What Civ are you most surprised is missing?

[Ikael]

I'm starting to notice a pattern here.

Trying to pass americanocentrism and as a form of multiculturalism along with thinly veiled accusations of Eurocentrism to whoever disagree with you, per chance?

Once again, I have yet to see any compelling argument as to why Zulus or North American Natives had more of an influence in world history than other African or Native central / south American civs. The Zulu Empire was short lived, and not too much of a sucessful example of a civ that stood the test of time, unlike, say, Etiopia, and the North American civs didn't left monumental architecture unlike the Mayans or Incans, nor did successfully resisted European colonization like the Mapuche. There are far more interesting non-European civs to include.

 

[vit_sin]

I was always missing in game people of real cold north, like Chukchi, Eskimo, Inuit, etc. May be its because we don't know them and they did not left any Great Wonder or famous Religion or did not any holly war?

 

[PhilBowles]

I find the absence of a South Asian Civ quite puzzling. The only somewhat logical explanation I can think is that the devs thought that they could not give a priority to any Civ from the region (Siam, Khmer,...) without causing backlash from the rest of the region and thus introducing them jointly in a future expansion (together with graphics adapted for them?) would be the most feasible approach

This is quite easy to explain, and Civ V was the only game that had a Southeast Asian civ at release (as far as South Asia goes, India has been in every game). Firaxis doesn't draw a distinction between different parts of Asia when looking for regional representation, as I think they've stated outright before - so India, Japan, China and Scythia fill their 'Asian diversity' quota. We just have a Central Asian core civ instead of a Southeast Asian one this time around.

 

[Sonmi]

1. Persian Empire
2. Mongol Empire
3. Inca Empire

Im actually really happy that there are no NORTH-AMERICAN Native Civs or other historically meaningless Civs. But they need to include Inca Empire sooner than later.

The Iroquois Confederacy was most definitively not an historically meaningless civilization, they have a long and rich history, and were pretty much one of the biggest actors in the fight for North America.

 

[PhilBowles]

I was always missing in game people of real cold north, like Chukchi, Eskimo, Inuit, etc. May be its because we don't know them and they did not left any Great Wonder or famous Religion or did not any holly war?

Likely because it would lead to exceptionally dull gameplay, quite aside from the absence of city names for societies that lacked cities (the latter has been managed for other civs). To be distinctive as a 'northern' civ they'd presumably be associated with tundra and snow, areas no one else wants, so they'd be unlikely to come into conflict with anyone for territory - AIs would undoubtedly still launch random 'just because' wars, but a player against an Inuit AI would have no motive to pay them any attention unless going for a domination victory (and being entertaining to play against is as much a consideration as being entertaining to play, or should be).

 

[phryxolydian]

I have many picks, but I think most surprising missing is Mayans. They are really important native tribe...

I'm surprised nobody but you has mentioned them. I wholeheartedly agree!

 

[jekke]

Actually, there might be a neat way of determining "worthy" and "unworthy" civs/nations in a cohesive way. If the game has a wonder built by this civin real life, it is "worthy", and vice versa. Of course you may argue that the list of wonders is arbitrary as well, but at least there should be some level of consistency between those two lists.

For example, if we have to choose between two civs not included in the original roster, where one of them has built a wonder which is anyway in the game and the other has not, the difference is clear.

 

[Stilgar08]

Incas and Mayas certainly. I'm all in favor of the real ancient Civs. Persia is fitting, too. I'd love to see the Hethite premiere, too.
I disagree that native north american civs are rightfully excluded. I hope some make it in later.
My knowledge about african civs is too limited to make a decent suggestion but something along the Mali road would be good, too. Or what about Nubia?
Mongols are nice. And Maori, maybe? Sooner or later I'm sure they'll include more european civs as well. (Poland, Austria - Hungary, Scotland?). Lots and lots of DLC options...

 

[ToothedBomb]

Trying to pass americanocentrism and as a form of multiculturalism along with thinly veiled accusations of Eurocentrism to whoever disagree with you, per chance?

No. I just find it very odd that every time someone mentions they'd like to see specific civilizations or regions represented in the game, someone pops their head out shouting that they were not significant, or whatever nonsense argument these people come up with.

Once again, I have yet to see any compelling argument as to why Zulus or North American Natives had more of an influence in world history than other African or Native central / south American civs.

You're missing the point if that's what you're waiting for. It's just a videogame. Historically insignificant tribes and peoples can and should be in this game too. Yes, even in the vanilla release. Civilization games are not a reflection of the real world after all. It's not a historical simulation. It's just: Hey look at all these cool countries and peoples going at it in different ways.

 

[Nixalo]

I'm also surprised by the lack of Carribean civs like Arawak or Jamaica. It would have been a great promotion for the cultural victory for Firaxis with a late game battle of Rock vs Samba vs Reggae.

Too bad.

