[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Thenewwwguy]

So, not really wanting to end up being seen as taking a side on ideological debate or modern wars, my guess would be Firaxis would go for a different leader. I personally wouldn't care about moral considerations of Ho Chi Minh being included or not, my only issue would be that I'd find him boring when I'd rather have a much less recent leader for such an old country, same goes for my problem with Gandhi.

isn’t accepting that capitalist rulers are acceptable but communist ones aren’t a by-definition ideological stance

Ho Chi Minh falls into a similar trap, in which his leadership was recent enough for there to still be controversies that further destabilize his image. Even if claims against Ho Chi Minh don't pan out, his inclusion will still be perceived as a political choice and alienate at least some amount of potential players. TR is indeed very recent (at least compared to other leaders), but his problem also stems from the fact that the American 'civilization' is so recent that you can't avoid these problems. Washington and Lincoln were therefore always safe picks, though both of them aren't necessarily immune to criticism, either. The history of Vietnam, in contrast, is long and diverse and should have no problem giving a leader who can make everyone happy and evoke only positive feelings of the country. If Civilization is still around in 50 years, Ho Chi Minh could be a leader then.

Ho Chi King’s biggest controversy is being someone whom the average american knew nothing about but hated anyway cuz the president and CIA told them to. Out of any communist ruler from the cold war period, Ho Chi Minh is far less controversial than Fidel Castro (although I personally would love to see Castro myself), and leads a far more important. civ than Julius Nyerere or Thomas Sankara. He also died in 1969, prior to the (seemingly arbitrary, to be fair) cut-off of 1975 set by Civ 5’s choice of Haile Selassie.

In fact, the only reason I’ve seen used to justify not including Ho Chi Minh is that he opposed the US in the Vietnam War...which isn’t a real concern, imo. Ppl here don’t really hate him for it. Vietnam is generally very positively viewed these days in the US.

I'd say, if you know about the BJP and Modi and Hindu nationalism you will know that it's that part of India in the north that is to the day the country's core. Your way of splitting up civilizations is just arbitrary, I'm advocating a consistent approach based on giving distinct cultures representation. Maurya is essentially a dynasty of the core Indo-Aryan Indian civilization, as is the Gupta empire. India and Maurya being the same civilization isn't really that hard to justify, there is continuity there. When we are talking about Tamils, it is different, that's a region that has had a distinct history for most of it's existence.

You didn't answer my questions about Tibetans and etc., because that is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Tibet being within the modern borders of China doesn't mean that it shouldn't be represented (even if it won't be anyway for political reasons). Likewise the Tamils are a distinct people, and Tamil nationalism is a real thing, many of them consider themselves a distinct nation. They might be regarded as the largest stateless nation in the world. You haven't really refuted this, you've just stated that 'Modern India represents all Indians' or something. Well the UK is a country currently where Scotland is not an independent state- that's still in the game.

This: all of this.

 

[untitledjuan]

Ho Chi King’s biggest controversy is being someone whom the average american knew nothing about but hated anyway cuz the president and CIA told them to. Out of any communist ruler from the cold war period, Ho Chi Minh is far less controversial than Fidel Castro (although I personally would love to see Castro myself), and leads a far more important. civ than Julius Nyerere or Thomas Sankara. He also died in 1969, prior to the (seemingly arbitrary, to be fair) cut-off of 1975 set by Civ 5’s choice of Haile Selassie.

Though I can imagine that all the huge amounts of Cubans that have suffered from exile and had to leave their country due to hunger and political repression, as well as the millions who still suffer human rights violations in their own country, wouldn't be happy having Castro portrayed as a "great" or "representative" leader for their people. Even if not many Cubans play the game, having Castro in it would be a mock to all the people who have suffered the consequences of his actions, which I think it is more complicated considering a lot of these people are still alive.

If there had to be a Cuban civ, a much better leader would be José Martí. He fought for Cuban independence and is view favourably by most Cubans from most sides of the political spectrum.

Though I still insist that the most representative nations if they had to include at least one Spanish Post-colonial civ are Argentina, Colombia and Mexico, which are much bigger in size, population and economy, have been independent the longest, influenced their neighbouring countries and developed very strong national cultures related but different from Spain. (Also, and perhaps more important for the developers, they have the most likely chance of having more people interested in buying the game, considering how nationalistic, in the good sense, this three countries can be and their large gaming population relative to other Hispanic countries). However, as some of you have said, having the Aztec and the Maya makes having Mexico difficult.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Though I can imagine that all the huge amounts of Cubans that have suffered from exile and had to leave their country due to hunger and political repression, as well as the millions who still suffer human rights violations in their own country, wouldn't be happy having Castro portrayed as a "great" or "representative" leader for their people. Even if not many Cubans play the game, having Castro in it would be a mock to all the people who have suffered the consequences of his actions, which I think it is more complicated considering a lot of these people are still alive.

