I love native cultures, but at this point if it's not the Mississippians I don't want them. It's a serious oversight that they've never been playable before
There is not a famous leader for them. At best, there's poorly known leaders from the edges of their hegemony well after the main city of Cahokia fell.
If you want to play Mississippians, petition Amplitude to include them in Humankind.
Huns had huge EMPIRE, they had advanced warfare, they had huge historical significance. They are in totally different category. Comparing them to Inuits is totally ridiculous. Having Inuits in the game would be even little sillier than having "Civs" like Cree. IMO Inuits would be almost in the same category as Australian aboriginals, who practically never invented ANYTHING we have in the game. I do understand that Civilization series is not to be taken seriously, but I personally dont feel we dont need to make it even sillier. Are we going to just make up some unit and infrastructure to them? I guess we already have "Civs" that didnt have cities or even really agriculture so I guess the line has already been crossed in many ways. "Civs" like Sioux and Cree are already pretty questionable, but I feel Inuit would be really hard to make to a serious civilization that would not be silly. If your "civilization" never invented even the things we START the game with I think this is a wrong game for you. Lets leave Sami people, Inuit and Australian aboriginals to modders. They are no doubt interesting cultures, but this game is just not for them IMO.
Civs like Huns or Scythia are problematic, because we dont even know the language and we have very limited information about them. But they had huge historical importance so I understand why they are in the game. Huns also were not originally "European" although they did later mix with several European tribes.
Regarding the Inuit and the Saami, I normally would have dismissed them after Gathering Storm. It was their best bet to be included in an expack which themed its roster to terrain adaptability. But instead, we got Canada with another tundra bonus and Sweden with a multi-terrain bonus; neither with an actual Arctic bonus.
However, the same logic had me doubting Vietnam, which thematically and mechanically made the most sense in R&F and otherwise would struggle to fit an expack with any other theme. Conveniently, NF is split into six differently themed DLCs so now the biggest barrier to Vietnam is a nonissue.
While the Inuit still are not Canada and the Saami still are not Sweden, I do think the retreat back into some sort of DLC release schedule has made them at least a tad more possible. Say we get a prehistoric mode...
Who said the Huns were viable? To my knowledge, no one was very impressed with that badly cobbled together civ. One might also point out that the Huns weren't European, which doesn't exactly do wonders for your argument.
I actually quite liked the Huns in the event even though I didn't like the idea of their inclusion. I liked Attila's leader screen and voice acting, and the fact that as an AI he was so optimistically useless - always grandstanding and trying to attack powers that could beat him (which was usually everyone).
Of course I never wanted to actually play as the Huns. My takeaway from that experience in Civ V is that Civ should probably have done what it seems Humankind will do - have a purely AI horde faction that adds like a civ, can engage in diplomacy and can expand, unlike barbarians or city states.
Edit: Not to mention, the reason I brought it up was because the person I replied to asserted that the Aboriginal people have done nothing deserving of becoming a civ.
Regarding the Inuit and the Saami, I normally would have dismissed them after Gathering Storm. It was there best bet to be included in an expack which themed it's roster to terrain adaptability. But instead, we got Canada with another tundra bonus and Sweden with a multi-terrain bonus; neither with an actual Arctic bonus.
However, the same logic had me doubting Vietnam, which thematically and mechanically made the most sense in R&F and otherwise would struggle to fit an expack with any other theme. Conveniently, NF is split into six differently themed DLCs so now the biggest barrier to Vietnam is a nonissue.
While the Inuit still are not Canada and the Saami still are not Sweden, I do think the retreat back into some sort of DLC release schedule has made them at least a tad more possible. Say we get a prehistoric mode...
Sapmi would be a great civ to utilize snow bonuses, being the predominant occupants of Northeast Norway and Sweden and Northwest Finland. They aren’t exclusive to snow though.
Of course I never wanted to actually play as the Huns. My takeaway from that experience in Civ V is that Civ should probably have done what it seems Humankind will do - have a purely AI horde faction that adds like a civ, can engage in diplomacy and can expand, unlike barbarians or city states.
As far as I know, the Huns are actually a playable culture in that game. But nonetheless I agree with the rest of that statement. It would be nice if Civ VII could expand the idea of at least city-states into minor factions with even historical leaders.
As far as I know, the Huns are actually a playable culture in that game. But nonetheless I agree with the rest of that statement. It would be nice if Civ VII could expand the idea of at least city-states into minor factions with even historical leaders.
I've always liked the idea of City-States having static leader images. It would make politics with them feel a little more personal rather than treating them like property to be won and used. I think it would be a really easy mod to implement, and I would pay just for a city-states personality pack.
I also want goodyhuts and barbarian camps to be combined into the same thing with a very basic diplomacy system which determines whether you need to maybe use a scout to trade with them to get bonuses or defeat them with military units to get unit experience. Name them after tribal or nomadic peoples to give them a bit of personality too, maybe allow the player to keep the village tile and incorporate it into their empire as tribal land. I've never liked that they kept barbarian camps as some sort of primitive/lawless "other people" as they were from V when the concept somewhat contradicts VI's aim at being culturally sensitive and inclusive.
