Alexander's Hetaroi
Deity
I wouldn't but some maps do put Northern Sudan on that list, which is why it would be somewhat debatable.
New Civilization which I would like to see in game
- Thread starter Henri Christophe
- Start date
Religious reformation would be a nice mechanic to have and a possible use for Great Prophets if they weren't used solely for founding new religions.
We're not going to get it in Civ6, but the entire religious system needs an overhaul from the ground up. (And yes, a reformation mechanic would be nice. Maybe we could finally treat denominations as subsects of a single religion instead of separate religions that way. I still find it hilarious that BNW added both a [gimmicky] reformation mechanic and Protestantism as a separate religion.
)
TahamiTsunami
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2017
- Messages
- 471
They sound fascinating so far, I'll be sure to read up more on them. Thanks for the info.
I'd be very disappointed if Semiramis/Šammuramat were chosen for Assyria, though; she'd be a worse choice than Dido for Carthage and for the same reasons.
Why would she be a worse choice then Dido? From what I've read on her Wikipedia page, her rule started during political uncertainty and continued for 5 years until her son was old enough. She wouldn't be my first or second choice for Assyria either but she doesn't sound terrible beyond a general lack of info.
The Maori are currently my favorite choice for a new Oceania civ. Samoa certainly wouldn't be bad either and now I'd like to read up more on Salamasina. Its a shame that Oceania has 4+ great choices for civs (not to mention plenty of room for them) but it seems unlikely to get more than 1 or 2 unless a miracle happens.
Alexander's Hetaroi
Deity
I'm not expecting more than one Polynesian representation, if we even get that. Any one would be fine I just found Samoa to be what I am looking for a little more in a Civ from that region. There's not much info on her but there's enough to make a leader ability. Apparently there was no warfare on Samoa during her reign as she united all the people so I was thinking of converting barbarians to her side could work along with a cultural bonus as many Samoans trace their lineage from her.
I'd be surprised if theres more than 1 as well. We've only had 1 once in the 5 previous games. There should be 1 though.
The biggest problem is lack of big personality leaders and lack of knowledge of the language (though, again, they could use a Modern South Arabian language in a pinch). I'd probably prefer to see a Sana'a city-state that grants Gum Arabic and Myrrh as bonus luxuries, similar to Zanzibar.
Basically because she's like choosing Catherine de Medici...if all we knew about CdM was that she existed.
The Greeks and Persians found it titillating that a woman (briefly, on behalf of her son) led a great empire, so they created myths about her. The real Shammuramat was much less interesting. That's why I put her in the same category as Dido: probably existed, but we know so little about the historical figure that we must resort to legends--all while both Assyria and Carthage have a wealth of great leaders to choose from. Besides, Gilgabro is a prime example of what happens when Firaxis bases their leaders on legends.
TahamiTsunami
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2017
- Messages
- 471
I can agree that Salamasina has enough info on her to make a good leader ability and agenda. Also, assuming we do get 2 Oceania civs and that the other would be the Maori, I believe Samoa would be a good choice to show the contrast between them. It would still be a shame to not have the Tonga and Hawaii but I'd be happy with the Maori and Samoa.
That would be cool. There are at least a few more city states that we have that I'd like to have become full civs so perhaps some of those South Arabian kingdoms could replace them when the time comes. On an unrelated note, I love how Amm, the chief deity of the Qatabanians, was also called Uncle!
That's why I put her in the same category as Dido: probably existed, but we know so little about the historical figure that we must resort to legends--all while both Assyria and Carthage have a wealth of great leaders to choose from. Besides, Gilgabro is a prime example of what happens when Firaxis bases their leaders on legends.
Yeah, I see your point. I've been a bit forgiving on such things before because I like to think that there's no smoke without fire and that figures like Shammuramat and Gilgamesh must've done something during their lives that inspired people to make legends about them in the first place.
Without much knowledge of Qatabanian, I'm 99% positive that Amm is cognate to the Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic words for maternal uncle, so there you go.
