Never Before Seen Civs - Elimination Game

[The Kingmaker]

Since there's been a couple of inquiries, as the OP I'll comment just this once.

Any list of this nature is going to be somewhat arbitrary when you're limited to 20 slots. I based my list in part on Liufeng's excellent series of civ threads and added in a few suggestions of my own.

I tried to balance between the different world regions and include a few options each from Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas.

Just so the game doesn't get bogged down in debates, I'd like to defer such conversation to Liufeng's thread about potential civs: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...-would-most-like-to-see-final-results.611419/

I'll post a more detailed response over there later. Thanks folks.

 

[Zaarin]

@Xandinho I think you're thinking of the Olmecs. While it's true the Toltec are an archaeological culture like the Olmec, we know plenty about the Zapotec.

Where are the Minoans (they were not Greeks! over 1300 years high culture)

I've said it repeatedly, but I'll say it again: no language, no leaders, no city names. A Knossos city-state would be most welcome, however. It's probably second on my wishlist after Saba'a.

Apache 14
Armenians 22
Ashanti 22
Burmese 21
Cherokee 20
Goths 17
Italians 10
Hebrews 21
Hungarians 21
Mexicans 14
Mississippians 20 - 3 = 17 We know too little about their history to justify inclusion. Like the Minoans, there would be just too much to make up for a game that's supposed to be rooted in history. I'd welcome a post-Mississippian civilization like the Creek, Chickasaw, or Cherokee, however.
Mughals 17
Nubians 20
Palmyrenes/Nabateans 17 + 1 = 18 Yes, please to Zenobia, queen of Palmyra. Personally I'd call the civ "Syria," but Palmyra or Nabataea would be fine (even if the latter is...inaccurate for a civ led by Zenobia).
Phoenicians 21
Swahili/Kilwa 20
Tibetans 21
Toltecs/Zapotecs 14
Vietnamese 19
Zimbabweans 21

 

[Liufeng]

Apache 14
Armenians 22
Ashanti 22
Burmese 21
Cherokee 20
Goths 17
Italians 10
Hebrews 21
Hungarians 21
Mexicans 14
Mississippians 17
Mughals 17
Nubians 20
Palmyrenes/Nabateans 18 - 3 = 15 : I'm sorry Zaarin, but Palmyra really doesn't appeal to me ... You know I hate these big but too much short lived empires.
Phoenicians 21
Swahili/Kilwa 20 +1 = 21 : they were the master traders in eastern Africa, ans Swahili culture is one of the most important in the continent, the language being seen as the most spoken african language.
Tibetans 21
Toltecs/Zapotecs 14
Vietnamese 19
Zimbabweans 21

 

[Mobfire]

Apache 11
Armenians 22
Ashanti 22
Burmese 21
Cherokee 20
Goths 17
Italians 10
Hebrews 21
Hungarians 21
Mexicans 11 (14-3) If more colonial nations get introduced, I think Canada, Argentina, or Gran Colombia should be the priority.
Mississippians 18 (17+1) I know it'll probably never happen, and I know their city list, leader choice, and language would be less than ideal, but I really want to see it happen anyways.
Mughals 17
Nubians 21
Palmyrenes/Nabateans 15
Phoenicians 21
Swahili/Kilwa 21
Tibetans 21
Toltecs/Zapotecs 14
Vietnamese 19
Zimbabweans 21

EDIT: Adjusted Apache and Nubia to take Guandao's votes into account

 

[Guandao]

My second post in this thread was not taken into account, Apache is actually at 11 and Nubia at 21.

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

My second post in this thread was not taken into account, Apache is actually at 11 and Nubia at 21.

Thanksabro. Mobfire took care of it.

