Never Before Seen Civs - Elimination Game

[Guatenadian]

Ashanti 18
Babylonians 20
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 12
Carthaginians 13
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 15
Ethiopians 21
Georgians 18
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 16
Hebrews 13
Hittites 16
Incas 24 (23+1) It has to be in Civ 6 they were one of the main Indigenous groups in the Americas.
Iroquois 11 (14-3) Time for some other Native Civs.
Khmer 23
Koreans 23
Malians 22
Maori/Other Polynesians 23
Mayans 23
Mongols 20
Ottoman Turks 20
Tibetans 12

 

[Amrunril]

Ashanti 18
Babylonians 20
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 12
Carthaginians 10 (13 - 3) Not a bad choice, but a lower priority since it was in both of the past two editions
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 15
Ethiopians 21
Georgians 18
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 17 (16 + 1) Highly geographically and culturally distinct with great potential for new mechanics.
Hebrews 13
Hittites 16
Incas 24
Iroquois 11
Khmer 23
Koreans 23
Malians 22
Maori/Other Polynesians 23
Mayans 23
Mongols 20
Ottoman Turks 20
Tibetans 12

 

[Xandinho]

Ashanti 18
Babylonians 20
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 12
Carthaginians 10
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 15
Ethiopians 21 + 1 = 22 I think they should be among the leaders on the list. Ethiopia is very interesting
Georgians 18
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 17 - 3 = 14 To balance a little with Creek, I'm not too interested in NA natives.
Hebrews 13
Hittites 16
Incas 24
Iroquois 11
Khmer 23
Koreans 23
Malians 22
Maori/Other Polynesians 23
Mayans 23
Mongols 20
Ottoman Turks 20
Tibetans 12

 

[Kimiimaro]

Ashanti 18
Babylonians 20
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 12
Carthaginians 10
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 15
Ethiopians 22
Georgians 18
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 14-3=11 - Sadly, my interest in Native Americans isn't high, and I have the feeling that the other two NA Civs here would make a better additions.
Hebrews 13+1=14 - I'd welcome their addition. Their influence on religion is undeniable, and also huge. And we have religious victory in game...
Hittites 16
Incas 24
Iroquois 11
Khmer 23
Koreans 23
Malians 22
Maori/Other Polynesians 23
Mayans 23
Mongols 20
Ottoman Turks 20
Tibetans 12

 

[luigilime]

Ashanti 18
Babylonians 20+1=21 let's show a bit of care for Babylon that didn't receive a single vote yet.
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 12
Carthaginians 10
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 15
Ethiopians 22
Georgians 18
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 11
Hebrews 14-3=11 the least appealing and the one that makes the least sense to be in the game
Hittites 16
Incas 24
Iroquois 11
Khmer 23
Koreans 23
Malians 22
Maori/Other Polynesians 23
Mayans 23
Mongols 20
Ottoman Turks 20
Tibetans 12

 

[Roman Citizen]

Ashanti 18
Babylonians 21+1=22 Babylon is a classic civ that has been in the civ series since the beginning and I don't want Sumer to be the only Mesopotamian civ.
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 12
Carthaginians 10
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 15
Ethiopians 22
Georgians 18
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 11
Hebrews 11-3=8 Judaism is already a religion in the game and it's telling that we aren't calling this civ Kingdom of Israel or Kingdom of Judah.
Hittites 16
Incas 24
Iroquois 11
Khmer 23
Koreans 23
Malians 22
Maori/Other Polynesians 23
Mayans 23
Mongols 20
Ottoman Turks 20
Tibetans 12

 

[Guandao]

Ashanti 18
Babylonians 22
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) (12+1)=13 Looks like all the new-comer Civs have taken some damage in this round. If Malians survive Ashanti and this, I will barf. Sure, the Mali (Mande) had a big empire, but it didn't last. And they were Islamicized people, making them more boring as an African Civilization in my eyes. The non-Islamic sub-Saharan part of Africa needs some more representation (Kongo isn't enough and I'm sure certain posters here oppose its inclusion in the game). More specifically, West African coastal states need at least one representative in the game, and I haven't decided if Ashanti is that much better a choice than Dahomey or Benin.
Carthaginians 10
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 15
Ethiopians 22
Georgians 18
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 11
Hebrews 8
Hittites 16
Incas 24
Iroquois (11-3)=8 I'm not too thrilled about a Hiawatha-led Iroquois in Civ6. If they can't use another more historical leader, Firaxis should pick a different Native American people this time.
Khmer 23
Koreans 23
Malians 22
Maori/Other Polynesians 23
Mayans 23
Mongols 20
Ottoman Turks 20
Tibetans 12

 

[Morningcalm]

