Civilization Wishlist for Civ VII

At this rate, I wouldn’t be surprised if Russia isn’t in base Civ7, either.

There would definitely be backlash, and they would backtrack and say that DLC was the plan all along, but they’d try to make the political statement at first.
 
Last edited:
I don't see Russia dropping from base game, not even in light of the dreadful recent events. What I see though are any ideas for Soviet leader definitely killed, and, as mentioned before by someone in this thread, a golden opportunity for a Muscovite/Early Tsardom leader instead of Imperial Russian one. Ivan III or IV would be the best choices here. After all, older leaders are generally much less controversy-sparking as newer ones. And although both were expansionists, neither ruled over Ukraine, which might help avoiding risk of any maddened nationalists rioting from either side. It would be for the best art-wise, too - as much as I'm interested in 19th Century and advocate for leaders like Alexander II or Napoleon III, I'll very gladly trade one generic dress or military uniform for a long decorated robe donned by an imposing bearded ruler.
 
Last edited:
I don't see Russia dropping from base game, not even in light of the dreadful recent events. What I see though are any ideas for Soviet leader definitely killed, and, as mentioned before by someone in this thread, a golden opportunity for a Muscovite/Early Tsardom leader instead of Imperial Russian one. Ivan III or IV would be best choices here. After all, older leaders generally much less controversy-sparking as newer ones. And although both were expansionists, neither ruled over Ukraine, which might help avoiding risk of any maddened nationalists rioting from either side. It would be for the best art-wise, too - as much as I'm interested in 19th Century and advocate for leaders like Alexander II or Napoleon III, I'll very gladly trade one generic dress or military uniform for a long decorated robe donned by an imposing bearded ruler.

It's a shame, because controversial or not, I've been meaning to see a return for Stalin to Civilization for years, or even addition of Lenin.
 
And to make a second point, guys they would NOT drop Russia from Civ7 due to recent events. It's really inconceivable imo, they've been in every Civ game, they're actually quite iconic and relevant.
But most importantly, usually depicted is not modern Russia but rather I would like to call it "ancient Russia" (I don't quite know the right name for it, but the Tsardom or whatever)

PS. Maybe they'll do the Rus instead? If this is really what they want. I doubt this will change anything.

And not to sound like a hater but on top of that it would feel super cheesy & blatantly political for them to replace it with Ukraine.
 
At this rate, I wouldn’t be surprised if Russia isn’t in base Civ7, either.

There would definitely be backlash, and they would backtrack and say that DLC was the plan all along, but they’d try to make the political statement at first.
Same.
Honestly wouldn't China kind of be in the same boat too, with the whole Uyghurs situation? And I definitely don't see the base game without China.

PS. Maybe they'll do the Rus instead? If this is really what they want. I doubt this will change anything.

And not to sound like a hater but on top of that it would feel super cheesy & blatantly political for them to replace it with Ukraine.
I doubt having a "Russian" civ with the capital at Kiev is what they would want either. :shifty:

I think if Russia weren't to be in the base game, the safest thing would be to add Poland.
 
It's not Civ without England, India, China, Arabia, Egypt, Russia, America, France, Aztecs, Mongols.
True story :p

Probably some others I missed...
 
Same.
Honestly wouldn't China kind of be in the same boat too, with the whole Uyghurs situation? And I definitely don't see the base game without China.
Uyghur's situation is very different than Ukraine situation. Uyghurs are part of China who wants to break out, meanwhile Ukraine is a soverign country for 30 years.
But if this game wants to represent break states as Uyghurs or Tibet, I would like to see also Texas, Quebec or Rio Grande do Sul be made by Fireaxis.


It's not Civ without England, India, China, Arabia, Egypt, Russia, America, France, Aztecs, Mongols.
True story :p

Probably some others I missed...
You missed the Zulus.
But maybe Fireaxis can stop to do the same civs in every single game. My vote to be outside Civ 7 is India, who would be better representade by a lot of Sultanates or other kingdoms of it's history. I want to see the Mughal Empire, Ahmadnegar sultanate, Delhi sultanate or the Chola kingdom. Just to give a few examples.
 
It's not Civ without England, India, China, Arabia, Egypt, Russia, America, France, Aztecs, Mongols.
True story :p

Probably some others I missed...
Rome and Greece, the very start of Western Civilization. :p

Uyghur's situation is very different than Ukraine situation. Uyghurs are part of China who wants to break out, meanwhile Ukraine is a soverign country for 30 years.
But if this game wants to represent break states as Uyghurs or Tibet, I would like to see also Texas, Quebec or Rio Grande do Sul be made by Fireaxis.
Not that different when you consider it's a group of people that are being suppressed by a larger government, to the point of being declared a genocide.

Also Tibet was a large empire for many years before it became part of present-day China. I don't think it's right to call them a breakaway state, unlike the others you mentioned.
 
I like the alt. history side of Civ6 quite a lot - I think there would be something to be said for leaving out some of the established players each time in favour of some "could-have-been" empires. That said, Civ being profitable trumps that for the most part, so we're unlikely to see Civ without the US, England, France et al anytime soon. But that does make me wonder whether if the current sanctions stay severe and persist longer-term, that might actually shake Russia down the hierarchy of who to include first.
 
