Ideas for new Civ VI Civilizations

[berlin88]

If the developers want to add some more civilizations to the game, I have some suggestions.

1. The Teutonic Knights or the Hanseatic League.

Barbarossa is in the game representing the Holy Roman Empire, but the Teutonic held areas were always separate from the Holy Roman Empire, and are not represented by any of the cities names used by Barbarossa. The former German populated lands of Pomerania, Neumark, Silesia, Ostpreussen and Danzig could be utilized by the Teutonic Knights as well. Barbarossa also doesn't utilize city names from Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg or Denmark, so they would be available for a Hanseatic civilization.

2. The Uralic peoples are unrepresented in the game, which means the Finns, Hungarians, Livonians, Estonians, etc.

The Finns and Hungarians would both be excellent choices, and could create in game rivalries, with either the Russians or the Ottomans. Sibelius or Mannerheim could be leader for the Finns, while King Stephen of Hungary could be the leader for the Magyars.

The Hungarians originated in the Urals and migrated to central Europe, so they could easily get some sort of conquest ability, for conquering land and making it their own. The Finns also originated in the Urals.

3. The Kingdom of Bohemia

Technically they were part of the Holy Roman Empire, but Barbaross does not utilize any city names from Silesia, Lusastia, Bohemia or Moravia, so there is no conflict there. 1/3 of the Czech population was German, so there cold be some diplomatic bonus for being allies with Barbarossa. Bohemia was also rivals with Hungary, setting up scenario possibilities. Bohemia allowed massive German settlement of its lands, in exchange for helping fight the Hungarians, so maybe a scenario where Barbarossa helps defend Bohemia from Hungarian attacks.

4. Alternative leader for France.

Rollo of Normandy, Louis XIV, Charles De Gaulle, Charlemagne or Charles Martel, depending on what period you want to pick from.

The Franks are widely credited as being the ancestors of the French people, so Charlemagne makes a good choice, but based on ancestry, I would favor someone representing the Normandy / Perche area of France.

5. In the Americas, I think the Wyandot (Huron) would make an excellent choice, as they could compliment a Canadian civilization (being allies of the French), if one was ever added to the game, and a lot of people seem to think Canadians will eventually be added to the game. The Algonquin, Ottowa, Ojibwa or Wabanaki Confederacy would also be logical choices, as they were also active in the colonial period, having dealings with both the USA / Canada. My vote would be for the Wyandot, but any of the tribes that were formerly allied with the French Canadians would work.

6. If Canada was ever added to the game, it would need to be a two leader civ, to reflect its start as a French colony (Canadian originally referenced the French inhabitants), followed by the British conquest. This would also lend itself for an excellent scenario opportunity. Additionally, in the early 1800's, a majority of the people living in Ontario and the Maritime provinces, were loyalists and their descendants who fled the colonies after the revolution, and moved to Canada. Therefore, there was a string cultural and linguistic connection between the British areas of Canada, and the USA.

7. Other ideas would be the Boers and Rhodesians, but they would likely be very controversial if added to the game.

8. For a Southeast Asia Civ, possibilities are:

Emilio Aguinaldo / the Philippines. Creating an instant rivalry with Teddy Roosevelt, who helped instigate the US getting involved with the Philippines and taking over control form the Spanish.

9. Going back to Europe, Lithuania would also be an excellent choice for a civ, as they could combined with Poland (Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth), to create a powerful rivalry with Russia, and could function as an alternative leader to the current Polish civ.

10. In regards to Austria, I say leave them out of the game, unless they become an alternate leader for Germany. Austria started as an extension of Bavaria, before eventually becoming a separate duchy within the Holy Roman Empire. Tyrol, Steiermark and Kärnten were separate entities, albeit ruled by the Austrians. Austria didn't become an independent nation until after WW1, having always been an administrative division of something else.

11. Finally, the Dutch East Indies. The Netherlands are not yet in the game, so they could perhaps get involved via their overseas colonies.

 

[DeutschDachs]

I second a few of those I have thought it would be fun to have a Magyar leader and Civ. I think your pick would work well.

Similarly, on a selfish note, after living in the Czech Republic briefly I would love to play as Bohemia, perhaps under Charles IV?

