What Civ Would you Cut?

[Zaarin]

Babylon - In both civ 5 and 6, Babylon has been a game-breaking civ; it’s clear at this point the devs don’t know what to do with them. They should use this slot instead to bring back Assyria, who has a great female leader (Semiramis), was just as important to the ancient history of the Middle East, and that firaxis has a better track record with.

The closest Assyria has to a great female leader is a Catherine de Medici type figure: Naqiʾa, queen-mother of Essarhadon, but she has very little to recommend her over any of the Sargonids, including her sons. Semiramis was a fetishized Greek myth. The queen she was based on is known from a single inscription and ruled at a low point of Assyrian history; she would be a horrible choice for a civ that has a litany of great leaders. The only really viable queen regnant in ancient Mesopotamia is the Sumerian Kuĝbau (Kubaba) of Kish. That being said, I think there's plenty of room for both Babylon and Assyria: Babylon focused on science and administration, Assyria on culture, monument-building, and warfare (not unlike Civ6's Persia). That Firaxis couldn't think of a design space for both doesn't mean it's not there.

Go down to 1 Scandinavian civ - Having both Sweden and "the viking one" is not great. The swedes did plenty of Viking things in their own right, while is also denies Denmark/Norway the chance to be anything other than a stereotype. There is no reason you couldn't condense these into a single choice, or even go all-in with the Kalmar Union, and have all of Scandinavia under 1 leader.

The problem with this is that Early Modern Sweden was a superpower, which the Kalmar Union never was; meanwhile, the general public wants their pop culture Vikings. I'd be all for cutting the Vikings and restricting Scandinavia to the Lion of the North, but realistically that won't happen. I rather enjoyed what Firaxis did with Norway; I thought they were more flavorful than just bog-standard Vikings. I hope they continue to surprise us in that way. Another possibility would be a Denmark civ that is both Viking and Kalmar.

 

[Krajzen]

I'd love to see the exotic swap of either Sweden being pagan Vikings or Denmark/Norway being built around medieval/early modern eras. Queen Margaret of medieval Denmark, or some king of Renaissance Denmark for example. Anyway, I think two slots taken by Scandinavia is way too much seeing this regions very tiny population, cultural closeness and moderate historical importance, its like the archetypal case of small European nationa being put instead of vast non-European empires.

#######

By the way, seeing how Nzinga is coming to civ6, I think that reduces chances of Kongo coming back to civ7 to super low, since we have countless other possibilities for African civs and that cultural area just got its two staple representations covered.

(honestly I'm kinda suprised they made Nzinga rule over Kongo, I thought she'd qualify for a separate civ called "Angola", didn't she rule over a different area and ethnic group?)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'd love to see the exotic swap of either Sweden being pagan Vikings or Denmark/Norway being built around medieval/early modern eras. Queen Margaret of medieval Denmark, or some king of Renaissance Denmark for example. Anyway, I think two slots taken by Scandinavia is way too much seeing this regions very tiny population, cultural closeness and moderate historical importance, its like the archetypal case of small European nationa being put instead of vast non-European empires.

I don't see how a Norway civ could exist outside of being a Viking one considering afterwards it was part of either Denmark or Sweden until the modern day.

By the way, seeing how Nzinga is coming to civ6, I think that reduces chances of Kongo coming back to civ7 to super low, since we have countless other possibilities for African civs and that cultural area just got its two staple representations covered.

(honestly I'm kinda suprised they made Nzinga rule over Kongo, I thought she'd qualify for a separate civ called "Angola", didn't she rule over a different area and ethnic group?)

Yes, she did rule a separate kingdom, yet it was the most powerful vassal state of the Kongo. The Kingdom of Kongo is located in present-day Angola too, so i guess it all fits. I'm not going to complain.
I wouldn't be surprised to see her becoming so popular that she does get her own Angolan civ in Civ 7.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Yes, she did rule a separate kingdom, yet it was the most powerful vassal state of the Kongo. The Kingdom of Kongo is located in present-day Angola too, so i guess it all fits. I'm not going to complain.
I wouldn't be surprised to see her becoming so popular that she does get her own Angolan civ in Civ 7.

