Never-Before-Seen Civs Poll

[Krajzen]

It would be good to close this thread, since some of the results here have been confirmed.

Yes, it should be closed and it would be interesting to open another one by replacing Canada, Phoenicia and Hungary by Muisca, Tupi and Zapotec or Taíno. I thinkt that the most unpopular voting options, such as Etruria and Shawnee, could be deleted and replaced by others.

Not sure about that. There are 29 options in the poll and only 3 have been added to the game, and the poll has accumulated nice number of like 300 votes that wouldn't be easy to repeat. And most of remaining 26 options are very sensible and on similar levels of popularity, only three of them are a complete failure (Etruria, Lydia, Shawnee).

Personally if I were to remake this poll, I'd put following civs to choose from: Afghanistan, Argentina, Armenia, Ashanti, Benin, Belgium, Bohemia, Bulgaria, Burma, Colombia, Goths, Inuits, Ireland, Italy, Kievan Rus, Lithuania, Mexico, Nepal, Swahilli, Switzerland, Mughals, Palmyra, Philippines, Romania, Timurids, Vietnam, Yemen, Zimbabwe, the Native American Tribe.

The reason of me putting Shawnee, Haida, Cherokee and Navajo under "the Native American Tribes" option is maybe controversial but in my opinion there are simply so many fresh NatAm tribes to choose from that any selection of them would be very arbitrary anyway, and it's reasonable to expect just one never-before-seen NatAm tribe added to the game. Among never-seen-before tribes are Apache, Navajo, Shawnee, Haida, Tlingit, Cherokee, Choctaw, Blackfoot, Muscogee, Powhatan, Comanche, Huron and God knows who else, and all of them very small individually, so I'd just merge them and Firaxis will choose wildcard anyway (how many of you expected Cree or Shoshone?)

For same pragmatic reason I'd remove Tibet and Israel. I know they are very popular, I'd like to see them too, but let's be honest we definitely won't see them oficially from Firaxis. Firaxis wants Chinese money and Chinese gov would instantly ban Civ game with independent Tibet in it, and Israel civ is so many layers of political mess I don't even wanna think about that. Remember Cree and Pueblo controversies lol.

Etruria and Lydia get out due to their abysmal performance here.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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

Well we did get Canada as the "snow civ", so no need for the Inuit, though I wouldn't mind if tribal villages in the snow or tundra have igloos instead of what looks like straw or grass roofs.
I'd take a Republic of Texas though I'm biased on that one.

 

[Imaus]

The Inuit, with their unique culture, mythos, technology, expansion in the north and while they didn't thrive or flourish in the far north at least stood their ground there, and other attributes can stand on their own as a civ. Texas, Liechtenstein and Djibouti are just by-products of other civs in the meanwhile, and it's just plain ornery to just brush away the Inuit because, to you, they barely formed a 'civilization'. We've already had a Native American civ under Sitting Bull, but the Inuit are a step too far? We can shove in two-bit filler 'civs' like Hungary or Scotland or Austria or Poland and fill Europe up nicely but can't do half of that for the rest of the world?

 

[God of Kings]

Israel could be called Hebrews instead and focus on its early history.

 

[Siptah]

Israel could be called Hebrews instead and focus on its early history.

Hebrews? Why name it after a people? Juda would be a nice name if it focuses on the Iron Age history of the region.

 

[Krajzen]

The Inuit, with their unique culture, mythos, technology, expansion in the north and while they didn't thrive or flourish in the far north at least stood their ground there, and other attributes can stand on their own as a civ. Texas, Liechtenstein and Djibouti are just by-products of other civs in the meanwhile, and it's just plain ornery to just brush away the Inuit because, to you, they barely formed a 'civilization'. We've already had a Native American civ under Sitting Bull, but the Inuit are a step too far? We can shove in two-bit filler 'civs' like Hungary or Scotland or Austria or Poland and fill Europe up nicely but can't do half of that for the rest of the world?

