1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

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

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Krajzen, Aug 21, 2019.

?

Choose 5 new European civs you'd like to see most

  1. Italy in united form

    43 vote(s)
    37.7%
  2. Moors/Andalusia/Cordoba

    35 vote(s)
    30.7%
  3. Charlemagne's Frankish/Carolingian Empire

    22 vote(s)
    19.3%
  4. Florence, Genoa or some other individual Italian state

    25 vote(s)
    21.9%
  5. Ireland

    36 vote(s)
    31.6%
  6. Belgium/Flanders

    8 vote(s)
    7.0%
  7. Switzerland

    15 vote(s)
    13.2%
  8. Normans

    20 vote(s)
    17.5%
  9. Goths (or other Migration Era people)

    33 vote(s)
    28.9%
  10. Bohemia (Czechs)

    29 vote(s)
    25.4%
  11. Lithuania

    16 vote(s)
    14.0%
  12. Kievan Rus (separately from Russia)

    15 vote(s)
    13.2%
  13. Cossack Ukraine

    7 vote(s)
    6.1%
  14. Romania

    21 vote(s)
    18.4%
  15. Bulgarian Empire

    29 vote(s)
    25.4%
  16. Serbia

    12 vote(s)
    10.5%
  17. Armenia (culturally 'European')

    33 vote(s)
    28.9%
  18. Croatia

    2 vote(s)
    1.8%
  19. Finland

    16 vote(s)
    14.0%
  20. Ancient Germania

    4 vote(s)
    3.5%
  21. Gauls

    26 vote(s)
    22.8%
  22. Burgundy

    5 vote(s)
    4.4%
  23. Wales

    10 vote(s)
    8.8%
  24. Albania (Skanderbeg)

    3 vote(s)
    2.6%
  25. Yugoslavia (Tito)

    6 vote(s)
    5.3%
  26. Individual German state (Prussia, Saxony, Bavaria, Teutons etc)

    5 vote(s)
    4.4%
  27. Papal State

    12 vote(s)
    10.5%
  28. 'Slavs' (Samo, Great Moravia, Pagan Slavs etc)

    4 vote(s)
    3.5%
  29. Cumans/Pechenegs/Sarmatians/Khazars etc

    3 vote(s)
    2.6%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Patine

    Patine Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    5,080
    There seem to be a lot of Medieval and very early Modern military and civil leaders who are called <Blank Name> of Flanders, but they all seem to be inextricably associated with the French Monarchy.
     
  2. Metecury

    Metecury Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2014
    Messages:
    443
    I think Italy could easily get the Greece treatment (same as the German one for that matter). Sparta and Athens were quite distinct powers with different cultures and politics, also historical enemies, Peloponnesian war and all that, still Greece with two leaders works just fine to represent that. A Florentine and Venician leader or a Milanese and Genoise one (or any combination really) would do just fine.

    A civ ability to represent the overall focus on great people and culture and the leader ability to focus on the city state specific aspects. There are plenty of ways to go about it.
     
  3. Zaarin

    Zaarin My Dearest Doctor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    5,704
    Location:
    Terok Nor
    I wouldn't be too certain. Civ relies heavily on pop culture, and Kingdom Come: Deliverance has given Bohemia a huge pop culture boost. TBH it's what made me interested in Medieval Bohemia.

    I don't think he was referring to Armenia as a barbarian culture; I think he was referring to them as a popular Civ5 mod...

    I'd still love to see Joanna of Flanders, Duchess of Brittany, in the game...
     
  4. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold King

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    720
    What I mean is that we have yet to really stray from the concept of a civilization being a regionally or globally expansionist empire, particularly in the European sphere. Even Rise & Fall, which focused more on "small guys resisting larger empires" still generally self-limited to imperial powers (i.e. Georgia at its largest extent covered several surrounding kingdoms, most notably Armenia, and is sometimes called an "empire;" and Scotland was briefly in control of the largest empire in history, the Dutch had a colonial empire, etc.).

