Create a good vanilla line-up for Civilization

[Zaarin]

I'm afraid I've always regarded them as "Persian Lite" for a Civ.

This is not only a perfectly fair assessment but one endorsed by Persian historiography, which regards the settled Parthians as Arsacid Persia, which was succeeded by Sassanian Persia. (I'd consider them slightly different as the Arsacids were not from or centered in Pars as the Achaemenids and Sassanids were, but that could be splitting hairs. Especially since most Iranian dynasties, even the Achaemenids, started out as nomads.)

the game does a bad job of recreating many other Civilizations as well. Like, for instance, the Greeks, who also never "formed an empire"

Yes. I guess I'm more willing to overlook city-state conglomerates because, even if not centrally unified, the Greeks, the Maya, the Phoenicians, etc. did at least progress more or less along the Civ model, just separately rather than as a single polity, and because I regard a civilization to be distinct from a polity (which is why I have no problem with a Holy Roman Emperor leading Germany, as I regard the Holy Roman Empire and Germany to be one civilization, even though I can't off the top of my head count how many polities have ruled that general area from Charlemagne to the present).

 

[Morningcalm]

I'm still very skeptical of her existence and more so that she killed Cyrus. Herodotus is not the most reliable source in the world. Between the poorly attested Saka language, Scythia's horrible city list, and the fact that I regard Tomyris as the least likely to exist of all of Civilization's legendary leaders (except maybe Dido), not to mention the fact that there are plenty of Iranian steppe nomads who are much better attested (including the Parthians and the Scythians' descendants the Sarmatians), I think the Scythians were a rather poor choice. Tomyris is certainly attractive, though--except that annoying "hmph" with which she responds to everything.

I don't mind you being skeptical, I just mind your claim that Herodotus found the story dubious. He didn't. It says quite clearly there he trusted the story of Tomyris killing Cyrus more than the other accounts of Cyrus' death.

I like Tomyris, and I don't mind the Scythians. I guess the problem with their inclusion was mostly down to the city names ultimately. As I pointed out in my analysis of Tomyris (in the Civilization: Game vs. History thread), she was arguably not Scythian as such but Massagetae. But ultimately I don't think that's a huge issue. We've had numerous questionable civs in Civ's history ("Vikings", "Native Americans", etc.) and some larger groups (Cree) are generally ok for Civ purposes.

I do think Scythians would be fun to see again, maybe in an expansion--but yes, their nomadic ways don't quite mesh well with Civ mechanics (though that's true of quite a few other civs like the Mongols, though in their case I guess the conquered cities can count). I would be glad to see Civ tackle nomadic civs a bit better in the future. That way we can get the Sioux in with some unique mechanics.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

. . . I like Tomyris, and I don't mind the Scythians. I guess the problem with their inclusion was mostly down to the city names ultimately. As I pointed out in my analysis of Tomyris (in the Civilization: Game vs. History thread), she was arguably not Scythian as such but Massagetae. But ultimately I don't think that's a huge issue. We've had numerous questionable civs in Civ's history ("Vikings", "Native Americans", etc.) and some larger groups (Cree) are generally ok for Civ purposes.

I do think Scythians would be fun to see again, maybe in an expansion--but yes, their nomadic ways don't quite mesh well with Civ mechanics (though that's true of quite a few other civs like the Mongols, though in their case I guess the conquered cities can count). I would be glad to see Civ tackle nomadic civs a bit better in the future. That way we can get the Sioux in with some unique mechanics.

To be completely accurate, the Scythians also had 'conquered' cities - or at least cities that they dominated. The Greek colonies on the north coast of the Black Sea and in the Crimea all paid tribute to the "Royal Scythians" and a lot of the Scythian gold and silver work exhibited in Russian museums was in fact made by Greek artists in those cities for the Scythians and using Scythian artistic motifs. A good case can be made that while the Scythians themselves had only a few 'cities' or settlements (and boasted of that fact) they did have access to cities in the same way that the Mongols did.

. . . I guess I'm more willing to overlook city-state conglomerates because, even if not centrally unified, the Greeks, the Maya, the Phoenicians, etc. did at least progress more or less along the Civ model, just separately rather than as a single polity, and because I regard a civilization to be distinct from a polity (which is why I have no problem with a Holy Roman Emperor leading Germany, as I regard the Holy Roman Empire and Germany to be one civilization, even though I can't off the top of my head count how many polities have ruled that general area from Charlemagne to the present).

