What Civ Would you Cut?

[pineappledan]

There was a vigorous debate over who "deserves" to be a civ in another thread, which I thought would be better served by being its own discussion.

Given the reality that Firaxis is never going to add in every culture and state that people could want into the game, and that 50 civs in Civ 6 is a pretty nice, round number that seems like a good stopping point, inevitably some civs, both past and present won't make it back int.

Being "Deserving" of a slot is a bit thorny, and people have strong opinions about what should be emphasized, and what goals should be compromised to balance fresh new civs vs old classics for each new installment.

Here's a really great graphic listing all the civs that have appeared in a mainline civ game.

• 16 civs have been in all 6 installments
• 9 of the 43 civs in civ 5 were unique to that game (21%)
  • an additional 4 were never seen before civ 5, but repeated in civ 6 (total of 13 new civs, or 30% on release)
• 17 of the 50 civs in civ 6 were unique to that game (34%)
  • Whether Norway and Phoenicia actually count as unique is debatable, since Norway boiled down to “the Viking civ”, which has been in since civ 2, and Phoenicia was pretty much Carthage, even going so far as to have the same leader. That’s only 15 of 50 unique civs (30%) if you exclude those two.

So, assuming the roster stayed at 50 civs:

• What rubric would you use to determine who should be in the game?
• How many slots should new civs
• using the civ 6 roster as a jumping off point, who do you think Shouldn't be added back for civ 7, in order to make room for those new, or returning civs?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The first civ that comes to my mind is Scotland. It's not that I don't like Scotland, but I think the design of it in Civ 6 felt lacking and was another British like civ on top of England, Canada and Australia, instead of it being more Celtic like. Of course, then we got a proper Celtic civ in Gaul later on.

For civ 7 I'd like them to compromise and give us Ireland instead blending the idea of ancient Celts and a more modern nation.

And as much as I like the idea of giving Alexander his own Civ I'm perfectly fine with him going back to Greece.

 

[pineappledan]

It seems like the civ designers have made a rule for 30% new civs with each game, which seems like a pretty good number. If it were up to me, I would want to see more emphasis put on spreading out and getting better coverage of the world map, avoiding overcrowded TSL’s and filling in vast regions which haven’t had civs before.

The first one that comes to mind for me is Portugal. In the context of civ 6, you can see how much of a corner the designers have painted themselves into, that they had to give them a fictional UB. Even in civ 5, one of the civ’s components was just an extension of the unique unit, and the leader they chose was most famous for fleeing to Brazil, which is also a civ. The leader that they picked for Spain also was the king of Portugal

In no particular order:

• Portugal - Iberian, Europe is too crowded in general, is in a design rut. If they want another naval trading civ, the Swahili would be a great pick.
• Zulu - in a deep rut for design space. Their entire kit has basically been 1 large infantry bonus spread out across all components for 2 games now. This slot would be better served by a South African culture with multiple centralized kingdoms and monumental architecture spanning centuries of history: The Shona
• Greece - okay hear me out, Greece as a civ has always been an odd fit as a collection of chronically infighting polities that only ever coalesced under extreme duress from foreign powers. Greece has the potential to become multiple really great city-states in-game. Sure, you wouldn’t get to play as them, but you would get to interact with them a lot more in-game, and there is a ton of material to work with to make Greek city-states really special. I think Macedon could continue as a mainline civ, so you could keep Alexander, but Athens, Sparta, etc. would be best served by being what they were: city-states.
• Russia - In light of recent world events, and the wealth of alternative Slavic states that have never had their day in the sun, I would love to see Kievan Rus or Bohemia take their place for a game. Is it petty and politically motivated? Yes. But they’ve earned it.
• Canada/Australia - it is bizarre these 2 ever made it into the game in the first place, and as a Canadian, I wish we hadn’t. Between the most powerful nation in history that is also an anglophone settler-colonial nation already being in the game since Civ1 and the actually pretty insulting depiction of Canada, it’s no contest that these shouldn’t make a return. Maybe we could get more than 1 North American indigenous group, like a Pacific Northwest civ (eg. Haida) to fill out the chronically empty western part of the continent.
• Byzantium - The only civ that shares a starting TSL with another civ. Byzantium could be captured by picking a late Roman emperor like Diocletian, who controlled the full extent of the old Roman Empire, but also kept a capital at Constantinople.
• 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.
• Gaul - I'm with @Alexander's Hetaroi on this. If we are only ever going to get 1 Celtic civ, it may as well be the one that survived into the modern day. Ireland has a lot of history over millennia to choose from to make a great civ.
• England/Scotland - This was a pretty silly pick, and Britain is not very big on a TSL. Considering their choice of Victoria for an English leader, it seems like Firaxis wanted to make a UK or British civ anyways, so why not just do that?
• Georgia - It's wonderful to have some Caucasian representation; hopefully we can get Armenia in the next round.
• Maori - Great to have some Polynesian representation in the game; I am hopeful that Hawai'i gets a turn next time.
• 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.
• Sumer - With other Mesopotamian civs, an Arabian civ, and probably a Levantine civ like Phoenicia returning, the Middle-East is extremely crowded. Sumer doesn't cover much different ground than a civ like Assyria could, so I would rather see this slot freed up.

