Civilization Wishlist for Civ VII

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

There has been threads going around about what people want to see for Civ 7, but I have yet to see a thread dedicated to people's ultimate wish list of what playable civs that you want, however ideal or not.

Theoretically I would see Civ 7 making it to at least 60 civs so that will be my limit. I'll also separate them by geographical regions but everyone else can list them how you want.

Americas:
1. America
2. Argentina (replaces Gran Colombia thematically but Mapuche geographically)
3. Aztec
4. Brazil
5. Haiti (replaces Canada)
6. Inca
7. Iroquois
8. Maya
9. Muisca (replaces Mapuche thematically but Gran Colombia geographically)
10. Navajo
11. Tlingit/Haida (Without Canada I think we could realistically fit at least 3 Native American civs, especially by putting in a PNW too. I do think that in Civ 6 North America got the short end of the stick while every other continent got more civs than the previous iteration.)

Africa:
12. Angola (instead of Kongo)
13. Berbers
14. Benin (the kingdom from present-day Nigeria)
15. Egypt
16. Ethiopia
17. Mali
18. Nubia
19. Swahili
20. Zulu

Europe:
21. Austria ( I just want Maria Theresa back)
22. Byzantines
23. Dutch
24. England
25. France
26. Germany
27. Greece (Though with Alexander back as well as another leader)
28. Goths (Based off of Classical Era and replaces Gauls at least thematically)
29. Ireland (Consolidation of Scotland and Gauls into one "Celtic" civ again)
30. Italy
31. Norway (Denmark could still work as long as there is some Viking elements)
32. Poland
33. Portugal
34. Rome
35. Romania (Might as well get a vampire civ this time and foray into non Poland/Russia East Europe)
36. Russia
37. Spain
38. Sweden

East and Central/South Asia:
39. China
40. India
41. Indonesia
42. Japan
43. Korea
44. Khmer
45. Mongolia
46. Mughals (Initially based more around Pakistan/Lahore to make it separate from India)
47. Scythia (I'm open to the Huns or any other steppe nomads if a cool concept is behind them)
48. Siam (A more Industrial era representation of SE Asia would be nice)
49. Vietnam

Middle East:
50. Assyria
51. Arabia
52. Armenia (Though I'd be personally fine with Georgia returning as well)
53. Babylon
54. Ottomans
55. Persia
56. Phoenicia (Again like last time but this time so another civilization can also spawn in North Africa)
57. Sumer

Oceania:
58. Australia
59. Maori (more land based)
60. Samoa (traditional Polynesian wayfinding civ though Tonga or Hawaii works well enough)

Honorable Mentions:
Franks- A Frankish civ with Charlemagne would be nice but with me adding Goths and Austria, already on top of Germany and France I thought that might be too many Germanic people groups in the game. Plus I would rather have Romania with Vlad Tepes as the obligatory civ created for a specific leader this time around.

Burma/Tibet- I mean why not consider it? I decided to leave it off because it most likely won't happen but at least we have many other religious civs from the area that can play similarly to them.

 

[Zaarin]

As important as the Ottomans are, I wouldn't mind seeing them sit out a game in favor of the Seljuqs under Alp Arslan.

I'm in the middle of a job and don't have time to list out every civ I'd like to see at the moment so I'll just list some highlights:

