Official announcement: Hot off the presses. Next Civ game in development!!!!!!!

[Boris Gudenuf]

They even miss the obvious Asterix and Obelix references…

Derp. Sorry, I sometimes mix Civ5 and 6 up. But still pre-Russian Indo-European civs from the Pontic Steppe have generally been absent from Civ games as far as I remember.

Civ IV let me change the name of the Leader: I ALWAYS played as Asterix.

Civ VI's Scythia unfortunately illustrated the Civ Game problem with the pastoral groups: No city list to speak of. The Scythians mostly wound up living in modern Russian archeological sites, which meant when you conquered them as Peter I you didn't have to rename anything, but otherwise just grated.
They could have selected similar Central Asian Civs that had actual city lists, like the Kushans or Khazars, but until they figure out how to Square the Circle of a game that requires City Building to do anything else in the game modeling peoples who did not by choice build cites at all all the pastoral groups are going to be problematic.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Swedish 'vikings', or more properly a Sweden with a Viking flavor, would or should satisfy anybody's desire for river-running Vikings, since it was Swedish Rus who sailed all the way across Russia on the rivers to Mickelgard (Constantinople) or Astrakhan to meet the Silk Road traders. This could also be an introduction to the Trading Vikings instead of the inevitable Raiders that have (dis)graced the game forever and need to be put to Rest.

I'm really hoping that the upcoming Varangian Harald is more geared towards religion and trading.

Maybe, but they are not even close to the "civs without whom the popular Western imagination cannot imagine history" which is for me the only list of civs set it stone. So America, Maya, Aztec, Inca, England, Spain, France, Germany, Rome, "Vikings", "Celts", Greece, Russia, "Arabs", Persia, "Mesopotamia", Egypt, India, China, Japan, Mongols.
(Dutch, Portuguese, Byzantium and Korea are not that famous in pophistory, though in civ context I suspect them to be set in stone as well, and both Italians and Jews are curiois cases of super famous civs never appearing in civ series )

I mean Italy has been my most wanted new so I definitely would trade them.

I'd also safely add in Ethiopia to the list too as it's appeared in three straight games too. You also forgot the Zulu.

Civ VI's Scythia unfortunately illustrated the Civ Game problem with the pastoral groups: No city list to speak of. The Scythians mostly wound up living in modern Russian archeological sites, which meant when you conquered them as Peter I you didn't have to rename anything, but otherwise just grated.
They could have selected similar Central Asian Civs that had actual city lists, like the Kushans or Khazars, but until they figure out how to Square the Circle of a game that requires City Building to do anything else in the game modeling peoples who did not by choice build cites at all all the pastoral groups are going to be problematic.

They certainly weren't perfect, but I would consider them a step in the right direction, at least from the Huns of Civ 5 who had a worse city list.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I'm really hoping that the upcoming Varangian Harald is more geared towards religion and trading.


I mean Italy has been my most wanted new so I definitely would trade them.

I'd also safely add in Ethiopia to the list too as it's appeared in three straight games too. You also forgot the Zulu.


They certainly weren't perfect, but I would consider them a step in the right direction, at least from the Huns of Civ 5 who had a worse city list.

I've been thinking on Varangian Harald, and he might end up being a mash-up of religion, trade, and really leaning into those Berzerkers now that they don't suck.

Also, my definition of series regular is any civ who has appeared in the two most recent Civs consecutively or been in three or more nonconsecutively, including alternates whom might be considered geographically or thematically synonymous like Phoenicia/Carthage, Mali/Songhai, or Norway/Denmark.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I'm really hoping that the upcoming Varangian Harald is more geared towards religion and trading.

They certainly weren't perfect, but I would consider them a step in the right direction, at least from the Huns of Civ 5 who had a worse city list.

Since Harald's title refers to his time in Mickegard/Constantinople, which the Scandinavians considered the Middle of the World and the source of anything you could possibly want (except, maybe, snow), I hope they do try for the Trading/Commercial Viking vibe with him

I had completely forgotten Civ V's Huns, which is the only way to deal with them . . .
It only shows that the Civ franchise still has a long way to go to really include the rich variety of polities and groups available. I still think the two greatest problems are not how to depict anything graphically or how to model Leaders or Civics, but how to depict the de-centralized City State Civs and how to model the Pastoral Civs. Both groups included some too popular and too important to ignore, but both have been handled so egregiously badly in Civ games (and, to be honest, most other popular games as well. Am I the only one who noticed that Old World utterly dodged trying to depict either the Roman senatorial republic or Greek city states?)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I've been thinking on Varangian Harald, and he might end up being a mash-up of religion, trade, and really leaning into those Berzerkers now that they don't suck.

Which will help the fact that his religious units and traders can go over ocean tiles once you reach Shipbuilding in the Classical Era.

Also, my definition of series regular is any civ who has appeared in the two most recent Civs consecutively or been in three or more nonconsecutively, including alternates whom might be considered geographically or thematically synonymous like Phoenicia/Carthage, Mali/Songhai, or Norway/Denmark.

I forgot about Carthage/Phoenicia and his list already included "Vikings" which Norway/Denmark fell under. If Mali/Songhai count than I think you could also include Khmer/Siam as well.

 

[Takhisis]

America

Okay, stop right there. People from outside the US cannot stomach the egocentrism inherent to putting the USA in there as starting civs.

Civ VI's Scythia unfortunately illustrated the Civ Game problem with the pastoral groups: No city list to speak of. The Scythians mostly wound up living in modern Russian archeological sites, which meant when you conquered them as Peter I you didn't have to rename anything, but otherwise just grated.
They could have selected similar Central Asian Civs that had actual city lists, like the Kushans or Khazars, but until they figure out how to Square the Circle of a game that requires City Building to do anything else in the game modeling peoples who did not by choice build cites at all all the pastoral groups are going to be problematic.

I had completely forgotten Civ V's Huns, which is the only way to deal with them . . .
It only shows that the Civ franchise still has a long way to go to really include the rich variety of polities and groups available. I still think the two greatest problems are not how to depict anything graphically or how to model Leaders or Civics, but how to depict the de-centralized City State Civs and how to model the Pastoral Civs. Both groups included some too popular and too important to ignore, but both have been handled so egregiously badly in Civ games (and, to be honest, most other popular games as well. Am I the only one who noticed that Old World utterly dodged trying to depict either the Roman senatorial republic or Greek city states?)

You are partially refloating a lot of suggetions made mostly but not exclusively by my for a fan-made version of civilization, which included, after somebody cracked civ3 hard enough to make playing as barbarians possible, what if it could be the standard to play a cityless game or have things like barbarian camps and goody huts for a nomadic faction instead of a settled one. A bit like the ‘Horde’ units in Rome: Total War's Barbarian Invasion, if you're old enough to remember that. Perhaps you'd find the subforum interesting.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Okay, stop right there. People from outside the US cannot stomach the egocentrism inherent to putting the USA in there as starting civs.


You are partially refloating a lot of suggetions made mostly but not exclusively by my for a fan-made version of civilization, which included, after somebody cracked civ3 hard enough to make playing as barbarians possible, what if it could be the standard to play a cityless game or have things like barbarian camps and goody huts for a nomadic faction instead of a settled one. A bit like the ‘Horde’ units in Rome: Total War's Barbarian Invasion, if you're old enough to remember that. Perhaps you'd find the subforum interesting.

As long as there are more gamers in the USA than any other country on earth it's not egocentrism, it's Economic Reality, like it or not. (And not to say I like it, but I recognize it, and also the fact that second most numerous gamers are from China, and either of those two front runners have more gamers than the next 5 countries combined: Lichtenstein might be the most potentially popular Civ to add to the game, but it will have an Uphill struggle to get in!)

I'll add the subforum to my lost, but now that I'm retired, I've got less free time than ever - I've got a backlog of 9 chapters to refine the citations to by next week and a stack of Russian documents to translate whenever I get to them. This writing crap is seriously eating in to my gaming time!

 

[Takhisis]

Oh, I know that it's a crowd-pleaser, but that doesn't mean that it's still bad. At least China has an Ancient Age iteration.

I'll add the subforum to my lost, but now that I'm retired, I've got less free time than ever - I've got a backlog of 9 chapters to refine the citations to by next week and a stack of Russian documents to translate whenever I get to them. This writing crap is seriously eating in to my gaming time!

More work after retirement? Oh dear. (fellow suffering translators of the world, unite!)

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Which will help the fact that his religious units and traders can go over ocean tiles once you reach Shipbuilding in the Classical Era.

I forgot about Carthage/Phoenicia and his list already included "Vikings" which Norway/Denmark fell under. If Mali/Songhai count than I think you could also include Khmer/Siam as well.

I do

 

[Patine]

As long as there are more gamers in the USA than any other country on earth it's not egocentrism, it's Economic Reality, like it or not. (And not to say I like it, but I recognize it, and also the fact that second most numerous gamers are from China, and either of those two front runners have more gamers than the next 5 countries combined: Lichtenstein might be the most potentially popular Civ to add to the game, but it will have an Uphill struggle to get in!)

I'll add the subforum to my lost, but now that I'm retired, I've got less free time than ever - I've got a backlog of 9 chapters to refine the citations to by next week and a stack of Russian documents to translate whenever I get to them. This writing crap is seriously eating in to my gaming time!

Oh, I know that it's a crowd-pleaser, but that doesn't mean that it's still bad. At least China has an Ancient Age iteration.


More work after retirement? Oh dear. (fellow suffering translators of the world, unite!)

You know, to be honest, I've often like the idea of a potential Revolution and Commonwealth mechanics where groups of cities settled distant from the capital by far-flung settling and conquering civ's would declare a Revolution, or machinate or a peaceful Commonwealth scheme, based on some game mechanic triggers, and an independent new civ (perhaps with an opt-in option to play them in a multi-player game), as opposed to starting with a bunch of Post-Colonial civ's from the get go.

 

[Takhisis]

The secession/splitoff faction from Barbarian Invasion is mentioned somewhere in there, too.

It's always been unrealistic that revolting cities and resistance always suddenly ends when the last independent city of that culture is taken or destroyed.

 

[Patine]

It's always been unrealistic that revolting cities and resistance always suddenly ends when the last independent city of that culture is taken or destroyed.

Um, standard civ's in game end their presence on the stage that way, too, you know? That's how conquest victory is achiieved.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

You know, to be honest, I've often like the idea of a potential Revolution and Commonwealth mechanics where groups of cities settled distant from the capital by far-flung settling and conquering civ's would declare a Revolution, or machinate or a peaceful Commonwealth scheme, based on some game mechanic triggers, and an independent new civ (perhaps with an opt-in option to play them in a multi-player game), as opposed to starting with a bunch of Post-Colonial civ's from the get go.

The Civ VI mechanic of getting new City States to appear from Barbarian Camps would seem to be a step in this direction, since those CS represent brand new entities in that particular game. Meld that with the also already-existing shifting of cities through Loyalty or lack of it and one would seem to have all the basic requirements for the Revolting Cities = New Civ/Minor Civ.

ANYTHING to add more Dynamics to the game's currently near-stultifying Late Game!

 

[Thormodr]

True, but that's partly because of a) the eurocentrism of civ developers and 2) the need to sell more individual civs as DLCs.

I for one would rather they gave more slots to other cultural areas, but that's me.

Eurocentrism? No, not really.

It simply makes financial sense to have playable civs in places where there are many Civ players.

Adding in more obscure civs for variety is good too. Mapuche, for example.

I think Civ VI struck a good balance in that regard.

 

[Takhisis]

Um, standard civ's in game end their presence on the stage that way, too, you know? That's how conquest victory is achiieved.

I know that, because I actually play civ games, but I'm not sure what your point here is.

Eurocentrism? No, not really.

It simply makes financial sense to have playable civs in places where there are many Civ players.

Adding in more obscure civs for variety is good too. Mapuche, for example.

I think Civ VI struck a good balance in that regard.

Just because it's more lucrative doesn't mean that it's not Eurocentric anyway.

 

[Thormodr]

I expect
- Ireland, since Scotland and Gauls have been done already
- Bohemia and Ukraine, since Poland and Hungary have been done already (Poland two times)
- Siam to come back along with Vietnam (so they'd appear twice, while Khmer already have appeared twice)
- Malaysia or Philippines instead of Indonesia, as it was present twice in a row
- No Sweden as it has been present twice in a row
- Neither Mali nor Songhai, but a civ from some new West African region instead
- Assyria coming back
- Carthage instead of Phoenicia with Hannibal as a leader (it's surprising how he hasn't been there for two civ games already)
- No Scythia but some other horse civ
- Armenia instead of Georgia
- Some East African civ instead of Kongo
- Italy
- Timurids
- Muisca instead of Mapuche
- Mexico and/or Argentina instead of Colombia (maybe instead of Brazil as well)
- Either no Australia and Canada at all or just one of them coming back

I really like this list except I would choose Guarani/Paraguay instead of the Muisca and unsure about the Timurids.

As a Canadian, I would like to see Canada come back but if they have an extra native american civ instead, then I'm fine with that.

 

[Thormodr]

I know that, because I actually play civ games, but I'm not sure what your point here is.

Just because it's more lucrative doesn't mean that it's not Eurocentric anyway.

You are free to have your point of view but this Civ is eurocentric business is inaccurate, to put it politely.

 

[InsidiousMage]

You are free to have your point of view but this Civ is eurocentric business is inaccurate, to put it politely.

Considering the fact that European civs make up only slightly less than half of all of the civs in the game, its not.

 

[Thormodr]

Considering the fact that European civs make up only slightly less than half of all of the civs in the game, its not.

*Sigh* This same old crap is dredged up all the time. It's the age we live in, unfortunately.

Civ VI did a very good of diversity both with the civs and gender. Sadly, some people are just never satisfied.

Edit: Let's see:

Byzantium
Dutch
England
France
Gaul
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Macedonia
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Rome
Russia
Scotland
Spain
Sweden

That's 17 Civs out of 50. That's 34%. Not almost half.

Note: Don't give me the crappy argument that America, Canada and Australia are European Civs, either.

 

[pokiehl]

My greatest desires for civs that did not appear in Civ 6 are the Hittites and Assyrians.