    So I say that not as a matter of whether or not I would find Bohemia interesting, but simply that the design space has not been deliberately opened up yet for smaller, isolated polities. It seems pretty clear to me that Venice would not have made the cut in V if it didn't have a maritime empire of sorts. And I think the reasoning behind this is probably ludohistorical harmony: since the biggest X of the genre is expansion, the devs seem to generally want to limit the roster to civs which don't break plausibility as wanting to expand, settle, and/or conquer. The biggest deviations we have are Hungary and the Maori, and even those aren't stretching far because Hungary was kind of the much older and larger core of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Maori are almost an Austronesian equivalent to the Cree or Mapuche...a very large people with a history of aggressive expansion.

    So looking at the distinction between civs as still being what can reasonably qualify as "empires" and city-states generally being kingdoms and much smaller empires, I just don't see Bohemia as making that jump since it was never remotely what one could call an empire. And given that the roster still seems to prioritize "empires," the only way I see the design space opening up is for the roster to reach a certain threshold number of imperial powers that the devs have no choice but to expand into fun, smaller civs like Bohemia, Switzerland, Ireland, Finland. It's the same reason I'm on the fence about Vietnam being able to make the cut because it was so rarely expansionist.

    And already you can see why this design philosophy exists: because it's hard to please everyone when Bohemia is now officially on the table, but the devs don't have enough resources to also please the Swiss, Irish, and Finn fans. The limitation conserves resources and maximizes player satisfaction by limited the scope of the game to what is achievable instead of creating unrealistic expectations that every civ has a chance and deserves to be in. Players can't really complain about smaller civs not appearing if the standards seem pretty clear and meritocratic.

    Now, all that said, if we reached some roster critical mass--which might feasibly happen with VI if development goes on long enough--and the roster size opened up, yes I could see Bohemia as a candidate. Again, I think it would be competing with Ireland, Finland, and Switzerland (and maybe Albania or Serbia), so I in no way think it would be a shoo-in. But it is certainly one of the frontrunners in the European "elevated city-state" list. But we have a long way to go before I would start hoping for Bohemia or any other smaller polity, because the game itself hasn't yet admitted that it even needs or wants to go there.

    Neither, actually. I mean Armenia is a popular civ 5 mod, but I was emphasizing that the Goths are the most popular mod for V. The are the most popular civ by rating, and the second most subscribed (next to Hitler, which honestly depresses me a bit that the civ community is, on average, obsessed with dictators).

    I was just grouping Armenia with the Goths because it had the same number of votes and was listed as such. I thought parentheses was enough to emphasize it was an afterthought adjacent to the Goths rather than a main point, something I thought fair since there seems reasonable debate as to whether Armenia should even count as European. Also, I blocked Patine months ago because of many instances similar to this, if anyone is wondering about why my clarifications are always secondhand. ;)

    I've been floating the idea of doing the Greece treatment for Italy but with, say, Dandolo leading Venice and Sforza leading Genoa (and vicariously Milan). We have token Florentine representation with CdM, so that would about cover all the major city-states. One downside is that Sforza would be a military leader and Dandolo would be a diplomatic leader, but neither would likely have a strong cultural bent like I think "Italy" wants to be. Additionally, YMMV as to how narrow the idea of repping Italy with two very similar thassalocracies is, versus how elegantly they could be represented by the same mechanics.

    On the flip side, however, we wouldn't have the awkward incompleteness of having either Venice or Genoa, feeling like only half of a whole system of parts. And, Dandolo could rep the 13th century, while Sforza could rep the 15th century, allowing for two different snapshots in time of the Italian renaissance.

    The idea isn't perfect by any means. But the pedant in me really wants something more than just Genoa or just Venice, and given VI is continuing to emphasize "empires," I can't help but feel like there might be some narrow sliver of design space to mash the two together and call it "Italy."
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2019
    Zaarin and steemroller like this.
  5. Patine

    Patine Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    5,080
    Ah, what a shame that @PhoenicianGold has blocked for "instances such as these" - basically calling out his presumptuous, ridiculous, arrogant, and bizarre pronouncements, and not backing down in shame when he dismisses me as a "colonialist," a "fascist," a "Nazi," and a "racist" for daring to disagree with him at all, and condemns the "intellectual snobbery" applied by me, and other posters, like @Zaarin and such. What a crying shame he has no better defense for himself than the coward's way out - and is even self-righteous in reference to doing so.
     
