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

[The Kingmaker]

If it appeared in Civ I through Civ IV, it should be in, with just three exceptions:

*Holy Roman Empire -> better as a part of the Germans. And calling it "Holy Rome" is an abomination.

*Vikings -> I'd call them the Norse. I don't mind the current depiction as Norway.

*Native Americans -> awful blob. Give us at least three individual tribes.

Other than that, keep them all.

 

[PhilBowles]

If it appeared in Civ I through Civ IV, it should be in, with just three exceptions:

*Holy Roman Empire -> better as a part of the Germans. And calling it "Holy Rome" is an abomination.

*Vikings -> I'd call them the Norse. I don't mind the current depiction as Norway.

*Native Americans -> awful blob. Give us at least three individual tribes.

Other than that, keep them all.

Aren't there upwards of 50 civs including all four of those games? And why set the cutoff at Civ IV? Civ V added Assyria, Indonesia, Poland, Austria and the Songhai, all of whom have at least as much claim to historical relevance as some of the choices in past games (such as the Sioux or "the Celts") - it had its own poor choices, but most entries in the series have.

 

[clapyourhands]

Aren't there upwards of 50 civs including all four of those games? And why set the cutoff at Civ IV? Civ V added Assyria, Indonesia, Poland, Austria and the Songhai, all of whom have at least as much claim to historical relevance as some of the choices in past games (such as the Sioux or "the Celts") - it had its own poor choices, but most entries in the series have.

There have only been 46 civs total up Civ I-V, excluding HRE/Vikings/Native Americans but including one-offs like Sioux. VI has so far added 5 new civs preRnF, and 3 more in RnF (unless you don't count Scotland as succeeding the Celts).

 

[The Kingmaker]

Aren't there upwards of 50 civs including all four of those games? And why set the cutoff at Civ IV? Civ V added Assyria, Indonesia, Poland, Austria and the Songhai, all of whom have at least as much claim to historical relevance as some of the choices in past games (such as the Sioux or "the Celts") - it had its own poor choices, but most entries in the series have.

50+ in the first four games? Not at all. Just 14 in Civ1, expanded to 21 in Civ2. All of 1's civs were in 2. All of 2's civs were in 3 except the Sioux, swapped for Iroquois. 3 had 31 and all of 3's were in 4, except for the poor Hittites who haven't been seen since, and of course the Native Americans were blobbed. Civ4 had just 34 civs...but there were 52 leaders.

I like several of the additions from Civ5 too, but it did have weak links of its own, like the Huns. Civ5 had 43 civs by the end. 5 did not retain the Khmer, Mali or Sumer from IV (or the HRE, unless you count Austria, which you could since Maria Theresa was Holy Roman Empress).

Civ6 introduced Scythia, Kongo, Australia, Macedonia, and Nubia, and now apparently Cree, Georgia, Mapuche and Scotland. We'll be at 34 after R&F.

There will still be a whopping 24 civs left over from Civ5 even if we ditch the Huns. Of those, at least 11 are long-term franchise essentials.

But really, less is not more. More is more. 50 civs or bust!

 

[conorbebe]

As I'm not too familiar with the history of Germany and the Holy Roman Empire, could someone briefly explain why they SHOULDN'T be seperate civs?

 

[Zaarin]

As I'm not too familiar with the history of Germany and the Holy Roman Empire, could someone briefly explain why they SHOULDN'T be seperate civs?

Germany is the Holy Roman Empire, minus Austria thanks to Bismarck's machinations. (Incidentally, by the mid 19th century a unified Germany was more or less inevitable; the only question was whether it would be led by Lutheran Prussia or Catholic Austria. Bismarck ensured that it would be Prussia.) On top of that, while not a serious contention in a franchise that also includes Greece and the Maya, the Holy Roman Empire was a very loose confederation of city-states and principalities that rarely acted in unity. Plus many consider the name a mockery: as the famous quote goes, "the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire."

