Civs Made More or Less Likely by Current Civ Cities

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Sweden as a 'Viking' Civ would be much more related to Trade than conquest or raid, and, to be even vaguely accurate, should be related to river movement, which Civ VI lacks completely. After all, Sweden's great viking endeavors were almost all up and down the rivers of Russia - to which they supplied the name, being called 'Rus'.

More importantly from a Civ VI standpoint, there aren't a lot of memorable Swedish Viking leaders to hang a Civ on, whereas the known Swedish leaders are all from later: Gustaf Adolph, Charles XII - and, as mentioned, from the 'Golden Age' of Sweden's (brief) domination of Baltic Europe.
Let's NOT continue the odious trend of having a Leader totally unconnected historically or chronologically with most or any of the Civ's Uniques - as in the current Scotland, Germany, England, America, etc.

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting Sweden as a Viking related Civ for this current game, and would rather them portrayed from their "Golden Age". I was just stating that it could definitely be plausible for the next one, as we already have Norway filling in the role for this game, and I wouldn't mind.
I personally don't mind unique abilities being from different time periods as it sometimes represents the Civ across history, but what is wrong with America?

 

[Guandao]

Sorry, I was addressing the apparent assumption in the Thread that assemblies were unique to a Scandinavian/Viking culture or Civ, whereas in fact they are a near-universal Indo-European trait... On the other hand, Iceland WAS unique in that they resolved the problem of conflict between Christian and Pagan in Iceland through the elected assembly and without bloodshed, and that is almost completely unique in the history of religious conflict.

Were assemblies present in Indo-Aryan, and Iranian peoples? And were Indo-Europeans the only peoples with assembles back then?

 

[Zaarin]

Were assemblies present in Indo-Aryan, and Iranian peoples? And were Indo-Europeans the only peoples with assembles back then?

I don't know enough about Indo-Aryan peoples to comment, but yes to Iranian peoples. The Achaemenids, of course, picked up sacred absolute monarchy from Mesopotamia, but assemblies were absolutely a thing (pun intended) among other Iranian peoples and almost certainly a thing in pre-Achaemenid Persia and Media. (Some vestiges of consensual rule carried on in Achaemenid Persia, of course; satrapies certainly weren't Babylonian.)

As for "back then," we're faced with the difficulty of basically having two sample groups: Indo-Europeans and the non-Indo-European Near East. Indo-Europeans preferred representation and consensus (to the point that king was a dirty word in both Rome and Greece); the non-Indo-European Near East had god-kings. However, it may be worth noting that prior to the development of monarchy we do have instances of representative rulership in the Near East, most notably the judges of Israel (carried on in Carthage). Also the bulk of the Hebrew Bible is notably anti-monarchic, even while supporting the Davidic dynasty, so...

Representative, consensual government is certainly found outside of Indo-European cultures. Many Native American cultures preferred it. I'm reasonably certain it's found in both Africa and Oceania. Etc.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I personally don't mind unique abilities being from different time periods as it sometimes represents the Civ across history, but what is wrong with America?

Well, America as a Civ has the P-51 and Teddy Roosevelt gives the 'Rough Rider' as Unique Units.
The P-51, a Fighter, is virtually useless in the game, like all other Fighters, and not just in this game - remember the Japanese Zero Unique Unit in Civ V? The designers shoulda known better by now.
The Rough Rider gains Culture from kills' on their Home Continent and is better on hills. That's really strange, since the actual 1st Volunteer Cavalry Regiment that the unit represents never fought on the North American continent and only fought at all Dismounted, not as 'cavalry'.
Teddy Roosevelt as leader is related to the Rough Riders, but not to the P-51, or the Film Studio, and, again, his effect is extra Combat Strength for units on his Home Continent and more Appeal in Cities with National Parks. That last I will accept, but Roosevelt, except for his stint as Assistant Commander of the 1st Volunteer Cavalry, never had anything to do with ground units at all: he was Secretary of the Navy before he became Vice President, and he was associated almost throughout his political career with Reform of financial and government practices and the Progressive Era in America. Yet there is no sign of his influence on Social Policy or Civics or the navy.

I don't mean to single out the Civ VI version of America - the same arguments could be made about most of the Civs, and America is far from the most incoherent package of 'civ traits' among them.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Representative, consensual government is certainly found outside of Indo-European cultures. Many Native American cultures preferred it. I'm reasonably certain it's found in both Africa and Oceania. Etc.

