No Persian Civ!?!?!

[BojanR 81]

We want Persia!!! Persia is one of the greatest civilizations in history!
I respect other civs but Persia is one of civilizations that we must have in the game.

 

[CaptainUnknown]

Absolutely, but that is the whole point of this post. Basically, "You picked X flavour, I wanted Y flavour". As I said, there's no way of twisting this as a game play/design decision. It was an aesthetic decision that the creator of this post (and others including myself) disagree with.

You may disagree and that's fine, but other arguments on here imply that we as players are entitled to Persia and other great civilizations. I am just saying we are not entitled to any civ and having lesser known civs can be just as good if the flavor is done right.

 

[Nightsong]

While disappointing that Persia is not in the base game, I'm happy about seeing new civilizations (ex. Scythia) being added to the franchise. Just as an example, Zulu has been represented in every game from I to V yet twice they ended up in the game due to expansion packs. Persia was missing from I and is going to be out from VI but I have no doubt they will be added in through a DLC or through an expansion.

 

[j51]

While disappointing that Persia is not in the base game, I'm happy about seeing new civilizations (ex. Scythia) being added to the franchise. Just as an example, Zulu has been represented in every game from I to V yet twice they ended up in the game due to expansion packs. Persia was missing from I and is going to be out from VI but I have no doubt they will be added in through a DLC or through an expansion.

This is all true, but in a game called Civilization, leaving the Persians out, feels hollow. They weren't in I, but that was a rookie mistake. Now Firaxis is repeating it. They're one of the six or so main players in the story of human civilization. It's a similar f-up to what's going on with France in Battlefield 1.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Persia is still only 1 civilization in the same way that Germany, the HRE, the franks and the celts are all one civilization though. Only difference is the Persians have historically been better at legitimizing their empires in expressing their dynasties through time as continuities.

Migration, foreign rule, generational cultural evolution and you name what else means that the safavids are not Persian like the archaemenids are Persian etc. It's all an illusion.

If we really want to view Persia in that continuous light though, which i think we do for this game, then we should really give other civilizations that generous view of linear history too. That is when the Persian's start to seem just as important as 100's of other civilizations. They've had their ups and downs, so what so has everyone else. They aren't compulsory and they aren't special. Just well advertised.

 

[isau]

I'm willing to wait for Persia if it means we get something less bland than what was in Civ V. Man how I disliked that Golden Age mechanic and that boring Spearman unit.

Also, time to retire Darius and Cyrus for at least one go round. Let's see someone like Xerxes.

 

[Krajzen]

I'm willing to wait for Persia if it means we get something less bland than what was in Civ V. Man how I disliked that Golden Age mechanic and that boring Spearman unit.

Also, time to retire Darius and Cyrus for at least one go round. Let's see someone like Xerxes.

No, time to retire Achaemenids from Persian civ. Persia/Iran has 2500 years of history after Xerxes and, depending how do you count, 5-10 (!) imperial dynasties, across eras fighting everybody from Rome and Byzantium through Mughals and steppe hordes to Ottomans and Russia. Let's see some Parthian, Sassanid, Safavid or Afsharid ruler. Nader Shah, for example, was absurdly good military genius and the last great conqueror in Asian history.

Personally I am very disappointed in the lack of Persia in base civ6. I consider Persia in its all incarnations as among top 10 most importants civilizations in history, very interesting and unique, with a lot of cool personalities. My internal Persophile would cry less if we at least got another great Asian empire, especially Mongolia... Lack of Persia, Mongolia and Ottomans (lack of at least one of those three!) in civ6 is ridiculous for me.

If there is no Mongolia or Persia, there could be no France or Germany in the base game as well (not to even mention Norse, Poland and Brazil) but you know, gaming markets
I dislike white man's domination of civ6 basic roster not because of ideological reasons or outrage but because I am VERY bored by the history of Western world (+few other 'necessary' nations) which is spammed everywhere in the western pop history. Yeah, rome greece vikings knights whatever, I don't care about them all - give me Iran, Mughals, Burmese Empire, Swahilli or Mapuche.