  6. Boris Gudenuf

    Boris Gudenuf Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,450
    Location:
    north of Steilacoom, WA
    I believe it was G. B. Shaw who defined Britain as "An island in the North Sea governed entirely by Scotsmen."

    I think, rather, the Empireocentric focus is because the two most popular Xs are Expansion and Extermination, the second of which almost mandates the first. Your point is completely valid either way.

    This, to me, is a major failing in the game: it allows no real dynamic between different types of 'Civs'. Everybody starts as a City State (1 city) but arbitrarily, some can expand into 'Empires' and others can't. And anybody who was historically In Between gets left out completely or crammed into one of the other two categories. Ever since Civ games added the City State concept, they have suffered from this artificial division. As you indicate, it makes a lot of 'popular' Civs from the various Polls utterly unviable because they won't fit comfortably into the Expansionist Empire format.

    That's because every Civ Player is playing as the most completely totalitarian Dictator who ever lived, with complete control over all aspects of the economy, military, population, Culture, and religion of his or her 'Empire'.

    The continuous attraction of Hitler I put down to Ignorance or Selective Ignorance. In game terms, he managed to completely destroy his own Civ in less than 20 turns. He's right in the same Effectiveness bracket with the Khan of the Khwarezium Empire in Central Asia (whose name escapes my porous memory at the moment) who thought it would be a Good Idea to massacre Genghis Khan's emissaries. Few states have ever disappeared so completely from the history books . . .
     
    AsH2 and Zaarin like this.
  7. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold King

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    720
    Not inaccurate!

    I think VI is really trying to move away from extermination and emphasize alternative routes of success. Things like Dido, built to run away, and Eleanor, built to convert, as well as victories contingent on things like sustainability and world congress (which we did see things like this in V, just fewer), all indicate a desire to portray the Civ world as a system to be related to and interacted with, than simply run over.

    However, "expansion" is something the game will never get away from because most game modes are about starting small and building out an empire. You simply can't move away from "expansion" as perhaps the core game mechanic which defines the franchise because it's a necessary progression point at all stages of the game (until endgame, anyway). Especially in VI which incentivizes expansion and decentivizes tall play.

    WHICH, for sake of argument, if the devs really wanted to switch up gameplay, they could take a radical approach to an expansion pack by introducing a few civs that go even further than Venice. Strict, single city civs. Maybe allow them to have larger maximum borders, and then give them several more UIs to work with. Maybe add districts called "villages" that only these single-city civs can use. There are options. The only real challenge is, again, justifying this new class of "civs" as existing somewhere between civs and city-states, and finding a meritocratic system that introduces all the "necessary" civs while reasonably excluding the dozens of other smaller kingdoms players want. But I guess it's doable.

    I am fine with the distinction as a matter of creating more interesting game imbalances and decisions, while simultaneously conserving development resources. The city-state model allows for many more cultures to be represented than the devs have time to make, and my only real complaint is that they lack personality. I would give them leader portraits, and an ambience track to make them feel more present and flesh out the politics and culture of any particular map. But I could feasibly see the distinction becoming blurrier or even outright removed in later versions of Civ.

    This. This so much. I feel similarly about the American Confederacy. The difference between these things and ideas like Hungary and Colombia are that they were never based in a historical nation or people, and they never survived to build anything of value. In all respects, they were just destructivist political trends which were quashed because they didn't have anything underlying them besides aimless discontentedness of the dominant culture. In the grand scheme of history, they were just blips of violence, and there are so many more influential parts of history to pull from.
     
  8. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    2,756
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    You just made a distinction right there.
    To expand into more than just a city-state, you have to choose a totalitarian dictator that wants to horde all the great people while spamming Rock bands and missionaries at the same time. :mischief:

    Would there be any distinction if for Civ VII they decided to make a separate minor nation along with city-states?
     
    Zaarin likes this.
  9. JamesFaith

    JamesFaith Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2018
    Messages:
    21
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually, you can say same thing about Bohemia.

