Returning Civs - Elimination Thread

[alphaman21]

This thread was approved by a moderator.

Now that GS has come out, this is a good time to look back at the civilizations that have appeared in previous games but not in Civ 6.

Upvote the civs that you think should be added to a future Civ 6 DLC, and downvote the civs that you feel would be unnecessary additions.

Rules are simple:
- Try vote roughly once per 24 hours. If you want to post significantly sooner (few hours), add a reason.
- You add only one point to the choice you want to support.
- You take away three points from the choice you want to eliminate.
- You have to give reasons to your vote.
- Changing leaders to upvote/downvote isn't necessary. You can vote for the same leaders any number of times in a row.

Now let us have the starting points:

Assyria - 20
Austria - 20
Babylon - 20
Byzantium - 20
Carthage - 20
Celts - 20
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 20
Hittites - 20
Holy Roman Empire - 20
Huns - 20
Iroquois - 20
Mayan - 20
Morocco - 20
Native American - 20
Polynesia - 20
Portugal - 20
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 20
Songhai - 20
Venice - 20
Vikings - 20

FINAL RESULTS:

Spoiler :

1. Maya
2. Ethiopia
3. Assyria
4. Portugal
5. Babylon
6. Morocco
7. Byzantium
8. Iroquios
9. Hittites
10. Siam
11. Sioux
12. Shoshone
13. Songhai
14. Venice
15. Carthage
16. Denmark
17. Austria
18. Huns
19. Celts
20. Polynesia
21. Holy Roman Empire
22. Vikings
23. Native American

 

[Xandinho]

Assyria - 20
Austria - 20
Babylon - 20
Byzantium - 20
Carthage - 20
Celts - 20
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 20
Hittites - 20
Holy Roman Empire - 20
Huns - 20
Iroquois - 20
Mayan - 21 (20+1) The most interesting civ missing, my opinion.
Morocco - 20
Native American - 17 (20-3) I prefer specific civs instead of blob civs.
Polynesia - 20
Portugal - 20
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 20
Songhai - 20
Venice - 20
Vikings - 20

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Assyria - 20
Austria - 20
Babylon - 17 (20 - 3) Sumeria is already perfection.
Byzantium - 20
Carthage - 20
Celts - 20
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 20
Hittites - 20
Holy Roman Empire - 20
Huns - 20
Iroquois - 20
Mayan - 21
Morocco - 21 (20 + 1) Yusuf or bust.
Native American - 17
Polynesia - 20
Portugal - 20
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 20
Songhai - 20
Venice - 20
Vikings - 20

 

[alphaman21]

Assyria - 20
Austria - 20
Babylon - 17
Byzantium - 20
Carthage - 20
Celts - 20
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 20
Hittites - 20
Holy Roman Empire - 20
Huns - 20
Iroquois - 20
Mayan - 21
Morocco - 21
Native American - 14 (17-3) This has to have been the worst idea for a civ in the entire series
Polynesia - 20
Portugal - 20
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 21 (20+1) We need more Native American civs in the game right now, and the Sioux deserves a better treatment than they received in Civ II
Songhai - 20
Venice - 20
Vikings - 20

 

[679x]

Assyria - 20
Austria - 20
Babylon - 17
Byzantium - 20
Carthage - 20
Celts - 20
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 20
Hittites - 20
Holy Roman Empire - 20
Huns - 20
Iroquois - 20
Mayan - 21
Morocco - 22 (21+1) Good TSL, good leader choices, and KASBAH.
Native American - 11 (14-3) I still can't believe they made this a civ. I think we'd be doing Native American cultures a disservice if we didn't get this big ol' blob eliminated first.
Polynesia - 20
Portugal - 20
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 20
Vikings - 20

 

[TahamiTsunami]

Let me just say that I'm thrilled to see this kind of elimination thread return again! I've (and I'm sure most people here have) been thinking about this since we officially knew the civs in Gathering Storm.

