(poll) What civs would you like to see in a hypothetical third expansion?

[PhoenicianGold]

Well then.

I have reviewed this conversation and have decided that I fully support the Mughals, subject to a condition:

Leader is Akbar, capital is Lahore. My reasoning is that their TSL should really be in Pakistan because that is where their legacy has continued and thrived. And, importantly, under Akbar the Mughals did not control all of India. So Mughals under Akbar would have a distinct geographical niche separate from India that would include primarily Afghanistan and Pakistan.

My other condition is that Morocco still happens.

I would also like to point out that the Dutch symbol is no longer a lion. Foreshadowing?

 

[Patine]

Well then.

I have reviewed this conversation and have decided that I fully support the Mughals, subject to a condition:

Leader is Akbar, capital is Lahore. My reasoning is that their TSL should really be in Pakistan because that is where their legacy has continued and thrived. And, importantly, under Akbar the Mughals did not control all of India. So Mughals under Akbar would have a distinct geographical niche separate from India that would include primarily Afghanistan and Pakistan.

My other condition is that Morocco still happens.

I would also like to point out that the Dutch symbol is no longer a lion. Foreshadowing?

I still stand firmly against both, for reasons I have given above (which are indeed based on reason and rational evidence, though I'm fully expecting a reaction volley of stones from a glass to arbitrarily, with no backing, and that these opinions are "flat wrong" and just 'flawed opinions," but be expected to just accept those declaration with no need for explanation). My opinions on those two is unchanged. On top of that, Lahore, in a pre-British Raj mold, should be a bigger centre for a possible Sikh Confederacy option/alternate leader, whom I believe should be a definite priority - definitely above the Mughals.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I definitely want a Civ from that part of the world but idk if it should necessarily be the Mughals, I like them but they WOULD work the best as a replacement for India, pushing the Indians back to an Xpac/DLC. In other words, the possibility of Mughals is definitely more of a Civ 7 thing for me. However there is a good choice from that part of the world: Uzbek, assuming it's okay to encompass 500+ years worth of history into the mix (led by Timur preferably).The Registan of Samarqand would make a nice World Wonder as well.

 

[Patine]

I definitely want a Civ from that part of the world but idk if it should necessarily be the Mughals, I like them but they WOULD work the best as a replacement for India, pushing the Indians back to an Xpac/DLC. In other words, the possibility of Mughals is definitely more of a Civ 7 thing for me. However there is a good choice from that part of the world: Uzbek, assuming it's okay to encompass 500+ years worth of history into the mix (led by Timur preferably).The Registan of Samarqand would make a nice World Wonder as well.

I think, as I said above, the Sikh Confederacy would be very interesting too. They have a long and rich history (albeit a shorter history than the other major root-level religions of the world - without dividing by sect, denomination, or other subdivision), many potentials for interesting leader (including several female generals, because of their long practice of greater gender equality than most contemporary civilizations of older days pretty much ANYWHERE else in the world), wonders, UA's, UI's, and a couple UU possibilities.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I definitely want a Civ from that part of the world but idk if it should necessarily be the Mughals, I like them but they WOULD work the best as a replacement for India, pushing the Indians back to an Xpac/DLC. In other words, the possibility of Mughals is definitely more of a Civ 7 thing for me. However there is a good choice from that part of the world: Uzbek, assuming it's okay to encompass 500+ years worth of history into the mix (led by Timur preferably).The Registan of Samarqand would make a nice World Wonder as well.

I was considering this as well, but I think that the Timurids occupy a similarly weird niche, just with respect to Persia. I think, if they did appear, it would be an Alexander situation; mostly an excuse to include Tamerlane than anything else.

On balance, I think the Mughals have a slightly stronger niche, but only under Akbar. The Timurids are bumping up very close geographically and mechanically to Scythia, whereas something centered out of Pakistan or Afghanistan would be solidly its own thing. Plus the Mughals were effectively the full realization of the Timurid dynasty settling into a seat of power and building a legacy. The downside would be no Tamerlane, but I think Akbar is a strong enough personality to stand on his own.

