No Persian Civ!?!?!

[Merciorum]

It's rather indicative of their new ethos- rather than trying to portray the major players in world history, they're aiming for a more European-dominated roster while treating the rest of the world as a pick-and-choose buffet of tokenism and leftovers. Persia's inclusion really is a great disappointment, and a bizarre decision. It's like leaving India or China out.

Still, as Enrchd Iranium says, it would be very nice to have a broader Persia that wasn't just the Achaemenids, and we can but hope that's what they're planning. The Sassanids and Safavids need some love- Shah Abbas would certainly fit well into that whole "big personality" thing they've got going on.

 

[Xshayathiya]

I'm kind of tempted to think Firaxis has something against the Persians . As pointed out in this reddit post there has never been a Iranian wonder in any of the games (unless you count the Taj Mahal or the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, which I don't). And someone in the comments in there brought up the Civilopedia entry from Civ III, the less about which is said the better. And I prefer to pretend African Darius in Civ IV never happened.

 

[magha77]

I'm over it. My initial reaction was anger and frustration. I've become accustomed to Persian history being demonized or marginalized in movies, television and games. I was hoping for something different from the Civ franchise. I guess we'll see what happens with the DLCs. Maybe an interesting scenario involving the Persian Wars, the Roman-Sassanian wars, or a dawn of Bronze Age scenario. I was really hoping for Shah Abbas and a Nasqh-e Jahan Square or a Si-o se pol bridge wonder. Perhaps the developers have something really cool in mind that we are not privy to. They have done an amazing job with the featured civs so far, although I will miss Napolean (imagine what Great General bonus he would provide!). And if C5 were to not be Persia, I'm happy it's Norway...I love playing as the Vikings with Berzerkers.

 

[anandus]

[...] they're aiming for a more European-dominated roster while treating the rest of the world as a pick-and-choose buffet of tokenism and leftovers.

Well, they did that with the European civs too. Quite a few important European civs are left out (eg. Portugal, the Netherlands, Poland, Austria, Celts, Franks, Goths, etc.)

 

[True_Candyman]

Well, they did that with the European civs too. Quite a few important European civs are left out (eg. Portugal, the Netherlands, Poland, Austria, Celts, Franks, Goths, etc.)

I think he's referring to the fact that the basic list of civs that are always included in base game are almost all European, while alternatives from around the globe, besides Egypt, Japan, China and India, are seen as optional and just cycled through for variety despite some really significant impact on world history. There are barely any pick and choose there because they are all seen as fundamental components of the game.

 

[Mudokon Pop]

Well, they did that with the European civs too. Quite a few important European civs are left out (eg. Portugal, the Netherlands, Poland, Austria, Celts, Franks, Goths, etc.)

I would consider all of those as "Expansion Pack" Civs to be honest. I understand that Fireaxis must make room for new Civs in an 18 Civ roster which gets filled with the standard civs - limiting changes.

To be honest, I would remove Japan before Persia, as Japan was so isolated for most of history it's global impact would come later. But that doesn't mean I dont want Japan in the game, I'll probably play them first. Persia belong as a staple as much as any of the big ones.


Brazil is an unusual choice for a new 'base' Civ. I'm sure other new civs could have been done in their place.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Well, while Persia is surely important and we could expect it in one of the early DLC, it's not one of "mandatory" civs in the series. It wasn't in Civ1 and CivRev.

 

[Civciv5]

The base-game setup is basically a farce and mockery to history.
If civs were in by historical importance, Persia would definitely be in.
Civs by total historical importance would go something like this
1-10 (in no order): China, Egypt, India, Greece, Rome+Italy, Persia, Arabia, Britain, Spain and the United States

 

[j51]

Well, while Persia is surely important and we could expect it in one of the early DLC, it's not one of "mandatory" civs in the series. It wasn't in Civ1 and CivRev.

Civ Rev doesn't count.

 

[CaptainUnknown]

The base-game setup is basically a farce and mockery to history.
If civs were in by historical importance, Persia would definitely be in.
Civs by total historical importance would go something like this
1-10 (in no order): China, Egypt, India, Greece, Rome+Italy, Persia, Arabia, Britain, Spain and the United States

I doubt the Devs are trying to make a game to simulate history. Since Civ allows the player to form a new history, the historical impact of civilizations doesn't matter from a gameplay point of view. The Civs chosen are picked because they are templates for great gameplay, which is why we see shorter lived Civs like the Huns and Zulu.

Yes, the Persians would be a great choice for Civilization, but does their Civ allow new and unique gameplay compared to the other selected civs? No point in throwing in Persia if the gameplay sucks with them. We have seen no golden age mechanic in vanilla Civ 6 yet, so perhaps the expansions will cater better to Persia's needs.

TL;DR: Historic importance doesn't matter for gameplay since game is not simulator. Civs picked because they can be used for unique gameplay. Persia might be saved for expansion mechanics so they can have better/unique gameplay.

 

[Siptah]

Civs by total historical importance would go something like this
1-10 (in no order): China, Egypt, India, Greece, Rome+Italy, Persia, Arabia, Britain, Spain and the United States

There's no way such a list is ever going to work! Besides being ridiculous, it's also not at all relevant for Civ.

