What first time civs added in Civ6 would you like to see back in Civ7?

[Xandinho]

Civilization 6 has added many new civs, whether for popular demands, marketing or due to more diversity. I'd like to know which of these civs are the most popular to return in Civ7 or even become staples in the franchise. You have up to 7 options to choose.
Please, explain your votes.

 

[Buktu]

I voted for Georgia, Gran Colombia, Kongo, Maori, Norway, Scythia and Vietnam just because they were the most fun to play for me. Ofc there is no guarantee that they will have similar bonusses in civ 7 but they will still be my top picks.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Cree, Gaul, Georgia, Hungary, Maori, Norway, Vietnam.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Only 7 choices?
I mean I'd like a lot of them back but if I only have to pick 7 I'd say: Australia, Macedon , Norway, Nubia, Phoenicia, Scythia, and Vietnam.
Australia because it is one of my favorites.
Macedon just because.
Norway because it definitely feels like a good Viking civ, whereas Denmark could be in the same game but play differently under Margaret
Nubia for another ancient African option
I like Phoenicia personally better than Carthage.
Scythia might be one of the best attempts at a nomadic steppe culture.
Vietnam isn't as easily replaced.

All the rest of the options could I wouldn't mind being replaced by another civ and such as Argentina for Gran Colombia, Haiti for Canada, any other Native American tribe for Cree, Goths or Franks for Gaul, Angola for Kongo, Ireland for Scotland, Armenia for Georgia, Samoa/Hawaii/Tonga for Maori, Musica for Mapuche.
Well I can switch Maori for Macedon as long as Alexander is back for Greece.

 

[Xandinho]

My top 7 is:

Gaul (my favorite alternative to represent Celts).
Gran Colombia (I used to prefer Argentina, but now I think Gran Colombia is perhaps better because of its more distinct and less European culture than Argentina and also because of Simon Bolivar).
Hungary (some people might say they can alternate with Austria, but I think they can coexist together).
Kongo
Maori (one of the most fun and unique to play civs the game has ever had, and one of the best options to represent the civilizations of the Pacific/Oceania).
Phoenicia (although this in the game is almost basically Carthage, I prefer they keep it as Phoenicia).
Vietnam

I would also like to see:

Nubia
Macedon
Australia

I have mixed feelings about:

Georgia (I want to see this again in the game, but on the other hand, I think Armenia would be better. I don't know what the possibility of Armenia being included one day, so I think Georgia can continue to represent the Caucasus).
Canada (It could return in Civ7, but not at the expense of another native civilization).
Scythia (I like this in the game, but maybe we should have the Parthians in Civ7? I don't know much about them, tbh).

I'd not like to see in Civ7/I'd like another one instead:

Cree (I prefer the Iroquois to return in Civ7).
Mapuche (better Muisca, Guarani or other native South American civilization next time).
Norway (I prefer Denmark representing the Vikings in the next interaction).
Scotland (Ireland might be better, imo).

 

[Krajzen]

I realistically assume that the amount of available "slots" for factions in a game is limited, so I generally vote against a culture when a freshv neighbor from the same general area is available.




With all respect, definitely not Australia and Canada lol. I have also always though that all Anglo - Saxon colonies in one game is too much of the very similar culture from the same eras. They should sometimes come back.

Cree - there are so damn many NA native cultures that you could introduce a new one every game, and returning ones should IMO be only really major ones like Iroquis, sometimes.

Georgia - cool but it's time for Armenia
Gran Col - cool but it's time for Muisca
Hungary - cool but it's time for Bohemia
Kongo - cool but it's time for Swahilli or Angola
Maori - cool but it's time for Hawaii or Aborigines
Mapuche - cool but it's time for Argentina
Norway - series should rotate between Norway and Denmark
Scotland - cool but it's time for Ireland
Scythia - cool but it's time for Khazars or especially Timurids
Vietnam - cool but it's time for Burma


Thus, I'd like to see Macedon, Gaul, Nubia, Phoenicia in civ7.

Either Phoenicia or Carthago are damn cool and important so they should come back regularly, and we had Carthago three times while Phoenicians only one time, so I vote for them, especially as Phoenician civilization is somewhat "all Carthago does and controls plus much wider context and motherland in Lebanon".

Ancient Celts are awesome and "Gauls" is the best way to include them, they should return regularly.

Nubia should come back regularly in general, it'a crazy how we got Zulus for such a long time instead of the most ancient Subsaharan civ.

