How okay would you be with losing mainstays for new civs?

[sonicmyst]

Depends on what we are talking about. I could never imagine a base game without Rome, Egypt, China, Japan and America. As for the expansions, I understand if some mainstays will be left behind only if they are going to show up in the next DLCs or expansions.

 

[Arianrhod]

I’m all about bringing in new civs, but I think the developers are over thinking things. Carthage, Inca, Ottomans, Siam, Mayans, Babylonians, Assyrians, are all no brainers.

The problem with Siam is that Siam, Burma, Vietnam, and the Khmer are all just so good, but most westerners aren't very familiar with southeast Asian history, so it's hard to justify even getting two of them at a time past your marketing team, much less all four of them.

Believe me: Burma's probably the Civilization I'd like to see come into the series the most, but between the Khmer getting into 4/6, Siam getting into 5 while being eagerly anticipated for the next entry, and Vietnam being probably the most heavily requested Civ yet to show up, I get the feeling that I'm going to be waiting a long time without mods.

 

[durfal]

An easy question but for me a difficult answer. In short the answer would be: Mostly No!!

Long it would be a bit more complicated, because who are considered mainstays and who do I personally like to have in the game?
Especially the last one is off course different for every person on this forum.

- Of the original game civs only the Zulu I could live without, but only if they are replaced by a more deserving civ from the region like the Kingdoms of Mutapa or Zimbabwe.

- The Civ 2 civs that I can live without are the Celts, Carthagians and Sioux. But only the first two should be considered mainstays as this was the only (name wise) representation of the Sioux.
The only Celtic people that I personally like to see sometime would be of Ireland but they aren't a must either. The Gauls weren't a unity at all and are only known because they fought the Romans but were integrated into the Roman Empire rather fast. The Carthaginians I always considered to be part of a Phoenician Civ of city states but I don't need the latter as well in every game either. The Vikings are now brought in under the better name of Denmark or Norway in V and VI and one of those two is fine.

- With Civ 3 a lot of new civs entered the series (Iroquois, Arabians, Koreans, Byzantines, Dutch, Hittites, Incas, Maya, Portuguese, Sumerian's, Ottomans and even Austria was in the files as an extra civ) and with the exception of the Hittites most of them seem to come back every game since then (Sumer skipped V, Austria skipped IV and IV also had the awful Native-American civ). Of those new civs I consider the Arabians, Koreans, Dutch, Incas, Maya, Otomans and Portuguese musts, I would also like too have the Iroquois, Hittites and Sumerian's back but I wouldn't mind if they weren't in every edition. The Byzantines and Austria I wouldn't miss if they never came back though. I know a lot of people adore the Byzantines. And yes I know their history, it still won't change my mind because to me they were a continuation of the Roman Empire under Greek leaders and both the Romans and Greek are already in game or at least they always should be. Never understood the need for Austria while a unique nation like Hungary was left out which in my opinion was much more deserving and was also part of the big Austria-Hungarian Empire and had an early Medieval empire themselves. So I like to see them once in a while, but they are no must either.

- Civ IV gave us Mali, Ethiopia and Khmer for the first time but also the Horror civs of HRE and Native-America. The last two should never ever come back but of the other three Mali and Ethiopia should come back every time and Khmer I like a lot but isn't a must for every edition as long as a civ from SEA is represented.

New civs of V and VI are still too short in the games to be considered Mainstays.
But I like that we get new civs every edition of the game. I enjoy seeing new civs like Assyria, Siam, Morocco, Sweden, Brazil (not twice in a row though), Songhai, Kongo, Nubia, the Cree, Scythia, Australia, Georgia and maybe the Mapuche and Scotland once in a while in game and see what Firaxis does with them. Some I even like seeing every game like Indonesia, but some like the Huns and Macedon on the other hand I don't want to see back again. But most off all, none of these new civs are musts to me.

