committed major amounts of child sacrifice and other stomach-churning things.

 

[Patine]

A think a “dynasty” feature might be nice, letting you toggle between a handful of leaders for the more long-lived or infamous civs.

What about Republican or Parliamentary governments, or ones with an unrelated chain of despots, plutocrats, or theocrats, or, like the Romans or Ancient Egyptians, where solid, family dynasties tended not to last for more than a more rulers each, or even civ's largely based around "one-hit-wonder," leaders?

 

[Zaarin]

Okay, going in a different direction, we are probably going to get a Roman alt leader.

I really wouldn't count on that.

I think if you can have a religious Henry VIII it's no more of a stretch to have a religious Elizabeth. Henry wasn't a Protestant by choice, it was just the only available option once he was forced to break with the Catholic Church, and Elizabeth's anti-Catholic sentiment did at least go deeper than wanting to get a divorce.

Both were more interested in politics than religion; neither would be my first choice for a religious England. For that I'd go with Edward the Confessor--or perhaps Empress Matilda.

the Toltecs, although likely more significant

If they existed. Modern scholarship is leaning towards their being an Aztec myth or Aztec ideal.

Aztecs come to mind really quickly there...

Yes, it's doubtful anyone has performed human sacrifice on a scale that's even comparable with the Aztecs.

A think a “dynasty” feature might be nice, letting you toggle between a handful of leaders for the more long-lived or infamous civs.

Eh, that's what Paradox is for.

 

[The Kingmaker]

What about Republican or Parliamentary governments, or ones with an unrelated chain of despots, plutocrats, or theocrats, or, like the Romans or Ancient Egyptians, where solid, family dynasties tended not to last for more than a more rulers each, or even civ's largely based around "one-hit-wonder," leaders?

Yes, those too. When starting India, for example, maybe you could choose from the Maurya, Mughals or the modern Republic. I figure it would be easier than trying to sell 2K on a half-dozen Indian civs.

I don’t imagine FXS would do more than 2-3 entries max, but it would be open season for modders.

Honestly I don’t see more than the dozen or so most popular civs using the feature: essentially those that had more than 1 leader in Civ4.

 

[PhilBowles]

Yeah for me, China and Persia make less sense to split up than India, which had a lot of merit for deblobbing because the terms of India as one civ don’t begin to cover the various nations, specifically the Maurya and Mughals, who got the closest to unifying the subcontinent, and the Chola, which, at their peak, vassalized much of Southeast Asia and controlled all of south India. I’d say India.

Unless Alt. Leaders allow for more differentiation in future games, and we get at minimum one north indian and one south indian kingdom/leader represented in the game, I’d rather have India deblobbed than remain under one name.

l

I don't think they've done a very good job with leader abilities vs. civs in either Civ IV or Civ VI - for most civs it's not a meaningful distinction as they have only one leader anyway, and for others you invariably have the anachronism of a civ UU/UB/UI/UD tied to one era with a leader from another. Simply in game terms civs are mostly designed around - or at least best with - one leader and the other won't necessarily be very synergistic.

As for civ portrayals, I think they should try to select traits and city lists for long-lived civs - even if they ground those civs in one era - that represent the most characteristic features that unite the societies from that region. Majapahit-themed Indonesia with a trade focus, for instance, is good enough as a representation of Srijavaya, and that society's probable capital - Medan - is in the Indonesia city list.

To take an example I'm more familiar with than India or China, England in Civ represents both England and Britain, including the British Empire. The societies it represents vary in scale to a far greater degree than any other civ in the game: from two-thirds of the area of Great Britain to a quarter of the world's land surface. If England can do that, India can certainly accommodate societies that cover variable areas of South and Southeast Asia. England represents a succession of cultures with leaders of different ethnicities and nationalities across about a millennium. The notion of England as a single continuous state throughout that period is ingrained, but is almost as much of a national myth as the notion of Chinese continuity: it's had multiple unrelated ruling dynasties and three major periods of civil war (each essentially a series of civil wars covering periods from 9 to 30 years) since the 11th Century in addition to lower-level internecine conflicts throughout the feudal period.

But the in-game civ hones in on two basic, continuously-present features that represent England well in all its forms: England is military-focused, with most of its component cultures having been either expansionist or engaged in regular conflict with its neighbours or simply internally; and it is good at generating gold, as England has a long history of both being naturally richer than most of the surrounding territories and being focused on commerce to a degree mainland competitors often found unseemly (hence Napoleon's snide comment about a nation of shopkeepers). Its core territory being an island is also represented by usually giving England some naval component, though in reality England has been a naval power for shorter periods and more intermittently than people commonly imagine. Although England has controlled huge territory outside the island, the English city list has always concentrated on cities literally in England, which has always been the state's core territory (even though some of the Norman monarchs with French holdings basically treated the island the way the British Empire later treated India - a colonial territory that was useful only as a source of cash).

England is probably easier in that regard than some of the Indian states - it's unusual globally in having had the same, heavily centralised, capital for most of the past millennium and since the core territory has always been England itself the same city list works for the country's history as a whole. But there are presumably similar common themes that define what makes the various Indian kingdoms 'Indian' which can be used to distill the essence of them into a single India civ.

 

[AntSou]

Okay, going in a different direction, we are probably going to get a Roman alt leader. What do you all think of the following choices:

Cincinnatus, Scipio Africanus, Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, Livia, (skipping the 5 good emperors because I don't think Civ can have 2 of them) Diocletian, Constantine, Justinian, Theodora, Heraclius

As someone else in this thread said, I would like to see them give republican Rome a shot. If they don't want to do that, I want to see them do the principate, which they've never done in a Civ game.

I think the comercial purpose of alt leaders is to be able to revisit Civs from profitable markets.

So I'd expect an American alt (the new Roosevelt?) and an alt for China before Rome gets one.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Eh, that's what Paradox is for.

I’m not suggesting a Paradox style game.

See above, I’m suggesting maybe a handful of choices, so you could differentiate between HRE, Prussia and Austria, for example, w/o needing three German civs.

 

[Zaarin]

I’m not suggesting a Paradox style game.

See above, I’m suggesting maybe a handful of choices, so you could differentiate between HRE, Prussia and Austria, for example, w/o needing three German civs.

How is that different from the (admittedly underutilized) alt leaders we have now, though?

 

[Navelgazer]

Elizabeth's religiosity was basically confined to being kind of her father's daughter in that respect and also wanting independence from Rome. If you want fierce Protestantism, look to anabaptist Germany or modern day America.