 

[Karmah]

Have you considered that they probably want to release theme-based DLC , like say 'the great empires of the (middle) east' with ottoman + persia + mongolia ? or the american civilization with inca some native american ... it would kind explain why the base game is so eurocentric.

And for that they probably need to keep some 'blockbusters' like Persia.

 

[Enrchd Iranium]

Have you considered that they probably want to release theme-based DLC , like say 'the great empires of the (middle) east' with ottoman + persia + mongolia ? or the american civilization with inca some native american ... it would kind explain why the base game is so eurocentric.

And for that they probably need to keep some 'blockbusters' like Persia.

Excellent point. I'm hoping for an expansion that includes the Byzantines and Sassanid Persia. They really need to move on from the Achaemenids or rethink them entirely in terms of unique abilities and units.

I think leaving Persia out in the base game might be a great thing if that means that have to go back to the drawing board on this civ.

 

[j51]

Excellent point. I'm hoping for an expansion that includes the Byzantines and Sassanid Persia. They really need to move on from the Achaemenids or rethink them entirely in terms of unique abilities and units.

I think leaving Persia out in the base game might be a great thing if that means that have to go back to the drawing board on this civ.

I'd love to see a Sassanid ruler, but I'd also like an Achaemenid now that they are doing multiple leaders, and a Safavid too, or Nader Shah.

 

[isau]

Personally I am very disappointed in the lack of Persia in base civ6. I consider Persia in its all incarnations as among top 10 most importants civilizations in history, very interesting and unique, with a lot of cool personalities. My internal Persophile would cry less if we at least got another great Asian empire, especially Mongolia... Lack of Persia, Mongolia and Ottomans (lack of at least one of those three!) in civ6 is ridiculous for me.

If there is no Mongolia or Persia, there could be no France or Germany in the base game as well (not to even mention Norse, Poland and Brazil) but you know, gaming markets

I dislike white man's domination of civ6 basic roster not because of ideological reasons or outrage but because I am VERY bored by the history of Western world (+few other 'necessary' nations) which is spammed everywhere in the western pop history. Yeah, rome greece vikings knights whatever, I don't care about them all - give me Iran, Mughals, Burmese Empire, Swahilli or Mapuche.

IMO the reason certain civs are always included is they are key ingredients of the scenario everything in Civ leads up to, broadly WW2, the formation of the UN, and the splitting of the world into Democracy/Communist/Fascist ideologies. These civs consist of:
- Russia
- Germany
- Japan
- Italy (Rome)
- France
- USA
- China

Spain, despite its huge global impact, was involved in WW2 as only a sidelong player and didn't make the cut in Civ V. This time it's Persia.

I do wish there was more global representation, and the civ I'd cut is Norway, which seems simply egregious. On the other hand, I wonder if they didn't go a very euro route in part because the leaders they picked are not flattering. Half of them are being made fun of (Roosevelt, especially at first, Victoria's over the top snootiness) or presented as straight up villains (de Medici). I wonder if they didn't worry about how that would play. They did make fun of Qin's appearance to an extent and already there are complaints on the margins about that.

 

[kroket]

I agree Persia should have been in. Very much so. Always enjoyed playing them and they are infinitely more important than some civs that are in.

My changes would be Incas > Brazil Ottomans > Arabs and Persia > Scythians:

You d get
Aztecs
America
Inca
Congo
Egypt
Ottomans
Sumer
Persia
Greece
Rome
Spain
France
England
Germany
Russia
India
China
Japan
+ 19th and bonus civs

I think i actually suggested Scythia back in Civ4 for an expansion but they shouldnt be in the core game obviously. Same for Brazil really. Ottomans > Arabs is a matter of taste.

 

[Merciorum]

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

The trouble with the intermezzo dynasties is that they never really dominated the plateau; and with the exception of the Buyids, couched their kingship and legitimacy in solely Islamic terms. The Buyids briefly restored the political concept of Iran and the Shahanshah, but they were an ephemeral dynasty. Aside from infrequent Seljuk usage, it wasn't until Ghazan Khan that you find the political concept of Iran returning, and not really until the Safavids that elements of pre-Islamic Iran are wholeheartedly brought back into the state's kingship and self-identification.

The Intermezzo dynasties were extremely impressive on a cultural level, with active state patronage to restore traditional Persian culture in an Islamic framework, but politically they were too fractured and ephemeral. A Sassanid or Safavid ruler would be the best alternative to the Achaemenids.

 

[Merciorum]

No, time to retire Achaemenids from Persian civ. Persia/Iran has 2500 years of history after Xerxes and, depending how do you count, 5-10 (!) imperial dynasties, across eras fighting everybody from Rome and Byzantium through Mughals and steppe hordes to Ottomans and Russia. Let's see some Parthian, Sassanid, Safavid or Afsharid ruler. Nader Shah, for example, was absurdly good military genius and the last great conqueror in Asian history.

Personally I am very disappointed in the lack of Persia in base civ6. I consider Persia in its all incarnations as among top 10 most importants civilizations in history, very interesting and unique, with a lot of cool personalities. My internal Persophile would cry less if we at least got another great Asian empire, especially Mongolia... Lack of Persia, Mongolia and Ottomans (lack of at least one of those three!) in civ6 is ridiculous for me.

If there is no Mongolia or Persia, there could be no France or Germany in the base game as well (not to even mention Norse, Poland and Brazil) but you know, gaming markets
I dislike white man's domination of civ6 basic roster not because of ideological reasons or outrage but because I am VERY bored by the history of Western world (+few other 'necessary' nations) which is spammed everywhere in the western pop history. Yeah, rome greece vikings knights whatever, I don't care about them all - give me Iran, Mughals, Burmese Empire, Swahilli or Mapuche.

Hear hear! There were far more impressive civilisations than ephemeral Norse raiders- the red-headed Qizilbash initiating great nomadic conquests in the name of their Safavid god-king the Swahili and the Majapahit plying the vagaries of the Indian Ocean, the Taungoo and their campaigns of vast conquests, the Dzunghars challenging the Qing and Russians together, the Comanche forging a horseback empire... there are so many more interesting, more impressive and in many ways more impactful civs than the Norse or the other smaller Western nations- yet they are ignored because they're not part of our Western pop-history and pop-culture canon.

 

[magha77]

Persia is still only 1 civilization in the same way that Germany, the HRE, the franks and the celts are all one civilization though. Only difference is the Persians have historically been better at legitimizing their empires in expressing their dynasties through time as continuities.

Migration, foreign rule, generational cultural evolution and you name what else means that the safavids are not Persian like the archaemenids are Persian etc. It's all an illusion.

If we really want to view Persia in that continuous light though, which i think we do for this game, then we should really give other civilizations that generous view of linear history too. That is when the Persian's start to seem just as important as 100's of other civilizations. They've had their ups and downs, so what so has everyone else. They aren't compulsory and they aren't special. Just well advertised.

Illusion? Depends what you define as culture and civilization. Regardless, a great many geneticists, historians and anthropologists disagree with you. You're argument is an unsupported opinion, and hence invalid ;-)

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Illusion? Depends what you define as culture and civilization. Regardless, a great many geneticists, historians and anthropologists disagree with you. You're argument is an unsupported opinion, and hence invalid ;-)

I'd love it if you could point me to these many professionals who disagree with me. Each empire is punctuated by a huge foreign invasion. That means large scale displacement of people like what's going on today in Syria. That means large scale immigration of foreigners to govern and maintain stability in the new lands, to trade to make money etc. Each time a 'Persian empire' has appeared, it's been carried out and supported by a group of people who legitimise themselves by claiming the heritage of the land they occupy. But each dynasty has nothing to do with one another beyond that. They are seperate empires. The idea that the land and one people through history unites them is nationalistic nonsense from a strain of history developed in the late 19th century, which has since been thoroughly invalidated.

The same goes with China, they haven't existed as one empire since the dawn of time, they crumbled to warring states, been conquered multiple times and ruled over for centuries by foreigners. It's ok to call it China still is what I'm saying but that doesn't mean that it's the same China through time. We just read history as the empires write it, and they write it spewing legitimising propaganda.