I would go so far as to say that consensus decision-making by councils of various kinds was the norm among North American native groups. Certainly it was among the Algonkian and Iroquois of the Northeast, the 'Civilized Tribes' of the Southeast, and the 'plains tribes' like the Lakotah and Cheyenne. The Iroquois, famously, had two councils, one of women and one of men, each handling decisions in their own areas of interest.
Back in the 'Old World', many of the Steppe pastoral cultures had councils: Scythians, Pechenegs, Khazars, etc. The Pechenegs, for a twist, believed the council should always debate any decision twice: once sober and once drunk, and if they could come to the same conclusion both times, they knew their decision was right!

 

[Zaarin]

I would go so far as to say that consensus decision-making by councils of various kinds was the norm among North American native groups.

Yes, the chief exceptions were Mesoamerica and the Andes, where we're back to god-kings, and the PNW, where you have governing by consensus but dominated by big men of noble birth who hold considerable power over their clans, and the proto-historic Southeast (again, god-kings--but giving way to consensual rule with the collapse of the Mississippian culture complex).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Well, America as a Civ has the P-51 and Teddy Roosevelt gives the 'Rough Rider' as Unique Units.
The P-51, a Fighter, is virtually useless in the game, like all other Fighters, and not just in this game - remember the Japanese Zero Unique Unit in Civ V? The designers shoulda known better by now.
The Rough Rider gains Culture from kills' on their Home Continent and is better on hills. That's really strange, since the actual 1st Volunteer Cavalry Regiment that the unit represents never fought on the North American continent and only fought at all Dismounted, not as 'cavalry'.

Considering Teddy Roosevelt and most of the uniques they have are relatively around the modern era, it doesn't seem as far of a stretch as others. As for the Rough Riders, I believe the developers decided to give America basically a "Wild West Cowboy" type of unit which is why they would be better on hills, mounted, and give a boost culture on their continent, even if it is historically inaccurate to what they originally were.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Considering Teddy Roosevelt and most of the uniques they have are relatively around the modern era, it doesn't seem as far of a stretch as others. As for the Rough Riders, I believe the developers decided to give America basically a "Wild West Cowboy" type of unit which is why they would be better on hills, mounted, and give a boost culture on their continent, even if it is historically inaccurate to what they originally were.

As stated, America is no worse than many others. BUT if they wanted to have a Unique American mounted unit, this is where they should have consulted someone who knows the 'nuts and bolts' of military history (cough, cough): ALL the United States Cavalry, from the very first regiments formed before the Mexican War, were capable of both mounted and dismounted action, and far more ready to use dismounted firepower and maneuver than any other cavalry in the world in the 18th or 19th centuries. A Unique Cavalry unit that could chose to use Mounted or Melee bonuses as required by the situation would give the American Civ something both much more useful and much more realistic.

And if they wanted a specific 'Wild West Cowboy' unit, you're really talking about a Civilian Unit - perhaps a Combat Factor for American Settlers or Builders - or perhaps a Mounted version of the Ranger, unique to America...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

A Unique Cavalry unit that could chose to use Mounted or Melee bonuses as required by the situation would give the American Civ something both much more useful and much more realistic.

I'd like to see something like that maybe for Civ 7. Although if I would have to choose any Civ to get a "cowboy" type unique unit I would rather it be Argentina with a Gaucho who could theoretically have many of the same attributes that the Rough Rider currently has.
To get back on topic what are the chances of Argentina possibly making it in this time around? They share some territory with the Mapuche but of course no cities, so it's hard to say. I would say if we get a Spanish speaking Colonial Civ either they or (Gran) Colombia have the biggest chances. And they both have possibly an interesting leader, Eva Peron and Simon Bolivar. I know Eva Peron was just a first lady, but very influential.

 

[Phrozen]

Why does everyone want the Peron's in charge of Argentina? The Peron's helped start Argentina in becoming an economic basket case of cycles of hyperinflation and then bankruptcy that has been its history for the last hundred years or so.

 

[Zaarin]

Why does everyone want the Peron's in charge of Argentina?

Because Civ6 is a game about big personalities, and Madonna, I mean Eva Peron, is about all Argentina has. (Honestly I'd rather not see Argentina or any additional postcolonial civs, but I've been vocal about that since Brazil had the misfortune to be announced, so...)

 

[Haig]

I noticed Rise and Fall had four "classic" civs (Mongolia, Korea, Netherlands, Zulu) and four fresh faces (Cree, Mapuche, Georgia, Scotland) so maybe next expansion has the same deal.

