Create a good vanilla line-up for Civilization

[Boris Gudenuf]

That's a shame, because there are great costumes to be had all over the world. I mean, it's true the Tudors in particular had a keen eye for fashion (all the more reason to be sorry we lost Lizzy), but I think there's little that compares with the elegance of Chinese hanfu.

And, of course, there's nothing like the sight - and smell - of a Mongol horde dressed in distressed leather and deceased sheep, downwind on a hot day after a long ride: enough to bring tears to your eyes - and nose.

 

[Morningcalm]

Not quite. Germanicus led what amounted to an Expeditionary Force to recover the lost eagles of the Varro's legions, but the Romans never intended to move the formal border away from the Rhine.

However, what most people don't realize (and I wouldn't know except that I was stationed there for almost 10 years) is that Roman influence spread far across the Rhine in the early Empire. Across the Rhine river from Maintiacum (modern Mainz), where they had 2 legions stationed, they strung a set of border posts along the ridge of the Taunus Mountains in a large arc to defend the area of modern Wiesbaden, because the tribe there (the Matti) were trading heavily with the Romans and had set up a thermal bath in what is now the center of the modern city, and invited the Romans to cross the river and enjoy it. The Romans also maintained small forts watching strategic points on the trade routes leading east and northeast, such as the crossing of the Main River at modern Aschaffenburg: there was a German village on the site of the center of the modern town, and a small Roman fort across the river to make sure nobody tried to hold up traders coming down from the Baltic with amber, furs, and other 'Amenity' goods bound for the border and Rome.

My understanding is that Germanicus did indeed wage war against Arminius after Teutoberg: https://www.ancient.eu/Arminius/ I think the numerous military actions detailed there show far more than just an attempted recovery of eagles (scroll down to "Arminius vs. Germanicus").

 

[Phrozen]

Bavaria was a large and important German state when Brandenburg-Prussia was still a patch of sandy pine woods full of impoverished Junkers who were still too poor to afford monacles (In fact, it was a recognized German Kingdom before Charlemagne!). Even after they supposedly became part of the "2nd Reich", the Bavarian Army was administered separately and maintained separate unit identities right up to the end of World War One (and to this day there is a separate "Bavarian Army Museum" in Bavaria).
Parenthetically, this is also why Bavaria is a legitimate "third German state" after Prussia and Austria/HRE upon which to construct a Civ for the game. It has some Unique Personality leaders - Maximilian the Great who made Bavaria an HRE Electorate, Maximilian II "The Blue King", Mad Ludwig "The Fairy Tale King" of Neuschwanstein fame, etc., it has different military, cultural, and political leanings from the other two, and aside from Bohemia, it may be the only Civ that could legitimately have a Beer-Based Unique: reason enough to include it in a DLC!

Biergarten or Beer Hall UI?

 

[Lord of War N02]

Here my list for Vanilla line up idea wishlist for future civ game with capital, type of civ language which leader speak.