Apache 11
Armenians 22
Ashanti 22
Burmese 21
Cherokee 20
Goths 17
Italians 11 (I'd actually like a blob-civ Italy. It was only unified recently, but so was Germany, and Italy has a lot of cultural and scientific importance to history even well after what anyone could reasonably describe as the Roman empire. It's the birthplace of the renaissance.)
Hebrews 21
Hungarians 21
Mexicans 11
Mississippians 18
Mughals 17
Nubians 21
Palmyrenes/Nabateans 12 (Down voting the same item until they're gone may or may not be an effective tactic)
Phoenicians 21
Swahili/Kilwa 21
Tibetans 21
Toltecs/Zapotecs 14
Vietnamese 19
Zimbabweans 21

 

[DudewiththeFood]

Apache 11
Armenians 22
Ashanti 22
Burmese 21
Cherokee 20
Goths 17
Italians 11
Hebrews 21
Hungarians 21
Mexicans 11
Mississippians 18
Mughals 17
Nubians 21
Palmyrenes/Nabateans 9 - I'd be upvoting Nabateans but why is Palmyra here?
Phoenicians 21
Swahili/Kilwa 22 - A bit of diversity in Africa is no bad thing.
Tibetans 21
Toltecs/Zapotecs 14
Vietnamese 19
Zimbabweans 21

 

[Morningcalm]

Apache 11
Armenians 22
Ashanti 22
Burmese 21
Cherokee 20
Goths 17
Italians 11
Hebrews 21
Hungarians 21
Mexicans 11
Mississippians 18
Mughals 17
Nubians 21
Palmyrenes/Nabateans 9 + 1 = 10 You must be kidding. The Mexicans and Italians (who are represented in the game already in some form) are getting higher votes than a Syrian group that has never appeared in Civ before, presents agenda-worthy drama in the Roman Empire almost at Spartacus level (read Zenobia's Wikipedia entry), and has unique opportunities for trade, culture and military bonuses in the desert? No. I shall not allow it while I have voting power.
Phoenicians 21
Swahili/Kilwa 22
Tibetans 21
Toltecs/Zapotecs 14 - 3 = 11 SHIMIKACAN. SHIMIKACAN. SHIMIKACAN! is more intelligible than any leader idea that could be presented for either of these civs. Yes, we have leader names, but no agenda ideas, and Mesoamerica with the Mayans will already be well-enough represented. Keep them as city-states with cool bonuses (see Age of Empires III's representation of the thunder-and-lightning themed Zapotecs for an example).
Vietnamese 19
Zimbabweans 21

 

[SMcM]

Apache 12 (11 + 1) - Mostly because I'd like to see Geronimo as a leader
Armenians 22
Ashanti 22
Burmese 21
Cherokee 20
Goths 17
Italians 11
Hebrews 21
Hungarians 21
Mexicans 11
Mississippians 18
Mughals 14 (17- 3) - These guys should just be alternative leaders for India. In Civ IV Ashoka and Gandhi belonged to the same Indian Civ, and I can't see any reason Mughals would not be the same Civ also (yes they followed a different religion, but I don't think that is grounds for a separate Civ)
Nubians 21
Palmyrenes/Nabateans 10
Phoenicians 21
Swahili/Kilwa 22
Tibetans 21
Toltecs/Zapotecs 11
Vietnamese 19
Zimbabweans 21

I was torn between downvoting Italians, Mexicans and Mughals, but seeing as Mughals have a lot more points than the other two right now I went for them.

 

[Guandao]

Apache 12
Armenians 22
Ashanti 22
Burmese 21
Cherokee 20-3=17 Nobody has touched this, I feel like they are popular in a way the Sioux are. They are notable for their assimilation to White American culture and for the trail of tears. Their most suitable leader is named John Ross...
Goths 17
Italians 11
Hebrews 21
Hungarians 21
Mexicans 11
Mississippians 18
Mughals 14+1=15 I don't think they should be placed into the same civ as India, they never built Stepwells, plus could use a different Civ ability than India
Nubians 21
Palmyrenes/Nabateans 10
Phoenicians 21
Swahili/Kilwa 22
Tibetans 21
Toltecs/Zapotecs 11
Vietnamese 19
Zimbabweans 21