Here is a map of Angola in the century XVI. Queen Nzinga was queen of the Ndongo by blood, and after in her life she also was ruler of Matamba by mariage.
The kingdom of Kongo was in north of Ndongo and never was ally or vassals, as far I know. They were enemy and in the coast, around the boarder of both kingdom was founded Luanda by Portugueses to atack both kingdoms.
Is just a coincidence the Kongo and Ndongo be today part of Angola. Because the Kongo and Ndongo are different kingdoms

 

[Henri Christophe]

I think that reduces chances of Kongo coming back to civ7 to super low

I hope civ7 to be more inclusive, to achieve the 100 civs meta. so I think Kongo can appear again, or Angola instead, lead by Queen Nzinga. (I think the name Ndongo isn't so marketable).
But I think is important to have each part of Africa one civ, for this great Banto nation we already have the Kongo and Zulus. We can also have Botswana or Zimbabwe.
I saw around this forum also many people asking for a Swahili civ.
I would like to see some african civs from the West Africa, as Dahomey, Oyo or Ashante.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The kingdom of Kongo was in north of Ndongo and never was ally or vassals, as far I know. They were enemy and in the coast, around the boarder of both kingdom was founded Luanda by Portugueses to atack both kingdoms.

They were vassals to Kongo at one point. By the time Mbande was queen though they gained their independence, from Kongo at least.

 

[Leucarum]

To what extent applying a feudal concept of vassalage to a non-european power is also maybe questionable? I guess the relationship between the states is fuzzy, interconnected, and changed a lot over time, which seems enough that firaxis can claim it.

 

[Xandinho]

Kongo has always been a highly requested civ before it was officially added and Ana Nzinga has always been very popular around here. I can see Ana Nzinga returning in Civ7 and leading Angola as a Kongo replacement. Ashanti and Benin are also in high demand, so it wouldn't surprise me to see one of those two in the base game of Civ7 as a non-Egyptian African civilization.

 

[Patine]

To what extent applying a feudal concept of vassalage to a non-european power is also maybe questionable? I guess the relationship between the states is fuzzy, interconnected, and changed a lot over time, which seems enough that firaxis can claim it.

Just because they're non-European does not mean these institutions do not develop very similar analog or coterminous development to the point where they resemble each other enough where a translated term would apply. Maybe not a perfect fit, maybe even a bit clumsy, but the similarities are definitely there and noteworthy. After all, we're all humans, with the same core social needs and base views on hierarchy, the same base anatomy, and the same kind of brain, so a LOT of similarities developed in isolation are inevitable. Saying that a Non-European civ MUST be considered to have such radical and incomprehensible, utterly different institutions, that don't even compare, is the mentality behind Victorian-era Orientalism and Noble Savage ideals, both of which are now considered racist.

 

[Bechhold]

Māori. No contest.

 

[dagriggstar]

I dislike the Zulu because whenever I'm in a game with them, in any version, it's just like "oh hey its the pop culture zulu horde". I'd rather someone else from that part of Africa (Lesotho ?)
Other than that, I generally dislike blobs, so no Native America, Celts or Polynesia, but Tlingit, Picts or Tonga are fine by me.
I dislike short lived factions as well, so could go without Gran Colombia and the Huns.

 

[Xandinho]

I dislike short lived factions as well, so could go without Gran Colombia and the Huns.

Gran Colombia as a political entity lasted a very short time, but if you think of present-day Colombia, Venezuela and other of its successor states as part of the Gran Colombian "civilization", then this lasts until today. In game terms, it's as if some of its cities lost loyalty and became free cities.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I dislike short lived factions as well, so could go without Gran Colombia and the Huns.

My problem with the Huns isn't because they were short lived. My problem is they really don't fit the mold of a traditional civilization. I guess neither does Scythia, but at least they kind of made a city-list to go off of.
If the Huns do come back, they should act as a city-state and not being able to build settlers after founding their first "city". All other cities need to be taken by conquest.

