Never-Before-Seen Civs Poll

Which of these civs do you want to see in the future? (Choose 7)

  • Apache/Navajo/etc.

    Votes: 114 37.1%
  • Argentina

    Votes: 49 16.0%
  • Armenia

    Votes: 49 16.0%
  • Ashanti

    Votes: 76 24.8%
  • Benin/Dahomey

    Votes: 41 13.4%
  • Bulgaria/Thrace

    Votes: 40 13.0%
  • Burma

    Votes: 46 15.0%
  • Canada

    Votes: 59 19.2%
  • Cherokee/Creek/Choctaw/etc.

    Votes: 66 21.5%
  • Colombia (or Gran Colombia)

    Votes: 70 22.8%
  • Etruria

    Votes: 10 3.3%
  • Gothia (any Goths)

    Votes: 60 19.5%
  • Haida/Tlingit

    Votes: 45 14.7%
  • Hebrews/Israel

    Votes: 89 29.0%
  • Hungary

    Votes: 97 31.6%
  • Inuit

    Votes: 62 20.2%
  • Ireland

    Votes: 50 16.3%
  • Italy (including Florence, Genoa, etc.)

    Votes: 124 40.4%
  • Kilwa/Swahili

    Votes: 56 18.2%
  • Lydia/Pontus/Kappadokia/etc.

    Votes: 14 4.6%
  • Mughals

    Votes: 56 18.2%
  • Palmyra/Syria/Nabataea/etc.

    Votes: 32 10.4%
  • Phoenicia/Canaanites

    Votes: 74 24.1%
  • Romania/Wallachia

    Votes: 43 14.0%
  • Shawnee

    Votes: 13 4.2%
  • Tibet

    Votes: 78 25.4%
  • Vietnam

    Votes: 141 45.9%
  • Ukraine/Kievan Rus'

    Votes: 33 10.7%
  • Zimbabwe/Mutapa

    Votes: 53 17.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 53 17.3%

  • Total voters
    307
The problem with Aram/Syria is, as far as I checked Aramaic history, its basically "a bunch of city states, never united, conquered by whatever major empire was nearby" :p It doesnt strike me as cool or interesting to warrant major civ... Frankly, they seemed to be one of the most "city-state-like" civs to me. Lingua franca? Cool. Rich architecture? Cool. Still - just city states, secondary actors to the Middle East, captured and recaptured by Assyria/Babylon/Persia/Macedon/Rome/whoever.

On the other hand, Palmyrene Empire under Zenobia sounds nice. But it lasted three years (13 if countong her father) and its existence was essentially "surprise rebellion, then being systematically wiped out in every major battle by Roman expeditionary force". Well...

For me Zenobia is an unfortunate case of a "leader without a civ". She is IMO very similar to Bolivar in this regard and also one other thing... The reason why Zenobia and Bolivar are popular is because of their exact historical context, as charismatic rebels against powerful empires. Now take this context away. You start as a Boliar with settler and warrior, on the ancient map without Spain. Suddenly most of things the guy is known for - L I B E R A T I O N - disappears. Similar problem with Zenobia - put her in the game without subjugation and Rome, and her entire "story arc" disappears.

And what we are left are leaders without story and civs without story.
I don't disagree with this assessment, and it's one of many reasons I dislike Boudicca. However, Civ has a long history of turning collections of culturally unified city-states into civs (Greeks, Maya, etc.) or even unaffiliated bands into civs (Scythia) or even utterly disparate cultures into civs (Civ5 Celts). Damascus, Aleppo, Palmyra, and other Aramaic-speaking city-states in the highlands between Mesopotamia and Canaan were often politically independent (or independent-but-tributary) and often held considerable political sway over Canaan and sometimes even extending into Anatolia. I would be miffed if we got Zenobia over Babylon or Assyria, of course, but as an "also" I think it's a compelling solution: the Aramaean petty kingdoms lack compelling leaders, and Zenobia lacks a civ--making Zenobia lead a civ called "Aram" or even "Syria" solves both problems IMO.