The problem here is the definition of 'civilization'. You seem to focus on cultural distinctiveness, and by this criteria Inuit are good because not connected to any other civ, while European states of secondary importance are not as good because they are culturally similar to other European states. While it is arguably good aspect of civ inclusion, I always think about the definition of civilization - by wikipedia:

"A civilization is any complex society characterized by urban development, social stratification imposed by a cultural elite, symbolic systems of communication (for example, writing systems), and a perceived separation from and domination over the natural environment."

This wikipedia definition is based on books such as The Evolution of Urban Society, Cultural Anthropology, An Invitation to Anthropology, sociological books devoted specifically to 'civilization' etc. Please note how 'urban' is ranked first, but also 'any society' which qualifies, so yeah Hungary too.

The big divide is between
a) Players who consider scholarly definitions like this completely insignificant and basically qualify any human culture ever as 'civilization' for sake of adding them do the Civilization game, doesn't matter if it's 10 000 big stone age jungle tribe, and honestly it's kind of understandable because it's just a game not a scientific paper but...
b) ...other players like me really like to pay big attention to such 'nitpicky' 'petty' historical stuff and certain things in 'just a game' simply spoil their immersion just a bit if they don't fit main theme of a game.

I mean, even though 'it's just a game', there are some 'but it's fun' things almost nobody of us would like to see in it because they'd spoil their immersion - such as Martian invaders with dragons in the medieval age. Because that's unrealistic, ahistorical etc. That's an extreme example of course. And for me adding very small, non-urban, no writing, no social stratification, no expansionism primitive tribes as playable empires standing next to Rome, Egypt, China and India - simply don't fit the theme of this game and would fit the theme of some other game, focusing on smaller scale earlier societies.

Personally I have always disliked Zulu inclusion instead of actual urban, ancient Subsaharan civilizations, I have disliked Huns, I barely accept Native American tribes (I don't think they'd be here if Firaxis wasn't American company) etc. And I really dislike suggestions of Inuits, Tupi, Taino, Siberian natives, Australian Aborigines etc because imo they simply don't fit the scope of this game.

If it improves your mood, I also really dislike any colonial civs besides America, Brazil and maybe Mexico - they fit scholarly definitions of civ very well, I just find them lacking in age, spectacular accomplishments, cultural distinctiveness, historical importance etc, generally I think they are very boring.

 

[VermelhoRed]

* 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.

My two cents:
* Italy - NOT centered in Vatican, which isn't really a city, and just part of Rome. I hated it as a CS in V and I really hope it doesn't come back! The proper way of doing this would be a la Greece, with two different leaders for two different city-states. To give Venice a rest, I'd sugest some Medici for Florence and Matilda for Milan, but any two cities would be cool.
* Inuit - Instead of a blanket "Inuit" tag, a Kalaalit (Greenland) would be more appropriate imo.
* Ireland - I'd much rather have the Gauls under Brennus or Vercingetorix. As long as they exclude Briton and Pictish elements (and city names), it's not a blob and it fits the old "Celts" much better.
* Tibet - WHY DOES EVERYONE FORGET NEPAL?!

The Inuit, with their unique culture, mythos, technology, expansion in the north and while they didn't thrive or flourish in the far north at least stood their ground there, and other attributes can stand on their own as a civ. Texas, Liechtenstein and Djibouti are just by-products of other civs in the meanwhile, and it's just plain ornery to just brush away the Inuit because, to you, they barely formed a 'civilization'. We've already had a Native American civ under Sitting Bull, but the Inuit are a step too far? We can shove in two-bit filler 'civs' like Hungary or Scotland or Austria or Poland and fill Europe up nicely but can't do half of that for the rest of the world?

Yes, and let's remember there is a nation-state that's composed mostly of Inuit in this very day! Greenland isn't completely independant but neither are Australia or Canada tbh. A Kalaalit civilization could have elements regarding old-school Inuits as well as some regarding modern Greenland, with some ability about fisheries.It is promising for gameplay and very unique culturally!

