Civilizations you would like to see in DLC

[daft]

 

[daft]

THIS IS A TYPICAL TURKISH "KNIGHT"
SEE THE WAY THE HORSE IS HEADED AND THE WAY THE "BRAVE" HORSE ARCHER'S SHOOTING? (conquest of Byzantium: let them (the Byzantines) pursue, we'll bleed them and then massacre them)

 

[Zaarin]

Right, most of what the Turks learned about CIVILIZATION, science and culture, was from the BYZANTINES, a nation they'd just conquered.
The people you're defending fought without HONOR. Fleeing away from BYZANTINE troops en masse, while shooting their arrows at them! They would not give the Byzantines a proper battle!
Only after the bled/tired/hungry/thirsty Byzantines were exhausted, "glorious" Turkish warriors would attack them. (the only ones among the Byzantine ranks fleeing from the Turkish attacks were predominantly the well paid French/Frankish mercenary-knights, while the Varangs fought to the last man standing).
Read about the battles between the two, you will learn more about actual facts, before raising your voice at me.

BYZANTIUM does not equal (=) ROME!
So don't give me that! Byzantium was Greek dominated, not Roman. The official language of the country was Greek! LEARN YOUR FACTS!

Turks fought the already weakened Byzantines the best way they could and it was successful. Their tactics were spot on, no denying that! But were they honorable?
You are defending a nation that conquered (in a very bloody way) a civilized empire and built their own empire in its place! Turkey is not an original nation! It's made out of conquest of already pre-existing GREAT NATION.

And another thing:
Check the facts about how many of the great Turkish scientists and such were actually GREEKS - forced to convert to ISLAM! - in order to keep themselves (and their families) alive and prosper in the new (Turkish/Muslim) society.

Sorry, but Turks were invaders, far inferior culturallly! as compared to the Byzantines, they conquered the lands of a great empire, with fire and sword, for that there's not denying, and built their own on the ruins of BYZANTIUM.

MooFreaky is right, the archrivals of Byzantium were the Persians long before the Turks ever left Central Asia. The Islamic conquest was only possible because the Byzantines and Persians had exhausted themselves in drawn out conflict, and because their citizens were grateful to be rescued from the insane taxes both sides were levying to support their war effort. Also, saying Byzantium is Greece is as or more disingenuous than saying that Byzantium is Rome. The Byzantines were a distinct culture, but they were more Roman than Greek (culturally and politically, not ethnically). "Byzantine" is term coined by modern historians for convenience; in their own time they were simply known as the Roman Empire (at least, once the Roman Empire in the west ceased to function). Also, as a friendly suggestion, your raving over Byzantium and vilifying of the Turks reeks of nationalism. Also worth pointing out, you're conflating two different civilizations: the Seljuk Turks, who controlled a handful of petty states in Anatolia and the Levant, and the Ottoman Turks, who centuries later conquered Byzantium, the Balkans, and the bulk of the Middle East from Egypt to Mesopotamia--excluding Persia and Arabia proper. The Ottomans were a major political power in the region for nearly five hundred years, and both the Crimean War and (partially) World War I were fought by Western European powers squabbling over the wealth of the declining Ottomans, so dismissing them out of hand shows a serious lack of understanding of their place in history.

Also, describing any group as "honorable" is...naïve, to say the least. Some nations have followed certain rules as to how battles should be fought, but these rules were often forgotten in the heat of battle. Christian knights were supposed to practice a code of chivalry, but the Christian Crusaders engaged in cannibalism at Aleppo in the First Crusade. Bad things happen in war; both sides are culpable. This becomes more complicated when both sides don't believe in the same rules of engagement, a particularly deadly form of culture shock, if you will.

THIS IS A TYPICAL TURKISH "KNIGHT"
SEE THE WAY THE HORSE IS HEADED AND THE WAY THE "BRAVE" HORSE ARCHER'S SHOOTING? (conquest of Byzantium: let them (the Byzantines) pursue, we'll bleed them and then massacre them)

It's called a "Parthian shot" and is actually a maneuver that requires an extraordinary amount of skill. Could you shoot a bow from a galloping horse and hope to hit a target?

 

[Securion]

Poland, Sweden and Byzantium please.