Charlemagne and before: the area of Bavaria has a king list that starts before Charlemagne, because it was already a recognizably separate area/kingdom from the rest of Germany and the Carolingian realm further north and west.

Civ has always had to treat a great many 'civilizations' artificially, because in reality they never did exhibit a political unity to match their linguistic/cultural unity. Greece is one example, but also all the tribal groups, like the Scythians, early Turks, Germans, Britons, Irish, Scots, Gauls, and every Native American group north of the Rio Grande. I think and hope that after their 'experiments' with the Civ V Venetians and Civ VI Maori the game is moving towards Alternative starting and development strategies for some or most of the civs.
It is desperately needed. Especially since (this Thread being only one example) there are more and more people expressing a desire to play many of the 'Non-Civ' Civilizations, like the Sami, or a 'real' city State Civ like the Greek cities or the Renaissance Italian statelets.

 

[Morningcalm]

To be completely accurate, the Scythians also had 'conquered' cities - or at least cities that they dominated. The Greek colonies on the north coast of the Black Sea and in the Crimea all paid tribute to the "Royal Scythians" and a lot of the Scythian gold and silver work exhibited in Russian museums was in fact made by Greek artists in those cities for the Scythians and using Scythian artistic motifs. A good case can be made that while the Scythians themselves had only a few 'cities' or settlements (and boasted of that fact) they did have access to cities in the same way that the Mongols did.

The Scythians didn’t live in cities to my knowledge. Mongols, at times, did, even if they began as and primarily were nomads.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The Scythians didn’t live in cities to my knowledge. Mongols, at times, did, even if they began as and primarily were nomads.

Certainly most of them never did, and boasted of the fact, according to Herodotus. However, there are several "Scythian City" sites that have been unearthed by archeologists. One of them, tentatively identified as the ancient Gelonus, near modern Poltava in the Ukraine, covered 40 square miles, making it the largest city site known anywhere at the time. Neapolis is another site identified as "Scythian".
I put Scythian in quotation marks because excavations have shown a lot of Greek artifacts in each site, so the cities may have been not purely Scythian but a combination of Greek and Scythian. The huge size of the Gelonus site seems to have been because it included large pastures, which implies permanent Scythian inhabitants, since in any pastoral society your herds are an indication of your wealth and status. The Gelonus site, at least (I have not ket up with the latest archeological reports on this) seems to predate Greek colonization in the Black Sea area, so it is probably not a 'converted' Greek city, but originally Scythian.

Other 'permanent' Scythian sites include city/town sites of Portmei and Roxanaki, a possible religious site at Gilea (which may not have included a permanent population) and fortresses at Napit, Palakion, and Habei which are in the Greek-colonized coastal areas, so may or may not be originally Scythian.

So, by no means were the Scythians a primarily City-Building Civ, but they did have permanent concentrations of settled population. The fact that only a tiny percentage of their population lived in such concentrations simply makes their 'cities' no different from the cities and populations of most of the world at the time - a predominantly 'urban' population is strictly a Post-Industrial phenomena.

I think, though, the pattern of Scythian, Mongol, and even Gothic and Turkic settlement indicates that the current GS mechanism for the Ottomans in which they get extra benefits from taking cities rather than settling them could be extended to any of the other 'pastoral' Civs, like the Scythians, or Mongols, Parthians, Seljuks, etc.

 

[Morningcalm]

Certainly most of them never did, and boasted of the fact, according to Herodotus. However, there are several "Scythian City" sites that have been unearthed by archeologists. One of them, tentatively identified as the ancient Gelonus, near modern Poltava in the Ukraine, covered 40 square miles, making it the largest city site known anywhere at the time. Neapolis is another site identified as "Scythian".
I put Scythian in quotation marks because excavations have shown a lot of Greek artifacts in each site, so the cities may have been not purely Scythian but a combination of Greek and Scythian. The huge size of the Gelonus site seems to have been because it included large pastures, which implies permanent Scythian inhabitants, since in any pastoral society your herds are an indication of your wealth and status. The Gelonus site, at least (I have not ket up with the latest archeological reports on this) seems to predate Greek colonization in the Black Sea area, so it is probably not a 'converted' Greek city, but originally Scythian.

