Never Before Seen Civs - Elimination Game

[Guandao]

Armenians 16
Ashanti 27
Burmese 24
Cherokee 5
Hebrews 11
Nubians 18
Phoenicians 24
Swahili/Kilwa 23-3=20 I'm having trouble finding much info on their greatest leaders. The one used for the Kilwa mod in Civ5 was allegedly from Persia...
Tibetans 27
Vietnamese 17+1=18 Vietnamese history is not just defined by the Vietnam War, Wouldn't mind seeing them in the game. Not sure if Firaxis would do a dual leader though.
Zimbabweans 11

 

[nzcamel]

Armenians 19 - 3 = 16 Agreed with 679x on the excitement factor lacking for the Armenians. Sorry. Also, European, and in the context of Civ VI that means they get my downvote given how many European civs we have already at the expense of other more interesting civs.

Hebrews 10 + 1 = 11 Too interesting, well known and fitting for religious victory not to make it. They could use a non-religious leader (i.e. not David or Solomon) if they wanted to avoid controversy over portraying prophets of Islam. Several suggestions for such leaders are in the Design-your-own-Civ thread already.

David and Solomon are not prophets of Islam. They are kings of Israel. Islam may claim -to varying degrees- Jesus and Abraham...but I have never heard of them claiming either king. And so what if they do? It is clear misappropriation, and Israel should not lose either as an option because of that.

And are you ignoring me?? Armenia is not a European country. Even looking at that most awful representative of our people -Kim Kardashian- will tell you that. When the Ottomans slaughtered a million of my relatives (give or take) it was mostly in East Turkey.

 

[Siptah]

Armenians 16
Ashanti 27
Burmese 24
Cherokee 5
Hebrews 8 (11 - 3) I still don't like it and I like all other suggestions still present (except for Cherokee). Jerusalem city state fits perfectly.
Nubians 19 (18 + 1) for so many reasons and also one of the rare civs that would probably get (and deserve) an archer replacement as UU
Phoenicians 24
Swahili/Kilwa 20
Tibetans 27
Vietnamese 18
Zimbabweans 11

 

[Morningcalm]

David and Solomon are not prophets of Islam. They are kings of Israel. Islam may claim -to varying degrees- Jesus and Abraham...but I have never heard of them claiming either king. And so what if they do? It is clear misappropriation, and Israel should not lose either as an option because of that.

And are you ignoring me?? Armenia is not a European country. Even looking at that most awful representative of our people -Kim Kardashian- will tell you that. When the Ottomans slaughtered a million of my relatives (give or take) it was mostly in East Turkey.

David is definitely a prophet of Islam. Solomon is also. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophets_and_messengers_in_Islam It's not "misappropriation" either--religion doesn't "misappropriate" kings by venerating them. Israel may lose David as an option because of controversy (due to aniconism in Islam, we have elaborate and beautiful floral decorations instead of prophet depictions as religious art). Consider that the Hebrews and Tibet have never been civs in Civilization before--there's a reason for that, and it's due to controversy. I don't see why you are being so aggressive also--it's not like I'm against Hebrews being in. I upvoted them. XD

Armenia is in Europe and Asia both. Whether it's more one or the other is irrelevant. Most acknowledge Russia is in Europe and Asia both. Same situation.

Re: your point about Kim Kardashian, I don't judge a nation based on the physical appearance of one person from said region, so it never entered my mind to conclude Armenia wasn't European because I looked at Kim Kardashian, sorry.

 

[Siptah]

Historically speaking, David and Solomon would be bad choices anyway since they ruled too early, at a time where Israel/Judah was really just some unimportant villages and the Hebrew religion was still rather fuzzy as it seems. There's a lot of reasons that the holy books write this different of course. Herod the Great would be a much better choice, if you view it from historical point. Hezekiah and Josiah would be other options from earlier but not too early times.

 

[Zaarin]

Armenians 17 (16 + 1) -- How the crap is Armenia a European civ? Geographically it's on the fuzzy border between Eastern Europe and Central Asia, but politically and culturally it has always been on the periphery of the Near East. Ever hear of the Hurrians? The Mitanni? The Urartians? And it's right next door to both Iran and Turkey. The Biblical Ararat is in historical Armenia (before the Turks stole it). "Middle Eastern" is not synonymous with "Islamic"; Christianity was there first.
Ashanti 27
Burmese 24
Cherokee 2 (5 -3 ) -- Still not a fan.
Hebrews 8
Nubians 19
Phoenicians 24
Swahili/Kilwa 20
Tibetans 27
Vietnamese 18
Zimbabweans 11