If there had to be a Cuban civ, a much better leader would be José Martí. He fought for Cuban independence and is view favourably by most Cubans from most sides of the political spectrum.

Though I still insist that the most representative nations if they had to include at least one Spanish Post-colonial civ are Argentina, Colombia and Mexico, which are much bigger in size, population and economy, have been independent the longest, influenced their neighbouring countries and developed very strong national cultures related but different from Spain. (Also, and perhaps more important for the developers, they have the most likely chance of having more people interested in buying the game, considering how nationalistic, in the good sense, this three countries can be and their large gaming population relative to other Hispanic countries). However, as some of you have said, having the Aztec and the Maya makes having Mexico difficult.

What about Carlos Manuel de Cespedes?

 

[slavaskii]

Ho Chi King’s biggest controversy is being someone whom the average american knew nothing about but hated anyway cuz the president and CIA told them to. Out of any communist ruler from the cold war period, Ho Chi Minh is far less controversial than Fidel Castro (although I personally would love to see Castro myself), and leads a far more important. civ than Julius Nyerere or Thomas Sankara. He also died in 1969, prior to the (seemingly arbitrary, to be fair) cut-off of 1975 set by Civ 5’s choice of Haile Selassie.

In fact, the only reason I’ve seen used to justify not including Ho Chi Minh is that he opposed the US in the Vietnam War...which isn’t a real concern, imo. Ppl here don’t really hate him for it. Vietnam is generally very positively viewed these days in the US.

In all due respect, the reason I would personally oppose Ho Chi Minh leading Vietnam is that there's a significant amount of Vietnamese people that think he was a war criminal. I agree with you that being communist or opposed to the US is hardly a reason to not include someone; that's like saying Lenin was worse than Catherine the Great, despite Catherine the Great, though being a frequent leader in Civ, was an autocrat who absolutely ruled Eastern Europe with an iron fist.

I think that as long as there are many people who would get offended by an inclusion that are of the culture in question, Firaxis should avoid said leader like the plague. It's fine picking a person like Kristina of Sweden who apparently was just a worthless leader (and traitor), but nobody was exactly offended by her.

You do make a good point with Haile Selassie, however - I only remembered him after making the post. Though it's interesting that in Civ 6 they went with Menelik II instead.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Though I can imagine that all the huge amounts of Cubans that have suffered from exile and had to leave their country due to hunger and political repression, as well as the millions who still suffer human rights violations in their own country, wouldn't be happy having Castro portrayed as a "great" or "representative" leader for their people. Even if not many Cubans play the game, having Castro in it would be a mock to all the people who have suffered the consequences of his actions, which I think it is more complicated considering a lot of these people are still alive.

I will say there’s a lot of misinformation out there about Cuba and the Castros.

The majority of ppl who fled Cuba were wealthy people, many of whom literally owned slaves, who fled as they didn’t want their land taken away from them.

The hunger in Cuba nowadays is caused almost exclusively by US embargoes.

Cuba, with exception to a short two year period close to the establishment of the communist regime (and, it could be argued, even then) has been more open to LGBTQ+ ppl than the US (for example, gender affirmation surgeries are covered by the state in Cuba). It has a longer life expectancy
and better medical system than the US, and those things would likely be even better should the country not be under embargo.

While Castro did some bad things (like killing political opponents), a lot of ppl who aren’t aware of Cuba and its history tend to pin the large amount of Cubans in the US now as proof that Castro was a bad person when in reality those people are descended from, or were, wealthy people who exploited the poor and left cuz they wanted to continue exploiting.

So, I don’t believe that Castro has a past worthy of exclusion from Civ. obviously that’s my personal view, but he’s no Stalin or Mao, who did such abominous things that he should be excluded from the game.

 

[Zaarin]

While Castro did some bad things (like killing political opponents), a lot of ppl who aren’t aware of Cuba and its history tend to pin the large amount of Cubans in the US now as proof that Castro was a bad person when in reality those people are descended from, or were, wealthy people who exploited the poor and left cuz they wanted to continue exploiting.

That's some quality victim blaming. It's true that Castro didn't kill as many people as Stalin and Mao. That's because the entire population of Cuba is smaller than the number of people Stalin or Mao killed. That's still no justification for including a tyrannical psychopath whose victims are still alive.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

That's some quality victim blaming. It's true that Castro didn't kill as many people as Stalin and Mao. That's because the entire population of Cuba is smaller than the number of people Stalin or Mao killed. That's still no justification for including a tyrannical psychopath whose victims are still alive.

Agreed. Not to mention his right-hand man, Che Guevara, hooo boy! He's a whole other problem. I don't want to get too political, but I will say this, he ------------------------------[REDACTED]-------------------, and that is why I don't like him.

