Create a good vanilla line-up for Civilization

[Zaarin]

Why the hate for the US? The 20th century was the American century in pretty much every category.

Well, speaking for myself, if I made the game I wouldn't include leaders or civs more recent than the 16th century, so there's that. But the US is pretty unique in how quickly it rose from backwater colony to preeminent world power, which is why if we must have some colony in game, it should be that one.

 

[Xandinho]

Well, speaking for myself, if I made the game I wouldn't include leaders or civs more recent than the 16th century, so there's that. But the US is pretty unique in how quickly it rose from backwater colony to preeminent world power, which is why if we must have some colony in game, it should be that one.

Although the fact that the game is American, the developers are American and that most players are also American, will ensure that America is always in the base game anyway

 

[IgorS]

I think there is absolutely nothing wrong in adding modern countries as civs if they have indeed become civilizations. Such is the case with the Americans, the Brazilians, and the Australians. The Canadians, Argentines, and Haitians could also be good additions. Mexicans are problematic, however, because of the Aztec and Mayan overlap. Which is interesting because we don't mind an American/Iroquois overlap. I guess Mexico's case is like the Rome/Italy and Franks/French issue.

 

[IgorS]

18 civ vanilla game; diversity among regions, leader gender, and leader types (prime ministers and warrior-queens alike), bolded are new civs and/or leaders:

1. Arabia (Harun al-Rashid, the scholarly caliph of the House of Wisdom)
2. Benin (Iyoba) Idia, magician, political strategist, and warrior)
3. China (Kangxi, the Confucian half-Manchu sage emperor who conquered and wrote much, and ruled the longest of any Chinese ruler)
4. Egypt (Hatshepsut, female pharaoh over a wealthy trading and monumental Egypt)
5. England (Queen Elizabeth I, the famously witty and cultured Virgin Queen)
6. Ethiopia (Emperor Menelik II, who acted selflessly for the poor, suppressed the slave trade, and defeated the Italian invaders)
7. France (Cardinal Richelieu, the cultured spymaster, clergyman and prime minister figure who consolidated power in the French monarchy)
8. Germany (Frederick the Great, the enlightened absolutist who was also an art lover, homosexual, and military strategist)
9. Greece (Themistocles, the cunning Athenian admiral and politician who defeated Persia at Salamis)
10. Inca (Pachacuti Inca Yupanqui, the Earth-Shaker who crushed the Chankas, built the famous Incan roads, and rebuilt Cusco)
11. India (Ashoka, the once-warrior emperor who, after becoming horrified at the Kalinga War's stench of death, became a devout, peaceful Buddhist)
12. Iroquois (Jigonhsasee, female co-founder of the Iroquois Confederacy who housed tribal warriors in a neutral zone)
13. Japan (Hojo Tokimune, the iron-fisted regent who resisted Mongolia's invasions and executed all their delegates)
14. Majapahit (Gajah Mada, the mighty prime minister of the Palapa Oath who carved an empire for king and queen)
15. Mayans (Lady Six Sky, the ritualistic Lady of Dos Pilas, once a princess, and then a warrior queen who launched eight successful military invasions against other Mayan city-states)
16. Persia (Cyrus the Great, the humanitarian conqueror who allowed his subjects to worship and live more or less as they pleased)
17. Rome (Augustus Caesar, the first emperor who had the loyalty of the Praetorian Guard, defeated Cleopatra, and made Rome marble)
18. United States (Theodore Roosevelt, environmentalist and warmongering peacekeeper)

Notable exclusions include Aztecs (Ahuitzotl, doubled Aztec dominion), Mongols (Genghis Khan, world conqueror), Spain (Philip II, religious fanatic), Sumeria (priest-king Gudea of Lagash), and Russia (Catherine the Great, Enlightenment-era conqueror) (all of whom would be DLC along with Polynesians/Maori).

I wish I could exclude the US but you know an American developer will never exclude them, so there we are. 5 female leaders among 18 listed above, but of course Japan could get Queen Himiko, China Wu Zetian and the Majapahit Dyah Gitarja if we needed more female representation among the vanilla civs. Of course, Mongols and Spain also have capable female leaders.)

Secondary leaders could include Senusret III for Egypt, Pericles for Greece, Yuk'noom the Great for the Mayans, and Henry V or Winston Churchill for England).