Other 'permanent' Scythian sites include city/town sites of Portmei and Roxanaki, a possible religious site at Gilea (which may not have included a permanent population) and fortresses at Napit, Palakion, and Habei which are in the Greek-colonized coastal areas, so may or may not be originally Scythian.

So, by no means were the Scythians a primarily City-Building Civ, but they did have permanent concentrations of settled population. The fact that only a tiny percentage of their population lived in such concentrations simply makes their 'cities' no different from the cities and populations of most of the world at the time - a predominantly 'urban' population is strictly a Post-Industrial phenomena.

I think, though, the pattern of Scythian, Mongol, and even Gothic and Turkic settlement indicates that the current GS mechanism for the Ottomans in which they get extra benefits from taking cities rather than settling them could be extended to any of the other 'pastoral' Civs, like the Scythians, or Mongols, Parthians, Seljuks, etc.

Interesting! It is odd to think that many nomadic groups in Civ weren't purely nomadic for their history (and also that's true of the Game of Thrones Dothraki modeled on Mongolians). I think the Sioux would be perhaps a better fit then for a genuinely nomadic civ, albeit tied to hunting buffalo, since at least two of their subgroups did move around a lot without really settling in high population areas.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Interesting! It is odd to think that many nomadic groups in Civ weren't purely nomadic for their history (and also that's true of the Game of Thrones Dothraki modeled on Mongolians). I think the Sioux would be perhaps a better fit then for a genuinely nomadic civ, albeit tied to hunting buffalo, since at least two of their subgroups did move around a lot without really settling in high population areas.

Actually, the Sioux/Lakotah are an excellent example of another thing about pastoral Civs: while they were mobile, they did not move at random. Once they moved out of the forest zone and onto the Great Plains, the Lakotah circled around the Black Hills rather than wandering around the northern plains. I didn't realize the significance of this until I read Heart of Everything That Is, a wonderful book about the Lakotah based on Red Cloud's autobiography. It seems that the Black Hills formed a 'rain shadow' resulting in much thicker and lusher pastures around the hills, so the region was the prime hunting ground on the northern plains. Down south, the Commanche used the Wichita Mountains of western Oklahoma as one axis of their perambulations, because it was another especially well-watered area full of game (it still is: the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge has one of the largest non-commercial bison herds in the USA).
So, 'nomadic' or pastoral would actually move around certain lush or lucrative areas, and fight to control those areas. The Scythians may have done something similar, except that the lucrative/lush areas were the Greek city states/colonies along the Black Sea shore, for them a source of trade goods and artisans that required a settled place in which to work.
I bring up the Comanche because, while the Sioux may be somewhat better known, the Commanche were actually far more accomplished as Horse Warriors and Horse-based nomads/pastoralists. They were one of only two native American tribes that practiced real horse breeding for specific traits (the other were the Nez Perce of eastern Oregon), and their ratio of horses to people was much higher than any other tribes'. They are my vote for a Native American Pastoral Civ, with Quanah Parker as a Leader. Another point in their favor is that while other native groups fought as mounted archers primarily and with hand weapons like short spears and clubs, the Commanche were fast mounted lancers, a Unit Type not in the game at the moment.

 

[Phrozen]

Lets try this again:

Americas:
America - Grover Cleveland
Maya - Lady K'abel
Inca - Topa Inca Yupanqui

Asia:
China - Hongwu Emperor
Japan - Ookubo Toschimichi
India - Akbar (Northern India) and Raja Raja Chola (South India)
Akkad - Sargon
Persia - Khosrow I
Arabia - Abd al-Malik
Indonesia(Java) - Sanjaya (Medang Kingdom)

Europe:
Greece: Epaminondas(Thebes)
Rome: Lucius Junius Brutus
France: Philip Augustus
England: Robert Walpole
Germany: Henry the Fowler and Maximilian I Joseph
Russia: Ivan III

Africa:
Egypt: Hatshepsut
Ethiopia: Ezana
Angola: Ana Nzinga
Songhai: Sonni Ali (just because his nickname was The Giraffe)

 

[Zaarin]

America - Grover Cleveland

wat Don't get me wrong, he was very competent...just the boring kind of competent, nonconsecutive service notwithstanding. He's the kind of president you wish you had but who also makes a very boring section of the history book.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

wat Don't get me wrong, he was very competent...just the boring kind of competent, nonconsecutive service notwithstanding. He's the kind of president you wish you had but who also makes a very boring section of the history book.

