Dream Civs/Leaders for Civ 7

[Patine]

Branimir?

Yes. I corrected that just above that previious post with the big list.

 

[Patine]

• Manchu

The Manchus were little more than semi-nomadic taiga herders outside being two foreign dynasties of China, and there's not much to work as a seperate civ.

• Judah

One would be better off with the Hasamonean or Herodian Kingdoms, as Judah has a significant amount of the myhtologization factor.

• Angola
• Madagascar

I hope Pre-Colonial Kingdoms, and Revolutionary Marxist tyrants who died recently, are what's had in mind.

Afghanistan

Do you mean the Durrani Empire or the Kingdom of Amir Khan that shook off the British? There's no real Afghanistan before the Durrani, and one gets into ugly, modern affairs after Amir Khan.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Do you mean the Durrani Empire or the Kingdom of Amir Khan that shook off the British? There's no real Afghanistan before the Durrani, and one gets into ugly, modern affairs after Amir Khan.

There are the Hotaks

 

[moondog385]

The Manchus were little more than semi-nomadic taiga herders outside being two foreign dynasties of China, and there's not much to work as a seperate civ.

Fair enough, I'm not too attached to the idea. As long as we don't have Qing or Jin leaders for China then.

One would be better off with the Hasamonean or Herodian Kingdoms, as Judah has a significant amount of the myhtologization factor.

I was thinking Hezekiah for the leader, so this would be outside the realm of biblical myth/legend.

I hope Pre-Colonial Kingdoms, and Revolutionary Marxist tyrants who died recently, are what's had in mind.

Yes, Angola would be led by Nzinga, who I don't think should've led Kongo in 6. I haven't decided on who I'd like for Madagascar yet. Maybe Radama I. Definitely not Ranavalona I.

Do you mean the Durrani Empire or the Kingdom of Amir Khan that shook off the British? There's no real Afghanistan before the Durrani, and one gets into ugly, modern affairs after Amir Khan.

Yes, I was talking about the Durrani Empire. And since you gave me an excuse to comment again, I forgot about Oman lol.

 

[Patine]

As long as we don't have Qing or Jin leaders for China then.

Why wouldn't Qing or Jin leaders potentially lead China? I think my point was misunderstood.

 

[notNamed]

The Manchus were little more than semi-nomadic taiga herders outside being two foreign dynasties of China, and there's not much to work as a seperate civ.

Manchus were settled farmers and forest foragers. Of the civilisations that have made an appearance in the previous civ games, they're closer to Haudenosaunee than Mongols and other Eurasian plain nomads.

But aside from that, it's true they are most likely to get in as some specific Qing/Jin iteration of Chinese civ than a fully separate one.

 

[Xandinho]

I already tried to make an Argentina mod focused on science and culture, based on Argentina's importance in paleontology - there is evidence that the earliest dinosaurs lived in South America, most of these dinosaurs were discovered in Argentina. I think it would be a very interesting way to portray Argentina without appealing to Argentine (or Amarica Latin) stereotypes.

I never saw Argentina as a scientific player, this is something new for me. I always saw it as a cultural player moderately oriented towards commerce and livestock farming. An Argentina that interacts with an immigration mechanism is also something to consider.

 

[PetrusvonDoom]

I never saw Argentina as a scientific player, this is something new for me. I always saw it as a cultural player moderately oriented towards commerce and livestock farming. An Argentina that interacts with an immigration mechanism is also something to consider.

I only had this idea for the Argentina mod with a scientific focus after reading the book "The Rise and Fall of The Dinosaurs" by Stephen Brusatte. I think when we think about Latin American CIVs, the first thing that pops into our heads are culture-based mechanics - we are best known for our music, cuisine, tourism - but I think it would be cool to introduce other Latin American civilizations, other facets of our people. And immigration is an interesting topic for a Latin American (and post-Colonial, in general) Civ. Here in Brazil, we are taught that our culture has three pillars: Africans, Europeans and Native Americans. Many intellectuals will remember that Asians - especially Semites, Japanese and Chinese - are the fourth pillar of Brazilian culture. I believe that from Canada to Argentina, we have similar pillars - although while the Anglo-America are the land of the Puritans, Latin America is the land of Cultural Anthropophagy, the mixture of peoples and cultures that, by cannibalizing each other, formed us.( In fact, I think Antropofagia Cultural could be an interesting UA for Civ Brasileira, if Civilization VII portrays Brazil again and chooses a cultural focus, it sounds better than Amazon or Carnival again).