1. I want Assyria back. Badly. And I don't want it to be the uber conquest civ. I'd like to see Assyria portrayed a great deal like Civ6 Persia: a culture/builder civ that's also very effective at warfare. Absolutely 100% no to Semiramis/Šammuram. Ancient Mesopotamia is not the place to look for female rulers, but if Assyria must be led by a woman choose Šērū’a-ēṭirat. Better yet, choose Kubaba (Kug̃bau) for Sumer, and give us Esarhaddon for Assyria. (Why not Sennacherib? While he engaged in many a building project, he's too closely associated with "Sennacherib at the Gates of the Jerusalem" and will amplify the temptation to make Assyria a pure warmonger civ.)
2. For the love of all the bodhisattvas, make Korea a culture civ for once. This probably means not Joseon.
3. Tamar was fun, but in the long run Armenia is a better candidate for Caucasus representation.
4. I do want to see Phoenicia keep returning. Dido is fine, but Phoenicia does have other options. If we get Carthage again I hope they're still portrayed more like Civ6 Phoenicia, and I hope we don't get Dido or Hannibal--there are other choices.
5. Sogdia, Kushan, or some other settled pre-Islamic Central Asian civ. I would take, in addition but not instead, an Afghan/Pashtun civ, as well.
6. Bohemia.
7. At least two Native American civs, with Powhatan and Tlingit getting my votes.
8. Palmyra led by Zenobia would be a fun dark horse.
9. Can we get Maya in the base game and Aztecs later for once please and thank you?
10. A more eastern-facing Russia.
11. As close to zero nation-states as the marketing team can be convinced not to foist upon us.
12. Sassanid Persia would be a nice change.
13. Now that we've broken out of the Edo period, I'd like to see Heian Japan.
14. I am the "give me all the Ancient Near Eastern civs" person, but I actually don't want Sumer back if 1) it must come with Gilgamesh (give me Gudea or Ur-Nammu or even Kubaba) or 2) it crowds out Assyria.
15. The Scythian/Huns niche does not need filling; they should instead be represented by minor civs. Call them Scythians, Huns, Xiongnu, Rouran, Yuezhi, Kassites, whatever. For later horse lords, Cumania gets my vote. The Cuman language is the best-attested of older Turkic languages, and they did have cities. Plus they have pop culture presence thanks to Kingdom Come: Deliverance and Age of Kings: Definitive Edition.
16. I have no strong opinions about which Polynesian civ gets chosen, but the Maori were a poor choice for "generic wayfinding Polynesian civ."
17. Yes to Ireland.
18. Also yes to Norway returning; how about "Byssan Lull" for a theme this time? The game Lucidity featured an absolutely haunting arrangement of it.
19. If we're going to balkanize a major Western European country, I'd rather have Alfred the Great leading the Anglo-Saxons or his daughter Æþelflæd leading Mercia.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

2. For the love of all the bodhisattvas, make Korea a culture civ for once. This probably means not Joseon.

I've been thinking about a cool design for Korea and think that this would work:
If districts do return again the Seowon could return as campus/science district replacement like it is now. But instead of producing science why not let the district itself yield culture outright instead. It should be doable considering we have in Civ 6 Vietnam's Thanh is an Encampment that produces culture.
The buildings inside such as the library and the university could still produce science though as normally.

19. If we're going to balkanize a major Western European country, I'd rather have Alfred the Great leading the Anglo-Saxons or his daughter Æþelflæd leading Mercia.

Then they'd better enlarge the TSL map especially if we get Ireland as well. Because we know we are getting England.

 

[Zaarin]

If districts do return again the Seowon could return as campus/science district replacement like it is now. But instead of producing science why not let the district itself yield culture outright instead. It should be doable considering we have in Civ 6 Vietnam's Thanh is an Encampment that produces culture.
The buildings inside such as the library and the university could still produce science though as normally.

That could work.

Then they'd better enlarge the TSL map especially if we get Ireland as well. Because we know we are getting England.

I've said before and I'll say it again: TSL is a good reason to include a civ but a bad reason to exclude one. Europe and the Middle East are always going to be overcrowded anyway. (I'm all for a larger/better Real Earth map, though. The one that came with Civ6 is garbage; there are decent modded ones, of course, like YnAEMP.) In Civ5 I always played the Real Earth or Scrambled Earth map, but not with TSL. Civ6, with its "play the map" features, made random maps more appealing to me.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I've said before and I'll say it again: TSL is a good reason to include a civ but a bad reason to exclude one. Europe and the Middle East are always going to be overcrowded anyway.

I agree with all of this. My point was I'm fine with not having 4 or more civs from the British Isles. I'd rather crowd other places first.

 

[Zaarin]

I agree with all of this. My point was I'm fine with not having 4 or more civs from the British Isles. I'd rather crowd other places first.

