Assyria - 20
Austria - 21 Babylon - 10 (13 - 3) - Of course there are ways to make a Babylon civ, and they are all absolutely boring and superfluous. What niche could Babylon possibly serve as an early game, river-based science civ that Sumeria doesn't already fill? Why would they get a "garden" or "wall" UI when we have Persia and Georgia? Just because Sumeria and Babylon were separate civs in IV--which in retrospect hardly differentiated civs at all--does not mean they fit within VI's design and facilitate its goals, which have become much more globally sensitive, and much more market driven. Not only do I think it fallacious to presume that whatever worked for the series in last installments--absent any accounting for how the series as evolved and the new restrictions created by deeper art and mechanic design--work again, but I think it is setting oneself up for disappointment when lame "staples" like Babylon are eventually left out. This holds true for any iterative game franchise.
Byzantium - 21
Carthage - 20
Celts - 17
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 21
Hittites - 21
Holy Roman Empire - 11
Huns - 20
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 23 Morocco - 25 (24 + 1) - a Medina Quarter would also be a nice UI.
Polynesia - 14
Portugal - 21
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 20
Vikings - 11
Assyria - 20
Austria - 21
Babylon - 10
Byzantium - 22
Carthage - 20
Celts - 14
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 21
Hittites - 21
Holy Roman Empire - 11
Huns - 20
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 23
Morocco - 26
Polynesia - 11 Portugal - 22 (21 + 1) I'm always eager for the tech which finally allows me to cross Ocean tiles. I only ever play with Ocean. Portugal really taps into that sense of exploration mid-game which I enjoy so much.
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20 Venice - 17 (20 - 3) Because Florence/Tuscany should be in a Civ game. Venice was already done really well in Civ 5. Florence could have another Medici leader focused towards Cultural Victory. Alternatively, and to avoid being too much like Catherine de Medici, they could be a Diplo Civ. But unlike Venice in Civ5, which was highly dependent on City States, a Florence Civ would have some sort of unique ability to influence or affect the most powerful civs in any given game (for instance). Furthermore, a Florence Civ would also have some sort of economic advantage.
Vikings - 11
Assyria - 20
Austria - 21 Babylon - 10 + 1 = 11 Even if not taking its large history and design possibilities into account, Babylonia should definitely at least stay longer than many of the other civs still here.
Byzantium - 22
Carthage - 20
Celts - 14
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 21
Hittites - 21
Holy Roman Empire - 11
Huns - 20
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 23
Morocco - 26
Polynesia - 11
Portugal - 22
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 17 Vikings - 11 - 3 = 8 In a series that is working on deblobbing and with Norway in the game, this civ is not at all needed.
Assyria - 20
Austria - 21
Babylon - 11
Byzantium - 22
Carthage - 20
Celts - 14
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 21
Hittites - 21
Holy Roman Empire - 11 Huns - 17 (20-3) I think barbs could get some sort of upgrade that turns them into Hunnic horde , because for a Civ its a sad excuse , and we already have plenty warmongers , and there are plenty more better options too.
Iroquois - 22 Mayan - 24 (23+1). This is a great civ. Whats even greater is option to add female leader Lady Six Sky.
Morocco - 26
Polynesia - 11
Portugal - 22
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 17
Vikings - 8
Assyria - 20
Austria - 21 Babylon - 11+1=12 Whatever one thinks of the merits of another civ from this region in the Ancient Era appearing in Civ VI there are plenty of Civs still on this list who shouldn't have been included in any game.
Byzantium - 22
Carthage - 20
Celts - 14
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 21
Hittites - 21
Holy Roman Empire - 11
Huns - 17
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 24
Morocco - 26 Polynesia - 11-3=8 And this blob is one of them.
Portugal - 22
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 17
Vikings - 8
Your dismissal of all possible ideas for Babylon as "absolutely boring and superfluous" without further discussion, nor even taking a look at my proposals make you look that you simply hate the Babylonians and don't want them at all cost.
Are you aware that every expansion brings new mechanics and has significant part of its civs work with them? How can you know that they'll be boring?
Ehm, once again, the Babylonians were not just scientists, you know? They were also great builders, which is something their design could be focused on instead. I've mentioned that yesterday. You ignored this in your response.
You can also get inspired by how Nebuchadnezzar II brought the Jews to Babylon from Jerusalem, and have the population that would otherwise be lost in conquest increase population of Babylonian cities when they conquer new city/city-state.