 

[SMcM]

Armenians 17
Ashanti 27
Burmese 25 (24 + 1) Same as before
Cherokee (Eliminated) Already doomed but I don't really have a problem with other Civs here
Hebrews 8- I've see people give it downvotes without providing explanation- is this something to do with the modern state of Israel? Also, not portraying Israeli kings so as not to offend Muslims who claim them as prophets doesn't seem sensible to me, as I imagine only fundamentalist Muslims would care, and I can't imagine too many of them play Civ. The Tibet thing is different, as China is a major potential market for Civ (though I would still love to see Tibet in the game). Having said that, Firaxis is very cautious, so Israel will likely not feature in a Civ game ever.
Nubians 19
Phoenicians 24
Swahili/Kilwa 20
Tibetans 27
Vietnamese 18
Zimbabweans 11

Historically speaking, David and Solomon would be bad choices anyway since they ruled too early, at a time where Israel/Judah was really just some unimportant villages and the Hebrew religion was still rather fuzzy as it seems. There's a lot of reasons that the holy books write this different of course. Herod the Great would be a much better choice, if you view it from historical point. Hezekiah and Josiah would be other options from earlier but not too early times.

Wasn't Israel at its territorial height under David and Solomon? And wan't Herod a Roman puppet? Also, would having Herod offend some Christians (and I thought we were avoiding offending people!).

 

[Zaarin]

@SMcM Cherokee should be eliminated, since they were already at 2. (Also I agree that any of the Herods would be a poor choice for leadership as they were, as you say, Roman puppets; Hezekiah or Josiah really would be the best options IMO.)

 

[nzcamel]

David is definitely a prophet of Islam. Solomon is also. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophets_and_messengers_in_Islam It's not "misappropriation" either--religion doesn't "misappropriate" kings by venerating them. Israel may lose David as an option because of controversy (due to aniconism in Islam, we have elaborate and beautiful floral decorations instead of prophet depictions as religious art).

Christianity also clearly relates to David & Solomon too. They are quoted in the New Testament. That however does not make them Christian Prophets! They relate to christianity in their context of Hebrew kings first. We also claim that they are ancestors of Jesus; but neither of these things gives Christians a greater claim to them than either Israel or Judaism has.

I am not going to prolong this any further, but the much over used term "cultural appropriation" is perfect for your suggestion that Israeli kings shouldn't be shown due to the sensibilities of unrelated group 'x'.

 

[Morningcalm]

Armenians 17 (16 + 1) -- How the crap is Armenia a European civ? Geographically it's on the fuzzy border between Eastern Europe and Central Asia, but politically and culturally it has always been on the periphery of the Near East. Ever hear of the Hurrians? The Mitanni? The Urartians? And it's right next door to both Iran and Turkey. The Biblical Ararat is in historical Armenia (before the Turks stole it). "Middle Eastern" is not synonymous with "Islamic"; Christianity was there first.

Armenia is in Europe, ergo it is a European civ in the same way Russia and Turkey are. Armenia is a member of the Council of Europe, aided Crusaders (Kingdom of Cilicia), and is also a member of the Eurasian Economic Union. It is both European and Asian, as Turkey is. Both could be arguably placed in the Middle East as well.

Christianity also clearly relates to David & Solomon too. They are quoted in the New Testament. That however does not make them Christian Prophets! They relate to christianity in their context of Hebrew kings first. We also claim that they are ancestors of Jesus; but neither of these things gives Christians a greater claim to them than either Israel or Judaism has.

I am not going to prolong this any further, but the much over used term "cultural appropriation" is perfect for your suggestion that Israeli kings shouldn't be shown due to the sensibilities of unrelated group 'x'.

I never said they *shouldn't* be in the game because they are Islamic prophets. I said that IF that proves a problem due to controversy, they can pick other leaders to represent the Hebrews. David and Solomon can be both prophets and Hebrew kings, such classifications are not mutually exclusive. And it is a *fact* that David and Solomon are prophets in Islam and Hebrew kings, so contesting that just because you would rather use other terms to describe them is itself a form of cultural appropriation.

 

[SMcM]

@SMcM Cherokee should be eliminated, since they were already at 2. (Also I agree that any of the Herods would be a poor choice for leadership as they were, as you say, Roman puppets; Hezekiah or Josiah really would be the best options IMO.)

Done. Wrote my last post long before I posted it, before you had posted yet, and didn't reload before I posted.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Reposting the most recent totals for the sake of clarity. I appreciate that there are strong opinions when it comes to certain issues, but we should probably minimize the banter so the game posts don't get lost in between. Perhaps we could open a commentary/discussion thread for this purpose?