I will have 24+ 2 = 2wi based civs for vanilla this time.
Arabia (Abd al-Malik) with Damascus as capital which was capital of Umayyad Caliphate. - Religious civ, Language: Levantine Arabic
Aztec (Netzahualcoyotl) with Texcoco as capital, this time Texcoco need to be represented for Aztec - Cultural and military civ, Language: Nahuatl
China (Hongwu) with Nanjing as capital, capital of Ming Dynasty during Hongwu's reign - science, cultural and financial civ(This could be based on Imperial China all time since China had a lots of trading with tributary states or many kingdoms, also China during Imperial time was well known about invention of Gunpowder, Paper and other things which many Chinese invention were bought to Europe later) Language: Mandarin with Nanking dialect
Egypt (Cleopatra) with Ra-Kadet(Alexandria) as capital - cultural, production and religious civ: Language: Coptic Language
England (Alfred the Great) with Winchester as capital, Capital of Anglo-Saxon England (Anglo Saxon should represent England this time) - military and naval civ, Language: Old English
Ethiopia (Dawit II) with Gondar as capital? - Religious civ, Language: Amhara
France (Philip Augustus) with Paris as capital - cultural civ, Language: Old French
Germany (Maximilian) with Vienna as capital - military, cultural and producing civ, Language: Early New High German or Austro-Bavarian dialect in German
Greece (Epiminondas) - with Thebes as capital - - military, science and cultural civ Language: Ancient Greek with Aeolic dialect
Inca (Topa Inca Yupanqui) with Cuzco as capital - producing civ, Language: Quecha
India (Akbar) with Agra as capital - religious, military and cultural civ, Language: Urdu
Indonesia (Sukarno) with Jakarta as capital - Indonesia can be naval expansion and financial civ based on Majapahit or religious and production based on Srivijaya Language: Bahasa Indonesia
Japan (Shotoku) with Asuka as capital which was capital during Asuka period - military, cultural and religious civ (Shotoku was the one who support Buddhism), Language: Old Japanese
Mali ( Sundiata Keita) with Niani as capital - military and religious civ, Language: ?
Mongolia (Kublai Khan) with Khanbaliq/Dadu as capital which was capital during Yuan Dynasty - expansion civ, Language: Mongolian
Nubia (Piye) with Napata as capital - production civ, Language: Nubian
Persia (Khosrow I) with Ctesiphon as capital ( Sassanid need to be represented for Persia this time) - expanding civ Language: Middle Persian
Rome (Marcus Aurelius) with Rome as Capital - expanding and military civ, Language: Classical Latin
Russia (Ivan III) with Capital named Moscow - expanding, producing and religious civ, Language: Russian
Scythia (Ates) with Pokrovka as capital - horse riding military expansion civ, Language: Ossetian
Siam (Naresuan) with Ayutthaya as capital - cultural, financial and military civ(During King Naresuan's reign, Ayutthaya had war with Burmese Dynasty, Taungoo which during times of most of his reign were warfare and Ayutthaya was one of Trading center in the world and region of Asia), Language: Ayutthayan Thai or Modern Thai with some archaic word like Ramkhamhaeng speaks in CIV V
Spain (Alfonso IX) with Valladolid/Toledo as capital - ?, Language: Old Spanish
Turkey/Turks (Alp Arslan) with Isfahan/Konya as capital (Isfahan was capital during Alp Arslan reign but Konya would be better for capital in game since it was capital of Sultnate of Rum which was ruled by Seljuk and located in present day Turkey. Seljuk should represent Turkey for this time since in civ series Ottomans represent Turks too much) - military and expanding civ (Like Seljuk and Ottoman did for conquest of a lots of territories), Language: Turkmen or Modern Turkish (Because of Turkmen language was closest language that Seljuk speak in that time which was Oguz Turkic but Persian was court language but I prefer Turkmen language which is Turkic language)
Zulu (Cetshwayo) with capital named Ulundi - military expansion civ, Language: Zulu

With Free DLC civ:

Poland (Pilsudski) with Warsaw as capital - military and religious civ, Language: Polish
Lithuania (Gemnidas) with Vilnius as capital - cultural civ, Language :Lithuanian
Note: Most Leaders are newcomers and some are returning leader (Free DLC like Mongolia in CIV 5), Scenario: Eastern Europe: Polish-Russian War Alternate Leader for Russia (Alexander Nevsky) with Novgorod as capital, Language: Old East Slavic​

DLC for new civs each packs will have 2 or 3 new civ along with leader for existing civ and other is leader pack
DLC01: Scenario: American Revolutionary War
- New civs: America(James Monroe) with Washington DC as Capital - territory expansion civ, Language: American English
Iroquois (Joseph Brant) - ?, Language: Mohawk.
- New Leader for existing civ: Oliver Cromwell with London as Capital speaks English (England) (Although he is consider as villain by some Britons and some people but heroes by some and he is considered one of 10 best British in 100 Greatest Britons)
DLC02: Scenario: Legacy of Sinosphere
- New civs:
Korea (Gwanggaeto) with Gungnae/Pyongyang as capital - science civ, Language: Korean
Vietnam (Nguyen Hue/Quang Trung) with Hue as capital - military civ, Language: Vietnamese leader.
- New Leader for Existing civ: China (Taizong) with Xian as Capital, Language: Middle Chinese
DLC03: Scenario: Scramble for Africa.
- New Civs: Portugal (Manuel I) with Lisbon as Capital - Exploration and Trading civ, Language: Portuguese
Kongo (Garcia II) with M'banza-Kongo as Capital - religious civ, Language: Lingala
- New Leader for existing civ: Ethiopia (Haile Selassie) with Addis Ababa, speaks Amhara
DLC04: Scenario: Rise of Rome Enemy of Rome theme
- New Civs:
Gaul (Vercingetorix) - military and cultural civ, Language: Breton
Phoenicia (Dido) with Carthage as capital - maritime in both naval and financial civ, Language: Canaanite (In Scenario, Phoenican represent Carthage)
-New leader for existing civ: Rome (Julius Caesar), Language: Classical Latin
DLC05: The Ancient World in Near East
- New Civs:

