Never Before Seen Civs - Elimination Game

[Guandao]

Armenians 20
Ashanti 20
Babylonians 20
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) (15+1)=16 I like them as equally as the Ashanti.
Carthaginians 18
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 16
Dutch 15
Ethiopians 20
Georgians 21
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 15
Hebrews 18
Hittites 21
Hungarians 5
Incas 22
Iroquois 21
Italians 20
Khmer 21
Koreans 21
Malians 21
Maori/Other Polynesians 19
Mayans 21
Mongols 21
Ottoman Turks 23
Portuguese 15
Siamese 11
Tibetans 18
Vietnamese (20-3)=17 I don't want a Vietnam Civ with a Vietcong unit and Ho Chi Minh as leader. I think the Trung Sisters would be hard to implement and also have little recorded of their history. Being Sinicized, Vietnam is less interesting to me personally than Burma, Siam, and Khmers. Plus, RIP Champa.

 

[Morningcalm]

Armenians 20
Ashanti 20
Babylonians 20
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 16
Carthaginians 18
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 16
Dutch 15
Ethiopians 20
Georgians 21
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 15 - 3 = 12 (At least Hungary has worthy leaders with something of a historical record that a Civ VI leader with an agenda could be created out of; these interesting cultures unfortunately lack this, and are therefore better as city-states or maybe minor tribes with bonuses in the manner of native villages in Age of Empires III)
Hebrews 18
Hittites 21
Hungarians 5
Incas 22
Iroquois 21
Italians 20
Khmer 21
Koreans 21
Malians 21
Maori/Other Polynesians 19 + 1 = 20 (was going to upvote Ashanti, but as Maori are still below 20 I must ensure they are at least at 20 for their strong cultural representation; their contribution to global diversity if added, their exploration and combat bonuses, and of course, their awesome music)
Mayans 21
Mongols 21
Ottoman Turks 23
Portuguese 15
Siamese 11
Tibetans 18
Vietnamese 17

 

[Zaarin]

Armenians 20
Ashanti 20
Babylonians 20
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 16
Carthaginians 18
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 16
Dutch 15
Ethiopians 20
Georgians 22 (21 + 1) -- It's high time the Caucasus got some representation, and Georgia has the better leader in Mep'e Tamari.
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 12
Hebrews 18
Hittites 21
Hungarians 5
Incas 22
Iroquois 21
Italians 20
Khmer 21
Koreans 21
Malians 21
Maori/Other Polynesians 20
Mayans 21
Mongols 21
Ottoman Turks 23
Portuguese 12 (15 - 3) -- Of the two major European powers on this list, I feel the Portuguese are less pressing than the Dutch.
Siamese 11
Tibetans 18
Vietnamese 17

 

[Guatenadian]

Armenians 20
Ashanti 20
Babylonians 20
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 16
Carthaginians 18
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 16
Dutch 15
Ethiopians 20
Georgians 22
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 12
Hebrews 18
Hittites 21
Hungarians 5
Incas 22
Iroquois 21
Italians 17 (20-3) Rome and Italy are two different civilisations, but I would prefer Italian City-States such as Venice or Genoa rather than simply an Italian Civ.
Khmer 21
Koreans 21
Malians 21
Maori/Other Polynesians 20
Mayans 22 (21+1) We cant let the Aztecs have Central America all to themselves.
Mongols 21
Ottoman Turks 23
Portuguese 12
Siamese 11
Tibetans 18
Vietnamese 17

 

[The Kingmaker]

Armenians 20
Ashanti 20
Babylonians 20
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 16
Carthaginians 18
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 16
Dutch 15
Ethiopians 20
Georgians 22
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 12
Hebrews 18+1=19 I disagree with the assertion that the Hebrews would be better as a city-state. Plural cities, guys.
Hittites 21
Hungarians 5-3=2 Getting closer to the goulash!
Incas 22
Iroquois 21
Italians 17
Khmer 21
Koreans 21
Malians 21
Maori/Other Polynesians 20
Mayans 22
Mongols 21
Ottoman Turks 23
Portuguese 12
Siamese 11
Tibetans 18
Vietnamese 17

 

[Amrunril]

Armenians 20
Ashanti 20
Babylonians 20
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 16
Carthaginians 18
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 16
Dutch 15
Ethiopians 20
Georgians 22
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 13 (12 + 1) I disagree with the view that the Haida, Iroquois and Creek should be seen as competitors (at least until the thread's end game) The only things they really have in common are being from the same (large and nearly unrepresented) continent and being lumped together by European colonists. Even if you do view them that way, though, I'd prefer the Pacific Northwesterners to the Iroquois as a more novel addition to the franchise, and I'd prefer them to the Creek based on the ease with which they inspire unique gameplay mechanics.
Hebrews 19
Hittites 21
Hungarians 2
Incas 22
Iroquois 21
Italians 17
Khmer 21
Koreans 21
Malians 21
Maori/Other Polynesians 20
Mayans 22
Mongols 21
Ottoman Turks 20 (23 - 3) A strong candidate, but I don't think they should be ahead of the Inca, Maya and Mongolia.
Portuguese 12
Siamese 11
Tibetans 18
Vietnamese 17

 

[Amrunril]

Double Post

 

[Xandinho]

Armenians 20
Ashanti 20
Babylonians 20
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 16
Carthaginians 18
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 16
Dutch 15
Ethiopians 20
Georgians 22
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 13
Hebrews 19
Hittites 21
Hungarians 2 - 3 = -1 Eliminated. Should be the first European civ to fall
Incas 22 + 1 = 23 Giving them the lead, they deserve
Iroquois 21
Italians 17
Khmer 21
Koreans 21
Malians 21
Maori/Other Polynesians 20
Mayans 22
Mongols 21
Ottoman Turks 20
Portuguese 12
Siamese 11
Tibetans 18
Vietnamese 17

 

[Kimiimaro]

Armenians 20
Ashanti 20
Babylonians 20
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 16
Carthaginians 18
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 16
Dutch 15
Ethiopians 20
Georgians 22
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 13
Hebrews 19
Hittites 21
Incas 23-3=20 - While interesting, they are NOT better choice for a new Civ than Ottomans, and that's why they shouldn't be ahead of them
Iroquois 21
Italians 17
Khmer 21
Koreans 21
Malians 21
Maori/Other Polynesians 20
Mayans 22
Mongols 21
Ottoman Turks 20+1=21 - They somehow lost the lead, so I have to fix it.
Portuguese 12
Siamese 11
Tibetans 18
Vietnamese 17

 

[luigilime]

Armenians 20
Ashanti 20
Babylonians 20
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 16
Carthaginians 18
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 16
Dutch 15
Ethiopians 20
Georgians 22
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 13
Hebrews 19-3=16 they weren't a unified people for over 2000 years, if there were a civs they'd lost the game at the start
Hittites 21
Incas 20
Iroquois 21
Italians 17+1=18 we have a united Germany, a united Greece, and a united India but apparently Italy doesn't deserve to be a unified civ but rather a laughable city state. I don't agree with this
Khmer 21
Koreans 21
Malians 21
Maori/Other Polynesians 20
Mayans 22
Mongols 21
Ottoman Turks 21
Portuguese 12
Siamese 11
Tibetans 18
Vietnamese 17

 

[Siptah]

Armenians 20
Ashanti 20
Babylonians 20
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 16
Carthaginians 18
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 16
Dutch 15
Ethiopians 20
Georgians 22
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 13
Hebrews 16
Hittites 21
Incas 20
Iroquois 21
Italians 19 (18+1) Still cycling through the many options with my votes. I think Italy is long overdue. I don't think Rome (the civ nor the city) pose that much of an obstacle. And while I can see that Europe is crowded, I don't agree that it is that bad that we can't have at least 4 or 5 more European civs. Maybe as DLC so that the #civsowhite fraction can just ignore it and their game doesn't get whitewashed.
Khmer 21
Koreans 21
Malians 21
Maori/Other Polynesians 17 (20-3) I fail to see the need or benefit for the game. I also have a hard time to generate interest in the region and cultures for a reason that I can't put my finger on.
Mayans 22
Mongols 21
Ottoman Turks 21
Portuguese 12
Siamese 11
Tibetans 18
Vietnamese 17

 

[Morningcalm]

Armenians 20
Ashanti 20
Babylonians 20
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 16
Carthaginians 18
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 16
Dutch 15 - 3 = 12 (Hardly a priority, and does not contribute to diversity. We also have many other groups that can do trading/economic bonuses well)
Ethiopians 20
Georgians 22
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 13
Hebrews 16
Hittites 21
Incas 20
Iroquois 21
Italians 19 Sorry, but Romans were Italians. In much the same way, ancient Chinese dynasties were Chinese. You might argue that Italy as such was politically different, having gone through a period of empire with Venice or Genoa, but that doesn't quite mesh with Civ's conflation of "England" with Victoria's Empire, etc. Also, Italy is hardly a priority.
Khmer 21
Koreans 21
Malians 21
Maori/Other Polynesians 17 + 1 = 18 (Clear benefit to the game is diversity--we don't have many Oceanian groups, and none other than Australia at the moment, despite the Polynesian prowess at navigating vast distances on canoes. The Maori story of conflict in New Zealand within and without is fascinating, and the Maori also have among the most interesting art in the world.)
Mayans 22
Mongols 21
Ottoman Turks 21
Portuguese 12
Siamese 11
Tibetans 18
Vietnamese 17

 

[luigilime]

Italians 19 Sorry, but Romans were Italians. In much the same way, ancient Chinese dynasties were Chinese. You might argue that Italy as such was politically different, having gone through a period of empire with Venice or Genoa, but that doesn't quite mesh with Civ's conflation of "England" with Victoria's Empire, etc. Also, Italy is hardly a priority.

The Italians are as Roman as the french and the Spanish but that didn't stop them from being in the game. Also aren't the Americans and Australians just English in another continent? And yet they are in the game.
The Italians started one of the eras in civ 6 and if that doesn't make it a top priority then what could be? I mean considering the European continent, of course we need to fill the other continents first but almost all the list is definitely getting in the game at some point and I would really like to see another civilization that can use the new leader mechanic at their full potential, this one is the best option

 

[Morningcalm]

Your example of Americans and Australians doesn't work because Italians, unlike Americans and Australians, stayed in the same place--i.e. Italy, where the Romans lived (and the French did not). The fact that the Italian Renaissance is known is hardly an argument for including their civilization over civilizations from Africa when so few are in the game as yet. Italians as we know them, while different from the Romans, were essentially as Roman as the Byzantines--distinct in some ways, sure, but similar in many others (in the case of Italy, shared territory, ancestry, history, and also a pride in their Roman past). More importantly, the Italians, and many other European civs on this list, are not a priority when civs like the Mayans, Mongolians, etc aren't even in the game yet.

 

[luigilime]

Your example of Americans and Australians doesn't work because Italians, unlike Americans and Australians, stayed in the same place--i.e. Italy, where the Romans lived (and the French did not). The fact that the Italian Renaissance is known is hardly an argument for including their civilization over civilizations from Africa when so few are in the game as yet. Italians as we know them, while different from the Romans, were essentially as Roman as the Byzantines--distinct in some ways, sure, but similar in many others (in the case of Italy, shared territory, ancestry, history, and also a pride in their Roman past). More importantly, the Italians, and many other European civs on this list, are not a priority when civs like the Mayans, Mongolians, etc aren't even in the game yet.

so by your reasoning it's perfectly acceptable to have Peru, Mexico and Argentina because they're Spanish alright but on another continent, same thing for Algeria and Libya, Arabs outside of Arabia. Australians and Americans are English no matter where they are, they speak English and write in English.I agree that we definitely need a lot more from Africa and America and that core civilisations like the Mongols, the ottomans, and the mayans are definitely a really big priority, but downvoting just for being European to me doesn't make sense, we have to be reasonable, we can have tons of civilizations from Africa, America and Asia, and nothing from Europe, but would it make sense? most of the civilizations from Africa and America didn't have a written language so most of the time we know very little about them: what do we know about ancient Mali? Everything we know about them was written by the Arabs that saw mansa musa going through their territory, what do we know about the Inca? The Spanish missionaries wrote everything we know about them. For Africa we have very little choice for a fully fledged civ backed with historical evidence and a written legacy, same thing for America.
And remember like France and Spain, Italy was invaded by Germanic tribes that blended in with the Romans that lived there so technically they aren't completely Roman anymore. If you consider the Italians Romans it's like removing 1500 years of history from the peninsula.

 

[Morningcalm]

Peru, Mexico and Argentina are decidedly NOT Spanish. How are the Inca, Aztecs, Mayans and other natives "Spanish"? Sure, some are of mixed blood, but they are culturally, historically and ethnically distinct.

Australians and Americans developed very differently from the English culturally, and in terms of empire. Not quite true of Italy, which has always had the same people, even with intermingling with Germans. They also always look back to ancient Rome as a form of reclamation; the same is NOT true of Australia or America, which have mixed love/hate relationships with England throughout their history.

Arabs outside of Arabia are also another bad example on your part--while there was much cultural intermingling, ethnically speaking the Middle East was an area of immense diversity, and so it is that debates about whether Egyptians are African or Arab continue in the modern day for example.

For Africa we have very little choice for a fully fledged civ backed with historical evidence and a written legacy, same thing for America.

WOW. Where do I begin?!?! (Anyone else want to jump in on this Eurocentric and completely inaccurate remark of his?)

For Africa and America, mighty civilizations like Mali, Ethiopia and the Iroquois put to shame the power and size of numerous European nations. We have as much historical evidence of their existence as of most civilizations in the world from ancient times. "No written legacy"? Please, there are whole tomes about Mansa Musa alone, let alone the Mayan kings and queens, who, while obscure, had plenty written about them. Leaders for African and American civs are every bit as worthy of Civ VI's agenda system as any Italian leader you could muster.

 

[Guatenadian]

Let's get back on track here

Armenians 20
Ashanti 20
Babylonians 20
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 16
Carthaginians 18
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 16
Dutch 9 (12-3) I would prefer other European civilisations.
Ethiopians 20
Georgians 22
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 13
Hebrews 16
Hittites 21
Incas 20
Iroquois 21
Italians 19- I said that I would prefer Italian City-States largely because I enjoyed how unique Venice was in Civ 5 and I would like more unique play styles. I would also prefer, say the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies rather than just Italy. I never said that Italy didn't deserve to one day be in the game I said that I would prefer it if they were represented through other unique kingdoms so please respect that.
Ancient Rome and modern Italy are also different, Italy has been influenced internally and externally since the fall of Rome. While you are correct in saying that Italy shares much with the Romans, they are not the exact same civilisation they were thousands of years ago.

Now this is an Elimination Thread on Never Before Seen Civs, if you two want to continue to discuss Cultural Overlap and the influence empires and ancient kingdoms have on how we decide what Civilisations belong in this game then this is not the thread to do it in. That said this is an important debate and I encourage the opening of a thread to discuss about it in General Discussions, this just isn't the place to do it.

I apologise that my post started this all but please can we just get back to this Elimination Game.
Khmer 21
Koreans 21
Malians 21
Maori/Other Polynesians 18
Mayans 22
Mongols 21
Ottoman Turks 21
Portuguese 12
Siamese 11
Tibetans 18
Vietnamese 18 (17+1) I've wanted to see Vietnam in the game for a really long time.

 

[Zaarin]

@luigilime @Morningcalm No writing?! We have codices upon codices full of written histories of Mesoamerica. We'd have a lot more if overzealous Jesuits hadn't burned many of them. While no indigenous pre-Columbian writing developed in North America, we nevertheless have reams of documentation on civilizations there from after settlement. I'm not qualified to speak on Africa beyond saying that it's true no African language outside Egyptian developed a native writing system (Tiffinagh was probably adapted from Phoenician, as its name suggests), but there's plenty of documentation on African cultures in Latin, Greek, Punic, Egyptian, Arabic, and other languages.

Armenians 20
Ashanti 20
Babylonians 20
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 16
Carthaginians 18
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 16
Dutch 9
Ethiopians 20
Georgians 22
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 13
Hebrews 16
Hittites 21
Incas 20
Iroquois 21
Italians 19 -- Just to weigh in on the Italy debate, I agree with the faction that says they're as distinct from Rome as any other Romance-speaking people. That being said, I also don't think they're a priority; outside the Italian Renaissance, Italy has a pretty limited list of accomplishments compared to the Dutch, Portuguese, or other European powers--and the Italian Renaissance was preceded by other important renaissances in France and the HRE and is no longer regarded as the turning point of history it was once viewed as. Also Sicily was part of the HRE for most of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, and belonged to the Arogonese crown under the Kingdom of Two Sicilies.
Khmer 21
Koreans 22 (21 + 1) -- It's high time for one of my favorite civilizations to return. Korea has a rich history with a great list of leaders to choose from; Seondeok is my personal choice, but Gwanggaeto or the return of Sejong would suit me fine.
Malians 21
Maori/Other Polynesians 18
Mayans 22
Mongols 21
Ottoman Turks 21
Portuguese 12
Siamese 11
Tibetans 15 (18 - 3) -- It's not going to happen. For a Buddhist civilization from South or Southeast Asia I'd propose Sri Lanka or Siam.
Vietnamese 18

 

[The Kingmaker]

Armenians 20-3=17 As expected, the choices now are already becoming extremely hard. Nothing against Armenia at all, I think they just have some really tough competition here.
Ashanti 20
Babylonians 20
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 16
Carthaginians 18
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 16
Dutch 9
Ethiopians 20
Georgians 22
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 13
Hebrews 16+1=17 I've elaborated elsewhere about why I disagree with the various arguments against the Hebrews. Suffice it to reiterate the fact that they are an extremely well-known civilization that has had a profound impact on the religion, philosophy, world-view and culture of countless people worldwide.
Hittites 21
Incas 20
Iroquois 21
Italians 19
Khmer 21
Koreans 22
Malians 21
Maori/Other Polynesians 18
Mayans 22
Mongols 21
Ottoman Turks 21
Portuguese 12
Siamese 11
Tibetans 15
Vietnamese 18

 

[Amrunril]

Armenians 14 (17 - 3) Unlike Africa or the Americas, the Caucasus are a fairly small region, and I've seen much more enthusiasm for Georgia than for Armenia.
Ashanti 20
Babylonians 20
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 16
Carthaginians 18
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 16
Dutch 9
Ethiopians 20
Georgians 22
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 13
Hebrews 17
Hittites 21
Incas 20
Iroquois 21
Italians 19
Khmer 21
Koreans 22
Malians 21
Maori/Other Polynesians 18
Mayans 22
Mongols 21
Ottoman Turks 21
Portuguese 12
Siamese 11
Tibetans 16 (15 + 1) "It isn't going to happen" =/= "It shouldn't happen", and the latter is what this thread is about. Israel also introduces real-world political concerns, but we've all agreed to put those aside for the purposes of this thread and debate the civ based on its own merits and what we, personally, would like to see. I think we should start treating Tibet in the same way, and I think it would be a great option for a faith-focused mountain civ.
Vietnamese 18