Are you deliberately avoiding my suggestion for law stele as a monument replacement? I have mentioned it thrice, and also mentioned Kassite border stone as another option.
By the way, why should the garden or wall be blocked when we have two unique harbours in game? Two unique forts? Two unique temples?
Methinks you're contradicting yourself here though. I can confidentely say that Babylon is demanded fan favourite, similarly to Portugal or Byzantium. Do not underestimate the fact that it's been in the game since the first Civ made - this is something that greatly increases the demand, you know? Nostalgia is a strong factor here. The fact that Babylonian civilisation itself is one of the most known ancient civilisations in the world, and thus able to attract many people is another thing. If Firaxis' decisions are market driven, as you say, then Babylon is a great choice for them, actually.
And, speaking of "lame staples" being left out because of market... Maybe, but not in Civ VI. Nuclear Gandhi speaks against you here. A lame staple we keep getting and probably will keep getting in the future as the first leader of India instead of, say, Ashoka or the Mughals. I don't think you'll hear "I want Gandhi to keep appearing" often, if even. I don't think there was a giant demand for the reappearance of Shaka/Zulu. At least not as early as in the first expansion.
I don't think there was a great market demand for the Mapuche, either. Not that they're a bad addition, their resistance against Spain is impressive, but I don't think many people knew them before they appeared in Civ.
Byzantium - 22
Carthage - 20
Celts - 14
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 21
Hittites - 21 Holy Roman Empire - 11-3=8 - Multicultural mess divided by religion, with dozens of independent rulers who kept fighting against themselves. Pass.
Huns - 17
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 24
Morocco - 26
Polynesia - 8
Portugal - 22
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 17
Vikings - 8
Assyria - 20
Austria - 21 Babylon - 10 (13 - 3) - I have read the ideas and I do think they are quite uninspired and myopic. What plausible level of complexity could the devs want to add to the ancient era? And why would they want to severely mess with the difficulty curve like that? I simply do not understand all of this blind hope and fascination with ancient Mesopotamia as being able to facilitate fun, diverse game design across milennia of design space as compared to practically any other region or era of history. I see nothing exceptional about Babylon that isn't already served by Sumeria. You want builders and Stele? We can have Ethiopia. You want walls of Babylon? They are already represented by the Hanging Gardens. I don't know why I'm indulging in this discussion when all you are doing is presuming Babylon should be in and then retroactively stretching to find niches for it to fill (poorly, since Sumeria's already perfectly encompasses the entire *point* of what Babylon would represent in a historical mashup). Whereas there are dozens of civs that don't need to stretch; they already have obvious and unique and resonant units and structures that are far better differentiated from Sumeria's, or indeed any civ's, cultural and mechanical identity. It's basically an argument from ignorance, presuming a possibility space while avoiding considerations of realities which would limit that design space. Moreover, you haven't actually addressed my observations that VI is a completely different game and simply shoehorning returning civs into the roster is not at all a robust or thoughtful methodology. Saying that Canada or Australia or America justify Babylon when right next door the quintessential Babylonian figure leads Sumeria is so extremely unnuanced that I can't even begin to dissect it.
So I won't. I'm done arguing with you. Do as you will. Babylon is a waste of dev resources and you will never convince me that we need a second Mesopotamian civ because I thought two were excessive, in both IV and V, and especially here in VI it adds precisely nothing culturally to a game that is very clearly prioritizing that over empty, rote imperialism. I am giving the same explanation from now on: "Babylon does not suit VI's thesis." Because it doesn't, and honestly that anyone would rather have Sumeria 2.0 over literally anything else bores me to existential tears. Go back to playing IV or V, if you're so indifferent about civs like the Mapuche. Go have someone mod a Babylon for you out of Sumeria assets. There are ways to indulge your regressivism without crippling VI's attempts at maximizing aesthetic diversity and the tools available to modders.
Byzantium - 22
Carthage - 20
Celts - 14
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 21
Hittites - 21
Holy Roman Empire - 8
Huns - 17
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 24 Morocco - 27 (26 + 1) - Sayyida Al Hurra would be acceptable as well.
Polynesia - 8
Portugal - 22
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 17
Vikings - 8
Assyria - 20
Austria - 21 Babylon - 11 (10 + 1) This isn't by any means near the top of my list, but it would be an entirely reasonable choice. Plenty of civs on this list have as much overlap with existing civs as Babylon has with Sumeria. There's no reason for any single one of them to be singled out this dramatically.