We have a lot of similar decisions and choices, but I still think that the Russians are a must-have in a vanilla version. Also, the Aztecs should be included before the Maya.
And yes, I agree with you that the Maya should be led by a woman, and Jigonhsasee for the Iroquois is also an interesting choice.
Getting Gajah Mada and Gitarja as leaders in the same game is kind of problematic, as they ruled at the same time. Yes, I know I have suggested in my lineup that the Aztecs be led by Nezahualcoyotl and Montezuma, who also ruled at the same time, but this is different, because they ruled different entities.

 

[Michaelf7777777]

My 25 Civ Line-up

1. England (Elizabeth I)
2. France (Cardinal Richeliu)
3. Holland (Wilhelmina)
4. Spain (Isabella)
5. Portugal (Henry the Navigator)
6. Germany (Otto von Bismarck)
7. Rome (Marcus Aurelius)
8. Greece (Pericles)
9. Russia (Catherine the Great)
10. Ottomans (Sulieman the Magnificant)
11. Egypt (Hathepshut)
12. Mongols (Genghis Khan)
1 3. China (Wu Zeitan)
14. India (Ashoka)
15. Persia (Cyrus)
16. America (John F. Kennedy)
17. Japan (Hojo Tokimune)
18. Babylon (Hammurabi)
19. Maya (Lady Six Sky)
20. Mali (Mansa Musa)
21. Vietnam (Trung Trac and Trung Nhi)
22. Scythia (Tomyris)
23. Maori (Whina Cooper)
24. Iroquois (Jigonhasasee)
25. Madagascar (Ranavalona I)

 

[Zaarin]

I think there is absolutely nothing wrong in adding modern countries as civs if they have indeed become civilizations. Such is the case with...the Australians.

Extremely, extremely debatable. I'd call Australia still firmly a part of the English civilization, noting that the concept of civilization transcends political boundaries.

Haitians

Unique Ability: Government Corruption: -200 GPT.

 

[Vahnstad]

Australia should be added in a second (or third) expansion, but okay i rather have them as DLC than in a first expansion, but it mades me worry that we will see Argentina and Canada probably too (and taking a spot in an expansion). A modern Colombia (or actually pre-industrial) on the other hand would be justified. The problem with Australia, we already have England and the USA (both anglosaxon culture), and we all know we will have Canada at some point too, and even South-Africa is a possibility (esp. with the leader emphasis, and the appearance of Nelson Mandela), and the "gap" they have there. If you look it that way, maybe we should be happy we have the Zulu's, or it would be Nelson Mandela, although they could go for Zimbabwe or Kilwa/Swahili too if they want, although they could also take Ethiopia's spot.

 

[Vahnstad]

Haiti... No, i would rather have Taino / Caribs (Carib would be a blob civ probably?) or modern nation of Cuba, but we won't see that probably since Havana is on the city list of Spain (and it would also be a strange move). And who's going to be Haiti's leader... (it would definitely be a controversial person, and it seems like Firaxis tries to avoid controversial persons in this civ because Mongolia isn't in the game). I agree that the Caribbean should have a civ, and it should be Carib or Taino (then we have another native civ).

I've seen an interesting Taino mod in the Steam workshop.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1178073413

 

[Vahnstad]

I think there is absolutely nothing wrong in adding modern countries as civs if they have indeed become civilizations. Such is the case with the Americans, the Brazilians, and the Australians. The Canadians, Argentines, and Haitians could also be good additions. Mexicans are problematic, however, because of the Aztec and Mayan overlap. Which is interesting because we don't mind an American/Iroquois overlap. I guess Mexico's case is like the Rome/Italy and Franks/French issue.

Which is unfortunate since Mexico would be an interesting addition, i guess. But Brazil already took that spot, and also has the luck that there wasn't a famous indigenous civ in that region around. I'm worried who they would take as leader if they picked Argentina... . And i'm guessing that Brazil AND Argentina is maybe too much. Canada has the same problem as Australia (so recent that it would feel weird. Like, they weren't even independent during the second world war? They were still a dominion. Haiti is maybe too small, and i find Cuba very interesting, because of it's stubborn history, while the independence of Haiti turned out to be pretty bad for Haitians itself. It's still a nation that isn't able to be self-sufficient, and they had dictators ruling there until 1990 with many coup d'etats, change of powers, disasters. They were also briefly an empire (Empire of Haiti).

Rome/Italy is also more complicated than it should be. If Italy was united in the medieval ages, they would have had that civ, but now you have a number of rich renaissance city-states that united in the 19th century, and then gradually lost importance, especially after world war II. Italy is now one of the moor poorer nations in Europa, especially everything south of Rome. They were more powerful when they weren't united or under Victor Emanuel / Mussolini (but their appearance in ww2 was kinda embarassing fortunately), but if they represent Italy, i prefer representing them by a number of playable city-states. (Florence, Genoa and Venice), and not Italy itself.

 

[Xandinho]

Which is unfortunate since Mexico would be an interesting addition, i guess. But Brazil already took that spot, and also has the luck that there wasn't a famous indigenous civ in that region around. I'm worried who they would take as leader if they picked Argentina... . And i'm guessing that Brazil AND Argentina is maybe too much. Canada has the same problem as Australia (so recent that it would feel weird. Like, they weren't even independent during the second world war? They were still a dominion. Haiti is maybe too small, and i find Cuba very interesting, because of it's stubborn history, while the independence of Haiti turned out to be pretty bad for Haitians itself. It's still a nation that isn't able to be self-sufficient, and they had dictators ruling there until 1990 with many coup d'etats, change of powers, disasters. They were also briefly an empire (Empire of Haiti).

Rome/Italy is also more complicated than it should be. If Italy was united in the medieval ages, they would have had that civ, but now you have a number of rich renaissance city-states that united in the 19th century, and then gradually lost importance, especially after world war II. Italy is now one of the moor poorer nations in Europa, especially everything south of Rome. They were more powerful when they weren't united or under Victor Emanuel / Mussolini (but their appearance in ww2 was kinda embarassing fortunately), but if they represent Italy, i prefer representing them by a number of playable city-states. (Florence, Genoa and Venice), and not Italy itself.

I have no interest in Cuba and Haiti, and I also think that their chances are very remote, I would prefer to have Taino as a Caribbean civ. You are right about Australia and Canada, they are very similar with England and USA, in fact, these 4 countries make up the same cultural sphere. But as I particularly like modern geopolitics (as much as I admire Canada and Australia as nations), I would like to have them in the game included in a second or third expansion. Brazil, however, is quite culturally unique in comparison to other colonies, and has adopted a lot of cultural influence from African and Indigenous peoples (Samba, as the most internationally recognized Brazilian musical style, is a style that mixes European and African rhythms) besides being currently an emerging powerhouse alongside China and Russia. As for Argentina, I would like to have it in the game, and I think it would be a more unique addition than Canada and Australia. Mexico has problems of representativeness because of the Aztecs, although I think it would not be an obstacle for developers, if they really wanted to add them. Colombia is remote, even Great Colombia would be a strange choice, since it did not last long.

 

[Vahnstad]

Colombia / Gran Colombia is basically the same civ and has a famous leader: Simon Bolivar, but i'd rather have Muisca as a civ than Colombia (if they would take that geographical region), but I also rather have Colombia than Argentina as a civ, but okay i guess we have no choice. Honestly, they can't do worse than Australia. Haiti, Colombia, Mexico, Argentina, Cuba and even South-Africa would all be better additions than Australia. Canada is demanded a lot, and it would feel weird to play games with both Canada, Argentina and Australia. It wouldn't feel like civ anymore.

Muisca is probably the most underestimated civilization in the entire world (together with Swahili/Kilwa/Zimbabwe), and Indonesia / Southeastern Asian civilizations. I think Muisca was historically as important as the Mayas, Incas and Aztecs were, but we don't know much about them. Incas as a whole are actually underestimated too.

 

[IgorS]

I'd call Australia still firmly a part of the English civilization.

I will have to completely disagree with you on this. Australia is unique also because of its geography and precolonial history. I think that since an Aborigine civ is impossible to make (there was no Aborigine state, no leaders, no cities), Australia should have received some Aborigine-related bonuses, such as a faith bonus that is changed to something else after the renaissance, like culture. Australia being on the other side of the globe makes it very unique, and its involvement in various wars and other events, such as the Cold War, makes it an important modern civ. When it comes to Canada, though, I have to agree that it is too similar to the United States in a way.

 

[IgorS]

but i'd rather have Muisca as a civ than Colombia

The Muisca are perhaps the most overlooked civilization in the game's history.
Of all the civs that were never done in the game, two are really glaring omissions: the Muisca, and the Hungarians. I hope Civ VI will right that wrong.