Assyria - 20
Austria - 20
Babylon - 17
Byzantium - 20
Carthage - 20
Celts - 20
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 20
Hittites - 20
Holy Roman Empire - 20
Huns - 20
Iroquois - 20 + 1 = 21 Arguably one of the most powerful and notable NA groups with good leader choices and many potential play-styles that could include playing your own allies against each other! I think they should be up there with the Ethiopians, Mayans, Moroccans, etc.
Mayan - 21
Morocco - 22
Native American - 11 - 3 = 8 Even among the blobs this is certainly the worst blob. There's no real way we should get this civ even if the Cree weren't in the game already (I can only imagine how everyone would react to include them now). I could only see this happening in a game where the other civs were the Europeans, Asians, Africans, etc.
Polynesia - 20
Portugal - 20
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 20
Vikings - 20

 

[Krajzen]

Assyria - 20
Austria - 20
Babylon - 17-3=14 very similar to Sumer in all aspects: cultural, geographical, religious, thematic etc - I'd rather get some other civ rather than two Mesopotamian civs (even Assyria would be okay in comparision, it is also underrepresented in civ series)
Byzantium - 20
Carthage - 20
Celts - 20
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 20
Hittites - 20
Holy Roman Empire - 20
Huns - 20
Iroquois - 21
Mayan - 21
Morocco - 22
Native American - 8
Polynesia - 20
Portugal - 20+1=21 small, peripheral country which achieved unbelievable success in the history of global exploration and trade, what's not to love here?
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 20
Vikings - 20

I didn't downvote Native Americans only because I think unitary NatAm civ at least solves my issue "look guys, those individual tribes and ethnic groups were ridiculously small and insignificant in comparision to any other civ in the series". Otherwise yeah, it's just crazy idea for a civ.


Am I the only one who looks at this list and thinks "I actually don't care that much about most of those civs"? The only ones which I really need in civ6 are Portugal, Maya, Ethiopia, Morocco and Byzantium.

 

[Kimiimaro]

Assyria - 20
Austria - 20
Babylon - 14+1=15 - Woah there. Are two people really going to take down Babylon before nonsensical (and considering some Civs already in game, even redundant) blobs like the Native Americans, Polynesia, Holy Roman Empire or Vikings? Let us not forget that Sumer and Babylon were not the same, too. Sumer was a bunch of city-states, Babylonia was a feared Empire with a great capital city (that would even after fall of Babylon continue to thrive for next 200 years as the center of one of the richest Persian satrapies and then one of the most important cities of Alexandrian Empire, and only begin decline with the Diadochi wars, ultimately getting abandoned after the Muslims came) that had two ancient world wonders (the triple walls of Babylon were considered a world wonder in the ancient times) in it. Then, the Sumerian people spoke their unique language, the Babylonians spoke Akkadian, a semitic language. There were hundreds/thousands years between the times of Sumerian City-States and Babylonian Empire(s). And there is some sort of nostalgy here, too, with Babylon being the only Civ that was in every game since Civ I and we don't have yet... I really wanted to give my first upvote to Venice, Portugal or Byzantium, but seeing this great ancient Empire falling first, before Civs that don't make sense (Holy Roman Empire, Native Americans) and/or are much more redundant (Huns, Vikings) is something I can't understand.
Byzantium - 20
Carthage - 20
Celts - 20
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 20
Hittites - 20
Holy Roman Empire - 20-3=17 - Ah yes, the Holy Roman Empire that was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. This "civ" is an absolute nonsense. Have some states of North Italy, western parts of France, some states of the Netherlands, dozens of small German cities and small duchies, throw in some occassional greater German power like Austria, Prussia, Saxony or Bavaria and add in Slavic Kingdom of Bohemia. Then, let all of those have their own culture, politics and kings, dukes and bishops. Let them war against each other. Divide this mess with the Reformation for good measure. Then pick one of these nation's noblemen as a formal head of this mess, and have others not respect their authority and fight him for his title. And never centralise and never unite it. That's the "Holy" "Roman" "Empire" "civ" for you! Not to mention that we already have a Holy Roman Emperor as a leader of Germany in game. This would overlap much more than Babylon and Sumer.
Huns - 20
Iroquois - 21
Mayan - 21
Morocco - 22
Native American - 8
Polynesia - 20
Portugal - 21
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 20
Vikings - 20

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Assyria - 20
Austria - 20
Babylon - 12 (15 - 3) - To answer Kimiimaro, people want Babylon out of tradition more than out of sensibility and sensitivity to VI's design. Sumeria by design is a blob civ representing the greater Mesopotamian legacy. It has an Assyrian city list, the best option for a Babylonian UI, and an Akkadian-speaking leader who was a culture hero throughout Akkadian and post-Akkadian society. No one would support the Sioux if we already had a Native American civ, or Venice if we already had an Italian civ, or Scotland if we already had a Celts civ, or Norway if we already had a Vikings civ. Babylon is totally superfluous in VI; saying that it shouldn't go any sooner than Polynesia or Carthage or the HRE is simply failing to see that it exists on a similar plane of redundancy. Sumeria was a compromise by the devs so that we wouldn't need more than one Mesopotamian civ.
Byzantium - 20
Carthage - 20
Celts - 20
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 20
Hittites - 20
Holy Roman Empire - 17
Huns - 20
Iroquois - 21
Mayan - 21
Morocco - 23 (22 + 1) - What can I say, I'm feeling my Fez fantasy this week.
Native American - 8
Polynesia - 20
Portugal - 21
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 20
Vikings - 20