I hope we get a "mode" that implements something like this because it's probably one of the ugliest parts of Civ's portrayal of humanity.
I've always liked the idea of City-States having static leader images. It would make politics with them feel a little more personal rather than treating them like property to be won and used.
You could have just googled it yourself. But, okay, go here.
It’s debatable how much this concern would apply to people long dead as opposed to people that had recently died. Either way, something FXS would need to check and be mindful of.
I could not agree more! Beyond Earth, for all its faults, at least had a system where the "barbarian" aliens wouldn't attack unless attacked first. I would welcome a mechanic where barbarians are folded into a tribal system that can be interacted with beyond "EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!"
I could not agree more! Beyond Earth, for all its faults, at least had a system where the "barbarian" aliens wouldn't attack unless attacked first. I would welcome a mechanic where barbarians are folded into a tribal system that can be interacted with beyond "EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!"
Wow, I've finished reading all 1893 posts. It was a long read...
Anyway, here are my thoughts about the last 95 pages:
If we are expecting two American, two European, one African and three Asian civs, then
1. we already know the American and African civs. (Gran Colombia, Maya, Ethiopia)
2. Europe - I wouldn't really like to see Italy and Byzantium. Italy is already represented by Rome, and the region around Byzantium is already the home of four leaders. Maybe Justinian could work as an alternate leader for Rome and/or Greece? If Italy has to get in, my idea is to have Garibaldi as the Italian leader. I agree with including Portugal, but for the other European civ, I would like to see something new. Lithuania would be a great choice, one of the largest European empires around 1400. The Ostrogoths could also work, but they are a bit close to Hungary and Rome, but would be quite a good replacement for Byzantium. Bulgaria could also work, but has similar problems to Byzantium.
3. Asia - I agree with the need for one more Mesopotamian civ, which could be Babylon/Assyria/Akkad. My guess for one of the Asian civs are the Philippines. However, I don't really feel that there is a need for a third Asian civ now, especially if we get the alternate leader in Europe. (If we don't, maybe Mongolia, but I think Genghis and Kublai would be too similar.)
4. If Asia only gets two new civs, that leaves one more. This could be a North American civ, I would prefer the Inuits (after digging really deep into Wikipedia, I found Eben Hopson as a potential leader), but a western native civ would probably be an objectively better choice.
Given that we do almost an entire year on aboriginals in Aussie schools, and barely 1 hour on everything we now that comes before the settling of the country, I can tell you a bit about why that is a terrible idea.
They were a collection of over 400 distinct people groups spread across the continent, with an estimated 290-363 languages from 26 different language families.
They had only oral traditions and no buildings, so we have no information about any actual history.
They never progressed past the stone age or developed past a hunter-gatherer society, and are way to broad to ever become a civ, with any leader having to be one from modern times, which wouldn't exactly fit the idea of an ancient civ.
Any attempt to make the Australian Aboriginals a civ would be more insulting than the Huns multiplied by any hypothetical Inuit civ.
Huns had huge EMPIRE, they had advanced warfare, they had huge historical significance. They are in totally different category. Comparing them to Inuits is totally ridiculous. Having Inuits in the game would be even little sillier than having "Civs" like Cree. IMO Inuits would be almost in the same category as Australian aboriginals, who practically never invented ANYTHING we have in the game. I do understand that Civilization series is not to be taken seriously, but I personally dont feel we dont need to make it even sillier. Are we going to just make up some unit and infrastructure to them? I guess we already have "Civs" that didnt have cities or even really agriculture so I guess the line has already been crossed in many ways. "Civs" like Sioux and Cree are already pretty questionable, but I feel Inuit would be really hard to make to a serious civilization that would not be silly. If your "civilization" never invented even the things we START the game with I think this is a wrong game for you. Lets leave Sami people, Inuit and Australian aboriginals to modders. They are no doubt interesting cultures, but this game is just not for them IMO.
Civs like Huns or Scythia are problematic, because we dont even know the language and we have very limited information about them. But they had huge historical importance so I understand why they are in the game. Huns also were not originally "European" although they did later mix with several European tribes.
They didn't invent kayaks, toggle head harpoons with floatlines, snow goggles, parkas, sleeping bags, etc.
Oh wait! They find invent those items and more.
Not saying they are going to be on Civ VI or anything but they are a truly remarkable people who adapted and thrived in the harshest environment on earth.
Admittedly, they don't have a prominent leader to use but they could be creative.
Some cultures ivs are better off just being repped by the Barbarians and/or Tribal villages. Aboriginal tribes are one such example, as are the Huns. Cultures that started as "barbarians" and later settled down, such as the Magyar, Goths and Saxons would be acceptable however.
Not every culture has to be featured as a Civ, and that's fine.