Given the sort of excitement the USA is enduring now from the executive, boring could be considered a Very Good Thing and a compliment. . .

Rome: Lucius Junius Brutus

Now this one is really interesting. Founder of the Republic, despoiler of Kings, promulgator of the oath never to allow a king again in Rome. Normally I'd say the fact that most of what we 'know' of his life may be Legend, since there are really no records from his time, would make him a marginal choice, but since we've got Gilgamesh, Dido and Tomyris, 'legendary' or even completely fictional is obviously not an obstacle!
Aside from tossing the king and his family and setting up an Aristocratic Oligarchy (Called a Republic, but one carefully managed to ensure that the top families could outvote the other 80 - 90% of the population) and prohibiting any more kings, though, what to do for Attributes or Uniques? One possibility is a 'negative' Unique: Rome under him could never choose any kind of Monarchial Government. Another possibility would be to give Rome under him a Bonus for choosing any kind of Republic.
Another point is that he lived before the Legion evolved into its well-known form: based on archeological and linguistic evidence, in his time it was a simple decimal-based phalanx of spearmen supplemented by some Nobles on horseback. Come to think of it, though, a possible Unique would be to allow Spearmen to be Upgraded to Legions (happened after his time, but would neatly show the transition Very Early in the Republic he founded).

Finally, he survived under the king Before the Revolution by feigning dull-wittedness ("Brutus" means dim or dull) so perhaps Rome under him could only be played by the AI?

 

[Zaarin]

Given the sort of excitement the USA is enduring now from the executive, boring could be considered a Very Good Thing and a compliment. . .

Like I said, he's the sort of president you wish you had but is boring to read about.

 

[Phrozen]

wat Don't get me wrong, he was very competent...just the boring kind of competent, nonconsecutive service notwithstanding. He's the kind of president you wish you had but who also makes a very boring section of the history book.

Name a President from the late 1800s that had a personality and wasn't a total disaster.

Given the sort of excitement the USA is enduring now from the executive, boring could be considered a Very Good Thing and a compliment. . .

Now this one is really interesting. Founder of the Republic, despoiler of Kings, promulgator of the oath never to allow a king again in Rome. Normally I'd say the fact that most of what we 'know' of his life may be Legend, since there are really no records from his time, would make him a marginal choice, but since we've got Gilgamesh, Dido and Tomyris, 'legendary' or even completely fictional is obviously not an obstacle!
Aside from tossing the king and his family and setting up an Aristocratic Oligarchy (Called a Republic, but one carefully managed to ensure that the top families could outvote the other 80 - 90% of the population) and prohibiting any more kings, though, what to do for Attributes or Uniques? One possibility is a 'negative' Unique: Rome under him could never choose any kind of Monarchial Government. Another possibility would be to give Rome under him a Bonus for choosing any kind of Republic.
Another point is that he lived before the Legion evolved into its well-known form: based on archeological and linguistic evidence, in his time it was a simple decimal-based phalanx of spearmen supplemented by some Nobles on horseback. Come to think of it, though, a possible Unique would be to allow Spearmen to be Upgraded to Legions (happened after his time, but would neatly show the transition Very Early in the Republic he founded).

Finally, he survived under the king Before the Revolution by feigning dull-wittedness ("Brutus" means dim or dull) so perhaps Rome under him could only be played by the AI?

Bonus for changing policies or bonus for having X number of policy slots or kinds of slots in your government.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Name a President from the late 1800s that had a personality and wasn't a total disaster.

Obviously, there can be lots of debate on what constitutes 'total disaster', but I think the personalities that Avoided total disaster might count: both Roosevelts, Truman, LBJ. None, God Knows, were perfect or even near it, but Theo had sense enough to recognize that reform was needed and pushed a 'progressive' (lousy adjective) agenda, Franklin avoided a right or left wing Coup in the USA which is more than most European countries did, Truman set the course for American foreign policy throughout the Cold War for good or ill, and LBJ was the most effective Domestic Policy president of the past three generations.

Bonus for changing policies or bonus for having X number of policy slots or kinds of slots in your government.