Babylonia (Hammurabi) with Babylon as capital - science civ, Language: Akkadian
Hittites (Suppiluliuma I) with Hattusa as capital - ?, Language: Hittites
- New Leader for existing civ: Egypt (Akhenaten) with Amarna as capital Language: Coptic
DLC06: Leader Pack (Good old day civ leaders)
Alexander (Greece) with Pella as capital, Language: Koine Greek I prefer Macedon merged into Greek civilization.
Darius (Persia) with capital named Parsa, Language: Old Persian
Tokugawa Ieyasu (Japan) with Kyoto as capital, Language: Japanese
Gandi (India) with Delhi as capital, the roster should not miss the famous leader who start nuclear war meme in the series, Language Hindi
DLC07 Leader Pack (Female Leader packs)
Isabella (Spain),with capital named Toledo, Language: Castilian/Spanish
Mandukhai (Mongolia) with capital named Karakorum, Language: Mongolian
Jigonhsasee (Iroquois), Language: Mohwak? Note: If you don't own the first DLC, you can only play Iroquois with Jigonhsasee
Tomyris (Scythian), Language: Ossetian

Expansion 1:
Ashanti (Osei Tutu) with Kumasi as capital - ?, Language: Akan Language with Twi dialect
Assyria (Sennacherib) with Nineveh as capital - Science civ, Language: Akkadian
Byzantium (Basil II) with Constantinople as capital - religious and military conquest civ,
Language: Medieval Greek
Canada (Wilfred Laurier) with Ottawa as capital - ?, Language: French and Canadian English
Cambodia/Khmer (Suryavarman II) with Yasodharapura/Angkor as capital - religious and production civ, Language: Khmer
Georgia (Tamar) with Tbilisi as capital - Religious civ, Language: Georgian/Middle Georgian
Maya (Pacal II) with Palenque as capital - religious and science civ, Language:Yucatec
Netherlands (Maurice of Nassau) with The Hague as capital - Naval and trading civ, Language: Dutch
Swahili ( Al-Hasan ibn Sulaiman) with Kilwa as capital - Trading civ, Language: Swahili
Tibet (Songtsen Gampo) with Lhasa as capital - religious civ, Language: Tibetan

Alternative Leaders: Raden Wijaya (Indonesia) with Troluwan as capital, Language: Javanese
Mehmed II (Turkey) with Istanbul as capital, Language: Ottoman Turkish
Washington (USA) with Philadelphia as capital, Language: American English
Montezuma I (Aztec) with Tenochtitlan as capital, Language: Nahuatl
Ramkhamhaeng (Siam) with Sukhothia ad capital, Language: Thai
Shaka (Zulu), Language: Zulu

Expansion 2:
Brazil (Pedro II) with Rio de Janeiro as capital - cultural and tourist civ, Language: Brazilian Portuguese
Burma (Bayinnaung) with Bago as capital - Military and expansion civ, Language: Burmese
Gaels(Scots + Irish) (Michael Collins) with Dublin as capital, Language: Irish
Hungary (Lajos Kossuth) with Budapest as capital - ?, Language: Hungarian
Illyria (Teuta) with Scodra as capital - ?, Language: Illyrian
Navajo (Barboncito) - religious civ, Language: Navajo
Norse/Scandinavia (Margaret I) with Roskilde as capital - Military and Naval civ, Language: Danish
Polynesia (Kalākaua) with Honolulu as capital - maritime explorer and cultural civ, Language: Hawaiian
Sioux (Sitting Bulls) with Hunkpapa as capital - expansion civ, Language: Lakota
Tatars (Shaybani Khan) with Bukhara as capital, Tatars represents the Turkics in Central Asia - financial, military and religious civ, Language: Uzbek

Alternative Leaders:
Charlemagne (France+Germany) with Aachen as capital, Language: Old Frankish
Wilhelmina (Netherlands) with Amsterdam as capital, Language: Dutch
Trung Sisters (Vietnam) with Me Linh as Capital, Language: Vietnamese cant not play Quang Trang if you dont own DLC02
Justinian I (Byzantium), Language: Medieval Greek
Jogaila (Poland+Lithuania), Language: Polish and Lithuanian

