1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Never-Before-Seen Civs Poll 2: Alternatives

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Krajzen, Feb 2, 2018.

?

Which of these civs do you want to see in the future? Choose 8

  1. Afghanistan/Durrani

    9 vote(s)
    17.6%
  2. Apache/Navajo/etc

    24 vote(s)
    47.1%
  3. Bohemia/Czechia

    11 vote(s)
    21.6%
  4. Bactria/Sogdia

    6 vote(s)
    11.8%
  5. Frankish Empire

    5 vote(s)
    9.8%
  6. Hungary

    25 vote(s)
    49.0%
  7. Italy (Florence, Genoa etc)

    26 vote(s)
    51.0%
  8. Khazars

    5 vote(s)
    9.8%
  9. Malagasy/Madagascar/Merina

    12 vote(s)
    23.5%
  10. Malaysia

    5 vote(s)
    9.8%
  11. Manchu

    5 vote(s)
    9.8%
  12. Maori

    28 vote(s)
    54.9%
  13. Mexico

    9 vote(s)
    17.6%
  14. Moors/Berbers/Andalus

    17 vote(s)
    33.3%
  15. Muisca

    12 vote(s)
    23.5%
  16. Nepal

    14 vote(s)
    27.5%
  17. Philippines

    14 vote(s)
    27.5%
  18. Switzerland

    12 vote(s)
    23.5%
  19. Tamils/Chola/Sri Lanka

    16 vote(s)
    31.4%
  20. Timurids

    6 vote(s)
    11.8%
  21. Yemen

    4 vote(s)
    7.8%
  22. Vietnam

    35 vote(s)
    68.6%
  23. Hausa/Fulani/Kanem

    9 vote(s)
    17.6%
  24. Serbia

    10 vote(s)
    19.6%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Krajzen

    Krajzen Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    2,138
    Location:
    Poland
    https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/never-before-seen-civs-poll.627636/page-9

    ^In this Kingmaker's thread you can choose 7 of proposed 30 potential civs to add to the game. A great thread, however I have felt it lacks several potentially quite popular choices, so I decided to create this one for alternatives.

    However, it also includes the elite four winners of the previous thread (Italy, Vietnam, Hungary, Apache/Navajo/etc), so we can see how do they compare given different competition.

    This time you can choose 8 out of 24 civs, I tried to balance between too much choice and the presence of four champions :p

    The following spoiler contains wikipedia links and cool map images to some civs on the list which may be known by may civ fanatics but not by everyone:

    Spoiler :


    The Durrani Empire (Pashto: د درانیانو واکمني‎), also called the Afghan Empire (د افغانانو واکمني),] was founded and built by Ahmad Shah Durrani. The Durrani Empire is considered the foundation of the modern state of Afghanistan, with Ahmad Shah Durrani being credited as "Father of the Nation". [as you can see on the following map, it is responsible for modern borders of both Afghanistan and Pakistan]
    Spoiler :


    Sogdia was an ancient Iranian civilization that at different times included territory located in present-day Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Sogdians played a major role in facilitating trade between China and Central Asia along the Silk Roads. Put simply, the Sogdians dominated trade along the Silk Road from the 2nd century BC until the 10th century.

    Spoiler :


    Khazars - Astride a major artery of commerce between Eastern Europe and Southwestern Asia, Khazaria became one of the foremost trading emporia of the medieval world, commanding the western marches of the Silk Road and playing a key commercial role as a crossroad between China, the Middle East and Kievan Rus'.[14][15] For some three centuries (c. 650–965) the Khazars dominated the vast area extending from the Volga-Don steppes to the eastern Crimea and the northern Caucasus. At some point between 740 and 920 CE, the Khazar royalty and nobility appear to have converted to Judaism.

    Spoiler :


    Muisca - As one out of four advanced civilizations of the Americas (apart from the Aztec, Mayas and Incas), they were encountered by conquistadors ordered by the Spanish Empire. The Muisca had an economy and society considered to have been one of the most powerful of the American Post-Classic stage, mainly because of the precious resources of the area: gold and emeralds. The origin of the legend of El Dorado (Spanish for "The Golden One") in the early 16th century may be located in the Muisca.