 

[Fourmi1]

Well didn't they said that they will pick civs "all around the world", in a better dispotion (less concentrated, which would help TLS) ?
(And thus going before historical importance)

 

[jtakau]

Assuming that the developers have gameplay data from Steam for CIV5, any change that popularity of Civs in their previous incarnations could have played a role in selection process? I have understood that Both Brazil (confirmed) and Poland (rumored DLC) are among the popular CIVs in Civ5 scene, could this have partially prompted the developers to include them already in early stages, and could the reverse (Persia not being among the most popular Civs) be the case with Persia?

 

[True_Candyman]

Assuming that the developers have gameplay data from Steam for CIV5, any change that popularity of Civs in their previous incarnations could have played a role in selection process? I have understood that Both Brazil (confirmed) and Poland (rumored DLC) are among the popular CIVs in Civ5 scene, could this have partially prompted the developers to include them already in early stages, and could the reverse (Persia not being among the most popular Civs) be the case with Persia?

If that came into the decision at all then they've made a huge mistake. The main reason Poland was so popular was that they made it arguably the most OP civ available. Main reason Persia was not popular was because it was bland and underpowered and fell in the shadow of new civs being added. They created the popularity of these civs with their designs.

 

[Xshayathiya]

Yes, the Persians would be a great choice for Civilization, but does their Civ allow new and unique gameplay compared to the other selected civs? No point in throwing in Persia if the gameplay sucks with them. We have seen no golden age mechanic in vanilla Civ 6 yet, so perhaps the expansions will cater better to Persia's needs.

This argument makes no sense. Golden ages aren't an inherently Persian feature. It was a mechanic that Firaxis gave them in Civ 5. The dev team are the people who determine gameplay, there isnt an overriding commandment "thou shalt make Persians dependant on Golden Ages." If they wanted them in the game they would have given them a mechanic that fit. There's no compelling argument that this was a game design decision, it was aesthetics and marketing pure and simple.

 

[CaptainUnknown]

This argument makes no sense. Golden ages aren't an inherently Persian feature. It was a mechanic that Firaxis gave them in Civ 5. The dev team are the people who determine gameplay, there isnt an overriding commandment "thou shalt make Persians dependant on Golden Ages." If they wanted them in the game they would have given them a mechanic that fit. There's no compelling argument that this was a game design decision, it was aesthetics and marketing pure and simple.

Golden ages was just an example, not what they have to do. Anyways, if the devs had 18 other ideas they wanted to do and they fit other civilizations better then it makes sense. The devs have no need to pick historic empires just because they were large. They want something fun first and foremost, picking the civs just adds flavor.

 

[MaximusPlatypus]

They want something fun first and foremost, picking the civs just adds flavor.

This right here. Out of 43 civs, in V, I only played Persia a handful of times on random rolls. There are several reasons for this.

I like TSL and Earth-type maps. I don't particularly like land-locked capitols. If you are going to start in the Middle East, I would at least like the option to create a powerful trading capitol.

The Immortal (I don't recall what the UU has been in past games, Immortal has been used in some form in at least 2 of the series is not a particularly interesting or game-breaking unit. This isn't possible for every Civ obviously, but it can certainly add to a reason to play as (hello, Keshik/Camel Archer/SOL etc.) As an example; even a realtively "weak" unit such as the India super-workers in IV seemed more interesting and tied to the identity of the Civ IMO

Golden Age based UA. Golden Ages feel somewhat of a gimmicky mechanic to exploit as far as warmongering. Golden Ages are a byproduct of having a solid, Happy empire in general, nobody is trying to create an empire that has shorter or less frequent Golden Ages. So it feels like a "bonus" type thing tacked on to how you would be playing to begin with. Now gimmick-type UAs can be fun or interesting. At first I had similar reactions to Sweden, but after playing them a few times, it feels like you have more active decisions of how you utilize the UA.

If they have sent Persia back into the shop for re-tooling, that's fine by me. I expect them to be in there, hopefully with a different kit of UU/UA.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

The only way it makes sense (to me) for Persia not to be in the first group of civs is if there's some mechanic they REALLY want for them, but were running out of time to get it nailed down and want more time to work on it.

 

[Ll1442]

Yes, there are also no Ottomans, north American Indigenous civs, south east Asian civs, etc. Many are disappointed (you can join them in one of the many complaining topics).
But there are plenty of civs to come in DLC or expansions, so without a doubt a Persian civ of one form or another will come to the game, don't worry.

not necessarily, as we might se more leaders for current civs in the expansions instead.
I too am a bit disappointed as the choices leave out those important empires throughout history, to tell of smaller and less impactful civs and leaders. I sorta get the diversity issue, but its meant to give some historical insight, and I fear it might just feel like a war of smaller, less significant civs, and not the whole conquest of the entire world, which doesn't help if the map is too small as well.

 

[fredrikslicer]

Maybe the leaders and shahdoms in the Iranian Intermezzo should be considered for the Persian civ