I would definitely love to see more Native American love and the Huron are a great pick either with or without Canada. They'd certainly pair well together. I myself have long rooted for the Shawnee and Tecumseh but perhaps that is one of the tribes that has said no in the past

 

[Weisswurstäquator]

Alright, I don't exactly oppose more Civs, but adding Bohemia while wanting to keep Austria out is pretty rich.
While it is true that Austria started as a Bavarian margraviate, saying that it was "just a part of the HRE" is not exactly correct, at least it's not the whole story.
Now the three entities you've mentoined were separate entities indeed. However, the Habsburg Dynasty did rule over those territories, as well as over modern-day Slovenia, Istria and the City of Trieste for about 600 years. In fact, they also ruled over Bohemia and its dependencies for about 400 years.
Now Austria not being a separate entity is partly true since the initial Austrian Margraviate (Modern-day Ober- and Niederösterreich) hadn't expanded. In this case however, modern-day Austria would also "not" be Austria but also a confederation of its nine States or "Länder". Setting their level of integral autonomy as the Norm would also not allow Germany, any Native Tribes or the United States as actual Nations.
Now while Austria isn't much today, the Country was considered as a major Power in pre-WW1 Europe and also contunied to exist after the Dissolution of the HRE in the early 19th century. And before the Ausgleich in 1867 it also was a heavily centralised state with the main authority lying in, you guessed it, Vienna.
And if, even if, one would disregard all this and consider Austria a construct created after WW1 which only served to further weaken the German People (Die Erste Republik lässt grüßen) , it still would be on par with Bohemia, the Teutonic Knights and would still surpass most native Tribes or Uralic Nations in terms of global importance and historical significance.
So naming Austria "a extension of Bavaria" would be the same as saying that Bohemia is "a extension of Austria"

 

[The Kingmaker]

I'm not sure what they'll do if they decide to Austria back, since the current incarnation of Germany in game is HRE-themed, and as stated above the Austrian Hapsburgs were pre-eminent in HRE leadership for several hundred years.

They'd either have to include one of the four post-HRE Austro-Hungarian emperors (Franz Joseph seems most likely), or make a second HRE themed civ called Austria with someone like Maria Theresa as leader, or just make her a second German leader (perhaps with Vienna as capital), since they were technically all the same polity during the First Reich.

Granted, the last time they had Maria Theresa lead Germany was Civ2, which had no Austrian civ included. Plus it might make some folks mad, given later 20th century political issues.

 

[berlin88]

I'm not sure what they'll do if they decide to Austria back, since the current incarnation of Germany in game is HRE-themed, and as stated above the Austrian Hapsburgs were pre-eminent in HRE leadership for several hundred years.

They'd either have to include one of the four post-HRE Austro-Hungarian emperors (Franz Joseph seems most likely), or make a second HRE themed civ called Austria with someone like Maria Theresa as leader, or just make her a second German leader (perhaps with Vienna as capital), since they were technically all the same polity during the First Reich.

Granted, the last time they had Maria Theresa lead Germany was Civ2, which had no Austrian civ included. Plus it might make some folks mad, given later 20th century political issues.

If you look at the territory controlled by the Holy Roman Empire during the reign of Barbarossa, it includes the modern nations of Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland, Slovenia, Luxemburg, Czech Republic, Austria, part of Eastern France (Burgundy, Alsace, Lorraine), part of Italy and the territory Poland stole from Germany after WW2 (Pommern, Schleisen, Ostpreussen).

However, in the game, the city names assigned to Barbarossa, are mostly West German city names, with no representation from Germany's former eastern territories or the cities and towns of the other nations I previously listed. This leaves open the possibility for the devs to add a Netherlands or Austria faction into the game, but it makes Barbarossa's empire more Germany focused.

The other issue, is that Holy Roman Empire was split between the Catholics and the Protestants (leading to the 30 years war), and the Catholics are already represented by Barbarossa, meaning an Austrian leader would duplicate that. For an alternate Germany leader, it would make sense to have a Protestant one.

Adding the Teutonic Knights as a separate German civ, would not duplicate or overlap with Barbarossa, since the territory held by the Teutonic Knights was largely outside of the Holy Roman Empire and administered separately.