 

[Jkchart]

Assyria - 20
Austria - 20
Babylon - 12
Byzantium - 20
Carthage - 20
Celts - 20
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 20
Hittites - 20
Holy Roman Empire - 17
Huns - 20
Iroquois - 21
Mayan - 22 (21+1) - Lasting legacy, and one of the most important Civs left to return. Out of all of the possible return options, I believe Maya is the one that deserves the spot the most.
Morocco - 23
Native American - 5 (8-3) - Should honestly be the first one of these to go. Worst of all on here.
Polynesia - 20
Portugal - 21
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 20
Vikings - 20

 

[alphaman21]

Assyria - 20
Austria - 20
Babylon - 12
Byzantium - 20
Carthage - 20
Celts - 20
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 21 (20+1) Ethiopia has a very rich history, and it would be a shame if they failed to show any of it. They even have some legitimately great female leaders if Firaxis wants that option.
Hittites - 20
Holy Roman Empire - 17
Huns - 20
Iroquois - 21
Mayan - 22
Morocco - 23
Native American - 5
Polynesia - 20
Portugal - 21
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 20
Vikings - 17 (20-3) Part 2 of my battle against blob civs. Especially made redundant by the inclusion of Harald Hardrada.

 

[Kimiimaro]

Assyria - 20
Austria - 20
Babylon - 12+1=13 - @PhoenicianGold, yet, we have Egypt and Nubia in the same game, two civilisations of different people speaking different languages living and influencing each other and conquering each other, building pyramids, living by one large river and at times, completely ruling each other. How different is that from Babylon and Sumer though? Needless to say, the two coexisted, while there were hundreds of years between Sumer and Babylon. Is Nubia redundant though? I see Nubia/Egypt similar to Babylon and Sumer here. Two people speaking different languages occupying a similar area, with one being influenced by the other. But with one being much younger than the other. By the way, tradition does not necessarilly have to be the only reason for why people would want Babylon back. I, for one, want to see the grand ancient superpower Babylon was and which Sumer never managed to be due to its fracturance into City-States, and I also think the game could sustain another Mesopotamian Civ... There are ways of making them different from the Epic of Gilgamesh Civ, starting with giving Babylonians border stones or law stelae as their unique improvement/bulding replaicing the monument. Give Babylonians bonus to building stuff, science, trade, culture, anything, really. They were a grand civilisation capable of doing many things, and with Babylon itself being the most important city in the world, where basically everything from trade to sciences was going on. Give them Nebuchadnezzar II with bonus to conquest. Or improving of capital! After all, he built the triple walls of the city and greatly improved it. He could like conquerors of City-States as agenda, maybe, given his conquest of Jerusalem. Or we could get backstabbing Hammurabi (his interactions with Mari are an example of his backstabbing) with law code bonus. I'm afraid I'm not able to suggest a unique unit, but that's because of my minimal knowledge of the Babylonian warfare. Firaxis had been doing a rather good research tho, and I'm sure there are some unit candidates to be found if a deeper research on Babylonian warfare would be made. Also, if Civ IV (Sumer and Babylon) and Civ V (Assyria and Babylon, almost contemporaries, by the way) could hold two Mesopotamian Civs, I don't understand why Civ VI couldn't.

No one would support the Sioux if we already had a Native American civ, or Venice if we already had an Italian civ, or Scotland if we already had a Celts civ, or Norway if we already had a Vikings civ.