Edit: Not to mention, the reason I brought it up was because the person I replied to asserted that the Aboriginal people have done nothing deserving of becoming a civ.
Sapmi would be a great civ to utilize snow bonuses, being the predominant occupants of Northeast Norway and Sweden and Northwest Finland. They aren’t exclusive to snow though.
Australian aboriginals or Sami people people have practically NOTHING to do with the themes of the game. It doesnt mean they are "bad". In the start of the game you have a settler that establishes a city. Well they didnt even "settle" or have cities or even any kind of population centers. Australian aboriginals were living in a stone age. It would be wrong IMO have them in the game when everything about them would be science fiction. I know that we already have questionable "civilization" choices in the game, but it doesnt mean we have to make the game even sillier. Tribes living in stone age dont belong to a game like this. They could be in a another type of game. This is just not a game for them.
When it comes to the so called "barbarians" in the game I actually agree that they are problematic. The whole idea of barbarians is very questionable. They could be called something like minor tribes and they could work more rational. You could interact with the, bribe them to your side etc. The fact that you cant even interact with them is silly. Having these "brutes" attacking everything in their sight is just plain silly. The idea of barbarians is basically Greek and Roman propaganda. For example Celtic tribes were called barbarians by the Romans, but they were actually quite advanced and had large scale agriculture, road networks, advanced mining etc. Also idea that these barbarians were more warlike and Romans just had to defend themselves from there blood thirsty barbarians is wrong.
Its kind of funny that the people representing barbarians in the Civilization series were actually much more advanced and civilized than the stone age tribes that some people are suggesting would "make great Civs". We can discuss if all things we call "civilization" or "progress" is even a good thing from a perspective of environment for example, but that is totally different conversation. From a moral or ethical perspective we can see lot of good in many tribal societies. Doesnt mean they have to be in a game whose idea is to win the game by sending a rocket to a exoplanet, kill all other civilizations or dominate the world with their rock bands.
I've always liked the idea of City-States having static leader images. It would make politics with them feel a little more personal rather than treating them like property to be won and used. I think it would be a really easy mod to implement, and I would pay just for a city-states personality pack.
I also want goodyhuts and barbarian camps to be combined into the same thing with a very basic diplomacy system which determines whether you need to maybe use a scout to trade with them to get bonuses or defeat them with military units to get unit experience. Name them after tribal or nomadic peoples to give them a bit of personality too, maybe allow the player to keep the village tile and incorporate it into their empire as tribal land. I've never liked that they kept barbarian camps as some sort of primitive/lawless "other people" as they were from V when the concept somewhat contradicts VI's aim at being culturally sensitive and inclusive.
I hope we get a "mode" that implements something like this because it's probably one of the ugliest parts of Civ's portrayal of humanity.
Given that we do almost an entire year on aboriginals in Aussie schools, and barely 1 hour on everything we now that comes before the settling of the country, I can tell you a bit about why that is a terrible idea.
They were a collection of over 400 distinct people groups spread across the continent, with an estimated 290-363 languages from 26 different language families.
They had only oral traditions and no buildings, so we have no information about any actual history.
They never progressed past the stone age or developed past a hunter-gatherer society, and are way to broad to ever become a civ, with any leader having to be one from modern times, which wouldn't exactly fit the idea of an ancient civ.
Any attempt to make the Australian Aboriginals a civ would be more insulting than the Huns multiplied by any hypothetical Inuit civ.
Australian aboriginals or Sami people people have practically NOTHING to do with the themes of the game. It doesnt mean they are "bad". In the start of the game you have a settler that establishes a city. Well they didnt even "settle" or have cities or even any kind of population centers. Australian aboriginals were living in a stone age. It would be wrong IMO have them in the game when everything about them would be science fiction. I know that we already have questionable "civilization" choices in the game, but it doesnt mean we have to make the game even sillier. Tribes living in stone age dont belong to a game like this. They could be in a another type of game. This is just not a game for them.
When it comes to the so called "barbarians" in the game I actually agree that they are problematic. The whole idea of barbarians is very questionable. They could be called something like minor tribes and they could work more rational. You could interact with the, bribe them to your side etc. The fact that you cant even interact with them is silly. Having these "brutes" attacking everything in their sight is just plain silly. The idea of barbarians is basically Greek and Roman propaganda. For example Celtic tribes were called barbarians by the Romans, but they were actually quite advanced and had large scale agriculture, road networks, advanced mining etc. Also idea that these barbarians were more warlike and Romans just had to defend themselves from there blood thirsty barbarians is wrong.
Its kind of funny that the people representing barbarians in the Civilization series were actually much more advanced and civilized than the stone age tribes that some people are suggesting would "make great Civs". We can discuss if all things we call "civilization" or "progress" is even a good thing from a perspective of environment for example, but that is totally different conversation. From a moral or ethical perspective we can see lot of good in many tribal societies. Doesnt mean they have to be in a game whose idea is to win the game by sending a rocket to a exoplanet, kill all other civilizations or dominate the world with their rock bands.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