But Bolivar's direct and obvious political legacy still exists in a direct, traceable, unbroken chain to this day, EVEN if it's now split among six separate Modern sovereign nations, and not just one. Zenobia's legacy only came to the zeitgeist of most in the world recently outside avid history buffs, like most here, because her capital, in ruins for over a millennium-and-a-half, had what was left of it blown up by ISIS terrorists.
I'm not sure that's true. She's been a popular subject for artists and historical novelists for ages.
 
I don't disagree with this assessment, and it's one of many reasons I dislike Boudicca. However, Civ has a long history of turning collections of culturally unified city-states into civs (Greeks, Maya, etc.) or even unaffiliated bands into civs (Scythia) or even utterly disparate cultures into civs (Civ5 Celts). Damascus, Aleppo, Palmyra, and other Aramaic-speaking city-states in the highlands between Mesopotamia and Canaan were often politically independent (or independent-but-tributary) and often held considerable political sway over Canaan and sometimes even extending into Anatolia. I would be miffed if we got Zenobia over Babylon or Assyria, of course, but as an "also" I think it's a compelling solution: the Aramaean petty kingdoms lack compelling leaders, and Zenobia lacks a civ--making Zenobia lead a civ called "Aram" or even "Syria" solves both problems IMO.


I'm not sure that's true. She's been a popular subject for artists and historical novelists for ages.
Although, in Age of Empires I by Ensemble Studios (I know, I keep comparing civ choices between Sid Meier and Ensemble - but what can I say, I love strategy games of all sorts and makes), Palmyra is represented as a civ - then again, the Huns appear as a full civ in Age of Empires 2, despite Sid Meier seeming to traditionally like to reserving "Attila," as the default barbarian leader name.
 
Some Hungarian nationalists claim descent from Sumeria. :p Genetically speaking, the so-called Marsh Arabs of southern Iraq are probably at least somewhat Sumerian, but after 4,000 years and the rise and fall of dozens of empires in the region, who knows and who cares; they certainly don't. Certainly not a comparable situation to the Assyrians, who still identify as Assyrian.

Well, some Hungarian nationalists claim descent from the Huns too....:p
I recall my old Professor who claimed Sumerian was an Indo-European language simply because it's agglutinative (or something like that).
 
Well, some Hungarian nationalists claim descent from the Huns too....:p
I recall my old Professor who claimed Sumerian was an Indo-European language simply because it's agglutinative (or something like that).
"We're all from Africa originally." Rachel Dolentz.

Sorry, couldn't resist. :p
 
"We're all from Africa originally." Rachel Dolentz.

Sorry, couldn't resist. :p
Of interest, I've heard people say we are all from Europe, and heard people say we are all from East Asia, and of course I've also heard people say we are all from the Middle East. It's funny how humans can't agree on anything, lol.
 
Although, in Age of Empires I by Ensemble Studios (I know, I keep comparing civ choices between Sid Meier and Ensemble - but what can I say, I love strategy games of all sorts and makes), Palmyra is represented as a civ - then again, the Huns appear as a full civ in Age of Empires 2, despite Sid Meier seeming to traditionally like to reserving "Attila," as the default barbarian leader name.

Geez, it would be so stupid if some civ game featured Huns as "civilization". They are the personification of barbarians. There wouldn't be even city list for them and devs would have to do some ridiculous, immersion-breaking gimmick with it.
 
Although, in Age of Empires I by Ensemble Studios (I know, I keep comparing civ choices between Sid Meier and Ensemble - but what can I say, I love strategy games of all sorts and makes), Palmyra is represented as a civ - then again, the Huns appear as a full civ in Age of Empires 2, despite Sid Meier seeming to traditionally like to reserving "Attila," as the default barbarian leader name.
The "Huns" are already in the game though. They are the barb camps that spawn next to horses. ;)
 
Hungary is...fine, actually. Maybe a bit baity given that what players are actually responding to are the Magyars, not necessarily Hungary (which actually didn't have much influence compared to Germany/Austria/Poland/Bulgaria. And I also suspect that the support of the Magyars is really just redirected Hun support. But it's the only one of the four that I don't think is unfairly biased in polls by either being a meme or a catch-all blob.
While historical influence is a complex question, and subjective to some extent, that's an interesting opinion to have.
I would say Hungary had at least as much influence as Poland or Austria (being dominant in the area between the 9th and 16th centuries), and definitely had way more influence than Bulgaria (which was truly powerful for a much shorter time).
Also I really doubt that Hun support is significant, or even exists, on Hungary/Magyars (which is the same btw).
 
