Never-Before-Seen Civs Poll

[Verified_Confection_Being]

You might as well ask for a new game: Sid Meier's Tribalization. It's really funny how some people cry about eurocentric approach, but propose hordes of American native tribes 95% of the world never has heard about. Would that not be tribocentric? Don't get me wrong I totally agree that the puputatoki tribe has the exact same uniqueness, diversity and impact as for example Portugal...

Would not there be mods if these were so universally popular?

A large portion would never get into the game anyway because of various objections. I can also imagine how much of a best seller the puputatoki tribe would be as a dlc

Don’t feed the troll guys - don’t derail the thread or it’ll close.

Moderator Action: To call someone a troll is to be a troll. If you have a problem with a post, please use the report function and allow the staff to do their job. This will derail the thread faster than what he wrote. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

@Nikae Any suggestions for new non-tribal civilisations since you feel this way?

 

[Nikae]

Depends on setting, by which I mean the best inclusion pattern is obviously one that sells, and that is likely scenarios which include certain historical events or settings that people actually know.

Everyone favors and misses the Ottomans, there were quite a few new civilizations, such as Bulgaria or Hungary, that could be a part of a scenario involving them.

How do you exactly justify trying to sell or include a tribe only a thin layer of the US population knows instead of ones that are actually known by a far wider audience?

Or we can mention uniqueness, how exactly tribe a, b, c and d differ from each other so significantly? While unique cultures such as Israel remain outside?

There is historical importance or impact, Italy has had quite a long history containing both, yet we never got more than Rome.

Some modern countries could be included because they have a rich history and importance in the modern eras, such as Vietnam.

Yes, you can call me a troll, but look at how many voters missed the Shoshone. That is the reality of tribe inclusion popularity.

Moderator Action: Please report posts rather than respond to them. Responding in this manner is to be a troll. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Before people trample me, I am absolutely not against including them, I am against including many and the smallest of them. It's like including all the states of the former USSR, from the same era.

 

[clapyourhands]

Some modern countries could be included because they have a rich history and importance in the modern eras, such as Vietnam.

I'm as big of a Vietnam-for-Civ supporter as they come, but importance in the modern era really is a poor reason for its inclusion. The war was more significant for its impact culturally and politically outside of the country, and the Vietnamese themselves are almost always secondary characters in the narrative (except the Vietnamese narrative, obviously). Vietnam as a culture was honestly not of great importance in the modern era, and realistically it was an ideological battle between foreign ideals; basing it off of the war would be very bland and one-note, much like basing Spain solely off of its civil war, or Korea off of its own. Important in the last 50, yes, but doing a great disservice to over a thousand years of history and culture. I would much rather have no Vietnam than a Vietnam War-era Vietnam.

 

[Depravo]

Bulgaria would be excellent as the third party in a Byzantine-Ottoman DLC since the three empires kind of really hated each other.

If you take the broadest possible view of 'Bulgaria' a case could easily be made. It could have a foot in both camps - not a pure horse civ like Scythia or the Mongols. Plains hill start bias? Culture-based discount for religious units?

A Krum leader screen featuring Nikephoros' skull as a prop would be badass.

I suggested a Hun-Bulgar civ to include pretty much every culture based on the steppe west of the Urals but nobody liked the idea

 

[Nikae]

I said rich history AND importance in the modern era...

 

[HanNorwood]

I'm surprised that Wallachia/Romania has so few votes. Dracula alone does it for me!

 

[Chasethemage]

New civs aside, but Morocco would be great with Sayyida Al Hurra, she was the last islamic queen of Morocco, respected by Christiana for being the most powerful force in the Mediterranean. Allied with several known Barbary pirates and conducted diplomacy with Spain and Portugal.

 

[pgm123]

If you take the broadest possible view of 'Bulgaria' a case could easily be made. It could have a foot in both camps - not a pure horse civ like Scythia or the Mongols. Plains hill start bias? Culture-based discount for religious units?

A Krum leader screen featuring Nikephoros' skull as a prop would be badass.

Do we know much about the Bulgar language? I see in a cursory Wikipedia search that Chuvash might be descended from it. This might just be Attila again. I'm partial to Simeon. The Roman Emperor was forced to recognize him as Caesar (Tsar).

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I suggested a Hun-Bulgar civ to include pretty much every culture based on the steppe west of the Urals but nobody liked the idea

I'd say I love the idea, except the Huns would basically be a hybrid of Bulgaria and Scythia. They'd want horse archers and kurgans too.

MAYBE they should make a Bulgaria civ. And then Firaxis could make Atila an alternate leader who can be used for either Bulgaria OR Scythia.

 

[Lord Lakely]

New civs aside, but Morocco would be great with Sayyida Al Hurra, she was the last islamic queen of Morocco, respected by Christiana for being the most powerful force in the Mediterranean. Allied with several known Barbary pirates and conducted diplomacy with Spain and Portugal.

I looked her up. Definitely an interesting character, she would be great for a Berber or Andalusian civ.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

@Alexander's Hetaroi Maybe! I put them on my list because I thought they were all pretty noteworthy and I'm glad Firaxis agrees! I embarrassingly admit that I still don't know how to cross things off (in either my posts or my signature) so I was thinking of taking them off after R&F comes out but I do appreciate the reminder of how well I did with the leader choices. Definitely glad to also see Scotland under Robert the Bruce and the Cree under Poundmaker ( I didn't put them on my list but they are one the 9 NA civs I'd like to see). Now if only I had put some money on those bets to make up for my NFL bets!

Sayyida Al Hurra does sound like an interesting choice for Morocco and I've got my fingers crossed for Vlad's Romania as well.

 

[Krajzen]

At the current moment, it looks like this

TOP10

Vietnam 99 vote(s) 48.5%
Italy 88 vote(s) 43.1%
Apache/Navajo/etc 76 vote(s) 37.3%
Hungary 70 vote(s) 34.3%
Israel 61 vote(s) 29.9%
Tibet 54 vote(s) 26.5%
Ashanti 50 vote(s) 24.5%
Inuit 48 vote(s) 23.5%
Phoenicia 47 vote(s) 23.0%
Cherokee/Creek/Choctaw/etc. 47 vote(s) 23.0%

Most of the order is unchanged since page 4 of the thread... Except Inuits are out of top 10 civs (and behind Canada which is 11th), and Colombia instead reached top 10. I am honestly surprised, I didn't know Bolivar is that popular here.

CURRENT TOP10

Vietnam 119 vote(s) 46.7%
Italy 107 vote(s) 42.0%
Apache/Navajo/etc 95 vote(s) 37.3%
Hungary 87 vote(s) 34.1%

Israel 71 vote(s) 27.8%
Tibet 65 vote(s) 25.5%
Ashanti 64 vote(s) 25.1%
Phoenicia 62 vote(s) 24.3%
Cherokee/Creek/Choctaw/etc. 60 vote(s) 23.5%
Colombia (or Gran Colombia) 58 vote(s) 22.7%

Looks like the Quartet will remain dominant. Vietnam, Italy, Hungary and Desert-Plain Natives.

You know guys, I kinda want to do the second iteration of this thread, with (IMO) popular alternate civs that didn't get to be here + four clear winners of this thread, so we could see how if they are as dominating against other potential civs.
I thought about options being:


Afghanistan, Bohemia, Finland, Frankish Empire, Khazars, Malagasy, Malaysia, Manchu, Maori, Mexico, Moors, Muisca, Nepal, Philippines, Sogdia, Switzerland, Tamils/Chola/Sri Lanka, Tatars, Timurids and Yemen. Plus four winners of this thread.

What do you think? Or is it too early to do such thread? What other civs would you propose?

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

Ashanti seems popular, but I didn't know enough about them to know if I wanted to see them. Similar case with Apache / Navajo, I think a civ from the more arid American southwest would be neat but my familiarity with the region and its history is below even my low threshold for how much I need to know before offering input.

Current votes are for:
Bulgaria
Haida / Tlingit
Italy
Mughals (I'm not generally a Balkanizer, but aside from my personal favoritism for Aurangzeb, I think there's enough cultural, military and technological distinction between the Mughals and the current design for India to justify it.)
Tibet

On the note of Morocco, I'd actually like to see Mansur again. From what I know about him, he had admirable if far-fetched ambitions and dreams (such as a Muslim new world), which makes him interesting to me.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Afghanistan, Bohemia, Finland, Frankish Empire, Khazars, Malagasy, Malaysia, Manchu, Maori, Mexico, Moors, Muisca, Nepal, Philippines, Sogdia, Switzerland, Tamils/Chola/Sri Lanka, Tatars, Timurids and Yemen. Plus four winners of this thread.

What do you think? Or is it too early to do such thread? What other civs would you propose?

I don't think it would be that productive, looking at those four specifically.

• Vietnam is a memetic powerhouse. It will be at the top of every poll because of Battle Royale and the stupid Trung sisters. Frankly I'm sick of it. It exists the same reason why everyone wants a Hitler leader or USSR civ. "Hey, it's that thing I recognize from that thing." Mere exposure effect at it's worst.
• Italy is an undefined blob of several popular concepts. Players loved Venice and want it to come back. Players loved Venice and want Genoa to make an appearance. Players want Florence because Medicis. Players still want the Vatican to make an appearance. And in some vain attempt to make the Italic League workable, fans of all of these concepts just vote for "Italy" hoping it will be what they want. It's basically one civ getting the votes of four.
  
• Navajo/Apache/etc. Very similar situation to Italy. Players want this part of the world represented. Some want Navajo. Some want Apache. Some want Comanche. Some want Shoshone again. Some want Shoshone/Comanche again. Some just want something to spiritually represent the Pueblo civ most of us actually want. Again, you have four or five different civs conflating one. This and Italy are like asking "Do you want Babylon/Assyria/Akkadia/Media/Palmyra?" Of course it's going to get more votes. It covers multiple positions in a region that literally everyone wants filled.
  
• 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.

So only one of the four has even a substantial chance of being usurped; the others are near-locks unless you can introduce blobs that are even more desired like Polynesia. I'd also argue that most of the civs you listed don't stand a fighting chance. The ones that I think stand any chance of being more popular (based on my observations of discussions):

• Maori
• Timurids
• Maybe Chola, Philippines, Mexico, or Khazaria, although we're already getting into civs that are decidedly not pop stars.

 

[Meluhhan]

but aside from my personal favoritism for Aurangzeb

Maybe slightly off-topic, but do you mind sharing what makes Aurangzeb your favourite?

 

[fcpureza]

I do wish that new civs are created, but as far as I'm concerned, I'm not really interested in european ones. I believe most of the "top choices" are well represented. Of course, it's fun when a new european civ comes out of the blue (like Austria, Poland or, now, Scotland), but it's not my thing.

However, Latin American civs and African ones...oh, boy! There's a lot to explore, ranging from "classic" to "modern" civilizations. For myself, Benin, Haiti and Cuba would be my top choices. Mapuche was one of my favorite "classic" civs choice and now it became real (but on the other hands, no chances for "Charruas"). Anyway, so happy! Yeay!

 

[Phrozen]

• Navajo/Apache/etc. Very similar situation to Italy. Players want this part of the world represented. Some want Navajo. Some want Apache. Some want Comanche. Some want Shoshone again. Some want Shoshone/Comanche again. Some just want something to spiritually represent the Pueblo civ most of us actually want. Again, you have four or five different civs conflating one. This and Italy are like asking "Do you want Babylon/Assyria/Akkadia/Media/Palmyra?" Of course it's going to get more votes. It covers multiple positions in a region that literally everyone wants filled.

A pueblo/Navajo civ would play very different than a Comanche civ.

 

[pgm123]

Ashanti seems popular, but I didn't know enough about them to know if I wanted to see them.

I would start here. Chapter 14, page 399 (426 in the pdf)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

A pueblo/Navajo civ would play very different than a Comanche civ.

I personally see Navajo very viable. I'm not downplaying the Comanche by any means because being from Texas I know their importance but they would be another nomadic horse tribe with very hard city names to come up with, as opposed to the Navajo.

 

[Phrozen]

I personally see Navajo very viable. I'm not downplaying the Comanche by any means because being from Texas I know their importance but they would be another nomadic horse tribe with very hard city names to come up with, as opposed to the Navajo.

They had tribes or bands which I think would be good enough and you add the Kiowa and Wichita in with the Comanche. The same thing would happen with the Powhatan if they make it in. There were tribes and they occupied a section of river, which the English named the place after the tribe ie Tappahannock, Accomac, Potomac, Kecoughtan, etc.