Create a good vanilla line-up for Civilization

[Vahnstad]

The series needs some "icons" and Gandhi is one of them. I agree however that they need to include Ashoka or the Mughals.

 

[IgorS]

The series needs some "icons" and Gandhi is one of them. I agree however that they need to include Ashoka or the Mughals.

There are enough icons: Alexander, Shaka, Genghis Khan.
If they changed Montezuma II to Montezuma I, they can get rid of Gandhi too.

 

[Zaarin]

There are enough icons: Alexander, Shaka, Genghis Khan.
If they changed Montezuma II to Montezuma I, they can get rid of Gandhi too.

To be fair, the devs have never seemed entirely clear on which Montezuma they were trying to depict...

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

You can take away Alexander (kinda wish you would), and you can take away Genghis (wouldn't mind that either). But if you so much as lay a hand on Ghandi-



I will nuke the ever-loving **** out of you.

(Also unlike Alexander and Genghis, Ghandi and Shaka are Civilization mascots without being history mascots, which I think puts them in a different situation. The argument of "there are enough icons" is also kind of fallacious, I find, because the thing about icons is that they characterize and are synonymous with something, quantity doesn't factor into it at all.)

 

[IgorS]

To be fair, the devs have never seemed entirely clear on which Montezuma they were trying to depict...

The Civilopedia made it clear. At least from Civ III onward.

 

[Zaarin]

The Civilopedia made it clear. At least from Civ III onward.

Yes, but that doesn't mean the devs were clear on the distinction.

 

[IgorS]

Yes, but that doesn't mean the devs were clear on the distinction.

Well, when you look at the agenda he has in Civ VI, it is clear this is Montezuma I. who expanded his empire and gained access to many luxuries.

 

[Morningcalm]

Re: any potential confusion, one easy solution in future is to use a different Aztec ruler (Ahuitzotl, Itzcoatl, etc), but with Montezuma like Gandhi and Alexander being oft-repeated Civ leaders I wonder if they will ever do that.

In Civ IV, it was Montezuma II, but he lacked the kind of gentility as described of him in Bernal Diaz's account, and he also lacks the short beard described in Diaz's account. Instead Montezuma was just portrayed as a really hyper aggressive fanatic with some religious flavor, which fits Montezuma I somewhat better.

 

[IgorS]

Re: any potential confusion, one easy solution in future is to use a different Aztec ruler (Ahuitzotl, Itzcoatl, etc), but with Montezuma like Gandhi and Alexander being oft-repeated Civ leaders I wonder if they will ever do that.

In Civ IV, it was Montezuma II, but he lacked the kind of gentility as described of him in Bernal Diaz's account, and he also lacks the short beard described in Diaz's account. Instead Montezuma was just portrayed as a really hyper aggressive fanatic with some religious flavor, which fits Montezuma I somewhat better.

Yeah, but was anyone portrayed well in Civ IV?

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

Gandhi.

 

[Morningcalm]

Many leaders were portrayed well in IV, including Pericles, Julius Caesar, FDR, Isabella, Qin Shi Huangdi, Genghis and Kublai Khan, the list goes on. It only had a few misfires (like yellow Suryavarman).

Agreed that Gandhi was also portrayed well in IV.

 

[Zaarin]

Isabella

Except she was still a brunette. I hope that if she does return in Civ6 she has her famous strawberry blonde locks, though #civsobrownhaired doesn't give me much hope...

(At last the truth comes out: we got Victoria instead of Elizabeth simply because the devs can't figure out how to do red or blonde hair. )

 

[Morningcalm]

Her personality was an almost perfect fit though. I loved to hate her--she's was the Cersei Lannister of my Civ IV games.

 

[pietro1990]

It doesn't matter i would just put 16 civs in the vanilla game and 4 from each continent. so europe, asia, africa , america.

 

[Morningcalm]

Only four European civs would be tricky to swing--which would you include?

 

[Phrozen]

Four from Europe:

Rome
Greece
England
Russia

 

[Siptah]

Only four European civs would be tricky to swing--which would you include?

Not that 4 asian civs would be much easier to do. China, India and Japan seem essential - a Mesopotamian civ and Arabia as well.
And a lot of people didn't like the exclusion of asian civs Persia, Mongolia and the Ottomans (yes, I count them as a non-european civ) in civ VI vanilla.
On the other hand, while I can never have enough African civs, I'm ok with shipping the game with just two (knowing that more will follow at some point). And 3 civs from the Americas is not much, but still ok (knowing that more will follow) - the choice of civs can be debated.
I don't think there is a selection of 4 European civs that many people would agree with, but I'd choose Rome, France, Germany and Spain. (with England and Russia/Greece following as next options).

 

[Vahnstad]

I just can't take that seriously. Next time, just ship it in with no European civilizations, please. If civ ever did that, i wouldn't buy it, and the guy who would have proposed such a line-up would be fired eventually. Fortunately, they're not that stupid at Firaxis.

Rome, Greece, Spain, France, England, Germany and Russia in the base game. Denmark in a DLC. Ottomans, Netherlands, Hungary and Poland in expansion 1. Celts/Gauls, Portugal, Byzantium and Sweden in exp 2. And last but not least an Italian city-state DLC pack (Florence, Venice and Genoa).

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

To be honest, I could live without Spain in vanilla. Yeah, they had a powerful Golden Age and all, but they always came across to me as that one European power that you kind of forget about. Probably because that's what modern Spain is. They weren't even in the first game, so apparently Sid Meier would agree with me.

Rome, Greece, France, Germany, England and Russia are non-negotiable though, and that's six European civilizations already.

In addition to Spain, I don't find a "cradle of civilization" civilization all that necessary to have in vanilla. We could go until a DLC or expansion without having Sumer or Babylon and be just fine.

 

[Zaarin]

To be honest, I could live without Spain in vanilla. Yeah, they had a powerful Golden Age and all, but they always came across to me as that one European power that you kind of forget about. Probably because that's what modern Spain is. They weren't even in the first game, so apparently Sid Meier would agree with me.

Rome, Greece, France, Germany, England and Russia are non-negotiable though, and that's six European civilizations already.

In addition to Spain, I don't find a "cradle of civilization" civilization all that necessary to have in vanilla. We could go until a DLC or expansion without having Sumer or Babylon and be just fine.

I agree with this, except I don't think both Greece and Rome are essential in vanilla; I'd be satisfied with just Rome (sure, Greece was more culturally significant--virtually all Roman art and philosophy was in imitation of Greece--but it was Rome that conquered the known world). Greece can be DLC or added in an expansion. I disagree about Babylon/Sumer, though: there is no civilization without them; they really are quite essential.

Only four European civs would be tricky to swing--which would you include?

That's tough, because while vanilla Civ6 may overrepresent Europe, only four civs does feel like it leaves Europe underrepresented. But if I had to choose only four civs from Europe, I'd go with: Rome, Russia, France, England. The next slot would go to Germany.