    Spoiler :


    Chola Dynasty - the dynasty became a military, economic and cultural power in South Asia and South-East Asia. The Chola fleet represented the zenith of ancient Indian sea power.

    Spoiler :




    Philippines - by them I mainly mean not colonial civ, but precolonial very developed culture of Kingdom of Tondo

    Hausa Kingdoms was Subsaharan civilization of trading city states
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2018
    conorbebe likes this.
  2. The Kingmaker

    The Kingmaker Alexander

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,252
    (Of course it lacked several popular choices, the possibilities are endless and the maximum number of poll options is 30.)

    FYI, the Moors already made it in Civ5 as "Morocco."

    Also, I would've recommended you still include an "Other" option because it's impossible to cover everything.
     
  3. Krajzen

    Krajzen Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    2,138
    Location:
    Poland
    Hey, it was not a criticism, a single poll is simply not enough :)

    Regarding Moors, I mean Moors of Caliphate of Cordoba/al-Andalus, I think they are subtly different from Morocco, similarly to Rome/Greece/Byzantium or Phoenicia/Carthago divisions.

    I am not the fan of "Other" option because it is always at the bottom of the polls anyway, and it doesn't say anything specific, posts are a better place to write down Yet Another Alternatives.
     
  4. Ornen

    Ornen Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    246
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 2, 2018
  5. thecrazyscot

    thecrazyscot Spiffy

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,668
    I have no particular desire to see any of these as official Firaxis civs, to be honest.
     
  6. Thormodr

    Thormodr Servant of Civ Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,797
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    I voted for 8 but only Vietnam really excited me.

    The Manchu, Italy, Hungary and the Tamil/Chola/Sri Lanka seem worthy, IMHO.
     
    Greywulf likes this.
  7. The Kingmaker

    The Kingmaker Alexander

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,252
    Wasn't criticizing you either.

    I wouldn't say al-Andalus in Spain was all that different from Morocco, outside of geography of course. Definitely part of the same civilization. Both can be referred to as Moorish, though some assert that term is now out of favor.

    For centuries, they were both part of the same entity. See Almoravids, Almohads, etc.

    That's the entity I would like to see represented. My leader preferences are Yaqub al-Mansur (as opposed to the much later Ahmad) or the infamous Yusuf inn Tashfin.
     
  8. halfhalfharp

    halfhalfharp Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2016
    Messages:
    517
    I am not supporting a few of the candidates on the list:

    1, Why should we separate Chola/Tamil from India? I think they are culturally similar to Maurya dynasty.
    2, And Mexico on top of Aztecs as a civ? I wonder why.
    3, I also think that Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia are really similar to each other, so either one of these three can be in the game, but not more than one.
    4, Manchu was included as the Qing Dynastic China, so they are kind of assimilated into Chinese civ.
     
  9. fredrikslicer

    fredrikslicer Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    84
    I would personally make Afghanistan in general and then have one of their leaders signify it specifically that way you can alter which afgahnistani state simply by changing leaders

    Tamil and company are indian so thats unnessacery

    Bactria Sogdia would be interesting

    Italy is a favorite of mine
     
  10. The Kingmaker

    The Kingmaker Alexander

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,252
    I'm wondering if the results here will just be the same top 4, plus the Maori?
     
  11. Havendish

    Havendish Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2018
    Messages:
    80
    Gender:
    Male
    I disagree with this post to a certain degree...

    1 Tamil are distinct from India, deserve to appear once, say in Civ IX.
    2 Your point about Aztecs being just fine by representing the geographical area of modern day Mexico and post-colonial state of Mexico being completely unneeded is totally off!
    Completely different cultures, and Mexican one is clearly distinct from their Spanish roots. Look, you have USA in the game along with England, and in Civ 5 there was Portugal and Brasil. Why not Azteca and Mexico being an option as well? Overlap is certain but they could make them mutually exclusive, meaning that if Aztec are selected in the game already then Mexico cannot be in.
    I disagree with the opinion that Aztecs have to be a Mainstay in the game, based on historical merit, not so much, yet they have been in all 6 iterations already, perhaps when Civ7 comes out we'd see Mexico in and Azteca take a break? Think of the outcry from Moctezuma's supporters then, just like the cries for Inca's inclusion in CVI and Inca to me are more worthy of inclusion than the Aztecs.
    There are a bunch of great leaders and Uniques possible for Mexico.
    3 Blobbing Phillipines, Indonesia and Malaysia as pretty much one and the same is simply wrong. I understand about Indonesia and Malaysia, I'd like to see them rotate, perhaps with Indonesia being in one and then Malaysia for a change and then back to Indonesia again (with Indonesia making more appearances though), however, Phillipines are quite distinct from those 2 and could appear once by themselves
    3 Manchuria deserves a look as a separate entry. I didn't vote for them because I ran out of votes, but they were significant and not always a part of China. The problem is, much like with Tibet, we're unlikely to see Manchu added to the game even once.
     
  12. halfhalfharp

    halfhalfharp Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2016
    Messages:
    517
    2. USA vs England & Brazil vs Portugals are examples of colonialism. And for sure the imperialistic nations are different from their colonies. So comparing them to Mexico and Aztec is not appropriate (since most Mexican are still descendants of Aztec and meso-american civilizations, compared to USA, where european migrants dominate) Their relationship is more similar to Ancient Egypt vs modern Egypt.
    They are quite important because they represent the meso-american culture, tgt with Mayan. I wont mind if they rotate with the Mayans or Olmec. Inca is as important as the Mayan/aztec/Olmec rotations in my opinion.

    3. I cant tell their difference in details, so I tend to see the rotation to represent the ocenian-asian culture. Like the Denmark/Sweden/Norway rotation, one or more of the members may be more distinctive that the others. Thus I dont mind seeing Philippines as long as it is really distinct.

    4. Manchu was originally different from China, although it possessed severe chinese influence already. The main catch is, it ruled China for 200 years and had adapted too much of the culture. Considering Manchurian themselves claimed the Mandate of China, and their assimilation into chinese history, it will be absurd to make them separated, rendering all Qing dynasty rulers in an awkward position.
    I cant find an example to compare Manchu and China's relationship. It is a strange condition in which a foreign invading power conquered a country and then being conquered by its culture.
     
  13. Krajzen

    Krajzen Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    2,138
    Location:
    Poland
    Eh, Mexico is at this moment the only new colonial civ I'd accept, due to its sheer size, economic power, super unique culture, and quite interesting story with lot of drama, wars, tryumphs, heroes and villains. All other Latinoamerican Spanish states are smaller, less characteristic, less spectacular.

    Sure, it'd be kinda awkward to have Mexico and Aztecs (who called themselves Mexica iirc) in the same game, but IMO no more than having in the same game: Greece, Rome, Byzantium and Turks, all competing over and re-founding one city; Macedon and Greece; England, America and Australia etc :D
     
  14. Guandao

    Guandao Rajah of Minyue and Langkasuka

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Messages:
    4,601
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City
    I'm proud of voting for less popular Civs beside the Maori and Vietnam.....:p
     
  15. Greywulf

    Greywulf Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    492
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Earth
    I think more people would vote for the Muisca if they knew much about them.
     
  16. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    189
    They would be a fantastic mining civ, actually.

    The problem with the Muisca is that they are regionally surrounded by so many other civs that have their respective supporters. People really want Simon Bolivar in the game, so they want Colombia. People really liked the Buccaneers in Battle Royale so they want the Taino/Arawak. We all still want the Mayans in. And honestly although the Muisca were substantially more organized, the Tupi covered the entire Brazilian coast which counts for just as much as the Mapuche.