 

[Weisswurstäquator]

The HRE is hardly a functioning Civilization, Firaxis even admitted this indirectly in the Civ4 Civilopedia entry of the HRE (led by Charlemagne, but that's a story for another day). Yet this exact problem of the HRE-themed Germany would also apply to Bohemia, which was a Part of the HRE and its successor, the German Confederation (see picture)



If Firaxis really wants to put the "Empire" into the game, they would have better possiblilities to do so. While not canceling Germany completely, they could include the most important members of the HRE, such as Prussia, Austria, Bavaria, Bohemia, or the Hanseatic League as well as certain Italian Duchies like Milan or Genoa. Prussia in particular could work as an "alternative Germany" featuring two Leaders and also, two sets of Cities: a German one and a Prussian one. To further distancate the two, both Leaders could own their respective UU, a more HRE-themed one (e.g. Landsknecht) and a German one (e.g. Panzer)
Germany is always hard because the Nation as such has only existed for the last 150 years while the separate smaller Duchies and Kingdoms were prominent throughout the 900 years before that. Especially Austria and Bohemia would need some sort of distinction, as they weren't part of the Germany we know today

 

[LastSword]

For me Austria is the most important and successful german entity in the history. "HRE as one" is more linked to Austria than Germany. In fact, Barbarossa would fit as a leader of Austria. Definitely much more than Teresa being leader of Germany... The country of Germany since its creation was forcing the statement about unifying all German people (like Russia about slavs at one point, the whole difference is that Russia isn't called Slavmany so there are no issues with adjectives) and grabbing the culture of Austria as their own. Though you only need to read some literature from epoque to find out that it wasn't truely so united (which is natural - unification/creation of nation is a long process) and German empire could be as well called Prussian Empire (and Prussians weren't so popular along other "united" nations). One can say they represent Germany as geographical region (like Polynesia), but design of uniques makes it very clear what they want to represent.

Reasons to include Germany? Very popular in America (let's beat some Germans!) and quite decent gaming population. Maybe looking at history by a prism of 20th century. Or maybe people believe that anschluss was well-reasoned. Thinking about it, even most famous German was Austrian.

Reasons to include Austria. Habsburgs. Habsburgs's hegemony. Vienna was capital of european culture at some point. Controlling HRE. Major player for hundreds of years. Most important german state.

So yeah, it always made me sad to see Germany in core set of civs. Including it before Austria is just bad. Being honest, German design in civ V was a total garbage, and in civ VI isn't much better.
Germany would be better represented just like Italy (bunch of city-states and eventually including one state just like Venice). I think it would underline the diversity of german people's culture and history.

I am looking forward for inclusion of Austria, which in opposite to Germany has many interesting leader's choices.

The Teutonic Knights or the Hanseatic League + no Austria.

Sigh. I respect the right for you to have such opinion. Unfortuantely I must sadden you, Teutonic Knights weren't truely so cool as depicted on internet or games. I don't see a reason to make civ out of district too.

@edit
I haven't noticed you have berlin in nickname. What a waste of time writing this.

 

[berlin88]

For me Austria is the most important and successful german entity in the history. "HRE as one" is more linked to Austria than Germany. In fact, Barbarossa would fit as a leader of Austria. Definitely much more than Teresa being leader of Germany... The country of Germany since its creation was forcing the statement about unifying all German people (like Russia about slavs at one point, the whole difference is that Russia isn't called Slavmany so there are no issues with adjectives) and grabbing the culture of Austria as their own. Though you only need to read some literature from epoque to find out that it wasn't truely so united (which is natural - unification/creation of nation is a long process) and German empire could be as well called Prussian Empire (and Prussians weren't so popular along other "united" nations). One can say they represent Germany as geographical region (like Polynesia), but design of uniques makes it very clear what they want to represent.

Reasons to include Germany? Very popular in America (let's beat some Germans!) and quite decent gaming population. Maybe looking at history by a prism of 20th century. Or maybe people believe that anschluss was well-reasoned. Thinking about it, even most famous German was Austrian.

Reasons to include Austria. Habsburgs. Habsburgs's hegemony. Vienna was capital of european culture at some point. Controlling HRE. Major player for hundreds of years. Most important german state.

So yeah, it always made me sad to see Germany in core set of civs. Including it before Austria is just bad. Being honest, German design in civ V was a total garbage, and in civ VI isn't much better.
Germany would be better represented just like Italy (bunch of city-states and eventually including one state just like Venice). I think it would underline the diversity of german people's culture and history.

I am looking forward for inclusion of Austria, which in opposite to Germany has many interesting leader's choices.



Sigh. I respect the right for you to have such opinion. Unfortuantely I must sadden you, Teutonic Knights weren't truely so cool as depicted on internet or games. I don't see a reason to make civ out of district too.

@edit
I haven't noticed you have berlin in nickname. What a waste of time writing this.

