Civilization Wishlist for Civ VII

[Zaarin]

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.

Gaul didn't work for me TBH. I played one game as Gaul and found it absolutely miserable. The idea was good, but the implementation was bad (I think that's Civ6's theme song). Portugal was stupid fun and stupid broken OP.

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.

I resent Brazil less than the others, yes, even if I hate Dom Satan. I mean, I'd blithely cut the US and Brazil, but if must have a second postcolonial nation-state Brazil is the clearest choice not just for geopolitical regions but because culturally it is the most distinct from its mother state. (Including Brazil before Portugal is absurd, however.) IMO no other nation-state has developed a distinct enough culture to merit inclusion; Francophone Canada is kind of an edge case.

 

[Krajzen]

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.

The way India is represented in games like this is as if you made "Latin" or "Western" civilization and gave it Marcus Aurelius and Konrad Adenauer as leaders, "Line Infantry" as a unique unit, "Gothic Cathedral" as a unique building, "Eurooean Union" as a name of a civ trait, music theme being Gregorian Chant, and city list including a mix of major modern caoitals, Roman cities and random Christian holy sites such as Santiago de Compostela.

I mean, there is a term such as "Indian civilisation" but it's more of a macro - civilization like "Western Eurooean", within which there is a ton of seoarate emoires, civilizations, ages, cultures, languages, religions, oolitical entities etc.

Of course India did end up as a unified country (thanks to Hinduism and some universal cultural heritage based on Sanskrit) unlike Eurooe, but besides that the region REALLY deserves on containing several factions instead of just one.

Besides that, it is easy for me to imagine an opposite scenario. India 'won history' and one of its emoires conquered divided and stuck in feudal kingdoms Western Europe, the way nationalism works in colonies (such as in Indonesia or India itself) united those cultures despite differences, and in such alternate world we do get 15 countries for all those rich Indian cultures but WE gets one 'Western' civilization forever. Because it's such an obscure region, almost nobody has a good grasp of its history, it doesn't have a huge gaming market...

I mean, I understand all that, but if Civ series is big enough to contain 50 nations and mature enough to contain such 'really obscure for Europeans, even history nerds' cultures such as Vietnamese, then it is mature enough to make some disctinctions between massive empires of a region that has usually contained 15 - 25% of humanity.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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.

I agree that having Akbar as an alt leader for India wouldn't be the best idea.
I don't mind the other choices of Ashoka and Gandhi as being alt leaders of India alongside Akbar for the Mughals as a totally different civ though.

I resent Brazil less than the others, yes, even if I hate Dom Satan.

Is it just his implementation in the game, because that is understandable? I would of rather his agenda be the opposite of what it is currently which is he hates civs that don't recruit enough great people.

 

[Zaarin]

Is it just his implementation in the game, because that is understandable? I would rather of his agenda be the opposite of what it is currently which is he hates civs that don't recruit enough great people.

Yeah, nothing against the real Dom Pedro II. Just his Civ6 iteration has backstabbed me a few too many times and is always harrumphing about taking his great people. Also his laugh doesn't make me want to murder him like Musa's does, but it's still grating.

The way India is represented in games like this is as if you made "Latin" or "Western" civilization and gave it Marcus Aurelius and Konrad Adenaueras leaders, "Line Infantry" as a unique unit, "Gothic Cathedral" as a unique building, "Eurooean Union" as a name of a civ trait music theme being Mozart, and city list including a mix of major modern caoitals, Roman cities and random Christian holy sites such as Santiago de Compostela.

I mean, there is a term such as "Indian civilisation" but it's more of a macro - civilization like "Western Eurooean", within which there is a ton of seoarate emoires, civilizations, ages, cultures, languages, religions, oolitical entities etc

India is a tough one to represent properly, which to some degree reflects my own shallow familiarity with Indian history, but I agree that Civ's representation of India is just bad. Even as the overall franchise has shown an increasing attention to historical detail, we continue to get pop culture India. Maybe in Civ7 we'll have Gandhi doing a Bollywood dance number.

