Civilization VII Civs and Leaders Wishlist [Not a Prediction]

[moondog385]

I mean we're at a point where we get US, Canada, Australia and Scotland. Surely you could drop an absolute historically non-existent place like Australia and throw in a modern African state instead. Certainly more interesting than perpetuating certain myth of King Moses' uberwealth for the Xth time in a row or Zulu because they appeared in that one famous movie you have to be 40+ to have actually seen. Even if the Zulu theme in Civ6 rocks.

I would prefer we lose Canada, Australia, and Scotland. US and Brazil are fine as well as one Spanish-speaking colonial nation. I'm not picky on which, but Gran Colombia was a good one. If we were having like 100 civs in the game, then yeah I'd throw in Canada, Australia, and South Africa.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Absolutely. I think any historically-significant leader should be on the table.

What I oppose is the hypocrisy of certain people who would allow one tyrant but not another, on the sole basis of their very personal and subjective biases. Or worst yet, who would disallow entire nations.

At the end of the day Firaxis also wants to sell their game.
That means certain leaders have to be off the table such as Hitler for Germany, Mao for China etc. sometimes because of actual laws in their respective countries.

 

[ManoftheHour333]

I’m ok with Australia, Canada, Gran Colombia, Mexico, etc. so long as they are introduced alongside at least one indigenous civilization from that respective area. Ideally more than one…but at the end of the day, 200 years of history is significant regardless of how political/cultural lines have shifted.

But yeah no more only-colonial Australia without an aboriginal civ, and no more Canada without Ojibwe/Cree (although Cree is dicey…).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I’m ok with Australia, Canada, Gran Colombia, Mexico, etc. so long as they are introduced alongside at least one indigenous civilization from that respective area. Ideally more than one…but at the end of the day, 200 years of history is significant regardless of how political/cultural lines have shifted.

But yeah no more only-colonial Australia without an aboriginal civ, and no more Canada without Ojibwe/Cree (although Cree is dicey…).

I'm still not too sure how practical an aboriginal civ would be.
Regardless we did get the Maori, which to me being indigenous to New Zealand is close enough for me.

 

[jsciv69]

At the end of the day Firaxis also wants to sell their game.
That means certain leaders have to be off the table such as Hitler for Germany, Mao for China etc. sometimes because of actual laws in their respective countries.

Don't underestimate the fascination for villains. After all what would Star Wars be without the love fans have for Darth Vader. Evil does have a knack drawing interest.

 

[Leyrann]

Don't underestimate the fascination for villains. After all what would Star Wars be without the love fans have for Darth Vader. Evil does have a knack drawing interest.

That love is very different between fiction and real life though.

Just consider the difference in reactions between someone writing a story where the female protagonist falls in love with Darth Vader vs one where the female protagonist falls in love with Adolf Hitler...

 

[notNamed]

That love is very different between fiction and real life though.

Just consider the difference in reactions between someone writing a story where the female protagonist falls in love with Darth Vader vs one where the female protagonist falls in love with Adolf Hitler...

The reaction is the same. "Someone's horny."

That goth girl in the movie about Hitler reawakening in modern day Germany also had the hots for him.

 

[ManoftheHour333]

I'm still not too sure how practical an aboriginal civ would be.
Regardless we did get the Maori, which to me being indigenous to New Zealand is close enough for me.

It's true that it'd be difficult given the variety and lack of cohesion around what we know about Australian aborniginals/ TS Islanders, as well as the "civ model" of a civ. And then there's always the touchy topic of whether groups actually want to be included. But at the same time, Civ has made civs around the Mapuche (VI) and Shoshone (V) which I would argue were also tough to do and yet were done decently-especially in the case of Mapuche. So...I think FXS could find a way. Yeah it might mean some slight historical inaccuracies (i.e. using a more modern leader with an ancient/classical-era UI or UB again) but I would gladly take anything that would represent that part of the world better. But yeah I agree that don't know how it'd exactly work...gotta have faith in FXS though!

I would argue the Maori are definitely more Polynesian in character...it's pretty radically different from the aboriginal Australians. Like even their food sources differred...Maori on Aoteroa hunted flightless birds while Aboriginals and their dingo companions hunted marsupials! Nevermind one is much more seafaring-focussed...I would honestly say we should have 4 "oceania" civs to represent the region: Maori, Tonga/Hawai'i, Aborginal-Australian Civ, and Australia. 4 out of the 60-70 expected civs is just what has to be done out of fairness for the region.

 

[UWHabs]

It's true that it'd be difficult given the variety and lack of cohesion around what we know about Australian aborniginals/ TS Islanders, as well as the "civ model" of a civ. And then there's always the touchy topic of whether groups actually want to be included. But at the same time, Civ has made civs around the Mapuche (VI) and Shoshone (V) which I would argue were also tough to do and yet were done decently-especially in the case of Mapuche. So...I think FXS could find a way. Yeah it might mean some slight historical inaccuracies (i.e. using a more modern leader with an ancient/classical-era UI or UB again) but I would gladly take anything that would represent that part of the world better. But yeah I agree that don't know how it'd exactly work...gotta have faith in FXS though!