Expansion 3:
Australia (Denkins) with Canberra as capital - ?, Language: Australian English
Bulgaria (Simeon I) with Preslav as capital - religious, cultural and military expansion civ, Language: Old Bulgarian
Cherokee (John Ross) - military and cultural civ, Language: Cherokee
Dahomey (Ghezo)
Gran Colombia (Simon Bolivar) with Bogota as capital -Military civ , Language: Latin Spanish
Manchu (Nurhaci) with Shenyang (Mukden) as capital - military conquest civ. Manchu can also includes Jurchen likes Jin Dynasty which Jurchens were ancestors of Manchu. Language: Manchu (Problem is Manchu is dying language and Xibe should be other choice since Xibe language is related to Manchu)
Mapuche (Caupolican ) - ?, Language: Mapuche
Philippines (Jose Rizal) - cultural civ, Language: Tagalog
Serbia (Karadorde) with Topala as capital - military, religious and production civ, Language: SErbian

Alternative Leaders:
Charles XII (Norse) with Stockholm as capital, Language: Swedish
Stephen I (Hungary) with Estzergoom as capital, Language: Old Hungarian
Ngawang Lobsang Gyatso with Lhasa as capital, Language: Tibetan
Sejong with Seoul as capital, Language: Korean
Hiram I with Tyre as capital, Language: Phoenician

To be written soon​

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

My understanding is that Germanicus did indeed wage war against Arminius after Teutoberg: https://www.ancient.eu/Arminius/ I think the numerous military actions detailed there show far more than just an attempted recovery of eagles (scroll down to "Arminius vs. Germanicus").

A stirring account, but the fact remains that the Romans specifically targeted the tribes allied against them and their territory and not all of the Germans even near the Rhine/border and the emperor called off the campaign after two years and after the Cherusci (Arminius' ordinal tribe) territory had been ravaged and it and its allied tribes had been beaten in several major battles. The Imperial policy in Germany, like elsewhere around the Mediterranean, was more opportunistic than anything else: where they could, they took advantage of opponents' weakness or disunity to conquer, but where there was no decent return and promise of a costly and drawn-out war, as in thoroughly 'barbarian' lands like Germany, they weren't going to expend more than a fraction of their strength: Germanicus commanded 8 legions plus probably the equivalent in Auxiliaries, but the Empire fielded about 50 legions at the time. They were not going for broke, and future Roman endeavors concentrated on more lucrative targets in Dacia, Asia Minor, Britain and against the Persians/Parthians where there was something to be gained. Even then, note that Britain was one of the last conquered and also one of the first abandoned because, frankly, there wasn't a lot there that Rome needed. As I mentioned earlier, Rome did keep a military and civilian presence across the Rhine despite what later German patriot/nationalists believed, and until whole tribes were pushed into them, they never faced anything resembling a united German tribal confederation after Arminius.

Biergarten or Beer Hall UI?

Could be a Unique Building like a Biergarten, or could be a Bierfest Project that gives Amenity, Loyalty, and Gold, could be held only if you've built an Entertainment District.

 

[Zaarin]

Scythia (Tomyris) with Pokrovka as capital - horse riding military expansion civ, Language: Ossetian

Can we have someone who actually existed for our horse barbarian civ this time? Like Parthia. Having Parthia and Sassanian Persia in the same Civ gane might be too much at once, though.

Gaels(Scots + Irish)

The Scots and Irish will love that. Maybe we can also have Franco-Germany and Japano-Korea.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Can we have someone who actually existed for our horse barbarian civ this time? Like Parthia. Having Parthia and Sassanian Persia in the same Civ gane might be too much at once, though.

While we're at it, let's also have an Actual contemporary city name for the capital instead of a later archeological site from a completely different language, culture and people.

More to the point, instead of an artificial city-building Civ for a pastoral group like the Scythians (or Huns, Lakotah, Commanche, et al) why not expand on the Maori start mechanics and give us an actual Land Mobile start mechanism for them. Give 'em Settlers as mobile as Horsemen, starting Tech Animal Husbandry, and maybe two starting combat units so they can roam the map, accumulating Science and Culture points slowly until they are ready to 'settle down'. It wouldn't be completely realistic, but it would give a much better 'flavor' to a horse-nomad/pastoral group than the current City-Building Only mechanic now available.

The Scots and Irish will love that. Maybe we can also have Franco-Germany and Japano-Korea.