Gilgamesh, yes, because his own people made legends about him. With Semiramis (who, you'll not, has her own Wikipedia page separate from Shammuramat), I'm inclined to suspect that the highly patriarchal Greeks and Persians were just titillated by a female ruler; the Assyrians themselves didn't tell tales about her. If you want an awesome Mesopotamian woman leader, I'd suggest ditching Gilgabro for Kuĝ-bau/Kubaba, an alewife who was said to have been chosen by the gods to depose a wicked king and become king herself (the Sumerian word wasn't gendered; similar situation to Tamar). Like Wu Zetian, she was the only Mesopotamian queen-regnant (whether of Sumer, Babylon, Assyria, or Achaemenid Persia), but unfortunately beyond that brief note in the chronicles we don't know much about her. Still, she'd be my second choice to lead Sumer the next time they show up, after Gudea. If Sumer is just going to forever be the Epic of Gilgamesh civ, Firaxis can keep them and just give me Babylon or Assyria.
TyrannusRex
Warlord
Always makes me wonder if King Arthur and Beowulf have a basis in reality.
Beowulf I doubt. Scholars still spill a great deal of ink arguing whether Beowulf is a work of historical fiction or an adaptation of an oral tradition, but I don't know of any evidence for its being perceived as historical.
As for Arthur, I don't think it's relevant. Was there a Romanized Briton chieftain at the kernel of the legend? Maybe, but in the scheme of things he's less significant and arguably less "real" than the mythical Arthur of the High Middle Ages. (Speaking personally, I find the craze for pseudo-historical Arthuriana that's been done to death in film over the past 20 years tedious. Give me Mort d'Arthur or Sir Gawain and the Green Knight any day.)
Not all legends have historical prototypes, unlike Gilgamesh or in all probability Arthur. Most historians agree there was no historical Robin Hood, for instance, though a few still propose this figure or that figure from time to time.
Henri Christophe
L'empereur
Haiti have by far the most amazing history of the western hemisphere, they not just defeat Napoleon's army but also expand they border to the Dominican Republic and become a real Empire (By the definition in my history book the Empire is when a civilization dominates another civilization). Was the president of south Haiti (Petion) who give aid to Simon Bolivar be the Libertador and just ask in return to abolish the slavery, and that is that the why just the "Spanish America" abolish slavery after independence process. And Haiti was not soo poor in his early life, the things just start to be bad after 1849 when the Dominican Republic gain they independence from Haiti.
Haiti is the first black republic in the world, and people as me who like to play civilization in real maps and civs who actually is from the area, for example, in civ 5 I always play in America map (sometimes north, south or Caribbean) and always select Brazil, USA, Iroquois, Shoshone, Maya, Aztec, Inca and Hawaii (Actually I select Hawaii because don't have an 8th American civ to complete this scenario ¬¬"). If is possible to play with Haiti it will be possible to represent the black American population in this scenario, and the Americas have a huge black population and ANY REPRESENTATION in Civilization series.
The unfortunate reality is that until ~50 years ago people of African descent in the New World have been at a severe sociopolitical disadvantage, in many cases even below that of the indigenous people of the New World. It would be better for Firaxis to focus on black civilizations in Africa.
luigilime
Prince
i've made a map of every civ i think is "necessary" imo to have a roster of civilizations that feels complete for me
bear in mind this is what i think, i've considered historical relevance, cultural diversity and gameplay perspectives:
it's a roster of 59 civs (LOL they are a lot i know, you could remove some of them but for me then doesn't feel complete if i do that)
i've considered also the eurocentrism problem so most of the new civs i placed aren't in europe
the result is that i have put:
7 civs in north america
5 in south america
10 in africa
18 in europe
17 in asia
2 in oceania
of course it's still incredibly eurocentric but at least asia an africa are more fleshed out continents in the roster.
in north america i've put:
america(obv.), canada (because i like the idea of more tundra based civs, also requested, also could give a french vibe to NA), aztec(a given), maya(another obvious), iroquois(because it has been one of the most influential native americans, truly worthy of civilization), cree(canadian NA), sioux (for variety reason, it's a very recognisable tribe, with a famous leader represents perfectly the great plains tribes imo, (people are going to kill me but never mind )).
in south america i've put:
brazil, inca, mapuche, argentina (the ideal choice to represent spanish postcolonial civs, also great choice for a female leader and the main modern competitor of brazil in the continent), colombia ( bolivar it's too significant to be left out, kind of like alexander but for south america)
for the americas i've mixed the roster having equal colonial civs and native american, but still giving the NA the most representation, i wanted to do this because of the unfortunate reality that the americas now have consolidated colonial nations with an interesting history that would be a shame to leave out since it's a big part of the history of the continents.
in africa i've put:
egypt, nubia, kongo, zulu, mali (to represent the niger river empires, the most famous and important), ethiopia (a cultural and religious powerhouse for millennia), morocco (i believe it's the perfect option to represent the berber culture of the desert that connected mali to europe), carthage (important trade empire), swahili (i like the idea to have an african naval powerhouse that focuses in sea trade, also important key of the indian ocean trade), benin (nigeria it's an emerging power in africa that deserves some representation, benin empire is the most iconic imo from the region, also an interesting defensive civ like georgia).
in asia i've put:
china, india, mongolia, korea, japan, khmer, persia, sumeria, indonesia, scythia, georgia, arabia, ottomans, assyria( i'd like to se an ancient warmonger from mesopotamia), babylon( could be interesting to have not just another scientific civ, but a civ that relies heavily on its capital), vietnam (unique culture, interesting mechanics that could be made, also highly requested), siam (i believe that should be a given since with ethiopia they are the "survivours of colonialism", also could be interesting to have a cultural SEA civ, with a jungle bonus and most importantly more elephants UU).
in oceania i've put:
australia, maori(to represent polynesian culture).
in europe i've put:
england, scotland, france, germany, netherlands, spain, portugal, poland, russia, greece, macedon, byzantium, rome, norway, hungary, sweden, austria (major player of european politics in history, interesting mechanics that could be implemented, also i like the idea of a cultural, mountain, diplomatic civ) italy (cradle of the renaissance, major player in europe, also nice economic cultural combination but not militarily powerful, interesting to play as, imo).
of course i'll say again this is what i see as a fully complete roster, could have some addition here and there but i see them as a bit superfluous.
bear in mind this is what i think, i've considered historical relevance, cultural diversity and gameplay perspectives:
it's a roster of 59 civs (LOL they are a lot i know, you could remove some of them but for me then doesn't feel complete if i do that)
i've considered also the eurocentrism problem so most of the new civs i placed aren't in europe
the result is that i have put:
7 civs in north america
5 in south america
10 in africa
18 in europe
17 in asia
2 in oceania
of course it's still incredibly eurocentric but at least asia an africa are more fleshed out continents in the roster.
in north america i've put:
america(obv.), canada (because i like the idea of more tundra based civs, also requested, also could give a french vibe to NA), aztec(a given), maya(another obvious), iroquois(because it has been one of the most influential native americans, truly worthy of civilization), cree(canadian NA), sioux (for variety reason, it's a very recognisable tribe, with a famous leader represents perfectly the great plains tribes imo, (people are going to kill me but never mind )).
in south america i've put:
brazil, inca, mapuche, argentina (the ideal choice to represent spanish postcolonial civs, also great choice for a female leader and the main modern competitor of brazil in the continent), colombia ( bolivar it's too significant to be left out, kind of like alexander but for south america)
for the americas i've mixed the roster having equal colonial civs and native american, but still giving the NA the most representation, i wanted to do this because of the unfortunate reality that the americas now have consolidated colonial nations with an interesting history that would be a shame to leave out since it's a big part of the history of the continents.
in africa i've put:
egypt, nubia, kongo, zulu, mali (to represent the niger river empires, the most famous and important), ethiopia (a cultural and religious powerhouse for millennia), morocco (i believe it's the perfect option to represent the berber culture of the desert that connected mali to europe), carthage (important trade empire), swahili (i like the idea to have an african naval powerhouse that focuses in sea trade, also important key of the indian ocean trade), benin (nigeria it's an emerging power in africa that deserves some representation, benin empire is the most iconic imo from the region, also an interesting defensive civ like georgia).
in asia i've put:
china, india, mongolia, korea, japan, khmer, persia, sumeria, indonesia, scythia, georgia, arabia, ottomans, assyria( i'd like to se an ancient warmonger from mesopotamia), babylon( could be interesting to have not just another scientific civ, but a civ that relies heavily on its capital), vietnam (unique culture, interesting mechanics that could be made, also highly requested), siam (i believe that should be a given since with ethiopia they are the "survivours of colonialism", also could be interesting to have a cultural SEA civ, with a jungle bonus and most importantly more elephants UU).
in oceania i've put:
australia, maori(to represent polynesian culture).
in europe i've put:
england, scotland, france, germany, netherlands, spain, portugal, poland, russia, greece, macedon, byzantium, rome, norway, hungary, sweden, austria (major player of european politics in history, interesting mechanics that could be implemented, also i like the idea of a cultural, mountain, diplomatic civ) italy (cradle of the renaissance, major player in europe, also nice economic cultural combination but not militarily powerful, interesting to play as, imo).
of course i'll say again this is what i see as a fully complete roster, could have some addition here and there but i see them as a bit superfluous.
