Civilization Wishlist for Civ VII

Fair enough, I guess I tend to think if it nets firaxis more profit and if that gets pumped into making civ a better game then pander away. A lot of ifs there though...
NFP doesn't fill me with confidence in Firaxis' ability to create good content from pandering...

Plus I have enjoyed the gameplay of a lot of the modern civs they added...
Unfortunately I haven't. I did enjoy the reworked United States after the Bull Moose Teddy persona was added, but I didn't enjoy Canada, Brazil, or Gran Colombia. I keep Australia disabled. I realize I'm not the sole market for Civ, though, and as long as we don't see the likes of Australia or South Africa again I'm fine as long as we get enough Ancient-Early Modern civs that are interesting. (And please bring someone onto the team that has the same passion for Ancient history that Ed Beach has for Early Modern because the Ancient era really needed more love in Civ6. We got three Ancient leaders [not counting Cyrus and Tomyris who are kind of borderline Ancient/Classical depending on your definitions], and two of them were poorly designed.)
 
Just one quibble that leaps out (blame a degree in Classics!): Periclean Athens really wasn't much about either Science or Defense: the Athens he presided over was as Expansionist as any polis in Greece - it's what got them into the Peloponnesian War, after all. There was no particular flowering of science under him, rather a massive program of cultural building - among others, most of the structures now on the Acropolis including the Parthenon and Athens' preeminence as the cultural capital of Greece dates from the 'Periclean Golden Age'.

So, just for an outlier and a 'Scientific Greek' ruler, I suggest Dionysius of Syracuse. Syracuse over in Magna Graeca/Sicily was the largest Greek-speaking city in the world and Dionysius in particular sponsored a science/engineering establishment that cranked out practical applications of Science like the crossbow, the catapult, and the quinquereme warship. Stretching a bit, Dionysius's heirs Dion and Dionysius II invited Plato to Syracuse to try setting up his 'ideal republic' (which turned out to be as impractical as any other philosophical government ever tried) so there's even a connection with 'pure' science.

So, may I suggest two alternatives, either one of which would be, IMHO, better:

Greece: Pericles, Cultural with expansionist subtheme
Greece: Dionysius, Science with defensive subtheme
I'd personally want Greek to be great people focused so that would include a mixture of mainly culture and science/engineering bonuses which could still easily fit with Pericles. Of course I'd also love Alexander as well for a more militaristic approach as opposed to Pericles diplomatic approach.

I expect Brazil is a feature now. My big question would be whether the desire for Portugal over Brazil from a lot of the community would shift the order in which the two appear...
I still wouldn't expect Portugal to come any earlier than it usually does. Portugal seems to always to take less precedent of the exploration civs when you look at the popularity of England and Spain, even the Dutch. I mean the Portugese aren't even in Humankind yet and they have 60 factions.
I realize I'm not the sole market for Civ, though, and as long as we don't see the likes of Australia or South Africa again I'm fine as long as we get enough Ancient-Early Modern civs that are interesting.
When did we get South Africa, unless you are meaning the Zulu considering they are close to being considered a more modern civ? :confused:
 
When did we get South Africa, unless you are meaning the Zulu considering they are close to being considered a more modern civ? :confused:
No, I was listing it as an example of another flavorless postcolonial civ like Australia that I don't want; I wasn't suggesting we'd already had it. (Though I'd be all for retiring the Zulu--as long as we replace them with another indigenous African civilization and not South Africa. :p )
 
I still wouldn't expect Portugal to come any earlier than it usually does. Portugal seems to always to take less precedent of the exploration civs when you look at the popularity of England and Spain, even the Dutch. I mean the Portugese aren't even in Humankind yet and they have 60 factions.