 

[Patine]

the Anglo-America are the land of the Puritans

New England and one island in the Bahamas were in the 17th Century. Saying, "Anglo-America," and with no timeframe, is quite a bit out of any real framework. Also, Canada and the U.S. have been moving away, for decades, from, "racial pillars."

 

[Xandinho]

I only had this idea for the Argentina mod with a scientific focus after reading the book "The Rise and Fall of The Dinosaurs" by Stephen Brusatte. I think when we think about Latin American CIVs, the first thing that pops into our heads are culture-based mechanics - we are best known for our music, cuisine, tourism - but I think it would be cool to introduce other Latin American civilizations, other facets of our people. And immigration is an interesting topic for a Latin American (and post-Colonial, in general) Civ. Here in Brazil, we are taught that our culture has three pillars: Africans, Europeans and Native Americans. Many intellectuals will remember that Asians - especially Semites, Japanese and Chinese - are the fourth pillar of Brazilian culture. I believe that from Canada to Argentina, we have similar pillars - although while the Anglo-America are the land of the Puritans, Latin America is the land of Cultural Anthropophagy, the mixture of peoples and cultures that, by cannibalizing each other, formed us.( In fact, I think Antropofagia Cultural could be an interesting UA for Civ Brasileira, if Civilization VII portrays Brazil again and chooses a cultural focus, it sounds better than Amazon or Carnival again).

If they bring in a paleotology mechanic, Argentina would be a good country to interact with that, as would Mexico for archaeology. This would make Argentina very different from any other modern civilization.

Speaking of Brazil, I always see it as an agrarian civilization with a secondary focus on culture or even expansionism. However, if Civ7 has some multi-ethnic cultures mechanic, then this would fit perfectly well for Brazil, as the country has the largest community of Italians, Japanese and Lebanese in the world outside of their respective countries, as well as being the country with the largest black population outside Africa.

 

[Patine]

If they bring in a paleotology mechanic, Argentina would be a good country to interact with that, as would Mexico for archaeology. This would make Argentina very different from any other modern civilization.

So would Canada and Mongolia (Canada's a modern nation, too). But I don't how one could build a pillar facet of a whole civ on it.

 

[Xandinho]

So would Canada and Mongolia (Canada's a modern nation, too). But I don't how one could build a pillar facet of a whole civ on it.

I always see Canada as cultural pacifist and somewhat trade-oriented. Speaking of which, if they add Canada back, I hope they don't bring in interaction with tundra because that's very stereotypical (such as Brazil interacting with jungle). I know pacifist Canada is also stereotypical, but at least it makes sense.

 

[Patine]

I always see Canada as cultural pacifist and somewhat trade-oriented. Speaking of which, if they add Canada back, I hope they don't bring in interaction with tundra because that's very stereotypical (such as Brazil interacting with jungle). I know pacifist Canada is also stereotypical, but at least it makes sense.

But if paleantolology is going to thing (though, again, I don't see how to build a whole pillar facet of a civ on it) Canada definitely has a big claim to such - even bigger than Argentina's, in fact. But, indeed, much of Canada's portrayal in Civ6 was a joke. But the War of 1812, Vimmy Ridge, Paschendale, Dieppe, Ortona, Juno Beach, Caen, the Scheldt, Kapyong, among other battles, and actions in the Yugolsav Civil Wars, the First Persian Gulf War, and the Somalian, Afghan, and Syrian, Interventions, as well as the tragic betrayal of a Canadian-led UN mission in 1994 Rwanda by a French Security Council veto, show the farce that, "Canadian pacifism," is - we just pick our fights better, and don't go in, alone. As having a grandfather and cousin who fought each fought in two wars (not the same), it's tantamount to an insult, but I don't blame you, personally, for uninformed stereotypes kicking around.

 

[PetrusvonDoom]

New England and one island in the Bahamas were in the 17th Century. Saying, "Anglo-America," and with no timeframe, is quite a bit out of any real framework. Also, Canada and the U.S. have been moving away, for decades, from, "racial pillars."

