Civs Made More or Less Likely by Current Civ Cities

[Boris Gudenuf]

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.....

You know what they say - Seen one jungle-encrusted pyramid, ya' seen 'em all...

Once you start counting 'silly mistakes' in Civ VI you'll never stop: they multiply with every DLC...

And frankly, I'm less concerned with linquistic mistakes (wrong names, dialects, pronounciations) or background architecture than I am with mistakes that directly affect how they depict the Civilizations. like:
Friedrich Barbarossa as leader of Germany with a Hansa Unique District - so incongruous I almost expected to see Boudica leading the English with longbowmen, but instead got:
Victoria leading the English with Sea Dogs - which, given that she was, like the ENTIRE British Monarchy after the beginning of the 18th century, mostly German and led Britain which is NOT THE SAME as England any more than the Holy Roman Empire and its Emperor are the same as Germany regardless of how the Germans numbered their 'Reichs', is 'way beyond 'silly'. and let's not forget:
Catherine de Medici leading France, which aside from trampling on the Salic Law and ignoring the fact that she was never the leader of the country at all is simply a Lousy Choice given the number of 'real' leaders of France that could have been picked.
And so it goes...

The additional problem with examples like those above, is that Friedrich's misplacement makes an actual Holy Roman Empire Civ now almost impossible, and Victoria's backdating or simple mistitling as 'English' makes a real English leader also improbable: bye-bye Henry VIII or Elizabeth I, except as hybrid English-British monarchs that misrepresents them almost entirely.

Although, there are pretty good Anglo-Saxon and Norman Mod Civs for Civ VI, which at least give you a stab at an earlier and semi-actual 'English' Civilization.

BUT, relying on the Mod Community to correct the mistakes of Civ VI is IMHO, letting Firaxis off the hook much too gently.
I applaud the attempt to get unique leaders and civs into the game, but I despise the historical and cultural illiteracy some of the choices represent.

 

[Zaarin]

I applaud the attempt to get unique leaders and civs into the game, but I despise the historical and cultural illiteracy some of the choices represent.

Yes. Far more than the fact that she was figurehead this is why having Victoria lead England is such a problem for me. She was never the queen of England--her style was "Queen of the United Kingdom," as had been the style of every monarch since Queen Anne. And the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is a very different beast than England.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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.....

Mayaincatecuche…
Wasn't there an interview with Ed Beach that they were looking to bring in more Civs in South America for Civ 6? If so the Inca have to be one of them. Besides we still got England even after they gave Americans citizens English names.

 

[Siptah]

The fact that Munich is missing in the German city list makes me hope for Bavaria. However, there are other important Bavarian cities in there, so I don't think it is outright likely. A DLC with Maximilian I. leading Bavaria and Gustav II Adolf of Sweden would be a phenomenal addition in my book, though. Both clearly were great personalities for which historically rooted interesting abilities come to mind easily. Sad, that it is not going to happen.

 

[Guandao]

The additional problem with examples like those above, is that Friedrich's misplacement makes an actual Holy Roman Empire Civ now almost impossible, and Victoria's backdating or simple mistitling as 'English' makes a real English leader also improbable: bye-bye Henry VIII or Elizabeth I, except as hybrid English-British monarchs that misrepresents them almost entirely.

I prefer not having an actual Holy Roman Empire Civ.....too confusing (plus it would take a slot away from a non-European Civ ). I'm fine with Frederick Barbarossa leading Germany, because I view the HRE as the medieval Germany. Otherwise the German leader choices would be limited to Bismarck......

Mayaincatecuche…
Wasn't there an interview with Ed Beach that they were looking to bring in more Civs in South America for Civ 6? If so the Inca have to be one of them. Besides we still got England even after they gave Americans citizens English names.

Don't Americans usually have English names? I'm still annoyed by the Quechua names for Mapuche citizens. Mapundungan language isn't related to Quechua. If they used actual Mapuche names, we would have Caupolican and Janequeo among them.

 

[Zaarin]

Don't Americans usually have English names?

The most popular American names for the past few decades have been a mixture of English names of Hebrew derivation (Noah, Hannah, etc.), names of Celtic derivation (Aiden, Jennifer, etc.), and Americanisms that have a tendency to be female and unforgivable (Destiny, Neveah, etc.). Due to immigration and conversion, some Arabic and Spanish names have made it to the top 50 as well. Names of actual English etymology tend to sound old-fashioned to Americans: Albert, Alfred, Godiva, Wilbur, Winnifred, etc.--with a few exceptions mostly related to professions and geographical locations like Wesley, Ashley, Tyler, Cooper, Hunter, etc.