The Celtic Realm was varied enough in both area and time hat throwing a bunch of them together is like the Polynesian Civ of Civ V or the Native American amalgamations of previous Civs. Given a very little time, even I could come up with enough viable game variations for a Classical/Medieval Irish, Modern Irish, Renaissance Scots, Classical Picts, or Classical Gauls with Alternate Leaders for each. Stuffing them into a single basket is just intellectual laziness.

Oh, and @LorD of WarNO2, while I admire the breadth and completeness of your lists, any Greek Civ with a Spartan Leader would be neither Scientific or Cultural: the Lacedaemonians created virtually no cultural or scientific advances; no artists, philosophers, writers or sculptors. They did win a lot of Gold Medals at the Olympic and other Greek games, and they were one of the most purely military societies ever known, but that's pretty much all they were. Any in-game single Greek Civ would be much better off with Alternate Leaders from the other city states, like Pericles, Solon, Cleisthenes, Polycrates, Epiminondas, Jason of Thessaly - there's quite a list to choose from just in the Classical Era, without even going back to the 'semi-mythical' Bronze Age for Agememnon or Theseus.

 

[Zaarin]

While we're at it, let's also have an Actual contemporary city name for the capital instead of a later archeological site from a completely different language, culture and people.

More to the point, instead of an artificial city-building Civ for a pastoral group like the Scythians (or Huns, Lakotah, Commanche, et al) why not expand on the Maori start mechanics and give us an actual Land Mobile start mechanism for them. Give 'em Settlers as mobile as Horsemen, starting Tech Animal Husbandry, and maybe two starting combat units so they can roam the map, accumulating Science and Culture points slowly until they are ready to 'settle down'. It wouldn't be completely realistic, but it would give a much better 'flavor' to a horse-nomad/pastoral group than the current City-Building Only mechanic now available.

This is another advantage of the Parthians: they were horse nomads...who eventually settled down, conquered cities, and formed an empire. Much like the Mongols. Much unlike the Scythians. And they had leaders who existed! So did the Scythians, but Tomyris isn't one of them.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

This is another advantage of the Parthians: they were horse nomads...who eventually settled down, conquered cities, and formed an empire. Much like the Mongols. Much unlike the Scythians. And they had leaders who existed! So did the Scythians, but Tomyris isn't one of them.

Along with the Parthians, another candidate is the Seljuk Turks, who were also 'settled' nomads, acted as mercenaries, traders, and make a nice counterpart to the Georgians already in the game.

Tomyris/Thomris/Tamaeris was probably a leader of the Massagetae, because our primary evidence is from Herodotus, and compared with his tales of the Persians and Persian Empire, which are based largely on third person filtered accounts and hearsay, he actually lived in the Greek colonies in the Scythian lands (Crimea and the Black Sea coast) and so had 'first hand' access to Scythian information. On the other hand, being leader of the Massagetae on no account made her leader of the 'Scythians" - that would be like calling Pericles the leader of all the Greeks. Oh, right, we're doing that, aren't we . . .

 

[Zaarin]

Tomyris/Thomris/Tamaeris was probably a leader of the Massagetae, because our primary evidence is from Herodotus, and compared with his tales of the Persians and Persian Empire, which are based largely on third person filtered accounts and hearsay, he actually lived in the Greek colonies in the Scythian lands (Crimea and the Black Sea coast) and so had 'first hand' access to Scythian information. On the other hand, being leader of the Massagetae on no account made her leader of the 'Scythians" - that would be like calling Pericles the leader of all the Greeks. Oh, right, we're doing that, aren't we . . .

There's also the fact that even Herodotus, who was not greatly given to question his sources, calls the story dubious. Given that he's the only source for Tomyris, I'm very skeptical she existed; if she did, I'm almost positive she didn't kill Cyrus (who most accounts, Persian and Greek, say died peacefully in bed).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

There's also the fact that even Herodotus, who was not greatly given to question his sources, calls the story dubious. Given that he's the only source for Tomyris, I'm very skeptical she existed; if she did, I'm almost positive she didn't kill Cyrus (who most accounts, Persian and Greek, say died peacefully in bed).

I suspect Herodotus was repeating the Scythian Version of the defeat of the Persian expedition, which does not have to be any more truthful than any such account. Eric Frank Russell put it eloquently when he referred to "- A demoralized enemy who is advancing in utter confusion." Even if the Persians were forced to turn back, a simple 'ran out of supplies and water' can be turned into a climactic battle full of charge and counter-charge and, of course, much heroic bravado by individuals real and imagined.

Unfortunately, going back to my sources, the ancient Indo-European Tocharians and the original cities of the Tarim basin on the edges of the Taklamakhan are not a good choice for a Civ: we just don't know enough about any leaders - even the Chinese sources are too skimpy. On the other hand, the area and the management of the eastern end of the Silk Road was at various times part of the Kushan, Uigher, and Kirghiz Khanates, any one of which would make good candidate for a "Silk Road Nomad" Civ: all much better attested, with potential Leaders and unique characteristics.

 

[Lord of War N02]

Can we have someone who actually existed for our horse barbarian civ this time? Like Parthia. Having Parthia and Sassanian Persia in the same Civ gane might be too much at once, though.

Parthian Empire sometime can classified as Persian Empire but in my view its not Persian and Parthian should have been completely separated civ maybe replace Scythian. CIV 5 has Huns, CIV 6 has Scythian and maybe Scythian can be in expansion.

The Scots and Irish will love that. Maybe we can also have Franco-Germany and Japano-Korea.

Japano-Korea, nah that's unrealistic because Japanese and Korean are different people. Franco-Germany remind me of Frankish Empire and Charlemagne can be leader. however French and Germans are different people now. Scots and Irish are in same Gaelic. I might put like Gauls, Brythonics and Gaels for separating Celtic civ. I think Gaels were from Ireland and then replacing the Picts in Scotland

Oh, and @LorD of WarNO2, while I admire the breadth and completeness of your lists, any Greek Civ with a Spartan Leader would be neither Scientific or Cultural: the Lacedaemonians created virtually no cultural or scientific advances; no artists, philosophers, writers or sculptors. They did win a lot of Gold Medals at the Olympic and other Greek games, and they were one of the most purely military societies ever known, but that's pretty much all they were. Any in-game single Greek Civ would be much better off with Alternate Leaders from the other city states, like Pericles, Solon, Cleisthenes, Polycrates, Epiminondas, Jason of Thessaly - there's quite a list to choose from just in the Classical Era, without even going back to the 'semi-mythical' Bronze Age for Agememnon or Theseus.

Good idea, this time I might put a Greek leaders from non Athenian and Spartan one like from Thebes, Argos and Corinth.

 

[Jkchart]

While we're at it, let's also have an Actual contemporary city name for the capital instead of a later archeological site from a completely different language, culture and people.

More to the point, instead of an artificial city-building Civ for a pastoral group like the Scythians (or Huns, Lakotah, Commanche, et al) why not expand on the Maori start mechanics and give us an actual Land Mobile start mechanism for them. Give 'em Settlers as mobile as Horsemen, starting Tech Animal Husbandry, and maybe two starting combat units so they can roam the map, accumulating Science and Culture points slowly until they are ready to 'settle down'. It wouldn't be completely realistic, but it would give a much better 'flavor' to a horse-nomad/pastoral group than the current City-Building Only mechanic now available.



The Celtic Realm was varied enough in both area and time hat throwing a bunch of them together is like the Polynesian Civ of Civ V or the Native American amalgamations of previous Civs. Given a very little time, even I could come up with enough viable game variations for a Classical/Medieval Irish, Modern Irish, Renaissance Scots, Classical Picts, or Classical Gauls with Alternate Leaders for each. Stuffing them into a single basket is just intellectual laziness.

Oh, and @LorD of WarNO2, while I admire the breadth and completeness of your lists, any Greek Civ with a Spartan Leader would be neither Scientific or Cultural: the Lacedaemonians created virtually no cultural or scientific advances; no artists, philosophers, writers or sculptors. They did win a lot of Gold Medals at the Olympic and other Greek games, and they were one of the most purely military societies ever known, but that's pretty much all they were. Any in-game single Greek Civ would be much better off with Alternate Leaders from the other city states, like Pericles, Solon, Cleisthenes, Polycrates, Epiminondas, Jason of Thessaly - there's quite a list to choose from just in the Classical Era, without even going back to the 'semi-mythical' Bronze Age for Agememnon or Theseus.

