Returning Civs - Elimination Thread

Should we maybe start ordering civs per points rather than alphabetically, now that there's only 10 left? If you disagree just cancel what I just did. Or just play as usual if you don't have the time to move civs around. Someone else will.

Mayan - 30
Ethiopia - 29 (28 +1) We need another African civ and I'd really like it to be Ethiopia.
Portugal - 28
Morocco - 26
Iroquois - 25
Assyria - 21
Siam - 19
Babylon - 18
Byzantium - 18
Hittites - 17 (20 - 3) I want another Ancient Civ but I'm not invested in the Hittites.
Sioux - 8

 

Maya - 30
Ethiopia - 29
Portugal - 28
Morocco - 26
Iroquois - 25
Assyria - 21
Siam - 19
Babylon - 18+1=19 It’s one of the top 5 most demanded prior civs not yet in the game. It belongs in the top 5 here too.
Byzantium - 18
Hittites - 17
Sioux - 8-3=5 I don’t mind the Sioux, but I think the Iroquois have earned a lasting seat at the table.

 

Eh, I'm staying with the alphabetical system... It's more convenient. I can search what I want to upvote more quickly and the we don't have to change the order of the list at all.

Assyria - 21
Byzantium - 18
Babylon - 19+1=20 - After a long and valiant struggle, the grand and ancient Empire of Babylon is back on 20 points! More ancients for me, please.
Ethiopia - 29
Hittites - 17
Iroquois - 25
Maya - 30
Morocco - 26
Portugal - 28
Siam - 19
Sioux - 5-3=2 - I'm sorry, but my interest in North American natives is lower than my interest in the others here.

 

Assyria - 21
Byzantium - 18
Babylon - 20
Ethiopia - 29
Hittites - 17
Iroquois - 25
Maya - 31 (30+1) One of the greatest american civilizations. They should be an automatic entry by this point.
Morocco - 26
Portugal - 28
Siam - 19
Sioux - 2-3=0. ELIMINATED. They have the weakest claim of the remaining civs.

 

Would be great to have all 10 in the game, to be honest.

Assyria - 21
Byzantium - 19 (18 + 1) - I don't think they work as an alt leader for Rome given VI's implementation of the latter, and the game would feel incomplete without them
Babylon - 20
Ethiopia - 29
Hittites - 17
Iroquois - 25
Maya - 31
Morocco - 26
Portugal - 28
Siam - 16 (19 - 3) - If we get another civ from SE Asia I'd like it to be Burma or Vietnam

 

Yeah, this is a pretty solid top 10. I'd love for all of these to be in game though of course it wouldn't be as fun of an elimination game if we stopped here! Its going to get tougher from here on out. It would be cool to see the Sioux return or get remade one day and as unlikely as it is perhaps both Mali and Songhai could appear one day (as long as Mali isn't switched out, I REALLY DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF SWITCHING CIVS AROUND when we should be adding more).

Assyria - 21
Byzantium - 19 - 3 = 16 Don't get me wrong, I'd really like to have them return. Additionally, I'd prefer an ancient Egyptian or another Chinese for an alt leader. However, with the limited spots we got left, it is arguable that they could do quite well being represented as a Roman alt leader with a very robust leader ability since they were very much the continuation of the Roman Empire (they were certainly more connected than Gandhi and Chandragupta were).
Babylon - 20
Ethiopia - 29
Hittites - 17
Iroquois - 25
Maya - 31
Morocco - 26
Portugal - 28
Siam - 16 + 1 = 17 I do think a case should be made for them. While I'd like to see Burma and/or Vietnam make an appearance, Southeast Asia is one of those areas in the world that I think should be filled with more civs like Europe and the Middle East are (I'd hope the same for Western Africa, NE North America, etc.). I also wouldn't want to underestimate Siam's importance, it was quite powerful into the modern era and it being the only Southeast Asian country to remain independent makes it worthy of at least considering.

 

Wow, the Sioux disappeared really fast. I was hoping they'd still be around so I could post this civ design with my upvote.

Assyria - 21
Byzantium - 13 (16 -3) This civ saw itself as the continuation of a civ already in the game and has strong cultural overlap with two more civs/3 more leaders.
Babylon - 20
Ethiopia - 29
Hittites - 17
Iroquois - 26 (25 + 1) With the Sioux and Shoshone gone, the mantle of North American representation falls on the Iroquois.
Maya - 31
Morocco - 26
Portugal - 28
Siam - 17

 

Assyria - 21+1=22 The ancient civ that I prefer and can differ itself from Sumeria more than Babylon.
Byzantium - 13
Babylon - 20
Ethiopia - 29
Hittites - 17
Iroquois - 26
Maya - 31
Morocco - 26
Portugal - 28
Siam - 17-3=14 Not that they would be bad but I would love Vietnam to come. I know the Khmer isn't the same but it would almost feel redundant with them considering Siam borrowed heavily from their culture.

 

Assyria - 22
Byzantium - 13
Babylon - 17 (20 -3) - Doesn't fit VI's thesis. Also I guess I'll add to a second recurring explanation, that, since Sumeria aptly covers the ancient Mesopotamian legacy, any new levant civs should represent other cultural paradigms. In which case, "I'd prefer Armenia." (yes, this is in spite of Armenia repeatedly being subordinated to foreign imperial rule; it's still more flavorful than anything Akkadian at this point)
Ethiopia - 29
Hittites - 17
Iroquois - 26
Maya - 31
Morocco - 27 (26 + 1) - I'd prefer Morocco over Ethiopia, and that's absolutely nothing against Ethiopia other than making the Red Sea coast very crammed (and people's weird fascination with Christianization, as if converting people from one silly common fiction to another something to be proud of). If we didn't already have Nubia I would probably be prioritizing Morocco a lot less. What's more, Nubia kind of sucks as an early-cycle addition; I would have much preferred it as late-cycle DLC as gravy on top of Ethiopia. But here we are.
Portugal - 28
Siam - 14

(Also, I may be a contrarian ******* and all the other terrible accusations leveled at me, but I've stopped bolding things because that's just one more thing the following person has to revert and it just seems pointlessly inefficient. Color seems to be enough to get the point across.)

 

Assyria - 22
Byzantium - 13
Babylon - 17
Ethiopia - 29
Hittites - 14 (17-3) Nothing against this, but I'd rather have the other two ancient civilizations of this list: Babylon and Assyria. And I think that this should fall before Siam and Byzantium.
Iroquois - 26
Maya - 31
Morocco - 27
Portugal - 28
Siam - 15 (14+1) I'm pretty sure I can not save this, but I think Siam is more interesting than some other civs remaining. In addition, I understand that Vietnam is quite in demand, but I think Siam is a more distinct civilization, and it may be a trading power with bonus for trade routes in a third expansion where trade could come improved.

 

Assyria-22-3=19 may be Babylon deserve to last longer than them
Byzantium - 13
Babylon - 17
Ethiopia - 29
Hittites - 14
Iroquois - 26
Maya - 31
Morocco - 27
Portugal - 28
Siam-15+1=16 if people are fine with Byzantium a greek colony then Siam deserve to seem as way distinct from Khmer,moreover a rival to Khmer

 

Assyria- 19
Byzantium - 13
Babylon - 17
Ethiopia - 29
Hittites - 14+1=15. Of the superpowers of the Ancient Middle East the Hittites are the most neglected. About time they made another appearance.
Iroquois - 26-3=23. I think maybe there is an interesting way to depict the Iroquois but Civ hasn't found it yet.
Maya - 31
Morocco - 27
Portugal - 28
Siam- 16

 

You make a great point with India's leaders! I hadn't considered that. If Gandhi and Chandragupta belong to the same civilization in Civ 6, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that Byzantium will not become a separate civilization. Rome could be considered as almost like a blob, incorporating both the regular Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire, and indeed less of a stretch than two entirely different nations in the Indian subcontinent. So, based on the decision the devs made with India, now I'd predict that it comes down to us either having an alternate leader for Rome to represent Byzantium, or no Byzantium at all.