 

[The Kingmaker]

Apache 12
Armenians 22
Ashanti 22
Burmese 21
Cherokee 17
Goths 17
Italians 11
Hebrews 21
Hungarians 21
Mexicans 8 (11-3) Benito Juarez would be a decent option, but I expect they'd probably choose Santa Anna, for a grouchier, grungier Mexican civ. Mexico is only here because of the new precedent with Brazil. Not very enthused about modern-only civs.
Mississippians 18
Mughals
Nubians 21
Palmyrenes/Nabataeans 11 (10+1) Zenobia would be awesome. They'd probably have to call the civ Palmyra though, since "Syria" might be too close to modern politics. In case some folks are too young to remember, Palmyra was actually a playable civ in the first Age of Empires. Nabataea is in here as an alternative, in case someone would rather have, say, Aretas III instead of the magnificent Queen of the East.
Phoenicians 21
Swahili/Kilwa 22
Tibetans 21
Toltecs/Zapotecs 11
Vietnamese 19
Zimbabweans 21

 

[Liufeng]

Apache 9 Among native Americans, I feel like that there are far more deserving than them ... besides, when I think of a civ, I always try to tell myself a civ to be in the gameneeds at least two viable leaders, and it is notthe case here
Armenians 22
Ashanti 22
Burmese 21
Cherokee 17
Goths 17
Italians 11
Hebrews 21
Hungarians 21
Mexicans 8
Mississippians 18
Mughals 15
Nubians 21
Palmyrenes/Nabateans 11
Phoenicians 22 - I feel like it's about time to drop Carthage and pick their oldman !
Swahili/Kilwa 22
Tibetans 21
Toltecs/Zapotecs 11
Vietnamese 19
Zimbabweans 21

 

[Zaarin]

Apache 9 - 3 = 6 - I'd love to see a new Native American tribe represented, but the nomadic horse-riding tribes are so overrepresented in any depiction of Native Americans in the media. I'd prefer a PNW, Plateau, or Subarctic tribe be included this time (ideal choices for each being the Tlingit, Blackfoot, and Cree respectively).
Armenians 22
Ashanti 22
Burmese 21
Cherokee 17
Goths 17
Italians 11
Hebrews 21
Hungarians 21
Mexicans 8
Mississippians 18
Mughals 15
Nubians 21
Palmyrenes/Nabateans 11 + 1 = 12 - Zenobia alone is worthy of inclusion, but on top of that no Syrian/Aramaic culture has ever been included in the game despite the historical importance of the highlands of Aram--including three of the worlds oldest cities, Damascus, Aleppo, and Palmyra.
Phoenicians 22
Swahili/Kilwa 22
Tibetans 21
Toltecs/Zapotecs 11
Vietnamese 19
Zimbabweans 21

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

Apache 6
Armenians 22
Ashanti 22
Burmese 21
Cherokee 17
Goths 17
Italians 12 (Woot woot repetition.)
Hebrews 21
Hungarians 21
Mexicans 8
Mississippians 18
Mughals 15
Nubians 21
Palmyrenes/Nabateans 9 (If representing regions is the issue, then Arabia has this covered.)
Phoenicians 22
Swahili/Kilwa 22
Tibetans 21
Toltecs/Zapotecs 11
Vietnamese 19
Zimbabweans 21

 

[Xandinho]

@Zaarin Yes, I was referring to the Toltecs. But although we know more about the Zapotecs, I do not know if it is enough to think of leaders' abilities and agendas. As well as a sufficient number of cities and a unique infrastructure.

Apache 6 - 3 = 3 Nothing against them, but they are the ones that least interest me among these options that I have
Armenians 22
Ashanti 22
Burmese 21
Cherokee 17
Goths 17
Italians 12
Hebrews 21 + 1 = 22 I would love to see it included. They gave rise to great monotheistic religions. I think it's enough to say that they are worthy enough to enter to the game.
Hungarians 21
Mexicans 8
Mississippians 18
Mughals 15
Nubians 21
Palmyrenes/Nabateans 9
Phoenicians 22
Swahili/Kilwa 22
Tibetans 21
Toltecs/Zapotecs 11
Vietnamese 19
Zimbabweans 21

 

[Mobfire]

Apache 4 (3 + 1) Don't get me wrong, they're not my first choice, but they're not my last either. I'll try and delay their demise a bit.
Armenians 22
Ashanti 22
Burmese 21
Cherokee 17
Goths 17
Italians 12
Hebrews 22
Hungarians 21
Mexicans 5 (8 - 3) Couldn't really care less...
Mississippians 18
Mughals 15
Nubians 21
Palmyrenes/Nabateans 9
Phoenicians 22
Swahili/Kilwa 22
Tibetans 21
Toltecs/Zapotecs 11
Vietnamese 19
Zimbabweans 21

 

[Morningcalm]

Apache 4
Armenians 22
Ashanti 22
Burmese 21
Cherokee 17
Goths 17
Italians 12
Hebrews 22
Hungarians 21
Mexicans 5
Mississippians 18
Mughals 15
Nubians 21
Palmyrenes/Nabateans 9 + 1 = 10 (ZENOBIA, Queen Augusta!)
Phoenicians 22
Swahili/Kilwa 22
Tibetans 21
Toltecs/Zapotecs 11 - 3 = 8 (No leaders that we could pick for them that would have any real agenda. Mississippians are worse in this regard but I think people will naturally eliminate them by themselves.)
Vietnamese 19
Zimbabweans 21

 

[Siptah]

Apache 4
Armenians 22
Ashanti 22
Burmese 21
Cherokee 17
Goths 17
Italians 12
Hebrews 22 - 3 = 19 (for me personally, modern Israel would be okish, ancient Juda/Israel/Hebrews not really)
Hungarians 21
Mexicans 5
Mississippians 18
Mughals 15
Nubians 21 + 1 = 22 (really a most deserving civ and it is strange that it was never in any civ game yet. Afak Rise of Nations was the only historical strategy game to include them as a faction so far.)
Palmyrenes/Nabateans 10
Phoenicians 22
Swahili/Kilwa 22
Tibetans 21
Toltecs/Zapotecs 8
Vietnamese 19
Zimbabweans 21

 

[SMcM]

Apache 5 (4 + 1) Not the best Civ here, but I don't think they are the worst. Contrary to what others have alleged, there are multiple viable leaders here- Mangas Coloradas, Geronimo and Cochise are probably the most prominent, and there are others
Armenians 22
Ashanti 22
Burmese 21
Cherokee 17
Goths 17
Italians 12
Hebrews 19
Hungarians 21
Mexicans 2 (5 - 3) We already have Aztecs which are much more interesting to me. If we must have another modern Latin American Civ I'd prefer Argentina (A more successful nation- in the early 20th century it was among the richest countries in the world)
Mississippians 18
Mughals 15
Nubians 22
Palmyrenes/Nabateans 10
Phoenicians 22
Swahili/Kilwa 22
Tibetans 21
Toltecs/Zapotecs 8
Vietnamese 19
Zimbabweans 21

 

[Speckthommy]

Apache 5
Armenians 22
Ashanti 22
Burmese 21
Cherokee 17
Goths 17
Italians 9 (12-3 A whole Italian Civ is not a good idea)
Hebrews 19
Hungarians 21
Mexicans 2
Mississippians 18
Mughals 15
Nubians 23 (22+1) Nubians are a totally cool Civilisation, but sadly there were never in the game and noone Cares for them. They wernt just second Egyptians.
Palmyrenes/Nabateans 10
Phoenicians 22
Swahili/Kilwa 22
Tibetans 21
Toltecs/Zapotecs 8
Vietnamese 19
Zimbabweans 21