So to me Mainstays like the Zulu, Carthage and Byzantine can be passed on like they hopefully did with the Celts by turning them into Scotland (maybe next edition Ireland?), but realistically all of these three will come back to VI too.
There are still a lot of civs that would be fun to have in game at least once like Vietnam, the Muisca, Taino, Gran-Colombia, Argentina, Cherokee, the Zapotec, Choctaw/Mississippians, Navajo, Haida, Mutapa/Zimbabwe, Ashanti, Oyo//Yoruba, Kilwa/Swahili, Phoenicia, Hungary, Romania, Bohemia/Czechia, Armenia, Burma, Chola//Tamil (etc, etc) and even the Hebrew and Tibet but we probably never see those two as more than a city state.

 

[Inhalaattori]

I love that they are bringing new Civs to the series. They have had good balance between totally new Civs and old favorites.

I personally think that what we really are missing are African Civs (Ethiopia, West-African Civ like Mali and North-African Civ liki Morocco) and the two big Native American Civs (Inca and Mayans). I dont think Carthage and Byzantium are necessary. Ottomans on the other hand IMO are one of the few "must have" Civs.

 

[Depravo]

The problem with Siam is that Siam, Burma, Vietnam, and the Khmer are all just so good, but most westerners aren't very familiar with southeast Asian history, so it's hard to justify even getting two of them at a time past your marketing team, much less all four of them.

Believe me: Burma's probably the Civilization I'd like to see come into the series the most, but between the Khmer getting into 4/6, Siam getting into 5 while being eagerly anticipated for the next entry, and Vietnam being probably the most heavily requested Civ yet to show up, I get the feeling that I'm going to be waiting a long time without mods.

Burma would be awesome, but I lean towards Vietnam because it was the only major player in SEA that was part of the Chinese culture sphere.

 

[PhilBowles]

The problem with Siam is that Siam, Burma, Vietnam, and the Khmer are all just so good, but most westerners aren't very familiar with southeast Asian history, so it's hard to justify even getting two of them at a time past your marketing team, much less all four of them.

Believe me: Burma's probably the Civilization I'd like to see come into the series the most, but between the Khmer getting into 4/6, Siam getting into 5 while being eagerly anticipated for the next entry, and Vietnam being probably the most heavily requested Civ yet to show up, I get the feeling that I'm going to be waiting a long time without mods.

SE Asia is small on a TSL map, clustered between India and China, and as a long-developed region most of the modern states have formed the core of major civs. I doubt we'd see more than one mainland civ per Civ entry, especially as Asia has a lot of representation more broadly.

The Khmer have the distinction of being both the largest contiguous SE Asian empire and the best-known to the West thanks to Angkor, so I think they should get preferential treatment to some degree - I was happy to see them back in Civ VI. But I agree with rotating them out every so often to allow room for Siam (hopefully either more appropriately named or reflecting the actual 'Siamese' period with a capital in Ayuttaya, rather than giving an anachronistic name to the medieval Sukothai civ of Civ V), Burma/Pagan, Vientiane or Vietnam.

The one caveat with Vietnam is that too many people asking for the civ only seem to know it or care about it for its role in defeating the French and Americans in the 20th Century. While a modern-era civ from that region would be a change (Khmer, both iterations of Indonesia, and "Siam" have all been broadly contemporary medieval civs, and most Civ incarnations of China have been medieval or classical), I wouldn't want Vietnam if it were caricatured as a modern turtle or guerrilla civ rather than representing the broader scope of Vietnamese history.

 

[clapyourhands]

The one caveat with Vietnam is that too many people asking for the civ only seem to know it or care about it for its role in defeating the French and Americans in the 20th Century. While a modern-era civ from that region would be a change (Khmer, both iterations of Indonesia, and "Siam" have all been broadly contemporary medieval civs, and most Civ incarnations of China have been medieval or classical), I wouldn't want Vietnam if it were caricatured as a modern turtle or guerrilla civ rather than representing the broader scope of Vietnamese history.

