Never-Before-Seen Civs Poll

[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%

Rest:

Spoiler :

Colombia 44 vote(s) 21.6%
Canada 44 vote(s) 21.6%
Gothia (any Goths) 37 vote(s) 18.1%
Ireland 37 vote(s) 18.1%
Kilwa/Swahili 36 vote(s) 17.6%
Mughals 35 vote(s) 17.2%
Armenia 33 vote(s) 16.2%
Zimbabwe/Mutapa 33 vote(s) 16.2%
Romania/Wallachia 33 vote(s) 16.2%
Argentina 31 vote(s) 15.2%
Haida/Tlingit 30 vote(s) 14.7%
Burma 28 vote(s) 13.7%
Bulgaria/Thrace 28 vote(s) 13.7%
Benin/Dahomey 28 vote(s) 13.7%
Palmyra/Syria/Nabataea/etc. 22 vote(s) 10.8%
Ukraine/Kievan Rus' 21 vote(s) 10.3%

Lydia/Pontus/Kappadokia/etc. 8 vote(s) 3.9%
Etruria 4 vote(s) 2.0%
Shawnee 8 vote(s) 3.9%

Man, in polls like this there are always some OP's favorites who get sad amount of votes, but Lydia, Etruscans and Shawnee got so destroyed...

For me the most missing civs on the list are Philippines (precolonial), Maori, Afghanistan, Yemen, Timurids, Czechia and Switzerland. And Somalia although nobody would vote on it except me

Now, I'll narrow the list to IMO realistic possibilities.

Spoiler :

Tibet and Israel are too controversial due to geopolytics, and especially after Cree Mess Firaxis won't add them. On Inuits they already commented, saying Inuits basically have no possible leaders. Phoenicia has almost no interesting, well documented leaders, is pretty "city-state civ", and is kind of eclipsed by its own child Carthago in every way. Canada is IMO very improbable now that Australia is in, and putting in Cree - Canadian First Nation - was probably the message regarding that. Hungary has kind a niche of "castle faith defense cavalry christian", but that niche is at least partially filled by Georgia/Poland/other civs, unless it goes for something else. "Plains Indians" have a niche sort of filled by Mapuche, who are "ferocious indigenous culture/cavalry defenders of open fields". Swahilli and Zimbabwe have a problem of finding any appropriate leaders and its capitals are represented as architectural wonders, which imo kills them. Armenia is probably the civ I'd like to see the most, but I think it is very improbable after Georgia, especially as it has main Armenian niche "mountain Christian defenders". Haida has no recognizable leaders. Mughals and Kievan Rus - I'd love to see both but I also can imagine Firaxis going "ehh they are too Indian/Russian, we simplify" ("MUGHAL" is architectonic style of Indian palace right now...). Burma is, as you can see, less popular than Vietnam. Ireland and Argentina are very close geographically to Mapuche and Scotland. Ashanti I'd love but I think Ethiopia and Mali have higher chances of coming from Subsaharan Africa, and I don't think we will get 6 black civs.

So, the following is my best shot at predicting what civs of this thread will actually add in civ6:

Vietnam, Italy, Goths, "Cherokee/Creek/Choctaw".

Spoiler :

Vietnam, Italy and Goths are all very popular, powerful, never seen before, and can fill a variety of niches. Goths were IIRC the most popular of all additional civ mods in civ5 and Vietnam was very close to the top. As for Amerindians - there is no way American "progressive" company won't add US Natives to this game, and "Cherokee/Creek/Choctaw" have following advantages:
1) Never before were in a civ game, unlike Iroquis, Lakota and Shoshone/Comanche
2) Can fill new gameplay niches, unlike "plains, defense, cavalry" (taken by Mapuche) which pretty colliddes with Apache, or "trade, alliance" of Cree.
3) Were and remain one of the biggest Amerindian ethnic groups

So, those four. And on top of that I think Maori have high chances of arrival - they are really popular (should have been in this poll ), very unique, never seen before, a way to get Pacific to the game.

My personal prediction list of all civs that will be added to civ6 is:
old ones - Maya, Inca, Ethiopia, Carthago, Portugal, Babylon, Byzantium, Ottomans
new ones - Vietnam, Italy, Goths, Cherokee, Maori
returning ones - Mali, Morocco
two black horses - ehh, let's say Gauls and Ashanti, why not

For the final number of 50 civs, fitting 25th year anniversary of series and increase of roster by 7-9 civs by every next iteration of the franchise.