Macedon is a very specific case.
I wouldn't generally vote for Macedon/Greece split in other historical games, but in civ it is a brilliant idea because of the ways leaders work. "Greece" led by Alexander was always this extremely warmongering, crazy, expansionist nation, completely overshadowing cultural, scientific and city - state nature of Greek civilization before him. Greek - Macedon split allows us to both have and eat cake, have Alexander the Great and intellectual Greece in the same time. I really think the split should remain forever, with one hardcore militarist civ being led by Philip/Alexander and another with capital in some city - state with intellectual, economic and maybe naval focus.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Cree, Gaul, Hungary, Kongo, Nubia, Scotland, Vietnam

- But I'd like to see most of them get a major rework, and there are 'as good' alternatives for several of them:
Cree - Ojibwe/Chippewa
Hungary - Bohemia
Vietnam - Siam, Burma

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Scythia (I like this in the game, but maybe we should have the Parthians in Civ7? I don't know much about them, tbh).

I considered Parthia over Scythia but to my knowledge they incorporated a lot of Greek and Persian influences which would make them similar to those civs which indeed would appear in Civ 7 eventually.

Also even though I like both Gaul and Scotland in Civ 6, I'd rather we only get one "Celtic" civ in Civ 7 so I don't mind if it's Gaul again or someone new like Ireland.

 

[Krajzen]

I considered Parthia over Scythia but to my knowledge they incorporated a lot of Greek and Persian influences which would make them similar to those civs which indeed would appear in Civ 7 eventually.

Also even though I like both Gaul and Scotland in Civ 6, I'd rather we only get one "Celtic" civ in Civ 7 so I don't mind if it's Gaul again or someone new like Ireland.

Everything I have read about Parthians and Parthian Empire basically told me this WAS Persian civilization, modern Persians consider this empire to be "theirs". They have begun as separate unremarkable minor Iranian people really culturally close to Persians, then they have rebuilt Persian empire and their identity was of Persian rulers from Parthian Arsacid dynasty. In a similar vein, Safavid Empire is considered to be a Persian civilization despite being founded by ethnic Azeris; Qing is considered Chinese civilization with a Manchu ruling dynasty, not its own Manchu thing; and Mamluks are Egyptian Arab civilization despite the dynasty and military elite themselves being Turkic (btw Saladin's dynasty was probably of Kurdish origin). The original culture and ethnicity of a ruling dynasty seem to matter much less than whom they lead in what name.

I mean, I kind of can imagine Persians and Parthians being separate civs in the game, it just feels really redundant to me, especially as Parthians did nothing remarkable on their own before they embarked on a quest to rebuilt Persian empire. Unless you reframed Persians as Achaemenids and Parthians as Arsacids and said you just want two separate Persian dynasties as separate civs

 

[Zaarin]

I voted for Gaul, Maori, Norway, Phoenicia, and Vietnam. I'm particularly keen to keep Phoenicia rather than Carthage unless Carthage gets portrayed more like Phoenicia. Many on this list I want to see replaced:

Cree with a new NA civilization.
Georgia with Armenia.
Scythia with Parthia.
Hungary with Bohemia.
Scotland with Ireland.
Mapuche/Gran Colombia with Muisca.
I'd be okay with Maori and Vietnam being replaced by other Polynesian and SEA civs respectively, but I'd also be okay with their reprise. Similarly, I think Norway is a solid choice for the Viking civ, but I'm open to seeing it replaced by Iceland or Denmark--though, truth be told, if we see Denmark again I'd rather see it as post-Viking Kalmar Union Denmark, albeit that would likely come at the cost of Protestant military powerhouse Sweden.
Canada and especially Australia I just don't want to see come back.

Regarding the Parthians, yes, they were the Arsacid Persians, but if we're going to have an ancient/classical Eurasian steppe civ they really are the best candidate precisely because they eventually settled down and founded cities--no naming cities after archaeological dig sites. Khazars are interesting but are Medieval (albeit early Medieval) and thus fill a different niche, same with the Timurids or the Alans. The problem with other ancient/classical horse nomads--Cimmerians, Scythians, Kassites--is that finding leaders and city names is difficult. (I'm not suggesting we need a horse nomad civ for each age. I think Civ6 has too many of them. But Civ6 Scythia's niche is definitely the early horse nomads, in contrast to Mongolia's Medieval horse nomads. Subbing the Khazars or Timurids doesn't fill Scythia's niche.)

