Design your own Civ VI civ

[Zaarin]

Assyrian Empire (Assyria)
Leader: Ashurbanipal
Agenda: Collector-Loves to acquire more Great Works than any other player. Dislikes civilizations who acquire more Great Works than him.
LA: Royal Library-Provides an extra slot of Great work at the palace and libraries gain a great work of writing slot. Combat strength against opponent if they have great work.
UA: Iron Age Warfare- Iron is revealed at the beginning of the game. Only one copy of a strategic resource is required to produce a unit.
UU: Siege Engine- (Replaces the battering ram) Has abilities of both Battering Ram and Siege Tower.
UI: Lamassu- Provides faith and gold. Combat strength when adjacent to city center and to all units who pass it.

I like it except for two things: First, the UI, which is just too similar in every respect to Egypt's sphinx. I'd replace them with Walls of Nineveh (akin to Civ5's Walls of Babylon), which would be aesthetically appealing and unique; would also pair nicely with an Ishtar Gate wonder. Second, the UA fits the Hittites much better than Assyria; iron had been around for some time by the time Assyria rose to prominence. I'd go with something that emphasizes their reputation for brutality in warfare, perhaps gaining culture and faith for conquering cities (like Alexander's science for conquests).

 

[Morningcalm]

I would disagree. Justinian is most famous for his legal reforms and for retaking huge tracks of formerly Roman territory, so a domination victory seems most fitting for him (though I did personally imagine Byzantium as a more all-rounder).
Not every civilization needs to have such high "u r diferent religion denunce u" flavors (I am assuming flavors as well as Agendas are in play here), and one civilization who approaches religious diplomacy in a totally different way would be fine. It would also give the darn Crusade belief some frickin' use.
Lastly, Agendas don't need to be 100% accurate to the leader's actions. Yeah, Trajan likes big empires, but he also went to war with the pretty big Parthian Empire and, though I'm not an expert on his life, probably didn't beat up every little guy he saw.

Formerly Roman land didn't necessarily share his religion. He did not war with Persia, and the Ostrogoths because they shared his religion. Wanting to restore the empire to its former size has little to do with religion and more to do with the territories of the former Roman Empire. Byzantium has always been known for both domination and religion, and it's perfectly possible for Justinian to want to spread religion for a religious victory in my view--else, why all the Christian wonder construction? Why the internal debate between Theodora and Justinian re: Christian sects?

Spreading religion is already combative enough, I think making it boost an enemy's willingness to war with you just makes things worse from a gameplay perspective. Of course agendas don't need to be 100% accurate but I never said they had to be.

I like it except for two things: First, the UI, which is just too similar in every respect to Egypt's sphinx. I'd replace them with Walls of Nineveh (akin to Civ5's Walls of Babylon), which would be aesthetically appealing and unique; would also pair nicely with an Ishtar Gate wonder. Second, the UA fits the Hittites much better than Assyria; iron had been around for some time by the time Assyria rose to prominence. I'd go with something that emphasizes their reputation for brutality in warfare, perhaps gaining culture and faith for conquering cities (like Alexander's science for conquests).

Yeah I think lamassu are perhaps too similar visually and gameplay wise to the sphinx as envisioned. Walls of Nineveh could work (though Babylon if introduced would probably have some UI relating to the Walls of Babylon). A royal library like could work as well (since the Library of Alexandria has taken the Library of Nineveh for the library slot). Assyria was also known for shipping out the population from conquered territory in brutal forced marches. But also well known for being masters of siege warfare.

As to the other Assyrians suggestions, I think a combat bonus against those with Great Writing works well due to the relative rarity of Great Works early on and in view of Ashurbanipal's thirst to collect such in his life. Maybe he gives you +diplomacy positive modifier points for giving him Great Works of Writing in trade?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I like it except for two things: First, the UI, which is just too similar in every respect to Egypt's sphinx. I'd replace them with Walls of Nineveh (akin to Civ5's Walls of Babylon), which would be aesthetically appealing and unique; would also pair nicely with an Ishtar Gate wonder. Second, the UA fits the Hittites much better than Assyria; iron had been around for some time by the time Assyria rose to prominence. I'd go with something that emphasizes their reputation for brutality in warfare, perhaps gaining culture and faith for conquering cities (like Alexander's science for conquests).

I agree with the UI, I just wasn't too sure what to put and I thought a Lamassu made the most since and tried to differentiate it. I have avoided Wall replacements because it seems like they would just get replaced by Medieval walls. I might not be too keen on the history but did the Hittites use iron for warfare at all? I know they discovered how to use iron to make tools but I thought that it was Assyria who started using them for their weapons. Any case, I can remove that you can get iron from the start.

Yeah I think lamassu are perhaps too similar visually and gameplay wise to the sphinx as envisioned. Walls of Nineveh could work (though Babylon if introduced would probably have some UI relating to the Walls of Babylon). A royal library like could work as well (since the Library of Alexandria has taken the Library of Nineveh for the library slot). Assyria was also known for shipping out the population from conquered territory in brutal forced marches. But also well known for being masters of siege warfare.