In fact, the two are so closely related I could understand and wholly support a slightly blobby civ led by both Tamerlane from Samarkand and Akbar from Lahore.That would be a really neat consolidation of history, actually, if we could at least come up with a proper name for the civ. I believe the name "Gurkani" would apply equally to both of them, although it might not be as resonant as either "Timurids" or "Mughals."

Regardless, I wholly support Registan as a wonder.

Actually, considering this has made me reevaluate my ideal civ list for third expack:

Maya - Lady Six Sky
Portugal - Isabella or Sebastian
Morocco - Abu or Sayyida
Burma - Anawrahta
Swahili - Fumo Liyongo
Navajo - Barboncito
Italy/Vatican - Innocent III
Gurkani - Tamerlane and Akbar
Theodora - alternate leader for Rome

In this scenario, I would in fact consider Vietnam slightly more likely to supplant Burma, given that it isn't remotely near the Indian subcontinent. But I think either way there would still be room for still more civs after expack three. But I think the game would feel reasonably complete with these civs and everything following would be gravy.

 

[Patine]

I was considering this as well, but I think that the Timurids occupy a similarly weird niche, just with respect to Persia. I think, if they did appear, it would be an Alexander situation; mostly an excuse to include Tamerlane than anything else.

On balance, I think the Mughals have a slightly stronger niche, but only under Akbar. The Timurids are bumping up very close geographically and mechanically to Scythia, whereas something centered out of Pakistan or Afghanistan would be solidly its own thing. Plus the Mughals were effectively the full realization of the Timurid dynasty settling into a seat of power and building a legacy. The downside would be no Tamerlane, but I think Akbar is a strong enough personality to stand on his own.

In fact, the two are so closely related I could understand and wholly support a slightly blobby civ led by both Tamerlane from Samarkand and Akbar from Lahore.That would be a really neat consolidation of history, actually, if we could at least come up with a proper name for the civ. I believe the name "Gurkani" would apply equally to both of them, although it might not be as resonant as either "Timurids" or "Mughals."

Regardless, I wholly support Registan as a wonder.

Actually, considering this has made me reevaluate my ideal civ list for third expack:

Maya - Lady Six Sky
Portugal - Isabella or Sebastian
Morocco - Abu or Sayyida
Burma - Anawrahta
Swahili - Fumo Liyongo
Navajo - Barboncito
Italy/Vatican - Innocent III
Gurkani - Tamerlane and Akbar
Theodora - alternate leader for Rome

In this scenario, I would in fact consider Vietnam slightly more likely to supplant Burma, given that it isn't remotely near the Indian subcontinent. But I think either way there would still be room for still more civs after expack three. But I think the game would feel reasonably complete with these civs and everything following would be gravy.

I don't very many people anyone in Nepal today (the people who self-identify, and are usually identified with, the ethnic label Gurkha, or Gurkhani, or Gorkha), consider Tamerlane or Akbar among their historic sons. I also don't believe either man called themselves by such a label, or were called such by anyone contemporary to them. They need a different civ name entirely to be credible. Also, please, not Innocent III. Despite his papal name, he, ironically, probably has more blood of innocents on his own hands than most other individual Popes. I'm still saying the Sikh Confederacy is highly underrated, and agree with many posters here that Byzantine leaders should not just be alternate Roman ones.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I don't very many people anyone in Nepal today (the people who self-identify, and are usually identified with, the ethnic label Gurkha, or Gurkhani, or Gorkha), consider Tamerlane or Akbar among their historic sons. I also don't believe either man called themselves by such a label, or were called such by anyone contemporary to them. They need a different civ name entirely to be credible. Also, please, not Innocent III. Despite his papal name, he, ironically, probably has more blood of innocents on his own hands than most other individual Popes. I'm still saying the Sikh Confederacy is highly underrated, and agree with many posters here that Byzantine leaders should not just be alternate Roman ones.