We shall see how wrong am I.

 

[The Kingmaker]

For me the most missing civs on the list are Philippines (precolonial), Afghanistan, Yemen, Timurids, Czechia and Switzerland. And Somalia although nobody would vote on it except me

Now, I'll narrow the list to IMO realistic possibilities.
Tibet and Israel are too controversial due to geopolytics, and especially after Cree Mess Firxis won't add them. On Inuits they already commented, saying Inuits basically have no possible leaders. Phoenicia has almost no interesting, well documented leaders, is pretty "city-state civ", and is kind of eclipsed by its own child Carthago in every way. Canada is IMO very improbable now that Australia is in, and putting in Cree - Canadian First Nation - was probably the message regarding that.

So, top realistic poll choices are Vietnam, Italy, Hungary, "Plains Indians", Ashanti, Colombia, "Forest Indians" and Goths.

I thought about clumping Bohemia in with Hungary as a central European option but worried it might be confusing.

I agree re: Afghanistan and Yemen. I wrote articles over at WPC about the Sabaeans and the Bactrians, though I really doubt we'll see either anytime soon.

I don't know how much of a powder keg Tibet might be. Paradox has just added them as playable in Crusader Kings 2. I don't recall from the Civ6 DLC SE Asia scenario - were they an AI faction? They don't need a Dalai Lama--they can have Songtsan Gampo as leader.

As for the categorization of the Native Americans, I might add "Desert" to "Forest" and "Plains" as a possibility.

 

[Guandao]

I thought about clumping Bohemia in with Hungary as a central European option but worried it might be confusing.

I agree re: Afghanistan and Yemen. I wrote articles over at WPC about the Sabaeans and the Bactrians, though I really doubt we'll see either anytime soon.

I don't know how much of a powder keg Tibet might be. Paradox has just added them as playable in Crusader Kings 2. I don't recall from the Civ6 DLC SE Asia scenario - were they an AI faction? They don't need a Dalai Lama--they can have Songtsan Gampo as leader.

As for the categorization of the Native Americans, I might add "Desert" to "Forest" and "Plains" as a possibility.

Tibet was playable in the SE Asia Scenario, but was called "Tufan".

 

[pgm123]

1. Vietnam - Long overdue. Sinosphere in Southeast Asia.
2. Apache/Navajo/etc. - It's an underrepresented part of the map. Apache and Navajo are two sides of the same coin and there's a decent argument for combining the bonuses into one name (Navajo were essentially settled Apache and the differences likely emerged later). The negatives are how you make it interesting (blankets, codetalkers, scouts, etc.)
3. Colombia - At first I resisted the idea of mixing Amerindian and colonial nations. Now I'm all bought in. Colombian Independence (and the world's response) is an interesting time in history. Simon Bolivar is a big personality that would fit right in for the game.
4. Cherokee/Creek/Choctaw/etc. - One of the "Five Civilized Tribes." There Cherokee have the largest representation in the U.S. The Choctaw have a legitimate claim to being the heirs of the Mississippian Culture. The Creek have their own fascinating history. It might not be possible to fully separate the civ from colonialism, but I don't know if they should.
5. Burma - A bit of a long shot, but it's an interesting culture and fits a spot that isn't exactly filled (a Sino-Tibetan language civilization firmly in the Indosphere). I'd worry they'd be a bit redundant with Khmer, but that's for the developers to figure out.
6. 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.
7. Shawnee - Please. My interest with them is currently at its peak, but this is what I'm feeling now.
8. Zimbabwe/Mutapa - Zulu fills the geographic spot, so they're 8th. I think Mutapa can create a different kind of African civ that's missing.

I would prefer Judea over Israel/Hebrews--at least over a unified Israel. Judea is more firmly established in the historical record, while Israel was short-lived (destroyed by the Assyrians). There's a reason it's called Judaism--the religion was refined in Judea. They might make it over Burma for me. I'm having buyers remorse picking them.

 

[SnowKomodo]

Vietnam almost seems too perfect:

Leader: Trung Sisters, strong female leaders who were revered.