If still like to see Persia, cos this game isn't about accurate history. But if we're gunna look at cultures from specific areas as unchanging timeless entities through history, then the Persians aren't any better a candidate than say the Arabs, the Mongols, the Mayans, the Hungarians, the Tunisians etc. They all have achievements through millennia too.

 

[Siptah]

I'd love it if you could point me to these many professionals who disagree with me. Each empire is punctuated by a huge foreign invasion. That means large scale displacement of people like what's going on today in Syria. That means large scale immigration of foreigners to govern and maintain stability in the new lands, to trade to make money etc. Each time a 'Persian empire' has appeared, it's been carried out and supported by a group of people who legitimise themselves by claiming the heritage of the land they occupy. But each dynasty has nothing to do with one another beyond that. They are seperate empires. The idea that the land and one people through history unites them is nationalistic nonsense from a strain of history developed in the late 19th century, which has since been thoroughly invalidated.

The same goes with China, they haven't existed as one empire since the dawn of time, they crumbled to warring states, been conquered multiple times and ruled over for centuries by foreigners. It's ok to call it China still is what I'm saying but that doesn't mean that it's the same China through time. We just read history as the empires write it, and they write it spewing legitimising propaganda.

If still like to see Persia, cos this game isn't about accurate history. But if we're gunna look at cultures from specific areas as unchanging timeless entities through history, then the Persians aren't any better a candidate than say the Arabs, the Mongols, the Mayans, the Hungarians, the Tunisians etc. They all have achievements through millennia too.

Applause! Great post.
Edit: there are some exceptions, like the pre 25th dynasty Egypt that can be seen as one single empire besides the decay in the intermediate periods without oversimplifying history too much.

 

[fredrikslicer]

The trouble with the intermezzo dynasties is that they never really dominated the plateau; and with the exception of the Buyids, couched their kingship and legitimacy in solely Islamic terms.

Fairly sure the Saffarids only rested on their right by conquest in fact this was the reason why the Abbasids endorsed the Sammanids instead. Also while the investiture from the caliphate was their primary form of legitimacy for the Sammanids they did keep Persian as court language and sponsored the shanameh and considering that the court forced Ahmed to change it back to Persian when he briefly switched to arabic so its not entierly true that they relied entierly on Islam, albeit be it to a lesser extent.

also: "In a famous edict, Samanid authorities declared that "here, in this region, the language is Persian, and the kings of this realm are Persian kings."[9]"

Wiki and their source is the history of Iran by Eliot L. Daniel

The Buyids briefly restored the political concept of Iran and the Shahanshah, but they were an ephemeral dynasty.

I have a brief recollection that they provided a great deal of patronage to the academic world also the Ziyarid did try to restore Zoroastrian rule in the beginning of their dynasty even though that's more of an amusing footnote than anything else

Aside from infrequent Seljuk usage, it wasn't until Ghazan Khan that you find the political concept of Iran returning,

Yes it was actually referred to as the governate of Khorasan correct?

and not really until the Safavids that elements of pre-Islamic Iran are wholeheartedly brought back into the state's kingship and self-identification.

Thought the Safavids tried scourge as much of their pagan past as possible while merely keeping with the New persian language and resting on their station as Grand masters of the Qizilibash

The Intermezzo dynasties were extremely impressive on a cultural level, with active state patronage to restore traditional Persian culture in an Islamic framework, but politically they were too fractured and ephemeral. A Sassanid or Safavid ruler would be the best alternative to the Achaemenids.

I can see that but I do contend that the unique nature of the period could make for an interesting civ and if we couch the main civ ability in the general period and then have each leader represent their dynasty maybe even have a mechanic where they switch for every era could be interesting.

But I do see the point that the two major empires are more compelling for this purpose (I prefer the Sassanids). What about Medians and Parthians? they certainly added quite a bit to the Iranian civlization the former ironing out the general form Iranian empires would take and Parthians ending the greek kingdoms in the area.

 

[Liufeng]

You guys realize it's rather frustratring as a portuguese to see Brazil and Kongo in the base game while Portugal ...

 

[upi00r]

Because I have zero interest in Brazil or Poland. Why should I have to pay for a civ that should have been in the base game?

Cos it's not in the base game. And nobody force you to buy it so you may always wait a few years for Civ7.