Also, since the legitimacy of the "unending line of Chinese history from Zhou to Qing" has been questioned, I don't think it's unfair to question the legitimacy of the unending line of Persian history from Achaemenid to Pahlavi, either. Indeed, I'd argue it's even more open to question because Persian culture was suppressed for some time after the Islamic conquest, leading eventually to a resurgence of Persian culture and a rejection of Arabicization and Turkicization. At any rate, Sid Meier's Persia is and always has been exclusively Achaemenid; the Parthians are a golden opportunity to bring in later Persian history under a different name. (That would be much harder to do with, say, the Sassanids, alas.)

That being said, replacing Scythia with Parthia doesn't mean I don't want more Central Asian civs, be it Sogdia, Kushan, Kwarazmia, Afghanistan, Timurids, Uzbeks, Khazars, whatever.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I mean, I kind of can imagine Persians and Parthians being separate civs in the game, it just feels really redundant to me, especially as Parthians did nothing remarkable on their own before they embarked on a quest to rebuilt Persian empire. Unless you reframed Persians as Achaemenids and Parthians as Arsacids and said you just want two separate Persian dynasties as separate civs

Yeah I am sure they would be separate civs, but feel kind of redundant. That being said I don't mind Macedon and Greece or possibly having a Frankish civ alongside Germany, France and Austria so...

I'd be okay with Maori and Vietnam being replaced by other Polynesian and SEA civs respectively, but I'd also be okay with their reprise. Similarly, I think Norway is a solid choice for the Viking civ, but I'm open to seeing it replaced by Iceland or Denmark--though, truth be told, if we see Denmark again I'd rather see it as post-Viking Kalmar Union Denmark, albeit that would likely come at the cost of Protestant military powerhouse Sweden.

Not sure how I feel about Iceland, with it just being an extension of the historical Norwegian Kingdom already. But I agree about Kalmar Union Denmark could get in also. Maybe in Civ 7 we could get all three?

Regarding the Parthians, yes, they were the Arsacid Persians, but if we're going to have an ancient/classical Eurasian steppe civ they really are the best candidate precisely because they eventually settled down and founded cities--no naming cities after archaeological dig sites. Khazars are interesting but are Medieval (albeit early Medieval) and thus fill a different niche, same with the Timurids or the Alans.

Yeah that's what I was getting at. To me either Scythia or Parthia would be the best choice, unless they find some mechanic to make the Huns work, for an Ancient/Classical Era steppe civ considering we will always have Mongolia to represent the Medieval entry.

 

[Zaarin]

Not sure how I feel about Iceland, with it just being an extension of the historical Norwegian Kingdom already. But I agree about Kalmar Union Denmark could get in also. Maybe in Civ 7 we could get all three?

I really don't need three Scandinavian civs TBH. And yeah, Iceland was a Norwegian colony, but it kind of went its own way by the High Middle Ages. I would actually get lowkey excited for a Norse-Gaelic "Kingdom of the Isles" civ, another Norwegian colony, but I grant that would be...niche. On the whole, as I said, Norway really does feel like the best option for the Viking civ. (After Civ6's phenomenal arrangement of "Gjendines Bånlåt," I vote "Byssan Lull" for Norway's theme in Civ7. )

Yeah that's what I was getting at. To me either Scythia or Parthia would be the best choice, unless they find some mechanic to make the Huns work, for an Ancient/Classical Era steppe civ considering we will always have Mongolia to represent the Medieval entry.

Hmm, speaking of Huns, the Hephthalites would be another interesting possibility for a Central Asian civ. Their ethnicity is up in the air, but as far as language goes they adopted Bactrian and Sogdian as their official languages.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I really don't need three Scandinavian civs TBH.

I wouldn't necessary either, but I don't see how Kalmar Union Denmark would get in without replacing modern Sweden. Because we aren't getting modern Norway.

And yeah, Iceland was a Norwegian colony, but it kind of went its own way by the High Middle Ages.

Yeah but that was mainly after the Viking Age, so to me that doesn't sound as interesting.

I would actually get lowkey excited for a Norse-Gaelic "Kingdom of the Isles" civ, another Norwegian colony, but I grant that would be...niche.

I can see that going well. Who needs Norway, Scotland, or Ireland civ when you could get this civ instead.

Hmm, speaking of Huns, the Hephthalites would be another interesting possibility for a Central Asian civ. Their ethnicity is up in the air, but as far as language goes they adopted Bactrian and Sogdian as their official languages.

I mean I think the Huns could work as long as they make you feel like you are playing as a barbarian.
I think for an ability where you can't found any cities, other than your capital, and can only build encampments would be the only way for them to work.
The only way you gain other cities, districts, buildings, and wonders is through conquest.

But it's still not an ideal playstyle to me as Scythia.

 

[Zaarin]

I wouldn't necessary either, but I don't see how Kalmar Union Denmark would get in without replacing modern Sweden. Because we aren't getting modern Norway.

Yeah, Kalmar Denmark would have to replace Early Modern Sweden, which would be unfortunate but might be interesting for one game.

Yeah but that was mainly after the Viking Age, so to me that doesn't sound as interesting.

Meh, I'm bored with pop culture Vikings anyway.

I can see that going well. Who needs Norway, Scotland, or Ireland civ when you could get this civ instead.

Exactly, kill three civs with one stone.

I mean I think the Huns could work as long as they make you feel like you are playing as a barbarian.

I think the Huns would work better as a minor civ TBH.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I vote for Kongo, Maori and Mapuche.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

Went Georgia, Maori, Norway, Phoenicia, Scythia, and Vietnam.

• Georgia: Chosen almost for their music alone. And music aside, they're a country the general public needs to know more about.
• Maori: All around one of the most unique civs we've had in a while. Extremely unique gameplay, unique (if polarizing) music, and the second most charismatic and entertaining leader in all of Civ. Sorry, Kupe, but Gilgabro does exist, so...
• Norway: If we're going to have vikings, make it them. 100% agree with @Alexander's Hetaroi here. As someone who entered the franchise with VI, I had no idea they weren't a series veteran- they seem like such a natural fit, to me.
• Phoenicia: I was a little bit confused by this considering we had Dido in Civ 5, but then I remembered the Phoenicia name change. Even if this civ only deserves to be here based on a technicality, it should absolutely return for Civ 7. It needs to be a staple, considering how historically important it was, and how interesting it is.
• Scythia: This is a civ I didn't know existed before I got into Civ VI, which probably tells you just how well-informed the general public is on their nomadic horse raiders. Granted, my history knowledge was pretty lackluster before I got into Civ, but I think the point still stands. They're a very strange civ to have at launch, and finding leaders is difficult, from what I can tell, but I think they deserve to be on the roster just so we can have a nomadic horse raider civ that isn't Mongolia.
  • Civ VI is also what introduced me to Tomyris, and while she's likely rather ahistorical, the narrative she possesses is just moving to me. So, even if she's nothing more than a character, I think she's a character that's worth being introduced to.
• Vietnam: This should really be a standard East Asian civ by now. Besides, the American consumer base needs more representation of Vietnam outside of the war, so their inclusion would once again help with informing the public.

And as for some other thoughts...

Macedon just because.

Alexander approves

But in all seriousness, as ironic as it may seem coming from someone with my username, I do think Alex should appear in the next game but not as the leader of Macedon. I'm hoping they make Greece another multi-leader civ... and, if Macedon is to return, I'll only allow it if they use Greek Macedonian music instead of North Macedonian music. There's a big difference.

I'm not suggesting we need a horse nomad civ for each age. I think Civ6 has too many of them.

The unexpected downside of horse nomads' real-world effectiveness and prevalence is that it becomes very repetitive when trying to design a 4X game.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Norway: If we're going to have vikings, make it them. 100% agree with @Alexander's Hetaroi here. As someone who entered the franchise with VI, I had no idea they weren't a series veteran- they seem like such a natural fit, to me.

Well technically Vikings have been in the series for a while. It's just that from Civ 2 to Civ 4 the civ was just just called Vikings with traits from Norway, Denmark and Sweden. Then in Civ 5 they called it Denmark with Viking characteristics and also made Sweden but early modern. I don't mind Denmark coming back and being Vikings again but they definitely don't have to be, unlike Norway which seems to be the only niche for them.

Alexander approves

But in all seriousness, as ironic as it may seem coming from someone with my username, I do think Alex should appear in the next game but not as the leader of Macedon. I'm hoping they make Greece another multi-leader civ... and, if Macedon is to return, I'll only allow it if they use Greek Macedonian music instead of North Macedonian music. There's a big difference.

I can live with Alexander being the militaristic Greek leader as well. Just as long as he's in it. But if alternate leaders did not return there's no reason why there shouldn't be a split just to keep him in the game.

 

[Leucarum]

For a lot of these civs I'd like them to rotate among a pre-existing group rather than there being one specific representation. E.g. I'd love it if they rotated among Scotland, Gaul, Ireland and Wales. Similarly rotating among Scandinavian countries and modern south american nations would be my vote.