I agree with most of this (even though I don't want to see any of those blob Civs in the first place, save for Italy), except for the Celts and Scotland. If we imagine Celtic tribes, pretty much everyone will picture them as ancient people, contemporaries of the Roman Empire, known for things like oppida and druids. Scotland, on the other hand, managed to rise in the Middle Ages, developing their unique and specific culture, becoming distinct enough for (I think not only) me to see big differences between a Celtic blob and the Scots. Highlanders, bagpipes, haggis, lakes, rivarly with England, deep-fried Mars bars, those are things I would associate with only one country in the world. The Celts would not ever pop up in my head while hearing someone mentioning these things.
Byzantium - 20
Carthage - 20
Celts - 20
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 21
Hittites - 20
Holy Roman Empire - 17-3=14 - Egregious mess of dozens of basically independent duchies, bishoprics, cities, republics and kingdoms of different cultures (Germans, Czechs, the Dutch, Italians, ...) and religions with their own rulers, with the Emperor never managing to unite it. Also, absolutely redundant with Barbarossa, a Holy Roman Empiror, in game already. There is no way Babylon should fall before this.
Huns - 20
Iroquois - 21
Mayan - 22
Morocco - 23
Native American - 5
Polynesia - 20
Portugal - 21
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 20
Vikings - 17

 

[AmazonQueen]

Assyria - 20
Austria - 20
Babylon - 13
Byzantium - 20
Carthage - 20
Celts - 20
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 21
Hittites - 20
Holy Roman Empire - 14
Huns - 20
Iroquois - 21
Mayan - 22+1=23 A long-lasting and widespread culture with many achievements, this should be the default Mesoamerican civ.
Morocco - 23
Native American - 5-3 =2 Worst of the blobs.
Polynesia - 20
Portugal - 21
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 20
Vikings - 17

 

[Jkchart]

A couple hours early because this is when I have access, so sorry about that.

Assyria - 20
Austria - 20
Babylon - 13
Byzantium - 20
Carthage - 20
Celts - 20
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 21
Hittites - 20
Holy Roman Empire - 14
Huns - 20
Iroquois - 22 = 21+1 Another Native American tribe that is a perennial favorite that I should think would also qualify for a spot. I voted for Mayans first, but I want to spread the love here. Always nostalgic about this one as well. Plus I'd love a well done Civ VI version as opposed to "WOOHOO FOREST ROADS".
Mayan - 23
Morocco - 23
Native American - 0 2-3 ELIMINATED. Happy to put this one to death.
Polynesia - 20
Portugal - 21
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 20
Vikings - 17

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Assyria - 20
Austria - 20
Babylon - 10 (13 - 3) - VI has substantially more elements to each civ's art design than prior installments. It is also generally attempting to go wide with resonant global research rather than go deep into classic research because obscurity doesn't sell games. To say that Babylon could still fit in a game where Sumeria is already half Babylonian by design (between the Ziggurat, Gilgamesh speaking Akkadian, and the cuneiform icon), is to be drawing false equivalencies between the standards of civ choice and design in IV and V, versus those in VI. Not to mention a Babylon without a science-yielding river UI like the ziggurat wouldn't feel very Babylonian, and no one to date has suggested an adequate UU. More to the point, we already have several other civs which clearly indicate Sumeria's purpose as vicariously representing Akkadia, Assyria, and Babylon. The Maori are representing the beginning of Polynesian exploration, and vicariously represent those civs which developed from eastward expansion, such as Tonga and Hawaii. Phoenicia is clearly serving double duty as proto-Carthage The drawing of arbitrary distinctions between Sumeria and other Mesopotamian civs as compared to other regions of the world just doesn't hold much water within VI's design philosophy. Also, Nubia is imo one of the most superfluous additions to VI, and I'm not sure how arguing that we have two river valley civs bumped against each other elsewhere on the map begs doing precisely the same boring thing again in Mesopotamia.
Byzantium - 20
Carthage - 20
Celts - 20
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 21
Hittites - 20
Holy Roman Empire - 14
Huns - 20
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 23
Morocco - 24 (23 + 1) - Rock the kasbah.
Polynesia - 20
Portugal - 21
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 20
Vikings - 17

Eliminated (by order of elimination):

Native American

 

[TahamiTsunami]

Assyria - 20
Austria - 20
Babylon - 10 + 1 = 11 Can I first mention that this should probably be listed as Babylonia instead of Babylon? It was an empire and more than just one city after all. While I do see the point of there being some overlapping with Sumeria (mainly from the city list, who knows how differently they could design everything else), I absolutely disagree with the thought that Babylonia should be knocked off this early before many of the other civs still on this list like the Vikings. Speaking of which......
Byzantium - 20
Carthage - 20
Celts - 20
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 21
Hittites - 20
Holy Roman Empire - 14
Huns - 20
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 23
Morocco - 24
Polynesia - 20
Portugal - 21
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 20
Vikings - 17 - 3 = 14 Would we really want to have the equivalent of having both Japan and another civ called the Samurai?