 

[PhoenicianGold]

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.

Muscogee/Choctaw I think also has room for mechanical differentiation from the Cree. Certainly moreso than the Sioux or Iroquois. But I think we will likely only get one US tribe and for purposes of map filling I think the Navajo or Shoshone are most likely.

Which, to set the tone for this response, yes I get the overwhelming impression that the devs are trying to fill out the map as much as they can. The Cree and Canada filling out the American North. The Mapuche vicariously repping Chile and Argentina. Georgia. Australia and the Maori. Even the choice of Hungary over Austria.

It's not an unreasonable standard set by the developers because given the audiovisual richness of the art design, filling gaps on the map forces the devs to consider different cultures to pull from. It overall makes for a much more diverse roster.

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 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

I don't place much stock in memes, and honestly I get the overwhelming impression that Vietnam, like Cuba, like USSR, has been mostly built up due to its comparatively recent juxtaposition as a U.S. enemy. I think that has to some extent artificially inflated its importance in the eyes of players. I will say, however, that Burma has two things Vietnam does not:

* An obvious and regionally iconic/influential UB in the paya. Vietnam doesn't have a clearly iconic UB.
* Virtually no geographic overlap with Khmer. If we didn't have Khmer, Vietnam would be a strong contender, but as observed gaps seem to be taking priority.

I will acknowledge that as a counterpoint, Vietnam would undoubtedly sell well. Between the memes and larger playerbase identifying with them culturally. So it may be closer than I want it to be, but a game with Vietnam but without Burma or at least Siam would feel incomplete. Whereas I cannot say the same for the reverse.

Who knows, maybe both Burma and Vietnam are planned. I would actually prefer both over Siam. It would balance out Southest Asia much better geographically and culturally.

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 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'

I think you misunderstood me because we are both on the same page here. I did not intend to suggest that Swahili were a product of colonization, and thought I made clear that their success as the "core" of the Omani empire really had little to do with Omani influence. The trade infrastructure was already there.

In Civ V, I would have campaigned for the Omani, because that game was about imperial conquest. But now that VI has decided to be about culture, Omani feels a bit samey compared to Morocco and the Ottomans. Whereas the Swahili fit right in alongside the Mapuche and Scythia. So I'm greatly hoping that this will happen in expack 3.

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' 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.

Let me clarify. Obviously there is a cultural case to be made for both Bulgaria and Armenia. But again from a geographical map filling aim with a finite amount of slots and resources, I get the impression that the devs chose the strongest option between Bulgaria and Hungary for the Balkan/Danube region, and similarly between Georgia and Armenia for the Caucasus region. I think in a world where development continued for another couple years beyond a third expack both would be highly likely to appear, but we just don't know where the devs decided to stop.

Furthermore, Bulgaria is obviously culturally distinct, but mechanically it begs to be very similar to Hungary. I'm just not sure where to find differentiation where many of its iconic features are just Bulgarian equivalents of the same thing.

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?

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
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.

Check out my proposed Italy thread in ideas and suggestions. Basically the problem is that all of the single leaders who ruled Italy were either not Italian, ruled it before or after it's heyday, or didn't really rule it at all. No single leader feels satsifying. And I don't believe any two leaders would capture the feel of Italy either.

My solution is to just accept Italy as an evolution of the Venice concept, as a collection of independent city states that you can puppet from a central city state. And the only city state that makes sense as a long term "puppeteer" of Italian culture is the Vatican, since it served as the legitimizer of the secession of both the Lombard and Norman Italian city states, and is now currently the cultural heart of Italy.

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

Meh. I don't disagree, but it is indisputable that between igloos and kayaks and Nanook an Inuit civ would be extremely easy to implement.

I do agree that neither civ fits with the current idea of civs. But there has been a lot of discovery into prehistoric tribes, and players have been clamoring for a prehistoric period. If indeed the devs want to expand early gameplay, I think the door is open for the Inuit/Sibir for a small expack. Again, especially given how popular both civs were in CBR.