Actually a turtle or guerilla civ is fairly accurate over the broader scope of Vietnamese history. If I had to pick 3 things to define Vietnamese history, from 3000 B.C. Dong Song, to Nan Yue, Jiao Zhi, Annam, Dai Viet and onwards, I'd pick the following 3 things.

Spoiler :

1) Water. Rivers, floodplains, monsoons, and the sea defined Vietnamese culture and lifestyle. Agriculture depended on it. Ancient art revered it. The language and even the original name for the region's inhabitants ("Lac") are closely connected with water. Many famous battles were river battles. The list goes on.

2) Chinese influence. Vietnam's the only SEA Sinospheric region, and it has a distinct culture that resulted from 1) Chinese influence and attempts to govern it and 2) a lack of displacement of its indigenous natives and their own governing structures. Chinese rulership brought Chinese ideals and rules, but as many centers of power ended up doing with distant lands, much of the aboriginal culture and beliefs were left intact. This resulted in a mix that was clearly Sinitic in influence, but not considered by China or the inhabitants themselves to be Chinese; Vietnamese culture was distinctly Vietnamese.

3) Revolt against imperial threats. Most importantly from a historical perspective, Vietnam is full of jungle, marshland, and the disease that comes with both; this made it exceedingly difficult to invade, both in ancient as well as modern times. In regards to China, being on the outskirts of rulership also made enforcement difficult. Most famous Vietnamese historical figures led one of the many revolts of the country's history. Chinese texts inevitably describe Jiaozhi as "troublesome" and difficult to maintain control of due to frequent rebellion. It would not be wrong to say that Vietnam freed itself from rule multiple times in history simply by being too unruly for a stretched-thin emperor to hold onto. Whether China, almost-Mongols, or France, the identity of a Vietnamese polity has always been entertwined with a need to defend it at all costs.

I wouldn't consider Vietnam a turtling science civ like Korea, but some sort of turtling civ is pretty accurate, especially if it had to do with loyalty (or the lack of it) or culture.

 

[steveg700]

Actually a turtle or guerilla civ is fairly accurate over the broader scope of Vietnamese history. If I had to pick 3 things to define Vietnamese history, from 3000 B.C. Dong Song, to Nan Yue, Jiao Zhi, Annam, Dai Viet and onwards, I'd pick the following 3 things.

Indeed. Vietnam as a guerilla warfare or turtle civ is a perfectly accurate depicting going back much farther than the era of French occupation. Anyone who doubts this should look up some of these national heroes:

Lê Loi (against the Ming in the 15th century)
Tran Hung Dao (the Yuan Mongols uner Kublai Khan, 13th century)
Ngo Quyen (the Southern Han, 10th century)
Triu Vit Vuong, granddaddy of guerilla tactics (the Liang, 6th century)

No shortage of statues or districts commemorating generals and revolutionaries.

 

[Goliht]

Some people felt a bit disappointed with what seems to be an inclusion of the Mapuche, since it probably means the Inca won't be making it this expansion. Which got me thinking a bit: it's not realistic to expect them to put more and more civs on each game. So, in order for new civs to be included, some would need to get taken out.
How okay would you guys be with losing some classic civs if it meant including new civs or civs that haven't been in many games so far? I mean, I wouldn't mind losing either Maya or Inca for the Mapuche. And maybe in more crowded areas, like Europe, this could lead to some very interesting apparitions.

Hmm yeh I agree, I don't mean to sound racist.. but some races really were/are better than others. I do like the idea of celebrating the great cultures and races, but I also like finding out about the ones you don't really think about, unless you're a member of one of them. Like the french.. kidding..

I'm actually surprised that korea, mongols were readded, same for scotland.. we're not really a race.. we're neither saxon, nor celt nor pict nor beaker, nor viking nor norman, but a mix of all. I'd actually prefer to see England renamed as Britain.. or the UK and just do away with Scotland or England as Civs. Esp if they're going to use leaders that actually ruled over all our countries, ie ni, sct, wales and eng in combination. I'm almost worried if they added Scotland as a Civ, that they'll have Mel Gibson as our leader..or worse a cow thief.