 

[Xandinho]

Assyria - 20
Austria - 20
Babylon - 12 (11+1) I do not want this to fall now, Babylon deserves to be in the game. We have already had Babylon and Sumeria in civ4, so one does not exclude the other. There are other options on the list that should fall before: Holy Roman Empire, Vikings, Polynesia, Shoshone, Celts and more.
Byzantium - 20
Carthage - 20
Celts - 20
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 21
Hittites - 20
Holy Roman Empire - 14
Huns - 20
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 23
Morocco - 24
Polynesia - 20
Portugal - 21
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 20
Vikings - 11 (14-3) Totally unnecessary and unthinkable.

 

[alphaman21]

Assyria - 20
Austria - 21 (20+1) We need a reboot of Charles V (or any other Hapsburg male)
Babylon - 12
Byzantium - 20
Carthage - 20
Celts - 20
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 21
Hittites - 20
Holy Roman Empire - 14
Huns - 20
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 23
Morocco - 24
Polynesia - 17 (20-3) The third blob civ that I have downvoted. Especially unnecessary now that we have the Maori.
Portugal - 21
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 20
Vikings - 11

 

[Naktis]

Assyria - 20
Austria - 21
Babylon - 12
Byzantium - 21 (20+1) . Very important Civ in history, even tho they can be considered alt for Rome , but they are must have. Defended Europe from arab invasion for 1000 years. Christianity stronghold.
Carthage - 20
Celts - 20
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 21
Hittites - 20
Holy Roman Empire - 14
Huns - 20
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 23
Morocco - 24
Polynesia - 14 (17-3). We got Maori , why would we even need another similar civ.
Portugal - 21
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 20
Vikings - 11

 

[Kimiimaro]

Assyria - 20
Austria - 21
Babylon - 12+1=13 - Babylon must live.

To say that Babylon could still fit in a game where Sumeria is already half Babylonian by design

This seems to be the main reason of our great disagreement and different views on Babylon. To you, ingame Sumer may signalise Mesopotamian blob, to me, it signalises badly made Sumer. I'd like a well made Mesopotamian civilisation myself, be it Assyria or Babylon. And there are ways of doing it.

the cuneiform icon

Lamassu or a winged lion can be the symbol for the Babylonians, as in the previous games. Or they can simply use the CS' current symbol (lion's head).

Gilgamesh speaking Akkadian

Means little here, actually. We have five English speaking leaders in game already (Victoria, Gandhi, Laurier, Curtin, Roosevelt) and three Greek speaking ones (Alexander, Gorgo and Pericles). I see no reason not to have two Akkadian speaking ones.

Not to mention a Babylon without a science-yielding river UI like the ziggurat wouldn't feel very Babylonian,

I do not see this as a problem. Mainly because Babylon has never had a Ziggurat/science unique building in Civ before. Ziggurat was given to Sumer both in Civ IV and scenario in Civ V, as opposed to Babylonian gardens from Civ IV and walls of Babylon from Civ V. They can reuse either of these in Civ VI or give us something like the law stele instead. As for science, the Babylonians were good in things like mathematics or astronomy, I do not deny this, but it wasn't a thing only the Babylonians could do. You can find things like these in ancient India or Mayan civilisation. If you need science to make Babylon feel Babylonian though, you can make it the Babylonian ability. Or you can give them something else they were good instead. The Babylonians were to be excellent builders, too (if you need a proof, then consider the fact that Babylon itself was the largest city in the world during its prime, had two ancient world wonders in it (the Hanging Gardens and the city's walls, that were considered to be a wonder by many ancient peoples) and over 90 meters tall Etemenanki probably inspired the biblical Tower of Babel).

and no one to date has suggested an adequate UU

I've read through people's suggestions on Babylonian civ on the Design your own Civ VI civ" thread. Some people suggest the return of the bowman, there was one suggestion on shielded archer and I especially like this design that offers Babylon a non-bowman unit.

Phoenicia is clearly serving double duty as proto-Carthage

I personally consider Phoenicia's additon as a clever way to smuggle much desired Carthage in through the "four new civs and four old civs" rule set by Firaxis when the old ones were occupied with much desired Ottomans, Malians and Incans (and Swedes). The only things that differ from what the Carthaginian civ probably wouldn't have are writing eureka, switching capitals and the city list. If you changed these things a bit and kept all what's left, you could easily call the civ Carthage.
Byzantium - 21
Carthage - 20
Celts - 20
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 21
Hittites - 20
Holy Roman Empire - 14-3=11 - Not even a civ. Shoo.
Huns - 20
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 23
Morocco - 24
Polynesia - 14
Portugal - 21
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 20
Vikings - 11