Here's a fun thought on the idea of Parthia - so they keep the culture and science gaining like Maori. They get a unique "settler" or some sort of mechanic where they either have to capture their first city, or unlock X number of civics and techs/possibly build up some gold too to be able to found their first city. They can get science and culture from improvement pillages until their first city is founded to help them; so kind of like playable barbarians. After they get their first city, they play normally like other civs, maybe get some free stuff in the Capital to help them get started. They would just need some way to make sure they can get units to accomplish this playstyle. Might be too much for Civ VI.

EDIT: I have also very much wanted to see Parthia show up in the series.

 

[Zaarin]

Japano-Korea, nah that's unrealistic because Japanese and Korean are different people. Franco-Germany remind me of Frankish Empire and Charlemagne can be leader. however French and Germans are different people now. Scots and Irish are in same Gaelic. I might put like Gauls, Brythonics and Gaels for separating Celtic civ. I think Gaels were from Ireland and then replacing the Picts in Scotland

You just made the case for Japano-Korea, because the Koreans also replaced the Japanese in Korea. Yes, Ireland colonized Scotland, but Scotland is also heavily influenced by its Norman and Danish invaders, which is why Celtic Nationalism has never really caught on in Scotland the way it has in Ireland and Wales. IMO an Irish civ would be quite sufficient without tacking on the Scots. Also NB that Gaeilge and Gàidhlig are not mutually intelligible.

 

[Red_warning]

Rome led by Alaric I
America led by George III
Spain led by Joseph Bonaparte
Korea led by Meiji
Japan led by Douglas McArthur
Kongo led by Leopold II
England led by Ivar the Boneless
Judea led by Nebuchadnezzar II
China led by Kublai Khan
Ethiopia led by Victor Emmanuel III
Egypt led by Kleopatra

*leaves room*

 

[Morningcalm]

Rome led by Alaric I
America led by George III
Spain led by Joseph Bonaparte
Korea led by Meiji
Japan led by Douglas McArthur
Kongo led by Leopold II
England led by Ivar the Boneless
Judea led by Nebuchadnezzar II
China led by Kublai Khan
Ethiopia led by Victor Emmanuel III
Egypt led by Kleopatra

*leaves room*

Too much colonialism. Leopold II was a nasty piece of work.

There's also the fact that even Herodotus, who was not greatly given to question his sources, calls the story dubious. Given that he's the only source for Tomyris, I'm very skeptical she existed; if she did, I'm almost positive she didn't kill Cyrus (who most accounts, Persian and Greek, say died peacefully in bed).

Herodotus did not call the story dubious. He said "Of the many different accounts which are given of the death of Cyrus, this which I have followed appears to me most worthy of credit."

Also, at least one other account of Cyrus' death said he died in battle, albeit not against Tomyris. So it's unclear whether he died peacefully or in battle, as there's stuff authenticating both versions.

 

[Zaarin]

Rome led by Alaric I
America led by George III
Spain led by Joseph Bonaparte
Korea led by Meiji
Japan led by Douglas McArthur
Kongo led by Leopold II
England led by Ivar the Boneless
Judea led by Nebuchadnezzar II
China led by Kublai Khan
Ethiopia led by Victor Emmanuel III
Egypt led by Kleopatra

Maybe you should reconsider and have Korea led by Toyotomi Hideyoshi, China by Genghis Khan (after all, Kublai was a legitimate emperor of the Yuan Dynasty), and Egypt by Julius Caesar. You also forgot India led by Queen Victoria.

Herodotus did not call the story dubious. He said "Of the many different accounts which are given of the death of Cyrus, this which I have followed appears to me most worthy of credit."

Also, at least one other account of Cyrus' death said he died in battle, albeit not against Tomyris. So it's unclear whether he died peacefully or in battle, as there's stuff authenticating both versions.

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.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Maybe you should reconsider and have Korea led by Toyotomi Hideyoshi, China by Genghis Khan (after all, Kublai was a legitimate emperor of the Yuan Dynasty), and Egypt by Julius Caesar. You also forgot India led by Queen Victoria.

Don't forget Russia led by Batu Khan of the Great/Golden Horde and France, Norway, and Poland all led by Adolph Hitler . . .

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.

Herodotus, like almost all ancient/classical sources, needs to be taken skeptically and examined carefully. But, in a great many cases, even when Herodotus himself was dubious about the authenticity of the stories he recounted, later scientific and archeological evidence has corroborated it.