 

[The Kingmaker]

As I'm not too familiar with the history of Germany and the Holy Roman Empire, could someone briefly explain why they SHOULDN'T be seperate civs?

Germany has had three Reichs (or empires) in its history.

1. Holy Roman Empire (800 [or 962] to 1806). Barbarossa and Maria Theresa were both leaders of this polity. The HRE sometimes included smaller neighbors like the Dutch and Bohemians during part of its history.

2. German Empire (1871-1918). Had a Prussian core, was concurrent with Austrian Empire. Austria was in the First Reich but Bismarck left it out of the second.

3. Nazi Germany (1933-1945). Yucky and evil, won't be seen in Civ.

Edit: Zaarin often beats me to the punch.

 

[Guandao]

50+ in the first four games? Not at all. Just 14 in Civ1, expanded to 21 in Civ2. All of 1's civs were in 2. All of 2's civs were in 3 except the Sioux, swapped for Iroquois. 3 had 31 and all of 3's were in 4, except for the poor Hittites who haven't been seen since, and of course the Native Americans were blobbed. Civ4 had just 34 civs...but there were 52 leaders.

I like several of the additions from Civ5 too, but it did have weak links of its own, like the Huns. Civ5 had 43 civs by the end. 5 did not retain the Khmer, Mali or Sumer from IV (or the HRE, unless you count Austria, which you could since Maria Theresa was Holy Roman Empress).

Civ6 introduced Scythia, Kongo, Australia, Macedonia, and Nubia, and now apparently Cree, Georgia, Mapuche and Scotland. We'll be at 34 after R&F.

There will still be a whopping 24 civs left over from Civ5 even if we ditch the Huns. Of those, at least 11 are long-term franchise essentials.

But really, less is not more. More is more. 50 civs or bust!

We can ditch the Shoshone too! And Venice! And Siam! Maybe even the Iroquois....

I have the sneaking suspicion that Kongo and Nubia took Mali and Ethiopia's slots, which doesn't make me happy at all..

 

[Zaarin]

We can ditch the Shoshone too! And Venice! And Siam! Maybe even the Iroquois....

I have the sneaking suspicion that Kongo and Nubia took Mali and Ethiopia's slots, which doesn't make me happy at all..

I'd still like Siam back, but I suspect the Khmer makes them very, very unlikely--if another SEA civ is added I suspect that it will be China-influenced Vietnam rather than another Indian-influenced civ.

I truly hope you're wrong about Ethiopia. As much as I like Nubia, Ethiopia is too important to leave out, especially since culturally it's lightyears away from Egypt-esque Nubia, even if geographically it's right next door.

 

[slyone14]

I am a believer that its a balance. Its hard for them to please everyone. I personally prefer civs that are enjoyable, versatile and involve some planning in my game. I wouldnt care if its the North Pole or China, its about the style. If the devs make their abilities unique and different than all the better. Plus, honestly I grin alittle more when a brand new, never seen civ is involved.

While I do understand why certain people demand certain civs in the game. To me in the end its just what suits the expansion and is presented as unique. With that Being said, certain civs like England, Persia, China, Japan, India, France, etc are vital and must be in. But others like, Inca, Maya, Zulu, etc. to me are less important. Again, this is all so opinionated its a challenge for the devs. To some certain civs are VITAL and to others, people could care less about. it comes down to someones opinion. I think Firaxis does a great job

 

[slyone14]

I'd still like Siam back, but I suspect the Khmer makes them very, very unlikely--if another SEA civ is added I suspect that it will be China-influenced Vietnam rather than another Indian-influenced civ.

I truly hope you're wrong about Ethiopia. As much as I like Nubia, Ethiopia is too important to leave out, especially since culturally it's lightyears away from Egypt-esque Nubia, even if geographically it's right next door.

WHile I don't disagree with anything you say. Wouldn't you agree that what civs should be in the game, really comes down to someones opinion? I mean whats important to one, someone could care less about, you know?