 

[Returning Lurker]

Low. I'm starting to get seriously disappointed with this game's civ selection. Brazil getting a base game slot annoyed me, Australia and Macedon getting introduced really rubbed me the wrong way, and now that it looks like the Inca, Ottomans, and West Africa are getting shoved down the pipes for another several months and either getting released piecemeal or worse getting put off until the next expansion in a year or two to make way for the likes of Mapuche, Georgia, and Scotland has made me one very unhappy camper. Civilization 5 may catch a lot of flak for Venice and Huns but at the very least it got the most prevalent civs in first and only started getting more esoteric with its second expansion. Yes, Portugal and Zulu had to be put off until BNW but there is a HUGE difference between Portugal and the Ottomans when it comes to representation and regional importance. Yes, I understand that there need to be dark horses to make the game more flavorful and yes I know "they're coming eventually!" but:
A. We've got Australia and Nubia before the first expansion, as far as wildcards go it doesn't get much more wild than that.
B. The longer people are forced to wait for a civ they actually want the less satisfying it is once they get them since the game holds less and less interest the more you play it.
C. The idea that they MUST be coming later is an assumption. A relatively logical assumption, sure, but an assumption nonetheless. Civ 6 has been pretty good about subverting assumptions when it comes to inclusion, wouldn't you say?

 

[Thormodr]

Why can’t we have both? I want all the classic mainstays and I want some new Civs.

I want to see the Byzantines and the Inca.

I also want to see Burma/Myanmar and Vietnam as well as the Inuit.

 

[The Kingmaker]

That's why they need to get some post-XP DLC together with classic civs, stat. Methinks the natives are restless!

 

[Depravo]

That's why they need to get some post-XP DLC together with classic civs, stat. Methinks the natives are restless!

Perhaps that's their plan? Cram the expansion with gimmick civs then bring out the mainstays shortly afterwards as DLC, knowing that strong sales are guaranteed thanks to dogmatic weirdoes like us?

 

[The Kingmaker]

Perhaps that's their plan? Cram the expansion with gimmick civs then bring out the mainstays shortly afterwards as DLC, knowing that strong sales are guaranteed thanks to dogmatic weirdoes like us?

We should be so lucky!

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Perhaps that's their plan? Cram the expansion with gimmick civs then bring out the mainstays shortly afterwards as DLC, knowing that strong sales are guaranteed thanks to dogmatic weirdoes like us?

I understand that people feel passionate about the 'essential' civs, I don't always agree with the argument but I completely understand it, however I really do not understand the argument that because the Mapuche and Georgia were not as powerful as the Ottomans, this somehow makes them 'gimmick' civs or 'unworthy' of inclusion.

 

[Krajzen]

I would prefer for civ game vanilla version to always have these 14:

Egypt, Greece, Rome
Arabia, Persia, Sumer/Babylon
India, China, Mongolia
America, Russia, England, France, Germany

By the final version the game IMO "has to" contain also these four, in this exact form:
Japan, Turkey, Spain, Portugal

I maybe could survive without Aztec, Inca, Maya, Ethiopia, Korea, Netherlands, Carthago, Byzantium - but only if their historical/cultura/geographical regions got some really amazing replacements.
It is highly unlikely because each of those 8 was very impressive master in some sort of niche, but maaaaybe if you replaced them with Toltecs, Olmecs, some Andean empire, Swahilli, Vietnam, medieval Italy, Phoenicia, Kievan Rus/Bulgaria...

There are also "Celts" and "Vikings" who are IMO necessary but can be represented in at least three ways each (Scotland, Ireland, Gauls/Denmark, Norway, Sweden).

So, personally I want
Core Grand 18 (Egypt, Greece, Rome, Mesopotamia, Arabia, Persia, Turkey, India, China, Mongolia, Japan, Spain, Portugal, England, France, Germany, Russia, America)
Only With Amazing Replacements 8 (Aztec, Inca, Maya, Ethiopia, Korea, Netherlands, Carthago, Byzantium)
Duo of Many Faces ("Celts", "Vikings")

In the end, by the final version of the game, my dream civ contains also representation of
North American Natives
Latin America
a civ from Eastern Europe (between Istanbul, Berlin and Moscow)
Maghreb
West Africa
East Africa
Central/South Africa
Central Asia (other than Mongolia)
Continental South East Asia
Malayan Archipelago

but these can come in various forms.

 

[Prima Italia]

Not okay in the slightest. There is a reason why Rome, Germany and America are the most played civs in Civ V and Civ VI. The classics are what built the series and people play them the most. Firaxis should incorporate the classic civs first and add new civs after that.

 

[PhilBowles]

Perhaps that's their plan? Cram the expansion with gimmick civs then bring out the mainstays shortly afterwards as DLC, knowing that strong sales are guaranteed thanks to dogmatic weirdoes like us?

I think 3 new civs is too many for the first expansion, but 1-2 is expected and fine. Mostly I find the civ selection in R&F disappointing because of a combination of a high number of relatively obscure additions on top of a selection of mostly 'second-tier' returning civs (Korea, apparently the Celts/Scotland, the Netherlands) over options like the Ottomans, Babylon, Inca or Maya.

If there were a larger number of Civ staples in the base game I'd have been happier with it, but with Brazil, this incarnation's Viking-analogue and Scythia all in the base game they fell a bit short there as well, and the only 'essential' civ added in DLC was Persia.

Pre-R&F I'd said on several occasions that I felt Civ VI had the best civ selection for that stage in its release cycle of any Civ game, but that was in the expectation that major staples would be back in the expansion - and we only really got the Mongols in that category. The expected Zulu are a Civ staple, but could have waited.

Georgia I've come round on following a synopsis of their regional importance on that thread, but it's still jarring that their significance was entirely a product of their relations with Byzantium and the Ottomans, neither of which is yet in the game. They don't fill a very meaningful TSL gap as there's not that much space between Persia, Russia and the area that should contain either a Turk or Byzantine civ. With this obsession on TSL representation in civs I hope they include a rather larger TSL map in the game options, rather than relying on mods to do it.

I don't give much credence to the oft-claimed 'there are no Caucasus civs elsewhere in Civ', since the Caucasus is part of the territory of multiple existing civs in the series. That's basically the same as arguing for Switzerland on the basis that, although multiple civs have territory in the Alps, there hasn't yet been a 'pure' Alpine civ.

There was a need for a civ in North America that could present competition for the Americans, and the Cree fit reasonably well. I don't think there's any particular need to keep revisiting the Iroquois, the most obvious North American civ with a starting position close enough, so I'm happy enough with that. While I'd rather have had the Inca than the Mapuche, South America ultimately needs at least 3 civs for TSL purposes and the Mapuche have a good starting position as long as the Inca - when eventually added - start in Quito rather than Cuzco (otherwise they'll be a bit too crowded in the south and give Brazil free reign to expand in the north and up into Maya-less Central America).

 

[OzzyKP]

I'd be ok if they dropped the Celts, Portugal, Carthage, Babylon, and Zulu.

 

[FairFenix]

How okay would you guys be with losing some classic civs if it meant including new civs or civs that haven't been in many games so far? I mean, I wouldn't mind losing either Maya or Inca for the Mapuche. And maybe in more crowded areas, like Europe, this could lead to some very interesting apparitions.

I'm a firm believer that some civs are essential.

ust how long is my list of essentials? Not sure.

Some civs like the Ottomans are just too important to leave out.

New civs are more exciting, in my opinion, and there are very few I would class as essential.

It would better to define classic civs first.

I believe that essential, or classical, civs are civilizations that actually started in Ancient Era. Therefore USA is not classical civ, Rome Greece China, Egypt are classical for sure. Sumeria, Persia are classical.
Also, as a second definition, I would look at Age of Empires 2 civilizations, since people always draw parallels between these two games and it would be good to include all AoE2 civs in Civ6 (including DLCs)