Civilization VII Civs and Leaders Wishlist [Not a Prediction]

[Lord Lakely]

Yeah, Sargon for Sumer makes no sense to me.

Akkad was a different empire entirely, and the culture was also very meaningfully different (entirely different and unrelated languages for instance).

I think there's a lot of different material to pull from to differentiate Akkad too. Sargon could have a big militaristic, conquest focus, and the civ ability could be something dealing with empire management. After all, Akkad was the first real empire in the world (in the sense of centralized control over more than one "nationality").

I'd really like to see Akkad in Civ 7, actually.

True, but Sargon would make a decent substitution for both Sumer and Babylon, combining elements of both (warmongering leader for a Civ that is good at agriculture and science), and leaving room for Assyria (which can be an expansionist civ that is good at economics and culture). You'd get him specifically so you don't need to include Sumer and Babylon, and can introduce a different Civ from the area.

And I agree that he should lead the Akkadians, and not the Sumerians. Make it happen.

 

[IgorS]

My top-10 leaders who were absent from Civ VI whom I wouldn't mind the most seeing in Civ VII

1. Ashoka
2. Hatshepsut
3. Louis XIV
4. Harun al-Rashid
5. Taizong (was a "secret" leader instead of Mao in the Chinese versions of Civ III and Civ IV)
6. Casimir
7. Frederick
8. Mehmed II
9. Darius I
10. Kamehameha (but as a leader of Hawaii, not Polynesia)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Alexander as a DLC ONLY thing is also okay with me, because I like to have the option to skip him entirely.

Unless he comes bundled with Persia again.

True, but Sargon would make a decent substitution for both Sumer and Babylon, combining elements of both (warmongering leader for a Civ that is good at agriculture and science), and leaving room for Assyria (which can be an expansionist civ that is good at economics and culture).

And I agree that he should lead the Akkadians, and not the Sumerians. Make it happen.

As interesting as that might be I don't believe they would outright replace Babylon, being one of the original 12 civilizations in the original game.
Personally, I wouldn't mind Assyria and Sumer (as long as it's not just Gilgamesh the civ) over Babylon, but ideally, I'd want all three.

 

[Patine]

7. Frederick

Which Frederick? The monarchical name has a few good options, both German and Danish.

 

[pokiehl]

True, but Sargon would make a decent substitution for both Sumer and Babylon, combining elements of both (warmongering leader for a Civ that is good at agriculture and science), and leaving room for Assyria (which can be an expansionist civ that is good at economics and culture). You'd get him specifically so you don't need to include Sumer and Babylon, and can introduce a different Civ from the area.

And I agree that he should lead the Akkadians, and not the Sumerians. Make it happen.

I think all 3 are easily warranted, honestly. Plus the Hittites.

 

[Patine]

I think all 3 are easily warranted, honestly. Plus the Hittites.

I think that would depend on how generous and expansive Civ7 will be with total number of civ's, really.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I think all 3 are easily warranted, honestly. Plus the Hittites.

You run into problems for uniques and city names if you have Akkadians, Babylonians AND Sumerians. Two is the absolute upper limit.

And since Akkadians are kind of the middle stage in the Sumer => Akkad => Babylon pipeline, I think they can be a substitute for both.

Once again I agree with the Hittites. There's a lot more information available on the Hittites than there was at the time of Civ 3. If you can have Gaul with Ambiorix speaking reconstructed Gallic, then you can definitely have a leader speak reconstructed Hittite, which as a language is much better attested.

 

[Lord Lakely]

ALSO, I think the main reason why I want Akkad this time around is because there's no stupidity or fuss about how it should be build. Sargon, Ziggurats, War Carts. City list that has both Sumerian and Babylonian cities (under their Akkadian names). Civ ability focused on food, leader ability focused on conquering City States.

Babylon and Sumer were both clow car Civs in the 6th game, time for an actual Cradle of Civilization representative that isn't a full meme.

 

[Krajzen]

One thing I absolutely hate about Civ is when they make a civ that is basically made because they wanted a certain leader in the game. Macedon was not a Macedon civ, but an Alexander the Great civ. And Gran Colombia was a Bolivar civ. And in Civ V the Huns were an Attila civ. And in civ IV Holy Rome was basically a Charlemagne civ. Yes, there are lots of interesting figures in history that could've been great leaders for Civ, but if there is no civilization they can lead, just make them great generals or something, and move on. For this reason I don't want Tamerlane as a leader. What civ will he lead? The Uzbeks? This is kind of a stretch, just like Nzinga Mbande leading Kongo. The Timurids? Who are the Timurids? Are they a nation? Is there a Timurid ethnicity? National identity? Culture? Language?

Timurid Empire was simply very important empire, which contrary to the popular opinion was not "one man civ", since the Timur's son, Shah Rukh, spent four decades being very good ruler, to the point he'd be fully justified to be Civ leader on his own.

Timurid Empire could be a representation of the urban civilizations of Islamic Central Asia - I honestly don't know any better candidate, you get only empheral multicultural dynasties in this area. We'd certainly make Uzbeks happy, since that's one of the only ways to put their country in the spotlight. That's also why I disagree with the criticism of Gran Colombia as "one man civ" - Bolivar was not the only good here: this was also the best/only way to include Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador.

"Are they a nation? Is there a Timurid ethnicity? National identity? Culture? Language?"

Are Ottomans a nation, ethnicity, identity, culture, language? Do "Scythians", "Gauls", "Mayans" or oft proposed "Native Australians" fit such definition? And what is "India" or "Arabia"? Everything can get in as long as it depicts cool culture.

 

[Lord Lakely]

AoE2 introduced the Timurids as the Tatars, which I think is okay. Tatars, Sogians, or Uzbeks are the only real renames you can make for the TimTims and all three are kind of awkward. I see no issues in having The Timurids as a standalone Civ under their proper name.

 

[IgorS]

Are Ottomans a nation, ethnicity, identity, culture, language?

No. This is why I always rename them in my game to Turkey.

Do "Scythians", "Gauls", "Mayans" or oft proposed "Native Australians" fit such definition? And what is "India" or "Arabia"? Everything can get in as long as it depicts cool culture.

Yes, they do.
And the difference is very obvious: while "Ottomans", "Timurids", "Holy Romans" etc. are all political entities and names, Scythians, Gauls and Mayans, while not being countries and never sharing the same leaders, they do share the same ethnicity and cultural elements. India has actually become one country in real life, and there were a few times in history when pretty much the entire subcontinent was under a single rule, so the idea of a united Indian civilization is not fiction. As for Arabia, the Arabs come from the Arabian peninsula, so their origins are in the same place, and they built their empire from Arabia.

This is why I have no problem with civs like India, Indonesia, Mayab, Scythia or Gaul, but strongly oppose the inclusion of such "civs" as Holy Rome, Timurids, Soviet Union, Gran Colombia, etc.

And as for Aboriginal Australians, this is obviously a wrong idea, because it is basically saying that all people on a continent are the same. It is just like making a Native America civilization (looking at you, Civ IV), or a Germanic Europe civilization, or a black Africa civilization, or a Far East civilization. Well, you got the point)))

 

[IgorS]

Which Frederick? The monarchical name has a few good options, both German and Danish.

The one who was in previous Civ games. It is a list with leaders who have "sat out" on Civ VI.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

No. This is why I always rename them in my game to Turkey.

But the Barbary corsairs and Janissaries weren't Turks, so does that mean you couldn't have them as uniques?

Yes, they do.
And the difference is very obvious: while "Ottomans", "Timurids", "Holy Romans" etc. are all political entities and names, Scythians, Gauls and Mayans, while not being countries and never sharing the same leaders, they do share the same ethnicity and cultural elements. India has actually become one country in real life, and there were a few times in history when pretty much the entire subcontinent was under a single rule, so the idea of a united Indian civilization is not fiction. As for Arabia, the Arabs come from the Arabian peninsula, so their origins are in the same place, and they built their empire from Arabia.

This is why I have no problem with civs like India, Indonesia, Mayab, Scythia or Gaul, but strongly oppose the inclusion of such "civs" as Holy Rome, Timurids, Soviet Union, Gran Colombia, etc.

I half understand what you are trying to say.
Honestly concepts like India and Indonesia fall under the same criteria as the Ottomans and Timurids as they all have been political entities, at some point in history however with different ethnicities and cultures as well.
So in that view I don't see the problem with civs such as the Timurids or Gran Colombia (which could just be renamed Colombia).
Now for the Holy Romans, they should just be called the Franks if lead by Charlemagne or be part of a German civ. And well the Soviet Union just shouldn't happen. If anything, Russia could just maybe get a Soviet Era UU, and that would be fine by me.

And as for Aboriginal Australians, this is obviously a wrong idea, because it is basically saying that all people on a continent are the same. It is just like making a Native America civilization (looking at you, Civ IV), or a Germanic Europe civilization, or a black Africa civilization, or a Far East civilization. Well, you got the point)))

I don't think anyone is actually asking for a singular Aboriginal civ. When they want an Aboriginal civ I assume they are just asking for a singular group.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

10. Kamehameha (but as a leader of Hawaii, not Polynesia

I have to hope that this atrocious blobbing from Civ 5 was called out at the time, right?

(Also I like your list )

 

[IgorS]

But the Barbary corsairs and Janissaries weren't Turks, so does that mean you couldn't have them as uniques?

They served the Turks, so they are an integral part of the Turkish civilization. Just like the Finnish Hakkapeliitas can be unique units for Sweden. While a civilization should be focused around an ethnicity or a national concept (Americans are not an ethnicity, but they are definitely a nation), everything related to the civilization's history can be used in its design, even if these are "foreign" elements. When Turkey was the Ottoman Empire it controlled many foreign lands, and you can't ignore this fact if, like with the Janissaries, the elite unit of their army was of foreign origin. It was, after all, the Ottoman authorities who had created it and put it under their service.