    At its territorial peaks during reign of last Přemyslid kings (14th century and first decade od 15th) when Přemyslids were crowned Czech king, Polish king and Hungarian king, Bohemia kingdom was more then threetime bigger then now and reached Baltic sea (Polish teritory), nearly Adriatic sea (Carniola) and also contained big part of Hungary (real influence is hard to guess, there were disputies), several Austrian duchies and Magravate of Meissen in Saxony.

    EDIT: Sorry for misleading post, I forgot that Carniola was actually lost before Polish and Hungarian crowning when Czech king Přemysl Otakar II. was defeated by coalition of Austrian and German rulers and Carniola and some other territorries become part of Austria.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2019
    Kimiimaro and Zaarin like this.
  10. Zaarin

    Zaarin My Dearest Doctor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    5,704
    Location:
    Terok Nor
    A possibility I wouldn't rule out as Amplitude's influence increases.
     
  11. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold King

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    720
    I think they wouldn't do that unless they could make enough mechanical depth to justify the distinction. Which....if civs got even more mechanics in the future maybe that could create enough of a gap to fill. But if we got a three tier system, I really would prefer they remove goody huts and barbarian camps and implement "villages" instead.

    Bohemian territories shifted quite a bit from century to century. In 1300 it held parts of Southern Poland. In 1400 it held parts of Silesia and Germany. But they never held much territory for long and even at its height under Ottokar and Wenceslaus we're only looking at about 50 years of territorial dominance. Plus they were frequently under conquest of larger powers like the HRE, Austria, etc. If we're looking to Hungary for comparison, Hungary was a core part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, prior to that was robustly independent, and frequently held large swathes of territory for longer periods of time. If Hungary represents the absolute baseline, Bohemia falls below it. :/

    I mean, as a matter of merits, Prussia was a much bigger power but will never be in the game because it's so intertwined with the HRE and Germany. And similar argument for Austria and Hungary. Imo it would feel weird to have Bohemia make the cut but not Prussia or even Austria. And I can't believe I'm defending a concept as boring as Austria lol.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2019
  12. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    2,756
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    I'm sure barbarians are one of those features that will never be removed as there always needs to be some sort of anti-Civ faction. There is always the possibility that you can make certain minor nations, like the Huns, more aggressive and be barbarian-like.

    Austria gave us both Mozart and Marie Antoinette though, and they definitely were not boring. :p
     
    Zaarin likes this.
  13. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold King

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    720
    I mostly just don't like that it categorizes the "others" as immutably friendly or hostile. For a franchise that is becoming increasingly concerned with cultural sensitivity, it's a dark stain on the whole series. It wouldn't take much to combine the two into a single continuum with an extremely primitive diplomacy mechanic.

    Oh there are things and stuff. But mechanically and flavorfully as implemented in Civ it just feels like Germany-lite, or Germany-plus. I was extremely happy to see Hungary break away and occupy such a more unique niche.
     
  14. Zaarin

    Zaarin My Dearest Doctor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    5,704
    Location:
    Terok Nor
    Also Marie Antoinette's mom, Maria Teresa. Next game I'd love to see them just give us a proper Austria-Hungary led by Maria Teresa with a Hungarian alt leader (doesn't have to be Matthias Corvinus specifically--there are plenty more to choose from).
     
    Alexander's Hetaroi likes this.
  15. Boris Gudenuf

    Boris Gudenuf Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,450
    Location:
    north of Steilacoom, WA
    Posted this before, but it's worth repeating:
    Convert both Barb Camps and Tribal Huts into Settlements. Settlements can be Hostile (current Barb Camp), Friendly (current Tribal Hut, except they don't disappear) or Neutral. "Primitive Diplomacy", which could include Envoys, Great People, Scouts, Missionaries, or even a new type of Diplomatic Unit, could convert Neutral to Friendly, enemy Diplomacy or Bad Moves on your part could convert Friendly to Neutral or Neutral to Hostile.
    Friendly Settlements could be traded with (let them trade any Luxury or Strategic Resource in a one-tile radius around the Settlement, even if not 'Improved' on the map), their units hired as Mercenaries, or they might even decide to join your Civ as a Worker, Settler, or Population Point in your nearest city.

