Never-Before-Seen Civs Poll

[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.

 

[Depravo]

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.

Where does this assumption people who want Vietnam added are hive mind morons come from?

 

[Zaarin]

Where does this assumption people who want Vietnam added are hive mind morons come from?

Agreed. I think there are a lot of reasons one might favor Vietnam. For example, the fact that Vietnam is part of the Sinosphere while most of SEA has been more influenced by India. As much as I'd like Siam back, I think Vietnam makes the most sense if we get another SEA civ for this reason.

 

[Nikae]

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.

Hungary is called Hungary due to a mistaken theory that stated Magyars are descendants of the Huns, the theory died, yet some foreign languages -prominently English- do not care. The country is inhabited by Magyars so I really cannot see how you can differentiate between the two. About the influence, well, everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, I will not argue about it. It is hard to take credit for things in the tangled mutual history of Eastern Europe. Jadwiga is funnily Hungarian-born, by the way. During a good part of her reign, Poland belonged to the Kingdom of Hungary actually. Later Hungary and Poland had a Polish-born king as well. And so on...

Regardless, it is still a civilization -with a distinct language and origin- that was forecast to be lost in either the Slavic or the Germanic surrounding cultures, and despite the various trickily morphing countries it has not.

And trust me, nobody misses civ5's Huns.

Italy is as much a blob as Germany.

I have no idea what makes you think everyone wants Hitler as a leader. Someone made Mussolini, that is pretty tasteless, and still better.

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

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

I think part of it is how much people like to disregard him for his grandfather Akbar, who's traits are considered more desirable to modern historians, so it's sort of a Hipster-Devil's Advocate type thing.

However, I also respect Aurangzeb for his religious conviction and frugality. He both practiced and promoted Islamic calligraphy and brought in religious scholars from around the Muslim world to construct his legal reforms.

Aurangzeb abstained from a great deal of the extravagance you'd associate with his position, perhaps from a mix of devotion and the financial hole his predecessors had dug the empire into.

A similar mix of reasons (most likely the former more than the latter) lead him to ban music and dancing. I mean, that's some pretty serious devotion man. Even if you disagree with him theologically, you have to respect that. At least more than I respect Akbar for weakening the Muslim aristocracy so he could get away with adopting the Indian tradition of the king being a little bit divine.

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

Thank you my good fellow.

And trust me, nobody misses civ5's Huns.

I miss the Huns.

 

[Guandao]

I miss the Huns.

You miss Vitali's Broken Chuvash?

I have to say they are a pretty Eurocentric Civ choice. We'll never see the Xiongnu as an actual Civ, but apparently the Huns and Scythia are fine. Any people that had contact with the Romans and Greeks are worthy of Civ status.

 

[Meluhhan]

However, I also respect Aurangzeb for his religious conviction and frugality.

That's an interesting perspective, though in my assessment, his religious conviction, which deeply verged into the territory of zealous bigotry and intolerance, was to lead to the fall of the Mughal empire, it being a major reason for the rise of various indigenous resistance 'movements', those of Marathas and the Sikhs being the most significant.
Akbar's contrasting policies of syncretism and pluralism, which in hindsight are ''more desirable to modern historians'' contemporarily served a practical purpose of holding together a vast and diverse empire.

As a side note, if an official Mughal 'civilization' is ever made, Aurangzeb or Babar will not be very popular leader choices, they would rather even prove to be somewhat controversial.

 

[Guatenadian]

To be frank I wouldn't be a fan of Gran Colombia being a Civ and its popularity on this forum was always something that confused me a bit. Simon Bolivar would be a great and interesting character to have in the game and his influence in South America is hard to ignore but I just cant get over the fact that Gran Colombia existed for 11 years. That is such a huge roadblock in my eyes to them becoming an actual Civ. Most people see New World countries as "young" and justifiably so compared to the nation-states of the Old World but if nations such as Canada, Brazil, Australia and the U.S are young, then Gran Colombia died in its crib. That being said I do see them as somewhat likely, there is of course a fan demand for them as seen by this poll and with the Mapuche now being added its pretty hard to see an Argentinian Civ in game with Southern South America's slot now being taken up and that does leave room for a Spanish Colonial Civ in Gran Colombia. I would prefer to see an Indigenous group again such as the Muisca but I digress. Plus the Devs arent against adding a Civ for the sake of adding a specific character into the game we saw that with Macedon and the return of Alexander.

