Poll: what new European civs would you like to see in the future of Civ franchise?

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

1. Charlemagne should be a 'striding civ' leader. as he can lead France as well as leading Germany, have Paladins as his UU and can be recruited in both countries whenever he leads.
2. Venice at its peak. including their posessions in Greece
3. Cossacks Ukraine. I've already made a thread about ideas.
4. Serbians under leadership of Tito
5. Bohemians as Jan Hus rebellion. (And their will to resist Germanic assimilations both by Prussians and Austrians)
for those who vote for Italy as different civ. Do modern italy being so distict to the Romans regardless of that they're seated in Rome. other games treated Italy as Successor of Rome. Empire Earth even gave a modern era Romans italian units (Arditi or Bers.. thing I'm not sure), and in civ6, Romans get Italian names in Industrial Era onwards rather than original Latins.

Actually i'd like to see Austria in this list.

 

[Patine]

Pericles and Gorgo never ruled all of the Greek city-states and it was the same with the Maya in all iterations of the game.
It's the best solution, in my opinion, to get Italy as I don't want to play as an independent city-state, like Venice, or have attributes of 19th century unification and beyond. That way you can easily get alternate leaders depending on the city they ruled from.

Did I ever mention that Gorgo, like Gilgamesh and a few others, I think should never have been included in the game in the first place, for various reasons each. And, given Alexander was made the leader of "Macedon" and not a "Greek" leader, I would have been perfectly fine with Pericles as the leader of the "Delian League," again, instead of a generic "Greek" leader.

 

[Patine]

1. Charlemagne should be a 'striding civ' leader. as he can lead France as well as leading Germany, have Paladins as his UU and can be recruited in both countries whenever he leads.
2. Venice at its peak. including their posessions in Greece
3. Cossacks Ukraine. I've already made a thread about ideas.
4. Serbians under leadership of Tito
5. Bohemians as Jan Hus rebellion. (And their will to resist Germanic assimilations both by Prussians and Austrians)
for those who vote for Italy as different civ. Do modern italy being so distict to the Romans regardless of that they're seated in Rome. other games treated Italy as Successor of Rome. Empire Earth even gave a modern era Romans italian units (Arditi or Bers.. thing I'm not sure), and in civ6, Romans get Italian names in Industrial Era onwards rather than original Latins.

Actually i'd like to see Austria in this list.

If it's Tito, it should be all-out unified Yugoslavians, NOT just Serbians. Tito himself was ethnically Croat, and pushing and promoting Yugoslavian unity through Communist Federalism after unifying the Yugoslavian ethnicities against the Axis Powers and the "Fascist Traitors" - the Ustace and Chetniks - was a HUGE part of his policy. Also, the beginnings of the brutal Yugoslavian wars that broke up the nation into seven successor nations in the '90's had it's roots traceable to 1980 - the year Tito died. Making him SPECIFICALLY a "Serbian" leader would actually be nonsensical, in that light.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

If not Tito then who?
A serbian king who dares to make war against mightier enemy. the Austro Hungary Empire and somehow worked in tandem with The Black Hand and planned to annex Bosnia ?

 

[Patine]

If not Tito then who?
A serbian king who dares to make war against mightier enemy. the Austro Hungary Empire and somehow worked in tandem with The Black Hand and planned to annex Bosnia ?

Tito was an Austro-Hungarian field marshal from the "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia," a subordinate polity to the Crownlands of St. Stephen, or Transnistria, the "Hungarian," half of Austria-Hungary, immediately up to and during WW1, until he was taken prisoner by the Russian Empire. I have no idea how you ever thought he was in the service of King Petar and Prime Minister Nicola Pasic of Serbia at the time of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and Archduchess Sophie's assassination or affiliated with the Black Hand or Young Serbia, except maybe a complete lack of research and baseless assumption.

 

[Hamilton321]

I am surprised that there are not more votes for Lithuania, an empire that at its height extended from the Baltic sea to the black sea and merged with the kingdom of Poland to become an even greater power.
edit:: I fixed a typo

 

[Patine]

I am surprised that there are not more votes for Lithuania, an empire that at its height extended from the Baltic sea to the black sea and merged with the kingdom of Poland to become an even grater power.

Yes, with Mindaugas. That would be quite interesting. And they could have a UI based around those special mound forts whose name eludes me at the moment.

 

[Connor_CivFan]

Albania led by Skanderbeg

 

[Zaarin]

in civ6, Romans get Italian names in Industrial Era onwards rather than original Latins.

Personally I hate this feature. Not specifically in relation to Rome, but it irks me particularly that Aztec and Inca citizens have Spanish names and Sumerians have Arabic names post-Industrial.

Actually i'd like to see Austria in this list.

They're not new, but I'd certainly like to see them back.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Personally I hate this feature. Not specifically in relation to Rome, but it irks me particularly that Aztec and Inca citizens have Spanish names and Sumerians have Arabic names post-Industrial.

I think it's worse that the Mapuche only have Quecha name in all eras.

 

[Patine]

I think it's worse that the Mapuche only have Quecha name in all eras.

What, you want Santiago, Valparaiso, and Iquique as post-Industrial Mapuche cities?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

What, you want Santiago, Valparaiso, and Iquique as post-Industrial Mapuche cities?

We were talking about citizen names, not cities.

 

[Patine]

We were talking about citizen names, not cities.

My mistake.

 

[Krajzen]

Albania led by Skanderbeg

I... Actually forgot about Skanderbeg lol. I put him in the poll now. It's too late and Albania will probably get very few votes but better late than never, I'll at least give Skanderbeg and Albania a tribute.

4. Serbians under leadership of Tito

I'm almost certain Tito was Croat, I mean I literally read his biography yesterday and IIRC he was born to Croat parents in Croatia and spoke Croat. But this doesn't matter anyway because imo Tito should never rule neither Croatia nor Serbia, because he was very devoted internationalist believing in unity and equality of South Slavic nations. Tito should only ever rule Yugoslavia, which unfortunately tragically failed so it's unlikely we'll see it...
...is it? Whatever, I'll put it in the poll as well.

for those who vote for Italy as different civ. Do modern italy being so distict to the Romans regardless of that they're seated in Rome. other games treated Italy as Successor of Rome. Empire Earth even gave a modern era Romans italian units

Other games are completely stupid in this regard, and I say this with respect to empire earth which I really liked. Rome and Italy are entities almost completely alien to each other in every regard besides geography and some complicated genetic and cultural ancestry. Italy was born from Roman Empire as much as it was born from Christianity and Migration Period cultures such as Goths, Lombards, Franks etc).

Putting Rome and saying it makes up for lack of Italy is like putting Gauls and ancient Germania and saying it makes up for lack of France and Germany

Empire Earth 2 did this stuff because it had crazy idea of giving each civ three unique units, one for each era of history from ancient to modern, which resulted in all kinds of absurdities.

Actually i'd like to see Austria in this list.

The only reason (incredibly important) Austria is not here is because the list is precisely about civs which were never in series before, and Austria was here already in civ5. For the same reason there is no Denmark, Portugal and Byzantium on the list - these four were already in series and will definitely come back at some point (last two will IMO definitely come on third expansion pack for civ6). Civs which were never here before and which are not 'obvious' to appear are what is more interesting.

I have put six new options in the poll. Now we have 29 options, limit is 30.
I could put them earlier but I thought they would get too few votes to matter anyway. But Gauls proved me wrong so whatever.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

I really can't understand how basing on this criteria you can simultaneously throw away Italy - completely different culturally to Rome, from different eras

For the same reason we can't have Turkey and Ottomans, Persia and Iran, Babylon and Iraq, and so on.
For mods it's ok, or for particular scenarios, like scrambling for Africa in civ V, but otherwise it's just a duplicate civ.

 

[Patine]

For the same reason we can't have Turkey and Ottomans, Persia and Iran, Babylon and Iraq, and so on.
For mods it's ok, or for particular scenarios, like scrambling for Africa in civ V, but otherwise it's just a duplicate civ.

Well, "duplicate" is an over-simplified and ill-thought-out term. Geographically overlapping, perhaps, but not truly "duplicate," by nature.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

The only reason (incredibly important) Austria is not here is because the list is precisely about civs which were never in series before, and Austria was here already in civ5. For the same reason there is no Denmark, Portugal and Byzantium on the list - these four were already in series and will definitely come back at some point (last two will IMO definitely come on third expansion pack for civ6). Civs which were never here before and which are not 'obvious' to appear are what is more interesting.

I have put six new options in the poll. Now we have 29 options, limit is 30.
I could put them earlier but I thought they would get too few votes to matter anyway. But Gauls proved me wrong so whatever.

Byzantium doesn't seems to deserve a separate civ slot, given a new feature of astriding leader. it means Byzantium leader could either lead Greece as well as Roma. and the word 'Byzantine' itself is not what they call themselves. The very empire was still called 'Roman'. just Roman as well as the Turks and Arabians still call them.

 

[Patine]

Byzantium doesn't seems to deserve a separate civ slot, given a new feature of astriding leader. it means Byzantium leader could either lead Greece as well as Roma. and the word 'Byzantine' itself is not what they call themselves. The very empire was still called 'Roman'. just Roman as well as the Turks and Arabians still call them.

Well, from a historical perspective looking back, they were VERY distinct in most ways from the Romans or Greeks of Antiquity. I still say they should have their own civ slot - as a priority over many choices, in fact.

 

[Doclea]

Tito is mentioned several times,so i would like to say that i think hes the only one that could represent south slavs as one. He avoided capture in 6 enemy offensives on yugoslavian dinaric alps, led one of the only successful rebellions and guerrilla armies in Europe (at the end of the war he had 800 000 soldiers at his command). After the war he made one prosperous country that kinda served as buffer between the west and the east in terms of cooperating with western powers even tho it was one party kind of communist system installed. And last and not the least he formed the Non aligned movement which still exists.
Only bigger countries that could get to get into Civ and are south slavic, could be medieval Serbia and Bulgaria, and the last at some points had really huge territory. Others, well they had they're share of shiny moments, but they were still to small and had no real dominance on the region(Carantania, Croatia, Bosnia, Ragusa or Dubrovnik city state or Kings Landing , Pagania, Travunia, Zahlumlia, Doclea, Zeta and Montenegro)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Byzantium doesn't seems to deserve a separate civ slot, given a new feature of astriding leader. it means Byzantium leader could either lead Greece as well as Roma. and the word 'Byzantine' itself is not what they call themselves. The very empire was still called 'Roman'. just Roman as well as the Turks and Arabians still call them.

Considering Greece portrayed in the game is based off of Classical Greece it doesn't make any sense for a Byzantine leader to lead them. An alternate Roman leader though makes more sense but I wouldn't go past Justinian if they went that route.
Of course ideally they do deserve a separate civ slot, but with at least 5 recurring civs still not in the game I'm not sure all will make it and for that reason an Byzantine alt leader for Rome would work for me.