 

[Marla_Singer]

So, assuming the roster stayed at 50 civs:

• What rubric would you use to determine who should be in the game?

How many Civ6 units were sold by country?
Granted, it's not the most intellectually pleasing one, but Firaxis needs to make a profit to continue to exist, so we can only assume that the marketing department will have a say in the list of selected civilizations.

 

[Patine]

Of course, then we got a proper Celtic civ in Gaul later on.

What's this Gaul stuff? I want Boadicea back!

 

[Patine]

• Greece - okay hear me out, Greece as a civ has always been an odd fit as a collection of chronically infighting polities that only ever coalesced under extreme duress from foreign powers. Greece has the potential to become multiple really great city-states in-game. Sure, you wouldn’t get to play as them, but you would get to interact with them a lot more in-game, and there is a ton of material to work with to make Greek city-states really special. I think Macedon could continue as a mainline civ, so you could keep Alexander, but Athens, Sparta, etc. would be best served by being what they were: city-states.

This would be a VERY hard sell for any Civilization iteration. Ancient Greece is a foundational point in the history of world civilization as we know it in so many ways. Alexander was just a brutal conqueror building on the shoulders of giants.

• Russia - In light of recent world events, and the wealth of alternative Slavic states that have never had their day in the sun, I would love to see Kievan Rus or Bohemia take their place for a game. Is it petty and politically motivated? Yes. But they’ve earned it.

Modern politics so overtly affecting computer games (or sports - I vocally opposed the Beijing Olympic - or Moscow Olympic, in retrospect - boycotts) is pretty pitiful, and shows a succumbing to the cynicism and divisiveness that politics plagues the world with, rather than overcoming it publicly. I told this to someone who announced on another forum, proudly, that they'd disowned all their friends and family that voted for Trump. Rise up, rather than join those very ones you condemn in the cesspool! Besides, Putin is only the very tail end of a long and rich history in Russia, and his Russia would not be what was portrayed. And, of course, the Kievan 'Rus is as much a predecessor state to Russia and Belarus as it is to Ukraine, remember.

• Byzantium - The only civ that shares a starting TSL with another civ. Byzantium could be captured by picking a late Roman emperor like Diocletian, who controlled the full extent of the old Roman Empire, but also kept a capital at Constantinople.

I stand by everything I said on the Constantinople/Istanbul in Civ7 thread.

• 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.

I personally believe Babylon is much more colourful, and has a stronger resonance in popular culture to draw upon.

• Gaul - I'm with @Alexander's Hetaroi on this. If we are only ever going to get 1 Celtic civ, it may as well be the one that survived into the modern day. Ireland has a lot of history over millennia to choose from to make a great civ.

If there's going to be a Celtic civilization, I want Boadicea back!

• Maori - Great to have some Polynesian representation in the game; I am hopeful that Hawai'i gets a turn next time.

I feel the Tui Tonga are a better option than both, myself.

 

[Ordnael]

If you take Portugal out, then take Spain as well...also Brazil makes no sense whatsoever in a Civ game without Portugal in it.

Anyway Brazil shouldn't be in the game. Pick an ancient tribe from the general area like Firaxis picks the Aztecs over Mexico or Peru.

I strongly disagree on taking Greece out of the main game.

 

[pineappledan]

I personally believe Babylon is much more colourful, and has a stronger resonance in popular culture to draw upon.

Another option, rather than bringing back Sumer, Babylon, or Assyria, would be Akkad, which would be a fresh new civ. Another reason I like Assyria or Akkad is that their capitals are further north than Babylon or Sumer, and Northern Mesopotamian TSLs space the middle east out slightly better. Akkad's location isn't precisely known, but it's thought to be about midway up the Tigris, which puts it equidistant from Parsagadea (Achaemenid Persia's TSL), and Tyre (Phoenicia's TSL)

 

[Henri Christophe]

Zulu - in a deep rut for design space. Their entire kit has basically been 1 large infantry bonus spread out across all components for 2 games now. This slot would be better served by a South African culture with multiple centralized kingdoms and monumental architecture spanning centuries of history: The Shona

I totally disagree on that! Shaka is a characther of this franchise since the first game and must still together in the same feet as Alexander the Great and Gengis Khan.
The only one who should go out of this list of ever in the game is Mahatma Gandhi. India should be debloobed in 3 civs or more.

Canada/Australia - it is bizarre these 2 ever made it into the game in the first place, and as a Canadian, I wish we hadn’t. Between the most powerful nation in history that is also an anglophone settler-colonial nation already being in the game since Civ1 and the actually pretty insulting depiction of Canada, it’s no contest that these shouldn’t make a return. Maybe we could get more than 1 North American indigenous group, like a Pacific Northwest civ (eg. Haida) to fill out the chronically empty western part of the continent.

That I agree, I'm not a fan a post colonial States as that, even more because they are both so anglo-nized... I think the United Kingdom is enouth to represent theses civilizations.

Anyway Brazil shouldn't be in the game

But, in other hand I like to have Brazil in the game, even without Portugal.
I think if they take out Brazil should take out also USA.

Byzantium - The only civ that shares a starting TSL with another civ. Byzantium could be captured by picking a late Roman emperor like Diocletian, who controlled the full extent of the old Roman Empire, but also kept a capital at Constantinople.

As I said in the other thread. Byzantium was Rome and don't deserve to be an unique civ... Don't matter how different they was.

England/Scotland - This was a pretty silly pick, and Britain is not very big on a TSL. Considering their choice of Victoria for an English leader, it seems like Firaxis wanted to make a UK or British civ anyways, so why not just do that?

As Alexander's Hetaroi said, Scotland should be better as something more tribal. Something as the Celts of civ5.

Maori - Great to have some Polynesian representation in the game; I am hopeful that Hawai'i gets a turn next time.

I would like this switching. Other option can be Tonga. But I think Hawaii is more marketable.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

• Portugal - Iberian, Europe is too crowded in general, is in a design rut. If they want another naval trading civ, the Swahili would be a great pick.

@raen will not be please. Particularly with them linked the Entire World together with trade networks operated by Naus.
Portugal is a very hard Civ to translate into game terms, as they are more of traders and less of conquerors (too few population to successfully conquer any empire). the Portugal as a serious Colonial Empire didn't begin until much later particularly when Treaty of Torrestias is in jeopardy due to aggressive Spanish Expansions via the uses of Conquestadores, with that Portugal had to response with Banderiantes whom functions almost identical to. sending them along the great Amazon River upstreams.
My choices are
1. Macedonia (redundant to Greece more or less, they are no less Hellenic than Athenians and Spartans do, also they made use of hoplites in addition to 'pezhetairoi' pikemen)
2. Nubia (quite a secondary Egypt, they too became 'Egyptians' at one point)
3. Byzantium. They were offshots of Rome. they, as well as anyone else around them, called themselves 'Romans' and even disregard Italians (whom emerged after Germanic peoples took the Western portion of Old Rome) as being No-Romans (I'm not sure if Modern Italians are 'creoles' made up of mixtures of Romans as well as Goths and Arabians and Greeks?).
4. Brazil: Hard to translate into Civ games. especially when it comes to UU. Note that Brazil in Civ games are led by Peter II of House Braganza, but UUs are all originated in the Republic Eras long after he was ousted (Pracinhas being 'Infantry' in Civ5, and Minas Gerais class Dreadnoughts (Just like Yamato class of Japan, only two ships exists in these respective class. Minas Gerais while being the most powerful dreads when orderd, became an example how Modern Warfare actually are and how important industrial capacity is when running modern armed forces. Brazil barely made best out of these Dreads while Industrialized Japan did much better)). Also fan proposed UU--the Bandierantes, were colonial era units.
I might even consider LLL for Brazil as well if the country was ruled by a portuguese king who transferred his government there after Napoleon took his country.
5. Canada. Better as part of England or France with city names. I don't quite agree with Australia though (What made 'Diggers' infantry (Actually belonged to ANZAC of British Empire) special compared to regular British Doughboys of the two world wars?, i'm more on 'Lighthorse' actually). and Canadian UU (Montie) is part of police forces (Full name is Mounted Police, the name explains themselves as something similiar to American Sherriffs) and not even military in any sense.

 

[Henri Christophe]

4. Brazil: Hard to translate into Civ games. especially when it comes to UU. Note that Brazil in Civ games are led by Peter II of House Braganza, but UUs are all originated in the Republic Eras long after he was ousted (Pracinhas being 'Infantry' in Civ5, and Minas Gerais class Dreadnoughts (Just like Yamato class of Japan, only two ships exists in these respective class. Minas Gerais while being the most powerful dreads when orderd, became an example how Modern Warfare actually are and how important industrial capacity is when running modern armed forces. Brazil barely made best out of these Dreads while Industrialized Japan did much better)). Also fan proposed UU--the Bandierantes, were colonial era units.

I agree what you said Brazilians units. At least Pracinhas fight in WWII, but how about the Minas Gerais boat? Who never was used in battle, it's not a good unit.
But in the other hand Bandeirantes is an amazing unity to Brazil, since Brazil is the oldest country of Americas, it's deserve an unit from the early colonial ages of Americas.

 

[pineappledan]

Canadian UU (Montie) is part of police forces (Full name is Mounted Police, the name explains themselves as something similiar to American Sherriffs) and not even military in any sense.

It’s not as bad a fit as you think, re: being a military unit. There’s a lot to unpack in that, and it’s a very dark part of Canadian history which should NOT have gotten into the game, but not for the reasons you think.

I don't quite agree with Australia though (What made 'Diggers' infantry (Actually belonged to ANZAC of British Empire) special compared to regular British Doughboys of the two world wars?

Doughboys were the American soldiers. The Diggers and the Canadian Corp were both pivotal troops in WWI. In the histories of both young nations, their troops became a nucleus for a more unified national identity. The battles themselves are almost secondary to the formative effect that support for the troops had on the home front.

Brazil: Hard to translate into Civ games. especially when it comes to UU. Note that Brazil in Civ games are led by Peter II of House Braganza, but UUs are all originated in the Republic Eras long after he was ousted

I would give Brazil the Amazonas, or genericize it to “steam frigate”. The Paraguayan war was the bloodiest war Brazil ever fought, and the Amazonas was pivotal to their victory at Riachuelo.

I agree though, Brazil is something of an odd duck, and I wouldn’t miss them if they were dropped. Spain and the Spanish empire did most of the things that Portugal did to build their own empire, but Spain did it more, earlier, conquered more powerful and organized indigenous states, with the same participation from the Catholic Church, and under the same auspices. The conquistador/Bandeirantes UU thing highlights that.

Nubia (quite a secondary Egypt, they too became 'Egyptians' at one point)

By distance, the Meroitic kingdom is actually really far from lower Egypt, so I like how that fills a gaping hole in interior Africa’s TSL distribution. If Nubia were taken out, I think Kanem-Bornu could be a good substitute for that reason.

Macedonia (redundant to Greece more or less, they are no less Hellenic than Athenians and Spartans do, also they made use of hoplites in addition to 'pezhetairoi' pikemen)

Hence why Alexander has sometimes just led “Greece” with his capital in Athens. If you make Macedon the Hellenic civ then that still leaves the classic Greek city states as city states. Greece would get lots of representation that way, but in a way that is more accurate to their political realities.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

As Alexander's Hetaroi said, Scotland should be better as something more tribal. Something as the Celts of civ5.

There was indeed Medieval Kingdom of Scotland. at least under the leadership of Robert the Bruce, and a competing power in British Isles in Early Modern Era, even did try their fortunes in North America colonizations (AFAIK somewhere that's now New Jersey and Connecticut were their domain or maybe not).
Scots have potential UUs. but not Highlanders which actually served foreign 'masters' as elite units. Both British Empire (as part of Great Britain and later United Kingdom), and as mercenaries in Europe (even in France serving French Monarchs), and even in the United States Army (There's one Highlander regiment in American Civil War. though their uniform was not much different to the rest of the US Army of the 1860s, with kilts became gingham pants, and French Kepi).
Potential UUs were either Billmen (Not sure if they're associated more with Scots or with English) OR 'Clansmen' (the 'Jacobites' who were headaches to English Redcoats with their nasty berserker charges that efficiently defeated much more modern Redcoats (by then at the transition stages from Pike and Shotte to All-musket 'Fusiliers' army). that's closest thing to 'Fighting for Ye Own Country' UU.
About Scottish Clansmen, think of swordsmen with targe shield and musketeer in the same unit.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Portugal - Iberian, Europe is too crowded in general, is in a design rut. If they want another naval trading civ, the Swahili would be a great pick.

Make them the prime naval explorers like they were in real life, then I think they wouldn't be a problem. I wish Civ 6 dived deeper into an exploration design for them.

Greece - okay hear me out, Greece as a civ has always been an odd fit as a collection of chronically infighting polities that only ever coalesced under extreme duress from foreign powers. Greece has the potential to become multiple really great city-states in-game. Sure, you wouldn’t get to play as them, but you would get to interact with them a lot more in-game, and there is a ton of material to work with to make Greek city-states really special. I think Macedon could continue as a mainline civ, so you could keep Alexander, but Athens, Sparta, etc. would be best served by being what they were: city-states.

Which is why Alexander should go back to Greece.
Though for variety we can also have Pericles back for a diplomacy focused alternative leader.

Canada/Australia - it is bizarre these 2 ever made it into the game in the first place, and as a Canadian, I wish we hadn’t. Between the most powerful nation in history that is also an anglophone settler-colonial nation already being in the game since Civ1 and the actually pretty insulting depiction of Canada, it’s no contest that these shouldn’t make a return. Maybe we could get more than 1 North American indigenous group, like a Pacific Northwest civ (eg. Haida) to fill out the chronically empty western part of the continent.

I mean I'm fine with Australia, in regard to both TSL and I love their depiction in game. I agree about Canada though and would rather them add another indegenous group. Plus, if they want to add in another French colonial nation there is always Haiti.

Georgia - It's wonderful to have some Caucasian representation; hopefully we can get Armenia in the next round.

I'm all on board with Armenia.

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.

I could live with Margaret of Denmark being the sole leader of a "Scandinavian civ" if she also had something like a Viking Longship UU.

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.

Sumer - With other Mesopotamian civs, an Arabian civ, and probably a Levantine civ like Phoenicia returning, the Middle-East is extremely crowded. Sumer doesn't cover much different ground than a civ like Assyria could, so I would rather see this slot freed up.

Why not all 3?
Though seriously I at least want Assyria back for Civ 7.

 

[Patine]

That I agree, I'm not a fan a post colonial States as that, even more because they are both so anglo-nized... I think the United Kingdom is enouth to represent theses civilizations.

Canada. Better as part of England or France with city names. I don't quite agree with Australia though (What made 'Diggers' infantry (Actually belonged to ANZAC of British Empire) special compared to regular British Doughboys of the two world wars?, i'm more on 'Lighthorse' actually). and Canadian UU (Montie) is part of police forces (Full name is Mounted Police, the name explains themselves as something similiar to American Sherriffs) and not even military in any sense.

It’s not as bad a fit as you think, re: being a military unit. There’s a lot to unpack in that, and it’s a very dark part of Canadian history which should NOT have gotten into the game, but not for the reasons you think.

I mean I'm fine with Australia, in regard to both TSL and I love their depiction in game. I agree about Canada though and would rather them add another indegenous group. Plus, if they want to add in another French colonial nation there is always Haiti.

I agree, even as a Canadian, that Canada should not be included, especially with such a ridiculous portraying, but Australia is no more inherently worthy, otherwise. I'm not sure what inherent, "dark chapter," is being referred to as to why Mounties should have been outright excluded from such a portrayal, though (especially given the controversial, bloody, brutal, and often horrible histories around some other unique units - like being, "captured," by Jaguar Warriors, as a good example). And, Canada is not a French post-colonial nation.

As I said in the other thread. Byzantium was Rome and don't deserve to be an unique civ... Don't matter how different they was.

I stand by what I said on the recent thread about the, "Queen of Cities," and I'm afraid the great majority of historians, and probably the majority of Civ players, even if passively by lack of a real desire to change it, disagree with you and pineappledan, here.

 

[Patine]

As Alexander's Hetaroi said, Scotland should be better as something more tribal. Something as the Celts of civ5.

Yes, and led by Boadicea!

There was indeed Medieval Kingdom of Scotland. at least under the leadership of Robert the Bruce, and a competing power in British Isles in Early Modern Era, even did try their fortunes in North America colonizations (AFAIK somewhere that's now New Jersey and Connecticut were their domain or maybe not).
Scots have potential UUs. but not Highlanders which actually served foreign 'masters' as elite units. Both British Empire (as part of Great Britain and later United Kingdom), and as mercenaries in Europe (even in France serving French Monarchs), and even in the United States Army (There's one Highlander regiment in American Civil War. though their uniform was not much different to the rest of the US Army of the 1860s, with kilts became gingham pants, and French Kepi).
Potential UUs were either Billmen (Not sure if they're associated more with Scots or with English) OR 'Clansmen' (the 'Jacobites' who were headaches to English Redcoats with their nasty berserker charges that efficiently defeated much more modern Redcoats (by then at the transition stages from Pike and Shotte to All-musket 'Fusiliers' army). that's closest thing to 'Fighting for Ye Own Country' UU.
About Scottish Clansmen, think of swordsmen with targe shield and musketeer in the same unit.

The tenor of this post almost makes it sound like Scotland was conquered, forced to surrender in battle, and forcibly annexed the way Wales and Ireland were. Which, of course, is not what happed!

I would like this switching. Other option can be Tonga. But I think Hawaii is more marketable.

Tonga would be far more interesting, and actually had a somewhat verifiable history of notable accomplishments (a trans-oceanic empire before Columbus), whereas pre-European achievements in New Zealand from Kupe's arrival to the iwi encountered by Cook are sketchy in details, and Hawaii's monarchy only unified and solidified shortly after the very first contact with Europeans (traders and explorers, initially).

Hence why Alexander has sometimes just led “Greece” with his capital in Athens. If you make Macedon the Hellenic civ then that still leaves the classic Greek city states as city states. Greece would get lots of representation that way, but in a way that is more accurate to their political realities.

Which is why Alexander should go back to Greece.
Though for variety we can also have Pericles back for a diplomacy focused alternative leader.

Alexander does not really represent the best elements of Ancient Greece, and what they're most iconic for. He was the king of a nation of herders and hunters who claimed their ruling dynasty was founded by Argos, one of the most important Mycenaean city-states - a claim that got Alexander's great-grandfather - and namesake - the right to participate in the Olympics, and he won a silver medal - and that been greatly Hellenized, but Alexander the Great most spread Grecian culture around by banging heads and looting cities to satisfy his own bloodlust and desire for glory.

By distance, the Meroitic kingdom is actually really far from lower Egypt, so I like how that fills a gaping hole in interior Africa’s TSL distribution. If Nubia were taken out, I think Kanem-Bornu could be a good substitute for that reason.

I think if you do go a bit further south, yes, but then more to the east, the Baganda Kingdom, under one of three possible Kabakas as choices for leaders, would be choice to include.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I agree, even as a Canadian, that Canada should not be included, especially with such a ridiculous portraying, but Australia is no more inherently worthy, otherwise. I'm not sure what inherent, "dark chapter," is being referred to as to why Mounties should have been outright excluded from such a portrayal, though (especially given the controversial, bloody, brutal, and often horrible histories around some other unique units - like being, "captured," by Jaguar Warriors, as a good example). And, Canada is not a French post-colonial nation.

The way Canada is portrayed in game makes them like a French post-colonial nation. Either way I think there are other options outside inside of North America that could take the spot of Canada, which really can't be said for Australia, which was my main point.

Alexander does not really represent the best elements of Ancient Greece, and what they're most iconic for. He was the king of a nation of herders and hunters who claimed their ruling dynasty was founded by Argos, one of the most important Mycenaean city-states - a claim that got Alexander's great-grandfather - and namesake - the right to participate in the Olympics, and he won a silver medal - and that been greatly Hellenized, but Alexander the Great most spread Grecian culture around by banging heads and looting cities to satisfy his own bloodlust and desire for glory.

I agree that Alexander does not represent the Golden Age of Greece, specifically Athens, which is why I wouldn't mind him taking Gorgo's spot if we also get another militaristic Greek leader.

 

[pineappledan]

The way Canada is portrayed in game makes them like a French post-colonial nation. Either way I think there are other options outside inside of North America that could take the spot of Canada, which really can't be said for Australia, which was my main point

I’ve seen a few people claim this and I can neither agree with nor particularly understand the sentiment. Outside of the choice of Laurier, who speaks in both official languages, the music choice, and the backsplash of chateau Frontenac, that’s all the French bits, and they are all aesthetic. None of the components or gameplay deals with French Canada at all. This means the gameplay is entirely anglophone Canada, and the leaderscene is maybe 66% French Canada.

That being said, this is one of the reasons why I think Canada could take that slot from America if they came up with a great design. Out of the big settler-colonial commonwealth nations, it’s the only one that is officially multilingual. More than America, Canada can portray a hybrid, emergent culture that is both strongly rooted in its parent nations, but is also something new. Based on what we got in civ 6, I don’t have high hopes for that. To the surprise if no one, the devs understand America better, so they should stick to that.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Tonga would be far more interesting, and actually had a somewhat verifiable history of notable accomplishments (a trans-oceanic empire before Columbus), whereas pre-European achievements in New Zealand from Kupe's arrival to the iwi encountered by Cook are sketchy in details, and Hawaii's monarchy only unified and solidified shortly after the very first contact with Europeans (traders and explorers, initially).

But Kamehameha is a strong name to be a leader in civ7. He remembers me Dragon Ball Z, the Japanese anime.

 

[Patine]

But Kamehameha is a strong name to be a leader in civ7. He remembers me Dragon Ball Z, the Japanese anime.

An Anime he, himself, was not portrayed in. In truth, there were six Kamehameha's (that pesky regnal number thing), and they were all known for different things. But, all of their accomplishments rarely extended beyond the Hawaiian Islands, themselves. The only Hawaiian Monarch whose achievements truly extended beyond the islands was Kalakaua, "the Merry Monarch," who was after any of the Kamehameha's, and could be said to have extended a cultural influence, but also probably readily and immensely hastened the demise of his kingdom - Sanford Dole's coup was only two years after his death. I still stand that the accomplishments of the Tui Tonga seem more profound.