Geography: Would be like killing two birds with one stone in that it is somewhat of a bridge between East Asia and Southeast Asia: Today it is an ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) country, but it holds so many traits of its northern neighbor. To further fill in gaps in Asia without creating a civ that feels redundant, Vietnam is a very logical choice

Challengers to a spot in Asia: Siam gets the rotational axe because of Khmer; Burma, as amazing as their kingdoms were, already has a mod that is so on point; a 2nd leader for China is just that, a leader, so it does not negate Vietnam; Mughals seem unlikely fresh off the addition of Chandragupta. Asian civs beyond that are so far away geographically that they are not challengers. I suppose Nepal is a darkhorse possibility that could make use of mountains and fill in a geographic gap. Tibet would be great but we all know it's off the table

Marketing: The die-hards have clamored for the aforementioned leader to almost meme-like levels. Whether or not it's them doesn't even matter because casuals and die-hards alike are likely to embrace Vietnam, as its culture is so prevalent

I remembered when my Vietnamese counterparts here (especially one in particular) helped me in my campaign for a civ I wanted back in Civ 5. Consider your efforts returned! #Solidarity

 

[Guandao]

I picked:
1. Benin/Dahomey-more for Benin, but Dahomey has potential as well. I wouldn't mind the Ashanti instead. I feel like Coastal West Africa could use some representation. Benin, Dahomey and Ashanti were all state-level societies ruled by monarchs, not mere hunter-gatherers like an outdated stereotype of Sub-Saharan Africa.
2. Bulgaria/Thrace-definitely for medieval Bulgaria, and not Thrace (Thracian language is poorly attested), the medieval Bulgarians had an empire twice, and they fought the Byzantines.
3. Cherokee/Creek/Choctaw/etc.-more for the Muskogean peoples (Creek/Choctaw/Chickasaw) than the Cherokee, I'm somewhat surprised the American Southeast has never had a Native American Civ before. They were descendants of the Mississippian moundbuilding societies. Also called "Five Civilized Tribes" by Euro Americans, and were tragically removed to Oklahoma.
4. Hungary-It's a nice alternative to Austria, (more interesting language ), either a Medieval King or Matthias Corvinus would be appropriate leaders.
5. Vietnam-I could've voted for other SE Asian Civs, but Vietnam is different due to being more influenced by the Sinosphere than India. They are perhaps long overdue for a Civ. I know the Trung Sisters have some popularity, but there are many suitable male leader choices as well.
6. Other- two Civs not on the poll which I really desire, Sri Lanka and Madagascar. Sri Lanka for the role they had in spreading Buddhism to SE Asia, as well as their impressive archaeological remains. And Madagascar for their unique linguistic situation/culture (only Austronesian language in Africa proper) and possible leaders

Honorable Mentions (aka Civ I would for if I had more votes/or if they were on the poll): Ashanti, Bohemia, Ireland, Powhatan, Muisca, Burma, Philippines, Romania, Shawnee, Taino, Tupi, Yemen

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Now, I'll narrow the list to IMO realistic possibilities.

Spoiler :

Tibet and Israel are too controversial due to geopolytics, and especially after Cree Mess Firaxis won't add them. On Inuits they already commented, saying Inuits basically have no possible leaders. Phoenicia has almost no interesting, well documented leaders, is pretty "city-state civ", and is kind of eclipsed by its own child Carthago in every way. Canada is IMO very improbable now that Australia is in, and putting in Cree - Canadian First Nation - was probably the message regarding that. Hungary has kind a niche of "castle faith defense cavalry christian", but that niche is at least partially filled by Georgia/Poland/other civs, unless it goes for something else. "Plains Indians" have a niche sort of filled by Mapuche, who are "ferocious indigenous culture/cavalry defenders of open fields". Swahilli and Zimbabwe have a problem of finding any appropriate leaders and its capitals are represented as architectural wonders, which imo kills them. Armenia is probably the civ I'd like to see the most, but I think it is very improbable after Georgia, especially as it has main Armenian niche "mountain Christian defenders". Haida has no recognizable leaders. Mughals and Kievan Rus - I'd love to see both but I also can imagine Firaxis going "ehh they are too Indian/Russian, we simplify" ("MUGHAL" is architectonic style of Indian palace right now...). Burma is, as you can see, less popular than Vietnam. Ireland and Argentina are very close geographically to Mapuche and Scotland. Ashanti I'd love but I think Ethiopia and Mali have higher chances of coming from Subsaharan Africa, and I don't think we will get 6 black civs.

• Scotland and the Cree are too controversial due to geolyptics; if anything they make Tibet and Israel more likely.
• The Cree proved not to be a mess. They got substantial tribal input and approval. Only one member complained, and not very well. And in the end all the media attention kicked off procedures for the Canadian government to exonerate Poundmaker. If anything, Firaxis has discovered that respectful artistic decisions can actually bolster their credibility and make them an agent of positive political change. I wouldn't be surprised if Scotland gains independence in the next year or so thanks to the increased exposure in Civ VI and other media.
  
• The Inuit fan mod civ is extremely popular and headed by a mythical Ekeuhnick. There is also Nanook as an option. If Gilgamesh can make it in, so can a mythical Inuit leader.
  
• Canada and Mexico are still quite probable. Both had clearly imperialist agendas at some point or another. Both represent substantial portions of the American playerbase. If Firaxis felt it worth representing Canada, Chile, Scotland, and Georgia with R&F, they would certainly consider more pandering in the future. Which I why, despite it being a stupid, baity choice, I wholly expect Vietnam to be added over the more deserving Burma/Siam/Chola.

The rest I mostly agree with. But I find many of your early arguments to be the sort of weak dismissivism crafted by Vietnam apologists.

 

[Xefjord]

• Scotland and the Cree are too controversial due to geolyptics; if anything they make Tibet and Israel more likely.
• The Cree proved not to be a mess. They got substantial tribal input and approval. Only one member complained, and not very well. And in the end all the media attention kicked off procedures for the Canadian government to exonerate Poundmaker. If anything, Firaxis has discovered that respectful artistic decisions can actually bolster their credibility and make them an agent of positive political change. I wouldn't be surprised if Scotland gains independence in the next year or so thanks to the increased exposure in Civ VI and other media.
  
• The Inuit fan mod civ is extremely popular and headed by a mythical Ekeuhnick. There is also Nanook as an option. If Gilgamesh can make it in, so can a mythical Inuit leader.
  
• Canada and Mexico are still quite probable. Both had clearly imperialist agendas at some point or another. Both represent substantial portions of the American playerbase. If Firaxis felt it worth representing Canada, Chile, Scotland, and Georgia with R&F, they would certainly consider more pandering in the future. Which I why, despite it being a stupid, baity choice, I wholly expect Vietnam to be added over the more deserving Burma/Siam/Chola.

The rest I mostly agree with. But I find many of your early arguments to be the sort of weak dismissivism crafted by Vietnam apologists.

What does "Vietnam apologist" even mean?... I also am not a person that is adamant the Trung Sisters have to lead Vietnam, I just want to see Vietnam in. If you study Sinosphere History or Southeast Asian history you would know that Vietnam was at many times quite an important country, and remains an important country to this day. They have a very long lasting and rich history and culture with many interesting leaders. And it doesn't have anything to do with being "Apologist"? I just love Vietnam and Vietnamese culture for what it is.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

• Scotland and the Cree are too controversial due to geolyptics; if anything they make Tibet and Israel more likely.
• The Cree proved not to be a mess. They got substantial tribal input and approval. Only one member complained, and not very well. And in the end all the media attention kicked off procedures for the Canadian government to exonerate Poundmaker. If anything, Firaxis has discovered that respectful artistic decisions can actually bolster their credibility and make them an agent of positive political change. I wouldn't be surprised if Scotland gains independence in the next year or so thanks to the increased exposure in Civ VI and other media.

You really don’t know much about the political situation in Scotland to make that last statement. Not to mention that basically nobody’s heard of Scotland have they!

Adding Tibet would get the game banned in China, everyone’s massive growth market - never Gunna happen.

Israel is more likely, but it would get the game banned in half the Middle East and boycotted by a good chunk of the core humanities studenty audience in the west that support the bds movement. It’s terrifically unlikely, and a bad business move for the stink it would raise in the media alone

 

[ferretbacon]

...My personal prediction list of all civs that will be added to civ6 is:
old ones - Maya, Inca, Ethiopia, Carthago, Portugal, Babylon, Byzantium, Ottomans
new ones - Vietnam, Italy, Goths, Cherokee, Maori
returning ones - Mali, Morocco
two black horses - ehh, let's say Gauls and Ashanti, why not

For the final number of 50 civs, fitting 25th year anniversary of series and increase of roster by 7-9 civs by every next iteration of the franchise.

We shall see how wrong am I.

That's not exactly what I'd predict/hope for (especially on the new ones - I'd rather have the Mughals and Hungary than Italy or the Goths), but I'd be pretty pleased if the final roster turned out like this.

 

[Wingednosering]

Definitely:


Apache/Navajo/etc.
Ashanti
Cherokee/Creek/Choctaw/etc.
Palmyra/Syria/Nabataea/etc.
Shawnee
Vietnam
Zimbabwe/Mutapa

Honorable Mentions:

Canada (in Civ V, I would have said no, but with Brazil and Australia here and Poland now being featured twice, it seems obvious they're going for fan service. Why leave out Canada?)
Gothia (could be an interesting 'hypercube' civ. I would prefer them over any other 'barbarian' nation)
Hungary (big fan zone that hasn't received representation yet. Definitely has enough history)
Mughals (not happening with Chandra being standard 'India')
Kilwa/Swahili (unlikely with the Zulus)
Lydia/Pontus/Kappadokia/etc.

I can't get it lower than that. I would also say you missed a few major ones. Where's Madagascar? Africa and North America are by far the worst represented right now. I would pay for an expansion of just African nations at this point. NA tribes are good, but I know they can be controversial in all of the worst ways.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

What does "Vietnam apologist" even mean?... I also am not a person that is adamant the Trung Sisters have to lead Vietnam, I just want to see Vietnam in. If you study Sinosphere History or Southeast Asian history you would know that Vietnam was at many times quite an important country, and remains an important country to this day. They have a very long lasting and rich history and culture with many interesting leaders. And it doesn't have anything to do with being "Apologist"? I just love Vietnam and Vietnamese culture for what it is.

This is the same sort of non-argument that supporters of Georgia were making. Because Georgians exist and Georgia has a history, it is somehow an "exceptional" country? It might be more interesting than Armenia, but moreso than the Poland and Scythia civs it is so clearly a clone of? Moreso than Khazar? Why is Georgia the "golden age" civ when nearly every base civ had longer and more influential golden ages? It's not because Georgia is relevant. It's because Georgia is a popular civ that had practically nonexistent design space.

Vietnam has a history. So does Burma. And Siam. And the Philippines. And the Tamil. And the Champa. Not to mention the Khmer, which at one point almost totally controlled the region that is currently Vietnam. There is nothing that makes Vietnam stand out geographically or historically other than the fact that it has a high U.S. immigrant population, and shows up more often in U.S. history books as a point of controversy. It is a civ that exists more to pander to modern players than to actual historical relevancy.

It's a baity civ with even baitier leaders if we go by the Battle Royale mod. I'm sure it will be added, but it will get in on memetics, not merits.

That is what I mean by apologism. Making up excuse explanations to try to bolster an argument with poor foundations. I am not saying popularity isn't a decent reason to include as civ. But fans should stop quite literally making up history in an attempt to make these creative decisions seem more irrefutable than they actually are. If Firaxis actually had an agenda to only include influential civs, Georgia and Vietnam would be very low on the list.

 

[The Kingmaker]

That's not exactly what I'd predict/hope for (especially on the new ones - I'd rather have the Mughals and Hungary than Italy or the Goths), but I'd be pretty pleased if the final roster turned out like this.

I'd say it's a pretty good list. I'd throw Assyria back in there too. My big fear is that all we're going to get is 8 more civs in XP2 and that's it.

 

[ferretbacon]

I'd say it's a pretty good list. I'd throw Assyria back in there too. My big fear is that all we're going to get is 8 more civs in XP2 and that's it.

Big fear, fat chance. With the inclusion of 3 dark, dark horses in the first expansion, there are far too many big civs leftover for just one more expansion. If that's all we get, we'd either have an expansion lacking any surprises whatsoever or we'd have a final game with glaring omissions.

Never forget that Firaxis, despite their benevolence and our love for them , is a company that's out to make some money. By withholding so many "must-have" civs from this expansion, they've set themselves up to produce some highly demanded DLC content, which I don't begrudge them for at all. I'm highly optimistic that Civ VI will be jam-packed with civs by the end of its cycle, more so than any other entry in the series.

 

[Xefjord]

This is the same sort of non-argument that supporters of Georgia were making. Because Georgians exist and Georgia has a history, it is somehow an "exceptional" country? It might be more interesting than Armenia, but moreso than the Poland and Scythia civs it is so clearly a clone of? Moreso than Khazar? Why is Georgia the "golden age" civ when nearly every base civ had longer and more influential golden ages? It's not because Georgia is relevant. It's because Georgia is a popular civ that had practically nonexistent design space.

Vietnam has a history. So does Burma. And Siam. And the Philippines. And the Tamil. And the Champa. Not to mention the Khmer, which at one point almost totally controlled the region that is currently Vietnam. There is nothing that makes Vietnam stand out geographically or historically other than the fact that it has a high U.S. immigrant population, and shows up more often in U.S. history books as a point of controversy. It is a civ that exists more to pander to modern players than to actual historical relevancy.

It's a baity civ with even baitier leaders if we go by the Battle Royale mod. I'm sure it will be added, but it will get in on memetics, not merits.

That is what I mean by apologism. Making up excuse explanations to try to bolster an argument with poor foundations. I am not saying popularity isn't a decent reason to include as civ. But fans should stop quite literally making up history in an attempt to make these creative decisions seem more irrefutable than they actually are. If Firaxis actually had an agenda to only include influential civs, Georgia and Vietnam would be very low on the list.

I think influential is pretty darn relative, if we wanted to only include influential civs than we would have a pretty unbalanced map as well, as lots of european nations have been far more "Influential" globally than the rest of the world. I don't really like having colonial civs either like America and Brazil, but they are undoubtedly influential. Influence alone is not the number one determining factor for civs and I don't think it should be. I am not advocating we oust America and Brazil; I am just saying that civs should be picked for a wide variety of reasons.

Also your knowledge of Vietnam is making me think you were pretty well raised in the US and recieved the US Vietnam education, because it shows me you know nothing about Vietnam. Basing the inclusion of Vietnam off the one tiny war the US had with them is quite a disservice to Vietnamese history and the rest of Vietnamese's cultures thousand or so years of existence. Vietnam stands out for NUMEROUS accomplishments in history such as fending off the mongols and managing to hold its own against numerous dynasty's of China. Vietnam has waged many wars and won against other Indosphere countries as well. Vietnam has always been regionally important in both the Sinosphere and the Indosphere.

Yes there will be numerous civs that fit the same bill that Vietnam could. There is a LOT of civilizations that have existed throughout history and they have all had their highs and their lows. But my interest, and i think many people's interest in Vietnam has almost nothing to do with the Civ Battle Royale, or the fact that they were invaded at one point in time by America. We just generally recognize what is an interesting civ with a fascinating culture and history. You can add Siam, Burma, whatever, they are all good picks. But any choice overall is going to be pretty arbitrary and subjective. I don't care if you trash vietnam because you don't like it. But its a shame to belittle such an interesting country and then namecall anyone else that supports it as apologists. Its not group think people just following the crowd, lots of people like Vietnam because it is an interesting civ.

 

[The Kingmaker]

@ferretbacon: I hope you're right!

You're right about them including dark, dark horses that's for sure.

 

[pgm123]

This is the same sort of non-argument that supporters of Georgia were making. Because Georgians exist and Georgia has a history, it is somehow an "exceptional" country? It might be more interesting than Armenia, but moreso than the Poland and Scythia civs it is so clearly a clone of? Moreso than Khazar? Why is Georgia the "golden age" civ when nearly every base civ had longer and more influential golden ages? It's not because Georgia is relevant. It's because Georgia is a popular civ that had practically nonexistent design space.

In what way is Georgia a Poland and Scythia clone?

I keep forgetting about the Khazars. I have to add them to my long-shot list with the Gokturks.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

You really don’t know much about the political situation in Scotland to make that last statement. Not to mention that basically nobody’s heard of Scotland have they!

Adding Tibet would get the game banned in China, everyone’s massive growth market - never Gunna happen.

Israel is more likely, but it would get the game banned in half the Middle East and boycotted by a good chunk of the core humanities studenty audience in the west that support the bds movement. It’s terrifically unlikely, and a bad business move for the stink it would raise in the media alone

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.

 

[Ricard.Bossle]

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!

 

[PhoenicianGold]

In what way is Georgia a Poland and Scythia clone?

• "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.