The order of inclusion of civs in the franchise is not always by historical importance, as people expect. Sometimes I feel that they need to leave some civilizations to add later just because they fit the theme of some expansion (like Maori and Sweden that fit in the GS idea). In the case of Portugal, we know that it's more important historically than many civs currently in the game, but it's always left to be added later because it looks like they don't want to include it along with Netherlands and Spain that have similar themes.
Maya is a similar case, for some reason it's always left last among the main pre-columbian civilizations (Aztec, Inca and then Maya).
 
NFP doesn't fill me with confidence in Firaxis' ability to create good content from pandering...


Unfortunately I haven't. I did enjoy the reworked United States after the Bull Moose Teddy persona was added, but I didn't enjoy Canada, Brazil, or Gran Colombia. I keep Australia disabled. I realize I'm not the sole market for Civ, though, and as long as we don't see the likes of Australia or South Africa again I'm fine as long as we get enough Ancient-Early Modern civs that are interesting. (And please bring someone onto the team that has the same passion for Ancient history that Ed Beach has for Early Modern because the Ancient era really needed more love in Civ6. We got three Ancient leaders [not counting Cyrus and Tomyris who are kind of borderline Ancient/Classical depending on your definitions], and two of them were poorly designed.)

They could easily have had an ancient leader for Egypt if they hadn't really wanted Cleopatra... Hatshepsut especially would have been interesting and helped keep gender balance going....

I guess civ is hamstrung on a lot of ancient civs due to a lack of leaders... Though if you are gonna put Gilgamesh in a game that opens up a raft of mythological options...
 
They could easily have had an ancient leader for Egypt if they hadn't really wanted Cleopatra... Hatshepsut especially would have been interesting and helped keep gender balance going....
Hatshepsut, being famous for her trade expeditions, could even have had the same leader ability.

I guess civ is hamstrung on a lot of ancient civs due to a lack of leaders... Though if you are gonna put Gilgamesh in a game that opens up a raft of mythological options...
Not really, though. I'd say it's rather no one on the team is passionate about or familiar with Ancient history. Even Sumer--there's zero reason to choose Gilgamesh, especially a so mythologized Gilgamesh, when the likes of Gudea, Ur-Nammu, Sargon, and Kuĝbau exist. And Hammurabi was a fine choice for Babylon, he was well modeled, and I was ecstatic with how well his voice actor speaks Akkadian--but there's nothing Babylonian about the civ design (and I'll once again plug the wonderful overhaul by Port Limes). Phoenicia is the only well-designed Ancient civ in the game, and even there there are historical alternatives to Dido (though I don't have a problem with her per se). The problem with the Ancient civs is a lack of love and a lack of research, not a lack of available data. There is a cornucopia of good, historical options for Ancient civs, at least in the Near East; there just needs to be someone at Firaxis willing to champion them. (Also can we have Assyria back, please--and ditch the warlike Assyrians meme while we're at it? :please: )
 
Fair enough, I guess I tend to think if it nets firaxis more profit and if that gets pumped into making civ a better game then pander away. A lot of ifs there though...

Plus I have enjoyed the gameplay of a lot of the modern civs they added...

I confess that whether a Civ is based on a 'modern' Civilization or one that disappeared before Pericles laid the first stone for the Parthenon, means nothing to me since (in the game as marketed so far, at least) they all start at the same time in the Ancient Era)=. The only current distinction between these two sub-sets is that modern Civs all too often have Unique Units that come too late in the game to be of any use in most games. That could be fixed with my old idea (dragged once again kicking and snarling out of the basement) of 'generic' Uniques available first-come, first-pick by Era, so that even an extremely late comer like the USA (no real pre-Industrial Uniques) could have some kind of Unique Spearman to play with.
 
No, I was listing it as an example of another flavorless postcolonial civ like Australia that I don't want; I wasn't suggesting we'd already had it. (Though I'd be all for retiring the Zulu--as long as we replace them with another indigenous African civilization and not South Africa. :p )
Ok. I was confused when you said "again".

The order of inclusion of civs in the franchise is not always by historical importance, as people expect. Sometimes I feel that they need to leave some civilizations to add later just because they fit the theme of some expansion (like Maori and Sweden that fit in the GS idea).
I don't always mind order, as long as they eventually get in the game. If we had gotten the Ottomans and the Inca in the base game I don't think their gameplay would be as unique as they are now.
 
I confess that whether a Civ is based on a 'modern' Civilization or one that disappeared before Pericles laid the first stone for the Parthenon, means nothing to me since (in the game as marketed so far, at least) they all start at the same time in the Ancient Era)=.

I don't mind the modern civs either. But it does seem to be a very marmite/vegemite style polarizing issue...
 
It’s about time that I added my own 2 cents to this topic!

Americas:
· More Native American civs should be added beyond the expected Maya, Inca, and Aztec. The Cree and Mapuche are good additions but there are other standouts we should have:
o North America: 2-4 for this region is probably the most realistic number for the next installment. If I had to pick 4, I’d pick the Iroquois, Powhatan, Navajo, and Tlingit. Other choices/hopes would be the Natchez and Comanche or Sioux.
o Mesoamerica: When we get more choices for this region, I’d hope for the Mixtec and the Purepecha if we’re lucky enough to get 2.
o South America: The Muisca are the next obvious and, in my opinion, the most welcome new choice for this region.
o Caribbean: Not sure if we’ll see them soon but I’d love to see the Taino.
· While we’re at it, I’m really hoping for the Aztecs to have chinampas be at least 1 of their unique structures.
· As for the colonial civs, my are choices are for the return of America, Brazil, and Gran Colombia.

Africa:
· Like Native civs from the Americas, Africa could use some more civs in future installments. We had some great new choices with the Kongo and Nubia, but I’d also like to see:
o West Africa: Benin (the Nigerian Kingdom) and Ashanti
o East Africa: Zimbabwe, Swahili, and Madagascar
· A return for Morocco would be great, especially with at least with some Berber elements if not an entire neighboring Berber civ next-door.
· If we’d like a more modern African nation, I’d highly prefer Botswana over South Africa.
· I absolutely want to see Mansa Musa return with Mali!

Europe:
· A Roman civ designed in a way that does a great job of bringing together Classical Rome and Medieval Rome. For all the arguments on whether this should be done or not, I’d at least like to see this be given a good attempt especially if future games can give each civ more unique units and structures.
· Scandinavia at least keeping a Viking-era Norway and a 17th-18th century imperial Sweden.
· I agree that we could use a Russia that was ruled by someone from Moscow or Novgorod.
· Gaul was a great surprise, lets keep them in even if we do get Medieval Ireland and Scotland.
· Can we have Elizabeth I lead England again? She’s one of those leaders that I won’t mind at all to see return.
· A Holy Roman emperor leading Germany is a tradition that can continue, my choice is Otto I.

East and Central/South Asia:
· Han or Ming China though I wouldn’t mind seeing Wu Zetian again either.
· In my opinion, the most reasonable split for India would be something like this:
o India: Focused on the relatively more northern states like the Mauryan and Gupta empires.
o Chola: For some obvious representation of a powerful southern Indian state.
o Gurkani: For a civ that covers both the Timurids and Mughals
· Make Southeast Asia a highly contested space on TSL maps with Burma, Siam, Khmer, and Vietnam.
· If we can get unique governors in the next installment, Gitarja leading Indonesia with Gajah Mada as her governor will be an easy yes from me.
· Khazaria or Cumania for a more nomadic civ.

Middle East:
· Sassanid Persia, especially if there’s no tolerant Cyrus or dastardly Darius.
· Keep Carthage under that beautiful purple Phoenician umbrella!
· Bring Assyria back please, there’s a lot you can do with them!
· If you’re going to have a famous ruler for Sumeria, please pick Sargon of Akkad this time.
· Either an Umayyad or a Hejazi Arabia.
· Zenobia leading Palmyra would be an interesting new choice.

