Slavic Nations/Leaders Civ6

[StEphan1989]

Apparently no other Slavic nations besides Russia exist, according to the choice of nations you are given. It's such a shame that every other group of people is represented in some way besides Slavs that only have Russia to play.
What are your thoughts on this? Will we ever see another Slavic civilization?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Poland is in Civ 5 and Civ 6.

 

[Zaarin]

As @Alexander's Hetaroi said, Poland has been in both Civ5 and Civ6 and seems very likely to continue to be a staple now. I hope to see them back in Civ7 led by Sigismund II Augustus, with an emphasis on their religious toleration and the Sejm. I've also been hoping for a Hussite Bohemian civ.

It's such a shame that every other group of people is represented in some way besides Slavs that only have Russia to play.

That's a bit of a stretch. Indeed, one might point out that after LP finishes and not counting personas there will be 33 Indo-European speaking leaders in the game; the only other language families that are represented by more than one civ (not leaders!) are Afroasiatic (at 7, including Mansa Musa of Mali whose native language was not Arabic; six of these are Semitic), Austronesian (at 4), and Bantu (at 2). No other language family is represented by more than one civ. Given that over half the civs in the game are representative of only four language families, obviously hundreds of language families and language isolates are completely unrepresented. And if we want to talk about the subfamilies of Indo-European, restricting ourselves solely to those still spoken, Albanian, Baltic, and Armenian are entirely unrepresented (and though extinct Anatolian is worth mentioning as well), and of families that are represented, East Germanic, many varieties of Romance (including, most notably, Italo-Dalmatic, i.e., Italian and Balkan Romance, i.e., Romanian), and Brythonic Celtic are lacking representation as well as South Slavic so...clearly not every other group of people has multiple civs representing them, even aside from the fact that Slavs do have two civs representing them.

 

[Krajzen]

As @Alexander's Hetaroi said, Poland has been in both Civ5 and Civ6 and seems very likely to continue to be a staple now.

As a Polish person myself (although I'm not sure how representative I am ) I'd be perfectly fine with Poland not being a staple, in general the less staples the series has the better as it makes rosters more unpredictable and flexible. Poland is just one of many Eastern European nations overlooked by the popular history as they have never been hegemonic great powers and just because it is, let's say, by far the biggest economy in the region today, it doesn't mean it always has to take the place of one more Czech, Czechoslovak, Hungarian, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, Albanian etc civilization. In the high medieval era Bohemia and Hungary were far more prominent, in the early medieval era - Bulgaria was mighty, Ukraine has a ton of potential for unique and exotic civilization, Skanderbeg was hell of a leader, Romania actually can represent 19th century as it was the only one remaining (mostly) independent in this era etc. And you can also try aiming at more obscure Slavic civilizations of very early era.

(edit, I have just realized I started talking about "Eastern Europe" instead of "Slavs", but well you get the idea, Slavic and non - Slavic peoples are quite culturally close and inhabit the same region, sharing the same "set of slots" in civ series)

 

[Xandinho]

Given that they tend to increase the number of civilizations in every game, I wouldn't have a problem of seeing Poland, Hungary, and Bohemia in the same game if we're getting something close to 60 civilizations. I particularly think that Polonia should be a staple and Hungary should appear often.

 

[Zaarin]

As a Polish person myself (although I'm not sure how representative I am ) I'd be perfectly fine with Poland not being a staple, in general the less staples the series has the better as it makes rosters more unpredictable and flexible. Poland is just one of many Eastern European nations overlooked by the popular history as they have never been hegemonic great powers and just because it is, let's say, by far the biggest economy in the region today, it doesn't mean it always has to take the place of one more Czech, Czechoslovak, Hungarian, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, Albanian etc civilization. In the high medieval era Bohemia and Hungary were far more prominent, in the early medieval era - Bulgaria was mighty, Ukraine has a ton of potential for unique and exotic civilization, Skanderbeg was hell of a leader, Romania actually can represent 19th century as it was the only one remaining (mostly) independent in this era etc. And you can also try aiming at more obscure Slavic civilizations of very early era.

(edit, I have just realized I started talking about "Eastern Europe" instead of "Slavs", but well you get the idea, Slavic and non - Slavic peoples are quite culturally close and inhabit the same region, sharing the same "set of slots" in civ series)

I get where you're coming from, but as Xandinho points out, as each iteration has more civs, I think, "Why not several of them?" is a valid stance. I'm all for having Late Medieval Bohemia, Early Modern Poland, and High Medieval Serbia, for example. I'd blithely hand them the place of our glut of postcolonial nations.

 

[Evie]

Or replace either Greece II (Macedon) or Greece III (Byz) with Serbia and use one of the new civ slot for Bohemia, there.

(I'd rather the colonial civs replacement stay on the same continent)

 

[Zaarin]

Or replace either Greece II (Macedon) or Greece III (Byz) with Serbia and use one of the new civ slot for Bohemia, there.

(I'd rather the colonial civs replacement stay on the same continent)

I'm not willing to sacrifice Byzantium but am more than happy to sacrifice Macedon. Actually, I'd delightedly sacrifice Rome for Byzantium and then we have two slots.

 

[Evie]

Yes, I was more looking at sacrificing Macedon too.

 

[Patine]

Given that they tend to increase the number of civilizations in every game, I wouldn't have a problem of seeing Poland, Hungary, and Bohemia in the same game if we're getting something close to 60 civilizations. I particularly think that Polonia should be a staple and Hungary should appear often.

Hungary is neither a Slavic civ nor even speaks an Indo-European language.

As @Alexander's Hetaroi said, Poland has been in both Civ5 and Civ6 and seems very likely to continue to be a staple now. I hope to see them back in Civ7 led by Sigismund II Augustus, with an emphasis on their religious toleration and the Sejm. I've also been hoping for a Hussite Bohemian civ.


That's a bit of a stretch. Indeed, one might point out that after LP finishes and not counting personas there will be 33 Indo-European speaking leaders in the game; the only other language families that are represented by more than one civ (not leaders!) are Afroasiatic (at 7, including Mansa Musa of Mali whose native language was not Arabic; six of these are Semitic), Austronesian (at 4), and Bantu (at 2). No other language family is represented by more than one civ.

This is, of course, if you casually dismiss the, "Altaic Language Family," theory.

 

[Zaarin]

This is, of course, if you casually dismiss the, "Altaic Language Family," theory.

As everyone does, except a few Russian fringe theorists like Starostin and Diakanoff. Who are both dead so I imagine it's much closer to just "everyone" now.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Or replace either Greece II (Macedon) or Greece III (Byz) with Serbia

I agree on that, Macedon and Byzantium should be out to give spot to others civilizations.
But, Instead of Serbians or Croatians in the civ, why not Yugoslavia lead by Tito?
That's solve the main issue of this thread of Slavic representation because Yugoslavia represent a bunch of states today.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Yes, I was more looking at sacrificing Macedon too.

Although I studied Macedonia and Alexander and Phillip pretty intensively for several years in school/graduate school, I can't really argue: Macedon in the classical period was simply Greece without Olive Oil (The Macedonian climate is just a hair too far north and non-Mediterranean for the Olive Tree to thrive - but even in Alexander's time Macedon was already known for some extremely good red wines).
Also, let's face it: it's a One Trick Pony, as Old World so graphically shows: you can tell exactly how well you are going to do playing "Greece" in OW by how long Phillip and his son Alexander last: if they live to ripe old ages, it's a romp to victory; if they die young, it's an uphill struggle. That's Macedon in a nutshell, it's all about two extremely good Leaders and their military system, but it's a stretch to find anything else to build the Civ around.

 

[pineappledan]

Hard to justify dropping the 3rd largest land empire ever, though I could see an argument for Kievan Rus taking Russia’s place for 1 game. I think based on the civ 5 and civ 6 designs for Poland, the devs don’t have many good ideas for what Poland should do, so maybe they could try their hand at a Bohemian civ.

 

[Patine]

I agree on that, Macedon and Byzantium should be out to give spot to others civilizations.
But, Instead of Serbians or Croatians in the civ, why not Yugoslavia lead by Tito?
That's solve the main issue of this thread of Slavic representation because Yugoslavia represent a bunch of states today.

I would be for dropping Macedon, but not the Byzantine Empire, and certainly not both.

You really seem stuck on 20th Century Communists/Revolutionary Socialists, don't you?

Hard to justify dropping the 3rd largest land empire ever, though I could see an argument for Kievan Rus taking Russia’s place for 1 game.

This would be a great compromise to computer gaming taking sides and politicizing in current events, as the Kievan 'Rus is equally ancestral to Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarussians.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Although I studied Macedonia and Alexander and Phillip pretty intensively for several years in school/graduate school, I can't really argue: Macedon in the classical period was simply Greece without Olive Oil (The Macedonian climate is just a hair too far north and non-Mediterranean for the Olive Tree to thrive - but even in Alexander's time Macedon was already known for some extremely good red wines).
Also, let's face it: it's a One Trick Pony, as Old World so graphically shows: you can tell exactly how well you are going to do playing "Greece" in OW by how long Phillip and his son Alexander last: if they live to ripe old ages, it's a romp to victory; if they die young, it's an uphill struggle. That's Macedon in a nutshell, it's all about two extremely good Leaders and their military system, but it's a stretch to find anything else to build the Civ around.

And thus Macedonians are still considered 'Greeks' and thus not deserving a place as separate civ to Greece?
There were actually more interesting Leaders of Greeks than Alexander III, Leonidas, Gorgo and Pericles. Also Alexander's army did make extensive uses of Greek Hoplites in addition to standard Pezhetairoi ('Pikemen' of the Classical Era, whom wore less armor and wielded smaller roundshield so they could also wield pikes easier.)
Modern Greeks also displeased with a Slavic nation of former Yugoslavia simply claimed the name Macedonia for their domain. this partularly due to the fact that slavic people came to Balkans late even compared to Goths and Magyars. (I'm not sure if Gothic people now became Italians?)

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

More on Slavic civs candidate
1. I'm not sure if Ukrainians are considered one but current geopolitical situations seemed to convince me so that they deserved a place as separate civ to Russia. to this end it could mean that Russians couldn't use Cossacks anymore (They ain't represent the entirety of Imperial Russian Cavalry Corps. Imperial Russia do have myriads of 'regular' cavalry of similiar brands to other Europeans. not just 'regular' cavalry or something as lackluster as Dragoons (organized as infantry actually, yes Russian Dragoons under Peter I were mounted infantrymen which suits their needs of mobile units to do all jobs of BOTH infantry and cavalry because Russia under his reign was expanding FAST, and being least prestigious unit means they get civilian grade horses and not warhorses), they had the same Hussars (labelled and dressed as such, same role as ultralight sword cavalry), Cuirassiers, and even Reiters! (heavily armored pistoliers, originally 'Reiters' and 'Cuirassiers' were same heavycav units which Reiter came first and usually composed of Germans). Also Cossacks were organized differently to generic cavalry.
If Ukraine is gonna be here.
- UU: Cossack lancer (debut earlier)
- UI: Sich
In this case Russia should get
- Streltsy: Depending on game rules (1UPT or stackings), Streltsy is firepower infantry that have somewhat anticavalry factors.
2. Serbs: I knew very little about them or how good they are
3. Croats: I'm not sure if they deserve a place as a full civ or a CS of Zagreb that permits plaeyer to recruit Cravats (A brand of ultralight raider merc cavalry, hired primarily by Austrians and sometimes by French. a type of neckwear which becomes prominent in 18th century is their creation and quickly named after them)

 

[Henri Christophe]

You really seem stuck on 20th Century Communists/Revolutionary Socialists, don't you?

Not exactly, I like communist leaders and I think should be cool to the game have at least one communist leader. And of all communist leaders I think TIto is the best to be a civ leader, because he represents a lot of slavic people.

Ukrainians

Ukranian should be a nice choice if the war still happens when civ7 is released, as a way of this game get a political position. And I say more, Ukraine should be included and Russia excluded of CIv 7.
Should be excluded because both are very similar and Russia is the agressor country.

 

[Patine]

Ukranian should be a nice choice if the war still happens when civ7 is released, as a way of this game get a political position. And I say more, Ukraine should be included and Russia excluded of CIv 7.
Should be excluded because both are very similar and Russia is the agressor country.

This is exactly the sort of toxic, politicized marketing I was hoping to avoid when I instead endorsed the Kievan 'Rus. When these kinds of games play RL politics, they lose fans, but tend not to gain new ones. Like when Professional Sports does it. The Civ series has done a stellar job on not wading into modern politics in contentious ways (only cutting WW2 and Cold War monsters from leader positions, but that's not current politics), and they shouldn't throw that policy away for some gesture that will probably cost them significantly, but not gain them tangibly (either on this one, or some future crisis)

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

Poor Tai-Kadai has 0 representation, as do Dravidian languages and Tibeto-Burman...