Self-explanatory. 8 slots, 30 possibilities.
I tried to include the most frequently mentioned civs, and there can be only 30 options in a poll. So I assumed chances of Siam, Iroquis, Huns, Songhai and Polynesia are too low and I shouldn't bother with them. Native Americans are divided between two options: Navajo and other than Navajo because of how often N are mentioned and how many possible tribes are otherwise.
Mine choices are first eight. Babylon is all the way since civ1P; Portugal, Byzantium and Maya are staple; Ethiopia and Morocco IMO should be staple; Italy and Vietnam are the coolest choices missing
I voted for Maya and Morocco as the only returning civs, since Portugal is a given.
I voted for Burma, Swahili, and Navajo because I think those are the strongest concepts that fill obvious gaps on the map.
* Burma - largest SE Asian empire, land of payas, would vicariously rep Nepal and Siam.
* Swahili - the existing Swahili trade infrastructure made up the core of the Oman empire. Seems the quintessential trader civ what with coral houses and luxury resources.
* Navajo - so many reasons to list, but they are the only Amerindian tribe who can stand alongside the Cree and the Mapuche with a distinct mechanical identity.
And then to fill it out I voted for the other civs I'm less sure will appear, in order of likelihood:
* Italy - a lot of weird hints like CdM, the main theme, Venetian arsenal, no Florence or Vatican.
* Armenia - a classical Levant civ instead of an ancient civ, please.
* Ireland - Yar?
I think Byzantium stands a shot but I only support it as an alt leader. I think Chola's only chance is as an alt leader for India. And I'm fine with Vietnam, but only after I get my Burma paya porn. I'm also fine with Bulgaria but I'm finding difficulty separating it mechanically from Hungary.
I would be fine with the Goths but representing them as polities with a specific leader is difficult. I would be fine with Romania but Vlad didn't really lead all of Romania. And I guess I could be okay with the Timurids as a follow up to Alexander, but I don't really consider them that necessary since we already have Persia.
Whatever I didn't list I don't see as very necessary to VI's grand thesis.
I think the Inuit stand a fairly strong chance (or maybe the Sibir), and possibly the Taino. And politics aside I still think Tibet would be rad. Otherwise, outside of the glaring exception of Denmark I'd say you've covered most of the likely options. I declare this poll good.
I voted for Ireland, Afghanistan, Navajo and other Native American civs like the Shoshone, Algonquian because they have a really interesting style of architecture that I'd love to see more of in Civ VI. I voted for Ireland as an American of Irish descent and visited Ireland recently, I think they could do well with either a Monastery or a wool mill that provides gold and culture to sheep. For Afghanistan, I would give it bonuses to trade routes and culture because of its positioning and palaces and gardens.
I've already made my "case", so to speak, for the Sámi in two other threads, so there's no need to do so here as well. I would also like to see the Taíno, though we're given eight choices here, not nine.
-Portugal
-Maya
-Byzantium
-Ethiopia
-Morocco
-Gran Colombia (Tho I'm thinking Mexico, another postcolonial is a given at this point)
-Mughals
-Native American
I've already made my "case", so to speak, for the Sámi in two other threads, so there's no need to do so here as well. I would also like to see the Taíno, though we're given eight choices here, not nine.
Oh I like your approach a lot. I'm a bit dubious on the mechanical potential of Benin/Yoruba and Afghanistan. I'm not sure how much reconstruction the devs would be willing to do for Taino. And adding the Sami in a region where we will likely get Denmark and possibly Finland is asking for a lot.
However, because these are all extremely flavorful cultures that can support most of the essential pillars of a civ concept under the VI paradigm, I give this list my blessing. Even if there's virtually no chance of all of them appearing anytime soon because we will likely get a token domination empire, more than one European civ, and a few female leaders to sell the thing.
My list is in my signature: Maya, Portugal, Ethiopia, Assyria, Italy, Vietnam and the Navajo.
Argentina is on my list as well but they aren't in the poll, though I wouldn't mind either them or Gran Colombia. In that case, for the eighth spot I decided to go with the Byzantines because I would rather see them as a full civ than be relegated to an alt leader for Rome.
Babylon, Maya, Portugal, Ethiopia, Byzantines, Italy, Gran Colombia and Navajo.