The Scythians lasted a lot longer than either the Sarmatians or the Parthians as an independent group or Civ. Also, while the Parthians were horse archers that gave their name to the distinctive over-the-shoulder 'Parthian shot', they had no heavy cavalry mentionable, while the Sarmatians were premier heavy horseman (and at least one fresco shows them apparently using a long lance) but had no reputation for mounted archery - the Scythians had both, and in fact at Gaugamela against Alexander the Massagetae (allied with Persia) are described as being armored head to foot, including their horses, so they were an early form of the Cataphracts and Clibinarii "Super Heavy" cavalry of the Sassanids. Basically, there is more flexibility and variety in the Scythians, if we can just get them a decent Pastoral Start and adequate City List.

But while we're debating, I'd like to throw in a vote for the Scythian Successors on the southern Russian steppes, the Pechenegs of the early Medieval Era. Horse archers, light lancers, dominating the trade routes east of Kiev all the way to at least the Don River, they also had two things that endear them to me:
1. They believed every important decision should be made twice: once when sober, and once while drunk. If you came to the same conclusion both times, you knew it was the right decision! (Confession: in my life I have occasionally used this technique to make decisions, but I cannot say it resulted in any marked increase in success - or coherence)
2. When the Byzantines tried to get them to attack the Turks, they replied that "Since the Turks are both numerous and fierce, they would prefer not to do such a thing and would appreciate it if the Greeks never mentioned the idea again."
- Now That's Diplomacy!

 

[Zaarin]

The Scythians lasted a lot longer than either the Sarmatians or the Parthians as an independent group or Civ. Also, while the Parthians were horse archers that gave their name to the distinctive over-the-shoulder 'Parthian shot', they had no heavy cavalry mentionable, while the Sarmatians were premier heavy horseman (and at least one fresco shows them apparently using a long lance) but had no reputation for mounted archery - the Scythians had both, and in fact at Gaugamela against Alexander the Massagetae (allied with Persia) are described as being armored head to foot, including their horses, so they were an early form of the Cataphracts and Clibinarii "Super Heavy" cavalry of the Sassanids. Basically, there is more flexibility and variety in the Scythians, if we can just get them a decent Pastoral Start and adequate City List.

My issue with the Scythians is that they just don't fit the Civ model well: they never settled down or formed an empire, resulting in a city list consisting mostly of Russian archaeological sites and a civ that doesn't really reflect how they actually existed (a problem not just for the Scythians but other nomadic civs as well). If an alternate model could be made viable (I think one of the civs in Endless Legends had mobile cities) then maybe the Scythians would be a good choice. In Civ as it exists, however, I still prefer the Parthians: they started out as horse nomads before settling down, conquering and founding cities, and basically progressing as a proper Civilization-style civilization as the Arsacid dynasty. They could even offer a unique playstyle as you and others proposed above: start out mobile Maori-style and then settle as a normal civ. On top of all that, the Parthians had well attested leaders, and the Parthian language is likewise well attested, far better than Saka.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

My issue with the Scythians is that they just don't fit the Civ model well: they never settled down or formed an empire, resulting in a city list consisting mostly of Russian archaeological sites and a civ that doesn't really reflect how they actually existed (a problem not just for the Scythians but other nomadic civs as well). If an alternate model could be made viable (I think one of the civs in Endless Legends had mobile cities) then maybe the Scythians would be a good choice. In Civ as it exists, however, I still prefer the Parthians: they started out as horse nomads before settling down, conquering and founding cities, and basically progressing as a proper Civilization-style civilization as the Arsacid dynasty. They could even offer a unique playstyle as you and others proposed above: start out mobile Maori-style and then settle as a normal civ. On top of all that, the Parthians had well attested leaders, and the Parthian language is likewise well attested, far better than Saka.

Well, in addition to the pastoral 'Civs' which the Civ games do not model well - and I include among them the Germans, who, after all, didn't build a city until the equivalent of the late Classical Era - the game does a bad job of recreating many other Civilizations as well. Like, for instance, the Greeks, who also never "formed an empire" - the closest they got was Athens' Delian League until they became part of Someone Else's Empire - Macedon, then Rome, then the Ottomans.

Parthians aren't a bad choice, but they basically took over the area of the Persian Empire, so a lot of cities will be duplicates or near-duplicates. I'm afraid I've always regarded them as "Persian Lite" for a Civ. Among the Central Asian Nomads Who settled to some degree, Sogdians, Seljuks, or even the Tmurids/Ghaznavids are all, to me, more distinctive - although I freely admit that's largely because all of them have more distinctive military establishments than the Horse Archers Everywhere Parthians.