Never Before Seen Civs - Elimination Game

Status
Not open for further replies.
Barbarians are generic to me. They are always pale skinned, with a stereotypical "barbarian" costume. At least one guy has a mohawk.
Civ Rev had different barbarian leaders, and one of them looked Aboriginal, with the name Norte Chico:mad:. And you have the option to say, "Step aside, smelly one", as if they lacked decent hygiene.
The idea of barbarians seems Romanocentric to me, for lack of a better word. They represent brigands, raiders, pirates, highwaymen, even civil war rebels.
I agree that barbarians represent a lot of different things, including Medieval brigands and Renaissance pirates and modern terrorists--but included in that group are also the more primitive nomadic peoples who have been a thorn in the side of every civilization from Sumer onward. It's not Rome-centered: the Kassites plagued Sumer, the Libyans plagued Egypt, the Xiongnu/Yuezhi/Mongols plagued China, the Alans plagued Eastern Europe, the Turks and Parthians plagued Persia. Sometimes these nomads eventually gave up their nomadic ways after conquering a few cities and become civilizations in their own right--see the Mongols, Mughals, Parthians, Ottomans, etc.; others remained "barbarians" until their confederations collapsed, a new wave of "barbarians" defeated and/or absorbed them, or some civilization recognized their usefulness and paid them to harass someone else (see: the Seljuks).
 
Aborigines 7
Apache 24
Argentines 22
Berbers/Tuareg 17
Cherokee 21
Goths 28
Hungarians 28
Inuit 16
Italians 31
Kanem Bornu/Other Saharan 19
Khazars 2
Lithuanians/Finns/Other Baltic 19
Mexicans 11
Mississippians 18 (17 + 1) Same as before
Mitanni/Hurrians 11 (14 - 3) Mesopotamia is better represented by others. And they're the least interesting left on the ballot.
Mughals 28
Philippines 24
Timurids/Other Central Asia 13
Toltecs/Zapotecs 12
 
I agree that barbarians represent a lot of different things, including Medieval brigands and Renaissance pirates and modern terrorists--but included in that group are also the more primitive nomadic peoples who have been a thorn in the side of every civilization from Sumer onward. It's not Rome-centered: the Kassites plagued Sumer, the Libyans plagued Egypt, the Xiongnu/Yuezhi/Mongols plagued China, the Alans plagued Eastern Europe, the Turks and Parthians plagued Persia. Sometimes these nomads eventually gave up their nomadic ways after conquering a few cities and become civilizations in their own right--see the Mongols, Mughals, Parthians, Ottomans, etc.; others remained "barbarians" until their confederations collapsed, a new wave of "barbarians" defeated and/or absorbed them, or some civilization recognized their usefulness and paid them to harass someone else (see: the Seljuks).

The Civ 'Barbarians' do represent all those things, but not well. I propose, in fact, that they represent a very one-dimensional view of Barbarians and one that has no real basis in history.
Yes, all those people named raided, attacked, and occasionally wrecked Civilizations' bordering them. They also traded with those civilization, sometimes providing goods that the civilization could not get any other way. Classic examples, the nomads north of China were the source of most of China's horses, while the Tin used to make Bronze in most of the Ancient Mediterranean world came from southern England, central Europe or Afghanistan - all Barbarian areas.
Furthermore, barbarians were a prime source of mercenary soldiers to everyone who bordered them. Again, frequently the barbarians provided types of troops otherwise unavailable, the best example being Horse Archers, which were almost always 'hired' rather than grown and trained in a city-dwelling Civilization.
And note that 'bribing' the Barbarians to go fight someone else has also never been possible in Civ games.

In short, we got simplistic, unhistorical brigands, pirates, and raiders, but not historical barbarians - and the game is poorer for it.
 
Aborigines 7
Apache 24
Argentines 22
Berbers/Tuareg 17
Cherokee 21
Goths 28
Hungarians 28
Inuit 16
Italians 31
Kanem Bornu/Other Saharan 19
Khazars 2-3=-1 (ELIMINATED) - Notable only for converting to Judaism, and that's not enough to make an interresting Civ.
Lithuanians/Finns/Other Baltic 19
Mexicans 11
Mississippians 18
Mitanni/Hurrians 11
Mughals 28+1=29 - At some point of its existence, Mughal Empire was the richest empire in the whole world. It has great leaders, like Akbar or Shah Jahan. And their inclusion would give us chance for the return of the legendary Taj Mahal!
Philippines 24
Timurids/Other Central Asia 13
Toltecs/Zapotecs 12
 
Aborigines 7-3=4 Almost time to vote them off the island.
Apache 24
Argentines 22
Berbers/Tuareg 17
Cherokee 21
Goths 28
Hungarians 28
Inuit 16
Italians 31+1=32 Let's have a Medici, a Borgia, and what the heck, bring Dandolo back too.
Kanem Bornu/Other Saharan 19
Lithuanians/Finns/Other Baltic 19
Mexicans 11
Mississippians 18
Mitanni/Hurrians 11
Mughals 29
Philippines 24
Timurids/Other Central Asia 13
Toltecs/Zapotecs 12

A note in response to a comment above. Afghanistan was not barbarous in ancient times. It was home to the little-known Oxus River Valley Civilization or Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC). They lived in urban centers, built temples and fortifications, mined tin (and were the primary source of that material for the ancient Near East), and traded with Mesoptomia and the Indus Valley Civilization.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bactria–Margiana_Archaeological_Complex
 
Last edited:
Aborigines (4+1)=5 After they are gone, I'll target the Apache, Inuit, and Berbers. :devil:
Apache 24
Argentines 22
Berbers/Tuareg 17
Cherokee 21
Goths 28
Hungarians 28
Inuit (16-3)=13 Oops, already did :p Lack of good historical leader, stereotypical Igloo, parka, and Inukshuk.
Italians 32
Kanem Bornu/Other Saharan 19
Lithuanians/Finns/Other Baltic 19
Mexicans 11
Mississippians 18
Mitanni/Hurrians 11
Mughals 29
Philippines 24
Timurids/Other Central Asia 13
Toltecs/Zapotecs 12

Who are the Tribal Villages supposed to represent?
 
Aborigines 5
Apache 24
Argentines 22
Berbers/Tuareg 17
Cherokee 21
Goths 28
Hungarians 28 + 1 = 29 One of my favorite names on the list
Inuit 13
Italians 32
Kanem Bornu/Other Saharan 19
Lithuanians/Finns/Other Baltic 19
Mexicans 11
Mississippians 18 - 3 = 15 I am not particularly interested in most of the Native American Civs
Mitanni/Hurrians 11
Mughals 29
Philippines 24
Timurids/Other Central Asia 13
Toltecs/Zapotecs 12
 
Aborigines 5
Apache 24
Argentines 23 (22+1) along with Brazil and the US the best post-colonial civ option imho
Berbers/Tuareg 17
Cherokee 21
Goths 28
Hungarians 29
Inuit 10 (13-0) I really don't have the slightest interest in these, I guess that is enough reason to down vote.
Italians 32
Kanem Bornu/Other Saharan 19
Lithuanians/Finns/Other Baltic 19
Mexicans 11
Mississippians 15
Mitanni/Hurrians 11
Mughals 29
Philippines 24
Timurids/Other Central Asia 13
Toltecs/Zapotecs 12
 
Aborigines 5
Apache 24
Argentines 23
Berbers/Tuareg 17
Cherokee 21
Goths 28
Hungarians 29
Inuit 10+1=11 Same as before.
Italians 32
Kanem Bornu/Other Saharan 19
Lithuanians/Finns/Other Baltic 19
Mexicans 11
Mississippians 15-3=12 I'm more interested in the Choctaw or the Chickasaw.
Mitanni/Hurrians 11
Mughals 29
Philippines 24
Timurids/Other Central Asia 13
Toltecs/Zapotecs 12
 
Aborigines 5
Apache 24
Argentines 23-3=20
Berbers/Tuareg 17
Cherokee 21
Goths 28
Hungarians 29
Inuit 11+1=12
Italians 32
Kanem Bornu/Other Saharan 19
Lithuanians/Finns/Other Baltic 19
Mexicans 11
Mississippians 12
Mitanni/Hurrians 11
Mughals 29
Philippines 24
Timurids/Other Central Asia 13
Toltecs/Zapotecs 12

First of all I wouldn't put Argentina remotely in the same tier as the USA, Brazil, Australia, or Canada. Secondly, even if I did think they were comparable do we really NEED more colonials? Unlike certain other people I'm not an insane hardline traditionalist who thinks no civ founded after 1500AD should be given the time of day. I think such an idea is absurd and that more modern nations should have a shot at filling out the roster if they've accomplished great things, just like any other civ. THAT BEING SAID you're not really filling out the roster when there are so many other civs of the same category already taking up slots, and Civ 6 has more than enough colonial descendants until at least the next expansion has come and gone. Again I'm going to be biased and say that the USA has earned a designated spot, because any side that has arguably won one of the victory conditions (cultural), is the closest to winning another victory (science), is in a strong position to win a third victory (military), and is still keeping up in the last victory condition (those Mormons are putting up a solid fight) has earned their place indefinitely. The Argentinians have no such position of dominance, and don't fill a niche that hasn't been take care of for now. We don't need more colonials, ergo we don't need Argentina.

As for the Inuit I'm not actually super pro Inuit. Once the Aboriginals are out the Inuit will get no more support from me. I just think they deserve to outlast the OG Aussies.
 
Aborigines 5
Apache 24
Argentines 23
Berbers/Tuareg 17
Cherokee 21
Goths 25 (28 - 3) Which Goths? The original Scandinavians that migrated out of 'Gottland', or the later split into Ostrogoths and Visigoths? Got to specify, or we end up with some hazy culture group like Civ V's 'Polynesians' (shudder!)
Hungarians 29
Inuit 11
Italians 32
Kanem Bornu/Other Saharan 19
Lithuanians/Finns/Other Baltic 20 (19 + 1) - one more vote for the marsh, lake, snow-dwelling, reindeer-cultivating, mystical, magical, woodworking Finns
Mexicans 11
Mississippians 12
Mitanni/Hurrians 11
Mughals 29
Philippines 24
Timurids/Other Central Asia 13
Toltecs/Zapotecs 12

A note in response to a comment above. Afghanistan was not barbarous in ancient times. It was home to the little-known Oxus River Valley Civilization or Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC). They lived in urban centers, built temples and fortifications, mined tin (and were the prinary source of that material for the ancient Near East), and traded with Mesoptomia and the Indus Valkey Civilization.

I stand happily corrected. I was aware of the very extensive urban culture of later Classical/Medieval Afghanistan, but not the earlier Bronze Age culture. - What I get for not keeping up with Soviet archeological site reports after I left university in the early 1970s!
 
Goths 25 (28 - 3) Which Goths? The original Scandinavians that migrated out of 'Gottland', or the later split into Ostrogoths and Visigoths? Got to specify, or we end up with some hazy culture group like Civ V's 'Polynesians' (shudder!)
...They were all the same Goths: politically divided, sure, but following a common culture, speaking a common language, following two common religions (split more or less evenly between Germanic pagans and Arian Christians, but not divided as such by East and West), and being more or less united in allying with Byzantium and ransacking Rome. Also the chief evidence for the Goths coming from Scandinavia comes from Jordanes, who is hardly a reliable source on the matter; at any rate, by the time they became Goths (as opposed to Proto-Germanic peoples) they were probably already living in Eastern Europe. The Goths as a civ is nothing like Polynesia, which bundled disparate cultures spread across thousands of miles and dozens of languages. I see no reason to Balkanize the Goths; bad enough we're Balkanizing the Balkans.
 
...They were all the same Goths: politically divided, sure, but following a common culture, speaking a common language, following two common religions (split more or less evenly between Germanic pagans and Arian Christians, but not divided as such by East and West), and being more or less united in allying with Byzantium and ransacking Rome. Also the chief evidence for the Goths coming from Scandinavia comes from Jordanes, who is hardly a reliable source on the matter; at any rate, by the time they became Goths (as opposed to Proto-Germanic peoples) they were probably already living in Eastern Europe. The Goths as a civ is nothing like Polynesia, which bundled disparate cultures spread across thousands of miles and dozens of languages. I see no reason to Balkanize the Goths; bad enough we're Balkanizing the Balkans.

I understand the Linguistic and Cultural continuities for keeping them together, but by the time they appear separately in the 'historical narrative' they had developed very different military organizations, the Ostrogoths based on heavy cavalry armed with sword and light spears/javelins (not quite 'Proto-Knights', not having, apparently, adopted any kind of heavy lance or thrusting spear yet) and light foot archers of dubious utility when faced with Byzantine Cataphracts or Huns, while the Visigoths were heavy infantry with some armor, shields, swords and throwing spears or javelins. That could be 'solved' by giving them two different Unique Units based on two different Alternate Leaders, which in fact is an idea I like better than making them separate...

I was not basing their Scandinavian Origin on Jordane, but on Pliny the Elder, in his account of Pytheas of Massalia's voyage to northern Europe in the 4th century BCE, in which he encountered a tribe which he recorded as the "Guttonibus of Thule", nominative: 'Guttones' which has been identified with 'Gotan' or 'Goth'. Also their own Origin Legend which has Berig leading three shiploads of them out of Sweden to the area near the mouth of the Vistula River on the Baltic Coast. Origin stories are generally suspect, but that is where they are first identified in the beginning of the second century CE by Amelianus so may at least be close to the truth.
 
I understand the Linguistic and Cultural continuities for keeping them together, but by the time they appear separately in the 'historical narrative' they had developed very different military organizations, the Ostrogoths based on heavy cavalry armed with sword and light spears/javelins (not quite 'Proto-Knights', not having, apparently, adopted any kind of heavy lance or thrusting spear yet) and light foot archers of dubious utility when faced with Byzantine Cataphracts or Huns, while the Visigoths were heavy infantry with some armor, shields, swords and throwing spears or javelins. That could be 'solved' by giving them two different Unique Units based on two different Alternate Leaders, which in fact is an idea I like better than making them separate...

I was not basing their Scandinavian Origin on Jordane, but on Pliny the Elder, in his account of Pytheas of Massalia's voyage to northern Europe in the 4th century BCE, in which he encountered a tribe which he recorded as the "Guttonibus of Thule", nominative: 'Guttones' which has been identified with 'Gotan' or 'Goth'. Also their own Origin Legend which has Berig leading three shiploads of them out of Sweden to the area near the mouth of the Vistula River on the Baltic Coast. Origin stories are generally suspect, but that is where they are first identified in the beginning of the second century CE by Amelianus so may at least be close to the truth.
I can't say I'm well-versed on Gothic military organization, but I personally don't see a compelling reason to split the Goths into multiple civs over it. As for their origin, my understanding is that modern scholarship tends to place their origin in Poland/Baltic after the dispersal of the Proto-Germanic people from Scandinavia.

Aborigines 2 (5 - 3) -- Not actually a civilization.
Apache 24
Argentines 23
Berbers/Tuareg 17
Cherokee 21
Goths 26 (25 + 1) -- They reshaped the entire landscape of Europe and North Africa, sacked the city of Rome and ransacked most of its empire even into Asia Minor and North Africa, yet were staunch allies of Byzantium, and as @Boris Gudenuf suggests are an excellent opportunity for multiple leaders--like Alaric I for the Visigoths and Theodoric the Great for the Ostrogoths.
Hungarians 29
Inuit 11
Italians 32
Kanem Bornu/Other Saharan 19
Lithuanians/Finns/Other Baltic 20
Mexicans 11
Mississippians 12
Mitanni/Hurrians 11
Mughals 29
Philippines 24
Timurids/Other Central Asia 13
Toltecs/Zapotecs 12
 
Aborigines 2 - 3 = ELIMINATED Interesting, but are disparate peoples
Apache 24
Argentines 23
Berbers/Tuareg 17
Cherokee 21
Goths 26
Hungarians 29
Inuit 11
Italians 32 + 1 = 33 Enrico Dandolo could make a return
Kanem Bornu/Other Saharan 19
Lithuanians/Finns/Other Baltic 20
Mexicans 11
Mississippians 12
Mitanni/Hurrians 11
Mughals 29
Philippines 24
Timurids/Other Central Asia 13
Toltecs/Zapotecs 12
 
Apache 24-3=21 - I'm really not interrested in them.
Argentines 23
Berbers/Tuareg 17
Cherokee 21
Goths 26
Hungarians 29
Inuit 11
Italians 33+1=34 - I really, really want Italy, place where Renaissance was born, in game. And it would be best if they made it like a Greece - as two/three city states. I'm for Venice for trade, Florence for culture and Papal States for religion. I'm actually surprised that Italy, Mughals and Hungarians didn't survive to the top 10 in the first round.
Kanem Bornu/Other Saharan 19
Lithuanians/Finns/Other Baltic 20
Mexicans 11
Mississippians 12
Mitanni/Hurrians 11
Mughals 29
Philippines 24
Timurids/Other Central Asia 13
Toltecs/Zapotecs 12
 
Apache 21
Argentines 23
Berbers/Tuareg 17
Cherokee 21
Goths 26
Hungarians 29
Inuit 11-3=8 Just don't think this option is especially tenable.
Italians 34+1=35 I agree, they should give them the Greek treatment. Glad to see many more people are supporting them than last time.
Kanem Bornu/Other Saharan 19
Lithuanians/Finns/Other Baltic 20
Mexicans 11
Mississippians 12
Mitanni/Hurrians 11
Mughals 29
Philippines 24
Timurids/Other Central Asia 13
Toltecs/Zapotecs 12
 
Apache (21-3)=18 I'm not sure I would want the Apache to represent the American Southwest cultural group. They are latecomers to the area compared to the Hopi, Zuni, Keres, Tanoans, and O'odham. Also didn't live in urbanized settlements. If forced to chose among the Southwest natives, I would pick the O'odham, descendants of the Hohokam, who are non-Puebloan.
Argentines 23
Berbers/Tuareg 17
Cherokee (21+1)=22 The Amerindian people I would rank the highest out of the ones in this list. One of the heirs to the Mississippian culture. Lived in urbanized settlements. Speaking an Iroquoian language is no issue for you because Cherokee is Southern Iroquoian, very divergent to Northern Iroquoian languages like Mohawk. And they are more doable than the Mississippians, which is a blob Civ whose greatest leaders are long forgotten...
Goths 26
Hungarians 29
Inuit 8
Italians 35
Kanem Bornu/Other Saharan 19
Lithuanians/Finns/Other Baltic 20
Mexicans 11
Mississippians 12
Mitanni/Hurrians 11
Mughals 29
Philippines 24
Timurids/Other Central Asia 13
Toltecs/Zapotecs 12
 
Apache 15 (18 - 3) Being 'outsiders' to their area is not necessarily a drawback, but being a One-Dimensional Civ is: another bunch o' raiders who are very good at it and live in a desert. At one time or another, that's pretty much Everybody who lived in a desert with richer neighbors - which were pretty much everyone who Didn't live in a desert.
Argentines 23
Berbers/Tuareg 17
Cherokee 22
Goths 27 (26 + 1) - Changed my mind, the Goths are very viable with Alternate Leaders to cover the Visigoth-Ostrogoth split, which in any case came fairly late compared to their first mention in 4th century BCE.
Hungarians 29
Inuit 8
Italians 35
Kanem Bornu/Other Saharan 19
Lithuanians/Finns/Other Baltic 20
Mexicans 11
Mississippians 12
Mitanni/Hurrians 11
Mughals 29
Philippines 24
Timurids/Other Central Asia 13
Toltecs/Zapotecs 12
 
Apache 15
Argentines 23
Berbers/Tuareg 17
Cherokee 22
Goths 27
Hungarians 29+1 they have a unique culture that deserves to be represented
Inuit 8
Italians 35
Kanem Bornu/Other Saharan 19
Lithuanians/Finns/Other Baltic 20
Mexicans 11-3=8 never liked colonial civilizations because in my eyes they aren't different from the motherland. For earth map purposes I'll penalize the one that is covered by another civilization.
Mississippians 12
Mitanni/Hurrians 11
Mughals 29
Philippines 24
Timurids/Other Central Asia 13
Toltecs/Zapotecs 12
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom