Never-Before-Seen Civs Poll

[VermelhoRed]

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.

What I kept saying is that when it comes to mechanics and art design, at the very least, Nepal aces it. Resonance with the player base is overall far more of a fault of the player base, which I'm trying to remedy whenever I can. Other than that, all your standards of "exceptionality" are incredibly subjective and personal and thus all my answers to that have been in the same degree.

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.

The Ghurkas would NOT function like Georgia's. Lama? That's your proposal for a Tibetan UU? Seriously? And well, I really really doubt they'd go for something as polemic as the Viet Cong even if Vietnam is added as a civ.
So, you're saying Nepal is just as worthy to be added as those other three civs then? Because earlier on you seem to have considered Nepal inferior to them... I'll also add that Nepal has never been conquered since it's formation as a state, which places them above all those other three you cited.

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.

Oh my god, what "evidence" are you trying to pull here? How do you even judge who's "obvious" or not? You're the one who's somehow acting like your personal preferences have some objective standing to them, what do you even know about game design or market research? You say all that while criticising choices made by the very team that made this game, a team that includes many designers and market researchers! How can you even try to appeal to authority here? Get down of your high horse!

 

[ehecatzin]

In the context of an expansion, yeah, Mexico has no chance over the Maya due to the geographical overlap. Maybe someday in DLC, in a civ with Brazil, Canada and Australia, it has to happen eventually.

you've got a point in Vietnam, the geographical clustering is a concern from what the devs have mentioned, but following that same idea, Haida occupies a very empty part of the map and is recognizable enough to at least be considered. I think the biggest problem against the inclusion of the Mughals is blob India rather than the Timurids themselves, (I wouldn't mind a Mughal leader for India tho) but if we consider India prevents The Mughals, then yeah, the Timurids would be a very nice alternative.

 

[679x]

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.

Yo let's take a breather here, man. He gave his opinion, backed it up a bit, and you gave yours. You disagree with eachother, but surely you can do this without being completely rude about it - I saw you struggle with this in another thread too (though I happened to agree with you in that Italy one, yet still thought you were being pretty harsh to the guy who disagreed).

I think his point about the tigers and whatnot was just listing a handful of things that Nepal is known for, not necessarily things that could immediately translate into a civ ability and leader ability. Also, I'm pretty sure he was just vouching for Nepal instead of Tibet. He didn't say anything about Burma/Vietnam. Maybe he agrees that Burma/Vietnam should be included first, I dunno. His sole point was that Nepal should be considered as a civ in the place of Tibet, nothing else.

I wouldn't consider the Lama to be an obvious UU because it would be a civilian unit and IIRC we don't have any unique civilian units yet, though I would like to see some in Civ 6 eventually. Viet Cong would IMO also be a more stereotypical/controversial unit that would fit with the hypothesis that people want to see Vietnam more in Civ6 because it was a prominent US enemy, and I doubt that Firaxis would want to include it like that.

 

[VermelhoRed]

Yo let's take a breather here, man. He gave his opinion, backed it up a bit, and you gave yours. You disagree with eachother, but surely you can do this without being completely rude about it - I saw you struggle with this in another thread too (though I happened to agree with you in that Italy one, yet still thought you were being pretty harsh to the guy who disagreed).

I think his point about the tigers and whatnot was just listing a handful of things that Nepal is known for, not necessarily things that could immediately translate into a civ ability and leader ability. Also, I'm pretty sure he was just vouching for Nepal instead of Tibet. He didn't say anything about Burma/Vietnam. Maybe he agrees that Burma/Vietnam should be included first, I dunno. His sole point was that Nepal should be considered as a civ in the place of Tibet, nothing else.

I wouldn't consider the Lama to be an obvious UU because it would be a civilian unit and IIRC we don't have any unique civilian units yet, though I would like to see some in Civ 6 eventually. Viet Cong would IMO also be a more stereotypical/controversial unit that would fit with the hypothesis that people want to see Vietnam more in Civ6 because it was a prominent US enemy, and I doubt that Firaxis would want to include it like that.