Anyway, on to my votes:

Assyria - 19
Byzantium - 13
Babylon - 17
Ethiopia - 29
Hittites - 15
Iroquois - 23
Maya - 31
Morocco - 27
Portugal - 29 (28 + 1) - This is my choice for the next European civ, and the last one I actually want, from a region which is getting pretty crowded already. But, we have 8 civ slots in an expansion, and I doubt they'd just not include a European civ in it, so if it were up to me, we'd have only one European civ in a hypothetical next expansion and it'd be Portugal, the missing global colonial nation. A civ built around exploration, colonies, and naval and trade prowess. The problem? That civ I just described also describes Civ 6 Phoenicia. But I think they can make it work.
Siam - 13 (16 - 3) - The votes are starting to get tougher, and some people have made Siam sound more appealing, but I still think that Khmer was sort of a Siam 'replacement', and for that sole reason, I think Siam is more unlikely. I admit I know very little about Siam as a historical nation, though. I still really like the idea of Vietnam as the next civ for the region, so if it were here, I'd be voting for it over Siam. And if we get Siam, well, we probably wouldn't get Vietnam.

 

Alternate leader for Rome representing Byzantium for some reason feels unacceptably wrong to me unlike Gandhi and Chandragupta sharing the same civ, and I say this as an Indophile who'd love more Indian subcontinent in this series.

There is an enormous cultural difference between Greek, Orthodox medieval Byzantine Empire and Rome-based pagan classical Roman Empire. Sure, Byzantium was born as eastern half of declining Roman empire, but for various reason it went into really, really distinctive and different cultural direction and had enormous historical importance in very different way from its 'ancestor empire.

Why do you think there is quite sharp distinction between "Byzantine Empire" and "Roman Empire" in the entire historical literature, with "Byzantine studies" being entirely separate field from "Classical" studies?
I mean, yeah it's true Byzantines called themselves Romans and everybody always mentions that obligatory token 'well Roman empire fell on the west but not east'... But it really doesn't matter that much, there is very powerful distinction between two in the historiography, they really were very different in all fields - language, culture, religion, intellectual life, law, internal organization, military organization etc.

In my country there is a prestigious historical magazine which recently started doing special monthly editions devoted to one particular historical region. So far they released India, China, Arabs, Turks and Byzantium. India contains all empires of Indian subcontinent, while Byzantium is firmly separated from Rome. This is not a singular case, it always works like this.

Maurya and modern India are both grounded in certain tradition of Sanskrit, Vedas, Majahanapadas, Mahabharata, certain traditions of Dharmic religions etc. Meanwhile while Rome was grounded in Italian, Classical Mediterranean culture with its polytheism, Byzantine Empire was built on Greek Orthodoxy. I doesn't matter if one is 200 years apart and another is 2000 years apart, such things are never linear. 6th century Yemen was more culturally different from 7th century Umayyad Caliphate than Umayyad Caliphate was from Ottoman Empire. Time and geography don't matter, what matters are cultural changes which can be very revolutionary in short amount of time (by 'short amount of time' in this context I mean of course for example 100 years )

For me Byzantium always has to be separate from Rome, and not only that, I consider it as a staple civ that should always return due to its historical importance.
Although I would be fine with India getting 5 leaders or even being partially separated (for example: India civ with 3 leaders, Mughal civ and Indus Valley civ in the same civ game). I'm not entirely sure about India being completely split between for example Maurya, Gupta, Chola, Pala and Maratha civs, I think it'd really serve better if India was a singular civ but with large amount of leaders representing its different empires, and eventual split would be reserved mainly for Muslim Indian sultanates, Nepal, Sri Lanka etc.

I mean... There is a reason why India is united since 1947 and despite its federalism has powerful sense of identity and unity...

Moderator Action: Please do not post separately from your vote. This is not a discussion thread -- it is game thread. If you want to add extended commentary you should only do so in the same post where you are voting. -- Browd

 

Separate post, to not clutter.

