Returning Civs - Elimination Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Assyria - 21
Austria - 18
Babylon - 15+1=16 - I'm simply asking for a well-designed ancient Mesopotamian Civ. If not the Babylonian Empire, then the Assyrian Empire. Both are highly desirable to me and either one would make me happy.
Byzantium - 22
Carthage - 20
Celts -11
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 22
Hittites - 22
Holy Roman Empire - 2-3=-1 (ELIMINATED) - Finally. This was never a Civ in a first place, and is represented in game already in Frederick Barbarosa. Goodbye "Holy" "Roman" "Empire" "civ", it is pleasure to remove you.
Huns - 13
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 25
Morocco - 27
Polynesia - 2
Portugal - 22
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 21
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 17
 
Assyria - 21
Austria - 18
Babylon - 13 (16 - 3) - It doesn't fit VI's thesis as a game. (And I'm not sure why I'm being seen as having a personal vendetta, when I was only responding to increasingly long-winded whinging. Let me correct course and state that this is not a debate thread. I have already emphasized in so many ways that, by my principles of valuating civs, I do not care about your musts and your oughts regarding Babylon and you should make peace with that. There are several fundamental ideological divides here between historical fanatics, cultural fanatics, and game design fanatics, and there is absolutely no point in talking over each other's heads. I have already made a conscious, informed step toward sacrilege; if arguments from tradition didn't sway me then, they won't now. Moreover, I for the most part do not care what order civs are eliminated, since so few of them would add much value to VI; you are welcome to hold your own notions of elimination propriety, but again as a matter of a difference in values I am not going to keep around staples on principle just to have the results conform to the same, predictable popularity poll. Elsewise I could rank everything right now as a foregone conclusion of mob mentality and save everyone the time. So please don't @ me. I'm just casting my votes according to my interests; you can do the same.)
Byzantium - 22
Carthage - 20
Celts -11
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 22
Hittites - 22
Huns - 14 (13 + 1) - I actually think there is potential for Attila to appear. Either as an alternate leader for Scythia or as a leader for a separate "clone" civ using Scythia as a base.
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 25
Morocco - 27
Polynesia - 2
Portugal - 22
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 21
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 17
 
Assyria - 21
Austria - 18
Babylon - 13
Byzantium - 22
Carthage - 20
Celts - 11
Ethiopia - 22
Hittites - 22
Huns - 14
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 25
Morocco - 27
Polynesia - 0 (2-3) ELIMINATED. Civ 6 doesn't like blob civs much.
Portugal - 23 (22+1) Adding portugal colony Brazil , and skiping portugal themselves would be.."funny".
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 21
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 17
 
Assyria - 21
Austria - 18
Babylon - 13
Byzantium - 22
Carthage - 20
Celts -11
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 22
Hittites - 22
Huns - 11 (14-3) Too similar to Scythia. I dont see any potential for a Hunnic civ.
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 25
Morocco - 27
Portugal - 23
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 22 (21+1) Siam has a very interesring history, and deserves another go.
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 17
 
Assyria - 21
Austria - 15 (18 - 3) I'm going to take this opportunity to downvote one European civ and upvote another. I admit that I liked the peaceful city-state assimilation concept, and I think it would be awesome to have that same mechanic for a civ in 6 - you could even gain the Suzerain benefits of the city-state even after it has become a part of your empire! But, for Austria itself, I really don't think we need any more civs in that part of Europe, particularly because we just got Hungary. I imagine the devs meant to include Hungary as a sort of replacement for Austria in the roster, and if they had both, it'd be even more crammed than it already is.
Babylon - 13
Byzantium - 22
Carthage - 20
Celts -11
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 22
Hittites - 22
Huns - 11
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 25
Morocco - 27
Portugal - 24 (23 + 1) In another thread, I participated in a discussion of whether Portugal has too much overlap with Spain. Not so! I think Portugal could be another take on a colony civ, with perhaps a bigger emphasis on trade/economy and making their colonies particularly important as posts around the globe. Phoenicia actually seems like it overlaps more with my idea of Portugal, gameplay-wise, but I think Portugal A: is important enough, and B: can be made more unique (especially with an expanded colonial game in a new expansion) to fit well in Civ 6.
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 22
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 17
 
Assyria - 21
Austria - 15
Babylon - 13
Byzantium - 22
Carthage - 20
Celts - 8 (11-3) Honestly, I'm not very interested in another Celtic nation right now. But if we need to have another besides Scotland, I prefer it to be Gauls, not a blob like this.
Denmark - 20
Ethiopia - 23 (22+1) Abyssinia is one of the most enduring civilizations in continuous existence, it has full right to be in Civ6 and its omission would be an unpleasant blatant.
Hittites - 22
Huns - 11
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 25
Morocco - 27
Portugal - 24
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 22
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 17
 
Assyria - 21
Austria - 15
Babylon - 13
Byzantium - 22
Carthage - 20
Celts - 8
Denmark - 17 (20-3) A mid sized European power with plenty of close neighbors already in the game. This one can sit out an edition or two before it returns.
Ethiopia - 23
Hittites - 22
Huns - 11
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 26 (25 + 1) I would have chosen this over the majority of the vanilla civs, let alone the expansion civs and the others still missing.
Morocco - 27
Portugal - 24
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 22
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 17
 
Assyria - 21
Austria - 15
Babylon - 13 + 1 = 14 I know I'm going to sound repetitive but I'd still like to have this one stay a bit longer than some of the other civs still on here.
Byzantium - 22
Carthage - 20
Celts - 8 - 3 = 5 Shame that I couldn't downvote the "Holy" "Roman" "Empire" while it was still up. The Celts are another blob that don't seem likely at this point. If we do get another celtic civ, I'd hope for a more specific one like Ireland or the Gauls.
Denmark - 17
Ethiopia - 23
Hittites - 22
Huns - 11
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 26
Morocco - 27
Portugal - 24
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 22
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 17
 
Assyria - 21
Austria - 15
Babylon - 14
Byzantium - 22
Carthage - 20
Celts - 5
Denmark - 17
Ethiopia - 23
Hittites - 22
Huns - 11
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 26 + 1 = 27 As someone who studied architecture, I have a soft spot for Mayan stonework and their building accomplishments; not to mention their mathematical and writing systems. I wouldn't mind seeing another notable Mesoamerican Civ return to the roster.
Morocco - 27
Portugal - 24
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 22
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 17 - 3 = 14 I don't think Venice is a good fit for Civ6, due to how much more emphasis is placed on cities interacting with the map compared to Civ5. Tall play is already not an optimal strategy and I think revisiting the Civ5 Venice OCC style gameplay restriction in such a model would be remarkably difficult to pull off without heavy reliance on gimmicks and inflated values. This combined with the presence of Civilizations like Mali, Phoenicia, and Hungary who overlap with Venice's trade, coastal/naval, and city state foci respectively (and that's just the Gathering Storm additions), makes me question the feasible design space of Venice. Perhaps there is a niche that can be carved out here, but I think investigating other options would be more lucrative.
 
Last edited:
Assyria - 21
Austria - 15
Babylon - 14
Byzantium- 22-3=19 Greeks,too much Greeks nothing new
Carthage - 20
Celts - 5
Denmark - 17
Ethiopia - 23
Hittites - 22
Huns - 11
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 27
Morocco - 27
Portugal - 24
Shoshone - 20
Siam- 22+1=23 would be interesting to see how they come up with new elephant unit
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 14
 
Assyria - 21
Austria - 15
Babylon - 15 = 14+1 I'm happy to always upvote King Hammurabi/King Nebuchadnezzar. Give me Babylon done well, I say!
Byzantium - 19
Carthage - 20
Celts - 2 = 5-3 A pleasure to seal the fate of this one, though I do hope for a Gaul Civ.
Denmark - 17
Ethiopia - 23
Hittites - 22
Huns - 11
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 27
Morocco - 27
Portugal - 24
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 23
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 14
 
Assyria - 21
Austria - 15
Babylon - 15
Byzantium - 19+1=20 Can never have too many Greeks.
Carthage - 20
Celts - 2 -3 =0 Signed, sealed and delivered to oblivion.
Denmark - 17
Ethiopia - 23
Hittites - 22
Huns - 11
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 27
Morocco - 27
Portugal - 24
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 23
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 14
 
Assyria - 21
Austria - 15
Babylon - 15
Byzantium - 20
Carthage - 20
Denmark - 14 (17 - 3) Although proximity rarely has anything to do with game mechanics (e.g. Portugal and Spain may share cultural similarities, but Civ 5 focused on very distinct aspects of each culture's history to give us two very different gameplay-wise civs), I don't think there's any space left for a western Nordic civ in Civ 6. Norway and Sweden already cover two different time periods. Only option would be 20th century Denmark, but I would rather have the Sami over that.
Ethiopia - 23
Hittites - 22
Huns - 12 (11 +1) I would like to argue that there's potential in a Civ game for an aggressive nomadic culture, and that this has never been attempted or accomplished. This could involve, for instance, unique types of settlements along normal cities which would require unique military units rather than settlers to settle, with a unique "can't settle within 1 tile of city" rule, with the downside of being unable to build districts/buildings other than farming, chopping down trees, etc. Such nomadic settlements might require 1-2 anarchy turns to establish, and population would be equal to the amount of unique units. The settlement could then convert back into military units when threatened and move elsewhere. This unique ability could be used to disrupt and 'territory bomb' other players territories,etc. However, the downsides would have to be significant so that nomadic aggression is only a viable strategy for a particular time frame in the game. I understand this would be very hard to balance, but military aggressive nomadic cultures deserve attention in a Civilisation game, with game mechanics that can properly reflect it. (Rather than the lame "you borrow city names from other civs" nonsense).
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 27
Morocco - 27
Portugal - 24
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 23
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 14
 