 

[Zaarin]

My problem with the Huns isn't because they were short lived. My problem is they really don't fit the mold of a traditional civilization. I guess neither does Scythia, but at least they kind of made a city-list to go off of.
If the Huns do come back, they should act as a city-state and not being able to build settlers after founding their first "city". All other cities need to be taken by conquest.

What would their city-state even be? Attila's Court? Huns are a prime candidate for an Amplitude-style minor civ, though, which is something I hope we see in Civ7.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Instead of have the Huns or Scythians again, lets have the Hunas in their broad sense or particularly the Hephthalites so we can have:
- A late classical Central Asia civ that actually turn into sedentary empires.
- The first Eastern Iranian leader and the first capital on Afghanistan.
- Represent the plurireligious Buddhist, Manichaeist, Zoroastrian and Nestorian communities in the region. Huge bonus to trade routes from each religion propagated in your cities would mix this with the Silk Road.

 

[Zaarin]

Instead of have the Huns or Scythians again, lets have the Hunas in their broad sense or particularly the Hephthalites so we can have:
- A late classical Central Asia civ that actually turn into sedentary empires.
- The first Eastern Iranian leader and the first capital on Afghanistan.
- Represent the plurireligious Buddhist, Manichaeist, Zoroastrian and Nestorian communities in the region. Huge bonus to trade routes from each religion propagated in your cities would mix this with the Silk Road.

I'm all for having the Hephthalites, but equating the so-called White Huns with Attila's Huns is pure speculation (as is equating them with China's Xiongnu). Also we have had an Eastern Iranian leader: Tomyris. What little we know of the Saka language clearly points to its Eastern Iranian affiliation, and the Ossetian language that Tomyris speaks in-game is most likely descended from it. I fully agree with wanting a Central Asian pluralist civ, though.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Instead of have the Huns or Scythians again, lets have the Hunas in their broad sense or particularly the Hephthalites so we can have:
- A late classical Central Asia civ that actually turn into sedentary empires.
- The first Eastern Iranian leader and the first capital on Afghanistan.
- Represent the plurireligious Buddhist, Manichaeist, Zoroastrian and Nestorian communities in the region. Huge bonus to trade routes from each religion propagated in your cities would mix this with the Silk Road.

After learning about the Parthians, I think they could also work.

 

[Zaarin]

After learning about the Parthians, I think they could also work.

Parthians would be a better option than the Scythians, but they would be very overlappy with Persia (I mean, for a time, they were Persia as the Arsacid Dynasty). Their language was also Northwest Iranian, just like Middle Persian and in fact closely related to Middle Persian.

 

[Patine]

My problem with the Huns isn't because they were short lived. My problem is they really don't fit the mold of a traditional civilization. I guess neither does Scythia, but at least they kind of made a city-list to go off of.
If the Huns do come back, they should act as a city-state and not being able to build settlers after founding their first "city". All other cities need to be taken by conquest.

What would their city-state even be? Attila's Court? Huns are a prime candidate for an Amplitude-style minor civ, though, which is something I hope we see in Civ7.

In Civ1, 2, and 3, Attila is the name of the default, "leader," of the, "Barbarians," who in Civ 1, 2, and 3 are an AI-only, "grab-bag," pseudo-civ with very limited potentials, cannot research or capture techs, inability to build cities, only capture them, inability to build land-improvement, only pillage it, cannot build improvements or non-military units in their restricted slots in cities, Government fixed at Despotism (the most basic, and default, type), do not benefit from the effects of Wonders in cities they capture (but the Wonders can be captured by a human or standard AI player), restricted to certain unit slots, that, "spawn," sometimes pop out of, "goody huts," and ambush, and other such behaviour.

 

[BuchiTaton]

After learning about the Parthians, I think they could also work.

We are going to get Nader Shah in CIV6 plus the regular Achaemenid, but I think for CIV7 Sasasians would be more interesting since:
- Sasanians vs Rome/Byzantium is a nice proxy to Achaemenids vs Greeks.
- Sasanians and Hephthalites also cover a similar* relation to Achaemenids and Scythians.
- Khosrow II is an interesting leader with an empire closer to Achaemenids extent.
- A Rise of Islam scenario would use them better.