I already gave Babylon stronger walls with their UA and an Edubba as their Library replacement. This was one of the hardest infrastructure to come up with as I wanted to make Assyria different from Babylon. I also considered a Menagerie but not sure how it would be implemented. I guess an Arena replacement but act like an early Zoo to help with early war weariness problems.

 

[Zaarin]

I agree with the UI, I just wasn't too sure what to put and I thought a Lamassu made the most since and tried to differentiate it. I have avoided Wall replacements because it seems like they would just get replaced by Medieval walls. I might not be too keen on the history but did the Hittites use iron for warfare at all? I know they discovered how to use iron to make tools but I thought that it was Assyria who started using them for their weapons. Any case, I can remove that you can get iron from the start.

Yes, they did. Two things gave the Hittites a huge edge in conquering the region: iron weapons and better chariots. But tech spreads (something I wish would somehow find its way into Civ--the religious pressure model would actually work really well for tech diffusion), so soon the Hittites were back to being outclassed by the traditional centers of power in Mesopotamia and Egypt--even though they had to import their iron from Nubia, Anatolia, and Iran. Iron tools had existed in small quantities since the Late Bronze Age and were nothing new, though Hittite ironworking techniques made them cheaper.

 

[clapyourhands]

This mod civ is already finished in terms of coding, its just the art that's left. I'm not great with numbers though and would love some feedback.

The Tongva

Leader: Toypurina

LA: Martyr of the Valley

Units receive a +10 defensive bonus while on their home continent. When targeted by a declaration of war, gain 25% Culture for 20 turns.

Agenda: No Trespassers

Likes civilizations that stay close to home and don't interfere overseas. Dislikes civilizations that settle on or spread religion to her home continent.

UA: Golden Coast

Embarked civilian units gain +1 Movement per active Trade Route. Intracontinental domestic trade routes gain +2 Food; intracontinental international trade routes gain +2 Gold and +2 Culture.

UU: Ti'at

Replaces the Scout. Is a naval unit. Has extra sight and recieives bonus movement and strength while on coastal tiles. Can improve maritime resources.

UI: Ki

Can be built on Marsh, flat grassland, or flat plains and provides 1 Housing. Provides the same bonuses as a farm on flat featureless terrain, but does not improve with subsequent technologies. Provides +3 Food and +2 Gold when built on a Marsh, or +2 Food when built adjacent to a Marsh. Also provides +2 Gold if built adjacent to the coast.

Playstyle

Strong bonuses focused on trade and coastal settlements, but not island settlements. Encouraged to stay on one continent and spread all along its coast; civilian embarked units receive bonus movement, allowing Settlers and Builders to quickly outmaneuver other civs and barbs up or down a coastline. They can be accompanied by a Ti'at, which has bonus movement and strength on the coast. It is a Scout replacement, however, so even its boosted strength is not that high (though defensively it’s respectable on its home continent). Lack of a terrestrial scout also hinders the Tongva with inland forays. The idea is to send a Settler and a protecting Ti’at up the coast, find a place with plentiful sea resources, then settle and use the Ti’at to improve the resource and kickstart city productivity. The Ki is worse than a farm alone in terms of yield, though it does provide a bit more housing. This helps alleviate the crowdedness coastal cities tend to have. They become great improvements with marshes, however, and respectable ones on the coast (though coast tiles are valuable land for wonders and resorts later in the game, so build with caution). Playing against, the Tongva do not fare well with warfare. Their UU is not militarily oriented, and pillaging their trade routes will cripple most of their uniques. They likely will have lots of Gold saved up though, so they should be able to get units out quickly.

Brainstorming

For the record this civ was mostly finalized before Indonesia and Khmer were revealed, so the overlap with the coastal housing is coincidental. The Ki draws similarities with the Civ V Dutch polder, but there are already a couple shuffled UAs and UUs between V and VI, so one more won't hurt. The Civ VI incarnation of the Tongva is based on my Civ V one, with some changes to involve adjacency bonuses and the new leader-specific abilities. Since Toypurina was most famous for leading a rebellion against the Spanish missions, which Civ VI Spain is encouraged to build on foreign continents, I thought it would be interesting to tweak her agenda such that it in a sense opposes Spain. She dislikes civs that settle/spread religion on her home continent (ie: what she revolted against in the first place). Her ability is reminiscent of Australia's without the "liberating a city" trigger; it also lasts longer, but with half the percentage (a culture boost upon war declaration is arguably worse than a production one as well, though it could very well last beyond the war). The Tongva UA provides bonuses to intracontinental trade routes, as the Tongva were famed for being coastal traders all along the California coast. This also contrasts nicely with Spain, who has bonuses to intercontinental trade routes (though this was coincidental, the bonus was formulated before the comparison with Spain was). I would have liked the Tongva to be able to pursue a diplomatic victory, as Toypurina was renowned for her diplomacy and a trade focus would lend itself well to such a victory type, but I settled for culture as a next-best option. If/when diplomacy is introduced I'll likely retool the abilities to focus more on that.

_____

WIP

The Kumeyaay

Leader: Cinon Mataweer

Ability: Kumeyaay Mat’taam

???

Agenda

???

UA: My Uuyow (Sky Knowledge)

Start with Astrology unlocked. Holy Site adjacency bonuses are matched in Science yield.

UB: Solstice Observatory

Unlocks with Astronomy. Replaces the Library. In addition to normal Library yields, it provides +2 Faith, and farms within the city where it is built also provide +1 Faith.

UU: Trail Runner

Replaces the Scout. Doubled movement when starting in friendly territory; this movement is shared with coupled civilian units.

The Kumeyaay are a southern California/very northern Mexico tribe most famous for their intricate astrological calendar. They devised a way to use the stars and constellations to tell time and plan their harvests accordingly, alongside a system of astrological beliefs. Gameplay-wise, I thought it would be very interesting to have a Native American civ that coupled Faith and Science. They don't get a religion-founding bonus, and their library replacement unlocks later, but they get powerful bonuses to both yields once they're up and running; starting with Astrology also helps with this. The Holy Site bonuses also allow them to focus on just getting a religion in the early game without worrying about falling behind in science. Still working on the LA and agenda.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Babylon's Edubba is cool, but I have to ask if the effect stacks, since you can build (and will build) many libraries

Just thought of this idea today. Edubba: (Replaces Library) Still grants more science than library. When built you have access to send a Babylonian Scribe to another civilization for 15 gold.
It acts as another early game delegate for Babylon for diplomatic visibility. If Catherine can have a Flying Squadron than Hammurabi can have his scribes.

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

Of course agendas don't need to be 100% accurate but I never said they had to be.

No, but you did say that Justinian tried to form alliances with some Christian nations, which in the context of discussing this idea for an agenda does seem to invoke that point.

I see no reason why Justinian has to forgo warmongering in order to have a religious focus as well. I think the agenda would be fine for gameplay, because its an opponent you'd have to approach your interactions with differently. The Crusade belief implies that this sort of thing isn't something that's not supposed to happen (not that what's "supposed to happen" is all that important, but the idea isn't out of the question). Many of the lands Justinian conquered had undergone significant conversion, and whether or not fighting other Christians was his more basic intent it did end up being the result.

That is the terrain where Polders are made since they are recovered land with dikes and windmill Archimedes screws acting as pumps.

Oh, I don't mean to question why Polders are like that. I was pointing out that they invoked an idea (adjacency from a unique improvement), but weren't what I think the fully realized version of that idea would be, in my opinion.

I agree with the UI, I just wasn't too sure what to put and I thought a Lamassu made the most since and tried to differentiate it. I have avoided Wall replacements because it seems like they would just get replaced by Medieval walls.

I never liked the Walls of Babylon unique building. To me, it's like having the Empire State Building as a unique building for America. I think the Walls of Nineveh would even more obviously suffer from the issue of "turning one instance of a thing into something you have everywhere." I couldn't tell you exactly why, but I feel that would be the case. Admittedly though, there is only one British Museum.

Oh hey everyone here's a design for Canada but it's just names because I couldn't think of any cool or neat effects for them.
Canada

Spoiler :

Unique Ability: Hudson Bay Company

Unique Unit: Mountie

Unique Building: Hockey Rink

John A. Macdonald
Capital: Ottawa

Leader Ability: The National System

Agenda: Great Coalition

Here's an ability I thought was neat and fit for Portugal but it's currently just a little design note.
Portugal
Ability that's somewhere in there: Naval units gain experience for uncovering territory as Recon units do.


Coherent and well researched and properly named things are hard. Or at the very least time consuming. I ain't got the time or patience to read the whole of Joao II's wikipedia page, convert his feats into Civ6 game mechanics, and make that meld with everything else, just to share the above idea.

 

[Morningcalm]

No, but you did say that Justinian tried to form alliances with some Christian nations, which in the context of discussing this idea for an agenda does seem to invoke that point.

I see no reason why Justinian has to forgo warmongering in order to have a religious focus as well. I think the agenda would be fine for gameplay, because its an opponent you'd have to approach your interactions with differently. The Crusade belief implies that this sort of thing isn't something that's not supposed to happen (not that what's "supposed to happen" is all that important, but the idea isn't out of the question). Many of the lands Justinian conquered had undergone significant conversion, and whether or not fighting other Christians was his more basic intent it did end up being the result.

This is like a Cyrus situation where an agenda not fitting a leader is construed to fit him due to one instance where such an agenda would make sense (in Cyrus' case his "surprise war" ability can only (sort of) make sense in the context of the attack on Babylon. With Justinian you have the same thing with the Goths. But his issue with them wasn't that they were Christian--his issue with them was that they occupied formerly (Roman Empire) territory, and the original Roman Empire was hardly Christian until Constantine.

You imply this agenda idea of yours won't force Justinian to "forgo warmongering in order to have a religious focus". Quite the contrary is true. With this agenda Justinian would need to spread his religion to have a more powerful personality-based reason to go to war, which would predicate his war patterns to a larger degree based on where he spreads his religion. You also get the nonsensical result of people like the Persians having positive modifiers while Christian allies posing no religious threat of their own would be under attack. The issue isn't purely one of historical interest--it's also about having consistency within the game's current AI state.