But some observations:
I could accept the Byzantines as a Roman leader to open room for another civ, I would not mind so much. In the place of the Byzantines, I would place Morocco or Siam by personal preference, but Vietnam would be good too.
I prefer Argentina as a Spanish American nation, but since this is not on the list, I voted for Gran Colombia. Anyway, with three former British colonies in the game, it would not be good to neglect Spanish America.
I voted in Italy because I want some form of Italian civ in the game, I would not mind having Republic of Florence.
Portugal, Byzantine, Italy, Vietnam, Morocco, Swahili, Bohemia, Navajo.
I tried to keep it to 4 new and 4 returning, counting Italy as a returning "fixed" civ.
I don't think they'll have any other postcolonial civs in the game, so that they can save them for debuts in civ7. Instead, Portugal will be a colonial power, and Navajo will have something to do with codetalking, whether it's a unit or an ability.
After the first few DLC, I made a post elsewhere on these forums where I rated the priority of the previous Civs that had yet to return.
Leaving the priorities where they are, I’ll update the list with those that have been added.
Critical Priority - Major civilizations who should already be in the game. Their absence is keenly felt. Need to be DLC, stat! (Mongols) - R&F Babylonians - The lynch pin civ of the ancient Near East. Has been in every game so far with good reason. All the more needed after Sumer's poor showing this time around. (Incas) - GS
High Priority - Important civilizations that fill key spots in the game. Ought to be in XP1. Mayans - We're in sore need of more Pre-Columbian civs. (Ottoman Turks) - GS (Carthaginians) - GS as Phoenicia Iroquois - Either them, or another important Native American tribe. The Native Americans are as yet unrepresented (except for the Cree). (Koreans) - R&F (Malians/Songhai) - GS as Mali (Khmer) - DLC
Moderate Priority - Solid civs, but mostly expansion fodder, but it'll be good to have them back sooner or later. Byzantines - Another fan favorite. Celts - Ancient Europe's only representative outside the Mediterranean. Civ5's version was a disgrace. Needs to be tidied up, perhaps a Gaulish civ? Ethiopians - An ancient and accomplished African civ. Assyrians - A nice new addition from Civ5's second XP. (Indonesians) - DLC. Moroccans - Another nice new addition. Tweak them a bit and make them Almoravid or Almohad themed. (Polynesians) - GS as Maori (Dutch) - R&F Portuguese - A major colonial empire. (Zulus) - R&F
Low Priority - These could fill some gaps if needed. XP3, anyone? Austrians - A lot of overlap with the current HRE-themed Germany. Could still be done well, but they're not urgent right now. Hittites - Haven't seen them since Civ3. Would be good to have them back, but not before all these others above. Sioux/Shoshone - It would be nice to have another Native American civ, but it needs to be done properly. Siamese - They're not bad, but I'd prefer the return of the Khmer first. Poor Ramkhamhaeng doesn't get a lot of love. (Swedish) - GS
No Priority - We can do without these, in my humble opinion. Danish/Vikings - Considerable overlap with the current portrayal of Norway. Huns - A very odd inclusion. Shouldn't return unless they make the barbarians playable somehow. Venetians - Was already very eclectic in Civ5. Ought to be replaced with a multi-leader Italy civ representing both Venice and Florence. Holy Roman Empire - Shouldn't have ever been separate from Germany/Austria. Currently overlaps with Barbarossa's German civ. Native Americans - Way too much of a blob civ. Separate and distinct tribes are preferred.
So all in all, that leaves:
Babylon
Maya
Iroquois
Byzantium
Celts
Ethiopia
Assyria
Morocco
Portugal
Austria
Hatti
Sioux/Shoshone
Siam
I don’t think any of us expected to be sitting at XP2 with so many big names still missing.
You know what? Give us an XP3, give us more DLC, and bring ‘em all back. We’ll buy ‘em.
(And while you’re at it Firaxis, we’ll also pay cash money for newbies Italy, Vietnam, Navajo and Swahili.)
Voted for what I hope for, not what I expect, with the proviso that if I got some of them I could live without the others (Goths and Italy in 1 expansion, you spoil me Mr Firaxis)
That's precisely why we need them in Civ6. If they did enough research to give us Hetairoi, Hypasists and the Basilikon Paides for Macedon, or Okihtcitaw and Mekewap for the Cree, or Khevsur and Tsikhe for Georgia...
I have confidence that we would finally get something decent for Babylon, like a Qurubuti UU and a Kudurru UI, perhaps.
That's precisely why we need them in Civ6. If they did enough research to give us Hetairoi, Hypasists and the Basilikon Paides for Macedon, or Okihtcitaw and Mekewap for the Cree, or Khevsur and Tsikhe for Georgia...
I have confidence that we would finally get something decent for Babylon, like a Qurubuti UU and a Kudurru UI, perhaps.
The names aren't always enough, do you really think they did justice to Georgia (although to be fair for the most part whatever its other faults Civ VI has been better than its predecessors in its representations of civs). Still., I want to know why Babylon would be better than previous attempts, until Firaxis have something interesting for them I'd rather they stick to people who obviously do interest them atm.
Still., I want to know why Babylon would be better than previous attempts, until Firaxis have something interesting for them I'd rather they stick to people who obviously do interest them atm.
Every previous iteration has been par for the course for the Civ game it was in, except for Civ5. Nebuchadnezzar was a nice change. “Walls of Babylon” was just lazy.
Give them Qurubuti, make it a horse archer that replaces the horseman.
Give them the Kudurru boundary stele as a UI and let it drop modest culture bombs when built, say adding only 3 hexes.
Leader: Hammurabi
Ability: Code of Hammurabi - start w/ Code of Laws discovered (or even just a free boost)
Civ ability: Gate of the Gods - science districts' output are doubled when built next to a holy site
There you go: an aggressive, expansionist early game civ w/ the appropriate science and culture bonuses.
The names aren't always enough, do you really think they did justice to Georgia (although to be fair for the most part whatever its other faults Civ VI has been better than its predecessors in its representations of civs). Still., I want to know why Babylon would be better than previous attempts, until Firaxis have something interesting for them I'd rather they stick to people who obviously do interest them atm.
Thank you for this. Everyone argues that Babylon and other veteran civs should come back on principle, and absolutely none of them are thinking in terms of game design: art direction, mechanical resonance, playstyle identity. They want it because that's how it's always been and change is too scary to think about.
Babylon and Assyria don't need to come back because Sumeria is already an Akkadian blob by design. I don't think the devs could have been any more explicit that they don't want to design more than one Mesopotamian civ.
But more to the point, the sort of ancient blah wankery that was totally fine in earlier civ games with only the slightest suggestion of personality doesn't fly anymore. Civs need to be aesthetically more distinct and different than that. That is why Babylon, Assyria, Hittites, are probably not going to happen in VI. Instead we are more likely to get a classical power like Armenia, because it already has design space to play with, rather than the devs being forced to constantly be comparing and balancing an ancient civ against Sumeria.
And we have enough goddamn horse uniques already. There is no reason to give them to a science civ.
Maybe in other situation I'd say Babylon overlaps in mechanics with Sumer, but Civ6 Sumer is "The Epic of Gilgamesh: the Civ", and that leaves a lot of place for Babylon being focused on agriculture, rivers, science, architecture, ancient eras, very early tall city growth, pantheons or whatever.
This is a pipe dream. Why would this exist when Sumeria has a UI that produces science next to a river? Why would this exist when Egypt has agriculture bonuses from rivers and is also an early wonder civ?
Does no one bother to recommend civ ideas that actually *add* something to the game? It's totally fine that you have your favorites, but it would be great to see that balanced by some pragmatism. So sure, you have your little pet design for a mod; now stand back and look at the bigger picture please. Babylon does not add enough as a concept to VI to justify development. Sumeria has the Akkadian speaking leader. Sumeria has the Ziggurat and the science and the river bonuses. You have Sumeria this time around. Live with it.
By the way, I really dislike civ6 Sumer focus, when I think of Sumer the first thing I think about is "oh how, probably world's first definite civilization", and the last thing I think about is "oh yeah, they conquered the entire Middle East with donkey carts blitzkrieg".
I think that's just more misplaced Babylon bitterness. Literally every civ's design encourages taking things to silly extremes. And, again, it's a fudging game.
EDIT: also, I don't know about you but I go for Ziggurat porn.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
