Unoffical Civ VI poll. Vote for your 3 civs you would most like to see. Part V : Eastern Asia

[Please read the description before voting] Which 3 civlizations would you like to see in game ?

  • Bhutan

    Votes: 8 9.4%
  • Brunei

    Votes: 2 2.4%
  • Burma (or Taungoo)

    Votes: 36 42.4%
  • Champa

    Votes: 4 4.7%
  • Another chinese dynasty as a seprate civ (Han, Tang, Ming, Qing, ...)

    Votes: 12 14.1%
  • Laos (or Lan Xang)

    Votes: 3 3.5%
  • Malaysia (or Malay)

    Votes: 9 10.6%
  • Manchuria

    Votes: 3 3.5%
  • Philippines

    Votes: 27 31.8%
  • Manchuria

    Votes: 2 2.4%
  • Singapore

    Votes: 8 9.4%
  • Taiwanese aborigenes (or Gaoshan)

    Votes: 1 1.2%
  • Thailand (or Siam)

    Votes: 45 52.9%
  • Vietnam

    Votes: 61 71.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 4 4.7%
  • Chukchi

    Votes: 2 2.4%
  • Koryaks

    Votes: 1 1.2%
  • Ainu

    Votes: 3 3.5%

  • Total voters
    85
Because every Southeast Asian civ added is taking the place of a Middle Eastern or Native American civ that could have been added. :p

I don't think they are taking places from the Middle Eastern or Native American Civs. :p How many more Middle Eastern Civs will be added? Babylon, Ottomans, and maybe a third one. I'm betting on only 2 North Amerindian Civs in Civ6, only you are referring to all the Amerindians including the Maya and the Inca.
 
I don't think they are taking places from the Middle Eastern or Native American Civs. :p How many more Middle Eastern Civs will be added? Babylon, Ottomans, and maybe a third one. I'm betting on only 2 North Amerindian Civs in Civ6, only you are referring to all the Amerindians including the Maya and the Inca.
Yes, but in my ideal Civ the Ancient Middle East and Indigenous North America would make Europe look sparse, and my Medieval Europe would still look about like Ed Beach's. :p Conversely, I don't really need a crowded Southeast Asia. Two are honestly enough for me--I'd rather see more alternate leaders (yes, plural, so please you) for China, if I'm honest.
 
Yes, but in my ideal Civ the Ancient Middle East and Indigenous North America would make Europe look sparse, and my Medieval Europe would still look about like Ed Beach's. :p Conversely, I don't really need a crowded Southeast Asia. Two are honestly enough for me--I'd rather see more alternate leaders (yes, plural, so please you) for China, if I'm honest.

How many Civs would you give the Ancient Middle East and Indigenous North America each? :p
I think SE Asia is underrated. It's very diverse in cultures and languages. To an outsider, they seem very similar, but most European nations seem similar to me.:p I don't really want alternate leaders for China, since they won't add much difference to the Civ, only their leader ability/agenda will be different.
 
Last edited:
How many Civs would you give the Ancient Middle East and Indigenous North America each? :p
...A lot. Babylon, Assyria, Akkad, Elam, Mitanni, Hittites, Kassites, Amorites, Israel, Phoenicia, Aram, Sumer, Egypt (three leaders), Nubia, Ancient Libya, Carthage, Achaemenid Persia, Sassanid Persia, Parthia, Ugarit, Philistia...Gotta have them all. :p I'd probably be happy with 5 Native North American civs + Maya, Mixtec or Zapotec, and Aztec + Inca + rotating guest South American civ (Civ6 had Mapuche, so we can go for Muisca next) for the New World.
 
...A lot. Babylon, Assyria, Akkad, Elam, Mitanni, Hittites, Kassites, Amorites, Israel, Phoenicia, Aram, Sumer, Egypt (three leaders), Nubia, Ancient Libya, Carthage, Achaemenid Persia, Sassanid Persia, Parthia, Ugarit, Philistia...Gotta have them all. :p I'd probably be happy with 5 Native North American civs + Maya, Mixtec or Zapotec, and Aztec + Inca + rotating guest South American civ (Civ6 had Mapuche, so we can go for Muisca next) for the New World.

What languages will the Kassites, Amorites, ancient Libyan, and Philistine leaders speak? :p I don't think those languages are well attested. You forgot Yemen/Saba.....
 
What languages will the Kassites, Amorites, ancient Libyan, and Philistine leaders speak? :p I don't think those languages are well attested. You forgot Yemen/Saba.....
Yes, add Saba, speaking a Modern South Arabian language if necessary. Kassites will speak either Hurrian or Sumerian. Amorites will speak Canaanite/Hebrew. Ancient Libyans can speak a Berber language. Philistines speak Hittite. Solved. ;)
 
Yes, add Saba, speaking a Modern South Arabian language if necessary. Kassites will speak either Hurrian or Sumerian. Amorites will speak Canaanite/Hebrew. Ancient Libyans can speak a Berber language. Philistines speak Hittite. Solved. ;)

Why would the Philistines speak Hittite? Because they were Indo-Europeans?
 
Why would the Philistines speak Hittite? Because they were Indo-Europeans?
It is theorized that they were Anatolians, yes, based on some linguistic elements in their names and the fact that they didn't practice circumcision, unlike their Semitic neighbors (the Hebrews practiced infant circumcision, but the other Canaanites still practiced adolescent circumcision). And Hittite is better attested than most Anatolian languages, making it the logical choice.
 
Yes, but in my ideal Civ the Ancient Middle East and Indigenous North America would make Europe look sparse, and my Medieval Europe would still look about like Ed Beach's. :p Conversely, I don't really need a crowded Southeast Asia. Two are honestly enough for me--I'd rather see more alternate leaders (yes, plural, so please you) for China, if I'm honest.
Honestly I agree that the two we got might be it, and they would have been my first two picks for the region anyway. However if we do get another I think it would be Vietnam which is my first choice because it would be more unique and different than say Siam would be from the Khmer.
Plus East Asia getting pretty full now if you include SE Asia. I would rather them start focusing more on Africa and the Americas now. :)
 
Yes, but in my ideal Civ the Ancient Middle East and Indigenous North America would make Europe look sparse, and my Medieval Europe would still look about like Ed Beach's. :p Conversely, I don't really need a crowded Southeast Asia. Two are honestly enough for me--I'd rather see more alternate leaders (yes, plural, so please you) for China, if I'm honest.
Well, it may simply be because you have a better affinity with Middle-eastern and northern american civs. If it were for me, Burma, Vietnam, Siam and Malay would all be added, along with Babylon, Assyria, Yemen, the Hittites, Phoenicia (and Turkey, of course). However, for northern native american civs, there would not be more than 2 or 3, as I simply don't have a great affinity with them.
 
That and it's kind of a small area to have four civs to be in the game.

Southeast Asia is deceptively big, don't let the Mercator Projection fool you. End-to-end, It's comparable in size to Europe or the Middle East proper. Sure, there's a lot more water, but there's plenty of scope for another couple of civs. However I agree with others that my priorities would have these extra civs in the (much larger and less-represented) continents of North & South America and Africa.
 
Well, it may simply be because you have a better affinity with Middle-eastern and northern american civs. If it were for me, Burma, Vietnam, Siam and Malay would all be added, along with Babylon, Assyria, Yemen, the Hittites, Phoenicia (and Turkey, of course). However, for northern native american civs, there would not be more than 2 or 3, as I simply don't have a great affinity with them.
Absolutely. Bronze/Iron Age Near East, Medieval Europe (mostly High Medieval), and Native North America are essentially my key interests in history, with a side thing for China and Korea that I haven't explored as deeply as the other three.
 
Not very familiar with the area, I've picked Siam, Vietnam and Philippines.
 
Not very familiar with the area, I've picked Siam, Vietnam and Philippines.

Wikipedia is a decent place to start. :p I do think SE Asia won't receive any more Civs (despite me wishing for more).
 
Top Bottom