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

I can conceive of the devs releasing one or two controversial DLC civs and just region limiting the release. Unlikely, but come on it's Tibet we need to have hope in something.

Ultimately I think the political complication of Tibet or the Vatican is not on the same level of Israel. China wouldn't go to war with anyone over a Tibet civ, it would just censor the game. Israel could very easily cause some kind of Islamic insurgence somewhere. Does that make Tibet any more likely to appear? I don't know, probably not.

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

Ireland is more necessary than any of those for precisely one reason. It would fill the hole left by the Celts. The Celts were always a "justification" for including something which felt Irish/Scottish in prior civ games that only cared about "empires." Now that the standard has been replaced with "enduring cultures," the Celts will probably be left behind.

Also, on principle it is extremely weird that Scotland, which hasn't been independent for centuries, got in before Ireland. So if anything blame Scotland for begging the question to begin with.

Okay, a second reason would be that Ireland has a large gamer population and would sell like hotcakes.

 

[awesome]

I wouldn't expect Ireland (or the Welsh, for that matter) until Civ7, because of Scotland. A crowded Europe is one thing; we don't need a crowded British Isles, too.
As for the "make it a 'Native American' suggestion and fill in the blank yourself" route, you could probably do the same thing with a lot of African civs, for the same reason.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I wouldn't expect Ireland (or the Welsh, for that matter) until Civ7, because of Scotland. A crowded Europe is one thing; we don't need a crowded British Isles, too.
As for the "make it a 'Native American' suggestion and fill in the blank yourself" route, you could probably do the same thing with a lot of African civs, for the same reason.

We don't even know if/when a civ 7 will happen. All we know now is that Civ VI is very successful and designed to support as many ideas as Firaxis can fit in VI. The fact is that a third expack will have at least two European civs because that it what sells, and so the question becomes Portugal and which? No matter how you slice it Europe is and will continue to be crowded, so now you must choose: Ireland, Denmark, Italy, or Bulgaria? Europe may even get three civs in expack 3, which only increases Ireland's chances. What I'm saying is that it is too late to dismiss Ireland as unlikely, because it de facto is already a strong possibility.

I don't think there are many African civs left tbh to merit a grouping like that. Morocco is a near certainty because it knocks out some very large northern African ethnic groups. We have the Swahili and Ethiopia as fairly likely. The Hausa and/or Kanem as quite possible. And then the Yoruba/Ashanti/Oyo competing for the same slot. Maybe, maybe the Somali or Mutapa. I think that is about the extent of what is being considered by the devs. And we're never getting all of them.

 

[Siptah]

* Tibet - WHY DOES EVERYONE FORGET NEPAL?!

Because people that don't know much about that area/country think of it as either a Tibet substitute or an India copy. If the country's history and culture(s) would be better known in the west/these forums, I don't think it would be an unpopular choice at all and would also not be forgotten. It's a good choice in its own right.

As to the likeliness of European civs in a third expansion, I'm betting on either

• Portugal and Charles V leading Spain/Austria
• Portugal and Margaret for Denmark/Sweden/Norway

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Because people that don't know much about that area/country think of it as either a Tibet substitute or an India copy. If the country's history and culture(s) would be better known in the west/these forums, I don't think it would be an unpopular choice at all and would also not be forgotten. It's a good choice in its own right.

As to the likeliness of European civs in a third expansion, I'm betting on either

• Portugal and Charles V leading Spain/Austria
• Portugal and Margaret for Denmark/Sweden/Norway

It's a meh choice when juxtaposed against Burma, the Chola, and, yes, Tibet. I mean we have Scotland so I'm not ruling it out but Nepal would be extremely underwhelming.

I don't think Austria is happening in VI, given that most of its claims to greatness have been assigned to Germany, Spain, and Hungary. I actually do think Bohemia or Switzerland, something with more character, is more more likely than Austria at this point. And I don't believe either of those to be particularly likely either.