 

[ales_]

I was always missing in game people of real cold north, like Chukchi, Eskimo, Inuit, etc. May be its because we don't know them and they did not left any Great Wonder or famous Religion or did not any holly war?

We'll get one this time: Russia.

 

[vit_sin]

Likely because it would lead to exceptionally dull gameplay

Than to un-dall such gameplay, proposed nations could be a City-State with extensive access to Ocean's resources.

 

[jekke]

It's just a videogame. Historically insignificant tribes and peoples can and should be in this game too.

Could you please elaborate a bit on how exactly the first statement here leads to the second, concluding one? I am sorry to just fail to see the exact connection.
Just in case you are going to play the educational part card here, I would argue that a history book would be a much better investment for your 50 bucks than a videogame.

Than to un-dall such gameplay, proposed nations could be a City-State with extensive access to Ocean's resources.

I guess the problem here is to find an appropriate city name reflecting an actual, you know, city. I don't suppose you would be happy with a generic "Inuit" city-state?

 

[ToothedBomb]

Could you please elaborate a bit on how exactly the first statement here leads to the second, concluding one? I am sorry to just fail to see the exact connection.

It's a game. Games should be fun. Playing as lesser-known or 'insignificant' civilizations is fun. People love cheering for the underdog.
Playing as powerful, influential empires is fun too. A lot of stuff is fun in this game, and everyone will like certain things more than others.
It's obvious the developers don't find historical significance at all relevant when coming up with new civs, so why keep yapping on about it?

Just in case you are going to play the educational part card here, I would argue that a history book would be a much better investment for your 50 bucks than a videogame.

I don't really look for education in Civ games, though I do think they can push people to learn more about certain things.

 

[Buccaneer]

I still don't understand why all of the whining regarding Persia. They were not that good/fun of civ to play in Civ5 at higher levels, esp. compared to Arabia. And Ottomans were even worse. Requirements for a civ have to be unique, good and fun.

 

[kroket]

I think most people agree Persia is the most obvious absentee...
Inca's, Ottomans and the Mongols are the other ones that come to mind.
Personally i would have excluded Brazil and Scythia and got Persia and Inca instead. I think Ottomans / Arabia is a choice, dont get both in base game. Same for Sumer / Babylon for example.
Still we ll see all of them eventually an din the case of these 4 i doubt it will take too long. I hope not at least...
Holland and Portugal are the two obvious European adds. Mali is a personal fav that should be the second sub saharan African Nation. Carthage will also make an appearance for sure. We ll get the Maya as well eventually + one native American civ like the Iroquios. Likely one more Middle Eastern Classic Civ like Babylon / Assyria will follow as well. Then you ll get a SE civ like Khmer / Siam / Vietnam and Korea and we get near 30.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

I'd say Persia is the biggest one. The dominant power in the Middle East for most of the thousand-year stretch between Cyrus (~550 BC) and the Muslim conquests (~650 AD). Achaemenid Persia was really the first truly huge, multi-ethnic empire, and the Persians did an excellent job solving the enormous challenges of administrating it. Persian intellectual accomplishments after the arrival of Islam are really significant, too: e.g. Avicenna and Omar Khayyam.

I'm also shocked they didn't include any pre-Columbian North American civs. The Iroquois seem like a pretty obvious choice.

But really you'd need to add like 14 or 15 civs before you have anything remotely adequate. If you added Persia, the Iroquois, Mongolia, the Ottomans, the Inca, the Maya, the Dutch, Byzantium, Mali, Siam, Korea, Ethiopia, Babylon, and Pueblo, then you start to have all your bases covered.

 

[ToothedBomb]

I still don't understand why all of the whining regarding Persia. They were not that good/fun of civ to play in Civ5 at higher levels, esp. compared to Arabia. And Ottomans were even worse. Requirements for a civ have to be unique, good and fun.

Civ VI America is nothing like Civ V America. You can have the same civilization, but focus on different parts of their culture or history, and turn it into an entirely new thing for this new game.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

I still don't understand why all of the whining regarding Persia. They were not that good/fun of civ to play in Civ5 at higher levels, esp. compared to Arabia. And Ottomans were even worse. Requirements for a civ have to be unique, good and fun.

I found Civ V Persia kind of fun to play--the Golden Age bonus was unique, and I enjoyed racing around the map with extra-fast units. I won't defend Civ V Ottomans though, those were a total joke.

But anyway, all these Civs will assuredly be completely different in their Civ VI incarnations.

 

[phryxolydian]

I still don't understand why all of the whining regarding Persia. They were not that good/fun of civ to play in Civ5 at higher levels, esp. compared to Arabia. And Ottomans were even worse. Requirements for a civ have to be unique, good and fun.

What are you on about? Persia were a great civ in Civ 5. Probably not God tier but they were definitely very good, especially for Dom although still good for other VCs. They synergized well with Liberty and got even better if you got Chichen (not at all impossible on Deity) + Taj so, if you didn't enjoy them, you probably didn't take full advantage of their bonuses.