Austrian used to be just another name for German, it was only in the 20th century, when Austrian came to be a separate identity. From the late 1600's onwards, the main German factions were Austria and Prussia, with the two frequently waging war on each other. Prussia acquired Silesia from the Austrians, and that helped secure Prussia as a major player, given the economic wealth of Silesia and the abundance of natural resources.

Some of my ancestors were German Silesians, so prior to the Prussian acquisition of Silesia, they would have been subjects of the Austrian monarchy. I fully understand the historical significance of the Austrians, I just prefer a different German faction to be included in the game, since I assume the devs would only include one more, as opposed to multiple additional factions.

Given the significant territorial differences between the Hanseatic League or Teutonic Order and the Austrians, the devs could easily do both, since there would be little overlap between the two, aside from those areas of the Netherlands that were under Austrian rule for a time.

One concession I will make though, is that the Teutonic Order was a bit lacking in major cities, as it was primarily Marienburg, Thorn, Danzig and Konigsberg that made up the major Teutonic cities. Therefore, it might be necessary to simply merge a Teutonic civ with a Hanseatic one.

 

[Phrozen]

Even the HRE wasn't exactly a unified country for the majority of its existence. The electors had a deep interest in electing weak emperors and the various kingdoms warred with each other off and on. Germany can represent of course the German culture and people. Just like Greece represents Greece as a unified state even though it was only really united under Macedon except when it had to fight off outside invasion.

 

[LastSword]

Austrian used to be just another name for German, it was only in the 20th century, when Austrian came to be a separate identity.

And Mayans were Americans.
There is strong diversity between german people, ethnic ~ culturally and linguistically connected nation that was developing for centuries and citizens of germany, the country that emerged ~1850 and is developing its own national identity for last 100 years. In fact, Austrians were forced to obtain their separate indentity, because as I said Germany was trying to grab the identity of all german people. It is probably another reason why Austria is the most important german state, it developed its own nationality. Prussians? Kinda gone with the wind.

From the late 1600's onwards, the main German factions were Austria and Prussia, with the two frequently waging war on each other. Prussia acquired Silesia from the Austrians, and that helped secure Prussia as a major player, given the economic wealth of Silesia and the abundance of natural resources.

Lol, I like how you use words "acquired" and "steal" depending on situation. I was thinking about this late 1600's, not so sure (still think Saxony were more important than Prussia by 1700). Anyway, I was taught and read that Prussia became a power (gain relevance) after 7 years' war, which started as city-state/puppet of England (using civ terminatology). It was probably one of the most lucky victory ever, but it is of irrevelance. After that war, Saxony lost meaning and serious decline of Austria started, while Prussian influence was spreading, which within a century united Germany. Still Vienna was quite important during Napoleonic age and needed world war to finally collapse.

One concession I will make though, is that the Teutonic Order was a bit lacking in major cities, as it was primarily Marienburg, Thorn, Danzig and Konigsberg that made up the major Teutonic cities. Therefore, it might be necessary to simply merge a Teutonic civ with a Hanseatic one.

Well, Teutonic Order literally transformed into Prussia and there is enormous territorial overlap (since you care about that). Unless you are looking at it from another perspective (maybe modern?), but in this case teutons overlap with Poland.

Anyway, I am afraid to disappoint you, but I don't think Hanseatic league will be ever included. Especially after they used Hansa as UC twice in a row.

I am gonna repeat myself, Austria as core + german city-states, followed with one german state as civ in expansion (Saxony, Bavaria, Prussia, even Teutonic Order) would probably be the best implementation of Germany for me instead of one meh blob civ. Though I don't think it will ever happen as well.

 

[Siptah]

And Mayans were Americans.
There is strong diversity between german people, ethnic ~ culturally and linguistically connected nation that was developing for centuries and citizens of germany, the country that emerged ~1850 and is developing its own national identity for last 100 years. In fact, Austrians were forced to obtain their separate indentity, because as I said Germany was trying to grab the identity of all german people. It is probably another reason why Austria is the most important german state, it developed its own nationality. Prussians? Kinda gone with the wind.


Lol, I like how you use words "acquired" and "steal" depending on situation. I was thinking about this late 1600's, not so sure (still think Saxony were more important than Prussia by 1700). Anyway, I was taught and read that Prussia became a power (gain relevance) after 7 years' war, which started as city-state/puppet of England (using civ terminatology). It was probably one of the most lucky victory ever, but it is of irrevelance. After that war, Saxony lost meaning and serious decline of Austria started, while Prussian influence was spreading, which within a century united Germany. Still Vienna was quite important during Napoleonic age and needed world war to finally collapse.