 

[MooFreaky]

Right, most of what the Turks learned about CIVILIZATION, science and culture, was from the BYZANTINES, a nation they'd just conquered.
The people you're defending fought without HONOR. Fleeing away from BYZANTINE troops en masse, while shooting their arrows at them! They would not give the Byzantines a proper battle!
Only after the bled/tired/hungry/thirsty Byzantines were exhausted, "glorious" Turkish warriors would attack them. (the only ones among the Byzantine ranks fleeing from the Turkish attacks were predominantly the well paid French/Frankish mercenary-knights, while the Varangs fought to the last man standing).
Read about the battles between the two, you will learn more about actual facts, before raising your voice at me.

BYZANTIUM does not equal (=) ROME!
So don't give me that! Byzantium was Greek dominated, not Roman. The official language of the country was Greek! LEARN YOUR FACTS!

Turks fought the already weakened Byzantines the best way they could and it was successful. Their tactics were spot on, no denying that! But were they honorable?
You are defending a nation that conquered (in a very bloody way) a civilized empire and built their own empire in its place! Turkey is not an original nation! It's made out of conquest of already pre-existing GREAT NATION.

And another thing:
Check the facts about how many of the great Turkish scientists and such were actually GREEKS - forced to convert to ISLAM! - in order to keep themselves (and their families) alive and prosper in the new (Turkish/Muslim) society.

Sorry, but Turks were invaders, far inferior culturallly! as compared to the Byzantines, they conquered the lands of a great empire, with fire and sword, for that there's not denying, and built their own on the ruins of BYZANTIUM.

Byzantium does equal Rome. It was simply the part of the Empire that remained after the collapse of the West. Even when united the heart of the Empire had resided in Constantinople for centuries. The Byzantines called themselves, and were referred to by others as, Romans. Even the peoples of the West, particularly the Franks, knew them as the Romans. The reason the Franks ended up creating the Holy Roman Empire was to try and give some legitimacy to their occupation of Western Europe, because they were constantly undermined just by the existence of the Roman Empire that existed in the East. Yes, they spoke a different language and lived differently to the Augustine times. But the Romans of 300-400CE lived very different lives to those in 100-200CE. The culture and governance was radically different.

The Romans/Byzantines were not an existing nation. They took that land from its inhabitants in bloody warfare themselves. Largely from the Greek Successor Kingdoms, who had themselves taken it from the Persians. Who had taken it from those before them. So you can't criticise the Turks but not the Romans, who are both guilty of exactly the same thing.

You criticise the Turks for using the Parthian Shot, yet that was a tactic employed by Rome and then Romans/Byzantines as well!! They had been using it since not long after their first wars Persia. They had been facing and using that tactic for 1,500 years!! Again, you are critical of the Turks for something, but not at the Romans, for exactly the same thing.

The Romans/Byzantines also enforced a convert to Christianity or die policy. The later in age the Empire became the more brutally this was enforced. And not simply with those of other faiths, but within Christianity itself. Arianism, Iconoclasts, Monophosites, Nestorians... all had their days of brutal purges and forced conversions and they are all Christians!! Yet again, the same thing is okay for one but not the other.

Roman culture wasn't just theirs. They learned it from others and often took it at the point of a sword. By the end they were cultural but it's not like they learned it all themselves.

Finally, your criticism of the Muslim culture is misplaced. Their culture was vast (and remains so), but the bias and hatred of many means that lots of people don't want to believe that.

EDIT:
Let's not derail this thread any more. I'm more than happy to talk about this over PM (and include Zaarin if he wishes) as I love anything from the Roman period and have spent most of my life studying it. But this thread really needs to go back to relevance.
But seriously, please feel free to drop me a message if you want.

 

[slyone14]

True that.

What would make me really happy is a South East Asia pack that as well as Vietnam and Khmer included either Siam and/or Myanmar (maybe in the form of the Pagan empire with Bagan as the capital). That would be awesome. Indonesia making an appearance again would be welcome too. Basically...I want more South East Asian civs!!!!