Oceania:
· I liked the design of the Maori a lot in Civ 6 but a future design for them could focus more on being inland so that the wayfinding abilities could be used by the Tonga and/or Hawaii.
· I won’t mind seeing Australia again though they’ll be much less of a priority than the Maori, Tonga, and Hawaii. Other choices like Samoa would also be preferred.
 
Last edited:
I want some system for moving resources around. Like where I can not just start training a troop that requires niter if that city does not have a niter mine. This could allow for the possibility of building train lines/highways that went in-between cities to move resources and could be an important area to sabotage during war. As I have said it before, I want attrition added as well. Oh, and governors should be removed as well. And India should be split into three civs, you can't change my mind on that.
 
Not sure if this has been mentioned before - it probably has - but I would like to see a return to the idea of playing as a barbarian tribe, as you could do in a Civ II mod. Of course, with the individual tribe variances, it could be a far more sophisticated concept.
Imagine being inserted at random into an existing game with the first goal being to establish a separate state, then acquire power and expansion through military force.
I'd be up for that.
 
Not sure if this has been mentioned before - it probably has - but I would like to see a return to the idea of playing as a barbarian tribe, as you could do in a Civ II mod. Of course, with the individual tribe variances, it could be a far more sophisticated concept.
Imagine being inserted at random into an existing game with the first goal being to establish a separate state, then acquire power and expansion through military force.
I'd be up for that.

It would probably be the equivalent of trying to establish a major colonial empire in the Americas in Europa Univeralis while playing as the Khanate of Kazan - not completely impossible, but a definite Long Shot
 
Not sure if this has been mentioned before - it probably has - but I would like to see a return to the idea of playing as a barbarian tribe, as you could do in a Civ II mod. Of course, with the individual tribe variances, it could be a far more sophisticated concept.
Imagine being inserted at random into an existing game with the first goal being to establish a separate state, then acquire power and expansion through military force.
I'd be up for that.
So you'd like the Huns to come back? :mischief:
 
So you'd like the Huns to come back? :mischief:

Seriously, I think the best way to handle "Barbarian Civs" is through a Hunter-Gatherer Neolithic Start for everyone, with the option to take off on a Pastoral Civ route instead of the normal Settle Down and Build A City that has been the only option for Civ games in the past. Whether you take your mass of horsemen and build a great trading empire like the Sogdians or Kushans or go raiding like the Xiongh-Nu, Huns or Mongols is then up to you . . .
 
Really I want more cohesive design and to have 3 leaders for each faction. You interact with a diplomat instead of the actual leader themselves.

An example might be
Japans ability is that Japanese great works of writing have triple yields
Meiji - All alliances start as level 3 alliances (or give alliances with Meiji an added bonus like auto themed great works). Can form alliances earlier.
Genmei - All great prophet points become great writer points. Receive a great prophet (O No Yasumaro) when you first meet a civilisation with a religion. Religious buildings can house a great work of writing.
(3rd leader) - Units generate great writer points from combat.
There you have a Japan that is always going for a cultural win but is going about it in 3 different ways.
 
3 leaders for each faction. You interact with a diplomat instead of the actual leader themselves.
That would be a very hard pass from me.

Never going to happen. You include an emperor, you can't sell in Japan or you have to create a different leader for the Japanese version; Japan is an important market.
 
honestly I think Civilization should take a hint from Humankind and have civilizations develop over time. While some of the transitions in that game were wildly implausible, some such as England > Britain, or Edo-period Japan > Modern Japan, at least did make logical sense.

That's certainly more preferable than any sort of hairsplitting about which dynasty of an empire should be represented over the other.
 
honestly I think Civilization should take a hint from Humankind and have civilizations develop over time. While some of the transitions in that game were wildly implausible, some such as England > Britain, or Edo-period Japan > Modern Japan, at least did make logical sense.

That's certainly more preferable than any sort of hairsplitting about which dynasty of an empire should be represented over the other.
Not many civs could support that model without indulging nationalist fantasies or imperialist dogma.
 
Back
Top Bottom