Attachments
Alexander's Hetaroi
Deity
59 Civs is a lot though but I wouldn't mind seeing all of those you mentioned, if we could. I could live without the Sioux however in favor of another NA Civ, since they'd be another nomadic Civ. The SW of America would be pretty empty and I would choose the Navajo however if you wanted a big leader personality you can't go wrong with the Apache and Geronimo.
Looking at the map it still is crazy that Africa isn't colored in even if this might be the game where we could possibly get the most Sub Saharan African representation.
Guandao
Rajah of Minyue and Langkasuka
Add Madagascar to that list. And the Ashanti.
luigilime
Prince
i didn't want to go over 60 tbh, of course if i'd add civs to the list, there would be african, asian or american, europe is complete by any standard, the only exceptions are maybe denmark or bulgaria but then it goes too far.
for asia i'd add armenia and burma, maybe malaysia.
for africa the ashanti, madagascar, zimbabwe, songhai
in the americas definitely some native americans but i don't know who.
the thing is if that i'm all right with having the ashanti and madagascar represented as city states.
the problem with africa is that is soo diverse, soo many little cultures, that is difficult to pick the more important ones, so africa will always look empty unless we have a 100 civ game which is unlikely.
59 Civs is a lot though but I wouldn't mind seeing all of those you mentioned, if we could. I could live without the Sioux however in favor of another NA Civ, since they'd be another nomadic Civ. The SW of America would be pretty empty and I would choose the Navajo however if you wanted a big leader personality you can't go wrong with the Apache and Geronimo.
Looking at the map it still is crazy that Africa isn't colored in even if this might be the game where we could possibly get the most Sub Saharan African representation.
PhoenicianGold
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2018
- Messages
- 1,828
Hmm. I disagree with pretty much all of this.
I think think, under the VI design paradigm, it could be complete with the addition of only a few more civs:
* Maya - represent the Yucatan/Guatemalan region, as well as recent archaeological discoveries.
* Navajo - the best choice for a US tribe along several axes.
* Siberia - Yakutia is practically its own country and Russia is a really poor representative of northern Asia.
* Tibet - generally more important than any other Asian suggestions.
* Morocco - represent the Western Islamic Caliphates.
That is it. That is all we *need* from a cultural/mechanical perspective for the game to feel globally complete. I stand by these five as being practically necessary for the game to feel complete in its mission.
I would also nominate the Taino/Arawak to fill out the Caribbean and Colombia (they're probably the strongest "twofer" civ available, like the Mapuche, or Phoenicia), but then I'd feel compelled to give Oman, the Chola, the Inuit, Ethiopia, Siam, Hawaii, Italy, Portugal, and Denmark the same courtesy, and I consider all of them to be of secondary importance if we're trying to achieve maximal cultural/geographical diversity with the fewest number of civs. All of them have a drawback: too culturally similar to a neighbor, lacking a known language, lacking a strong leader choice, lacking strong/unique mechanics, etc. So while any of these would be nice and relevant, I don't consider them the slam-dunk, absolutely necessary civs like the big five I listed. Still, Arawak as a soft sixth civ if they can figure out what language the leader should speak.
Also, Romani. The long-shot civ that would actually work extremely well as an improved Venice concept while satisfying all of the cultural requirements.
luigilime
Prince
well we'll agree to disagree because i disagre enirely with what you said.
PhoenicianGold
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2018
- Messages
- 1,828
well we'll agree to disagree because i disagre enirely with what you said.
Fair enough, although you seem to still be operating under the old civ design philosophy which prioritized dominance over culture. VI is focusing heavily on audiovisual uniqueness, and I'd argue it has become more important to VI that a civ is interesting to look at and listen to than being a regional superpower. Or at least equally as important.
So you can keep applying the old paradigm if it helps you sleep at night, but Firaxis and the world are still moving forward whether we like it or not.
Similar threads