 

[Yudhisthira]

Just to make it clear before, I m here not arguing for or against a mughal civ, but just to bring some history,context around it.
Regarding my wishlist, I will present it later because it involves 'deblobing' of china & India, so would like to present it with proper arguments (right now busy with university stuff).

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).

Mughal emperors do actually considered themselves of turkic lineage which they were, but empire was definitely Indian or Hindustani. Most Historians thats why regard Empire from Akbar time as Indian, thou Babur, & may be Humanyun also were invaders but Akbar & subsequent kings were born & raised in India only & had matrimonial alliances with local rulers.

Though they did changed capital many time time due to political,military reasons but the real power center was in Delhi-Agra region for most period. Also there wasn't/isn't much difference culturally and at that time religiously between Delhi & Lahore. For that matter Aurangzeb's capital in Deccan was culturally more distinct comparatively.
Persian being court language also is very similar to later British India time when English was official language, though less than 1% Indians knew the language. I mean British were definitely not Indians but country was still of Indians only.

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.

Have seen many times people here regard Mauryan empire as Buddhist only, which isn't correct. Neither Chandragupta or Bindusara were Buddhist, it was during Asokan time only when buddhism found more royal support vis-a-vis other heterodox sects like ajivikas. Vedic/Hinduism was still going strong.

Regarding Byzantine/Rome, we had very interesting discussion on civfanatics only. Personally I won't consider them very different.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...from-rome-but-kublai-rules-over-china.669112/

. Maybe in Civ7 we'll have Gandhi doing a Bollywood dance number.

Tbh I m so over with Nuclear Gandhi that I will take Bollywood Gandhi. At least it be fun to watch.

India is a tough one to represent properly,

Thats very true, stable political boundaries r not feature of Indian kingdoms or regions. Except for geographically isolated regions like Kashmir,Nepal,Odisha it's a big mess. Very difficult to break it for a civ like game.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Is it just his implementation in the game, because that is understandable? I would of rather his agenda be the opposite of what it is currently which is he hates civs that don't recruit enough great people.

I would like America to easy gain great people as part of a broader design as the immigration civ, like this:
- "We the People..." Immigrant pops integrate faster without lost their cultural bonus.
- "The Land of the Free" Biggest chance of Great People with each immigrant.
- "Manifest Destiny" Cities founded have bigger area of control.
- Pionner UU, a replacement of regular settler with decent combat stats so could work as scout also.

A civ with explosive growing that could bright on any aspect if you manage to attract immigrants. So would Dom Pedro always hate America or could Brazil have another design?

 

[Zaarin]

Regarding Byzantine/Rome, we had very interesting discussion on civfanatics only. Personally I won't consider them very different.

Which is interesting because to me I see them as opposites in every way. Rome was a conquering empire, Byzantium was a defensive one. Rome was religiously pluralistic, Byzantium was religiously devout. Rome was about as culturally apathetic as any major civilization that has ever existed (I think the insult for someone who hates art should be "roman" not "philistine" ), Byzantium was a master of fine art. I do think that Civ's portrayal of Byzantium has been consistently iffy, though. Byzantium's leaders should always be drawn from after the fall of the Western Empire, and Basil II was a very uncharacteristic choice. If a leader is to be the face of the civilization, choosing an ascetic warrior to represent a cultural defensive civ is...not the best choice.

Tbh I m so over with Nuclear Gandhi that I will take Bollywood Gandhi. At least it will be fun to watch.

It would be an improvement.

I would like America to easy gain great people as part of a broader design as the immigration civ, like this:
- "We the People..." Immigrant pops integrate faster without lost their cultural bonus.
- "The Land of the Free" Biggest chance of Great People with each immigrant.
- "Manifest Destiny" Cities founded have bigger area of control.
- Pionner UU, a replacement of regular settler with decent combat stats so could work as scout also.

Oooh, I like this take.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Just to make it clear before, I m here not arguing for or against a mughal civ, but just to bring some history,context around it.
Regarding my wishlist, I will present it later because it involves 'deblobing' of china & India, so would like to present it with proper arguments (right now busy with university stuff).

