Never-Before-Seen Civs Poll

[PhoenicianGold]

Gran Colombia existed for a mere 10 years! TEN!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Colombia

I hope to never see this in game. Colombia or Venezuela would be a much better choice, since they are nations with, well, more than 10years. They can even have aspects of their brief Gran Colombia existence, but not with this name, please!

Agreed. Just call it Colombia. But still led by Bolivar.

 

[pgm123]

Gran Colombia existed for a mere 10 years! TEN!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Colombia

I hope to never see this in game. Colombia or Venezuela would be a much better choice, since they are nations with, well, more than 10years. They can even have aspects of their brief Gran Colombia existence, but not with this name, please!

I would hope they call it Colombia. There was never an entity called Gran Colombia; it was called Colombia (or rather República de Colombia). That became New Granada, which is essentially the precursor to modern Colombia.

• "King" Queen - Jadwiga

It's just because a lack of good English translations. "Queen" Seondeok was a King (Wang). Wu Zeitian had a male title (Huangdi). Hatshepsut was a king (though she also reigned during the period where Pharaoh began to be used for the king). This is a rather superficial comparison and hardly a clone.

• Confusingly similar name - Tomyris

They have three letters in common. That's not a confusingly similar name.

• Faith UI: Poland/Scythia

Sphynx also provides faith. Same with the steppewell if the adjacency is right.

• Civ Ability: Jadwiga agenda

The civ ability is gaining a dedication to help you string together Golden Ages. Jagwida's agenda is building up faith and liking others who do the same. The leader ability is getting extra envoys when a City State is your faith. Jagwida's leader ability is a bonus to relics and conversion upon culture bombing. What am I missing here?

What a boring part of the world, frankly. Just a lot of samey variations on backwater religion.

Seriously?

 

[Zaarin]

Armenia (I don't realistically expect it but it would be nice), Choctaw, the Goths, Haida/Tlingit, Hungary, Palmyra/Syria/Aram, and Vietnam for me, from this list.

 

[Returning Lurker]

Is this a poll for civs we would want THIS game or in Civilization 7? Because that changes my answer a lot. For instance I'd quite like an Irish civilization in Civilization 7, but in Civ 6 this would seem redundant with the inclusion of Scotland and aggravating with the exclusion of (insert the mandatory "mandatory" list).

 

[Greywulf]

Personally, I don't see on as really limiting the other. But I'm a big believer in having way more civs than any set limit.

Quality is better than quantity.

 

[VermelhoRed]

Nepal would be a great addition, very unique in culture, and with great gameplay potential

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I hope to never see this in game. Colombia or Venezuela would be a much better choice, since they are nations with, well, more than 10years. They can even have aspects of their brief Gran Colombia existence, but not with this name, please!

As long as it could still be led by Simon Bolivar I would be fine with that interpretation as well.

 

[ferretbacon]

Nepal would be a great addition, very unique in culture, and with great gameplay potential

Welcome to the Nepal Club!

Not sure who else is a member. I say forget Tibet; too much controversy in the Chinese market. Nepal is where it's at if you want a Himalayan culture.

 

[pgm123]

Quality is better than quantity.

Normally I'd agree, but not here. All I ask is that they're not game-breaking.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Bulgaria/Thrace - One of my favorite civs to play in the Rhyes and Fall mod-mod for Europe. It's an interesting history for a steppe tribe that adopted Slavic culture and was heavily influenced by the Byzantine sphere. At least two modern nations (Bulgaria and Macedonia) draw their origins from the Bulgarian Empire. Plus I'm listening to the History of Bulgaria Podcast. Not sure about the abilities, but the leaders should be easy to pick.

You didn't play with Hungary in RFCE?

 

[Greywulf]

Normally I'd agree, but not here. All I ask is that they're not game-breaking.

While I see a need for a degree of quantity as well in this case, I cannot agree that quantity takes place over quality.

 

[evanaurora]

I voted for Apache/Navajo, Ashanti, Benin/Dahomey, Burma, Haida/Tlingit, the Mughals, and Vietnam.

My most fervent hope right now is that we won't get new European civs-- we'll have Europe covered if Portugal and Byzantium return in a future xpac. ofc with DLC it's different, but I still say that other parts of the world deserve more attention. My best friend, however, *does* currently live in Hungary, so if I had to pick a new European civ, I'm going with them.

Burma and Vietnam *both* deserve a presence in *any* civ game. I've wanted a PNW civ in the game for Always-- I know more about tribes that actually lived in the US, but the Haida and Tlingit are probably the most objectively deserving, so. The Mughals are my second pet hope-- someday the civ devs will reach a critical point of their name being bandied about and come 'round, yes?!? The Ashanti and Benin are the most interesting African civs to me on this list, although a well-executed Madagascar or Kilwa Sultanate would probably be neat. I ended up going with the Apache/Navajo, but both the Navajo and the Cherokee are "big" tribes that have such hefty cultural impact; it seems bizarre to me that neither has yet made an appearance.

Not present on this list: I'd really like to see the Maori. A Pacific civ should be in the game (no, Australia doesn't count) and the Maori are imo one of the coolest. Nepal, Syria, Madagascar, Italy, and Armenia are my runners-up (some from this list, some not.)

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I somehow don't think you do, either.

I'm sure China loves the Euro-/Western-/Anglo-centric bias of the Civilization games. And the fact that they are consistently represented as a "has-been" civ. I think an ancient Tibet civ would be less controversial than you think, especially since there really aren't any other ways to give that quarter of the world population extra representation besides another leader. And worst case, they could just leave it for a DLC pack that just conveniently isn't sold in China. I'm personally torn on the idea, because any sort of ban would prevent the sort of positive global PR reaching younger Chinese, so maybe they do have to be careful. But I'm not completely ruling it out.

Israel I think is less likely than Tibet, if only because the devs could conveniently make a Khazar civ as an alternative. Although a generic "Hebrew" civ led by Baldwin would be relatively safe, apart from the whole Jerusalem capital thing.

As the Cree, Mapuche, and Scotland have shown, Civ can be more documentary in its approach to history than in previous iterations. As long as they very strictly maintained that these are historical representations of the past, I think they can get away with a lot more than when they were some silly children's wish fulfillment game.

My position on "controversial" civs--particularly those of significant historical and cultural import--is that it isn't the responsibility of players to do the political filtering in online fora that the developers almost certainly read. Our responsibility is to steer public discourse toward ideas that we are most likely to purchase and enjoy; to widen options. The developers can do the political research and self-censoring on their own, without us prematurely limiting their ideas.

Honestly don’t know what you’re on about RE: Scotland. There’s not enough appetite for a majority in a referendum despite adverse political climate for a decade and a recent referendum already taking place. On top of that, Scotland and Britain as a whole has massive vote exhaustion at the moment. You’re in the clouds if you think it’s gunna happen in the next few years because Robert the Bruce has appeared in Civ. Outlander as a tv series has far greater reach, and far more provocative independence messages, and that’s not changed the situation.

Tibet can’t possibly be less controversial Than I suggested. China has a literal embargo on acknowledging Tibet as a state, or any history of it as an independent territory. It’s just never gunna happen, unless Firaxis manage to tell 2k there is a strong financial case for shutting down a 1/4 of their potential market.

As to your last paragraph, your position is irrelevant, as you were writing about probabilities, so that’s the argument I was countering. Probabilities inherently accounts for uncertainty, reacting to the likelihood of developer choices. That’s not “steering public discourse”, that’s gossip

 

[Shayna]

Apache/Navejo
Canada
Cherokee/Chocktaw/etc
Gran Colombia
Hebrews
Romania/Walachia
Zimbabwe

If I had more choices I have been thinking about how Bulgaria would be a cool civ to have (I was torn between them and Romania/Wallachia) but with the likelihood of getting the Byzantines back (though I think they could be a new leader for Rome) and Vlad Tepes just being too cool to pass up, I went with Rom/Wal. Benin would be cool but I would rather see Mansa Musa come back and Mali and Benin are just too close.

 

[pgm123]

You didn't play with Hungary in RFCE?

Actually, I don't think I ever have. I guess I should try them out.

 

[clapyourhands]

I somehow don't think you do, either.

I'm sure China loves the Euro-/Western-/Anglo-centric bias of the Civilization games. And the fact that they are consistently represented as a "has-been" civ. I think an ancient Tibet civ would be less controversial than you think, especially since there really aren't any other ways to give that quarter of the world population extra representation besides another leader. And worst case, they could just leave it for a DLC pack that just conveniently isn't sold in China. I'm personally torn on the idea, because any sort of ban would prevent the sort of positive global PR reaching younger Chinese, so maybe they do have to be careful. But I'm not completely ruling it out.

Israel I think is less likely than Tibet, if only because the devs could conveniently make a Khazar civ as an alternative. Although a generic "Hebrew" civ led by Baldwin would be relatively safe, apart from the whole Jerusalem capital thing.

As the Cree, Mapuche, and Scotland have shown, Civ can be more documentary in its approach to history than in previous iterations. As long as they very strictly maintained that these are historical representations of the past, I think they can get away with a lot more than when they were some silly children's wish fulfillment game.

My position on "controversial" civs--particularly those of significant historical and cultural import--is that it isn't the responsibility of players to do the political filtering in online fora that the developers almost certainly read. Our responsibility is to steer public discourse toward ideas that we are most likely to purchase and enjoy; to widen options. The developers can do the political research and self-censoring on their own, without us prematurely limiting their ideas.

I really think you're underestimating how strict China is regarding video games and politics, or even cultural norms, and how impactful such rules are on the gaming industry. Even the biggest gaming companies have to abide by Chinese law or be blocked from the largest gaming market in the world. League of Legends, for instance--they removed Graves' cigar and turned Karthus from a skeleton to a lich because of Chinese restrictions on smoking and bone depictions, changes that happened worldwide despite only being significant in one market.

Mention of Tibet as being independent at any point in time would be grounds for a ban; let's not forget that Mao Zedong was removed as a leader in China because of the possibility he could lose the game. Tibet as a civ could possibly be independent into the modern age, which would definitely be a huge issue. I get what you're saying about global PR, but as someone living in a very Chinese international-heavy area, I can tell you firsthand that just mentioning Tibet is grounds for turmoil. Just a few months ago the Tibet debate got so heated here that the police had to get involved in keeping people from physical violence. The Dalai Lama came to speak at the local university graduation, and a large number of international Chinese students--and their parents--boycotted their own graduation. China itself got involved and threatened to halt funding for admissions from China into the school, and since international tuition is a large part of university funding, it was a very big deal. To be clear, this wasn't a speech about Tibetan independence, it was merely a generic graduation speech, but acknowledging the Dalai Lama as a figure of importance was enough to spark the controversy.

The situation is very heated at the moment, and as much as I would personally like to see Tibet as a deserving civilization, the issue is far too politically charged for it to pass harmlessly in China.

 

[Zaarin]

I really think you're underestimating how strict China is regarding video games and politics, or even cultural norms, and how impactful such rules are on the gaming industry. Even the biggest gaming companies have to abide by Chinese law or be blocked from the largest gaming market in the world. League of Legends, for instance--they removed Graves' cigar and turned Karthus from a skeleton to a lich because of Chinese restrictions on smoking and bone depictions, changes that happened worldwide despite only being significant in one market.

Doesn't Elder Scrolls have a big Chinese following, animated skeletons and all?

 

[clapyourhands]

Doesn't Elder Scrolls have a big Chinese following, animated skeletons and all?

It was a ratings thing--bones were a no-no in the equivalent of rated T in China. Riot Games opting to follow the Chinese ratings system for all versions of its games (until a few months ago, anyways) even though they would've been cleared in any other country was the main thing.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Don't look now, but I think Apache/Navajo/SW has just slid into third place...

Are we still pining after Pueblogate?

 

[Duckfromstatefarm]

Honestly I love to see some new civs of any kind. Out of all of them Palmyra/Syria would be on top of my list I'd love to see Zenobia lead them, also in the 7 picks I'd love to see the Trung sisters for Vietnam, some new Native American civs like the Navajo, Armenia with the Alternate leaders function (a king and Queen would be great), Also on board for any new Ancient civilizations.

Israel may be problematic however I'd say the way to fix it to avoid backlash is to give it an alternate name and Judea or Hebrews would be perfect. Out of the leaders For the Israeli/Hebrew civ, Soloman and David are on the top of my list to lead the civ while Bathsheba or Judge Deborah Would be my top two choices for the Female leaders but If I was to pick any others it would be out of David's or Soloman's pool of wives, or a wive of another ancient Israeli/Judah king.