Assyria - 19
Byzantium - 13+1=14 well I think I explained myself above
Babylon - 17
Ethiopia - 29
Hittites - 15
Iroquois - 23
Maya - 31
Morocco - 27
Portugal - 29
Siam - 13-3=10

First, we have Khmer. Secondly, Siam was already in civ5, unlike Burma or Vietnam. Thirdly, I found both of these civs to be more interesting than Siam. I mean, Burma has a history few centuries longer than Siam, over the course of which it conquered most of continental South East Asia on two separate occasions, and its cultural achievements are comparable at least (personally I actually think even more significant). Vietnam is country with very badass underdog history - it is the only culture I know which managed to survive centuries of Chinese domination and emerge independent, defiant and with entirely separate identity; it's tiny country which managed to deal devastating tactical or strategic defeats to Chinese dynasties, Mongol Empire, Khmers, Thais, French and famously US (and afterwards it had still enough steam to defeat Chinese invasion and take down Khmer Rouge regime).

 

Assyria - 19
Byzantium - 15 = 14+1 I just have to throw the Byzantine Empire a bone here, especially after all of the talk that apparently it is "just a Greek colony" which is...untrue with regard to the Byzantine Empire, which was an evolution of the Roman Empire and not just another Greek City State. It also lasted longer than the Roman Empire (it IS the Roman Empire based on title and heritage, but really a different entity altogether), was around for 1,100 years, and was the key influencer of the near east for that time. I am also a Byzantophile so...
Babylon - 17
Ethiopia - 29
Hittites - 15
Iroquois - 23
Maya - 31
Morocco - 27
Portugal - 29
Siam - 7 = 10-3 At this point we're all down to 10 I would take easily, so it's hard. Of the 9 left, I find myself least invested in Siam, so I feel badly about down-voting it, but alas this is the rules of the game.

 

Assyria - 19
Byzantium - 15
Babylon - 17
Ethiopia - 29
Hittites - 15
Iroquois - 23
Maya - 31
Morocco - 28 (27+1) Explained below.
Portugal - 29
Siam - 4 (7-3) I want Vietnam. Read below.

Consider this: An expansion with added focus on exploration, colonialism and trade. It would justify the inclusion of:

- Portugal: Colonial Power
- Morocco: Renaissance, Trade Power. Ahmad Al-Mansur's rise to power is linked with the battle of Ksar El-Kabir, where three monarchs died: the two Moroccan claimants to the throne, but also the Portuguese King, which led to the start of the Iberian Union under... Philip II . It's all intertwined!
- Maya: Needs only one small element of design to relate to the period of Spanish aggression.
- Ethiopia (20th century) - Heavily focused on Anti-Colonialism and non-European Nationalism.
- Vietnam (20th century) - Heavily focused on Anti-Colonialism and non-European Nationalism.
- Native American Civ - Mild focus on Anti-colonialism. Like Maya, one element of design would suffice.
- Italy: Either as Colonial Power linked with Ethiopia, or as a Renaissance Trade Power.

 

Assyria - 19
Byzantium - 16 (15+1) I just like they're history.
Babylon - 17
Ethiopia - 26 (29-3) Sorry guys , but the list gets smaller and smaller so need to choose someone. And I think ethiopia atm has a bit to much pts. Also wasnt most fun of civs for me in Civ5
Hittites - 15
Iroquois - 23
Maya - 31
Morocco - 28
Portugal - 29
Siam - 4

 

Assyria - 19
Byzantium - 16
Babylon - 14 (17 - 3) Doesn't fit with VI's thesis. Also I would prefer Armenia
Ethiopia - 26
Hittites - 15
Iroquois - 23
Maya - 31
Morocco - 29 (28 + 1) - at this point this is the only civ besides the Maya I actually want.
Portugal - 29
Siam - 4

Moderator Action: Reminder: You should wait 24 hours between votes. Although there is some leeway for rounding, ~18 hours is too soon. -- Browd

 

Assyria - 19
Byzantium - 16
Babylon - 15 (14 + 1) - I don't really have any idea what Civ VI's thesis is, and I don't think they should win, but Babylon should easily be top 5 IMHO
Ethiopia - 26
Hittites - 15
Iroquois - 23
Maya - 31
Morocco - 29
Portugal - 29
Siam - 1 (4 - 3) - For those defending Siam, I don't really disagree with any of your points, but I have to vote someone down, and the region has other never-before-seen civs that would be really cool. Hopefully they'll win when we do this in advance of the 5th expansion