Totally agree with this. I would love some different SE Asian civs, their culture is so rich and diverse. I am by no means a history buff, but I think they should add civs like Malaysia, Singapore (rising power here, full of history), Indonesia, Vietnam (Come ON fireaxis, this NEEDS to be in have they ever been in?), The Philippines, and possibly Thailand. My hope is that this game adds different civs than we have already had. I mean certain ones need to be in the game, I agree. But, one of two of them would be neat.

Second, lets do more Africa Please, another under-represented area.

 

[Tamir Lenk]

Komnenan Byzantine with a UA that allows it to purchase any UU available to another civ it has met if the Byzantines have the correct technology

 

[Vahnstad]

what we definitely need:
- Ottomans
- Byzantium
- Netherlands
- Portugal
- Maya
- Korea
- Celts
- Babylon
- Mongolia
- Persia

what I would like to see too
- Carthage
- Ethiopia
- Mali
- Inca
- Siam (i really would like this) / Ayutthaya
- A native American civ (but maybe not Iroquios, but Cherokee or something else
- Polynesia
- Swedish (or danish or viking)
- Austria
- Poland
- Timurids
- Hungary
- Venice


- more civ

 

[jasper]

i dont care what they call it but civ 6 needs a science and industry civ. science bonuses seem to be lacking among the current civs.

 

[God of Kings]

i dont care what they call it but civ 6 needs a science and industry civ. science bonuses seem to be lacking among the current civs.

...especially one with a unique campus.

 

[Liufeng]

I think the best candidate for an industrial and, specially, scientific civ would be Korea.

 

[Guandao]

Maya- led by a female leader this time, Pacal has already been the leader twice in a row
Inca-with Machu Picchu as a wonder, it would be disappointing if it doesn't make it into Civ6, just make the requirement the same as Potala Palace
Mongolia-Genghis or not, either way is fine with me
Persia-another Achaemenid leader would be boring to me, how about a Sassanid ruler instead?
Ottomans-with Mehmed II perhaps
Korea-with Seondeok as leader
Indonesia-with Tribhuwana as leader, and Borobudur as a wonder
Khmer-with Angkor Wat as a wonder
Ethiopia-with one of the Stone Churches of Lalibela as a wonder
Mali-with Mansa Musa, and Great Mosque of Djenne as a wonder
Nubia-it's not simply a lesser Egypt, plus there are cool Kandakes (Queens) to chose as leader
Ashanti-Kumasi is in the game, why not upgrade them to civ?
Benin-to represent the Nigerian area in the game

some of my choices are probably not lucrative enough to be a DLC, but one can dream...

 

[Zaarin]

Persia-another Achaemenid leader would be boring to me, how about a Sassanid ruler instead?

I admit I'm less familiar with the Sassanid period, but I have to say that Achaemenid Persia has some fantastic big personalities to choose from. Darius may or may not have invented the script for writing Old Persian (his claim is supported by the fact that the earliest inscriptions date to his reign and are attributed to him) and based on his inscriptions seemed to have a very high opinion of himself; his inscriptions are also the earliest references to Zoroastrianism outside of the Avesta. Then there's Cyrus II, who Darius borderline deified and seems to have been a very noble conqueror (based both on Darius's inscriptions and on the Biblical accounts of him). And who can forget crazy Xerxes I, who had the Hellespont whipped when he lost a naval battle? And of course, aside from being a little mentally unstable, Xerxes did rule Achaemenid Persia at its greatest territorial extent, like Trajan and Rome.

Personally, if I were choosing Persia's ruler, I'd go with Darius I and/or Xerxes I, plus a Sassanid emperor like Shapur II as a second ruler.

 

[Guandao]

I admit I'm less familiar with the Sassanid period, but I have to say that Achaemenid Persia has some fantastic big personalities to choose from. Darius may or may not have invented the script for writing Old Persian (his claim is supported by the fact that the earliest inscriptions date to his reign and are attributed to him) and based on his inscriptions seemed to have a very high opinion of himself; his inscriptions are also the earliest references to Zoroastrianism outside of the Avesta. Then there's Cyrus II, who Darius borderline deified and seems to have been a very noble conqueror (based both on Darius's inscriptions and on the Biblical accounts of him). And who can forget crazy Xerxes I, who had the Hellespont whipped when he lost a naval battle? And of course, aside from being a little mentally unstable, Xerxes did rule Achaemenid Persia at its greatest territorial extent, like Trajan and Rome.