The tigers were just a passing remark, my main point is the existance of the Terai region, which is very fertile, and could lead to some agricultural bonus, or something related to floodplains, instead of just mountains, faith and culture. That this region has tigers was more meant to signify its opulence.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

The tigers were just a passing remark, my main point is the existance of the Terai region, which is very fertile, and could lead to some agricultural bonus, or something related to floodplains, instead of just mountains, faith and culture. That this region has tigers was more meant to signify its opulence.

"Oh Georgia had a golden age, therefore they should be the golden age civ." Georgia is so much fun to play as. :/

Thank you for finally noting something superlative Nepal has done, namely never being conquered (well completely, anyway), instead of impressionistically arguing that "it has things." I will now cede your point, even though I think Burma would be a more efficient inclusion.

 

[Jenniza]

The Hebrews [if that is what the general consensus wants to call the civilization] would be an interesting addition in my opinion. The Hebrew/Jewish culture/laws/people/distinct DNA have survived in one form or another for many thousands of years. I'm sure the creative minds of Firaxis with their historical researchers could do a fair and balanced representation, that is both sensitive to all the many customers and non-customers alike that would be curious about how Firaxis would treat this subject... as well as game-balanced with regard to all the other civilizations and fit into the Civilization Franchise. It may well have been some of this trepidation that has kept them from seriously pursuing this matter in the past. Maybe one day a time will come to pass when this will happen. Maybe Civ 7 or Civ 8. I'm patient.

 

[Krajzen]

"Oh Georgia had a golden age, therefore they should be the golden age civ." Georgia is so much fun to play as. :/

Thank you for finally noting something superlative Nepal has done, namely never being conquered (well completely, anyway), instead of impressionistically arguing that "it has things." I will now cede your point, even though I think Burma would be a more efficient inclusion.

Do you think Laos, Sri Lanka or Philippines would qualify as "achieving something" and could be worthy additions? It's a honest question, I'm sometimes asking myself if they wouldn't feel weird in the game. Especially regarding Laos.

 

[awesome]

I can honestly see it either way:
1. (Gran) Colombia gets into the next expansion/game (I also wouldn't be surprised if Nigeria gets into civ7, but that's a completely different conversation)
2. Maya doesn't get into civ6 at all, but they take the Aztec's spot in civ7 as the native Mesoamerican civ, and Mexico gets into that game.
I definitely don't expect to ever have Aztecs, Maya, Mexico, and Colombia all in the same game.

 

[Xandinho]

I can honestly see it either way:
1. (Gran) Colombia gets into the next expansion/game (I also wouldn't be surprised if Nigeria gets into civ7, but that's a completely different conversation)
2. Maya doesn't get into civ6 at all, but they take the Aztec's spot in civ7 as the native Mesoamerican civ, and Mexico gets into that game.
I definitely don't expect to ever have Aztecs, Maya, Mexico, and Colombia all in the same game.

Gran Colombia is possible, but I don't think we will have Mexico, they are including the Mexico City as a city-state right now, this doesn't make sense if the Mexico was being planned. The Maya are now the most requested civ, and it is perhaps the most blatant absence, and since the Mayas have been present since Civ3, so I think it's very unlikely that Mexico will replace them in Civ6 or in any other edition.

About Nigeria, I would like to have this represented in the game, but I think the Kingdom of Benin is a better option than the modern nation. But I agree that this is hardly going to happen in Civ6, perhaps Civ7.

 

[awesome]

Gran Colombia is possible, but I don't think we will have Mexico, they are including the Mexico City as a city-state right now, this doesn't make sense if the Mexico was being planned. The Maya are now the most requested civ, and it is perhaps the most blatant absence, and since the Mayas have been present since Civ3, so I think it's very unlikely that Mexico will replace them in Civ6 or in any other edition.

About Nigeria, I would like to have this represented in the game, but I think the Kingdom of Benin is a better option than the modern nation. But I agree that this is hardly going to happen in Civ6, perhaps Civ7.

Right, I'm saying that Mexico is much more likely in civ7 than in civ6, if at all. I'd actually be shocked if they put Mexico in civ6.
Maya would be welcomed in another expansion of civ6, and I'd definitely play as them at least once or twice, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they're not included, just because there are other series staples that also haven't been included yet, and they'd probably go for more European civs that are close together than Mesoamerican ones. I know people didn't like my ball court argument from earlier in the thread, but it could definitely be a reality.
Of course, having both Maya and Mexico in the same game would have the same proximity issue as Maya and Aztecs, but Mexico would be postcolonial, where Aztecs wouldn't. I'm not sure how popular the decision would be, but if I was told that I had to have another postcolonial civ in the Americas, I'd go that way.

And, while I agree that there are plenty of older civilizations in the area that could represent West Africa in civ7 (like Songhai, Benin, or even Ghana), I definitely wouldn't be surprised if they added a postcolonial African civ to the next game, since we have several in the Americas, one in Oceania, and arguably one in Asia, depending on how you feel about India. This game obviously needs to stay about all of history and not just modern history, so you'll have Carthage, Egypt, Zulu, and probably even Morocco and Ethiopia alongside Nigeria, but they've obviously been giving more focus to modern history in the past couple games than simply saying that ancient history is the only important history.

 

[JamesFaith]

And, while I agree that there are plenty of older civilizations in the area that could represent West Africa in civ7 (like Songhai, Benin, or even Ghana), I definitely wouldn't be surprised if they added a postcolonial African civ to the next game, since we have several in the Americas, one in Oceania, and arguably one in Asia, depending on how you feel about India. This game obviously needs to stay about all of history and not just modern history, so you'll have Carthage, Egypt, Zulu, and probably even Morocco and Ethiopia alongside Nigeria, but they've obviously been giving more focus to modern history in the past couple games than simply saying that ancient history is the only important history.

I think Benin has quite good chance thanks to Benin wall. Such architectonic feat is good fitting for new system of civilizations in Civ6 and it would be easy to derive some deffence or city bonuses from it.

 

[awesome]

I think Benin has quite good chance thanks to Benin wall. Such architectonic feat is good fitting for new system of civilizations in Civ6 and it would be easy to derive some deffence or city bonuses from it.

Maybe, but it wouldn't be the first time that a wonder was in a game and its civilization wasn't.

 

[Xandinho]

And, while I agree that there are plenty of older civilizations in the area that could represent West Africa in civ7 (like Songhai, Benin, or even Ghana), I definitely wouldn't be surprised if they added a postcolonial African civ to the next game, since we have several in the Americas, one in Oceania, and arguably one in Asia, depending on how you feel about India. This game obviously needs to stay about all of history and not just modern history, so you'll have Carthage, Egypt, Zulu, and probably even Morocco and Ethiopia alongside Nigeria, but they've obviously been giving more focus to modern history in the past couple games than simply saying that ancient history is the only important history.

Well, I think somewhat improbable to get some modern African nation, maybe Ethiopia led by Haile Selassie is the only modern African representation we can expect, even in Civ7. Some people want South Africa led by Nelson Mandela, others may say it's too early for this.

I would like to have more African representation in the game, I really like the addition of the Kongo Kingdom and I want this to become a staple in the game. I would also like Morocco to return, but I particularly prefer Ethiopia now. Other African kingdoms that would be interesting are Ashanti, Benin, Kilwa, Madagascar and Zimbabwe.

 

[awesome]

Well, I think somewhat improbable to get some modern African nation, maybe Ethiopia led by Haile Selassie is the only modern African representation we can expect, even in Civ7. Some people want South Africa led by Nelson Mandela, others may say it's too early for this.

I would like to have more African representation in the game, I really like the addition of the Kongo Kingdom and I want this to become a staple in the game. I would also like Morocco to return, but I particularly prefer Ethiopia now. Other African kingdoms that would be interesting are Ashanti, Benin, Kilwa, Madagascar and Zimbabwe.

I didn't think we'd ever see Canada or Australia, either.
There are more popular civs in West Africa than Nigeria, but it could easily get put in the game based on being one of the richest countries on the continent, and they'd allow for some colonial era units.
Of course, Morocco and Ethiopia have both had that covered, so maybe they will stick with switching back and forth between Songhai and Mali.
And I was really happy to see Kongo, too.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Maybe, but it wouldn't be the first time that a wonder was in a game and its civilization wasn't.

Yeah although the Yoruba are a strong contender for an African addition, the walls of Benin really feel more like a wonder to me.

The Nigeria region is interesting because even though we have several requested civs inOyo, Hausa, and Ashanti, they are all kind of overshadowed by Mali. Whereas the Swahili are the clear frontrunner for a civ along the western coast.

 

[awesome]

Yeah although the Yoruba are a strong contender for an African addition, the walls of Benin really feel more like a wonder to me.

The Nigeria region is interesting because even though we have several requested civs inOyo, Hausa, and Ashanti, they are all kind of overshadowed by Mali. Whereas the Swahili are the clear frontrunner for a civ along the western coast.

I think the main thing is that people underestimate the developers' willingness to include dark horses. Do older civs have a better chance than a more modern Nigeria to be in the game? Definitely. Is there a pretty good chance that Morocco and Ethiopia will get gunpowder units again? Also a definite. Can they still make Nigeria fit into the game, to allow a more modern civilization in Africa, to go along with the Ancient and Medieval civs there? Well. I think you already know the answer...

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I think the main thing is that people underestimate the developers' willingness to include dark horses. Do older civs have a better chance than a more modern Nigeria to be in the game? Definitely. Is there a pretty good chance that Morocco and Ethiopia will get gunpowder units again? Also a definite. Can they still make Nigeria fit into the game, to allow a more modern civilization in Africa, to go along with the Ancient and Medieval civs there? Well. I think you already know the answer...

Depends on what the developers want to develop.

I would point out, however, that if the third expack features a lot of economic mechanics, Swahili stand a better shot given the whole luxury trade angle. So far both expacks have featured six-ish civs that fit the expack's theme. Politics/Golden Ages (Mapuche, Scotland, Georgia, Cree, Zulu, Korea/Mongolia); terrain (Hungary, Maori, Canada, Inca, Mali, Sweden, kind of Phoenicia). I think any civ with a strong economic bent stands a good chance in the third expack, so Portugal, Maya, Morocco are all solidly in contention.

 

[ButtBillionaire]

One civ we haven't seen that I would like to see is the Sámi.

Inevitably, one or two, maybe even three of the civilisations in a hypothetical third expansion will be European. So why not try something different other than the traditional empires and kingdoms that all of the current European civs are, or were? The Sámi are today regarded as the indigenous people of Fennoscandia and northwestern Russia, and they are a unique, traditionally nomadic culture, being for the most part the only people in Europe still actively engaged in reindeer herding. While no one ever led all of the Sámi, they do, in my opinion, have a good option for a leader (Elsa Laula, regrettably her English Wikipedia article is dreadfully short compared to the two Norwegian articles), and they also have good options for unique infrastructure (the lavvu (protection against blizzards and other storms?) or the goahti). In terms of a unique unit I am more unsure. (maybe a noaidi?) Also, despite them being nomadic, there are thankfully a lot of actual towns and villages with Sámi names to take city names from.

EDIT: to further back up my suggestion of Elsa Laula as the most optimal leader for a Sámi civ, a statue of her was unveiled today in occasion of the Sámi national day, of which she is called the "mother." That should speak volumes about how important she was for the Sámi.

Spoiler :

 

[VermelhoRed]

Thing is, many of those Bight of Benin civs would ask for a similar ability to Kongo's N'kisi. I'd love to see a Yoruba / Oyo civ, but only in Civ 7, with an N'kisi-like ability, some cavalry for UU and other elements...

 

[Krajzen]

Thing is, many of those Bight of Benin civs would ask for a similar ability to Kongo's N'kisi. I'd love to see a Yoruba / Oyo civ, but only in Civ 7, with an N'kisi-like ability, some cavalry for UU and other elements...

Finally I have met somebody else who is aware of the glorious Yoruba civilizations

When I first read about Nigeria's precolonial history I was lowkey shocked - so advanced, well documented, unique urban cultures, and nobody proposes them for Civ (not to mention of total ignorance of popcultural history)?