I would argue the Maori are definitely more Polynesian in character...it's pretty radically different from the aboriginal Australians. Like even their food sources differred...Maori on Aoteroa hunted flightless birds while Aboriginals and their dingo companions hunted marsupials! Nevermind one is much more seafaring-focussed...I would honestly say we should have 4 "oceania" civs to represent the region: Maori, Tonga/Hawai'i, Aborginal-Australian Civ, and Australia. 4 out of the 60-70 expected civs is just what has to be done out of fairness for the region.

I don't think any civ version has gotten up to 60-70, 50 I think is the most they got to. So I wouldn't expect all 4 of those, along with maybe an Indonesia as well from Oceania (never mind considering whether any other civs like Malaysia or the Phillipines would make it in). They have certainly expanded out how much they include from the region over the past few iterations, so it certainly wouldn't surprise me if they ended up with 4 civs from the region total (Indonesia, Australia, Maori, and one other, for example).

But yeah, the whole post-colonial vs pre-colonial divide is always a tough one. I'd definitely like to see at least a second native civ from the Canada/US territories. The Mapuche was a nice change, but I could certainly see them swap them out for another South American civ instead (maybe the Tupi, or maybe something Carribean). Although given that I think the Mapuche was pretty popular, it wouldn't shock me if they did come back.

 

[bene_legionary]

I'll be upfront in that I know very little about the culture and history (and have not had the time to look into it recently), but Queen Zenobia of Palmyra might be an interesting civilization to depict. I do know that the Palmyrene state existed for a shorter period than Gran Colombia (and that one has had its share of controversy for that!) but from the little I've read, even under the Romans it had a notable influence in the Middle East, through trade and culture. Is it base game material? Probably not, and other Middle Eastern civilizations would likely be better picks (Babylon, Assyria, Pheonicia...) yet, it would be something different.

 

[Patine]

I'm still not too sure how practical an aboriginal civ would be.

If it involves a deceased leader, it won't happen.

That means certain leaders have to be off the table such as Hitler for Germany, Mao for China

Or probably not even Jefferson Davis, or D.F. Malan or Paul Kruger, for that matter, realistically.

 

[Patine]

And I would match that with. Gamal Abdul Nasser to Lead Egypt. If this franchise is ok with Queen Victoria, under whom the sadistic British Empire committed so many atrocities and especially in Africa. We can have figures who began breaking that Empire.

I think stacking so many leaders in such a recent time period defeats the point of the game. This is Civilization, not Supremacy or Ultamatum (even though those were very cool board games in their day and for their purpose).

 

[Patine]

As long as we also get Ian Smith.

Rhodesia was a doomed and immensely flawed and broken, nay unsustainable and unviable, nation from it's inception. And it's doom led the way to be replaced by a horrible tyranny.

 

[Patine]

Stalin was an evil man but he was here since civ 1.

But he didn't stay very long.

 

[Patine]

How is that an answer?

Who personally remembers the horrors of Genghis Khan, today?

 

[Patine]

Technically not a Nazi, as he was never a member of the party. He was an officer of the German military and served the government of the time (faithfully almost to the end, when he participated in the assassination attempt).

Not all Germans were Nazis and I think it's important to remember that. You can blame Rommel for being an enabler and not resigning his commission when Hitler came to power, but the question of the proper response of professional soldiers in such circumstances is a thorny one. We still, in democracies, expect our military to follow the orders of the duly elected civilian government and not meddle in or influence government policy.

Terrible choice for a Civ leader for Germany, though, regardless. Shouldn't even be considered.

There are journals and letters by Robert E. Lee to his daughter that indicated that he didn't see slavery as a viable, long-term institution, and saw the Confederacy as a doomed house of cards by nature. He may have been in a similar boat to Rommel. Plus, both were both respected and capable officers before the respective political regime changes.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Don't underestimate the fascination for villains. After all what would Star Wars be without the love fans have for Darth Vader. Evil does have a knack drawing interest.

Darth Vader was fictional though, and redeemable.

I would argue the Maori are definitely more Polynesian in character...it's pretty radically different from the aboriginal Australians. Like even their food sources differred...Maori on Aoteroa hunted flightless birds while Aboriginals and their dingo companions hunted marsupials! Nevermind one is much more seafaring-focussed...I would honestly say we should have 4 "oceania" civs to represent the region: Maori, Tonga/Hawai'i, Aborginal-Australian Civ, and Australia. 4 out of the 60-70 expected civs is just what has to be done out of fairness for the region.

Yes, the Maori are Polynesian. But I guess in my view I don't mind them being more broader by region. For example, I wouldn't mind getting Argentina, and then the Muisca. They inhabited different parts of South America, just not necessarily the same land. The same could be said for the Maori and Australia both from Oceania

Or probably not even Jefferson Davis, or D.F. Malan or Paul Kruger, for that matter, realistically.

I doubt we'd ever get the Confederate States, because he'd make no sense for America.

 

[Patine]

The same could be said for the Maori and Australia both from Oceania

Well, no, such a similarity couldn't really be said with any sincerity or being informed or educated about either. They have next to nothing in common, really.

 

[Vahnstad]

I'm on board for four Oceania civs.

 

[Patine]

I'm on board for four Oceania civs.

Unfortunately, the Australian Aborigines couldn't be among them, because we can't have a deceased leader portrayed to their taboos, but a living one does work either. There should, however, be one Polynesian, one Melanesian, one Micronesian, and one Papuan or an extra one of the above three.