Armenians 17
Ashanti 27
Burmese 25
Hebrews 8
Nubians 19
Phoenicians 24
Swahili/Kilwa 20
Tibetans 27
Vietnamese 18
Zimbabweans 11

 

[Manifold]

I'm still wondering about this selection...but for the fun here is my choice:

Armenians 14 (17-3) Not so exciting better Mithridates VI of Pontus
Ashanti 27
Burmese 25
Hebrews 9 (8+1) why not with king Solomon
Nubians 19
Phoenicians 24
Swahili/Kilwa 20
Tibetans 27
Vietnamese 18
Zimbabweans 11

 

[Homusubi]

Armenians 14
Ashanti 27
Burmese 25
Hebrews 9
Nubians 16 - I find it hard to get excited about predominantly 'BC' civs. Of the three still in the running, the only one I'd be interested in is Phoenicia.
Phoenicians 24
Swahili/Kilwa 20
Tibetans 27
Vietnamese 19 - The most vulnerable of the nations still here that I'd like to see. We've had Sukhothai and Khmer before, so it makes sense to go with one of the SE Asian civs that we haven't had yet.
Zimbabweans 11

 

[Zaarin]

Sorry, one last non-vote post.

Armenia is in Europe, ergo it is a European civ in the same way Russia and Turkey are. Armenia is a member of the Council of Europe, aided Crusaders (Kingdom of Cilicia), and is also a member of the Eurasian Economic Union. It is both European and Asian, as Turkey is. Both could be arguably placed in the Middle East as well.

Some geographies place Armenia in Europe, some place it in Asia. Of course Armenians helped the Crusaders. So did Syriac Christians but I don't see anyone suggesting Syria is in Europe. As I said in my post, Armenia's geographic location is ambiguous, but culturally and politically it has always been part of the Near East. Part of Tamar's rise to fame in the Middle Ages was her depiction as an "exotic Oriental queen." (Yes, that's Georgia, but they're right next to each other.)

 

[Mobfire]

Armenians 14
Ashanti 24 (27 - 3) Out of all the civs on the list right now, I'm the least attached to them.
Burmese 25
Hebrews 9
Nubians 17 (16 + 1) They're an interesting civ which lasted many hundreds of years. While they are close to Egypt and Ethiopia, TSL isn't as important as some make it out to be for inclusion.
Phoenicians 24
Swahili/Kilwa 20
Tibetans 27
Vietnamese 19
Zimbabweans 11

 

[Amrunril]

Armenians 14
Ashanti 24 (27 - 3) Out of all the civs on the list right now, I'm the least attached to them.
Burmese 25
Hebrews 9
Nubians 14 (17 - 3) As one of those who commented on it's proximity to Egypt and Ethiopia, I was concerned not so much with TSL but with assembling a group of civs that's diverse in as many ways as possible. That's not to say there aren't plenty of interesting distinctions between Egypt and Nubia, and if the civ franchise was going to represent Africa in as much detail as Europe, I'd be thrilled to see Nubia, but since they aren't, and since Egypt is already in the game, it makes more sense to focus on civs from other regions of Africa.
Phoenicians 24
Swahili/Kilwa 21 (20 + 1) Not only would this civ be new to the franchise, the entire East African region would be.
Tibetans 27
Vietnamese 19
Zimbabweans 11

 

[Speckthommy]

Armenians 14
Ashanti 24
Burmese 25
Hebrews 6 (9-3) I don't think that the Hebrews were fun to play for me. I personally don't prefer the religious victory.
Nubians 15 (14+1) There were very interesting.
Phoenicians 24
Swahili/Kilwa 21
Tibetans 27
Vietnamese 19
Zimbabweans 11

 

[civviefan]

Armenians 16
Ashanti 27
Burmese 24
Cherokee 5
Hebrews 11 -3 = 8 (least interesting on this list)
Nubians 18
Phoenicians 24 + 1 = 25 (want to know more about them!)
Swahili/Kilwa 23
Tibetans 27
Vietnamese 17
Zimbabweans 11

 

[nzcamel]

Armenians 16
Ashanti 27
Burmese 24
Cherokee 5
Hebrews 9 (8+1)
Nubians 18
Phoenicians 25
Swahili/Kilwa 23
Tibetans 24 (27-3)
Vietnamese 17
Zimbabweans 11

Israel "least interesting". Say what you truly think about them, but they are far from boring or uninteresting. In a game involving Great People.... geeez.
Tibet...I don't think they've been impactful enough compared to others on this list.