Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Liufeng, Apr 30, 2018.
That, and Carthage was a colony
Given how precious little we know of the pre-Islamic Berbers, I think you can rest assured that a Berber civ would either be the Almohad caliphate (which, if that's the only way we get al-Andalus, I'm all for) or an Islamic era Berber tribe like the Tuareg. I suppose Ancient Numidia led by Juba I might be an option--but I'm not sure what language we'd have him speak. Anachronistically Shawiya Berber, perhaps?
I was more thinking about Dihya Tadmut, the berber queen who unified many tribes to counter the islamic Caliphate.
Modern berber, especially the kabyle dialect could work since Dihya originated from there.
Juba and Massinissa spoke ancient Libyc which are unknown languages today.
We know the language they spoke was Berber (or perhaps Para-Berber), but Numidian is pretty poorly attested.
Yes i'm okay with a muslim Mali, Africa has Nubia, Zulus, Egypt and Kongo as pre-colonial and ancient civs, so I would like to see a post-islamic era berber civ too.
And Carthage would be the colonial berber era and Mali the islamic one.
You can't really describe Carthage or Mali as Berber civs: while Berber-speaking peoples lived in those Empires, and remain in the modern countries today, the ruling classes were Punic and Mandinka, respectively.
I think Numidia is the best option for pre-Islamic Berbers (although as noted here the language they speak would be a problem), and either the Almoravid or Almohads (or Morocco with a relevant leader) for the post-Islamic.
As I said, they are african civs, Carthage would be the colonial one, and Mali the islamic one, I don't want to see Morroco, since it's also an islamic civ, and I'd be annoyed of it, because we could have more diversity and a pre-islamic berber civ would be perfect for me.
Indeed, especially since the evidence suggests the Punic aristocrats of Carthage largely kept to themselves, much like the Hellenistic Ptolemies in Egypt. I agree that Numidia is the best option for pre-Islamic Berbers. The language is a problem, but if Tomyris can speak Ossetian I guess it's not too egregious to have Juba speaking Shawiya. Certainly better than Gilgamesh speaking Akkadian (whyyyyyyy?!), Gandhi speaking Hindi rather than Gujarati, or Robert the Bruce badly speaking Middle English with an anachronistic Scottish accent.
Well, geographically African, anyway. Ethnically the Carthaginians identified as Canaanites pretty much up until the Islamic conquest of North Africa (see: St. Augustine). Now they tend to identify as "Arabs," interestingly.
Frankly, now that Lautaro has Hannibal's ability, I'm perfectly happy to wish for actual African civs for Africa's geographic region (as opposed to Carthage yet again).
There is such rich history in Africa, and I think it a shame that the most frequently suggested civs tend to be European nations (Italy in particular). Surely people can see that one of Civ's strengths is how it adds new civs no one has heard of to the series, and highlights their awesomeness? I bet few here ever heard of Afonso I (Mvemba a Nzinga) before Civ VI, and I would hope people continue to research and look into African history when looking to suggest new civs. Glad to see the Dahomey and Benin, among others, have had some love in this forum though.
No Carthage, though, means the Levant is entirely unrepresented, because we're unlikely to see Israel, Phoenicia lacks compelling leaders, and no one can agree what civ to attach Zenobia to (the Empire of Palmyra was too short-lived, even though it was a city-state since the Bronze Age, while others object to calling it "Syria" or "Aram"). Also Carthage was a major power in the Mediterranean when Rome was in its infancy and could very easily have become the world power that Rome ultimately became had the Punic Wars gone a little differently. I think leaving out Carthage would be a grave mistake, not as an African civilization but as a Levantine one, not to mention for its own historical significance as a naval power, a nation of explorers and traders, and a cultural powerhouse. If Firaxis would note that there's more to Carthaginian history than "rival of Rome" or "also ran," that'd be great.
I think they could do Palmyra to represent more Levantine history. Or we might get lucky and they could do Israel. I also think that at this point the Levantine region is (sadly) last priority, given how underrepresented Africa presently is.
I guess it depends on whose priorities: give me Ethiopia and I'm pretty content with Africa as it stands, but I'd be delighted to see all of Israel, Palmyra, Carthage, Hittites, Babylon, Assyria, and any other Near Eastern civ they deign to offer. I at any rate would be very disappointed to see Carthage left out or replaced with Phoenicia; it's too historically and regionally significant, and unlike Phoenicia it has a great selection of leaders (which means you don't need to stoop to Dido again, Firaxis ), including more or less the entire Magonid dynasty and a pretty sizable portion of the Barcid clan.
Yes, it depends on whose priorities--up to a point. I would argue for more African representation over Levantine representation given that based on the land mass for example, and population, Africa far exceeds the Levantine in both, and has been more underrepresented in Civ games generally.
Firaxis really needs to stop being scared of adding more African civs--there's lots of amazing, rich history and culture there if people would just deign to look. While it's cool Kongo and Nubia are in, Africa's representation is still a pale shadow in Civ. Particularly given how egregiously overpopulated Europe is so far. (This is nice in TSL maps sometimes--they don't get much land to work with, and can be wiped with ease, especially the island bound English.)
I remember a hot seat TSL game with my younger brother. He was France and I was Brazil. Almost all of the Civs were in Europe, and Germany couldn't even settle their capital. Frederick was trapped between France and Poland. I had both Americas for myself.
I wouldn't call Europe overpopulated; I'd call other regions underpopulated. There's not a single European civ they've added that doesn't deserve to be there (though I'd contend that Norway should not have been in the base game and we could really have done without three different representatives for Greece, four if you count Cleo) with the possible exception of Scotland; there are even a few more that we really ought to have. The issue is that we shouldn't have had 80% of the first and second tier European nations in the base game to the exclusion of every other region of the globe. I'd say we're now pretty good on East Asia, and for my own interests and tastes I'd say we're good on Africa minus Ethiopia and (geographically) Carthage. Where I see more civs needed is the Middle East (a region every bit as important and densely packed as Europe) and the New World (highest priority for the Maya, Inca, and at least one more North American civ--Mixtec or Muisca would be a nice surprise as a bonus). An Oceanic civ like Hawai'i, Māori, Tonga, etc. would be fine but isn't really a high priority for me, either.
(Personally if I were choosing the roster for the next EP assuming the same format as R&F, it would look like this: Austria/Hungary/Austria-Hungary; Maya; Inca; Powhatan; Ottomans; Babylon; Carthage; Ethiopia; second leader for China: Kangxi or Taizong or Wu Zetian -- sorry, Portugal and Sweden, better luck in the third EP or future DLC. The only thing I don't like about this roster is that Powhatan are the only dark horse, but that's what happens when you leave out so many civ essentials. )
Exactly. The reason I say Europe is overpopulated is because proportionally speaking they excluded other regions by virtue of their taking Civ slots (also they far exceed other regions, and the first expansion is done). Ed Beach is a huge European history fan (especially of Renaissance Europe), so that focus from the base game and DLCs shouldn't surprise us. Similarly, Civ V's lead designer insisted on the Iroquois being in the base game by all accounts, hence their inclusion. The choice of civs for inclusion is impactful because it limits the possibilities for future civs given the necessarily limited number of civs they can include in each Civ entry.
Scotland was totally unnecessary, agreed. They are a worthy people but their inclusion at this stage of Civ frankly disgusted me. Same with Australia--they are certainly fun and well-designed, but their choice for inclusion smacked of trollishness given the lack of Mali/African civs generally/Inca/Mayans/etc etc. I kind of agree with you that Sweden isn't all that necessary either. That being said, I think your putative roster has too little African representation and too much American representation. Personally I would go for Ethiopia, Mali, Inca, Mayans, Ottomans, some Levantine Civ (Carthage/Palmyra/Assyria/Hittites), Maori, and maybe some dark horses like Khazaria, Vietnam, or another African Civ (Ashanti/Benin/Dahomey).
Europe doesn't need more, especially given that they got 2 reps in the last expack and Africa got 1 rep.
For a secondary leader I think Taharqa (Egypt/Nubia dual leader) or Senusret III (Egypt). China could use Kangxi but I think Egypt is a higher priority. Egypt in the game so far is a tad too passive IMO.
Haha! Love it. That's what they get for overpopulating such a small continent.
Well, like I said, I personally have very little interest in Africa outside of Ethiopia and Egypt and a very keen interest in the indigenous people of the New World, so of course my ideal Civ roster would be much heavier on the New World than Africa...
Well, I also have a great interest in European history, though my area of interest is chiefly High Medieval. I do think Europe needs at least Portugal and/or one of Austria/Hungary/Austria-Hungary (though we do at least have Philip II, so the Hapsburgs aren't completely unrepresented--but the Bourbons are, so clearly Firaxis is biased ). Renaissance Sweden would be nice as well: they were major players in the aftermath of the Thirty Years' War. I know some favor other choices or at least didn't care for his portrayal, but I'd welcome the return of the Lion of the North. (Incidentally and totally off topic: that's my biggest gripe about the alternate Europe depicted in the 7th Sea RPG. So you're telling me not-Protestantism is a thing and even the Thirty Years' War was a thing, but the great Lutheran power of Sweden has been replaced by pagan Renaissance-era Vikings? Seriously?! If I ever run 7th Sea, the not-Irish will be proper not-Catholics and the Neo-Vikings will be ditched in favor of not-Protestant not-Sweden--or at the very least the Neo-Vikings will be shipped off to not-Iceland and replaced by not-Sweden. Also the not-Aztec and not-Maya will practice human sacrifice, because whitewashing history isn't cool. Despite this rant, I do actually really love the system--it's just as a history buff I'd be inclined to make it more, well, historical.)
My thinking was that East Asia is pretty well covered in terms of civs but it would be a shame to ignore them entirely in the EP, so giving China a second leader kills two birds with one stone. But I agree, otherwise Egypt and France are both higher priorities for second leaders than China (just pleeeeeease not Napoleon again).
If you're interested in High Medieval Europe, Duchy/Kingdom of Bohemia led by a Přemyslid, Luxembourg or George of Poděbrady might be a nice choice.
Which Swedish king would you like to see? Gustavus Adolphus again, or someone else?
Oyo, Berber, Sokoto
But whyyyy Not even Mali would be required in your view?
Separate names with a comma.