Well-known civs/wonders vs less-known ones

Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
795
This is a general impression I have had since Civ6 came out.

First, I have always had the sensation, with previous Civs (since Civ1) to play together with actually strong powerhouses, the ones that massively changed the history of the world, and also a few of lesser-known civs. I loved to play with China, Egypt and Greece close my borders, and a lesser Zulu and Aztecs a few farther. The sensation to play "together with the history" was strong. Also, each wonder had a real "WOW" sensation: "I have completed the Great Wall!", "I have completed the Taj Mahal", so important and well-known buildings to make me feel really proud to complete.

Second, I must admit that I like the effort of Firaxis to add less-known stuff together with well-known ones, in order both to give popularity to a larger portion of world, and to have people learn something new (eg., I have learned what Swedagon Paya is, and I must thank Civ4 for this!!).

Now, the point.
I find Civ6 too close to the second point. The number of "well-known" civs and wonders, the ones that make me have the "WOW" feeling, is small. Most civs are actually less popular and, in my opinion, decisive in actual history. Playing with Sweden, Poland and Brazil is not the same feeling as playing with Rome, Germany and Russia. A little addition would be welcome, but I think it is too much in this direction. Civ6 has moved too much in the direction of the "new and less popular", and I find that the overall feeling has decreased.
The same with the wonders. I must admit that I don't know more than half of the available world wonders. I keep building strange stuff with weird names, but I don't know what they are, and of course I cannot feel so "important" when I complete them. Also for wonders, Civ6 has preferred to add in too many "new and less popular". Well, I am Italian, and I still have some problems in figuring out what the Venetian Arsenal is; I can imagine the non-italian people!

In conclusion, although I find Civ6 to be a very good and fun game to play, I still hope some new add-in to balance things. If the number of "less known" stuff is too large, then let's try to add some more "well known" ones to balance them up.
 
You're falling into the trap of mistaking what you've heard of with what is important.

Learning new things about history is one of my favorite things about civ. I remember, for example, learning about the Hanging Gardens of Babylon from civ 1 when I was a kid - something that sure wasn't going to come up in school. That now as an adult I am learning about a people like the Mapuche from a video game is an example of how biased and incomplete my education was, not cause to criticize the people who chose to include them.

Finally, I'm not sure what big things you think are missing. All of the examples you give are in the game, and they aren't as big as you seem to think, but there's no way I can dissect that without being political. If you want to choose the AIs you play against, you can fill up any map size with whoever you like, so what you're complaining about lacking is already there.
 
People like to make lists and I agree that in the top ten world empires Rome and England would be right up there and Brazil and Poland would not. I consider those latter two to be examples of "flanking" civs that are used to fill up the map. I can see how game development can be non-linear though and some well-known, "high tourism" items come much later or not at all, so I don't think they're on a mission to expose prejudice.

Edit: or maybe they are, nevermind
 
People like to make lists and I agree that in the top ten world empires Rome and England would be right up there and Brazil and Poland would not. I consider those latter two to be examples of "flanking" civs that are used to fill up the map. I can see how game development can be non-linear though and some well-known, "high tourism" items come much later or not at all, so I don't think they're on a mission to expose prejudice.
Poland is a very odd country in terms of European history. It's been massively influential and has had some intensely drastic border changes over its lifetime, and due to its position (e.g. between Europe and Russia) it's been stomped all over by many empires and forces. It's like Sweden, in a way - a lot of people don't know about Carolus Rex or Gustavus Adolphus or recognise their importance or the psychological element of the Karoliners.

But one thing Civ has been very good at is opening people's eyes to different civilisations, their leaders and their culture/music, and with Civ VI in particular, by introducing their languages.
 
What is "well known" is a function of your education. Plus, it's a finite number. The game has 42 civs currently. They can't all be Rome.

For me, the game has a higher replayability factor when it's not the same 12 civs, 18 city-states, and 8 Natural Wonders each game. So I applaud the inclusion of lesser known cultures alongside the civilizations that are boilerplate in any given world history text book.
 
Poland is a very odd country in terms of European history. It's been massively influential and has had some intensely drastic border changes over its lifetime, and due to its position (e.g. between Europe and Russia) it's been stomped all over by many empires and forces. It's like Sweden, in a way - a lot of people don't know about Carolus Rex or Gustavus Adolphus or recognise their importance or the psychological element of the Karoliners.

But one thing Civ has been very good at is opening people's eyes to different civilisations, their leaders and their culture/music, and with Civ VI in particular, by introducing their languages.
I love Poland in the game but it's not a top 10 world empire. Top 10 something maybe, and I don't care what order they appeared in the roster.
 
I love Poland in the game but it's not a top 10 world empire. Top 10 something maybe, and I don't care what order they appeared in the roster.
Oh, certainly not a Top 10 World Empire. That I'm not debating, instead I wanted to suggest that they're a pretty interesting civ to look into. I've had the pleasure to see a Polish Winged Hussars re-enactment group over here in the UK, and the audience was almost entirely Polish. Their pride in their history was really quite something to behold.
 
This is a general impression I have had since Civ6 came out.

First, I have always had the sensation, with previous Civs (since Civ1) to play together with actually strong powerhouses, the ones that massively changed the history of the world, and also a few of lesser-known civs. I loved to play with China, Egypt and Greece close my borders, and a lesser Zulu and Aztecs a few farther. The sensation to play "together with the history" was strong. Also, each wonder had a real "WOW" sensation: "I have completed the Great Wall!", "I have completed the Taj Mahal", so important and well-known buildings to make me feel really proud to complete.

Second, I must admit that I like the effort of Firaxis to add less-known stuff together with well-known ones, in order both to give popularity to a larger portion of world, and to have people learn something new (eg., I have learned what Swedagon Paya is, and I must thank Civ4 for this!!).

Now, the point.
I find Civ6 too close to the second point. The number of "well-known" civs and wonders, the ones that make me have the "WOW" feeling, is small. Most civs are actually less popular and, in my opinion, decisive in actual history. Playing with Sweden, Poland and Brazil is not the same feeling as playing with Rome, Germany and Russia. A little addition would be welcome, but I think it is too much in this direction. Civ6 has moved too much in the direction of the "new and less popular", and I find that the overall feeling has decreased.
The same with the wonders. I must admit that I don't know more than half of the available world wonders. I keep building strange stuff with weird names, but I don't know what they are, and of course I cannot feel so "important" when I complete them. Also for wonders, Civ6 has preferred to add in too many "new and less popular". Well, I am Italian, and I still have some problems in figuring out what the Venetian Arsenal is; I can imagine the non-italian people!

In conclusion, although I find Civ6 to be a very good and fun game to play, I still hope some new add-in to balance things. If the number of "less known" stuff is too large, then let's try to add some more "well known" ones to balance them up.

As far as Wonders are concerned, Civ VI has focused very heavily on known tourist attractions, especially in areas like the US, over more characteristically 'wondrous' monuments, as it's leaned more into overpopulating the later eras. If anything the issue is that they're going too much for things that are popular vs. those that are historically significant. Big Ben? As the name is commonly used (Big Ben is technically the nickname of the bell) it's a bell tower that has existed in London for a century and a half and no one has paid the slightest bit of attention to, except that it looks good on postcards. It didn't even have an official name until 2009. While actually characteristic London monuments like St. Paul's are missing. Broadway? It's a cultural hub, but no one goes there for the architecture or because there's anything especially wondrous about the location. The Golden Gate Bridge is recognisable, but the greater actual engineering accomplishment was the original Clifton Suspension Bridge in Bristol.

Civ V did some of the same with the CN Tower. There are still some worthy Wonders being added (Petra, Borobudur, Potala Palace. The Great Bath is obscure but does represent the types of ancient monument that would have been described as a wonder had it not predated writing - and of all the modern Wonders none represents the concept of a Wonder as a unique and difficult accomplishment as well as the Panama Canal), but at least my attention is drawn to the ones that really don't fit. While the Apadana doesn't really qualify because it doesn't represent a singular, unique building - it's well-preserved but even the Civilopedia describes the Persepolis example, the basis for the in-game model, as "typical".

And with all that we still don't have the Ishtar Gate, even though it was in the earliest lists of the seven wonders (before the Lighthouse was built).

I'm not a fan of the silly sops to the modern playerbase like Australia, Canada and Brazil, or ethnic-groups-as-civs like the Mapuche and Cree (or in past games the Celts). I too favour sticking to a classical definition of a civilisation (and one that suits the style of game this is) as an urbanised nation or empire. And yes, the Zulu and Aztec are in for Civ tradition reasons because even in Civ 1 pop culture was a reference point used in civ selection and Sid wanted an example from each continent (counting the Neotropics within South America even though Mexico is geographically North American): more significant powers from those continents or regions (Maya; Inca; Ethiopia and other African kingdoms) that were then less well-known among the target audience were ignored in favour of ones that had more popular appeal.

But greater regional representation and highlighting less well-known societies that were significant in their area is something Civ should certainly do more of: of the civs you list Poland was a genuinely significant power, and even Sweden's heyday as a major European power was about as long as that of the Aztecs as an organised society. Ethiopia, Mali, Songhai and Nubia are all important African civs - Kongo, like Zulu, is a somewhat unfortunate consequence of being well-documented more because it was of significance to Europeans than for its importance in its own right, and people have fairly complained about the way Kongo has been implemented (as a civ begging for more advanced powers to enlighten it with their religion) as a result, but it has been a popular fan request for years. Khmer, Sukothai (the period of Thai history represented by "Siam") and the Indonesian states were definitely regionally important powers in Asia.
 
Last edited:
First, I have always had the sensation, with previous Civs (since Civ1) to play together with actually strong powerhouses, the ones that massively changed the history of the world, and also a few of lesser-known civs. I loved to play with China, Egypt and Greece close my borders, and a lesser Zulu and Aztecs a few farther. The sensation to play "together with the history" was strong.
That sensation you still get is still there but generally reserved for just the base game give or take a few.
We've gotten to the point where if we only had world powerhouses/ well known Civs in the game we would have barely 20 and their would be no need for DLC or expansions.

That being said being a fan of history and studying it in college there were only two Civs from the game I really never heard of before they were announced: the Cree and the Mapuche. All of the others I at least were somewhat familiar beforehand. Ironically both of them are from my side of the world as well it's just I never learned about them here in the states. We never talked about NA tribes located solely in Canada and the only Pre-Colombian civilization in South America ever talked about in classes are the Inca. And after learning about them I like their inclusion along with all the other "lesser" known ones in the game.
 
Oh, certainly not a Top 10 World Empire. That I'm not debating, instead I wanted to suggest that they're a pretty interesting civ to look into. I've had the pleasure to see a Polish Winged Hussars re-enactment group over here in the UK, and the audience was almost entirely Polish. Their pride in their history was really quite something to behold.

There might not be a Europe or USA if it wasn't for the Polish at the Battle of Vienna.
 
One of the best parts of Civ as a series is the opportunity to learn about less-well-known historical civilisations and buildings.

I’ve been playing since high school, and I can say that the various Civ games have been my real introduction to:-
  • The Mali Empire
  • The Holy Roman Empire
  • The Ottoman Empire
  • The Khmer Empire
  • Sumeria
  • The Majapahit Empire
  • The Shoshone
  • The Venetian Empire
  • The Kongo Empire
  • The Mapuche
  • Tamar of Georgia (!)
And too many wonders to name. Use it as an excuse to find out about things that were left off your curriculum!

Besides, which major well-known power would you say was missing? Russia, China and Egypt haven’t gone anywhere...
 
There might not be a Europe or USA if it wasn't for the Polish at the Battle of Vienna.
Maybe, but highly unlikely. Its not like the rest of Europe would be a walk in the park for Ottomans after Vienna, also at that time British already had colonies on North America.

Chachapoyas and The Olmecs would be cool to see in game.
Olmecs can not be implemented as a civ because we dont know any ruler, neither their language or details about their culture. Still, there are many viable Mesoamerican options like Mixtecs or Tarascans. Even Teotihuacan and Toltecs could make it thanks of mayans records about Spearthrowing Owl and the semimythical Ce Acatl Topiltzin.
 
There might not be a Europe or USA if it wasn't for the Polish at the Battle of Vienna.

Not really. The Battle of Vienna is one of those 'false highpoints' of history: the Ottoman military looked very strong in the late 17th century because of numbers (they could regularly put 100,000+ men in the field in a single army) but in military organization, small arms tactics, artillery, and military engineering they were already falling behind Europe. This is evident by the fact that after their repulse at Vienna, they never got back there again, and by the time Napoleon invaded Egypt in 1800, Ottoman forces were a joke, because, no matter how proficient individual warriors were, their armies were poorly organized, poorly led, poorly supported and woefully far behind Europe in basic military technologies like field artillery, infantry firearms and drill.
 
I think there's an issue with the game not presenting as much historical information as I think it should. The twitter wonder movies were pretty informative, why not make them part of the wonder animation?

The civilopedia is great, but the more information that's presented while playing the game, the better I think. That could be a good idea for a mod.
 
They could just make one up. It's not like they use the most prominent leader from all the Civs anyways.

There was an Olmec Mod Civ for Civ V and one for Civ VI, but I don't think the Civ VI Mod has been updated for GS.
The problem is, it becomes practically a Fantasy Civ, because we have no intelligible language, no Leaders, no city names, and only the vaguest idea of culture, politics, and Uniques, and much of what we do know is 'backdating' from later Meso-American Civilizations that they influenced. The result is pretty unsatisfying and incomplete, even as a Mod Civ.
 
Not really. The Battle of Vienna is one of those 'false highpoints' of history:

I am going to disagree because if they pushed beyond Vienna there wasn't much to stop them. Morale in the Ottoman Empire surely declined in the loss and might have paved the way for their decline. It's all what if, but the butterfly effect could have made a huge impact.
 
Top Bottom