I used Puritans as a generic term for Protestant colonists and to refer to the style of colonization that primarily occurred in the United States. In Latin America, taking the example of Brazil (which is what I'm most familiar with), miscegenation was a policy of colonization - due to several factors ranging from the Islamic roots of the Iberian kingdoms (from before the Reconquista); due to the crisis of the Catholic Church, which lost much influence after the Protestant Reformation and encouraged the mass conversion of natives in the Iberian Colonial Empires; either because many of the colonizers sent to Brazil were the so-called "New Christians" (Jews and Muslims who were coerced into converting to Catholicism, but many practiced their beliefs in secret - there are reports from European travelers that Colonial Brazil was very "oriental" full of customs and fashions exotic to Europe, but very similar to what Europeans saw in the Middle East) and there was "Cunhadismo", after the Portuguese discovered that the majority of native peoples in Brazil used marriages to create bonds, make alliances and negotiate ; Portugal allowed polygamy between colonists and natives, later this leads to the genocide of native men and native women being forced to marry Europeans. With slavery, the misogynous and racist culture emerged that black women were meant to serve sexual pleasures while white women were meant to marry and have children. In the 19th century, after independence, when Eugenics became a common debate in Europe, here in Brazil, "whitening" policies began to emerge, that is, encouraging European immigration and encouraging white people to marry black and mixed-race people. over time, the entire Brazilian population would become white - this was especially encouraged after the Abolition of Slavery (there is a famous painting here that calls these policies "The Redemption of Cain"). When fascism arrived in Brazil, the Intregralistas (the Brazilian equivalent of Nazi-fascism) exchanged discourses of racial segregation and racial purity for the discourse that the superior race must be created through miscegenation, eliminating the specific vices and weaknesses of each race and maintaining the virtues of each race (or some racist nonsense like that). Basically, what I wanted to say is that in Latin America, the European conquest was done through assimilation (In fact, until the end of the 18th century, the common language of Colonial Brazil was a creole language, Austral Tupi, and not Portuguese - which only became our official language after the Marquis of Pombal expelled the Jesuits and made the Portuguese language mandatory in Brazil. ) and miscegenation of the conquered peoples, while in North America, miscegenation was more seen as a taboo.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

So would Canada and Mongolia (Canada's a modern nation, too). But I don't how one could build a pillar facet of a whole civ on it.

I feel like paleontology would be a part of a museum ability, including the art and archaeology museums we already have. I do feel like civs such as England, France, or Italy would be more suited for those bonuses.

 

[Xandinho]

I feel like paleontology would be a part of a museum ability, including the art and archaeology museums we already have. I do feel like civs such as England, France, or Italy would be more suited for those bonuses.

Museum of Paleontology could be a building for a campus district, in which it would provide tourism and science. War Museum is also something they could consider at some point. I still think that a Mexican civ could interact quite well with archaeological sites, though.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Museum of Paleontology could be a building for a campus district, in which it would provide tourism and science. War Museum is also something they could consider at some point. I still think that a Mexican civ could interact quite well with archaeological sites, though.

Part of me wouldn't mind if they went back to a generic museum building. The yields would then be determined by what is placed in them. So for instance, any fossils would yield science and tourism, but art and artifacts would yield culture instead.
There are many museums that have multiple collections anyway, so I don't see why Civ couldn't be different. Then again maybe that would be what museum wonders, like the Louvre, would be for?

 

[Navelgazer]

Part of me wouldn't mind if they went back to a generic museum building. The yields would then be determined by what is placed in them. So for instance, any fossils would yield science and tourism, but art and artifacts would yield culture instead.

I also wouldn't mind this, though generally, I like the moments in Civ6 where you have to choose between two or more buildings in a district (barracks/stable, or supermarket/mall, etc.) and I wish that choices like that were more fully explored. So as much as I'd like more museum flexibility, I'd like more one-or-the-other choices even more.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I also wouldn't mind this, though generally, I like the moments in Civ6 where you have to choose between two or more buildings in a district (barracks/stable, or supermarket/mall, etc.) and I wish that choices like that were more fully explored. So as much as I'd like more museum flexibility, I'd like more one-or-the-other choices even more.

Oh, I agree. I'm just not sure if having a choice between 3 or four 4 different museums is the best way to do it.
Regarding cultural buildings for example, I'd much rather the choice be between an Opera House (for more great work slots),or Broadcast Tower (for greater culture output, and if they do bring back Rock bands ).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I also wouldn't mind this, though generally, I like the moments in Civ6 where you have to choose between two or more buildings in a district (barracks/stable, or supermarket/mall, etc.) and I wish that choices like that were more fully explored. So as much as I'd like more museum flexibility, I'd like more one-or-the-other choices even more.

Possibility:
A generic Museum that becomes Art, Archeology, Military or Technology depending on what artifacts you put in it.
AND a Wonder like the Smithsonian Institute or British Museum that can take ANY artifact or combination of artifacts and is automatically 'themed' regardless of the combination.