Also I really doubt that Hun support is significant, or even exists, on Hungary/Magyars (which is the same btw).

Never-Before-Seen Civs Poll

I'm just referencing here because I don't want to write it out again. I don't think people actually believe Hungary is the Huns (they could be, we're not entirely sure, but probably not). I just believe that Hungary has sort of taken up the mantle of "the Hun civ," an easy horseback civ in the general vicinity for those fearing change to latch on to. It's the same reason why, now that Scotland was included, people are clamoring for a "proper" Celtic civ with Gaul. Or why if Peru became a civ, the Muisca would suddenly become the most requested civ in the region as a spiritual successor to the Inca. Fans pivot to the nearest analogue when they presume their most comfortable option is closed off. Hungary is the closest analogue to the Huns in the popular sphere. It's not an accurate association, given that Bulgaria is a much better analogue, but popular association is a matter of memetics and memetics don't care about optimization so much as familiarity.
 
  • "King" Queen - Jadwiga
  • Confusingly similar name - Tomyris
  • Faith UI: Poland/Scythia
  • Civ Ability: Jadwiga agenda
What a boring part of the world, frankly. Just a lot of samey variations on backwater religion.

Just like your statement in a different thread here. About Poland stealing the Hussars from Hungary. Totally off base. Hussars were used by several European countries as cavalry corps. Not only by Hungarians and Poles. Polish ones, however were UNIQUE due to being heavy cavalry (typical Hussars are light cavalry) and by having "wings". Two very different units.

And here, stating about Scythia and Poland being boring and same variation of backwater religion, and they let you post again after that?
You should be made to publicly apologize to the Polish community using this site.

You don't like playing as them, fine (you don't have to with Poland, just don't buy their dlc), just don't thrash countries like that, have some class.
 
- Parthia and Sassanida are simply part of Persian (Iranian) civilisation, culture and heritage (same as Tang is period of Chinese history). I know that civ series always portait "Persia" as 100% Acharmenids but that's their mistake I'm irritated by. Personally I wouldn't mind pan-dynastic Persia with elements from various dynasties, or alternate leaders from various dynasties. Hey, that's the exact thing always happening with European civs - such as Barbarossa with Uboot and Jadwiga with Winged Hussars.
- Prussia is, similarly to Parthian case, considered to be part of German civilization. In several civ games Frederick was the leader of "Germany" and I'd support him... as alternate leader of it.
- Etruscans are in the poll as Etruria :p
- Comanche are, I presume, part of "Apache, Navajo etc" option as Plains Indians - alternately you could say they already were in civ, as hybrid with Shoshone (it literally had comanche as unique unit)
- Belgium is unlikely imo. It is very recent, very artificial construct consisting of two separate cultures that barely can coexist under one state. On top of that, the only "spectacular" thing Belgium did during its existence was... genociding Kongo. Yeah you could say "but Belgium has much economy and culture" - and the same about almost every European country today.
- Vatican is one of the most city-state civs ever :p
- Wends and state of Samo are completely separate thing lol.
- The only significant thing Finland did was Winter War and its postindustrial era prosperity
- Media lasted for a short time before being completely consumed and eclipsed by Achaemenids ;)
- Numidia and Elam didn't really manage to be particularly spectacular, unique, or achieve much during their time
- Has concept of a united Libya ever been a thing before being created as Italian colony?...

However!
I support Khazaria and Lithuania,as well as Prussia and Parthia but only as alternate leaders :D

IMO missing civs are Mexico, Switzerland, Yemen, Afghanistan, Nepal, Tamils/Chola/Sri Lanka, Bengal, precolonial Philippines, Maori, Bactria/Sogdia/Kushans and Malagasy.