Gurkani and Gurkha (endonym Gurkhali) are etymologically distinct. They are not remotely related. Gurkani quite literally was what both the Timurids and the Mughals referred to themselves as. It's right there on wikipedia, not even hard to find man.

Innocent is a bad choice, but Tamerlane is just fine? Your apologism is showing again.

I'm not even considering the Sikh Confederacy, to be frank. To have that in over the far more influential Timurids would be a slap in the face to the Civ playerbase. It's like saying we need the Confederate States of America, but it's totally okay if the United States didn't appear in a civ game.

 

[Patine]

Gurkani and Gurkha (endonym Gurkhali) are etymologically distinct. They are not remotely related. Gurkani quite literally was what both the Timurids and the Mughals referred to themselves as. It's right there on wikipedia, not even hard to find man.

That, I'll concede as a semantic error. I am incorrect there.

Innocent is a bad choice, but Tamerlane is just fine? Your apologism is showing again.

What tendency of apologism are you referring to? Quotes from my previous posts here, please?

I'm not even considering the Sikh Confederacy, to be frank. To have that in over the far more influential Timurids would be a slap in the face to the Civ playerbase. It's like saying we need the Confederate States of America, but it's totally okay if the United States didn't appear in a civ game.

If you're comparing the Sikhs to the Confederates, and using terms like "slap in the face," you obviously know next to nothing of Sikh history, other than maybe bad stereotypes.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

What tendency of apologism are you referring to? Quotes from my previous posts here, please?

If you can afford to be flippantly denialist, I can be flippantly conclusory. You know exactly what I am referring to. More to the point, being indignant about the world's longest-standing, richest corporation-slash-monarchy must be somewhat compartmentalizing. If anything, Innocent III is the perfect representation of how multi-faceted the institution is, which includes its bloody portions.

If you're comparing the Sikhs to the Confederates, and using terms like "slap in the face," you obviously know next to nothing of Sikh history, other than maybe bad stereotypes.

Is this a board that's only about historical accuracy, or is it not also a board about game design? For a game that is designed to represent large swathes of history, the Sikhs are small potatoes compared to the Timurids/Mughals. No one would buy a game with Cordoba but no Spain, Tibet but no China, Cyprus but no Greece or Ottomans. Please understand the analogy before you criticize it.

 

[Patine]

If you can afford to be flippantly denialist, I can be flippantly conclusory. You know exactly what I am referring to. More to the point, being indignant about the world's longest-standing, richest corporation-slash-monarchy must be somewhat compartmentalizing. If anything, Innocent III is the perfect representation of how multi-faceted the institution is, which includes its bloody portions.

Typical Inquisitor's statement about assumed guilt and the lack of need for evidence. Another good irony there.

Is this a board that's only about historical accuracy, or is it not also a board about game design? For a game that is designed to represent large swathes of history, the Sikhs are small potatoes compared to the Timurids/Mughals. No one would buy a game with Cordoba but no Spain, Tibet but no China, Cyprus but no Greece or Ottomans. Please understand the analogy before you criticize it.

But yet the Navajo are one of those on the list you've pushed just a few posts above, and Morocco is something you've pushed several times now as separate from an Arab civ or somehow accurately and appropriately representing Berbers.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Typical Inquisitor's statement about assumed guilt and the lack of need for evidence. Another good irony there.

The Christian screaming persecution. The irony is do deep.

I am not going to infect this thread by quoting your previous, ill-argued nonsense over the superiority of monotheism. If you speak any more on that in this thread I will not respond to it.

And you still haven't substantively responded to my points about Innocent, so I am presuming that I am right that your convictions have little rational basis.

But yet the Navajo are one of those on the list you've pushed just a few posts above, and Morocco is something you've pushed several times now as separate from an Arab civ or somehow accurately and appropriately representing Berbers.