I feel that Inca and Ottomans have been the two most requested civs in all threads so those two are pretty safe bets..

 

[Guandao]

Because Civ6 is a game about big personalities, and Madonna, I mean Eva Peron, is about all Argentina has. (Honestly I'd rather not see Argentina or any additional postcolonial civs, but I've been vocal about that since Brazil had the misfortune to be announced, so...)

No love for San Martin?

I noticed Rise and Fall had four "classic" civs (Mongolia, Korea, Netherlands, Zulu) and four fresh faces (Cree, Mapuche, Georgia, Scotland) so maybe next expansion has the same deal.

I feel that Inca and Ottomans have been the two most requested civs in all threads so those two are pretty safe bets..

I hope they don't put 4 new Civs this time, because there are so many "veteran" Civs which haven't returned yet. Babylon....Carthage....Byzantines...Maya........Ethiopia....Classical Celts.....Portugal....
I guess Mali doesn't count, since it only appeared once in Civ, but that region of Africa really needs at least one Civ. Kongo isn't West African....

 

[Dragonflow]

I feel that Inca and Ottomans have been the two most requested civs in all threads so those two are pretty safe bets..

Ottomans kinda feel like a civ destined to end up in a Scenario & Civilization DLC with the Byzantines.

 

[Phrozen]

Yeah, the next expansion could just be filled with returning civs:

Turks, Maya, Inca, Portugal, Sweden, Babylon, Ethiopia, Mali\Songhai, Carthage or Morocco.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Yeah, the next expansion could just be filled with returning civs:

Turks, Maya, Inca, Portugal, Sweden, Babylon, Ethiopia, Mali\Songhai, Carthage or Morocco.

But, of these 'returning civl' some (has has been pointed out repeatedly) are less likely than others:
Inca less likely due to previous inclusion of Mapuche
Babylon less likely due to previous inclusion of Sumer
Ethiopia less likely due to previous inclusion of Nubia

Regardless of the differences between the potential and included Civs, in the 'popular mind' for marketing purposes, they are very similar in relative time and space, and so have to be 'sold' with a little more effort.

And in some cases, a 'double feature' such as Ottomans - Byzantium is more likely than either of them separately, because of the possibility of also including several Scenarios with such a 'team' - Fall of Rome, End of the Middle Ages, Into the Renaissance - we've seen 'em before, because they work as 'stand-alone' Historically Significant 'mini-games'. Other such 'pairs' between already-included and potential Civs are Rome - Carthage, Rome - Gaul, Spain - Inca, Spain - Portugal, Sweden - Russia (especially with Peter as Leader of Russia!) - any of these would almost automatically allow the inclusion of a Scenario with the new Civ.

Civ VI is distinctly 'light' in some areas of the world geographically, (Northwest Africa, eastern North America) but also 'light' in some Civs that were very important at important periods. That makes the argument for Carthage, Maya, Inca, Ottomans, Portugal, and to a lesser extent Babylon and Sweden. The ability to 'pair up' Civs to provide Mini-games/Scenarios for those important periods, since Rome, Spain, Britain, and Arabia are already in the game, makes an argument for Portugal, Inca, Carthage - and Gaul.

Another point to consider: there are already Mod Civs in Civ VI for the Ottomans, Ethiopia, and Mali that have been available for some time. A look at the popularity in numbers of Downloads for those would probably also give a good clue as to which 'potential Civs' are most popular/viable.

 

[Guandao]

But, of these 'returning civl' some (has has been pointed out repeatedly) are less likely than others:
Inca less likely due to previous inclusion of Mapuche
Babylon less likely due to previous inclusion of Sumer
Ethiopia less likely due to previous inclusion of Nubia

Regardless of the differences between the potential and included Civs, in the 'popular mind' for marketing purposes, they are very similar in relative time and space, and so have to be 'sold' with a little more effort.

And in some cases, a 'double feature' such as Ottomans - Byzantium is more likely than either of them separately, because of the possibility of also including several Scenarios with such a 'team' - Fall of Rome, End of the Middle Ages, Into the Renaissance - we've seen 'em before, because they work as 'stand-alone' Historically Significant 'mini-games'. Other such 'pairs' between already-included and potential Civs are Rome - Carthage, Rome - Gaul, Spain - Inca, Spain - Portugal, Sweden - Russia (especially with Peter as Leader of Russia!) - any of these would almost automatically allow the inclusion of a Scenario with the new Civ.

