Second Leaders: Which Civs Need Them?

While I'm all for more civs indigenous to the New World, in what possible way are the Taino more significant than...any civ in Mesopotamia, really?

The problem is that everything about the Sumeria civ as it currently stands is all about "Gilgamesh and Enkidu at Uruk." Even an alternate leader like Gudea or Sargon couldn't make Sumeria less...Gilgabro.

 

Also, I don't know why people say the Middle East is overcrowded. It has two civs: Sumer and Persia, and that's it.

The Arabs are based out of North Africa this time, so they're a .5 at best.

The Middle East is roughly the size of Europe, which, last I checked, had approximately a billion civs.

We need more civs in:

North America
South America
Near East Asia
Far East Asia
Africa
Oceania

 

I think we have Far East Asia pretty well covered now--only civ I can think of left there would be Manchuria/Jurchens, and...I think I can live without them. But Central Asia is still pretty empty (hello, Sogdiana). It would surprise me, but I wouldn't object to seeing another civ from Southeast Asia. Personally I really like Siam, but I suspect we'd get Vietnam instead, already having two India-influenced SEA civs. I agree with the rest, though.

 

Well I guess more appropriately the greater Arawak civilization deserves more mention, since it seems quite likely that the Taino originated somewhere in the Colombia/Venezuela region. But settling the majority of the Caribbean and reaching as far north as the Tekesta tribe in Florida is pretty substantial pre-colonial exploration, tantamount if comparable to the Polynesians and Norwegians/Danes. The language can be somewhat reconstructed from attestation and other Arawakan languages, and in fact lives on in at least a couple dozen words common to English and the Iberian languages.

So, excluding all the superficial spectacle like "naval civ," "Native American civ," "empty spot on the map civ," they actually have a far more enduring legacy than something as fleeting as Palmyra. And then, when you add in all the more unique factors, the only civ the Taino are remotely similar to are the Maori/Tongan/Hawaiian voyagers. I can't say the same for the Assyrians, Akkadians, Hittites, Medes, Palmyrans. Taino were the first to reach the Caribbean, and they were the only people to hold it until the arrival of colonial powers. That's like at least worth a Beothuk and Wabanaki combined, plus a Haida for reaching North America. We can argue whether that's enough to merit being a civ, but I'm pretty sure it's at least more than being in a short-lived *****-slap fest with Babylon, and certainly more than being led by Zenobia for five seconds.

You say that, but look at all the wondrous good Chandragupta has been doing for India. He's even made Persia obsolete.

We need Oman. And Turkey. And maybe Phoenicia. Babylon...eh, it can wait. Serves it right for coming so late to the party.

 

I actually think the Ainu might be a dark horse civ. For one, Japan in VI is represented by a leader who only controlled Honshu, and only has two cities on Hokkaido. For two, if the devs are still convinced they just can't do Inuit (*cough*Gilgabro*cough*), they might look to something like the Ainu (or Sibir, or Sakha, or Sami) as an alternative. The Ainu would be an easy civ to make, they have at least a few leaders like Shakushain. They also have the same sort of "civil rights/independence" draw that Scotland, Mapuche, Cree, and Bavaria have. I could live with it I guess, now that I've pulled back expectations in line with the reality of R&F as a manifesto in defense of small, obstinately independent nation-states.

Of course, again, I only tolerate the Ainu because they support my pro-Tibet agenda.

 

We can have both. Babylon and Sumer both are important in their own way. Sumer was considered one of the "cradle of civilization" if not the first. Babylon arose later and became one of the dominant unified kingdoms in the region alongside Assyria, which I hope would make it as well since Assyria eventually covered more land.
And Byzantium and Austria are just as influential. Byzantines were more than just a second Rome. They survived long after Rome fell and were very influential in preserving both Roman and Greek culture during the medieval era. Austria as well is more than just Germany 2.0. They were a world superpower for a while and were ruled by one of the most influential houses of Europe.

 

I got an A in AP Euro. Years and years ago. These highlights you 'splained are far from obscure information.

I'm arguing that Civ VI has a very different agenda than previous civs. Old Civ was just a tour of high school history. New Civ is about expanding minds beyond the limited depiction of history we get in high school. To show us how the world actually developed rather than just buying this simplistic narrative that Mediterranean empires settled Europe and European powers just populated the rest of the world. That narrative is boring and has been told no less than five times by Firaxis.

Furthermore, Austria was only a European superpower, and not for very long in the grand scheme of things. They are about as relevant as Prussia. Or Bulgaria. Or Sweden. Or Denmark. And only barely moreso than Hungary. Or Lithuania. It was a flash in the pan compared to Scotland, the Netherlands, even Georgia.

We all can craft arguments for why civs deserve to be in the game, but many of them, like yours with Austria, only stand up in a vacuum. In the context of other European civs, and especially with respect to Civ VI's new design philosophy, Austria is underwhelming. The only thing besides Maria Theresa it has that it can definitively call its own is the waltz. Oh wait, it can't even do that now because Australia is the waltzing civ now.

I'm not even addressing Byzantium, because I can't stoop to that level of unimaginativeness right now. Really, if you want Austria, Byzantium, Babylon, and the Celts, just go play Civ V some more.