    I would like the Muisca over Colombia, from a purely mechanical standpoint. But I also want the Mayans, Tupi, and Taino roughly equally. And unfortunately I don't see them including Muisca, Tupi, or Taino until after they've included Columbia and/or Mexico. Purely to avoid criticism that they preferentially portray the Americas in a backwards, colonialists light. You'd need to basically overhaul how the Americas are represented in the Civ series to give the Muisca a chance at inclusion.

    So, if I had full control and could consolidate:
    • Mexico - combine with Aztecs, keep all uniques and Montezuma, add Agustin I.
    • Yucatan - basically Maya, all Mayan uniques and Lady Six Sky or some Mayan leader.
    • Colombia - combine with Muisca - derive uniques from Muisca mining culture, have both a Muisca leader and Simon Bolivar.
    • Brazil - blob with Tupi, replace the Minas Geras with the Tupi class submarine, add Cunhambebe with a unique footsoldier unit.
    • Peru - basically Inca.
    • Carib - basically Taino, could throw in some pirate stuff too.
    • Chile/Argentina/Araucania-Patagonia - basically Mapuche.
    • Canada - just make Pontiac a second leader for the Cree to rep the Ojibwe/Anishinaabe. The mekewap and wigwam are basically cognates and I have to believe the scout could be renamed as well. A third actual Canada leader could be added as well.
    • America - Navajo and Cherokee (Sioux? Shoshone?) leaders with unique units. This is the hardest one to actually implement without substantial overhauling since there is such a disparity between film studios and planes and native cultures.
    Most of the other civs seem to be named after regions (Nubia, Scythia, Sumer), dominant cultures (Arabia, China, India) and modern national boundaries (Norway, Greece, Germany) rather than their historical names, so this actually fits with the that mentality. Not to mention it only requires the man power to add ONE new civ to the game and merely tweak a few existing ones. I would rename Scythia to Kazakhstan in a heartbeat if I could as well. This is also why I would support a Byzantine Roman alt leader, Atila as a Scythian alt leader, and Maori-and-Hawaii-as-Polynesia.

    I'd also like to point out that, in most of these instances, this wouldn't be misrepresentation. Native and mestizo culture are extremely dominant in Mexico, Yucatan, and Brazil, and I actually think it is somewhat dishonest to portray any of these modern regions without acknowledging the native half of their heritage (and this is a lot easier than adding a separate Mexico and Tupi civ). Chile and Argentina have rather large Mapuche populations. Colombia would actually be extremely boring as a civ under Bolivar and would benefit substantially from incorporating the Muisca mining identity. Really, Canada and America are the only strong points of contention against consolidation, and the only reason why we may likely never see many of these civs in either form. Because as it stands, before the Muisca got their turn we're already looking at probably three more civs in Latin America alone that will eat up development time. And if all of the civs I listed were included separately, we're looking at somewhere around 9 new civs for the Americas. NINE. And that's not even including the mini-battle for representation that goes on between the Navajo/Apache/Shoshone/Sioux/Cherokee/Choctaw/Iroquois/Whatever.

    I just don't see the Muisca happening without a major memetic movement. Something which hugely disappoints me because of how skewed public discourse is away from several extremely vibrant, unique, powerful American civs. No, instead everyone NEEDS Byzantium. They NEED Assyria and Akkadia so they can play out their tiny little wars with Babylon. They NEED Palmyria because women and Media because coinage. They NEED the Mughals and Timurids because apparently India and Iran STILL don't have enough representation. Ugh. Armchair historians, like armchair anythings, are largely a bunch of pop culture bunk.
     
  17. Greywulf

    Greywulf Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    492
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Earth
    I have to say that I've never been a fan of having colonial civs in this game series, mainly because the game starts in the neolithic, while most colonial powers are only about a few hundred years old, and are getting lots of attention because nearly everyone alive now know about them and think they will stand the test of time. America is the exception here, due to just how powerful and influential they became and still are, and how important they are in recent history, but honestly it still feels weird to be settling my first neolithic city, then running around with a club man as America. So with this in mind, there really shouldn't have been a problem with keeping it to non-colonial civs...only they already have been doing this, and are doing it more and more, adding Brazil and Australia into the mix, and hearing the fans pegging for Canada and others. The fact is also that it's not politically correct to have such civs represent their pre-colonial peoples as well, like Australia does in Civ VI. Aboriginal people from Australia do not recognize Australia as their historical civilization, and they never will. They point to Australia as the history of Europeans living in their region, and claim to have been living in Australia for 60,000 years (yet somehow they managed to not explore the entire continent themselves, but some significant places in Australia were not discovered by any terrans til like the 1970's!), and some of them literally view the Europeans living there as alien residents that have taken over, even if they were been born there and their called themselves "Australian" for generations. European culture is nothing at all like these indigenous cultures, and these European cultures are already getting representation as it is via England and others...In a way it's almost like adding England two or three times over (or Portugal, in the case of Brazil). European cultures and regions will always be well represented in this game series, but it's pretty special when a unique culture outside of Europe and Asia gets representation too.
    So if I was to create a game where you start your civilization in the neolithic, I would aim for more indigenous cultures that historically reached civilization status without European influence, and no one could reasonably say that I'm portraying the Americas, or elsewhere in a "backwards colonialist light". If they did, I would simply answer that it wouldn't make sense to include colonial civs in such a game.
     
    TahamiTsunami likes this.
  18. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    189
    I would agree with this, generally. Of course the problem is that Australian tribes never really reached that level of macro-unity and self-organization prior to colonization, so that would leave out aboriginal representation entirely.

    I'm actually fine with both Australia and Brazil, which are both upcoming economic superpowers. Their inclusion is recognizing the development of the post WW-II world, which I think is relevant enough to merit two civs. The only other candidates they could have chosen were the European Union and Canada. I don't expect the European Union to ever have a chance unless it's bundles with something equally dubious like the USSR and the OIC. And while Canada has been jumping dramatically in global GDP rankings, I think it will only make it into VI as a fan-wanted last-minute addition now that the Cree are a placeholder; and honestly although it has the GDP of a superpower I think everyone is waiting for it to invest in energy like Brazil. But Brazil is actually the best representation of modern power dynamics. And an American-style cultural powerhouse and melting pot. And the catchiest damn music.

    And, if you want to be especially pedantic, Australia, Brazil, Canada, and Mexico are just as deserving of inclusion as Carthage. Colonies which were so successful they formed into their own territorial empires. They, like America, only need to last a couple more hundred years to be just as enduring and influential.

    EDIT: On further reflection, especially while considering your proposed Barbarian overhaul, I've decided that the Muisca aren't a strong civ for inclusion. It has nothing to do with their size, but that they were divided into two federations that were frequently at war with each other. It would feel dishonest and incomplete to only represent the zaque or the zipa and they certainly weren't large enough to merit two leaders. However, I think Bacata/Bogota would be perfect as a mining city-state.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2018
    TahamiTsunami and Greywulf like this.
  19. clapyourhands

    clapyourhands Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2017
    Messages:
    311
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm fine with colonial nations, honestly. The basic premise of the game is to build a civilization that stands the test of time, and unlike a game like EUIV, Civ is intended to run right up until the current age, and includes both mechanics and playable factions running from the dawn of civilization to the modern day. The civs themselves usually strive to be idealized representations of what made that civilization "special", with those unique traits intended to be what drives them to success through gameplay. It's the fact that civilizations embody their ideals as much as their history that makes it work. We have civs that were great like Rome, and civs that are still great like China. We have civs that, had circumstances been different in the past, could have been much greater, like the Mapuche. The last kind is similar to this, but rather than being potentially-great civs that have fallen, they are civs that still have that potential open to them. In other words, they would be like Brazil, who are on the rise and could continue rising. It's not much different than including a civ that had fallen before its theoretical prime, in that the idea is that "we believe this civilization has potential for greatness, and it's up to you to realize it."
     
    TahamiTsunami likes this.

Share This Page

Ebates: Get Paid to Shop