Ashanti 18
Babylonians 22
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 13
Carthaginians 10 - 3 = 7 (While an interesting people, they are frequently in Civ and I worry they will take a slot away from African civs like the Ashanti, Ethiopia, etc.)
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 15
Ethiopians 22
Georgians 18
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 11
Hebrews 8 + 1 = 9 (Could represent the Kingdom of Judah or of Israel, though my preference is for Judah. Either way, the Hebrews were worthy, iconic, and influential. Judah encompassed dozens of cities across a region wider than that enjoyed by a number of European civs. They are also unique in not having ever been in Civ before, and that automatically makes them more interesting than several others in this list.)
Hittites 16
Incas 24
Iroquois 8
Khmer 23
Koreans 23
Malians 22
Maori/Other Polynesians 23
Mayans 23
Mongols 20
Ottoman Turks 20
Tibetans 12

 

[Manifold]

Ashanti 18
Babylonians 22
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 10 (13-3) Ashanti is much more famous and could have an UU from the industrial age
Carthaginians 7
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 15
Ethiopians 22
Georgians 18
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 11
Hebrews 9
Hittites 16
Incas 24
Iroquois 8
Khmer 23
Koreans 23
Malians 22
Maori/Other Polynesians 23
Mayans 23
Mongols 21 (20+1) this must be an error. they should have at least 100 points
Ottoman Turks 20
Tibetans 12

 

[Guandao]

Ashanti 18
Babylonians 22
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 10 (13-3) Ashanti is much more famous and could have an UU from the industrial age
Carthaginians 7
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 15
Ethiopians 22
Georgians 18
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 11
Hebrews 9
Hittites 16
Incas 24
Iroquois 8
Khmer 23
Koreans 23
Malians 22
Maori/Other Polynesians 23
Mayans 23
Mongols 21 (20+1) this must be an error. they should have at least 100 points
Ottoman Turks 20
Tibetans 12

May I ask why the Ashanti are more famous than Dahomey/Benin? I never heard of them in my Social Studies courses back in public school, honestly. Only through online research and other books I started to learn about them. Maybe American education system is that bad? Perhaps their conflict with Europeans is something to be remembered (like the Zulus)?

 

[Manifold]

May I ask why the Ashanti are more famous than Dahomey/Benin? I never heard of them in my Social Studies courses back in public school, honestly. Only through online research and other books I started to learn about them. Maybe American education system is that bad? Perhaps their conflict with Europeans is something to be remembered (like the Zulus)?

Maybe there was a cool mod/scenario for one old Civ game with them in I thought I do not need education if I play Civ games and cool mods/scenarios

 

[Zaarin]

Ashanti 18
Babylonians 22
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 10
Carthaginians 7
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 15
Ethiopians 22
Georgians 18
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 11
Hebrews 9
Hittites 16
Incas 24
Iroquois 5 (8 - 3) -- Despite their importance, they lack good leader selections, plus a continent with hundreds of cultures to choose from deserves some variety.
Khmer 23
Koreans 23
Malians 22
Maori/Other Polynesians 23
Mayans 24 (23 + 1) -- Honestly, the Mayans should be a base-game staple and the Aztecs should be DLC.
Mongols 21
Ottoman Turks 20
Tibetans 12

 

[The Kingmaker]

Ashanti 18
Babylonians 22
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 10
Carthaginians 7
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 15
Ethiopians 22
Georgians 18
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 11
Hebrews 9+1=10 I've said my piece.
Hittites 16
Incas 24
Iroquois 5-3=2 Tough choices and all that. We do still need a Native American civ, so perhaps one of the two remaining options will outshine this one?
Khmer 23
Koreans 23
Malians 22
Maori/Other Polynesians 23
Mayans 24
Mongols 21
Ottoman Turks 20
Tibetans 12

 

[Morningcalm]

I don't buy the supposed lack of good leaders Zaarin cited as a reason for downvoting the Iroquois.

Joseph Brant of the Mohawk could perhaps lead the Iroquois. He has an excellent well-attested (enough) story about his involvement with several other tribes on the British side against the American Revolution.

While Hiawatha is dull due to having been in Civ before, he does have a fairly thorough tale in place about his oratory ability and co-founding of the Iroquois Confederacy, and you could also pick the Great Peacemaker, a Huron prophet who was also the co-founder of the Iroquois Confederacy.

The Iroquois' importance as a Native American group I would argue is quite high, and their Confederacy could strike up some interesting diplomatic Civ abilities.

 

[God of Kings]

I second having Joseph Brant leading the Iroquois.

Unlike Hiawatha nor the Great Peacemaker, there's plenty of hard evidence that Joseph Brant existed. He met with both George Washington and King George III in person in both cases. There's also archaeological evidence as well.

 

[RFormica]

Ashanti 18
Babylonians 22
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 10
Carthaginians 7 - 3 = 4 I still don't get why everyone is so obsessed with Carthage, I feel like a city-state is where they should stay...
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 15
Ethiopians 22
Georgians 18
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 11
Hebrews 10 + 1 = 11 First, there are lots of great leaders to choose from. (Solomon, David, Asa, etc.) Second, even though they may not have been of extreme historical significance, I would still like to see them!
Hittites 16
Incas 24
Iroquois 2
Khmer 23
Koreans 23
Malians 22
Maori/Other Polynesians 23
Mayans 24
Mongols 21
Ottoman Turks 20
Tibetans 12

 

[Amrunril]

Ashanti 18
Babylonians 22
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 10
Carthaginians 4
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 15
Ethiopians 22
Georgians 18
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 12 (11 + 1) It always startles me when people say they're categorically uninterested in North American civs. North America is a huge continent, whose civs were and are dramatically different from one another (I don't think the Creek and Haida have any more in common than Greece and Denmark, for instance, or Egypt and Kongo). I'd like to see at least two civs from this continent in the first expansion, and the Creek and Haida are two of the best choices.
Hebrews 8 (11 - 3) Massive religious influence, but politically a city state. With a revamped suzerain ability, it would be a perfect fit for its current role.
Hittites 16
Incas 24
Iroquois 2
Khmer 23
Koreans 23
Malians 22
Maori/Other Polynesians 23
Mayans 24
Mongols 21
Ottoman Turks 20
Tibetans 12

 

[Zaarin]

I don't buy the supposed lack of good leaders Zaarin cited as a reason for downvoting the Iroquois.

Joseph Brant of the Mohawk could perhaps lead the Iroquois. He has an excellent well-attested (enough) story about his involvement with several other tribes on the British side against the American Revolution.

While Hiawatha is dull due to having been in Civ before, he does have a fairly thorough tale in place about his oratory ability and co-founding of the Iroquois Confederacy, and you could also pick the Great Peacemaker, a Huron prophet who was also the co-founder of the Iroquois Confederacy.

The Iroquois' importance as a Native American group I would argue is quite high, and their Confederacy could strike up some interesting diplomatic Civ abilities.

I agree about their importance, but on the other hand including the Iroquois in every game for a continent that will, at most, get three civilizations feels like allowing England (and only England) to represent all of Europe with a rotating second civ. If we're only going to get two or three civilizations for all of North America, I'd like to see someone new. As for leaders, I already covered this: Hiawatha and the Great Peacemaker aren't horrible choices, but they're not great choices. They probably existed, but they weren't historically attested, which puts them below Gilgamesh. Joseph Brant never led the Iroquois Confederacy, only the Mohawk and even then only as a war chief; again, not in and of itself a horrible thing in a game that includes "leaders" like Gandhi and CdM but also not ideal. Especially since Joseph Brant and his counterparts tore the League apart by supporting opposite sides in the War for Independence instead of continuing the policy of neutrality that had made the League so successful in the first place. I think the Powhatan could easily fill the same gameplay niche as the Iroquois but with a much better option for leader: Chief Powhatan.

I second having Joseph Brant leading the Iroquois.

Unlike Hiawatha nor the Great Peacemaker, there's plenty of hard evidence that Joseph Brant existed. He met with both George Washington and King George III in person in both cases. There's also archaeological evidence as well.

No one is questioning his existence, simply his qualifications as leader. And yes, if we must have the Iroquois again, Joseph Brant is probably one of the better options, even if his actions caused the destruction of his people. He can join the CdM/Cleopatra club.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Hebrews 8 (11 - 3) Massive religious influence, but politically a city state. With a revamped suzerain ability, it would be a perfect fit for its current role.

I keep reiterating that the Hebrews do not meet the definition of a city-state and am becoming fatigued.

A city-state is a single city that functions as an independent country. Unlike Singapore or Monaco, the Hebrew civilization consisted of multiple cities. The existence of Samaria, Hebron, Shechem, Beersheba, etc. shows that there are multiple settlements outside Jerusalem.

Was it a small civilization? Assuredly, but still one that settled in more than one city.

 

[Zaarin]

I keep reiterating that the Hebrews do not meet the definition of a city-state and am becoming fatigued.

A city-state is a single city that functions as an independent country. Unlike Singapore or Monaco, the Hebrew civilization consisted of multiple cities. The existence of Samaria, Hebron, Shechem, Beersheba, etc. shows that there are multiple settlements outside Jerusalem.

Was it a small civilization? Assuredly, but still one that settled in more than one city.

That is the political definition of a city-state, but in Civ terms a city-state seems to be any small or less relevant polity. See Auckland, Toronto, Yerevan, Brussels, and so forth.