Civ VI is distinctly 'light' in some areas of the world geographically, (Northwest Africa, eastern North America) but also 'light' in some Civs that were very important at important periods. That makes the argument for Carthage, Maya, Inca, Ottomans, Portugal, and to a lesser extent Babylon and Sweden. The ability to 'pair up' Civs to provide Mini-games/Scenarios for those important periods, since Rome, Spain, Britain, and Arabia are already in the game, makes an argument for Portugal, Inca, Carthage - and Gaul.

Another point to consider: there are already Mod Civs in Civ VI for the Ottomans, Ethiopia, and Mali that have been available for some time. A look at the popularity in numbers of Downloads for those would probably also give a good clue as to which 'potential Civs' are most popular/viable.

I hope the Mapuche don't make the Inca less likely.....they aren't very similar except for being from the Andes region. The Mapuche weren't empire builders or constructors of a vast road system like the Inca. They are portrayed as fierce resistors of colonialism.

Sumer could've replaced Assyria from Civ5. There's still hope that we could get two ancient Mesopotamian Civs. And let's face it, Civ 6's Sumer is the Epic of Gilgamesh Civ (aka not based on the real history of the Sumerian people). I would like a more historically based Mesopotamian Civ.

Ethiopia and Nubia share little in common except for being "East African". If it was Christian Nubia (Nobatia/Makuria/Alodia) being represented by an official Civ, maybe Ethiopia would be considered too similar for inclusion.

 

[Zaarin]

Sumer could've replaced Assyria from Civ5.

TBH, despite Sumer's very Assyrian aesthetic in game, if I have to choose two among Sumer, Babylon, and Assyria with Sumer already chosen for me...I'm choosing Assyria for my second choice. True, Babylon has been a staple, probably has greater name recognition, and is undeniably significant, but: 1) Assyria has some fantastic leaders (Tiglath-Pileser III, please); 2) Assyria is not burdened by the expectation of being a science civ and can instead focus on war, faith, and culture somewhat akin to Persia; and 3) while I doubt they're a big market for Civ there are still ethnic Assyrians whereas I'm not aware of people who self-identify as Babylonian. But IMO we shouldn't have to choose among the three, any more than we should have to choose among England, France, and Spain.

And let's face it, Civ 6's Sumer is the Epic of Gilgamesh Civ (aka not based on the real history of the Sumerian people). I would a more historically based Mesopotamian Civ.

Yes.

Ethiopia and Nubia share little in common except for being "East African". If it was Christian Nubia (Nobatia/Makuria/Alodia) being represented by an official Civ, maybe Ethiopia would be considered too similar for inclusion.

I agree with this. Ethiopia has a lot of appeal for its successful resistance of European colonialism and its ancient Christian heritage, second only to Armenia whose inclusion has been made unlikely by its neighbor Georgia.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I hope the Mapuche don't make the Inca less likely.....they aren't very similar except for being from the Andes region. The Mapuche weren't empire builders or constructors of a vast road system like the Inca. They are portrayed as fierce resistors of colonialism.

Sumer could've replaced Assyria from Civ5. There's still hope that we could get two ancient Mesopotamian Civs. And let's face it, Civ 6's Sumer is the Epic of Gilgamesh Civ (aka not based on the real history of the Sumerian people). I would a more historically based Mesopotamian Civ.

Ethiopia and Nubia share little in common except for being "East African". If it was Christian Nubia (Nobatia/Makuria/Alodia) being represented by an official Civ, maybe Ethiopia would be considered too similar for inclusion.

I agree with all of this, but I doubt that it will be of any importance to the choice of Civs to include in the game. ALL civilizations that last for more than a generation are far more diverse than the game allows: that's the price of Locking In each Civ to a single set of Uniques and a single (or pair of) Unique Leaders.

Shuckee Gee, I studied history at university with no particular emphasis on the ancient Near East or Mediterranean, but as potential distinct civilizations other than the semi-mythological Sumer we got, I could suggest Babylonia, Neo-Babylonia, Assyria, the Hittites, Mitanni, and later in the same general area the Lydians, Medes, Palmyrians, Phoenician city-states, or early Armenians.
But let's face it, the selections so far have been based on distinctly non-historical factors:
1. Do they have a recognizable and distinctive Leader
2. Are they either well-known to the modern gamers who are potentially going to buy the game (England, USA, China, Korea, Australia, Brazil, France, Russia, etc.) or are they so historically important you can't legitimately leave them out (Greece, Rome, China, Britain, France, Egypt), or do they show off the Designers' knowledge of obscure 'Civilizations" (Mapuche, Scythians, Nubians, Cree) to impress the Public.
3. Are they sort of a little bit geographically distributed around the world, but especially representing every place where people live now who might buy the game - so Africa is going to get Short Shrift regardless of the historical importance of any Civ south of Egypt.

And finally, since they can pick and choose what aspects of any Civ to display in the limited number of Uniques, the actual historical aspects of the Civ in question over time are largely unimportant: Ethiopia, for instance, could be the Italian-bashing anti-colonials of the late 19th - 20th century or the Christian Nation of the early middle ages, France can be any France from that of Catherine (who was actually Italian) to Louis XIV to Napoleon (who grew up speaking an Italian dialect) to Charles De Gaulle - and so on and on through just about every civ now or potentially in the game.

Don't get me wrong: I like the 'obscure' civ choices, and I don't even mind the choice to 'showcase' obscure eras or traits of 'popular' Civs - both sets of choices have a gameplay and historically educational function (Admit it, how many of you could have named ANY Scythian leader before playing the game?).
But it means the choice of Civs to include doesn't rest on their 'uniqueness', because that can be manipulated, or their Importance, because that is relative, and everything is subordinate to marketing decisions (Nazi Germany was extremely important in 20th century history, but don't hold your breath waiting for Adolf as an alternative leader for Germany! - and we all know the fate of any potential Tibetan Civ has nothing at all to do with any historical or gameplay relevance)

 

[Guandao]

I agree with all of this, but I doubt that it will be of any importance to the choice of Civs to include in the game. ALL civilizations that last for more than a generation are far more diverse than the game allows: that's the price of Locking In each Civ to a single set of Uniques and a single (or pair of) Unique Leaders.

Shuckee Gee, I studied history at university with no particular emphasis on the ancient Near East or Mediterranean, but as potential distinct civilizations other than the semi-mythological Sumer we got, I could suggest Babylonia, Neo-Babylonia, Assyria, the Hittites, Mitanni, and later in the same general area the Lydians, Medes, Palmyrians, Phoenician city-states, or early Armenians.
But let's face it, the selections so far have been based on distinctly non-historical factors:
1. Do they have a recognizable and distinctive Leader
2. Are they either well-known to the modern gamers who are potentially going to buy the game (England, USA, China, Korea, Australia, Brazil, France, Russia, etc.) or are they so historically important you can't legitimately leave them out (Greece, Rome, China, Britain, France, Egypt), or do they show off the Designers' knowledge of obscure 'Civilizations" (Mapuche, Scythians, Nubians, Cree) to impress the Public.
3. Are they sort of a little bit geographically distributed around the world, but especially representing every place where people live now who might buy the game - so Africa is going to get Short Shrift regardless of the historical importance of any Civ south of Egypt.

And finally, since they can pick and choose what aspects of any Civ to display in the limited number of Uniques, the actual historical aspects of the Civ in question over time are largely unimportant: Ethiopia, for instance, could be the Italian-bashing anti-colonials of the late 19th - 20th century or the Christian Nation of the early middle ages, France can be any France from that of Catherine (who was actually Italian) to Louis XIV to Napoleon (who grew up speaking an Italian dialect) to Charles De Gaulle - and so on and on through just about every civ now or potentially in the game.

Don't get me wrong: I like the 'obscure' civ choices, and I don't even mind the choice to 'showcase' obscure eras or traits of 'popular' Civs - both sets of choices have a gameplay and historically educational function (Admit it, how many of you could have named ANY Scythian leader before playing the game?).
But it means the choice of Civs to include doesn't rest on their 'uniqueness', because that can be manipulated, or their Importance, because that is relative, and everything is subordinate to marketing decisions (Nazi Germany was extremely important in 20th century history, but don't hold your breath waiting for Adolf as an alternative leader for Germany! - and we all know the fate of any potential Tibetan Civ has nothing at all to do with any historical or gameplay relevance)

Still, it would be pretty sad if the Inca don't make it to Civ6..... The fact that Firaxis gave the Mapuche "citizens" Quechua names worries me (even though it could be a silly mistake).
Another thing that bothers me is Monty's background in Civ6, it depicts a Mayan pyramid like the one at Chichen Itza, as opposed to the Huey Teocalli.....
It's like they're not even trying to differentiate the Amerindian Civs.

Mayaincatec.....