Mughal emperors do actually considered themselves of turkic lineage which they were, but empire was definitely Indian or Hindustani. Most Historians thats why regard Empire from Akbar time as Indian, thou Babur, & may be Humanyun also were invaders but Akbar & subsequent kings were born & raised in India only & had matrimonial alliances with local rulers.

Though they did changed capital many time time due to political,military reasons but the real power center was in Delhi-Agra region for most period. Also there wasn't/isn't much difference culturally and at that time religiously between Delhi & Lahore. For that matter Aurangzeb's capital in Deccan was culturally more distinct comparatively.
Persian being court language also is very similar to later British India time when English was official language, though less than 1% Indians knew the language. I mean British were definitely not Indians but country was still of Indians only.

Have seen many times people here regard Mauryan empire as Buddhist only, which isn't correct. Neither Chandragupta or Bindusara were Buddhist, it was during Asokan time only when buddhism found more royal support vis-a-vis other heterodox sects like ajivikas. Vedic/Hinduism was still going strong.

Regarding Byzantine/Rome, we had very interesting discussion on civfanatics only. Personally I won't consider them very different.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...from-rome-but-kublai-rules-over-china.669112/

True but part of the problem is that on CIV each civilization is mainly designed on their leaders, Babur and Akbar are the obvious candidates as in-game leaders being both early Mughals before being "very Indian" as later ones. Same with Ashoka (being linked to buddhism) is likely to come instead of Chandragupta, and their link to later Bihar-Bengal empires like Gupta and Pala also related to buddhism (before started decline on India).

For example in game Akbar is likely to be designed as a cultural/religious tolerant leader with some bonus about foreing conquered cultures, I think that tell us alot about the identity problem of Mughals on India.

 

[Yudhisthira]

Which is interesting because to me I see them as opposites in every way. Rome was a conquering empire, Byzantium was a defensive one. Rome was religiously pluralistic, Byzantium was religiously devout. Rome was about as culturally apathetic as any major civilization that has ever existed (I think the insult for someone who hates art should be "roman" not "philistine" ), Byzantium was a master of fine art.

Interesting take, though I m coming more from the angle of Institutions,overall structure,Legal continuation vis-a-vis Holy Roman empire claim. Let say Hardware angle, but yours take definitely very interesting.
I mean one can also argue for separate pre-Islamic/Islamic Iran based on such differences in religion/society despite same region & political continuity(in a way).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I would like America to easy gain great people as part of a broader design as the immigration civ, like this:
- "We the People..." Immigrant pops integrate faster without lost their cultural bonus.
- "The Land of the Free" Biggest chance of Great People with each immigrant.
- "Manifest Destiny" Cities founded have bigger area of control.
- Pionner UU, a replacement of regular settler with decent combat stats so could work as scout also.

A civ with explosive growing that could bright on any aspect if you manage to attract immigrants. So would Dom Pedro always hate America or could Brazil have another design?

Ironically that is a similar design I had for Argentina, at least thematically the idea behind an immigration and culture civ. As a result Brazil hating Argentina might make more sense.

 

[Yudhisthira]

True but part of the problem is that on CIV each civilization is mainly designed on their leaders, Babur and Akbar are the obvious candidates as in-game leaders being both early Mughals before being "very Indian" as later ones. Same with Ashoka (being linked to buddhism) is likely to come instead of Chandragupta, and their link to later Bihar-Bengal empires like Gupta and Pala also related to buddhism (before started decline on India).

As I said before I am not arguing for or against a Mughal civ. I want more representation of subcontinent thou I would like it to be historically perfect but if I get anything thou not so perfect, I will take it.

My only intention was to provide some more historical context to the forum. History of subcontinent(for that matter of any place) isn't that straight,simple actually. This simple association of Buddhism with bengal-bihar won't do justice. In fact many Bengali rulers like Shasanka-Sena ones actually persecuted Buddhist & destroyed monasteries.

Similarly Akbar's image of tolerant leader is also under question. His massacre of Mewar population during seige of Chittor is hot topic in India. I don't think it would be a great idea to go ahead with this cliche especially during cancel culture era.
To me however he is more of great expansionist & administrator who managed to build stable empire which previous Delhi Sultans & Mughals couldn't.