It would be a shame because, regardless of any current conflicts, Russia should be in the base game due to its immense historical importance. I personally regard Russia as one of the three essential pillars of non-classical Europe, alongside France and England.
I get the point, however. I believe that Civ7 could be announced in a few months, but we don't know how the situation in Russia and Ukraine will be until then.
 
Oh you guys are right, can't believe I missed the Zulu and Rome. Yeah I mean these are the most iconic, I guess Greece, Spain, Germany, Norway/Vikings etc. If you wanted to be pedantic.

But what on earth? Voting out India? Nah. Call me cheesy but Gandhi and India ARE Civilization. They go together like nukes and enemy cities :D
 
I like the alt. history side of Civ6 quite a lot - I think there would be something to be said for leaving out some of the established players each time in favour of some "could-have-been" empires. That said, Civ being profitable trumps that for the most part, so we're unlikely to see Civ without the US, England, France et al anytime soon. But that does make me wonder whether if the current sanctions stay severe and persist longer-term, that might actually shake Russia down the hierarchy of who to include first.
Reminds of me of putting Scythia in the game, while waiting until the first expansion to include Mongolia, considering they fill a similar niche in game. I'd also be on board with having the Maya appear before Aztecs next time around. :mischief:

Like I've been saying if Russia does go down in the hierarchy, Poland has been climbing considering it was the first DLC released in Civ 6, and is probably the most feasible second option to represent Eastern Europe.

But what on earth? Voting out India? Nah. Call me cheesy but Gandhi and India ARE Civilization. They go together like nukes and enemy cities :D
I'm not necessarily on the no Gandhi train, but I can understand why people are tired of Gandhi. Most people want some form of India however.
I'd love for there to be a separate Mughal civ alongside India. I also wouldn't mind if Gandhi returned as long as we keep on getting other leaders for India as well.
 
Last edited:
But what on earth? Voting out India? Nah. Call me cheesy but Gandhi and India ARE Civilization. They go together like nukes and enemy cities :D
I know the Gandhi's Nukes is the most fun and most classical issue of Civlization.
But we can stay one generation without that, Civ 7 need to be different of his antecessors.
Maybe not just India can be debloobed, but also China. Who can have something from 3 kingdooms time.


Like I've been saying if Russia does go down in the hierarchy, Poland has been climbing considering it was the first DLC released in Civ 6, and is probably the most feasible second option to represent Eastern Europe.
If Fireaxis takes out Russia, the only replacement it can be is Ukraine. I don't think Poland can replaces Russia's spot.
 
If Fireaxis takes out Russia, the only replacement it can be is Ukraine. I don't think Poland can replaces Russia's spot.
I meant it as a possibility for the base game only. There's no question that Russia will make it into Civ 7, and most likely Poland too, but who knows when that would be?
 
But what on earth? Voting out India? Nah. Call me cheesy but Gandhi and India ARE Civilization. They go together like nukes and enemy cities :D

I hate Gandhi leading India. India has so many potential great leaders and they get constantly shafted because of funny nuke meme.

Imagine if America was constantly being led by MLK. It would be fine once or twice but 6 times in a row is way too much.
 
Uyghur's situation is very different than Ukraine situation. Uyghurs are part of China who wants to break out, meanwhile Ukraine is a soverign country for 30 years.
Uyghurs are a nation within the modern chinese state, they are suffering intense repression (likely even literal genocide) from the Han controled chinese goverment.
Ukranians wants to defend their automony againts Russia, Uyghurs againts chinese oppression, both want their right to self determination. The only difference is that Ukranians is on an easier position to defend themselves than Uyghurs.

But if this game wants to represent break states as Uyghurs or Tibet, I would like to see also Texas, Quebec or Rio Grande do Sul be made by Fireaxis.
Compare the Tibet a nation with millennia of history and an powerful medieval empire to a not even 10 years of life opportunistic break away filibuster state like Texas is lose any sense of what a civilization mean to be.
 
Compare the Tibet a nation with millennia of history and an powerful medieval empire to a not even 10 years of life opportunistic break away filibuster state like Texas is lose any sense of what a civilization mean to be.
Well no need to be that mean to Texas. :p
At least it was independent for a time. Quebec has never been it's own separate entity however always being part of New France, Great Britian, or Canada.
 
I hate Gandhi leading India. India has so many potential great leaders and they get constantly shafted because of funny nuke meme.

Imagine if America was constantly being led by MLK. It would be fine once or twice but 6 times in a row is way too much.

Imagine that literally Martin Luther King (no not any president, specifically him) is always leading American in civ series, for 30 years, with very exaggerated body proportions, constant talks about having a dream, America in game being always passive pacifist pushover, and also MLK being surrounded by the meme in which he secretly loves enslaving white people on a mass scale, and we end up with something just about as offensive and lowkey racist as depiction of India in the series.

Bonus points for America also analogically always having bonuses to money making, cinema unique building, stuff like "capitalism" perks with more money but unhappy people, and always having "cowboy" combat unit, and we have a perfect analogy of how civ series (and most of western culture) treats India.
 
There's nothing wrong with Gandhi for India. I think Civ7 just needs more options for India (maybe other leaders too) and better design.
But yeah, no way it's Civ without Gandhi, India, sorry.
 
There's nothing wrong with Gandhi for India. I think Civ7 just needs more options for India (maybe other leaders too) and better design.
But yeah, no way it's Civ without Gandhi, India, sorry.

You didn't actually provide any arguments, and no tradition is an argument by itself ;)
 
Top Bottom