 

[The Kingmaker]

My feelings on the missing civs:

Assyria - bring back
Austria - maybe, after the essentials
Babylon - must have
Byzantium - must have
Carthage - must have
Celts (as Gaul) - must have
Denmark - nope, Norway's got the Vikings covered
Ethiopia - must have
Hittites - not likely, but they deserve a chance
Huns - nope, they're a mess
Inca - must have
Iroquois - maybe, depends which Native Americans they choose
Mali - bring back
Maya - must have
Morocco - bring back
Ottoman Turks - must have
Polynesia - bring back
Portugal - must have
Shoshone - they were last minute due to Pueblogate, I think other groups are preferred
Siam - maybe, after the essentials
Sioux - maybe, depends which Native Americans they choose
Songhai - Mali is preferred, but I'd take them in a pinch
Sweden - maybe, after the essentials
Venice - two leader Italy instead
Zulus - almost certainly coming back

Really in four tiers:
* Need x10
* Want x4
* Maybe x8
* Nope x3

 

[conorbebe]

Germany is the Holy Roman Empire, minus Austria thanks to Bismarck's machinations. (Incidentally, by the mid 19th century a unified Germany was more or less inevitable; the only question was whether it would be led by Lutheran Prussia or Catholic Austria. Bismarck ensured that it would be Prussia.) On top of that, while not a serious contention in a franchise that also includes Greece and the Maya, the Holy Roman Empire was a very loose confederation of city-states and principalities that rarely acted in unity. Plus many consider the name a mockery: as the famous quote goes, "the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire."

Germany has had three Reichs (or empires) in its history.

1. Holy Roman Empire (800 [or 962] to 1806). Barbarossa and Maria Theresa were both leaders of this polity. The HRE sometimes included smaller neighbors like the Dutch and Bohemians during part of its history.

2. German Empire (1871-1918). Had a Prussian core, was concurrent with Austrian Empire. Austria was in the First Reich but Bismarck left it out of the second.

3. Nazi Germany (1933-1945). Yucky and evil, won't be seen in Civ.

Edit: Zaarin often beats me to the punch.

Thank you!

 

[Arianrhod]

New civs are important, but staples are staples for a reason. Most people aren't playing Civilization to re-enact the legendary spacetime war between the Republic of Texas and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which happens in an alternate timeline 25 years from now. They really ought to cover all of the important bases sooner or later.

And man, I know they lack sex appeal, but I'd really like to see the Hittites show up at least once in a post-3 game.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If it appeared in Civ I through Civ IV, it should be in, with just three exceptions:

*Holy Roman Empire -> better as a part of the Germans. And calling it "Holy Rome" is an abomination.

*Vikings -> I'd call them the Norse. I don't mind the current depiction as Norway.

*Native Americans -> awful blob. Give us at least three individual tribes.

Other than that, keep them all.

What I would say.

I have the sneaking suspicion that Kongo and Nubia took Mali and Ethiopia's slots, which doesn't make me happy at all..

If that's the case I will gladly denounce them every time they are in the game and raze all their cities and rename their capital to either Niani or Axum.

 

[Depravo]

There are nice-to-have civs and then there are 'missing teeth' civs. IMO that's the Inca, Babylon and the Maya.

Nice-to-haves would be Cherokee, Anasazi, Muisca, Swahili, Mutapa, Mali, Ethiopia, Morocco, Carthage, Turkey, Portugal, Uighur, Vietnam, Chola / Tamil and Tibet.

 

[steveg700]

Proper monetization means the mainstays should come at some point eventually.

Why leave money on the table?

 

[earlc]

Exactly. Just make DLC for any classic civs not included in the main game or 2 to 3 expansions. Problem solved.

 

[dafunk10]

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.

Leaders too (Catherine de Medici?? Cleopatra??)

 

[The Kingmaker]

Seriously. Just lay the classics out there for us and take our money.