Second Leaders: Which Civs Need Them?

[Patine]

Of those, we might have a snowball's chance of the Sabaeans and the Goths.

Being from Yemen, the Sabaeans represent an area that hasn't ever been featured before.

And of course the Goths are quite well-known. They'd be easier to do than the Huns, certainly.

The Minoan language is unfortunately not yet deciphered, so they're out. I don't foresee Mycenae coming because we already have three playable Greeces.

The Etruscans would be hard because we only sort of understand their language, and we need to differentiate them sufficiently from the later Romans.

As for Lydia, good luck. It's been an uphill battle just to get Firaxis to consider the more well-known Hittites from the same region.

I'd count my lucky stars and jump for joy if we even got 2/3 of the civs on my list.

I think the Huns also kind of suffer from the fact that in most iterations of Civ (possibly all of them - I haven't specifically checked) "Attila" is the default name (with no leader traits or portrait, just a name) of the "leader of the Barbarians," or, later, the unsettled Barbarians before city-states and such are formed. Effectively, the enemy and anathema of "all civilization, all who build cities, farm land, map roads, practice commerce, industry, and peaceful endeavour, and value knowledge and science," etc. That rough role Sid Meier more or less put him in back since Civ1 has kind of sabotaged any serious path to trace him as a legitimate civ leader in and of self, even despite an almost unattested language, no clear consensus of place of origin or religion (though many believe they were an early Atheist culture - and Ensemble Studios' Age of Kings portrays them as such - but this has yet to be firmly verified), etc.

 

[fredrikslicer]

The Etruscans would be hard because we only sort of understand their language, and we need to differentiate them sufficiently from the later Romans.

As a shortcut we could have the Kings of Rome in the game they were etruscan after all

 

[Patine]

As a shortcut we could have the Kings of Rome in the game they were etruscan after all

Six of them were. The highly mythologized (possibly non-existent) Romulus, founder and First King of Rome has very nebulous origins in his legends, with some of them even saying his grandfather was a surviving Trojan, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[fredrikslicer]

Six of them were. The highly mythologized (possibly non-existent) Romulus, founder and First King of Rome has very nebulous origins in his legends, with some of them even saying his grandfather was a surviving Trojan, if I'm not mistaken.

Seven and yes highly mythologized but then again so is Gilgamesh who we are only kind of certain existed...maybe

 

[Zaarin]

Seven and yes highly mythologized but then again so is Gilgamesh who we are only kind of certain existed...maybe

Definitely existed, probably didn't go on a heroic quest for immortality. But yeah, we don't know much about him beyond "he existed."

 

[halfhalfharp]

I don't recall using the term "advanced." But there are several ancient and classical civs that I would like to see.

Here are just a few:

Babylon - ancient
Assyria - ancient
Hittites - ancient
Maya - mostly classical
Carthage - classical
Gaul - classical
Palmyra - classical
Byzantium - classical/medieval
Ethiopia/Aksum - classical/medieval/modern

Those are reasonable suggestions. I would be very happy to see them too, although I will contribute Byzantine to Medieval more than Classical. I will suggest the Olmec (currently la Venta CS) as one of the ancients too.

Actually I cant really distinguish the Sumers, the Babylonians, the Assyrians and the Akkadians some how. I know they are related but yet different. Shall we give them a bit general representive, like Sumer representing Babylon or Assyria representing Akkadian? Or make them all distinct civs?

 

[fredrikslicer]

Definitely existed, probably didn't go on a heroic quest for immortality. But yeah, we don't know much about him beyond "he existed."

I wasn´t aware that we could be that certain on the subject matter

Regardless I would like to see alternative leaders for the scythians preferably the ones that ruled in India

 

[halfhalfharp]

Regardless I would like to see alternative leaders for the scythians preferably the ones that ruled in India

Indian Scythians? wow thats new and interesting.

 

[fredrikslicer]

Indian Scythians? wow thats new and interesting.

They entered into india around 2 century BC and lasted till the 4th century CE and had an empire of some size

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Scythians

 

[fredrikslicer]

Those are reasonable suggestions. I would be very happy to see them too, although I will contribute Byzantine to Medieval more than Classical. I will suggest the Olmec (currently la Venta CS) as one of the ancients too.

Actually I cant really distinguish the Sumers, the Babylonians, the Assyrians and the Akkadians some how. I know they are related but yet different. Shall we give them a bit general representive, like Sumer representing Babylon or Assyria representing Akkadian? Or make them all distinct civs?

Sumerians were distinct from Babylonians, Assyrians and Akkadians though the later 3 do owe a lot to the Summerins

One could simply just surmize the later three under "Mesopotamian" or "Semitic"

 

[The Kingmaker]

Sumerians were distinct from Babylonians, Assyrians and Akkadians though the later 3 do owe a lot to the Summerins

One could simply just surmize the later three under "Mesopotamian" or "Semitic"

There's many other "Mesopotamian" cultures you'd be lumping in though.

Same with "Semitic." Arabs, Hebrews, Phoenicians, Aramaeans, Amorites, all Semitic.

 

[halfhalfharp]

Sumerians were distinct from Babylonians, Assyrians and Akkadians though the later 3 do owe a lot to the Summerins

One could simply just surmize the later three under "Mesopotamian" or "Semitic"

Agree. They are culturally intertwined. Mesopotamia will be a blurry and yet general term to describe them well.

But I think Sumerians are not Semitic. The language itself is an isolate from Semitic language. The later Akkadians who were semitic adopted its culture and cuniforms into their civilization. And then Akkadian somehow derived into Babylon and Assyria but Assyria also conquered Babylon (um?).... That always rises my confusion when I see them around.

 

[Patine]

Agree. They are culturally intertwined. Mesopotamia will be a blurry and yet general term to describe them well.

But I think Sumerians are not Semitic. The language itself is an isolate from Semitic language. The later Akkadians who were semitic adopted its culture and cuniforms into their civilization. And then Akkadian somehow derived into Babylon and Assyria but Assyria also conquered Babylon (um?).... That always rises my confusion when I see them around.

There's also the fact that Babylonia had two main periods of greatness - the first under Hammurabi and his dynasty, who were Amorites, and the second, after an interval of around two millennia, under Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezar II, who were Chaldeans. There was also a Babylonian period somewhere between those two who were Kassites, but they weren't on records for as notable "greatness," if you will, as the other two.

 

[halfhalfharp]

There's also the fact that Babylonia had two main periods of greatness - the first under Hammurabi and his dynasty, who were Amorites, and the second, after an interval of around two millennia, under Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezar II, who were Chaldeans. There was also a Babylonian period somewhere between those two who were Kassites, but they weren't on records for as notable "greatness," if you will, as the other two.

Very informative. I know that there are lots of up and down in those kingdoms. As I remember, the dynasty that Nebu II held was the neo-Babylon dynasty right?

But what I am wondering is, shall we take all these variations (Babylonia, Assyria, Akkadia, Sumeria, Elam, Amorites, Cannaites, Kassites, and so on) into entirely different civs?

How should we filter them if some of them are really interchanging?

For example, if we are looking for a alt leader for Sumer, many will think in the direction of Sargon of Akkadia and Babylon, etc. Is this acceptable, considering how they render a similar case, i.e. Sparta and Athens into Greece in the game?

 

[Siptah]

Very informative. I know that there are lots of up and down in those kingdoms. As I remember, the dynasty that Nebu II held was the neo-Babylon dynasty right?

But what I am wondering is, shall we take all these variations (Babylonia, Assyria, Akkadia, Sumeria, Elam, Amorites, Cannaites, Kassites, and so on) into entirely different civs?

How should we filter them if some of them are really interchanging?

For example, if we are looking for a alt leader for Sumer, many will think in the direction of Sargon of Akkadia and Babylon, etc. Is this acceptable, consider how they render a similar case, i.e. Sparta and Athens into Greece in the game?

Firaxis did well with the three they selected so far. I think most people would agree that Assyria, Babylonia and the Sumerian city states are the ones that stick out most. However, which of those should be prioritized varies for different persons. I think choosing Sumeria first is a no-brainer for civ VI, since they haven't been in V and the other two have. In my personal opinion, they are also the most important and interesting of the three (partially due to being the oldest). I'd do Assyria next, since they are - again, to me - more different and interesting than Babylonia. They are often reduced to warmongers, which is indeed an important aspect, but not all that is to them. If you'd ask a crowd, they'd probably name Babylonia first, since it is the best known to a wide public. This has to do with several reasons that are mostly connected to the reception of history in the last centuries and not with the history of Babylonia itself (such as not being completely forgotten, being a major actor in the Bible, being the equivalent of the birth of civilization for a long time [the latter leads again to some more reasons and causes that are not up-to-date anymore]). I certainly don't want to bash Babylonia or reject its inclusion. I just wanted to argue why I think Sumer was a good first choice, and Assyria should come next. These three civs are also distinct enough to get in separately and not just as alternate leaders of Sumeria or a Mesopotamia blob civ. Having Sargon lead Sumer is not without problems and concerns, but probably feasible.

It also doesn't mean that a more out of the box choice would be a bad pick. Elamites or a Canaanite City State civ could be quite interesting to have.

 

[halfhalfharp]

I think choosing Sumeria first is a no-brainer for civ VI, since they haven't been in V and the other two have. In my personal opinion, they are also the most important and interesting of the three (partially due to being the oldest).

Indeed, I agree that Sumeria is more interesting than the rest. Apart from being ancient, the Sumers were never described by bible or text from other civilizations. The discovery of this civilization was based on the archeological effort so Sumeria really did stand out than the rest. But that doesn't stop public opinion from addressing Babylon and Assyria as "Sumerian" IMAO. Thats why I support your liking to Sumer.

I'd do Assyria next, since they - again, to me - more different and interesting Babylonia. They are often reduced to warmongers, which is indeed an important aspect, but not all that is to them. If you'd ask a crowd, they'd probably name Babylonia first, since it is the best known to a wide public. This has to do with several reasons that are mostly connected to the reception of history in the last centuries and not with the history of Babylonia itself (such as not being completely forgotten, being a major actor in the Bible, being the equivalent of the birth of civilization for a long time [the latter leads again to some more reasons and causes that are not up-to-date anymore]). I certainly don't want to bash Babylonia or reject its inclusion.

If you are asking me for supporting Babylon or Assyria, I probably will weight them equally.
Both of them have a tarnished reputation in the bible. While Assyria has a more outstanding warlike impression, Babylon has an exceptional place in western world as a whore.
Assyria obviously has a vivid stereotype and can make an interesting niche in the game.
Although we surely don't want to see it as a city of Whores, Babylon still has a shining character, considering the Hammurabi's codex, the grand city planning and the gates and walls of Babylon.
Thus they are all welcome to me.

It also doesn't mean that a more out of the box choice would be a bad pick. Elamites or a Canaanite City State civ could be quite interesting to have.

Surely they are also nice additions. Possibly I will choose Carthage to represent Phoenicia and part of the Canaan, or also Israel/Judah for the Levant.

 

[fredrikslicer]

There's many other "Mesopotamian" cultures you'd be lumping in though.

Same with "Semitic." Arabs, Hebrews, Phoenicians, Aramaeans, Amorites, all Semitic.

Its a shortcut I know but I think it would be easier than asking for a slew of different mesopotamia baased civs

 

[The Kingmaker]

I would ask for Sumer, Assyria and Babylon. All three.

Sumer of course was the earliest and is a language-isolate.

Babylon and Assyria were founded later by Semitic peoples and each was a major civ in its own right.

We've got Brazil, Scotland and Australia now, we can afford to give the great empires of antiquity their dues.

 

[Zaarin]

I wouldn't have a problem with Babylon and Assyria being treated as a single civilization with separate leaders. They were culturally, linguistically, and religiously very, very close, and if you look at the Babylonian king list you'll see the Assyrian kings listed there as well. I would have a problem with lumping in Sumer, Elam, Mitanni, Urartu, Canaan, or any other non-Akkadian-speaking civ. I wouldn't even be a fan of lumping in Akkad (sorry, Sargon).

 

[The Kingmaker]

Changing the subject back to second leaders, I expect any further second leaders will go to civs off the following list:

Egypt
Rome
China
America
England
Germany
France
Russia

I don't expect second leaders for DLC or XP civs or for more obscure offerings like Scythia or Brazil.

I wouldn't have expected a second leader for Spain, but they at least started to make one. No idea whether Isabella will actually be released though.