 

I'm not denying that any of these Civs deserve being in the game maybe as some form, although Prussia seems to fit in more with Germany now and Lithuania is sort of lumped with Poland. I mean Austria, Sweden and Denmark made Civ 5 for some reason or another. There's no reason why they realistically couldn't although Denmark might be harder unless they go with non-Viking Denmark.
I can see Austria being a both a cultural powerhouse and somebody that plays well with diplomacy if led by Maria Theresa. Plus I'm not going to deny that Scotland, the Netherlands and Georgia shouldn't be in either. I actually wanted the Dutch as the next European Civ. I would also like Italy too, then Austria, then the Byzantines etc. Scotland can be the "Celtic" civ if they want it too, but they can also go for an earlier classical option as well. There's just too many good options in Europe, and non-European as well.
It's also hard for me to play civ 5 when I don't actually own it. I'll leave it at that.

 

I don't agree mixing Sumer with Babylon and Assyria. Sumer stands on her own, both in sense of historical reference and current CUA design.
I will suggest separate them all into 3 civs, if we are going to add them.
Or we'd better not invite them back if they have to be mixed in this way...

 

I'm not saying to mix them. Quite the opposite in fact. The best Mesopotamian civ = many Mesopotamian civs.

 

No, except Shang. The chinese viewed themselves as the continuation of Shang and Qin and etc. So a Shang civ will not make sesne.
No Assyrian claimed their cultural lineage from Babylonians or vice versa.

 

Ohhh then I am almost enthusiastic to see a lovely European civ lol, surely will be the best.
And Japan + China + Korean = many eastern asian civs.
That should make space for Bulgarian, Chola, and many other specific civs.
Can we really mix them like this?

Oh my misreading. Surely separate them is the best

 

I do think a Shang leader would be better as a part of the Chinese civilization because:

1) The Chinese trace their heritage through them, and
2) the Chinese market is touchy about its history and developers actively try not to offend them.

My point was not that it should be done, but that it possessed all of the components necessary so that it could hypothetically be done.

 

Yes, I was saying I would like to see Sumer and Babylon and Assyria as playable civs.

 

Of course it could be done, if Firaxis likes lol, although I can be quite sure that it will not please the market.
However, its not about offensive to make a Shang leader. Its about the mythological nature of Shang Dynasty.
Chineses' historical knowledge of this dynasty vastly came from a novel called the The Investiture of the Gods. (as the name suggested, a myth)
before archeological effort confirmed Shang's existence.

Chinese will directly categorize any Shang leader into a mythical entity, much like Gilgamesh, and will quickly start to ask where are the real historically powerful leader...

Personally Shang leader will not be a disgrace, but we'd better stick to something safer like Wuzetian, Tang Taizo, Yongle, etc.

 

I feel like a lot of the mesopotamian civs should be mutually exclusive to one another simply because 1) their city lists would overlap too much and 2) it's difficult to find unique buildings/infrastructure beyond the obvious Ziggurat. The "Royal Library" and "Walls of Babylon" of Civ5 were insipid choices, no more of that crap please.

Those are the only reasons, really. You can definitely find a niche for each of them (Assyria = culture/conquest/loyalty, Babylon: science/production/defences) and their militaries are well documented enough to to find fun UUs (as opposed to the BOWMAN ). You can definitely add one of Assyria or Babylon to the game without much of a hitch (ideally Assyria since Babylon is a city state) and the other is best left to the modding community.

Or maybe the devs will surprise us and throw in the Akkadians as a substitute for Babylon, or Mitanni as a substitute for Assyria. Or give a Parthian/Sassanid alt leader to Persia. The options are endless.

DEFINITELY NOT A MESOPOTAMIAN BLOB CIV THOUGH. ::

 

I feel like Firaxis kind of phoned it in with its Mesopotamian civs in Civ5.

I'd do it a bit more like this:

Babylon
Leader: Hammurabi or Nebuchadnezzar
UU: Asharittu (could be either a heavy bowman or heavy spearman)
UI: Kudurru (boundary stele, pushes culture expansion at borders)

Assyria
Leader: Sennacherib or Shammuramat
UU: Qurubuti (royal elites, I'd make it a horse archer) or Huradu (also an elite)
UB: Eduba (scribal school, improved library or university)

 

Why not the siege towers for the UU? I think there is rarely an early siege unique in Civ VI so its worthy for siege towers to fill that gap.

btw I did create a Shammuramat thread in the past(https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/new-civilization-idea-assyria.625729/#post-14956880) if you would like to have a look

My design of Assyria is a power that gains from city capture while being good at it.

And Shammuramat is a warring cultural leader on top of the kit.

 

I would like Ashurbanipal again personally. We haven't had a great works collector yet and he would fit the bill, maybe gaining combat strength against another opponent who has a great work because well he liked to conquer other people and put those writings in his Royal Library.
And yes to a UU siege tower but comes earlier and can maybe combine it into a battering ram as well taking out the walls. This might be overpowering though.

 

The horse archer is iconic in Assyrian art and IMHO ought to be seen. Terrifying and nigh unstoppable at its heyday.

A siege tower UU is very situational but I could see it if say, Sennacherib had it is part of a leader ability. Call it "Siege of Lachish" or "Great Besieger" or some such.