 

[Guandao]

The most popular American names for the past few decades have been a mixture of English names of Hebrew derivation (Noah, Hannah, etc.), names of Celtic derivation (Aiden, Jennifer, etc.), and Americanisms that have a tendency to be female and unforgivable (Destiny, Neveah, etc.). Due to immigration and conversion, some Arabic and Spanish names have made it to the top 50 as well. Names of actual English etymology tend to sound old-fashioned to Americans: Albert, Alfred, Godiva, Wilbur, Winnifred, etc.--with a few exceptions mostly related to professions and geographical locations like Wesley, Ashley, Tyler, Cooper, Hunter, etc.

My English first name isn't of Hebrew derivation, nor Celtic, or an Americanism..it's from Latin...
And what I meant is that American names aren't that different from those used by the modern English people. I don't mean actual origin from the Old English language.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Don't Americans usually have English names?

It was meant to come off as a joke meaning I don't think that Quecha names will prevent the Incas from coming.
Speaking as an American, my first name is Irish, however my middle and last are English so your partially correct.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The most popular American names for the past few decades have been a mixture of English names of Hebrew derivation (Noah, Hannah, etc.), names of Celtic derivation (Aiden, Jennifer, etc.), and Americanisms that have a tendency to be female and unforgivable (Destiny, Neveah, etc.). Due to immigration and conversion, some Arabic and Spanish names have made it to the top 50 as well. Names of actual English etymology tend to sound old-fashioned to Americans: Albert, Alfred, Godiva, Wilbur, Winnifred, etc.--with a few exceptions mostly related to professions and geographical locations like Wesley, Ashley, Tyler, Cooper, Hunter, etc.

- And don't forget American names that sound English, but are actually 'English-equivalents' from other languages. Case in point, my mother's maiden family name was Swicegood, which sounds English, but is actually simply the nearest English equivalent that the English-speaking clerk could write down when the family name was first recorded on arrival in the Americas in 1754. The family was actually German, but we never have been able to find out what the original name was before it was 'translated'.

 

[Siptah]

- And don't forget American names that sound English, but are actually 'English-equivalents' from other languages. Case in point, my mother's maiden family name was Swicegood, which sounds English, but is actually simply the nearest English equivalent that the English-speaking clerk could write down when the family name was first recorded on arrival in the Americas in 1754. The family was actually German, but we never have been able to find out what the original name was before it was 'translated'.

It's probably just Schweisgut/Schweissgut/Schweißgut.

Otherwise the German leader choices would be limited to Bismarck......

There are quite a number of other good options for representing a unified Germany. Bismarck is a good option (although I don't want him to return until civ 10 at the least), but according to my experience, he is much more famed in America nowadays than he is in Germany and Europe. Or I would even go as far as calling middle of the 20th century Americans obsessed with Bismarck. How about Ebert, Stresemann, Bethmann Hollweg, Adenauer, Kohl or Scheidemann if you want to use a chancellor/president?

 

[Zaarin]

My English first name isn't of Hebrew derivation, nor Celtic, or an Americanism..it's from Latin...

And my first name is of unknown derivation and my middle name is German.

And don't forget American names that sound English, but are actually 'English-equivalents' from other languages. Case in point, my mother's maiden family name was Swicegood, which sounds English, but is actually simply the nearest English equivalent that the English-speaking clerk could write down when the family name was first recorded on arrival in the Americas in 1754. The family was actually German, but we never have been able to find out what the original name was before it was 'translated'.

Yeah, this is the other variety of Americanisms--names the Ellis Island workers couldn't figure out so they made something up. Happened to the Irish, too: hence the apostrophe in O'_____ names from ua ______, which the English clerks reanalyzed as "of _______."

There are quite a number of other good options for representing a unified Germany. Bismarck is a good option (although I don't want him to return until civ 10 at the least), but according to my experience, he is much more famed in America nowadays than he is in Germany and Europe. Or I would even go as far as calling middle of the 20th century Americans obsessed with Bismarck.

I think Hitler's respect for Bismarck tarnished Bismarck's reputation in Europe, which is a shame.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

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

I don't think we'd have to be fearful of that just yet. If that were the case then we wouldn't have Scotland due to England, Nubia due to Egypt, or Netherlands due to Germany (though admittedly Europe and the Mediterranean probably do get away with this more than the other places). I'd be much more worried if the Mapuche had Incan cities, if Sumer had Babylonian cities, and if the Nubians had Ethiopian cities. Those are some pretty important civs to the fans too so it should just be a matter of time before we see them.

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).

Yeah, as much as I like Gilgamesh, I agree that at least the civ ability should've been more reflective of Sumerian history. I can see the appeal of having an alt Sumerian leader to see if that could remedy it a bit.

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.

I can understand picking Assyria if a choice absolutely had to be made between them and Babylon though I'll continue to hope for both of them appearing. I believe that we shouldn't lose any of the civs that appeared in Civ 1.

But IMO we shouldn't have to choose among the three, any more than we should have to choose among England, France, and Spain.

100% agreed.