 

[BuchiTaton]

With the years each CIV iteration would need to be more and more carefull on the leaders selection, considering if it is 100% historical, if was a great ruler for his/her country, if was a good person for modern standards, if is not a hated figure on others countries, his/her sex, if devs could find a proper voice actor for the language, even they would need to look at the skin color!

It think every version of CIV the leaders become more an obstacle than an inspiration for civs designs. Even their agendas make more complicate to have flexible gameplay. I know leader are a CIVs trademark but personaly I would have no problem to get rid of them. I mean 4000 years old Teddy?

 

[Zaarin]

I know leader are a CIVs trademark but personaly I would have no problem to get rid of them.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the leaders are the only thing Civ has going for it. Otherwise there are many 4X games available that are a lot better games than Civilization is.

I mean 4000 years old Teddy?

Leaders are a face for the civilization. They should be thought of as the personification of the civilization, not its literal head of state.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Ho Chi King’s biggest controversy is being someone whom the average american knew nothing about but hated anyway cuz the president and CIA told them to. Out of any communist ruler from the cold war period, Ho Chi Minh is far less controversial than Fidel Castro (although I personally would love to see Castro myself), and leads a far more important. civ than Julius Nyerere or Thomas Sankara. He also died in 1969, prior to the (seemingly arbitrary, to be fair) cut-off of 1975 set by Civ 5’s choice of Haile Selassie.

In fact, the only reason I’ve seen used to justify not including Ho Chi Minh is that he opposed the US in the Vietnam War...which isn’t a real concern, imo. Ppl here don’t really hate him for it. Vietnam is generally very positively viewed these days in the US.

Barring ideological differences I personally think that both Ho Chi Minh and Castro shouldn't be included because they are too recent, which in itself do make them controversial choices.

I'm surprised they went with Halie Selassie in Civ 5 but at least Menelik II is a better pick this time around.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

A bit off-topic, but I dreamed one night that Isabella of Castille was the alternate leader in the January Pack, hehe... I don't know why.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Leaders are a face for the civilization. They should be thought of as the personification of the civilization, not its literal head of state.

Like these?

 

[Zaarin]

Like these?

In theory, yes, but I think George Washington is a better example of "real person who is emblematic of his civilization." After all, the historical leaders is the draw, not the leaders themselves. I can go play Endless Space 2 if I want to interact with fictional leaders.

 

[notNamed]

In all due respect, the reason I would personally oppose Ho Chi Minh leading Vietnam is that there's a significant amount of Vietnamese people that think he was a war criminal.

Could you please cite some of these Vietnamese communities?
For one, I've never had the pleasure, so I'd absolutely love to hear their side of the story. Likewise, even the pro-Confederation types I knew of have a heavy heart on the Vietnamese communist party, not the man in question himself.
Finally, he's both a person who did not live to see the end of the Vietnam War (and was basically just a symbolic figurehead since 1963) and created both North and South Vietnam with his anti-colonial campaign led earlier.

So I'm extremely cautious about comparing the guy with someone like Stalin, whose ousting as a ruthless dictator overstepping all boundaries was the cause of the Sino-Soviet Split and certainly not a new discovery in the 90s.

 

[Ticio]

I will say there’s a lot of misinformation out there about Cuba and the Castros.

The majority of ppl who fled Cuba were wealthy people, many of whom literally owned slaves, who fled as they didn’t want their land taken away from them.

The hunger in Cuba nowadays is caused almost exclusively by US embargoes.

Cuba, with exception to a short two year period close to the establishment of the communist regime (and, it could be argued, even then) has been more open to LGBTQ+ ppl than the US (for example, gender affirmation surgeries are covered by the state in Cuba). It has a longer life expectancy
and better medical system than the US, and those things would likely be even better should the country not be under embargo.

While Castro did some bad things (like killing political opponents), a lot of ppl who aren’t aware of Cuba and its history tend to pin the large amount of Cubans in the US now as proof that Castro was a bad person when in reality those people are descended from, or were, wealthy people who exploited the poor and left cuz they wanted to continue exploiting.

So, I don’t believe that Castro has a past worthy of exclusion from Civ. obviously that’s my personal view, but he’s no Stalin or Mao, who did such abominous things that he should be excluded from the game.

I think you are partially right, I would love to see Castro for a "Cuba civ" (He IS the face of Cuba). And even if he did his wrong doings and we all agree that Cuba's regime is not a democracy ... I think it could work.

After all, pretty much all the characters and civs on the game could be view with a very negative point of view. No one is absolute evil or good. It also depends from the point of views.

I mean, Castro is evil for all the proamericans that supported the regimes after Spanish rule. That means, the people that escaped the island because they were against the revolution.