    Keep City States, Settlements and Civs distinct, but add a lot more Diplomatic activity potential with the City States: requests for aid from City States even if not Suzereign, ability to Bribe them, hire Mercenaries from them (not the same as the All or Nothing use of their armies now) or incorporate them peacefully into your Civ.

    IF City States had Unique Units (perhaps only the Military ones) and/or Unique Resources/Manufactures they could be even more functionally distinct than they are now, and would make it easier to represent States Not Different Enough To Justify A Full Civ Treatment as City States with more distinctive and interactive Diplomatic possibilities in the game.

    Had Austria wound up as the predominant state forming modern Germany instead of Prussia, the resulting Germany would have been quite different. The differences are summed up to some extent by the old German saying:

    "In Berlin, things might be Serious but they are never Hopeless.
    In Vienna, things might be Hopeless but they are never Serious."

    Austria could be a Cultural Powerhouse, with a Unique relating to incorporating City States, Settlements, and other Civ's cities into their Civ peacefully. After all, Austria governed an Empire incorporating more different cultures than any other state in Europe right up to its collapse in World War One, and did it (relatively) successfully for almost 300 years. Very different in play-style from Germany as depicted in the game now or as it resulted historically from Prussia.
     
    AsH2, Zaarin and Alexander's Hetaroi like this.
  16. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    2,756
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    Yes indeed, that's who she learned it all.
    If there indeed would be a fourth expansion Austria would be at the top of my list.
     
    Zaarin likes this.
  17. Kimiimaro

    Kimiimaro King

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2017
    Messages:
    3,577
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Paskov
    While I'm aware that Hungary was a large part of the monarchy (not only by being one of the breadbaskets of Europe but also by making up half of the country), Bohemia itself was quite important region even though it didn't reach a full autonomy like rebellious Hungarians (although still managed to keep its distinct culture, going through successful national revival in late 18th century). A very crucial for Austria-Hungary, dare I say. Very much unlike backward lands of Hungary focused mostly on agriculture, Kingdom of Bohemia was populous, richest and by far the most industrialised part of the Habsburg realm. When Austria-Hungary fell apart, despite having only about 20% of former Austro-Hungarian lands, Czechoslovakia inherited some 70-80% of Austro-Hungarian industry, most of it being located in Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia.

    If not coming in Civ VI, I believe it could fulfill the place of Hungary or Poland in Civ VII quite well.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2019
    Boris Gudenuf and Zaarin like this.
  18. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold King

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    720
    While I personally would sacrifice Poland in a heartbeat and would not mind Bohemia taking its place ... for marketability purposes I do not see that ever happening. Poland is practically a staple at this point and the whole point of choosing Poland over Bohemia is to incrementally optimize resonance, attraction, and sales. As a business decision the devs would not just start randomly replacing civs with high cultural association and market pull for clearly less marketable civs. It's a nice idea, but so unlikely that it's not even on my radar.

    Whereas, on the flip side, replacing the Aztecs with Mexico would be a likely change for precisely the same reasons.
     
  19. Patine

    Patine Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    5,080
    I think Bohemia has some great potential as well. One military historian called the War Wagons used in the Hussite Wars the first real attempt at a "proto-mechanized military vehicle" (despite lacking true mechanization, and that the thick wood frame would not have held out against more one two or three direct 16th Century canon shots (though such canons RARELY hit moving targets smaller than ships DIRECTLY) - the idea was there). Also, even though the Hungarian uprising of 1848-1849 attracted a lot of attention before being quashed, it was in Bohemia that the manifestation of "constitutional, as opposed to military, nationalism, really started in earnest - one of several movements that pretty much, once it spread across the empire and received limited allowance by Franz Josef, ultimately signed the death knell of the Dual-Monarchy as a single nation, even without WW1. And, the fluctuating borders of Bohemia across the Middle Ages and early Modern Period did often add up to a lot territory at many given times.
     
    Zaarin likes this.
  20. Zaarin

    Zaarin My Dearest Doctor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    5,704
    Location:
    Terok Nor
    I realize that as a practical measure some market pandering is inevitable, but the day Mexico replaces the Aztecs will be the death knell of the franchise IMO.
     
    Krajzen and Alexander's Hetaroi like this.

Share This Page