Anglo-Saxons/Mercia aren't on the top of my wishlist, either, and I'm not eager to balkanize any part of Europe. But I'd rank both Anglo-Saxons and Brittany above Francia personally. I understand the appeal of Charlemagne--he's like King Arthur but real--but culturally I find the Bretons and Anglo-Saxons more interesting than the Franks. Also Old English is just gorgeous to listen to. Do yourself a favor and look up one of Benjamin Bagby's recitations of Beowulf. Any of the three would chiefly be chosen for their charismatic leaders, though: Charlemagne, Alfred/Æþelflæd, and Joanna of Flanders.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Anglo-Saxons/Mercia aren't on the top of my wishlist, either, and I'm not eager to balkanize any part of Europe. But I'd rank both Anglo-Saxons and Brittany above Francia personally. I understand the appeal of Charlemagne--he's like King Arthur but real--but culturally I find the Bretons and Anglo-Saxons more interesting than the Franks. Also Old English is just gorgeous to listen to. Do yourself a favor and look up one of Benjamin Bagby's recitations of Beowulf. Any of the three would chiefly be chosen for their charismatic leaders, though: Charlemagne, Alfred/Æþelflæd, and Joanna of Flanders.

Oh I see.
Yeah that's why I put the Franks as an honorable mention, which to me would fall under the Macedon/Greek situation, where I could live with or without it. Plus I'd rather Maria Theresa for Austria if we get some sort of "HRE" civ.

I still think Alfred the Great would fall under a leader of England personally, though I understand that's debatable. As for Charlemagne, putting him for France or Germany to me would be harder. For that reason, without going into a dual leader situation again, a separate Frankish civ only makes since for him.

 

[BuchiTaton]

5. Sogdia, Kushan, or some other settled pre-Islamic Central Asian civ. I would take, in addition but not instead, an Afghan/Pashtun civ, as well.
..........
12. Sassanid Persia would be a nice change.
.............
15. The Scythian/Huns niche does not need filling; they should instead be represented by minor civs. Call them Scythians, Huns, Xiongnu, Rouran, Yuezhi, Kassites, whatever. For later horse lords, Cumania gets my vote. The Cuman language is the best-attested of older Turkic languages, and they did have cities. Plus they have pop culture presence thanks to Kingdom Come: Deliverance and Age of Kings: Definitive Edition.

I would like to see the Hephthalites (Huna*), they still have the nomadic origin but did not transtorned the culture and religion of Central Asia as much as later islamic and turkic conquerors. They cover both side of the Silk Route on Sogdiana+Bactria and the Tarim Basin, used the Bactrian language and even if not devoted as the buddhist Kushans, Haphtalites allowed to coexist buddhism, zoroastrianism, manichaeism and nestorianism (seem like the Buddhas of Bamiyan were builded on their time). Also have and interesting relation with the Sassanids (so instead of Achaemenid+Scythians we could have Sassanid+Hephthalites).

*EDIT*: Gurkani could represent the later Tukic-Islamic history of Central Asia, with the liberty of Akbar with capital in Lahore covering their influence on the other side of the Hindu Kush.

 

[Zaarin]

I still think Alfred the Great would fall under a leader of England personally, though I understand that's debatable.

For me the cultural distance between the Anglo-Saxons and post-Norman England is too great to think of them as the same civ. I think you can make a case for it, but for me it doesn't work.

I would like to see the Hephthalites (Huna*), they still have the nomadic origin but did not transtorned the culture and religion of Central Asia as much as later islamic and turkic conquerors. They cover both side of the Silk Route on Sogdiana+Bactria and the Tarim Basin, used the Bactrian language and even if not devoted as the buddhist Kushans, Haphtalites allowed to coexist buddhism, zoroastrianism, manichaeism and nestorianism (seem like the Buddhas of Bamiyan were builded on their time). Also have and interesting relation with the Sassanids (so instead of Achaemenid+Scythians we could have Sassanid+Hephthalites).

The Hephthalites would be another great Central Asian option, yeah.