Armenia whose inclusion has been made unlikely by its neighbor Georgia.

I'd argue that, even more so than the Yerevan city-state or Georgia civ, it's the Armenian cities (or city in this case) in the Roman and Persian city lists that are the biggest indicators of no Armenian civ.

No love for San Martin?

Eva has quite the personality but I think San Martin would be great choice, especially if Colombia and Bolivar don't show up (I know some people think adding them means excluding the Muisca).

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.

I do think that the Civ series has improved upon this with each new game (apart from the occasional hiccups like the NA civ) but I definitely agree that it still has a ways to go to do better in those areas.

Admit it, how many of you could have named ANY Scythian leader before playing the game?

I'll be the first to admit that I knew none of them before playing this 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)

Thankfully mods can help in these cases but I definitely agree that it's a huge shame that Tibet and the like are locked up due to the market.

You know what they say - Seen one jungle-encrusted pyramid, ya' seen 'em all...

Once you start counting 'silly mistakes' in Civ VI you'll never stop: they multiply with every DLC...

Yeah, I've mentioned before how Monty looks more Mayan than Aztec and how the Mayans in Apocalypto act more like Aztecs. We should be lucky that we didn't have to get 1 civ called Mesoamerica.

Yes. Far more than the fact that she was figurehead this is why having Victoria lead England is such a problem for me. She was never the queen of England--her style was "Queen of the United Kingdom," as had been the style of every monarch since Queen Anne. And the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is a very different beast than England.

With all that in mind, you'd think Elizabeth would be the natural choice, she's one of those leaders I wouldn't mind returning again and again. I guess Victoria just had the upper hand due to the recent movies and TV shows about her.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I don't think we'd have to be fearful of that just yet. If that were the case then we wouldn't have Scotland due to England, Nubia due to Egypt, or Netherlands due to Germany (though admittedly Europe and the Mediterranean probably do get away with this more than the other places). I'd be much more worried if the Mapuche had Incan cities, if Sumer had Babylonian cities, and if the Nubians had Ethiopian cities. Those are some pretty important civs to the fans too so it should just be a matter of time before we see them.

I'll admit, just based on the previous history of the franchise, that I'd be very, very surprised if they don't 'squeeze in' the Inca and Babylonians. Ethiopia I'm less sure of, although I think it would be a great 'teaching' Civ to include, simply because the bulk of gamers have little or no knowledge of the rich religious/cultural history of the area. Also, the Ethiopian highlands appear to have been the origin of the coffee plant and the Bubonic plague (spread to rats from Wild Ethiopian Gerbils, and I confess that I find the mental image of hordes of plague-carrying Gerbils almost as hysterically funny as "Springtime for Hitler"), and no Civ game is complete without at least one of those!

As for knowing Scythian leaders, that's one of the more dubious benefits of taking an advanced degree in Classics with emphasis on the Hellenistic period...

And finally, a serious Thank You to all the Mod Community, who do so much to alleviate the shortcomings of the basic game. Pertinent to this discussion is that they've already produced pretty good Mod Civs of Ethiopia, Tibet, Assyria, Armenia, and the Hittites, Elizabeth I as an Alternative to Victoria, and a 'reworked' version of Sumer...

 

[Zaarin]

I'd argue that, even more so than the Yerevan city-state or Georgia civ, it's the Armenian cities (or city in this case) in the Roman and Persian city lists that are the biggest indicators of no Armenian civ.

Since those names are in Latin and Farsi respectively, I'm not sure that would be a large obstacle. All the city lists are a mess.

With all that in mind, you'd think Elizabeth would be the natural choice, she's one of those leaders I wouldn't mind returning again and again. I guess Victoria just had the upper hand due to the recent movies and TV shows about her.

As a huge fan of Elizabeth's, it's truly a shame.

I'll admit, just based on the previous history of the franchise, that I'd be very, very surprised if they don't 'squeeze in' the Inca and Babylonians. Ethiopia I'm less sure of, although I think it would be a great 'teaching' Civ to include, simply because the bulk of gamers have little or no knowledge of the rich religious/cultural history of the area. Also, the Ethiopian highlands appear to have been the origin of the coffee plant

Honestly, their contribution of coffee alone makes Ethiopia the most important nation in the world, and Ethiopian coffee is still by far the best.

 

[Phrozen]

Yeah, this is the other variety of Americanisms--names the Ellis Island workers couldn't figure out so they made something up. Happened to the Irish, too: hence the apostrophe in O'_____ names from ua ______, which the English clerks reanalyzed as "of _______."

And most Italian last names in America are simply the city/town that the immigrant came from.

Honestly, their contribution of coffee alone makes Ethiopia the most important nation in the world, and Ethiopian coffee is still by far the best.

I will take my Kona and fight you.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

And most Italian last names in America are simply the city/town that the immigrant came from.

To be fair, most of the human population didn't have 'family' names until relatively recently historically. Until about 200 - 400 years ago, I would simply be 'Boris from Steilacoom' or 'Boris the Pedantic' with no reference to family at all. My father's family name which I share, simply meant (in both the original German and the translated English) "Someone who makes his living sharpening tools" - a 'white' smith, as opposed to a blacksmith or iron worker, which prestigious profession gave us the modern profusion of Smiths, Schmidts and Kuznetsovs in English, German and Russian, respectively.

I will take my Kona and fight you.

I moved to the place that gave the world Starbucks, so I became all too familiar with Bad Coffee in the past several decades, and before that I spent 20 years in the US Army, the home of Coffee That Should Be Banned By The Geneva Convention ...

Now to return to the original OP (sort of)...
What's the verdict: should all city names be in the original founding Civ's language, or the version of the name/spelling most familiar to modern gamers? Bearing in mind that using only the 'original' city names would make some cities currently in the game virtually impossible: like the City State La Venta, which bears no resemblance to the original Olmec site at all.
We'd also have to decide what 'original' means, since there are numerous cities now firmly associated with certain Civs that in fact predate the Civ: Lundinium/London and Lutetia/Paris spring to mind immediately...

 

[Guandao]

It's probably just Schweisgut/Schweissgut/Schweißgut.


There are quite a number of other good options for representing a unified Germany. Bismarck is a good option (although I don't want him to return until civ 10 at the least), but according to my experience, he is much more famed in America nowadays than he is in Germany and Europe. Or I would even go as far as calling middle of the 20th century Americans obsessed with Bismarck. How about Ebert, Stresemann, Bethmann Hollweg, Adenauer, Kohl or Scheidemann if you want to use a chancellor/president?

Are these German leaders all from the 20th Century? I actually would like Frederick the Great of Prussia to get the voice treatment in the future.....

And my first name is of unknown derivation and my middle name is German.
Yeah, this is the other variety of Americanisms--names the Ellis Island workers couldn't figure out so they made something up. Happened to the Irish, too: hence the apostrophe in O'_____ names from ua ______, which the English clerks reanalyzed as "of _______.
I think Hitler's respect for Bismarck tarnished Bismarck's reputation in Europe, which is a shame.

Unknown derivation...... you must have a mysterious first name.

 

[Zaarin]

I will take my Kona and fight you.

Never had Kona because I can't afford $40-$90 for a bag of coffee, but I did manage to snag a gesha on sale once. I did have a honey-process Costa Rica once that was about as good as anything I've had from Ethiopia, though.

What's the verdict: should all city names be in the original founding Civ's language, or the version of the name/spelling most familiar to modern gamers?

I'd say as close to the original as possible. I don't expect them to actually use Arabic/Cyrillic/hanzi/etc., but they can do better than having both "Halab" and "Aleppo" on the Arab city list...

Unknown derivation...... you must have a mysterious first name.

I've seen several etymologies proposed for it, including both English and the very vague "Celtic," but I have no idea. It comes from a surname. One person with the surname spent a few decades running for president. Never won.

 

[Guandao]

Never had Kona because I can't afford $40-$90 for a bag of coffee, but I did manage to snag a gesha on sale once. I did have a honey-process Costa Rica once that was about as good as anything I've had from Ethiopia, though.


I'd say as close to the original as possible. I don't expect them to actually use Arabic/Cyrillic/hanzi/etc., but they can do better than having both "Halab" and "Aleppo" on the Arab city list...


I've seen several etymologies proposed for it, including both English and the very vague "Celtic," but I have no idea. It comes from a surname. One person with the surname spent a few decades running for president. Never won.

What a nice clue! Now I have to research failed presidential candidates.....

 

[TahamiTsunami]

Since those names are in Latin and Farsi respectively, I'm not sure that would be a large obstacle. All the city lists are a mess.

With that in mind I guess there could be a chance for Armenia after all.

As a huge fan of Elizabeth's, it's truly a shame.

Definitely. Granted its not that I don't like Victoria, she was certainly influential enough to have an era named after her (imagine having that instead of the industrial era!) and is one of the better leaders for Britain in my opinion. But, like you guys have said, Britain and England have their differences and Elizabeth actually held de facto power. I think another reason that Victoria was chosen was due to wanting to add the Redcoats as a UU. If that was a reason, then I'd gladly mention that I personally wouldn't mind an England led by Elizabeth having Redcoats as the civ UU (with Elizabeth having her own UU if necessary). If Frederick Barbarossa can have U-Boats then I don't see how Elizabeth having Redcoats would be a deal-breaker for anyone. Maybe she'll be the leader again if more media was made about her (well, as long as they're made better than this one)! Regardless, hopefully she can be the alt leader.

Definitely wanting to try some Ethiopian coffee and some of the others mentioned here now.