At the end of the day while I would be unhappy with the inclusion of Gran Colombia it is always good for me to learn more about the nations history, Simon Bolivar himself and the influence that he had. If the Civ is fun and enjoyable then I wont hold any objections.

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

You miss Vitali's Broken Chuvash?

I personally don't care about it.

I have to say they are a pretty Eurocentric Civ choice. We'll never see the Xiongnu as an actual Civ, but apparently the Huns and Scythia are fine. Any people that had contact with the Romans and Greeks are worthy of Civ status.

You falsely assume I support Scythia's inclusion. Furthermore, the Huns don't deserve inclusion because they contacted Greeks and Romans, if they did I'd think the Scythians were a good idea. I think the Huns are worthy of special attention because of the degree of infamy they possess.

Mind you, I doubt they're as famous in Japan.

That's an interesting perspective, though in my assessment, his religious conviction, which deeply verged into the territory of zealous bigotry and intolerance, was to lead to the fall of the Mughal empire, it being a major reason for the rise of various indigenous resistance 'movements', those of Marathas and the Sikhs being the most significant.
Akbar's contrasting policies of syncretism and pluralism, which in hindsight are ''more desirable to modern historians'' contemporarily served a practical purpose of holding together a vast and diverse empire.

I must respectfully disagree with your assessment of his leadership. Movements like those existed before Aurangzeb's reign, I don't think any degree of religious plurality could have prevented such rebellions from forming, though perhaps it could have slowed them down. I won't say wasn't a bit fanatic*, but I doubt he was illegitimate in what he believed and how that influenced his administration. I concede he might not have had the best or most ethical set of policies a leader could enact, but I do think he has admirable traits which tend to be overlooked. At the very least, it would be nice if we took the time to understand his reasons.

*It has been argued that accounts of his persecution were exaggerated as a sort of propaganda by indigenous uprisings. I didn't mention this in the main body because it kind of goes against why I like Aurangzeb.

As a side note, if an official Mughal 'civilization' is ever made, Aurangzeb or Babar will not be very popular leader choices, they would rather even prove to be somewhat controversial.

That I cannot argue with.

 

[Lord Lakely]

As a side note, if an official Mughal 'civilization' is ever made, Aurangzeb or Babar will not be very popular leader choices, they would rather even prove to be somewhat controversial.

That isn't really a problem, since Akbar or Shah Jehan would be prefered by most anyway. Unless they're controversial too, i guess?

 

[Guandao]

You falsely assume I support Scythia's inclusion. Furthermore, the Huns don't deserve inclusion because they contacted Greeks and Romans, if they did I'd think the Scythians were a good idea. I think the Huns are worthy of special attention because of the degree of infamy they possess.

But why do they have this degree of infamy in the first place? They were not that different from the other "barbarians".
We don't know enough of their origins to consider putting them in the game in the first place (Yes I think Firaxis made a mistake in adding them to Civ5). They just appeared and disappeared after a few centuries. No one can claim descent from them. Sure, no one claims descent from say Sumeria, but at least they were an actual Civilization as opposed to a nomadic raiding people like the Huns.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

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

Yes, but a Comanche civ would play very similarly to an Apache civ. So my point still stands that "Navajo/Apache/etc." is not only a pretty large blob of design space, but that it very comfortably covers the Comanche.

Where does this assumption people who want Vietnam added are hive mind morons come from?

The fact that the substantial majority of pro-Vietnam posts on reddit seem to only like the idea because it would have a sister duo leader. Or so they think. The justification, like Georgia, seems to involve a lot of selective conflation of the civ itself, when really the fans just want a badass female and/or Asian leader.

Agreed. I think there are a lot of reasons one might favor Vietnam. For example, the fact that Vietnam is part of the Sinosphere while most of SEA has been more influenced by India. As much as I'd like Siam back, I think Vietnam makes the most sense if we get another SEA civ for this reason.

Except Vietnam never really did anything outside of push back Chinese invasion, temporarily. Siam pushed back European colonization when Vietnam couldn't. Vietnam spent most of its existence as a puppet of either China or France.

Let me draw a distinction. Vietnam is currently more relevant than Thailand because of more recent conflict. It's a baity subject among American military enthusiasts, of which the civ fanbase has a lot. It's a convenient representation of a country with large native and emigrant populations (because these days so many players want their own cultures represented in civ). It will be included and sell well because Vietnam is a player in the culture game now. However with respect to the entirety of human activity prior to the 1960s, Siam will always remain more historically relevant than Vietnam ever was. Tibet, arguably just as much part of the Sinosphere, will always remain more historically relevant than Vietnam.

Every civ sound interesting when you completely ignore context. I'm not saying Vietnam isn't interesting or maybe eventually deserving of inclusion after some 30 other civs are added. But "China, but not, and small" is nowhere near important enough to be the top choice on every poll. There has been substantial embellishment and campaigning behind the Vietnam phenomenon, and it takes willful blindness to try to argue away all of the actual reasons why Vietnam is everyone's top pick. They are Vietnamese. They like Pho. They like mid-century war films. All of these are modern, pop culture reasons; the "historical" argument is just a lazy attempt to justify shallow taste.

Hungary is called Hungary due to a mistaken theory that stated Magyars are descendants of the Huns, the theory died, yet some foreign languages -prominently English- do not care. The country is inhabited by Magyars so I really cannot see how you can differentiate between the two. About the influence, well, everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, I will not argue about it. It is hard to take credit for things in the tangled mutual history of Eastern Europe. Jadwiga is funnily Hungarian-born, by the way. During a good part of her reign, Poland belonged to the Kingdom of Hungary actually. Later Hungary and Poland had a Polish-born king as well. And so on...

I know this. And apart from the name, the Magyars quite likely are a "fallback" civ. Not even necessarily because anyone liked the Huns, but because they have small imaginations and want the game to change as little as possible from iteration to iteration. Scythia took the Huns' spot, and so this is a "problem" that needs to be solved. How do you represent the western steppes if Scythia is now the Huns? Aha, the tools say, the Magyars were horseback invaders. We can still have the Magyars in this new Civ world. Let's have the Magyars. And so everyone jumps on the Hungary train.

This is, ironically, ridiculous, because as implied by your post, Jadwiga stole much of Hungary's thunder. Who wants the Austro-Hungarian "Hussar" unit anymore when Poland has the "Winged Hussar?" What else can Hungary offer to build a unique civ from, really? I just don't see Hungary happening, and if it does, it will be one of the blandest additions to the game.

 

[pgm123]

To be frank I wouldn't be a fan of Gran Colombia being a Civ and its popularity on this forum was always something that confused me a bit. Simon Bolivar would be a great and interesting character to have in the game and his influence in South America is hard to ignore but I just cant get over the fact that Gran Colombia existed for 11 years. That is such a huge roadblock in my eyes to them becoming an actual Civ.

I would just call it Colombia. It would include New Grenada. "Gran Colombia" was never a thing, at least by that name. It was the Republic of Colombia at the time.

Think about it like this: the First French Empire lasted 10 years. But you could still have "France" ruled by Napoleon. In the same way, you could have Colombia ruled by Simon Bolivar.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

This is, ironically, ridiculous, because as implied by your post, Jadwiga stole much of Hungary's thunder. Who wants the Austro-Hungarian "Hussar" unit anymore when Poland has the "Winged Hussar?" What else can Hungary offer to build a unique civ from, really? I just don't see Hungary happening, and if it does, it will be one of the blandest additions to the game.

I sure wouldn't want the Hussar as a UU for either Austria or Hungary. I don't know if many people would want that back.

 

[clapyourhands]

IMO ‘Gran Colombia’ would work best as a concept civ in the same vein as Civ V Austria, or in a similar way to how a theoretical Silk Road civ would be. It would be a representative of the Latin American revolutions through one nation like Austria was for the Hapsburgs, with some nation-specific unit/abilities but a more generalized ability as well.

EDIT: Agree with calling it Colombia over Gran Colombia as well.

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

But why do they have this degree of infamy in the first place?

Admittedly because they're associated with the fall of Rome; keeping that fact in mind hardly causes them to leap into obscurity.

They just appeared and disappeared after a few centuries.

A couple centuries isn't exactly a short period of time.

Sure, no one claims descent from say Sumeria, but at least they were an actual Civilization as opposed to a nomadic raiding people like the Huns.

Firaxis's definition of "Civilization" can be whatever suits their purposes. They're hardly the first civilization included (or even repeatedly included) to bend the meaning of the term.

 

[Guatenadian]

I would just call it Colombia. It would include New Grenada. "Gran Colombia" was never a thing, at least by that name. It was the Republic of Colombia at the time.