Change Policies without penalty at any time?
Can voluntarily change a Military Policy in any government to another type? (Loss of Royal military leadership but inclusive policy changes with the assembly/senate)?

 

[Zaarin]

Name a President from the late 1800s that had a personality and wasn't a total disaster.

Is there a reason we're specifying late 1800s? Disregarding the oddly specific time frame, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Calvin Coolidge, Teddy Roosevelt, James K. Polk...Not saying I like all of them, but they all had big personalities and I wouldn't call any of them "total disasters."

LBJ was the most effective Domestic Policy president of the past three generations.

 

[Morningcalm]

Nah, for America we should just do Lincoln again. He wasn’t a perfect man, but he was an effective leader in one of America’s most troublesome times.

I wouldn’t mind John Adams though. He was anti-slavery long before that mindset became fashionable. (Unlike Washington and Lincoln, Adams never had any slaves.)

 

[Zaarin]

I wouldn’t mind John Adams though. He was anti-slavery long before that mindset became fashionable. (Unlike Washington and Lincoln, Adams never had any slaves.)

I'm a big fan of both the Adamses, and John Adams is probably my top choice for an American leader in Civ.

 

[Phrozen]

Is there a reason we're specifying late 1800s? Disregarding the oddly specific time frame, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Calvin Coolidge, Teddy Roosevelt, James K. Polk...Not saying I like all of them, but they all had big personalities and I wouldn't call any of them "total disasters."

Because that is the time period I choose to represent the US in.

 

[Zaarin]

Because that is the time period I choose to represent the US in.

Very well. Based on your criteria: William McKinley had a somewhat interesting personality and was not a total disaster. I mean, he's not exactly scintillating either as a personality or a president, but... What exactly would you define as late 19th century? Post Civil War? Perhaps 1870-1899 or 1880-1889? If the latter, I'm not sure I'd call any president of the late 19th century a "total disaster," even if I wouldn't call any of them particularly great either. If the former, I will grant that Johnson and Grant were disasters with big personalities.

If we stretch a few years, TR was politically active in the late 19th century and president in the first decade of the 20th century, was by far our most colorful president, and is generally regarded as one of the better ones...

 

[SagarRathore]

For me I would love to see some more Indosphere and sinosphere civs
Afghanistan-Ahmad Shah Durrani(founder of modern Afghanistan unifier of pashtuns,turks,uzbeks etc under one nation)
India- Asoka (biggest name in Indian history,most symbols of modern India come from his reign)
India-Rajaraja Chola (may be longest dynasy of India,architect of Indianization of south East Asia)
Khmer-Jayavarman (well Khmer's golden age occured during his time)
Siam-Si Indrathit or some one from Ayuthya Kingdom nice rivarly between Khmer and Siam
Indonesia-Gitarja we need navy power in the region
Tibet-Namri Sonsten unifier of Tibet empire and co founder along with his son
In addition people who are recommending Mughal emperors for India don't have any idea of India,its like recommending Yuan or Mongol emperors as leaders of China.
Mughals speak turkic language at home and Persian at court,thoughts of first Mughal king Babur about India were disgusting.During that part of history Indian civilization was resisting it's own downfall(like what happened to Persia after Arabian Conquest).

 

[TahamiTsunami]

Just to add my own 2 cents, I think Tomyris probably did exist as a real person (I'm not claiming to have greater knowledge on this, it's just a suspicion I have but hopefully not an unreasonable one) but someone probably thought it would make for a more entertaining story to have her behead Cyrus and say a catchy line than saying that Cyrus happened to die during the campaigns against the Scythians. Tomyris is a pretty cool choice that I never knew about before and i wouldn't mind seeing her lead the Scytians/Massagetae in the future (though I personally wouldn't have them as a priority and almost certainly not in the vanilla lineup). I do of course have an issue with their city list and wonder why they didn't use Roxanaki as their capital? Unless I'm mistaken, I thought the Mapuche have a similar issue where some cities they had are known but weren't used in the city list for some reason.

On a related note, I recall the Sioux/Lakotah having a handful of settlements as well like Kaposia. I don't know if the Comanche had any similar settlements but I'll admit they are starting to become my choice for a nomadic native civ, especially if the civ has some unique nomadic bonuses somehow.

I'd like to have Teddy Roosevelt lead America again but after seeing a bit of a tv series about John Adams I definitely wouldn't mind seeing him lead either!