This point is a total non sequitur. I have not pushed for Navajo or Morocco over America or Arabia. Even still, the Sikhs are not the largest native tribal population with the largest landholding on their continent. The Sikhs did not establish centuries of successive caliphates separate from the Mughals or India, some of which were ruled by Berbers. My point still stands. There is no way the devs would consider Scotland over England.

 

[Patine]

The Christian screaming persecution. The irony is do deep.

I am not going to infect this thread by quoting your previous, ill-argued nonsense over the superiority of monotheism. If you speak any more on that in this thread I will not respond to it.

And you still haven't substantively responded to my points about Innocent, so I am presuming that I am right that your convictions have little rational basis.



This point is a total non sequitur. I have not pushed for Navajo or Morocco over America or Arabia. Even still, the Sikhs are not the largest native tribal population with the largest landholding on their continent. The Sikhs did not establish centuries of successive caliphates separate from the Mughals or India, some of which were ruled by Berbers. My point still stands. There is no way the devs would consider Scotland over England.

Your attacks on me and my posts have now descended to the level of being pathological and neurotic. I'm done arguing with you, and would recommend an appointment with a psychiatrist.

 

[Krajzen]

Okay, so this is how the most probable setup seems to be for me now:

Maya - practically guaranteed, because enormously popular both here and on civ reddit. Recurring civ
Portugal - same, very popular and on top of that also important European country with customer base. Also: Brazil is in game, and Kongo is heavily historically tied to Portugal. Recurring civ
Byzantium - some people consider it 'just Rome' or 'Greece', I think its entire separate civilization. Has its own devoted fanbase and is inevitably tied with Ottomans and Rome. Recurring civ
Ethiopia - East Africa needs something, and both Kilwa/Swahilli and Zimbabwe seem to be out because they are represented by world wonders. Ethiopia is very rich iin history and popular, and now the only alternative for it would be medieval Somalia, which I'd actually love but find it very unlikely.
Some Native American Civ - I have completely no idea which, as there are too many to chose from, but I am absolutely convinced Firaxis US company will feature Native American civ, its practically cultural obligation at this point Also a lot opf peoplewant it.
Vietnam - seems to be very popular suggestion all the way since civ5, here it has very similar amount of votes to "traditional obligatory" Babylon.

Those six are IMO very safe bets. But I have no idea a out the latter. I think the most likely are Babylon, Italy and Morocco.
Babylon is classical staple civ all the way since civ1, but it is arguably very similar to Sumer (it even took ziggurat) and has moderate fan enthusiasm, similarly to Zulu its more like ''eh, obligatory".
Italy is very popular suggestion and probably the most important world civ completely missing in series so far. It would also be third civ for Europe. However it geographically overlaps with Rome and Firaxis may dislike that. Also nobosy knows if Firaxis would truly like giving Italy '''Greek treatment' and ahistorical unity.
Morocco is my favorite, representant of very important and empty region. Unfortunately few people are of the same opinion as me.

 

[Patine]

Okay, so this is how the most probable setup seems to be for me now:

Ethiopia - East Africa needs something, and both Kilwa/Swahilli and Zimbabwe seem to be out because they are represented by world wonders. Ethiopia is very rich iin history and popular, and now the only alternative for it would be medieval Somalia, which I'd actually love but find it very unlikely.

To be honest, an East African civ I'd really like to see is the Bachwezi Empire. Having several RL friends who are naturalized citizens who immigrated from Rwanda and Uganda (the modern nations that were, along with Burundi and the easternmost fringes of the DRC, it's historical stomping ground) , I see it as an overlooked and very interesting historical polity and culture.

 

[Zaarin]

I am absolutely convinced Firaxis US company will feature Native American civ

They seemed to think the base game was fine without one. But I'm sanguine that we'll see another in a third expansion.

Those six are IMO very safe bets. But I have no idea a out the latter. I think the most likely are Babylon, Italy and Morocco.
Babylon is classical staple civ all the way since civ1, but it is arguably very similar to Sumer (it even took ziggurat) and has moderate fan enthusiasm, similarly to Zulu its more like ''eh, obligatory".

I actually think Assyria is more likely than Babylon. With Babylon a city-state, Babylonian core territory overlapping with Sumerian core territory, and some Babylonian cities on Sumer's city list, this leaves an opening for Assyria in northern Mesopotamia. Biggest argument against this is that Gilgamesh's and Sumeria's designs are already very Assyrian, being based on the Assyrian Epic of Gilgamesh. I'd be fine with Babylon or Assyria, so long as we get one of them; "Sumeria" is just so horribly designed that it's very meager representation for Ancient Mesopotamia.

Maya - practically guaranteed, because enormously popular both here and on civ reddit. Recurring civ

I hope you're correct--the Maya ought to be a base game staple--but the presence of Chichen Itza, Palenque, and now Ik-Kil has me very worried that Firaxis thinks obliquely referencing the Maya is satisfactory.

 

[Osk21]

I think there should be an Antarctic Civilization based on a Polar Cooperative Climate Change Alliance

 

[Weraptor]

Well then.

I have reviewed this conversation and have decided that I fully support the Mughals, subject to a condition:

Leader is Akbar, capital is Lahore. My reasoning is that their TSL should really be in Pakistan because that is where their legacy has continued and thrived. And, importantly, under Akbar the Mughals did not control all of India. So Mughals under Akbar would have a distinct geographical niche separate from India that would include primarily Afghanistan and Pakistan.

My other condition is that Morocco still happens.

I would also like to point out that the Dutch symbol is no longer a lion. Foreshadowing?

Bohemia hype!

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I actually think Assyria is more likely than Babylon. With Babylon a city-state, Babylonian core territory overlapping with Sumerian core territory, and some Babylonian cities on Sumer's city list, this leaves an opening for Assyria in northern Mesopotamia. Biggest argument against this is that Gilgamesh's and Sumeria's designs are already very Assyrian, being based on the Assyrian Epic of Gilgamesh. I'd be fine with Babylon or Assyria, so long as we get one of them; "Sumeria" is just so horribly designed that it's very meager representation for Ancient Mesopotamia.

And for those same reasons I'd prefer not. We've been over this lol and I suspect that Civ has departed from the mentality of "requiring" certain Mesopotamian civs. I think Sumeria is what we get in VI, and I would not be surprised at all if we get Akkadia in VII. I think they have moved beyond the need to eek out two civs from Ancient Mesopotamia and Armenia is much more likely to be the "second civ" in either VI or VII.

I hope you're correct--the Maya ought to be a base game staple--but the presence of Chichen Itza, Palenque, and now Ik-Kil has me very worried that Firaxis thinks obliquely referencing the Maya is satisfactory.

Historically, yes, they should be the mesoamerican staple over the Aztecs.

As a matter of game design, I think the idea just doesn't stick. If the aim of a base game is to fill it with things that will resonate with a casual audience, the Aztecs are just more recognizable. You could equivocate between ball courts and temples and who did it better, but at the end of the day no one has heard of Lady Six Sky or Pacal. Many people have heard of Montezuma.

It's shallow, but Civ as a for-profit franchise has always had to ride that line between authentic and pandering.

 

[awesome]

I'm sure they can fill base civ7 with enough staples for people to recognize for Maya to be in the base game.
That being said, I'm also expecting the Aztecs to sit on the bench and be replaced by Mexico in the first expansion.

 

[Zaarin]

It's shallow, but Civ as a for-profit franchise has always had to ride that line between authentic and pandering.

Unfortunately true.

I'm sure they can fill base civ7 with enough staples for people to recognize for Maya to be in the base game.

I expect we'll continue to see Civ mascot Moteuczoma lead the Aztec in the base game. That being said, I don't really think the Maya are that much less recognizable than the Aztec in 2019, even if they probably were in 1990.

That being said, I'm also expecting the Aztecs to sit on the bench and be replaced by Mexico in the first expansion.

Well, I'd never complain about the Aztec again.