Personally, if I were choosing Persia's ruler, I'd go with Darius I and/or Xerxes I, plus a Sassanid emperor like Shapur II as a second ruler.

I think Firaxis will avoid having Darius I as the Persian leader, since he was in Civ5,
Cyrus or Xerxes will probably be chosen instead.
Khosrau is also another good choice for a Sassanid leader

 

[Victoria]

I quite like Mithridates as a greek persian. He was one nasty mutha and how he lived so long considering what he did is amazing.

 

[Imaus]

- A map of the present Civ VI civilizations in green, and civilizations that have been in Civilization prior in lime.

Here's a list of the civilizations in the games from I to VI. Red for civilization-not-appearing-in-the-game, Green for vanilla launch civilizations, light green for expansion pack/DLC civs:


I'm going to have to say, to fill out Africa, the Zulu, Mali, and Carthage would not be bad choices, though the Ashanti might be a nice, new choice and were a 'Reinassance-Industrial' power, renown for their gold and militancy.

Asia *needs* the Persians IMHO, too big to ignore. Mongolia could be added to even out 'north' Asia. Indonesia or Thailand for the SE?

South America is tough; an easy and safe pick would be Peru.

But other than the Ashanti, I don't think I've added anything more than what anyone else has said.

 

[Zaarin]

I think Firaxis will avoid having Darius I as the Persian leader, since he was in Civ5,
Cyrus or Xerxes will probably be chosen instead.
Khosrau is also another good choice for a Sassanid leader

A shame, too, as of the three Darius strikes me as the "biggest personality." I personally hope for Xerxes I because he's more "unexpected" so to speak than Cyrus II, he ruled the empire at its territorial apex (along with Darius), and he just strikes me as a better representative of Achaemenid Persia than the more humanitarian Cyrus. Plus we have contemporary records and chronicles* on Xerxes--most of what we know about Cyrus comes from Darius, who was definitely establishing the cult of Cyrus to cement his own rule. Plus the game could use a little more crazy; at the moment we only have Qin Shi Huang, Gandhi, and Tomyris.

*Or, you know, we could just go the Sumeria route and make crap up despite have reams of records. No, I'm never going to forgive them for that...

 

[MooFreaky]

Xerxes has a bad reputation because almost everything we know about him is from the Greeks. Most of the crazy stories about him need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt (probably an entire sackful of it). Though he definitely fits the bill of "big personality" and the way that Civ6 is taking the classical/artistic depictions of rulers would make him a fantastic choice IMO.

Even without all the stories, he would offer interesting prospects as they could give him a vengeful personality. Any Civilization that declares suprise war upon Persia is marked for revenge. Persia will declare war upon said target as soon as they have a powerful military, and will seek to make/join joint wars against those that have wronged them.

*Or, you know, we could just go the Sumeria route and make crap up despite have reams of records. No, I'm never going to forgive them for that...

I bet you were a fan of El Dorado and the Fountain of Youth in 5 then...
We can only hope they add Atlantis and Camelot as city states. Or they could have Valhalla as a natural wonder!

 

[God of Kings]

I bet you were a fan of El Dorado and the Fountain of Youth in 5 then...
We can only hope they add Atlantis and Camelot as city states. Or they could have Valhalla as a natural wonder!

Atlantis is already in Civ VI...

...as the name of a continent.

However, that didn't stop America and Kongo from having continents named after them.

 

[Zaarin]

I bet you were a fan of El Dorado and the Fountain of Youth in 5 then...

I actually never encountered them in Civ5, probably because I virtually always played on either the Earth map or the Scrambled Earth map. But my issue with Sumeria is that we have thousands of clay tablets detailing every aspect of Sumerian life--yet the Sumerian civilization isn't based on what we know about Sumer at all. It's entirely based on a Babylonian epic poem. Making things up would be understandable if we were talking about an obscure civilization that left few records, but the Sumerians were meticulous record keepers--we probably know more about them than any other ancient civilization except Egypt (who were also meticulous if not entirely honest record keepers--the pharaohs did like to inflate their victories and not mention at all their defeats ).