Denmark appears to be another frontrunner of European options, but Margaret will not lead Sweden. She was queen consort of Norway, then queen regent of Denmark, then king of both. She incidentally ruled Sweden as part of Norway-Sweden for only the first two years of her reign as queen consort, and re-conquered after she became queen of Denmark. As someone who married into or inherited two crowns "legitimately," she is much more strongly connected to Denmark and Norway than she is to Sweden, which went somewhat unwillingly. It's called Stockholm syndrome for a reason.

Still, I think Margaret would be fantastic as a Denmark/Norway leader.

 

[VermelhoRed]

Because people that don't know much about that area/country think of it as either a Tibet substitute or an India copy. If the country's history and culture(s) would be better known in the west/these forums, I don't think it would be an unpopular choice at all and would also not be forgotten. It's a good choice in its own right.

As to the likeliness of European civs in a third expansion, I'm betting on either

• Portugal and Charles V leading Spain/Austria
• Portugal and Margaret for Denmark/Sweden/Norway

Since they've made the multiple-capitals system, I am firmly convict that Austria should be represented as having Maria Theresa as an alt leader for Germany, with a pro-city-state ability mirroring Barbarossa's.

It's a meh choice when juxtaposed against Burma, the Chola, and, yes, Tibet. I mean we have Scotland so I'm not ruling it out but Nepal would be extremely underwhelming.

Do you have any notion of Nepalese history and culture? How in hell can they be even a bit underwhelming? They're fascinating in all aspects!

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Since they've made the multiple-capitals system, I am firmly convict that Austria should be represented as having Maria Theresa as an alt leader for Germany, with a pro-city-state ability mirroring Barbarossa's.

Hm. Could work. Although I still think Arminius or Bismarck are more likely given that they are politically far different from the HRE.

The problem with Austria is that it almost entirely exists for Maria Teresa's sake. And in that respect it may still edge itself in on the same logic as Alexander of Macedon, although I'd argue the two aren't remotely comparable.

I personally believe the happiest solution is to add Maria Teresa as an alt leader for literally every civ.

Do you have any notion of Nepalese history and culture? How in hell can they be even a bit underwhelming? They're fascinating in all aspects!

Oh I agree they are fascinating in their own right. But the general trend of VI is to represent large and influential cultures, Nepal is not on the same level as other civs in the region.

Again, we have Scotland so anything is possible. But I'm pretty sure Nepal would not be as resonant or well received as Tibet. And there would be a fair amount of backlash if it were included over Burma, or even Siam or Vietnam.

I'd like to believe that there is still an exceptionalist standard for including civs as representing their region, and Nepal's three biggest draws to my mind are not compelling:

1. The closest independent state to representing Tibet. Definition of underwhelming, since it culturally isn't Tibet but an odd hybrid of Tibet, India, and local demographics. It wouldn't feel the same and would not only have to stand on its own merits but excessively so to counterbalance the disappointment that it isn't Tibet.

2. Himalaya, sherpa, mountain tourism stuff. Sure, Mount Everest and K-2 exist. But the West's obsession with conquest of nature has sprung up a toxic industry among local Sherpas, many of whom are underpaid and are injured or die for the sake of shallow privileged fantasy. This is not a pretty side of humanity and I'd rather it be left out of civ.

3. Buddha was born there. Okay, but how do you capitalize on this mechanically? And again, see point 1, because Tibetan Buddhism is far more resonant than anything that exists in Nepal.

It's a very weak concept and honestly not much less problematic than Tibet. It seems like China didn't attempt to conquer Nepal initially because a) it's a small bunch of dumb, confusing mountains and not worth the effort and b) it's worth much more as a diplomatic ally on the other side of Tibet to justify conquest of the more valuable plateau. And even then, China appears to be digging its claws into Nepal in recent years to further enforce a buffer zone against India, so we have no idea if in ten years China will be just as against the portrayal of an independent Nepal.