Also Somalia, Hausa, Yoruba and Igbo but I am afraid only me would vote for them :p


You are a typical polish ignorant. How long did it take you to come up with this list? Do you know people work full time, have no chance to look everything up on other posts but have ideas they want to add to the discussion. Yes, Wends were different from Samo's "empire" but Samo, along with Dragovit or Niklot would make for a fine Western Slavic-pagan (practising Slavic Polytheism) leader. Read about him, he came from the West, converted to Slavian faith and fought the Franks with success before his empire collapsed.

You are just like that PhoenixGold...whatever the nick of the person frequenting these forums here. You are full of yourself and unwilling to participate in a discussion without picking on another person, country or nation in order to make yourself look more intelligent. I've seen your posts about the need to disclude Sweden from the game, and your threads about what civs you don't want in the game (like that Phoenix guy's hate on Byzantium) and your reasons for disliking them. Why do you dislike so many people, is it common in Poland to be so xenophobic? Stop attacking other players and nations and prove your intellignce here in a proper and gentle manner.

Ignorance prevails here.

Half of the tribes you used in your post I posted up before on this site's Ideas and Suggestions forum either as Havendish or daft-years ago, because that was my former nick here.
I came up with several ideas (and tribes to be included in the game) that you and the likes of you now try and claim for themselves.
Alas, for now, I'm done with this crap and annoying and ignorant people such as yourself.
bye krajzen (crazy-en)

Moderator Action: This post is both trolling and flaming. Please do not treat other forum members in this way. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And here, stating about Scythia and Poland being boring and same variation of backwater religion, and they let you post again after that?
You should be made to publicly apologize to the Polish community using this site.

You don't like playing as them, fine (you don't have to with Poland, just don't buy their dlc), just don't thrash countries like that, have some class.

My ancestors were Polish, first of all, so I won't apologize. And secondly, if the most "identity" a civ can muster is being regressively, stagnantly devout and loves "ridin' horses," then I have every right to call it backwater. That's what it is. If Poland had anything to be proud of past the 1800s, it would have more to rally around than Jesus, but it doesn't. Same thing with Georgia. At least Spain actually accomplished something with its religion.
 
Geez, it would be so stupid if some civ game featured Huns as "civilization". They are the personification of barbarians. There wouldn't be even city list for them and devs would have to do some ridiculous, immersion-breaking gimmick with it.

I like the idea of the Huns as a minor Civ, actually. But one which doesn't start with settlers, but with a larger army (spawns around the medieval era at the edge of the map) Once they capture one or two cities, you can send them envoys, just like you would with a City State.

It's not even the Huns who could benefit from this treatment. There are several ethnic groups which could as well, including

- Hyksos
- Sea People
- Timurids
- Khazars
- Avars
- Goths
- Allemanni
- Crusaders
- Haida/Tlingit
- Chocktaw/Cherokee
- Umayyads
- Seljuks
- Shoshone/Apache
- Guarani
- Bantu

and if we include Civs present in Civ6:

- Scythians
- Zulus
- Vikings
- Mapuche
- Mongols
 
Rapanui annihilated themselves to build ridiculous stone men, they would be a big disappointment. Maori just yell a lot and have a fun dance, Papua I can’t even fathom your reasoning for, the Maasai are basically aboriginal Australia but in Africa and the Moche are one of many Inca precursors known mostly for leaving pots lying around.

My standards for civilisations are more flexible than most, but I’d at least like some unique attributes alongside some demonstrated and unique success in some aspect of empire building, so I’m left asking why you want these cultures as civilisations?

There would be a lot to say about the caricature you make of certain civilizations, while proposing in your own list some that could undergo the same arguments (precursor, native, with no famous achievement or uniqueness ...).

Never mind, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then.

Finally, I am very happy to see that Maori (and their dance) are the most anticipated civ of Gathering Storm, and Rapa Nui will also be present (with its stone statues) as a city-state.
 
There would be a lot to say about the caricature you make of certain civilizations, while proposing in your own list some that could undergo the same arguments (precursor, native, with no famous achievement or uniqueness ...).

Never mind, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then.

Finally, I am very happy to see that Maori (and their dance) are the most anticipated civ of Gathering Storm, and Rapa Nui will also be present (with its stone statues) as a city-state.

But, they're right about Rapa Nui.

It's really not a good representation of "civilization" given that they very quickly devolved into warring tribes who did nothing but chop forests and build monuments to themselves.

By the time Europeans made contact, they had depleted their resources and had resorted to cannibalism.

It's a very depressing and unambiguous story of total societal implosion, with none of the achievements or intrigue other failed civs have like the Maya

For that reason, I'm not even sure I like Rapa Nui as a city state in the game, when Tonga was far more successful.
 
Okay, now that we have another expack under our belts, I think I can narrow down this poll to the essentials. As far as "necessary" civs go for filling out the cultural map, three stand out:

* Navajo - the second largest native population in the U.S. behind the Cherokee. Hold the largest tribal territory in the U.S. Unique windtalker unit, and hogans are fairly resonant. Would fill out western U.S. The best option for an American desert civ.
* Burma - cleanly fills out the other half of southeast Asia. Older than Siam, more unique geographically and culturally than Vietnam. The paya/pagoda is a fairly iconic and resonant unique, much more Burmese than Thai.
* Swahili - the "core" of the Oman empire which existed for some time prior to Islamic rule. Covers the east African coast, and so influential that Swahili is the most spoken language in Africa. Coral stone houses would make for an interesting UI, and perhaps of the "maritime trader civs" is the one most associated with luxury goods.

Additionally, there are several other civs that I could see being included if development goes on long enough. In rough order of likelihood these are:

* Bulgaria/Armenia - both have strong cultural identities but would struggle to differentiate themselves against Hungary/Georgia. The fact that both are currently represented by city-states adjacent to Hungary/Georgia makes a hard case for which/either would be chosen over the other. But they represent two sizeable geographic gaps that could be filled if push comes to shove. I would give Bulgaria the edge because an expack 3 will probably have Morocco occupying the "Semitic" niche.
* Italy - is begging to implemented as a city-state civ centered in Vatican City. Both are highly requested civs and both could be synergized into something really flavorful. Perhaps too complicated for expack 3, and would likely need Rome to be decentralized with a Byzantine leader to create geographic space.
* Inuit - highly popular and successful CBR civ, alongside Siberia. I think one of this is likely to happen to give a nod to CBR, but which is anyone's guess. Probably the Inuit are more likely given that they can occupy Greenland and have more iconic uniques associated with them.
* Ireland - I'd put this civ roughly on par with Denmark. Slightly less likely due to the fact that it was never superpower. But also slightly more likely because it would fill the role of a "Celtic" civ better than the Celts would. There is design space for both if development goes on long enough.
* Tibet - so much potential here, but I only see this being released in a small DLC pack, if ever. Perhaps paired with Vatican City/Italy.

Everything else on the list is either in Gathering Storm, or wholly unnecessary to Civ VI. I would say the only civs I think are missing from consideration are Siberia/Sakha as filling northern Asia, the Taino/Arawak as filling Columbia/Caribbean, and perhaps the Timurids as filling the Uzbeki region. But I still do not think any of these are quite at the level of likelihood as the Navajo, Burma, or Swahili.
 
Last edited:
As far as "necessary" civs go for filling out the cultural map, three stand out:
* Navajo - the second largest native population in the U.S. behind the Cherokee. Hold the largest tribal territory in the U.S. Unique windtalker unit, and hogans are fairly resonant. Would fill out western U.S. The best option for an American desert civ.

Eh, as a person from outside of America I don't consider any particular Native American tribe as necessary in the game. I just expect one obligatory native civ from North America to represent I hate this word this entire cultural area and for Firaxis, US company, to not be accused of racism. Anyway, my favourite new NatAm civ would be Muscogee.

* Burma - cleanly fills out the other half of southeast Asia. Older than Siam, more unique geographically and culturally than Vietnam. The paya/pagoda is a fairly iconic and resonant unique, much more Burmese than Thai.