Well, Teutonic Order literally transformed into Prussia and there is enormous territorial overlap (since you care about that). Unless you are looking at it from another perspective (maybe modern?), but in this case teutons overlap with Poland.

Anyway, I am afraid to disappoint you, but I don't think Hanseatic league will be ever included. Especially after they used Hansa as UC twice in a row.

I am gonna repeat myself, Austria as core + german city-states, followed with one german state as civ in expansion (Saxony, Bavaria, Prussia, even Teutonic Order) would probably be the best implementation of Germany for me instead of one meh blob civ. Though I don't think it will ever happen as well.

Sorry to say, but you show a very strange (and incomplete) view of German and Austrian history and contradicting yourself a lot. Why did you go this route and start argumentation for such a standpoint that has obvious fatal flaws? Is this really what you believe and think and 'know'?

 

[LastSword]

Sorry to say, but you show a very strange (and incomplete) view of German and Austrian history and contradicting yourself a lot. Why did you go this route and start argumentation for such a standpoint that has obvious fatal flaws? Is this really what you believe and think and 'know'?

If I am contradicting, it is probably because of my poor english. Or maybe I was trying to write something from OP's point of view.
Incomplete? Try to include complete view of something that span across centuries. So yes, I was simplifying as much as possible.
If I went with fatal flaws, you could point them, but you went with passive-aggressive questions? Is this really what you believe you should have done and "represent"? Doesn't you know any better? Blah, you see, I can do it too... heavily disappointed to be honest. It is actually hard to respond anything after such a blatant and empty attack on somebody's opinion.

Anyway, I checked my post for you. Extra mile.

And Mayans were Americans.
There is strong diversity between german people, ethnic ~ culturally and linguistically connected nation that was developing for centuries and citizens of germany, the country that emerged ~1850 and is developing its own national identity for last 100 years. In fact, Austrians were forced to obtain their separate indentity, because as I said Germany was trying to grab the identity of all german people. It is probably another reason why Austria is the most important german state, it developed its own nationality. Prussians? Kinda gone with the wind.

So OP's pointed to me that Austrians were germans. Yes, I knew it. I wanted to underline how complicated creation process of nation is. Back then there was no simple case: "those are Germans and those are Austrians" like today. And reasoning behind Anschluss was about creating "Greater united Germany", basically erase Austria from map, merge its culture and resources under one country. Anyway I wanted to point that I recognize word "german" with two different meanings (as adjective of modern country and as adjective of group of people). The same way, I don't believe that modern Macedon has a right to grab heritage of ancient estate just by name.

Lol, I like how you use words "acquired" and "steal" depending on situation. I was thinking about this late 1600's, not so sure (still think Saxony were more important than Prussia by 1700). Anyway, I was taught and read that Prussia became a power (gain relevance) after 7 years' war, which started as city-state/puppet of England (using civ terminatology). It was probably one of the most lucky victory ever, but it is of irrevelance. After that war, Saxony lost meaning and serious decline of Austria started, while Prussian influence was spreading, which within a century united Germany. Still Vienna was quite important during Napoleonic age and needed world war to finally collapse.

I would probably have to double-proof some facts. Relevance is a point of view. So I kinda agreed that Prussia got relevant after Silesian wars. For somebody they could have started becoming relevant since ~1650, but for me they were merely merging power and developing. It is heavily matter of perspective and how deeply is somebody interested in certain region.

Well, Teutonic Order literally transformed into Prussia and there is enormous territorial overlap (since you care about that). Unless you are looking at it from another perspective (maybe modern?), but in this case teutons overlap with Poland.

Yes, overlapping looks pretty serious.

Anyway, I am afraid to disappoint you, but I don't think Hanseatic league will be ever included.

Personal opinion, belief.


Anyway, I tried shortly explain OP, why this reasoning (Hanseatic good, Teutonic ok; Austria - alternate leader for Germany at best) was quite not appealing to me. To be honest, I would find inclusion of Austrian leader as second leader of Germany offensive and politically incorrect (anschluss was one-sided idea, an invasion and occupation). After OP's explanation I understand better his/her point of view, tried to explain my point of view (maybe to learn some more facts from him, seeing that he is of silesian origin). Still I don't think/believe that devs follow the same criteria as OP (about territory overlapping for example), but it is truely of irrelevance.

 

[SMcM]

Something lots of people have pointed out as a problem with Civ VI is how redundant smaller islands have become (for instance the territory of the Malay Archipelago is fairly useless on TSL maps).

I think that we really need a Civ that can do something like building districts on coast tiles. Perhaps Brunei, which was sometimes called the 'Venice of the East' (as it is known for Kampong Ayer, the Water Village district of its capital) - Venice could fill this niche also, but with Europe quite full already, I think that Brunei would be a soild choice, and the Bruneian Empire would be nice also as it would be a debut for the series. This would make for a truly unique and very exciting play style, and would necessitate a powerful navy for defence.

3. The Kingdom of Bohemia

Technically they were part of the Holy Roman Empire, but Barbaross does not utilize any city names from Silesia, Lusastia, Bohemia or Moravia, so there is no conflict there.

Seeing as under Charles IV, Bohemia was at the centre of the HRE (with Prague acting as the capital), I would say that including Bohemia as a separate Civ under him would make sense. Also, the Bohemian crown held significant territory outside the HRE at the time didn't it (including Silesian land IIRC)?

 

[Phrozen]

Something lots of people have pointed out as a problem with Civ VI is how redundant smaller islands have become (for instance the territory of the Malay Archipelago is fairly useless on TSL maps).

I think that we really need a Civ that can do something like building districts on coast tiles. Perhaps Brunei, which was sometimes called the 'Venice of the East' (as it is known for Kampong Ayer, the Water Village district of its capital) - Venice could fill this niche also, but with Europe quite full already, I think that Brunei would be a soild choice, and the Bruneian Empire would be nice also as it would be a debut for the series. This would make for a truly unique and very exciting play style, and would necessitate a powerful navy for defence.



Seeing as under Charles IV, Bohemia was at the centre of the HRE (with Prague acting as the capital), I would say that including Bohemia as a separate Civ under him would make sense. Also, the Bohemian crown held significant territory outside the HRE at the time didn't it (including Silesian land IIRC)?

I have suggested building districts on coasts would be a great civ ability for the Dutch with their historical reclamation projects, though I would limit to adjacent to city center.

A Bohemian civ could be all over the place. Catholic Charles IV, a Protestant UU: Hussite War Wagon, and a special building from the 1800s: Brewery. Plus an a achievement for building a brewery in Pilzen.

 

[SMcM]

Building districts on water and land reclamation are quite different though. Visually, I think districts on stilts would look more interesting.

 

[Manifold]

... Bruneian Empire...

That would really be a reason to quite playing this Civ part - for me. sorry

But districts on water would be a cool idea to think about There are more exiting options for districts on water like

0) Houseboat are only for inland waters

different harbors:
1) warehouse district -> container terminal,
2) Naval base -> military port with fortress,
3) fishing port -> harbor tavern -> cold stores and processing factories,
4) Marina (like Seaside Resort on water - more an improvement)

5) Land reclamation (for tiles with 4 adjacent land tiles) for a Dutch Civ

 

[SMcM]

Yes, Bruneian Empire; the borders of Brunei were far beyond where they are today back in its peak in the 15th century. They ruled Borneo (one of the world largest islands) and parts of the modern Philippines. A maritime trading empire, at its peak it was very prosperous. Yes, there are other more important civs that could be included, but I see plenty of people pushing for Vietnam and Korea, and those haven't been major powers historically.

Spoiler Bruneian Empire :

 

[Kimiimaro]

Brunei looks fine, but I would like Venetian Republic or Dutch Empire more as nation that can work with shallow water.

 

[SMcM]

Well, Dutch or Venetian would be fine for most games, but they'd be no help making small islands on TSL maps useful (which was the original reason I suggested Brunei). Also, we're hardly short on European civs as it is.

 

[Weisswurstäquator]

Now Europe sort of works in different scaling, since a fairly large number of nations existed and exists in Europe. Furthermore, unlike most Native American or African Civs, European History was both very erratic and very well recorded, while most indigenous tribes experienced their first large change, after being confronted with Europe. Thus the large Number compared to the rest of the World, although, I do believe that for example China is horribly underrepresented, considering their Impact on History and the fact, that the country was split half the time.
Also, I feel like both Dutch and Ventian would work better as Marshland-Civs than Insular Civs. Greece or South East Asian Nations like Indonesia would do the Job better. And other Nations like Brunei and perhaps Songapore or the Philippines could fill the whole area up. I'm not too opposed to another Polynesia either.

Plus an a achievement for building a brewery in Pilzen.

Regarding Beer, everything in the late HRE brew Beer. Also, if Plzen, then why not ceske Budejovice (Budweiser) either?