 

[Xandinho]

This is a nice mental exercise.
My wishlist is very similar to the @Alexander's Hetaroi's one, with some changes here and there.

Americas:
1. America
2. Aztec
3. Brazil
4. Canada (Canada in the game with 60 civilizations won't hurt, imo )
5. Cherokee (I don't know enough about North American natives, I included Cherokee as the third NA native because they are one of the most (or the most?) populous indigenous nations in NA).
6. Gran Colombia (I used to prefer Argentina, but maybe GC has been a better choice because the historical importance of Simon Bolivar, and because it's seems to be more culturally unique than Argentina. But if they decide to choose Argentina instead, I wouldn't mind).
7. Inca
8. Iroquois
9. Maya
10. Muisca (replacing Mapuche)
11. Navajo

*In this list, the south of SA would be empty, it doesn't seem to be a thing that the devs would do, since they seem to care about TSL. However, I wouldn't care about that, since both Brazil and Inca can expand to there. Anyway, Argentina would be my 12º choice.

Africa:
12. Ashanti
13. Berbers
14. Egypt
15. Ethiopia
16. Kongo
17. Mali
18. Nubia
19. Swahili
20. Zulu

*Madagascar could come instead of Swahili.

Europe:
21. Austria
22. Byzantines
23. Denmark (I wouldn't mind seeing Norway again)
24. Dutch
25. England
26. France
27. Gaul
28. Germany
29. Greece
30. Hungary
31. Macedon (I prefer it separed from Greece)
32. Poland
33. Portugal
34. Republic of Venice
35. Rome
36. Romania
37. Russia
38. Spain
39. Sweden

*As much as I want Goths, I think they can easily be introduced as a Barbarian clan or as minor Civilization, anything like that.
**Romania can be replaced by Bulgaria.

East and Central/South Asia:
40. China (In my ideal world, China gets three leaders: Qin Shi Huang, a leader from Ming dynasty and the third from Tang dynasty. A boy can dream ).
41. India (same in the case of China, three leaders: Ashoka - to represent Maurya, Akbar the Great - to represent Mughal, and Gandhi - to represent modern India).
42. Indonesia
43. Japan
44. Korea
45. Khmer
46. Mongolia
47. Parthia (replacing Scythia)
48. Siam
49. Vietnam

Middle East:
50. Assyria
51. Arabia (maybe we can have two arab leaders?).
52. Armenia (since Tamar became a meme, Georgia is far more likely than Armenia, but I think Armenia would be more interesting)
53. Babylon
54. Ottomans
55. Persia (can have two leaders: an Achaemenid leader and a Sassanid leader).
56. Phoenicia
57. Sumer

Oceania:
58. Australia
59. Maori
60. Tonga

 

[Zaarin]

Cherokee (I don't know enough about North American natives, I included Cherokee as the third NA native because they are one of the most (or the most?) populous indigenous nations in NA).

I think they're third in North America; they're second in the US after the Navajo. They're definitely the richest, though. The Cherokee have been very successful in business. Some of their leader choices are problematic, though.

Parthia (replacing Scythia)

I've advocated for this before and considered it in my list, but I felt awkward advocating both the Arsacids and the Sassanids so I went with the Sassanids and proposed leaving the "early horse nomad" niche to minor civilizations. I do still like the idea, though.

Armenia (since Tamar became a meme, Georgia is far more likely than Armenia, but I think Armenia would be more interesting)

At least they're aware of the region now, which opens up new possibilities. I feel like Tamar was a one-off; if anything, I could see her being replaced by Zenobia of Palmyra, another obscure-ish but powerful female leader who has been championed here frequently. (I just hope that, if they feature Zenobia, she represents a broader Aramaic civilization and isn't just a Big Personality civ like Civ6's Sumer.)

 

[Irealys]

I haven't looked at anyone's entry, those are just off the top of my head real quick, I'll read the other posts and have a more detailed one later.
1- The return of Canada.
2- Smaller, more numerous units
3- Stop having Ghandi be the crazy murdered leader. Have Canada be that next time.
4- A better set of modding tolls.
5- DLCs that are more than always a Civ/mode or the expansions that add a lot. The different game modes seem to have been fun different ways to play a game already intended to be infinitely replayable. A DLC that would have a completely new paint work (let's say like fantasy... so that someone doesn't have to do it himself for the next game...) with unique crazy things.
6- No seriously the units... please bring them back to a scale that didn't look insane. We know they cannot be TO scale but I always prefer to see an army be 12 small guys and not ONE big guy.

That's all I got right now, be back when I had the time to read

 

[jsciv69]

Adding to the Civilizations that are sure to return
Mexico-Benito Juarez
Venezuela-José Antonio Páez
Colombia(changing from Gran-Colombia)-Rafael Núñez
Argentina-Juan Domingo Perón
Cuba-Fidel Castro
Jordan- King Hussein
Lebanon-Bechara El Khoury
Israel-David Ben-Gurion
South Africa-Nelson Mandela
Afghanistan-Amanullah Khan
Ireland-Michael Collins
Romania-Vlad Dracula

 

[Krajzen]

I wouldn't be offended if they did slightly less civilizations but gave each of them more creative, coherent and actively game changing mechanics. A lot of factions in civ6 are just an enormous amount (12 - 15) of various bonuses slapoed together, which is cognitively hard to grasp and remember, messy, and most of that is insignificant anyway. Unique units also often had very basic bonuses not changing their tactical use, and most of unique buildings are just +x to something. Make civilizations more distinctive. I do recognize though that at later stages they got way more creative with factions uniques.

Make instead Rome buildinng infrastructure and administraton in different way than others; Ooland having unique government type; China having rotating dynasties; Jaoan choosing every era between isolationist cultural mode and warmongering mode; India soawning more than one religion and benefitting from all at once; Inca having their unique 'communist' central olanning economy; and so on.


Mt wishlist would include Italy, Andalusia, Assyria, Yoruba, Ireland, Bohemia, Kievan Rus, Mughals and Burma, and exclude Canada, Australia, Maouche, Cree, Scotland, Babylon, Zulu, Sweden, Columbia.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I wouldn't be offended if they did slightly less civilizations but gave each of them more creative, coherent and actively game changing mechanics. A lot of factions in civ6 are just an enormous amount (12 - 15) of various bonuses slapoed together, which is cognitively hard to grasp and remember, messy, and most of that is insignificant anyway. Unique units also often had very basic bonuses not changing their tactical use, and most of unique buildings are just +x to something. Make civilizations more distinctive. I do recognize though that at later stages they got way more creative with factions uniques.

This is a real option, there are many people asking for more deep and unique mechanics and flavor for each civ. Also have more alternative leaders and UU from different eras of the same civ. One great difficulty to have that is the ammount of work to do it, so maybe instead of a huge number of very similar shallow CIV we could get a smaller number with deep identity.

I would be OK with this if at the same time "minor civs" (city states and barbarians) have a more relevant role on game.

 

[Xandinho]

I don't think they'll decrease the number of civs in Civ7, as they tend to increase the number of civs with every interaction. Maybe 60 civs is a lot, I'm expecting something like 56 or 57 civs. I see them increasing the cultural representation through smaller political entities other than city-states, then they can go to civs like Mapuche, Zapotecs, several North American and African tribes and so on. They may focus on a smaller number of city-states (Jerusalem, Vatican City, Singapore...), but which play a more important role in the grand scheme of things. I also hope they add more alternate leaders, and that it's not restricted to half a dozen civs.

At least they're aware of the region now, which opens up new possibilities. I feel like Tamar was a one-off; if anything, I could see her being replaced by Zenobia of Palmyra, another obscure-ish but powerful female leader who has been championed here frequently. (I just hope that, if they feature Zenobia, she represents a broader Aramaic civilization and isn't just a Big Personality civ like Civ6's Sumer.)

They seem to like reproducing memes a lot, see nuclear Gandhi meme. I'm pretty convinced that Tamar will be back, although I prefer Armenia in the next interaction.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I wouldn't be offended if they did slightly less civilizations but gave each of them more creative, coherent and actively game changing mechanics.

Even if we don't get less I'm sure we will start to get more creative designs based off of many of the GS civs as well as civs from the NFP. I do agree that 50, more or less, was a good stopping point for this iteration and I agree that I wouldn't necessarily even be offended if they decided to stay there in the future.

I don't think they'll decrease the number of civs in Civ7, as they tend to increase the number of civs with every interaction. Maybe 60 civs is a lot, I'm expecting something like 56 or 57 civs.

I do think that 60 is probably to high, but I went with that number because it seemed like a nicer stopping point than ending a list at about 57 or 58, which I think would be more likely.
If that were the case I could easily reduce the Polynesian representation to just one civ. Most likely get rid of the Maori so another such as Tonga/Samoa/Hawaii has a chance. As for the other I'm not sure whether I'd want to get rid of a new European civ like Romania or a third North American tribe.

I already had to cut the Franks and Burma/Tibet and put them in honorable mentions is because with them my wish list was at 62. At least I listed them first before I counted and realized I was over.

They seem to like reproducing memes a lot, see nuclear Gandhi meme. I'm pretty convinced that Tamar will be back, although I prefer Armenia in the next interaction.

That just means we have to start making Armenia a meme.

 

[Zaarin]

Even if we don't get less I'm sure we will start to get more creative designs based off of many of the GS civs as well as civs from the NFP.

There were creative designs in NFP? (That was mean. Vietnam and the Maya were pretty fun.)

I already had to cut the Franks and Burma/Tibet and put them in honorable mentions is because with them my wish list was at 62. At least I listed them first before I counted and realized I was over.

You could have made room by cutting Argentina/Haiti/Brazil/Australia. Just saying. And that is why I don't want these postcolonial nations in the game. (That and the fact that they don't really count as "civilizations" from where I'm standing.)

That just means we have to start making Armenia a meme.

When they aCcIdEnTaLlY leak a leader poster for Civ7, we just need to pick a blurry photograph and repeatedly ask, "Have you considered it might be Tigranes the Great of Armenia?" (Hmm, Tigranes the Great is awesome, but it does feel weird having a non-Christian king of Armenia. So scratch that. "Have you considered it might be Tiridates the Great of Armenia?" )

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

There were creative designs in NFP? (That was mean. Vietnam and the Maya were pretty fun.)

I mean Gaul and Portugal weren't bad either. Gaul had a different district placement game and Portugal is the only civilization that has to build one of it's unique infrastructure in another civ or city-state.

You could have made room by cutting Argentina/Haiti/Brazil/Australia. Just saying. And that is why I don't want these postcolonial nations in the game. (That and the fact that they don't really count as "civilizations" from where I'm standing.)

Well to be fair it was the Frankish "Charlemagne" civ, a third Scandinavian civ and Tibet, which isn't going to happen probably, that I decided to forgo for them so I don't think it's a complete loss.

I did also consider Burma in place of Tibet, but considering I'd still rather have Indonesia, Khmer, Siam and Vietnam for SE Asia I thought that would be too much while not having as much in the Americas, even if they are post colonial nations.

Also I don't believe Brazil is going away any time soon after appearing in the past two games. I'd argue it's the most prominent one after America, at least on the world stage and in civ.

 

[BuchiTaton]

41. India (same in the case of China, three leaders: Ashoka - to represent Maurya, Akbar the Great - to represent Mughal, and Gandhi - to represent modern India).

Akbar was a islamic Turko-Persian that used Persian as main language with his capital on what is now Pakistan. Despite have conquered most of the subcontient both names Mughals and Gurkani refer to their link to the Mongols not to India. Finally Mughal are a complex topic of the nationalists conflict between Indians and Pakistanis (for some indians Mughals were basicaly invasors).

Maurya and Mughals were 1700 years apart, their core area are over 1200 km away, their court languages are very different, ones were buddhist and the others muslim. If they are just Indians then why Romans and Byzantines are different.