Byzantium - 22
Carthage - 20
Celts - 14
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 21
Hittites - 22
Holy Roman Empire - 5
Huns - 17
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 24
Morocco - 27
Polynesia - 8
Portugal - 22
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 17 Vikings - 5 (8-3) This civ is already in the game, the devs just decided to call it Norway instead for this installment.
Assyria - 20
Austria - 21 Babylon - 12 (11+1) I would like to be voting for Maya, Ethiopia and Portugal, but I need to avoid that Babylon fall so fast. It is inadmissible for me that this is falling alongside "blob and nonsense civs" like Vikings and HRE.
Byzantium - 22
Carthage - 20
Celts - 14
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 21
Hittites - 22
Holy Roman Empire - 5
Huns - 17
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 24
Morocco - 27
Polynesia - 8
Portugal - 22
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 17 Vikings - 2 (5-3) There is no logic for this to be included, Norway already represents Vikings.
Assyria - 20
Austria - 21 Babylon - 13 (12+1) Regardless of Phoenician's points, he seems to have elevated this to an almost personal vendetta and I would very much like to witness some 'existential tears'
Byzantium - 22
Carthage - 20
Celts - 14
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 21
Hittites - 22
Holy Roman Empire - 5
Huns - 17
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 24
Morocco - 27
Polynesia - 8
Portugal - 22
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 17 Vikings - 0 (2-0) Dead?
Assyria - 20
Austria - 21 Babylon - 13 + 1 = 14Lets do our best to make sure no one here gets too personal about this whether you like this civ or not please.Don't get me wrong, I don't think Babylonia will make it to the very end (in fact, between this and Assyria, I have begun to see Assyria as the better choice and I wouldn't put Babylonia above the other choices like Ethiopians, Mayans, etc.). However, there are plenty of reasons why someone would want Babylonia: they want more Ancient Era civs (we don't have many of those), they don't see Sumeria's design as quintessentially Mesopotamian (the civ ability actually sounds like it should be another part of Gilgamesh's ability), there are at least a few other ways to design Babylonia, etc. Despite all that, the main reason I'm up-voting Babylonia for now is that there is no way (in my opinion at least) that Babylonia should fall this soon before some of these other civs.
Byzantium - 22
Carthage - 20
Celts - 14
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 21
Hittites - 22
Holy Roman Empire - 5
Huns - 17
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 24
Morocco - 27 Polynesia - 8 - 3 = 5 Another blob that is unnecessary at this point. With the Maori in the game, if we want another Oceania civ, we'd be better served by adding a more specific Polynesian civ like the Tonga, Hawaiians, etc.
Portugal - 22
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 17
Assyria - 20
Austria - 21 Babylon - 15 = 14+1Babylonia is still one of the most important Civs of the ancient period, and I want them to do a great Mesopotamian Civ since even though I like Sumer mechanically, as an actual Mesopotamia/Sumer civ...yikes.
Byzantium - 22
Carthage - 20
Celts - 14
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 21
Hittites - 22
Holy Roman Empire - 5
Huns - 17
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 24
Morocco - 27 Polynesia - 2 = 5-3 We have Maori. This is no longer necessary.
Portugal - 22
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 17
Assyria - 20
Austria - 21
Babylon - 15
Byzantium - 22
Carthage - 20
Celts - 14
Denmark - 20 Ethiopia - 22 = 21+1 - Despite Mali's addition, Africa is still underrepresented and missing one of the most ancient continuous civilization in history. Ethiopia could return as a religious/turtle civ with a diplomatic flavour (Sukritact's version is, as always, a wonderful take on this theme without overlapping with Georgia's shtick).
Hittites - 22 Holy Roman Empire - 2 = 5-3 - No more blobs please. Plus HRE is already's in the game with Frederick.
Huns - 17
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 24
Morocco - 27
Polynesia - 2
Portugal - 22
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 20
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 17
Assyria - 20+1= 21. We need more ancient ones and this one is always overlooked.
Austria - 18
Babylon - 15
Byzantium - 22
Carthage - 20
Celts -11
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 22
Hittites - 22
Holy Roman Empire - 2 Huns - 17-14=13. Let's get down to business to defeat the Huns. But seriously it's the only one on here that doesn't really fit well into being in the game.
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 25
Morocco - 27
Polynesia - 2
Portugal - 22
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 21
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 17
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.