 

[Leucarum]

I think it would be nice if the base game went less euro-centric. Even if it means leaving out some very popular European civs from the starting roster in favour of balancing representation around the world. 20 civs for a base game sounds realistic, so if they tried to go with 5 from Europe, 5 from Africa, 5 from asia/Pacific and 5 from the Americas you could get a pretty solid spread.

Only thinking about the base game I'd probably go with something like:
Europe - Rome, England, France, Spain, Russia
Americas - Inca, Aztec, Maya, United States, And a north American first nation.
Asia - China, Japan, India, Mongolia, Australia
Africa - Egypt, Mali, Zulu, Kongo and a new entry.

Cull a few of the European states to make things a bit more interesting and introduce more in later in expansion packs...

 

[Zaarin]

Babur and Akbar are the obvious candidates as in-game leaders being both early Mughals before being "very Indian" as later ones.

Shah Jahan could be a potentially more Indian Mughal candidate.

Interesting take, though I m coming more from the angle of Institutions,overall structure,Legal continuation vis-a-vis Holy Roman empire claim. Let say Hardware angle, but yours take definitely very interesting.

Yeah, I can see where you're coming from.

I mean one can also argue for separate pre-Islamic/Islamic Iran based on such differences in religion/society despite same region & political continuity(in a way).

I've actually mentioned before that if we're challenging the legitimacy of Chinese and Indian claims to continuity, then in fairness we should be challenging Persia's as well. Sadly, Firaxis seems oblivious to the existence of Persia/Iran after the Achaemenids, but I'd be delighted to have a Sassanian or Safavid civ, as examples.

Only thinking about the base game I'd probably go with something like:
Europe - Rome, England, France, Spain, Russia
Americas - Inca, Aztec, Maya, United States, And a north American first nation.
Asia - China, Japan, India, Mongolia, Australia
Africa - Egypt, Mali, Zulu, Kongo and a new entry.

I'd hate this, not because of the reduced European representation (though I'd sub Greece for Spain) but because there's no Near Eastern representation at all except Egypt (and Greece, if you accept my substitution), both of which are on the periphery of the Near East. There's no Babylon/Assyria/Sumer, no Arabia, no Persia. I probably wouldn't buy a Civ7 that had Australia in the base game and no Middle Eastern civs whatsoever, at least not until the civ roster was a lot more balanced. (I do appreciate Maya in the base game, though. I think Maya and Assyria should be base game staples.)

 

[Leucarum]

I'd hate this, not because of the reduced European representation (though I'd sub Greece for Spain) but because there's no Near Eastern representation at all except Egypt (and Greece, if you accept my substitution), both of which are on the periphery of the Near East. There's no Babylon/Assyria/Sumer, no Arabia, no Persia. I probably wouldn't buy a Civ7 that had Australia in the base game and no Middle Eastern civs whatsoever, at least not until the civ roster was a lot more balanced. (I do appreciate Maya in the base game, though. I think Maya and Assyria should be base game staples.)

Fair. I realised after I posted it that I hadn't worked out where to put a middle eastern civ. It could easily enough be folded into Africa or Asia? Though I think I'd like Babylon over Assyria just because I didn't like their Civ6 implementation.

And forgetting Greeece was criminal on my part... My list did end up being more contemporary than it should be...

But regardless of the specific civs included or excluded it would be cool to see a more even geographical distribution.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'd hate this, not because of the reduced European representation (though I'd sub Greece for Spain) but because there's no Near Eastern representation at all except Egypt (and Greece, if you accept my substitution), both of which are on the periphery of the Near East. There's no Babylon/Assyria/Sumer, no Arabia, no Persia. I probably wouldn't buy a Civ7 that had Australia in the base game and no Middle Eastern civs whatsoever, at least not until the civ roster was a lot more balanced. (I do appreciate Maya in the base game, though. I think Maya and Assyria should be base game staples.)

I was about to comment and literally make these suggestions with Greece instead of Spain and nothing in the Middle East.

I also think if Africa were to get 5 right off the bat Ethiopia should be there somewhere.

 

[Leucarum]

I was about to comment and literally make these suggestions with Greece instead of Spain and nothing in the Middle East.

I also think if Africa were to get 5 right off the bat Ethiopia should be there somewhere.

I could easily get behind that position

 

[Zaarin]

Though I think I'd like Babylon over Assyria just because I didn't like their Civ6 implementation.

I didn't like Civ6's Babylon implementation, either, but of the ancient Mesopotamian empires I think Assyria was the most significant (and shamefully has only been in the entire Civ franchise once). Because the Assyrian Empire was the world's first large empire, it often gets pigeonholed as a conquest civ, but have you seen Assyrian monumental architecture? Way more impressive than Babylon (or impressive in a different way: it's very impressive what the Babylonians accomplished with mudbrick because that's what they had...but the Assyrians had stone ). It's now believed that the Hanging Gardens, for instance, were in Nineveh. So yeah, I really want to see Assyria come back as a culture/builder civ for a change.

(Also sorry if my initial post sounded harsh; I didn't mean it that way. That was just my kneejerk reaction to Australia and no Middle Eastern civs. On which note, having the US and Australia in the base game still seems very Euro- and Anglocentric. Maybe sub a Southeast Asian civ for Australia? I was going to suggest a Polynesian civ, but that doesn't really feel like something that needs to be in the base game but could be added in a DLC/XP.)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Fair. I realised after I posted it that I hadn't worked out where to put a middle eastern civ. It could easily enough be folded into Africa or Asia? Though I think I'd like Babylon over Assyria just because I didn't like their Civ6 implementation.

I'd fold the Middle East with Africa considering we already know that Asia (well Eastern Asia) will definitely already have China, Japan, and India at least. Adding in Mongolia and then a SEA civ like @Zaarin suggested I think would be fine.
Also geographically Egypt is also considered in the Middle East. I would go for a list like this:
Egypt, Ethiopia, Mali, Arabia or Persia, Assyria or Babylon.

Zulu could definitely come later as well as Kongo. Arguably you could substitute Ethiopia or Mali for another new civ if you wish or put Kongo and Zulu in place of those instead. At least to me having two Sub-Saharan African civs along with two Middle Eastern civs alongside Egypt is a better geographic spread.

(Also sorry if my initial post sounded harsh; I didn't mean it that way. That was just my kneejerk reaction to Australia and no Middle Eastern civs. On which note, having the US and Australia in the base game still seems very Euro- and Anglocentric. Maybe sub a Southeast Asian civ for Australia? I was going to suggest a Polynesian civ, but that doesn't really feel like something that needs to be in the base game but could be added in a DLC/XP.)

As much as I like Australia in the game I like the suggestion for a Southeast Asian civ for the base game.
Honestly I wouldn't mind if Aztecs would be sacrificed for Brazil so we at least get another post-colonial nation. At least I don't think we need both the Maya and Aztecs for the base game.

 

[Zaarin]

Honestly I wouldn't mind if Aztecs would be sacrificed for Brazil so we at least get another post-colonial nation.

Unsurprisingly, I'm perfectly happy to sacrifice as many postcolonial nations to Tannit as I can get away with.

At least I don't think we need both the Maya and Aztecs for the base game.

I'm inclined to agree, but I'd substitute them with an additional Middle Eastern civ. TBH I don't think representation has to be equal to avoid Eurocentrism, and as much as I love Pre-Columbian history, I don't think the Americas need equal representation in the base game. Asia's a big continent, spanning from the Middle East to East Asia, and I think it deserves correspondingly more representation than the other continents.

 

[Leucarum]

To me the exact list was more of a thought exercise - which European civs could be trimmed to make a more diverse base game. Stripping Europe down to 5 actually seems to have been pretty easy. Certainly easier than I expected even if I initially got Greece wrong.

Also sorry if my initial post sounded harsh;

Thanks, I didn't really take it as harsh, your points were valid and changed my mind on my initial position.