 

[IgorS]

I have to hope that this atrocious blobbing from Civ 5 was called out at the time, right?

(Also I like your list )

I think Civ VI has showed us that blobbing is most likely a thing of past. We no longer have Vikings, Celts, Polynesians, and Native Americans.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

They served the Turks, so they are an integral part of the Turkish civilization. Just like the Finnish Hakkapeliitas can be unique units for Sweden. While a civilization should be focused around an ethnicity or a national concept (Americans are not an ethnicity, but they are definitely a nation), everything related to the civilization's history can be used in its design, even if these are "foreign" elements. When Turkey was the Ottoman Empire it controlled many foreign lands, and you can't ignore this fact if, like with the Janissaries, the elite unit of their army was of foreign origin. It was, after all, the Ottoman authorities who had created it and put it under their service.

I guess that still doesn't answer the question of I still don't understand what is the problem with the term using the "Ottomans" over the "Turks"?

I think Civ VI has showed us that blobbing is most likely a thing of past. We no longer have Vikings, Celts, Polynesians, and Native Americans.

Speaking of blobbing, calling a civ the Turks, or Turkish, seems like that would be kind of blobby as well considering the Turkish people as a group lived from Anatolia to Central Asia.

 

[Patine]

Speaking of blobbing, calling a civ the Turks, or Turkish, seems like that would be kind of blobby as well considering the Turkish people as a group lived from Anatolia to Central Asia.

Technically, parts of the Balkans, Anatolia, Crimea, the Volga Valley and the Caucausus to Western China and Central Siberia.

 

[Krajzen]

No. This is why I always rename them in my game to Turkey.

Fair and consistent, but it's actually debatable whether "Ottomans" can be reduced to just "Turkish culture and identity", seeing how great role in the empire was played by non-Turks (Albanians, Bosniaks, Greeks, Armenians, Arabs, Circassians, European Muslims etc). To make matters even more messy, the adjective "Turks" referred to a ton of different Eurasian groups. So on one hand you have modern nationalist state of Turkey, and on the other hand you have the empire where sultan has blood of like five different nations, his wife is Greek, grand vizier is Albanian, and they speak Turkish, Arabic (in law and religion) and Persian (in high culture).


The rest of your argumentation was fairly convincing, but

Yes, they do.
And the difference is very obvious: while "Ottomans", "Timurids", "Holy Romans" etc. are all political entities and names, Scythians, Gauls and Mayans, while not being countries and never sharing the same leaders, they do share the same ethnicity and cultural elements.

This approach creates a lot of problems in North Africa, Middle East and Central Asia, where the relations betwen political regimes, cultures, languages, identities have been very messy and history there has been ususually defined around ephemeral dynasties. The reason why I am a fan of Timurids is, like I said, because there I want to see Central Asian civ and in this region it is almost impossible to find clear-cut historical "cultures" neatly separated from other cultures and not being ruled together as part of multicultural political regimes. The history of Uzbek, Tajik cultural identities is messy as hell.

How do we represent those peoples and their region, which had great cultural wealth and enormous importance for two thousand years?

 

[IgorS]

Fair and consistent, but it's actually debatable whether "Ottomans" can be reduced to just "Turkish culture and identity", seeing how great role in the empire was played by non-Turks (Albanians, Bosniaks, Greeks, Armenians, Arabs, Circassians, European Muslims etc).

Again, the empire was Turkish, not Albanian, Bosnian, Greek, etc. It was centered on Turkey, ruled from Istanbul, the main language was Turkish. And when it fell apart it turned into the modern state of Turkey, because this is what it basically was: Turkey + conquered lands.

This approach creates a lot of problems in North Africa, Middle East and Central Asia, where the relations betwen political regimes, cultures, languages, identities have been very messy and history there has been ususually defined around ephemeral dynasties. The reason why I am a fan of Timurids is, like I said, because there I want to see Central Asian civ and in this region it is almost impossible to find clear-cut historical "cultures" neatly separated from other cultures and not being ruled together as part of multicultural political regimes. The history of Uzbek, Tajik cultural identities is messy as hell.

How do we represent those peoples and their region, which had great cultural wealth and enormous importance for two thousand years?

Easy. We focus on the people, not the political entities. Like with the Uzbeks, there were a few Uzbek states in history, there were Uzbek leaders, such as Muhammad Shayboniy. There is no need to go to Tamerlan and create a Timurid civ.

I guess that still doesn't answer the question of I still don't understand what is the problem with the term using the "Ottomans" over the "Turks"?

It is like calling the Russians "Romanovs" (or "Soviets"), or the English "Tudors" or "Stuarts". The Ottoman Empire was an episode of Turkish history, albeit a very long one.

Speaking of blobbing, calling a civ the Turks, or Turkish, seems like that would be kind of blobby as well considering the Turkish people as a group lived from Anatolia to Central Asia.

Technically, parts of the Balkans, Anatolia, Crimea, the Volga Valley and the Caucausus to Western China and Central Siberia.

You are confusing the terms "Turkic" and "Turkish".