On another note, I sincerely hope Canada never makes it into Civ. Australia and Brazil are bad enough.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Canada
Spoiler : Unique Ability: Hudson Bay Company

Unique Unit: Mountie

Unique Building: Hockey Rink

John A. Macdonald
Capital: Ottawa

Leader Ability: The National System

Agenda: Great Coalition

Here's an ability I thought was neat and fit for Portugal but it's currently just a little design note.
Portugal
Ability that's somewhere in there: Naval units gain experience for uncovering territory as Recon units do.


Coherent and well researched and properly named things are hard. Or at the very least time consuming. I ain't got the time or patience to read the whole of Joao II's wikipedia page, convert his feats into Civ6 game mechanics, and make that meld with everything else, just to share the above idea.

That's cool, I had this in mind.
UA: Forest and Fur Industry- Extra gold for camps found in forests and tundra. Extra Production from lumber mills. (Name could be better)
Same building and unit. Not sure of a leader though.
For Portugal I just went with the fact that Joao II wanted to follow in his uncle's, Henry the Navigator, footsteps and explore the world.
P.S. Australia is my favorite to play as and Brazil was my first. I'm not opposed to them or Canada although I definitely wouldn't mind many others first.

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

If you find the contents of this post provocative, please let me know what about the way I expressed these ideas bothered you so I can be better in the future.

This is like a Cyrus situation where an agenda not fitting a leader is construed to fit him due to one instance where such an agenda would make sense (in Cyrus' case his "surprise war" ability can only (sort of) make sense in the context of the attack on Babylon. With Justinian you have the same thing with the Goths. But his issue with them wasn't that they were Christian--his issue with them was that they occupied formerly (Roman Empire) territory, and the original Roman Empire was hardly Christian until Constantine.

However, Justinian came after Constantine and that Christianization. He was still waging war on his fellow Christians.

I've already explained why I feel that wanting to reconquer territory wouldn't be a particularly good agenda, and thus why an alternative such as this might be considered.

If it's the flavor that bothers you, his denunciation would be more about his desire to unite the religion under a single ruler. Even if it's not Justinian with such an agenda, I imagine that would be the "in-character" presentation of the leader's intention.

You imply this agenda idea of yours won't force Justinian to "forgo warmongering in order to have a religious focus". Quite the contrary is true. With this agenda Justinian would need to spread his religion to have a more powerful personality-based reason to go to war, which would predicate his war patterns to a larger degree based on where he spreads his religion.

The scenario you present features Justinian both waging war and spreading religion. In addition, the most effective religious strategy would be to have a large empire (admittedly that's the best strategy for everything, but I digress).

Perhaps it is not the most effective ideal route for pursuing a religious victory, since you can use Inquisitors on conquered cities of different religions, but the faith generation would still be important, and having a systematic approach to how Justinian works isn't inherently bad. In game terms, it leaves it open for Justinian to pursue either religious or domination victory, conquering one target while spreading his faith to the next.

You also get the nonsensical result of people like the Persians having positive modifiers while Christian allies posing no religious threat of their own would be under attack. The issue isn't purely one of historical interest--it's also about having consistency within the game's current AI state.

I'll admit that it doesn't make a lot of sense, but I think it's misguided to try and apply a great deal of real world logic to Civilization.

The agenda system is already somewhat arbitrary, and creates tension or friendship were it otherwise wouldn't occur. I feel that such is the point of the system, that's how it's intended to shake things up. The nonsensical (but not horribly inconsistent in my opinion) results of the agenda would create the sort of atypical scenarios requiring atypical handling that the system is suited towards providing.

I recall you saying you dislike the agenda system though, so if this point doesn't convince you, that's fine.

On another note, I sincerely hope Canada never makes it into Civ. Australia and Brazil are bad enough.

I do not wish to spark an argument, but I find this immediate hostility towards post-colonial civilizations somewhat rude. I respect your opinion, even if I will voice my disagreements with it, but I think people who would like to see Canada would feel somewhat aggravated by that terse, almost dismissive expression of your sentiment.

That's cool, I had this in mind.
UA: Forest and Fur Industry- Extra gold for camps found in forests and tundra. Extra Production from lumber mills. (Name could be better)
Same building and unit. Not sure of a leader though.
For Portugal I just went with the fact that Joao II wanted to follow in his uncle's, Henry the Navigator, footsteps and explore the world.
P.S. Australia is my favorite to play as and Brazil was my first. I'm not opposed to them or Canada although I definitely wouldn't mind many others first.

I tend not to like ideas like Forest and Fur Industry, to be honest. I don't think it really affects how the civ would be played all that much, and simply boosting gold and production is very flat. Camps do make sense for the bonus, but I feel there's a better way to go about that bonus. Some way. Don't ask me how, I already said I don't have ideas. The best I could come up with was district adjacency from Tundra and Camps.

 

[Morningcalm]

Justinian came after Constantine and that Christianization. He was still waging war on his fellow Christians.

I've already explained why I feel that wanting to reconquer territory wouldn't be a particularly good agenda, and thus why an alternative such as this might be considered.

If it's the flavor that bothers you, his denunciation would be more about his desire to unite the religion under a single ruler. Even if it's not Justinian with such an agenda, I imagine that would be the "in-character" presentation of the leader's intention.

The scenario you present features Justinian both waging war and spreading religion. In addition, the most effective religious strategy would be to have a large empire (admittedly that's the best strategy for everything, but I digress).

Perhaps it is not the most effective ideal route for pursuing a religious victory, since you can use Inquisitors on conquered cities of different religions, but the faith generation would still be important, and having a systematic approach to how Justinian works isn't inherently bad. In game terms, it leaves it open for Justinian to pursue either religious or domination victory, conquering one target while spreading his faith to the next.

I'll admit that it doesn't make a lot of sense, but I think it's misguided to try and apply a great deal of real world logic to Civilization.

The agenda system is already somewhat arbitrary, and creates tension or friendship were it otherwise wouldn't occur. I feel that such is the point of the system, that's how it's intended to shake things up. The nonsensical (but not horribly inconsistent in my opinion) results of the agenda would create the sort of atypical scenarios requiring atypical handling that the system is suited towards providing.

I recall you saying you dislike the agenda system though, so if this point doesn't convince you, that's fine.

Justinian did not, to my knowledge, begin wars out of a desire to rule a unified Christendom. His desire was to recapture the territory of the Western Roman Empire, and that (in its scope) largely preceded Constantine and his Eastern Roman Empire.

The Goths were Arian Christians. Arianism was regarded as a heresy by Byzantium, which was at the time of Justinian Orthodox Christian. So the idea of Justinian regarding war on fellow Christians as a good thing is misleading at best. Arian Christians weren't regarded as fellow "Christians" as such by the Byzantines, and what your agenda would lead to is Justinian waging war on fellow Orthodox Christians. A more accurate religiously flavored agenda for Justinian would be a replica of Philip II's agenda (Philip II, a Catholic Christian, resented Protestant Christians, including Elizabeth I, on whom he unsuccessfully unleashed his Armada).

Further, as earlier stated, Justinian's Wars on the Goths were not motivated by the Gothic religion as much as a desire tom conquer the territory of Italy itself. Hence Justinian's willingness to entertain the idea of a Gothic alliance, and his war with the Ostrogoths who killed his Gothic ally (Queen Amalasuntha).

I repeat again the nonsensical quality of Justinian (under your agenda idea) becoming fast friends with Persia, which was Justinian's lifelong enemy (he frequently paid them off so he could focus on his western Wars).

The fact that the agenda system is currently flawed isn't a reason to introduce another ahistorical and not-common-sense agenda to the game. If you want an agenda with leaders declaring war on those of the (exact) same faith you should look elsewhere.

Free of your agenda, Justinian's war patterns could more naturally be both military and religious in nature. We already have leaders who (while otherwise somewhat peaceful) aggressively pursue religious victory (Jadwiga for example). Justinian could simply be a more aggressive version of that, albeit with an agenda relating to his legal code, his love of religious wonders, or so on.

I thought you wanted Basil II anyway, so mostly this discussion is superfluous. I am posing on this in depth to avoid a potential repeat of something as ahistorical as Cyrus' agenda, especially where (as here) you are trying really hard to get an AI to target the Crusade belief (frankly a better fit for your agenda would be Enrico Dandolo of Venice, who with Crusaders sacked Constantinople, but even that's not a great fit gameplay wise).

Re: Canada, you're taking it a bit too personally. My issue is less with Canada as such and more post-colonial nations in general. Elsewhere in this forum a few weeks ago when the concept of a different Civ vanilla lineup was discussed, I indicated that if I had my way the US would not be in Civ (not that it should really matter, but I am a US citizen and fan of US history, though I prefer the ancients like the Inca and Palmyra). That doesn't mean I think it's horrifying to see Canada Civ designs in this thread (especially given that we've had Trump, Spongebob etc in the spirit of fun). But rather I prefer other Civ ideas. Everyone has their own preferences.

Speaking of, I wouldn't mind Babylon (as earlier discussed in this thread by Alexander's Hetaroi) being in the game but if Hammurabi is to be its leader he could be given a backstabber flavor. The scribes for diplomatic purposes wouldn't quite work since it would seem a bit of a repeat for Catherine's, but I like the idea of Hammurabi being presented as a diplomatic power player at large. Hammurabi was the (backstabbing) Bismarck of his time, frequently turning on allies and conquering them after they aided him. In my Civ idea earlier in the thread I portrayed him as the Bani Matim (aka improvement lover) which he also was. But that doesn't mean his loyalty score can't also be rather low.

"Edubba" is a nice flavorful find for a potential Babylonian infrastructure distinct from Civ V's Walls I guess (it does seem a Sumerian word though; that said it does seem mentioned in the context of "old Babylonia" so I guess it could work).

 

[Nagato]

On another note, I sincerely hope Canada never makes it into Civ. Australia and Brazil are bad enough.

Some comments I can not read and leave unanswered

I understand who prefers ancient historical civilizations, just like me. But I can not understand this exaggerated hatred against postcolonial civilizations (mainly Australia and Brazil), why would they be so bad? Brazil is the fifth most populous country in the world, and one of the largest economies on the planet, has a rich and diverse culture, and can easily represent the native Indigenous of that country, who will hardly be included in the game. Australia, for its part, is an important postcolonial country with a great economy, the Aborigines will hardly be included in the game, would Scythia (meh civilization that needs to use Russian cities because it does not have enough list of cities) a civilization more interesting than Australia just because it is not a postcolonial country? Some of these comments sound offensive to people in these countries. After all, what is the parameter to tell if a country is a" worthy" or not? People will want to arbitrate based on their personal convictions, which will not be relevant argument, the game is not made to satisfy desires of a person. I'm sure Brazilians, Aussies and Canadians would like to have their countries in the game to play with them, it's just normal for people want to play with their countries. I don't not like Scythia just as I did not like Shoshone in CivV, but I'd rather ignore them rather than hate them. If we are to totally exclude the postcolonial nations from the game and pretend they are not part of the story, then we will exclude America as well and we will lose out to many American players who would like to play with America.

Anyway, sorry to divert the subject of the forum, I'm just responding to a comment that sounded me a bit unpleasant.

 

[Kimiimaro]

About colonial Civs - I wouldn't mind seeing Canada, Argentina or Mexico, but in the 2nd expansion soonest.

@Morningcalm, yeah, Babylon is a great idea for next DLC/expansion Civ. We were learning about it today in history lesson with our great teacher. We were learning how Hammurabi used Mari and then backstabbed it But are there any other cities/countries he backstabbed?
However, we were learning about Assyria, too. I learned some really interesting things. For example the fact that Assyrian army could even have 100000 men or the fact that Assyrians probably invented sword. Or the fact that Assyrians used psychological warfare - they attacked a city, sacked it and killed/used citizens as slaves. However, they left few people go, so they could tell other people about these atrocities, and that made the Assyrian army well known and feared.
Assyria would be a good Civ, too, and I think military traits would be best for it. Ashurbanipal or Sargon II would make interesting choices for its leader. Tiglath-Pileser III wouldn't be a bad choice, too.

 

[clapyourhands]

The Latin Empire

Leader: Baldwin I

LA: The Fourth Crusade
Pillaging in cities following the religion you are following is twice as effective. Breaking diplomatic promises carries only half the penalty.

Agenda: Unpaid Debts
Likes civilizations that make deals involving gold per turn. Dislikes civilizations that refuse to or are unable to do commerce using gold per turn.

UA: Imperium Romaniae
Gain Faith and Gold when killing enemy units or capturing civilian units from a civilization following the same religion as you. Religious pressure from your trade routes is halved, but religious pressure from your cities is doubled.

Kind of a joke, but it was actually sort of interesting the more I thought about it. The key change was from from "____ following your religion" to "____ following the same religion as you". The first is a joke as it's obviously counterintuitive to reduce your own follower beliefs and make it harder for your own religion to spread. The latter makes it 1) dangerous to spread religion to the empire (but also beneficial since the empire has a strong motivation to spread the religion itself, making it a double-edged sword) and 2) make the empire want a religion in a first place, and then spread it so that it gets bonuses when declaring war. Still a bit humorous, but potentially fun.

 

[Morningcalm]

In response to Nagato's lengthy post, let me point out what should be obvious--not every Civilization in human history can make it into Civ. Maybe one day a Civ game will have pygmies, Tuvalans, Alans and so on in the game, but it won't be soon due to the limited number of Civ slots in the game. Why should Canada, with its rather limited imprint on history, be included in the game over the Goths, the Sioux, etc? Anyone can and everyone will get offended if we widen the scope of what constitutes a Civ so vastly that anyone can demand their Civ be in. My preference for ancient civs means I would rather not see Canada take the slot of a more interesting Civ. Everyone has their own preferences as I said. But I think calling my preferences not to have Canada in Civ "hating" is extreme and unproductive. By Nagato's logic, I must hate the US as well. Simply because I don't want them in Civ over others.

Clapyourhands, I am a huge fan of Baldwin I (and indeed others in this thread have mentioned him before), but I do wonder what cities he would have to have for for his Civ to work. Was he known for making gold deals? That might fit Hongi Hika (he liked trading for weapons over gold though) or a Dutch leader/Phoenician leader also perhaps. On a vaguely related note I kind of like Gorgo's agenda (which also involves trade deal responses) since so far I think seems her AI is consistent and does refuse peace deals with anything other than simple peace.

@Morningcalm, yeah, Babylon is a great idea for next DLC/expansion Civ. We were learning about it today in history lesson with our great teacher. We were learning how Hammurabi used Mari and then backstabbed it But are there any other cities/countries he backstabbed?
However, we were learning about Assyria, too. I learned some really interesting things. For example the fact that Assyrian army could even have 100000 men or the fact that Assyrians probably invented sword. Or the fact that Assyrians used psychological warfare - they attacked a city, sacked it and killed/used citizens as slaves. However, they left few people go, so they could tell other people about these atrocities, and that made the Assyrian army well known and feared.
Assyria would be a good Civ, too, and I think military traits would be best for it. Ashurbanipal or Sargon II would make interesting choices for its leader. Tiglath-Pileser III wouldn't be a bad choice, too.

Hammurabi betrayed numerous polities from what I can remember-- Larsa was another polity Hammurabi backstabbed, and may not have been the only other one!

Agreed on Assyria--they were brutal but undeniably important. I'm more a fan of Ashurbanipal since his agenda seems so clear but I guess other agendas could be made out too. I hope if they are included again that they bring their weird siege engine tank thing back.

[Hittites would also be great (they are overpowered in Age of Empires I which gave them much needed exposure, Civ could help jolt people's memory too).]

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Re: Canada, you're taking it a bit too personally. My issue is less with Canada as such and more post-colonial nations in general. Elsewhere in this forum a few weeks ago when the concept of a different Civ vanilla lineup was discussed, I indicated that if I had my way the US would not be in Civ (not that it should really matter, but I am a US citizen and fan of US history, though I prefer the ancients like the Inca and Palmyra). That doesn't mean I think it's horrifying to see Canada Civ designs in this thread (especially given that we've had Trump, Spongebob etc in the spirit of fun). But rather I prefer other Civ ideas. Everyone has their own preferences.

Speaking of, I wouldn't mind Babylon (as earlier discussed in this thread by Alexander's Hetaroi) being in the game but if Hammurabi is to be its leader he could be given a backstabber flavor. The scribes for diplomatic purposes wouldn't quite work since it would seem a bit of a repeat for Catherine's, but I like the idea of Hammurabi being presented as a diplomatic power player at large. Hammurabi was the (backstabbing) Bismarck of his time, frequently turning on allies and conquering them after they aided him. In my Civ idea earlier in the thread I portrayed him as the Bani Matim (aka improvement lover) which he also was. But that doesn't mean his loyalty score can't also be rather low.

As someone who likes ancient and classical history I would definitely love to see more of them than post-colonial nations but obviously I don't mind them as well. I personally love playing Australia as much as Macedon and Greece. Anyways if I had my say I would at least want Gran Colombia to make it into the game as we've never had a Spanish speaking country from the new world in a game as far as I can think of. Canada I wouldn't mind as maybe a last slot followed by Argentina if the game isn't filled out yet.
The scribe wasn't necessarily tied to Hammurabi but the Edubba just to give the building something more than just more science. It could go with any leader of Babylon. Of course the only thing I could think of as an agenda is he wants civilizations to be caught up with him on the number of social policies, which probably isn't historically accurate, but gameplay wise interesting since I gave him the ability to start with Code of Laws.

 

[Morningcalm]

I think Gran Colombia would make sense due to Simon Bolivar's enduring legacy (though Gran Colombia itself was short-lived).

For the code of laws agenda, certainly many leaders could fit it--Justinian, Suleiman, Hammurabi and Ur-Nammu were all lawgivers, and there are others too (like Napoleon). Wouldn't say it's historically inaccurate as such--as Hammurabi et al. were proud of their legal codes I'm sure civs that could keep up or surpass in culture would be of interest to them in real life (or at least, it wouldn't directly contradict something we know about them historically). Pedro II's Great People agenda should work in a positive manner too (I.e. Respecting those with many Great People, not hating on those who share his love of the intellectual).

 

[Nagato]

Again, sorry to be diverting the subject from the topic.

In response to Nagato's lengthy post, let me point out what should be obvious--not every Civilization in human history can make it into Civ. Maybe one day a Civ game will have pygmies, Tuvalans, Alans and so on in the game, but it won't be soon due to the limited number of Civ slots in the game. Why should Canada, with its rather limited imprint on history, be included in the game over the Goths, the Sioux, etc?

Precisely this, we will not always have all the civilizations that we want in the game. We will like some choices, and we will not like others. In CivV, I would easily replace the Shoshone by Canada, Australia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Nubia, Khmer, Goths and the list goes on with another two dozen candidates. But so what? I can not change a thing that is already done. But I just ignored Shoshone in my games.
In CivVI, I easily substituted Scythia for the Mongois, and Macedonia for Babylon, but I am sure that Mongols and Babylon will be included at some point, so I need not hate Scythia and Macedonia.
About your question, the answer is this: Maybe, not everyone will think Sioux and Goths more interesting than Canada. I can think that, in the same way there are people who would like to play with Goths and Sioux, there are people who would like to play with Canada.
The fact is: we will not always have all the civs we want, we have to live with it. Maybe someone who is not very fond of history will not find it very interesting to play with ancient and unknown civilizations. Maybe someone who likes modern politics will like to play with Australia and Canada.

Anyone can and everyone will get offended if we widen the scope of what constitutes a Civ so vastly that anyone can demand their Civ be in. My preference for ancient civs means I would rather not see Canada take the slot of a more interesting Civ.

I also have preferences for ancient civilizations, but I can not think that my preference stands out in front of those who would like to play with their countries. It's just a game, it's not a real historical simulator, if we are looking for historical inconsistencies, how about starting with this: why does a leader rule his country for millennia and wearing the same clothing? even Gorgo using spears when we are building space rockets. As a game, the priority must be fun, some people would have a lot of fun playing with their countries. This debate of "this civ is more worthy than that", it will not lead to anything, some person may feel offended, and the fun will be affected. We are talking about a strategy game, not a precise historical simulator.

Everyone has their own preferences as I said. But I think calling my preferences not to have Canada in Civ "hating" is extreme and unproductive. By Nagato's logic, I must hate the US as well. Simply because I don't want them in Civ over others.

I did not mean you specifically, but a common posture of some people here, since when I read the comments of this forum. But some people's posture of "I don't like postcolonial countries, so Australia is boring and should not be included in the game," you will be arbitrating based on your own convictions, this is an unproductive behavior.. If you don't like some civ, ignore it or delete it from your game, but do not need to make comments that may offend some people.

Anyway, I will not delve into this discussion. This is not the proposal of this thread.

 

[Morningcalm]

I did not say postcolonial countries were "boring". Your hypotheticals about people finding ancient nations less interesting divert from the main thrust of my problem with postcolonial nations (which is that by and large, they replace civs with more imprint on history) and yes, you are indeed diverting in that sense (and yes, when I created this thread, it wasn't intended to spark more conversations involving people being offended that I think X Civ being in the game wouldn't be a great idea).

I never said Civ needed to be a historical simulator, but clearly, impact on history is a key factor for inclusion in Civ (why else do we see Egypt and Rome in every base game Civ, and no Canada)?

Whether civs that are in ought be ignored or not is besides the point--once they are officially in the game, they are officially in the game, and the number of civs that can be added narrows as a consequence of their inclusion (it's simple maths at this point to show they can't add in every Civ people want).

I do not understand your point about "arbitrating"-- I am not Firaxis and I do not decide what civs make it in. I simply voice my opinion (as you have) with respect to preferences. There is no need to spread the appeal to people to be offended.

And with that, I hope we can conclude with agreeing to firmly disagree. For more on this, see the thread here: https://forums.2k.com/showthread.php?189256-Why-no-Kongo-Italy-Sioux-Tannu-Tuva-etc/page7 on 2K Games' Civ V General Discussion forum, specifically Hawk's comment (when responding to Steveg [who back then as now, is offended when anyone thinks Italy shouldn't be in Civ]): "I would encourage you not to view others as "dismissive" simply because they dismissed one civ that you like."

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Here's the final five of my ideas that I have thought of (not totally done)

Colombian Empire (Gran Colombia)
Leader: Simon Bolivar
Agenda: El Liberator- Dislikes civilizations that occupy other cities or city states from another continent. Likes civilizations that help liberate them.
LA: Admirable Campaign +25% Combat strength when attacking an occupied city. No warmongering penalties for keeping the city after.
UA: Revolutionary State- Pay less gold to unlock civic and government changes. Does not go into anarchy when switching governments.
UU: Llanero
UB: Lancero (Replaces Military Academy) Not exactly from Gran Colombia, but modern day Colombia.

Ethiopian Empire (Ethiopia) Although an Axum leader
Leader: Ezana
Agenda: Religious State- Likes all of his cities to be under one religion. Dislikes civilizations that have different religions in their cities.
LA: Ezana Stone- Combat strength against other civilizations if a majority of cities follows your religion.
UA: Adwa - Combat bonus when fighting a unit at least one era ahead.
UU: Mehal Sefari Melee unit that unlocks at rifling.
UB: Stele (replaces monuments) provides faith as well as culture

Swedish Empire (Sweden)
Leader: Gustavus Adolphus
Agenda: Stormasktisden- Likes civilizations who have a large standing diverse army with at least one corp or army in later eras.
LA: Father of Modern Warfare- Can turn land units into corps earlier. Support units may move faster being escorted. Bombard units have extra movement.
UA: Nobel Prizes- +5 Points per great person of each district type in a city you are the suzerain of.
UU: Karoliner( replaces Musketman)
UB: Furniture Warehouse (Replaces workshop) There probably is a better one, but I can just think of IKEA.

Austrian Empire (Austria)
Leader: Maria Theresa
Agenda: Marriage Proposals-Likes to send envoys to every city-state and delegates to every civ she meets. Dislikes civilizations that has an envoy to a city-state, or a delegation(embassy) to a civilization she doesn’t have .
LA: Hapsburg-Lorraine House- Has an extra Diplomatic Policy Spot. Gains 1 more influence point per turn.
UA: Archduchy- Can't think of what it could do.
UU: Grenzer (Replaces Musketman)
UI: Opera House (replaces the Ampitheater) +2 Writing, +2 Music Slots at Opera and Ballet.

Italian Empire (Italy) Two Leaders
UA: Piazza Duomo- Tourism is doubled for Holy Sites, and Wonders when Adjacent to City Center.
UU: Condotierri (with Mercenaries) More combat strength for each different land unit adjacent to it.
UI: Galleria– (replaces art museum) one more great work of Art Slot and automatically themed when complete.

Leader: Lorenzo de Medici (Capital: Florence)
Agenda: Medici Bank- Likes to spend much gold but not go bankrupt. Dislikes civilizations that do not use gold wisely by going bankrupt or not spending at all.
LA: Master of Florence- 25% discount on purchasing great people with gold. Commercial Hub buildings provide more gold.

Leader: Guglielmo Embriaco (Capital: Genoa)
Agenda: Crusader State- Likes to protect city-states from attacks from other civilizations. Dislikes civilizations going to war with city-states.
LA: Military Merchant- Naval Units support to adjacent land units. Gold for every city-state you are the suzerain of. Can train Genoese Crossbowmen.