 

[Vahnstad]

I will have to completely disagree with you on this. Australia is unique also because of its geography and precolonial history. I think that since an Aborigine civ is impossible to make (there was no Aborigine state, no leaders, no cities), Australia should have received some Aborigine-related bonuses, such as a faith bonus that is changed to something else after the renaissance, like culture. Australia being on the other side of the globe makes it very unique, and its involvement in various wars and other events, such as the Cold War, makes it an important modern civ. When it comes to Canada, though, I have to agree that it is too similar to the United States in a way.

I don't think that modern Australia has elements of it's precolonial history in it, and the civilization itself also doesn't suggest that. It is a representation of modern Australia, colonized by the English. And an Aborigine civ would be kinda stupid too, because then you could argue for a Neanderthaler civ. They even didn't made it to the point where they relied on agriculture, and that's a prerequisite for a civilization. It's called civilization (civilized people). And if we are going to create civs just because they represent an unique geography, we could even start creating a penguin civilization because Antarctica isn't represented yet. But okay, Australia is in the game, i can't change anything about it, but let's focus on older civs right now, or ones that really matter, and yes Muisca and Hungary are two of them. But I would probably wait for the second expansion to include Hungary.

 

[Xandinho]

Colombia / Gran Colombia is basically the same civ and has a famous leader: Simon Bolivar, but i'd rather have Muisca as a civ than Colombia (if they would take that geographical region), but I also rather have Colombia than Argentina as a civ, but okay i guess we have no choice. Honestly, they can't do worse than Australia. Haiti, Colombia, Mexico, Argentina, Cuba and even South-Africa would all be better additions than Australia. Canada is demanded a lot, and it would feel weird to play games with both Canada, Argentina and Australia. It wouldn't feel like civ anymore.

Muisca is probably the most underestimated civilization in the entire world (together with Swahili/Kilwa/Zimbabwe), and Indonesia / Southeastern Asian civilizations. I think Muisca was historically as important as the Mayas, Incas and Aztecs were, but we don't know much about them. Incas as a whole are actually underestimated too.

I agree that Australia is a strange choice, even among modern countries. If I were to bet on another modern country included after Brazil, I would say Canada or Argentina, or even Mexico. But I do not hate Australia, I like them, honestly speaking. I just think they should be included in a second or third expansion.

It is true that South American natives are greatly underestimated, not just Muisca. I particularly would like to have Tupi in the game, led by Cunhabebe, but I think it's very unlikely to happen someday.

 

[Vahnstad]

Is Muisca likely to happen someday?

 

[IgorS]

I agree that Australia was added too early. They should be a later addition. And I will keep claiming that Australia is a unique culture that is even more popular and better-known around the world than Argentina's and Canada's.

 

[IgorS]

Is Muisca likely to happen someday?

Why not? The devs only needs to do their homework, and focus on civs that are actually doable and make sense, and stop giving us stupid civs like the Scythians.

 

[Zaarin]

Why not? The devs only needs to do their homework, and focus on civs that are actually doable and make sense, and stop giving us stupid civs like the Scythians.

My understanding is that the Muisca themselves dislike being portrayed. As for the Scythians...interesting idea in theory, poor idea in execution. 1) They didn't have cities. 2) Herodotus's story about Tomyris is probably pure invention since every other Greek and Iranian source about the death of Cyrus says he died of old age in bed.

If they wanted an Iranian steppe rider civ, they should have gone with Parthia. The Parthians at least had an actual empire, cities that aren't just archaeological dig sites, an attested language, and a history that's not just the flight of fancy of an overly imaginative historian. It also would have been +1 Zoroastrian civilization in the game; there are inevitably a preponderance of Christian, Muslim, and Buddhist civs in the game (though Gitarja means +1 for Hinduism now).

 

[Morningcalm]

Someone get Firaxis to consult @Morningcalm on expansion civs and leaders, because that's what a proper list looks like.

Much appreciated! *bows*

Three Native American civs, four Asian civs, two-three Middle-eastern civs, three African civs, five European civs, and one US of A. Relatively balanced for vanilla. Cutting Russia out of vanilla works wonders (though it may be fun in a future expansion to cut out Greece instead and add them in a DLC or expansion).