Castro was good for many people living in Cuba ... in fact, when I went there to meet my Cuban / Spanish friend's family, I was very surprised by the good perception they had for Fidel. The biggest supporters were the 2 grandparents, that lived during Batista regime. They told us pretty spooky histories about how the regime dealt with dissidents.

Here is important to say that both grandparents have money, to Cuban standards, and flight regularly to see their daughter and grandchildren (my friend). They are very exposed to spanish culture and have access to info about what happened in Cuba.

Knowing everything, they think Castro was a good leader and the majority of the problems came from the USA and Batista regime. Their son has the same mindset, even having visited many times Europe and knowing what happened in the Island. The exception being their daughter, that came to live in Spain wanting to scape the island, but it was after having problems with the regime (she worked for the goverment).


So Elites during Batista regime = Castro Bad, Batista good

Elites during Castro regime = Batista Bad, Casto Good


We could argue that they are educated inside the system (educational system for example) and they are brainwashing them... but as we are too ... Castro may be worst to our eyes as we share the USA point of view that Castro's regime is a monstrosity, and that they loved to eat babies for lunch. A part must be true for sure, but a lot is propaganda too.

The same the other way around, for Cubans, the USA's are monsters that want them to starve thanks to a blockade. Maybe a part is founded on reality, but greatly exaggerated. I do not think the people form USA want the suffering of Cubans.


No vision is totally true nor false.


Why Castro should be worse than Napoleon, Victoria, Philip II, GENGHIS KHAN !, Basil II, and so on?

Because the regime still in place? Well then, we should remove China.

Because what they did has repercussion even today? Then remove Victoria.

At the end of the day, I think every character should be allowed except, maybe, when they performed genocide and is too soon (I just remembered ... maybe we had to remove Ottomans too) like Hitler.


But I really doubt Fidel Castro could enter this category (Che Guevara, for example could be more complicated)... for a lot of people the Cuban revolution seems to have been necessary to gain their independence from USA. True that they fell as a colonial territory for the URSS, but maybe USA had a big role on that ...

And at the end, maybe the guy did a lot of bad things (as a lot of the roster), but he had a charisma out of the charts. A far greater charisma that any other possible Cuban leaders, except maybe Antonio Maceo.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

A bit off-topic, but I dreamed that Isabella of Castille was the alternate leader in the January Pack, hehe... I don't know why.

They have to save the exploration abilities for Portugal.

In theory, yes, but I think George Washington is a better example of "real person who is emblematic of his civilization." After all, the historical leaders is the draw, not the leaders themselves. I can go play Endless Space 2 if I want to interact with fictional leaders.

I think they've done a good job of representing America with Teddy, especially representing the idea of "Wild West" America anyway. Not that Washington isn't emblematic either but if you were comparing him to the fictitious "Uncle Sam" I agree.

 

[Ticio]

With the years each CIV iteration would need to be more and more carefull on the leaders selection, considering if it is 100% historical, if was a great ruler for his/her country, if was a good person for modern standards, if is not a hated figure on others countries, his/her sex, if devs could find a proper voice actor for the language, even they would need to look at the skin color!

It think every version of CIV the leaders become more an obstacle than an inspiration for civs designs. Even their agendas make more complicate to have flexible gameplay. I know leader are a CIVs trademark but personaly I would have no problem to get rid of them. I mean 4000 years old Teddy?

For this reason I think we should turn a blind eye for some leaders and let them put whoever they want (except some very gruesome cases). I really like having leaders for the civs, as they give a "period" bonus to a civ and help shape them better.
But if we are too picky, it would be impossible to select anyone.... even Teddy Roosevelt is the face of Usa's imperialism policies!

 

[Zaarin]

I think they've done a good job of representing America with Teddy, especially representing the idea of "Wild West" America anyway. Not that Washington isn't emblematic either but if you were comparing him to the fictitious "Uncle Sam" I agree.

I was just comparing him to Uncle Sam, not specifically asking for Washington back. TBH I want John Adams next time around.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I was just comparing him to Uncle Sam, not specifically asking for Washington back. TBH I want John Adams next time around.

Sit down John, YOU FAT ------------!!! John Adams would be a 'meh' choice, perhaps Lincoln, Washington as you said, or Jefferson.

Moderator Action: Please be civil in discussion. This is really unnecessary. leif

 

[Zaarin]

Sit down John, YOU FAT ------------!!! John Adams would be a 'meh' choice, perhaps Lincoln, Washington as you said, or Jefferson.

John Adams was brilliant, principled, and extremely colorful--his rage fits would be reason enough to include him. I don't have a high opinion of His Imperial Highness Abraham, By Grace of Manifest Destiny King of America; America has plenty of choices of leaders who were both better leaders and more interesting characters. I was very grateful that Civ6 broke the Lincoln-Washington loop, and as far as I'm concerned it can stay broken.