Could it work? Sure, in some conceivable reality many civs could work. But does it feel as relevant and necessary to VI's grand thesis as other Southest Asian civs? Not really, unless the devs are determined at all costs to get something vaguely Tibetan in the game. And I'd rather they just bite the bullet and do Tibet proper at that point.

 

[VermelhoRed]

Oh I agree they are fascinating in their own right. But the general trend of VI is to represent large and influential cultures, Nepal is not on the same level as other civs in the region.

Again, we have Scotland so anything is possible. But I'm pretty sure Nepal would not be as resonant or well received as Tibet. And there would be a fair amount of backlash if it were included over Burma, or even Siam or Vietnam.

I'd like to believe that there is still an exceptionalist standard for including civs as representing their region, and Nepal's three biggest draws to my mind are not compelling:

1. The closest independent state to representing Tibet. Definition of underwhelming, since it culturally isn't Tibet but an odd hybrid of Tibet, India, and local demographics. It wouldn't feel the same and would not only have to stand on its own merits but excessively so to counterbalance the disappointment that it isn't Tibet.

2. Himalaya, sherpa, mountain tourism stuff. Sure, Mount Everest and K-2 exist. But the West's obsession with conquest of nature has sprung up a toxic industry among local Sherpas, many of whom are underpaid and are injured or die for the sake of shallow privileged fantasy. This is not a pretty side of humanity and I'd rather it be left out of civ.

3. Buddha was born there. Okay, but how do you capitalize on this mechanically? And again, see point 1, because Tibetan Buddhism is far more resonant than anything that exists in Nepal.

It's a very weak concept and honestly not much less problematic than Tibet. It seems like China didn't attempt to conquer Nepal initially because a) it's a small bunch of dumb, confusing mountains and not worth the effort and b) it's worth much more as a diplomatic ally on the other side of Tibet to justify conquest of the more valuable plateau. And even then, China appears to be digging its claws into Nepal in recent years to further enforce a buffer zone against India, so we have no idea if in ten years China will be just as against the portrayal of an independent Nepal.

Could it work? Sure, in some conceivable reality many civs could work. But does it feel as relevant and necessary to VI's grand thesis as other Southest Asian civs? Not really, unless the devs are determined at all costs to get something vaguely Tibetan in the game. And I'd rather they just bite the bullet and do Tibet proper at that point.

I don't even know where to begin here. Nepal's biggest draw is being Nepal, not being "closest independent state to Tibet", which would be Bhutan in the first place. Their culture is no hybrid of anything, but something unique, and far closer to India than to Tibet in the first place. Not to mention Nepal is much larger than Tibet in population, and defetead the Tibetans twice in wars after their unification. Sherpas aren't "mountain tourism stuff", they're an ethnic minority, a group of Tibetan people living in Nepal, famed for their skills in mountaineering, which then proved useful for Westerners in this latest part of their long history. They're also famous for the ferocity of their "Ghurka" soldiers, and also the fertile Terai plains, which also house the largest tigers of the world, among other things. You should seriously read more about Nepal before you say anything else, honestly.

 

[Siptah]

I don't even know where to begin here. Nepal's biggest draw is being Nepal, not being "closest independent state to Tibet", which would be Bhutan in the first place. Their culture is no hybrid of anything, but something unique, and far closer to India than to Tibet in the first place. Not to mention Nepal is much larger than Tibet in population, and defetead the Tibetans twice in wars after their unification. Sherpas aren't "mountain tourism stuff", they're an ethnic minority, a group of Tibetan people living in Nepal, famed for their skills in mountaineering, which then proved useful for Westerners in this latest part of their long history. They're also famous for the ferocity of their "Ghurka" soldiers, and also the fertile Terai plains, which also house the largest tigers of the world, among other things. You should seriously read more about Nepal before you say anything else, honestly.

You are of course right, but Nepal *can* be very Tibetan, culturally. Most notably in Mustang.

Anyway, if a Tibet substitute is in demand, Nepal wouldn't be my first choice anyway, but Guge or Nari Khorsum. Both kingdoms are essential for Tibetan history and culture, yet they should be doable without any political complications (despite Guge's capital of Tsaparang being in the modern autonomous province of Tibet).

 

[VermelhoRed]

Yeah Nepal wouldn't be a "Tibet substitute", they'd be Nepal. The gameplay for Tibet and Nepal might be similar though.

 

[ehecatzin]

Mexico.

There i said it, I'm expecting another postcolonial in case of a third xpack (tho I know probably Colombia has a better chance in that it fills the map better and is also spanish speaking). Haida, Mughals, and Vietnam are all civs I still wonder how they haven't made it in.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I don't even know where to begin here. Nepal's biggest draw is being Nepal, not being "closest independent state to Tibet", which would be Bhutan in the first place. Their culture is no hybrid of anything, but something unique, and far closer to India than to Tibet in the first place. Not to mention Nepal is much larger than Tibet in population, and defetead the Tibetans twice in wars after their unification. Sherpas aren't "mountain tourism stuff", they're an ethnic minority, a group of Tibetan people living in Nepal, famed for their skills in mountaineering, which then proved useful for Westerners in this latest part of their long history. They're also famous for the ferocity of their "Ghurka" soldiers, and also the fertile Terai plains, which also house the largest tigers of the world, among other things. You should seriously read more about Nepal before you say anything else, honestly.

Yes yes blah blah blah. Thanks for reading off the Wikipedia for me. This really is football for euro geeks because everyone gets so emotionally invested and indignant when you say their team just isn't that good. They can't all be clear-cut inclusions like China.

I am talking about game development and the function Nepal would serve in game design. Part of that is mechanics, part of that is art design, and in the case of Civ VI part of that is resonance with the player base and overall global impact. I have given you my honest impression that Nepal is not as compelling as other SE Asia civs. I can't make you accept that but throwing the same baseline "they exist" facts at me which have equivalents in every civ doesn't by itself make them exceptional enough to merit civ status.

So they have a unique unit that would probably function like Georgia's. Tibet and Vietnam have obvious UUs as well in the Lama and Vietnam Cong.

So they were a military power at some point. So were Tibet and Burma and Vietnam.

So they could build a Pagoda, but they didn't CLAIM it like the Burmese did.

Yes the Sherpas are an ethnic group but what they are largely known for has been terribly exploited. I'm pretty sure my post didn't make any statement either way so really this was just you projecting some weird straw man onto me.

So they have tigers. I don't see how this has any impact on a civ game tbh.

I'm sorry if you expect me to indulge in this sort of myopic masturbation that so many do here, but I don't just presume every civ I like "deserves" to be in and then ignore whatever evidence may indicate they won't make it over another civ. If a civ wasn't particularly exceptional or prolific in anything, it is Scotland or Georgia. Could happen, may happen, but not as compelling to include as other more obvious candidates in the region.

I'm not responding to any more of your posts about Nepal if you're going to continue engaging in this sweepingly dismissive delusion that I don't know what I'm talking about. You don't seem to know or care much about game design or market research, which is going to repeatedly undermine your personal ideas and desires until you learn to reconcile with the idea that concepts are heavily vetted and polished before production. Not just shat out in five minutes on forum.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Mexico.

There i said it, I'm expecting another postcolonial in case of a third xpack (tho I know probably Colombia has a better chance in that it fills the map better and is also spanish speaking). Haida, Mughals, and Vietnam are all civs I still wonder how they haven't made it in.

Mexico won't happen over the Maya, and it won't happen alongside the Maya. But it would sell like hotcakes so it is one of the most likely civs that would make DLC or expacks after the third one.

And I am not wondering at all. The Haida are competing with comparables like the Tlingit and Taino. The Mughals are competing with comparables like the Timurids. And Vietnam is competing with comparables like Burma and Siam. Absolutely none of these are clear cut frontrunners and actually I would say all three are not the frontrunners in their respective races. So I find your wondrance perplexingly presumptive.