Debatable. I guess you view Vietnam as less unique because of its cultural and geographic proximity to China, but you could say similar thing about Burma and its cultural and geographic proximity to India and Khmer (and Burma is culturally much closer to Khmer than Vietnam).
Also, Vietnam has around two times longer history, has clearer gameplay focus (hardcore military defense tactics), is more known and memetic, has
great female leader candidates :p and has history of spectacular underdog victories against major empires (China, Mongols, France, US).
So I wouldn't say Burma is obvious choice here. I'd say instead: either Burma or Vietnam is necessary ;)

* Swahili - the "core" of the Oman empire which existed for some time prior to Islamic rule. Covers the east African coast, and so influential that Swahili is the most spoken language in Africa. Coral stone houses would make for an interesting UI, and perhaps of the "maritime trader civs" is the one most associated with luxury goods.

You know, I generally agree that it'd be awesome to see Swahilli in game, I just wanted to mention that Swahilli city states existed for two thousand years before Omani invasion, which was long after their golden ages, and were mainly African in character - you described Swahilli as if it was the byproduct of Middleastern colonization on African coast :p In fact, it was the misconception of European colonizers that 'Swahilli cities were founded by "white" Arabs because of course "savage" blacks wouldn't be capable of creating them' ;)

Additionally, there are several other civs that I could see being included if development goes on long enough. In rough order of likelihood these are:
* Bulgaria/Armenia - both have strong cultural identities but would struggle to differentiate themselves against Hungary/Georgia.

Saying Bulgaria would 'struggle to differentiate itself against Hungary' is like saying America has 'strong cultural identity but would struggle to differentiate themselves against Mexico' :D These are very different civilisations. Same with Armenia and Georgia. Personally I'd love to see both Bulgaria and Armenia in game, but I'd say their chances are almost nonexistent for civ6, especially Armenia. Maybe in civ7.

* Italy - is begging to implemented

Yes! And by the way, in my opinion Italy is by far the most 'necessary' civ right now, far beyond Swahilli, Vietnam or Burma. Come on, how can so great and infuential civilizaiton of world history still not be present in civ series because partial geographic (and completely not cultural) overlap with Rome?

...as a city-state civ centered in Vatican City.

I'm sorry but Italy is absolutely not synonymous with Papal State and I'm pretty sure a lot of people would be very disappointed :p
I have a question - why can't Italy get the same treatment as Greece or Maya and simply be presented as a single, united civ despite IRL being divided between numerous states in its golden ages? It makes no sense for people being fine with this anachronic unity of Greece in all civ games but suddenly be very nitpicky "oh wait Italy can't be united, it was city states". In fact, I'm pretty sure most Italy fans would prefer Italy this way.
Just make Italy civ consist of all medieval/early modern/modern Italian cities not overlapping with Roman city names, with its capital probably being not Rome due to overlap but instead Florence or Milan, give it Lorenzo di Medici or Caterina Sforza or my favourite Matilda di Canossa as leader and it'd be perfect representation I hate this word.

Besides, even if people had really so big problems with this idea, Italy is united anyways since second half of 19th century - then give it modern leader and medieval/renaissance stuff and everything's fine once again.

* Inuit - highly popular and successful CBR civ, alongside Siberia. I think one of this is likely to happen to give a nod to CBR, but which is anyone's guess. Probably the Inuit are more likely given that they can occupy Greenland and have more iconic uniques associated with them.

Personally I still think Inuit and Siberian natives are the dumbest civs ever proposed by civ fanbase, proposed mainly because of obsessive 'filling all gaps on the map' and 'we need snow civ', in spite of them in general being the last people of the planet Earth that could honestly be described using even the most generous definition of the world 'civilization', and in spite of fact that they are proof of why homo sapiens simply cannot natively develop urban society in tundra. The day we see Inuits as civ next to Rome we may as well add Djibouti, Texas and Liechteinstein as separate civs, and each of those would still make more sense having the same status as Rome :p

Ireland and Tibet

Yeah, I'd love to see them too. Obligatory regretful mention of how we'll never get Tibet because Firaxis want Chinese money.

Everything else on the list is either in Gathering Storm, or wholly unnecessary to Civ VI.

Wait, if Ireland is not 'unnecessary' despite Scotland already being here for British Isles and Celts, then it is no more 'necessary' than
Bohemia, Lithuania, Belgium, Switzerland, Romania, Kievan Rus, Hittites, Yemen, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Philippines, Colombia, Mughals, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Argentina, Zimbabwe, Ashanti, Yoruba, Kanem, Mexico etc :)
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom