What civs would you like to see in hypothetical Civ 7 vanilla?

[A'OSGVOINBVE ERFIONKP]

I know, that this is in civ 6 cathegory, but there obviously isn't civ 7 one.
We still aren't sure if there will be another civ 6 DLC. We can think about what civs could be in it or in civ 7 vanilla. So let's just sit, lie down, stand or do any other position and talk about who would we like to see in civ 7 vanilla.

 

[Naktis]

Europe:

England (Elisabeth) - Don't know which one Elisabeth , I let the firaxis decide. This civ simply cant be skiped from vanilla.
Rome (Marcus Aurelius) - Prob most important civ in western people history. I would even say them with china, greece and egypt is most important civs thoughout human history.
Greece (Alexander) - Alexander is too important to skip historicaly , he comes either as whole greece leader or as alternative one. Whole greek culture and history is imposible to skip.
Russia (Catherine) - Dont see a civ without Russia. Could be different leader tho.
France (Napoleon) - same as Russia.
Vikings - in some form.

Asia:

China (Taizong Tang) - one of most important civs in human history , even now China is one of most important countries in the world.
Japan (Toyotomi) - famous for they're samurais, budism, sengoku era.
India (Gandhi) - Im sure that we will get always India in vanilla and nukes lover gandhi
Vietnam (Lady Triệu) - need some new guys.

Africa:

Egypt (Khufu) - I still hope we get ancient leader with ancient cities for civ6. As for civ7 egypt is one of the most important civs in human history.
Madagascar (Ravalonna) - need some new guys.

Middle-east/Fertile crescent:

Arabia(Saladin) - Islam. And great history.
Sumer or Babylon.
Persia (Darius) - should be in vanilla and not some DLC. Shame for civ6.

North America

USA (Jefferson) - nothing much to explain here.
Aztec(monty) - really not fan of DLC for so important civ , keep dlc for alt leaders or someone like nubia.

South America

Brazil - for sales I guess.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

This feels pretty safe but I like it:

North America: America, Iroquois, Maya
Europe: England, France, Germany, Greece, Rome, Russia
Asia: Arabia, China, India, Japan, Khmer, Persia
Africa: Egypt, Ethiopia, Mali
South America: Inca
Free DLC: Assyria/Babylon/Sumer or Mongolia

 

[Morningcalm]

Some suggestions (for up to 11 female leaders of 18 civs if desired, and more African/Asian representation so we don’t have another #civsowhite game in this 21st century). Also can bring in old fan favorites like Babylon, Byzantium, and Maya who were missing in Civ VI.

North America: Haudenosaunee (Jigonhsasee), US (John Adams/Abraham Lincoln), Maya (Lady Six Sky)

Europe: Byzantium (Theodora/Emperor Justinian I), Germany (Frederick II), France (Cardinal Richelieu/Henry IV “the Good”), England (Elizabeth I), Russia (Catherine the Great)

Asia: Arabia (Harun al-Rashid), China (Kangxi/Wu Zetian/Cixi), India (Nur Jahan), Japan (Minamoto Yoritomo), Babylon/Hittites (Hammurabi/Puduhepa)

Africa: Egypt (Hatshepsut), Ethiopia (Emperor Menelik II), Benin (Idia), Angola (Ana Nzinga)

South America: Gran Colombia (Simon Bolivar)

DLC: Persia (Darius) and Greece (Themistocles); Portugal (John III) and Congo (Afonso I); Rome (Julius Caesar) and Goths (Alaric/Theodoric); Mongolia (Genghis Khan) and Majapahit (Raden Wijaya).

Alternate Leaders: Ashoka the Great (India), Himiko (Japan), Senusret III (Egypt).

 

[Gedemon]

What civs I would you like to see in Civ 7 vanilla?

None.

No joke, if we're talking about a new version of the game, I'd like to be able to completely build my civilization, gaining uniques abilities while playing, not pick a civilization with some preset and fixed abilities.

 

[Morningcalm]

What civs I would you like to see in Civ 7 vanilla?

None.

No joke, if we're talking about a new version of the game, I'd like to be able to completely build my civilization, gaining uniques abilities while playing, not pick a civilization with some preset and fixed abilities.

Maybe they could add an option to design your own Civ for gameplay or customize it to some degree ala Beyond Earth, but I don’t think we will see that. Historical flavor is the dressing for the salad that is Civ, and most people don’t want salad without dressing, especially if that salad is a Caesar salad.

 

[raen]

What civs I would you like to see in Civ 7 vanilla?

None.

No joke, if we're talking about a new version of the game, I'd like to be able to completely build my civilization, gaining uniques abilities while playing, not pick a civilization with some preset and fixed abilities.

Nice thought! maybe with a new type of leader (instead of random) that you pick at the start, but not leaving CIVS behind like MorningCalm said.

PS: hmm ... this seems a good idea to a mod, wanna try?

 

[A'OSGVOINBVE ERFIONKP]

Nice thought! maybe with a new type of leader (instead of random) that you pick at the start, but not leaving CIVS behind like MorningCalm said.

PS: hmm ... this seems a good idea to a mod, wanna try?

Well interesting Idea for a mod indeed. This would be far more historicaly accurate.

 

[Morningcalm]

Why half of the most important civs are coming in DLC? Greece? Rome? Mongolia? BTW. We are talking about vanilla. The DLLC civ were supoused to that kind of DLCs like civ5s Mongolia or civ6's Aztecs. Not all DLCs. We are talking about free one. Also Byzantium. This "fake Rome"? is wrong with you?

Too many Europeans spoil the broth, Africa is chronically underrepresented for a continent of its importance, and Byzantium is not “fake” Rome. It is a continuation of Rome, founded by a Roman emperor and built on Roman laws and culture (even if that culture changed later). It is a nice bridge for Greece and Rome, and sorely missed from Civ VI. And we had three (arguably even four) Greek leaders in Civ VI, so they can wait a bit to return.

Also, please don’t insinuate something is “wrong” with me for wanting civilizations different from your preferences.

 

[Amrunril]

This is essentially the same topic as this thread. Perhaps the two should be merged?

 

[Xandinho]

My ideal Civ7 vanilla would be:

Greece
Rome
England
France
Russia
Germany

China
India
Japan
Arabia
Persia
Indonesia

Egypt
Ethiopia
Mali

America
Maya
Inca

DLCs: Ottomans, Babylon, Spain, Brazil, Kongo, Aztecs and Maori.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Sumeria and Scythia.

Jk. While I think they were great for VI's base game, I don't believe VII will have the same design philosophy. So what we're really debating is what will VII prioritize differently from VI?

I could see them moving even further in the direction of cultural continuity to consolidate civs even more. This would include:

* Making a "Mexico" civ as a kind of Aztec-Mexico blob.
* Potentially blobbing Tupi into Brazil, since quite a large majority of Brazil are mixed race, particularly with Tupi or Guarani heritage.
* Throw some Mughals into India somehow. Although given all the city-state placing and the emphasis on "origin" civs in VI, I am getting the feeling like we will see the Timurids in VI.
* Blob Rome and Byzantium. I'm sorry, but Byzantium eats up a lot of great design space like Bulgaria, Albania, Kievan Rus'. If the roster doesn't get substantially bigger, Byzantium must get smaller, if it isn't already going to be in VI.
* Somehow consolidating Spain and Portugal, if they don't already make Portugal a "clone" of Spain in VI. I actually think the "leaked" roster was a Portuguese alternate leader for Spain, which was scrapped in favor of trying to make Portugal more of its own thing later down the road.
* I could see something similar happening with Norway and Denmark. Or the Maori and Hawaii. Or maybe even Scotland and Ireland. Clone civs are a very good idea, if done with care.
* If we really wanted to stretch, consolidate Arabia and Morocco as two halves of the same heritage. Or the Ottomans and Oman. Obviously I would rather we have a Berber-led Morocco and the Swahili, but that's specifically under VI's emphatic highlighting of native cultures. If that is abandoned for hyper-consolidation, I could see this happening.
* Mali/Ghana/Songhai blob? A benefit I am seeing of this hyperconsolidation is even greater potential for things like other Arabian or Persian or Turkic or Chinese dynasties to be represented. Swinging the pendulum even further toward more-leaders-less-civs.
* I could see the Cree and Canada (and Sioux and Iroquois) being scrapped for the Anishinaabe as a sort of modern pan-Amerindian polity to cover as much ground as possible.
* If we somehow get the Navajo in VI (which I would like but am dubious of), I think the new VII paradigm will attempt to accommodate a pivot toward the Apache. I just have a feeling.

 

[A'OSGVOINBVE ERFIONKP]

This is essentially the same topic as this thread. Perhaps the two should be merged?

Well here we are talking only about vanilla game and preorder DLC. (not all as some people think). Also topic is just civs. Not vanilla in general. I know that it's smaller, but I find it more logical.

 

[Morningcalm]

It isn't continuator of Rome. It's result of Rome being ruled poorly. I find Byzantium kind of something like East Germany.

Also I find it absolutly ridiculous that you want to introduce it before Rome or Greece.

Im yerms of culture: BEEEP! Byzantium had greek culture. You know why? That's because majority of people were Greek there. I personaly find Byzantium king of something like "part of US declared independence and declared itself nation of Chinatown" buy in ancient version (and fact that Chineese people are imigrants, and Greeks were original inhabitians of these lands.

The majority of historians disagree with you and see Byzantium as a continuation of Rome, even if it wasn't the same thing as Rome. Contrary to it being "Rome being ruled poorly" the Byzantine Empire (also called the Eastern Roman Empire for a time) was doing far better than the Western Roman Empire when formed (the Western Roman Empire was poor, disease-ridden, ruled by weaklings, and overrun or propped up by barbarians prior to its fall and during the early periods of Byzantine history). Up through the time of Justinian I, Byzantium didn't have "Greek culture" at large, and even after him, it continued to have Roman influence even if its rulers preferred to speak Greek.

Byzantium didn't declare independence or have anything parallel to Chinatown (lol), and your other examples are ahistorical and irrelevant to Byzantium. You seem to just have a bias against Byzantium without understanding the Byzantine empire or its place in history. As I previously said, it is a unique mix of Roman and Greek influence, in its culture (including its laws), its military, and its understanding of its place in history (it was Justinian's mission to restore the Roman Empire that led him to conquer North Africa and Italy with his talented generals).

I personally don't care whether you think Byzantium being introduced before ancient Greece or Rome is "absolutly ridiculous (sp)". I'm here to share my opinion, and you cannot silence me with insults, though I have countered your opinions with history instead of as you have, using vague and irrelevant examples.

You also notably did not counter my point about there being three Greek leaders (or four) in Civ VI and no Byzantium in Civ VI. It's high time for the Byzantine emperors to rise again in Civ.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I actually agree that Byzantium doesn't feel like a base game concept. At least based on how base games have been designed in the past.

But here's a stupid, half-baked idea I just came up with. Players want "staples." Players will pay for "staples." Ergo, what if the devs saved as many staples as possible for DLC? I.e., they started the base game with all the new and weird or late-added civs, and then worked backwards reintroducing staples with increasingly complex mechanics? It would at the very least solve complaints about how England, France, Norway, Egypt, etc. were/are too mechanically simple and boring to play.

For example:

Americas
* Sioux/Anishinaabe
* Mexico/Maya
* Brazil/Inca/Colombia
* Mapuche
* Inuit, maybe?

Africa
* Morocco
* Swahili
* Ethiopia
* Benin/Oyo

Europe
* Ireland/Scotland
* Italy/Goths
* Bulgaria/Byzantium
* Georgia
* Finland

Asia
* Timurids
* Akkadia
* Burma/Tibet
* Vietnam
* Sakha/Yakutia

Austronesia
* Maori/Tonga
* Indonesia

I realize that's twenty one civs, which isn't impossible for a base game but admittedly more than we could reasonably anticipate. Several of these seem like they would be longshots for a base game anyway. But it's just to illustrate the possibility of having a base game without many, if any, "staples."

 

[Morningcalm]

Byzantium not being in the base game feels weird only because it hasn't been done before. That was the same with the Ottomans, the same with the Iroquois (both in the base game in Civ V), Sumeria (in the base game in Civ VI), etc etc. Similarly, Civ VI saw many fan favorite civs not returning.

We shouldn't always use the past as a predictor, as the likelihood of something happening doesn't necessarily increase over time. Sometimes, expecting a key result (i.e. that swans found in Australia will be white, like all the swans Europeans saw in Europe) doesn't help correctly predict anything (the swans were black). Maybe we are used to Byzantium not being in the base game, but that doesn't mean Civ VII won't surprise us. Civ VI certainly surprised us by including Australia in the game at all, let alone Canada, and by excluding Maya, Babylon, Portugal, etc.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Haven't worked on it for a while, but this is my list:

Europe: 6
- British - England (Henry VIII)
- French - Francia (Charlemagne)
- German - Prussia (Frederick II)
- Roman - Rome (Livia)
- Russian - Ruthenia - (Olga of Kyiv)
- Athenian - Athens (Alcibiades)

Africa: 3
- Egyptian - Egypt (Hatshepsut)
- Phoenician - Carthage (Hamilcar)
- Ethiopian - Ethiopia (Taytu Betul)

Near East: 5
- Arabian - Abbasids (Harun al-Rashid)
- Armenian - Armenia (Tigran II)
- Hurrian -Hittites (Puduhepa)
- Assyrian - Assyria (Sammuramat)
- Persian - Parthia (Mithridates)

Far East: 3
- Chinese - Ming (Yongle)
- Japanese - Nippon (Meiji)
- Indian - Maurya (Ashoka)

America: 3
- Andean - Inca (Tupaq Yupanqui)
- Sioux - Lakota (Sitting Bull)
- American - United States (Jefferson)

Pre-order bonus:
- French - France (Louis XIV) (alternative empire to the French civilization)

They don't have to copy it literally, but a similar template will do. (maybe one additional far eastern civ)

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Byzantium not being in the base game feels weird only because it hasn't been done before. That was the same with the Ottomans, the same with the Iroquois (both in the base game in Civ V), Sumeria (in the base game in Civ VI), etc etc. Similarly, Civ VI saw many fan favorite civs not returning.

We shouldn't always use the past as a predictor, as the likelihood of something happening doesn't necessarily increase over time. Sometimes, expecting a key result (i.e. that swans found in Australia will be white, like all the swans Europeans saw in Europe) doesn't help correctly predict anything (the swans were black). Maybe we are used to Byzantium not being in the base game, but that doesn't mean Civ VII won't surprise us. Civ VI certainly surprised us by including Australia in the game at all, let alone Canada, and by excluding Maya, Babylon, Portugal, etc.

Oh I'm definitely not someone to propose using the past as a predictor. I just see that releasing Rome and Byzantium simultaneously needlessly hampers diversity. And that Rome is considered by many to be the quintessential empire/civ and it would be blasphemous not to include in the base game. If Civ ever had any essential selling points, Rome would be one of them, but not Byzantium.

Which, to be clear, I find boring af, just as much as everyone's obsession with eeking out multiple Mesopotamian civs. But I can see why Byzantium just wouldn't stand a chance in most situations. It's not a true black swan situation because of just how much developer and consumer preferences lean odds against putting Byzantium first.

That's not to rag on Byzantium at all. It's certainly a relevant part of history. But I think it's just too...conditional to be a clear frontrunner for inclusion. Doubly so since it often cockblocks many good Balkan and Steppe civs that deserve a chance.

 

[Morningcalm]

Oh I'm definitely not someone to propose using the past as a predictor. I just see that releasing Rome and Byzantium simultaneously needlessly hampers diversity. And that Rome is considered by many to be the quintessential empire/civ and it would be blasphemous not to include in the base game. If Civ ever had any essential selling points, Rome would be one of them, but not Byzantium.

Which, to be clear, I find boring af, just as much as everyone's obsession with eeking out multiple Mesopotamian civs. But I can see why Byzantium just wouldn't stand a chance in most situations. It's not a true black swan situation because of just how much developer and consumer preferences lean odds against putting Byzantium first.

That's not to rag on Byzantium at all. It's certainly a relevant part of history. But I think it's just too...conditional to be a clear frontrunner for inclusion. Doubly so since it often cockblocks many good Balkan and Steppe civs that deserve a chance.

I agree Rome is a quintessential civ, but I note other civs that are almost as quintessential, such as Spain, have in the past not appeared in the base game. And now we have the situation where Maya, Portugal, Byzantium, Ethiopia haven’t appeared in Civ VI at all. Sacred cows can be killed at any time depending on what the developers would find interesting.

I don’t think we can know how much “developer and consumer preferences lean odds against putting Byzantium first” since all we have is forum chatter and Facebook/YouTube etc. chatter to judge by. Frankly, I see Byzantium as basically Rome, albeit in a later period. Having Byzantium would be similar to having a Rome civ with Constantine as its leader, just with slight flavor differentials (I.e. more likely to have a cavalry unique unit than an infantry unit).

 

[Henri Christophe]

I believe every region of the globe need to have the same number of civs to be more fair.I believe every region of the globe need to have the same number of civs to be more fair.

Europe: 6 (As a Eurocentric game, I believe this one is the most important europeans civs, so, because they are 6, I will list the 6 best civ for area
- England
- France
- Germany
- Rome
- Russia
- Greece

Middle East
- Babylon (Or anyother Bronze-Age empire)
- Persia (I would like to see a Sassanian Persian this time, I'm kind of tired of Achamenid Persia)
- Jews (I never understand why they was never in this game, they are one of the few civs who can have U.U. from ancient and atomic era at the same time!)
- Turks
- Arabia
- Egypt

Far East
- China
- Japan
- Mongolia
- India
- Korea
- Siam

Americas (Far West hehe)
- Aztecs (Acctually I also miss some civ more ancient in Americas as Zapotecs, Toltects or Olmecs) at least one, don't matter witch
- Inkas
- Guarani (Maybe Solano López as the last Guarani leader XD)
- Haiti (The first black republic in the World, defeating Napoleon's troops to achieve the independence, they really deserve be a Civ!)
- Iroquois
- Colômbia (Despite I'm brazilian, I believe Simon Bolivar is cooler than D.Pedro II)

Africa
- Zulu (SURE!)
- Ethiopia
- Mali
- Zimbabwe (Mwenemutapa, is the name of this kingdom around 1500 when Portugueses take note, but I think Zimbabwe is cooler)
- Swahilli
- Dahomey (U.U. = Amazons Warriors; but this game need to lost this shame to put slavery kingdom, every history deserve be prouded, even the Empire who really grows with slavery)

.