I would be ok if it was called Colombia, my problem is if the devs went ahead and called it Gran Colombia. That part of Colombian history was insanely short and naming really matters in a game like Civ.
As I was saying in my previous post I'm not someone who is going to go up in arms over a Civ choice that I personally disagree with, I just take it up as an opportunity to learn more about the Civ itself.

 

[Patine]

I propose the greatest civilization that has ever existed on this globe - the Most Republic of San Marino. It has held it's current borders EXACTLY longer than any other nation VERIFIED in history, from 4th Century AD to the Present Day. It is the oldest, extant continuous republic in the world, taking such a form of government in 13th Century when the monastery was it's previously was convinced to step down. And, it's long-standing crossbow corps, dating back to the Middle Ages, may today be largely for show and parade, but, even today, you will not find a more skilled group of crossbowleers in the Modern World. How could this glorious gem have been overlooked by Sid Meier all these years?!

 

[Krajzen]

Yes, but a Comanche civ would play very similarly to an Apache civ. So my point still stands that "Navajo/Apache/etc." is not only a pretty large blob of design space, but that it very comfortably covers the Comanche.

The problem I have with "Apache style" civs being added now is the fact their gameplay niche is covered by... Mapuche. Mapuche:
- indigenous precolombian
- confederation of tribes
- living on plains or deserts
- succesfully combating whites
- with cavalry and firearms
- defence and culture

[Criticism of Vietnam civ]

I have read the shortened history of Vietnam and I honestly see them as unique historical faction.
I look at them this way:

Vietnam - tiny strip of land lacking resources bordering juggernaut of China, conquered by it and held for freakin 1000 years. Against all odds managed to liberate itself and not be consumed by Han Chinese culture. Against all odds managed to completely best massive land Mongol invasion as one of the only civs in the world (others were Mamluks and Delhi, and both were far stronger and invaded by smaller Mongol forces than Vietnam). Against all odds managed to defeat several subsequent Mongol and Chinese invasions (all the way to cold war with PRC). Against all odds managed to win much more often than not against kingdoms of Laos, Thais, Champa and Khmer despite being less rich and resourceful. Conquered by colonialism (like almost all countries) but then managed to bet French in open warfare. Against all odds survived onslaught of American superpower.

The defensive, militaristic talents here are clear. Otherwise, Vietnam has: unique mix of South East Asian and Confucian culture; huge population; water puppet theatre; autarkic and centralisation tendencies in history (very different from other SEA states); memetic recognition; decent historiography; at least several native fans; potential female leaders...

Civ5 mod popularised Trung Sisters, but there are reasons why the mod itself exploded in popularity and became one of the most popular mod civs on steam workshop: Vietnam has enough history.

What else can Hungary offer to build a unique civ from, really? I just don't see Hungary happening, and if it does, it will be one of the blandest additions to the game.

Hungary may offer Black Army as another unique unit, a lot of interesting historical leaders (Matthias Corvinus, Louis the Great, Bela IV etc), you know, other features expected from country which was major European power for several centuries.

I would just call it Colombia. It would include New Grenada. "Gran Colombia" was never a thing, at least by that name. It was the Republic of Colombia at the time.

Think about it like this: the First French Empire lasted 10 years. But you could still have "France" ruled by Napoleon. In the same way, you could have Colombia ruled by Simon Bolivar.

Wikipedia says Bolivar is Venezuelan man, not Colombian. In fact, his name is in the official name of Venezuela. I expect Venezuelan people to be quite angry if you made Bolivar the leader of Colombia... Yet Gran Colombia is indeed weird idea, so we have a problem


By the way, does anybody know how to implement Mughals as separate civ from India if they have almost the same city list?

 

[Vahnstad]

Yes it's actually true. I don't want Italy, but I want either Florence or Venice back.
Just like i don't want Comanche or Shoshone back, but would like either Apache or Navajo (or Pueblo but that won't happen).
I want Hungary to be named Hungary, not Magyar, not Huns, not Austria-Hungary
I want Colombia to be named Colombia, not Gran Colombia
And without the Trung Sisters, i would probably not have voted for Vietnam, nor would others probably have campaigned enough for it, though Vietnam has beautiful culture.

The civs i want most from your list are Hungary and Mughals, followed by Vietnam (Trung Sisters), Ashanti, Florence followed by Ukraine, Argentina and Colombia, and maybe Romania / Kilwa, Bulgaria and Ireland and very possibly also Goths (but i don't know enough about them).