Assyria - 21
Austria - 15
Babylon - 16 (15+1) No need to rehash any arguments. Suffice it to say I want them.
Byzantium - 20
Carthage - 20
Denmark - 11 (14 - 3) Europe is quite full. Would this be the preferred Civ to add?
Ethiopia - 23
Hittites - 22
Huns - 12
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 27
Morocco - 27
Portugal - 24
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 23
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 14
 
Assyria - 21+1=22. I can't save Babylon if I want Assyria, sorry.
Austria - 15
Babylon - 16
Byzantium - 20
Carthage - 20
Denmark - 11
Ethiopia - 23
Hittites - 22
Huns - 12-3=9. The idea of aggressive nomadic settlements might be interesting, but I wouldn't want it represented by the Huns as there are other alternatives.
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 27
Morocco - 27
Portugal - 24
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 23
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 14
 
Assyria - 22
Austria - 15
Babylon - 17 (16+1) All arguments aside, I think Babylon is too significant of an ancient civ to pass up.
Byzantium - 20
Carthage - 17 (20-3) It's difficult to justify having Carthage and Phoenicia as separate civs.
Denmark - 11
Ethiopia - 23
Hittites - 22
Huns - 9
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 27
Morocco - 27
Portugal - 24
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 23
Sioux - 21
Songhai - 20
Venice - 14
 
Assyria - 22
Austria - 15
Babylon - 17
Byzantium - 20
Carthage - 17
Denmark - 11
Ethiopia - 23
Hittites - 22
Huns - 9
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 27
Morocco - 27
Portugal - 24
Shoshone - 20
Siam - 23
Sioux - 22 (21 + 1) Technically a returning civ, but it's been absent long enough that a decent number of players weren't even born, let alone acquainted with the civ franchise, when it last appeared. And it's never gotten Civ V/VI or even Civ VI levels of unique mechanics. I'd argue this makes it a great choice for adding variety to the game's representation of North American civs, though I would call it Lakota rather than Sioux.
Songhai - 20
Venice - 11 (14-3) Venice worked in Civ V as an out of the box choice, but if it appeared in Civ VI too, it would no longer be out of the box. There are plenty of other Italian powers that could make an appearance before Venice returns, to say nothing of civs from any other part of the world.
 
Assyria - 22
Austria - 15
Babylon - 17
Byzantium - 20
Carthage - 17
Denmark - 11
Ethiopia - 23
Hittites - 22
Huns - 9
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 27
Morocco - 27
Portugal - 25 (24+1) Today it is a small tourist country, but a few centuries ago it was a great overseas empire. I think it is the most important European power missing in Civ6.
Shoshone - 17 (20-3) There are three Native American civilizations on the list, and this is the one that least interests me. Shoshone was simply a last minute choice on BNW.
Siam - 23
Sioux - 22
Songhai - 20
Venice - 11
 
Assyria - 22
Austria - 15
Babylon - 14 (17 - 3) - Doesn't fit VI's thesis.
Byzantium - 20
Carthage - 17
Denmark - 12 (11 + 1) - Gonna throw Margaret a bone. The design space is minimal and probably not worth exploring, but--unlike certain other civs on this list--the devs at least left room for it.
Ethiopia - 23
Hittites - 22
Huns - 9
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 27
Morocco - 27
Portugal - 25
Shoshone - 17
Siam - 23
Sioux - 22
Songhai - 20
Venice - 11
 
Assyria - 22
Austria - 12 (15-3) Enough justification already given by other people.
Babylon - 14
Byzantium - 20
Carthage - 18 (17 +1) I have a suspicion Carthage is going to be in Civ 6. Here's my theory: The reason there's a Phoenician civ in CIV VI led by Dido is so that we may see a return of Hannibal as the leader of Carthage in the future. Why else bother calling it Phoenicia? Carthage has been in every civ since Civ 2. Phoenecia is clearly trade/coast oriented, whereas Carthage always had military options in the past (Elephants/Numidian cavalry). Furthermore, a lot of traditional leaders were set aside in Civ 6 (e.g. America, Rome). This gives it space for a return of some classic leaders. Hannibal is an obvious choice. But it's also possible they only called it Phoenicia to preserve Carthage's identity in the Civ series, without it being implied that there's a Carthaginian civ coming. But damn it, I would really fancy some mountain crossing elephants.
Denmark - 12
Ethiopia - 23
Hittites - 22
Huns - 9
Iroquois - 22
Mayan - 27
Morocco - 27
Portugal - 25
Shoshone - 17
Siam - 23
Sioux - 22
Songhai - 20
Venice - 11

Aside: PhoenicianGold, could you extend a bit on this "Civ VI thesis" point? You've mentioned it before, but can you be more specific? You're using it as the basis of your argument so I need to understand it better. You seem pretty confident that such a thesis actually exists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom