What leaders and/or nations do you want in Civilization VII?

[Boris Gudenuf]

The thing about slavery is it's FAR MORE pernicious and ubiquitous in human history than just the Atlantic Triangle chattel slavery by an IMMENSE margin. Virtually no society in history with need for cheap, mass, unskilled labour - for real projects or luxuriant living - has not had it as a legal and economic institution at some point in their history under some guide or mechanism. It is a despicable underpinning of most of the human species, and focusing on the Atlantic Triangle as though it were the only relevant example is misguided, at best. Avoiding making more of it than an implied folding into workers of past ages is the best way all around in Civ. Almost all of us in this world have the proverbial ancestral whip in our hand - including most of more or less pure African descent...

Not only has slavery been endemic and pernicious in human history, it has also been a much more variable and complex institution than the way it is usually considered today. Just for one example, it has been estimated that up to 1/3 of the people living in Imperial Roman territory were slaves. But they included some of the richest men in the Empire, and had numerous pathways to free citizenship for themselves and their children.
To use the American antebellum South's favorite euphemism, it was indeed a 'peculiar institution'.

I bring this up as another argument for making 'slavery' an Implicit rather than an explicit part of any game. Aside from personal revulsion, it is simply too varied historically to be defined by any single set of rules.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Have a civ like the English with a reference to piracy do not misguide it as the only relevant example, neither a reference of human sacrifice for the Aztec or forced conversion to Spaniards turn them in the only culture that ever did that in real history. Like the positive elements that despite be common for many civilizations still are asigned for in-game design for one or two, the ones with negative connotations could (and are already) asigned to civs in-game.

Now, there are no limitation to have one element about Portuguese that "nod" to their massive Slave Trade. While others civs could represent it with units like Barbary Corsair, Mamluk, Jannisary, Eagle Warrior, Conquistador, etc. The Portuguese are chained to (also used to chained people to) Nau/Caravel/Carrack as UU and Feitoria as UI so the UA could do the trick.
1- Nau/Caravel/Carrack UU, are given the naval exploration element by their stats and capabilities.
2- Feitoria UI, can cover being built in foreign cities and the bonus from sea trade routes, not need to restrictions just a notable bonus from take the time to built them.
3- Triangular Trade UA, could be for example the option to select one of your own resources (like sugar, tobacco, coffee and cotton) to upgrade(bonus/yield) from each foreign city with a Feitoria. With the option for a bigger multiplier at the cost of CS population if you are suzerain.

By the way if slavery is implicit for all civs, at least keep Emancipation as a civic/policy that provide happinest and loyalty (that for Portuguese inabilited the extra multiplier).

 

[Patine]

Have a civ like the English with a reference to piracy do not misguide it as the only relevant example, neither a reference of human sacrifice for the Aztec or forced conversion to Spaniards turn them in the only culture that ever did that in real history. Like the positive elements that despite be common for many civilizations still are asigned for in-game design for one or two, the ones with negative connotations could (and are already) asigned to civs in-game.

Now, there are no limitation to have one element about Portuguese that "nod" to their massive Slave Trade. While others civs could represent it with units like Barbary Corsair, Mamluk, Jannisary, Eagle Warrior, Conquistador, etc. The Portuguese are chained to (also used to chained people to) Nau/Caravel/Carrack as UU and Feitoria as UI so the UA could do the trick.
1- Nau/Caravel/Carrack UU, are given the naval exploration element by their stats and capabilities.
2- Feitoria UI, can cover being built in foreign cities and the bonus from sea trade routes, not need to restrictions just a notable bonus from take the time to built them.
3- Triangular Trade UA, could be for example the option to select one of your own resources (like sugar, tobacco, coffee and cotton) to upgrade(bonus/yield) from each foreign city with a Feitoria. With the option for a bigger multiplier at the cost of CS population if you are suzerain.

By the way if slavery is implicit for all civs, at least keep Emancipation as a civic/policy that provide happinest and loyalty (that for Portuguese inabilited the extra multiplier).

But why continue to have an explicit slavery call-out for Portugal when there are other perfectly good aspects and eras to focus on?

 

[BuchiTaton]

* Design synergy: The historical "Triangular Trade" add value to the colonial trade by control and explotiation of the different conditions and market necessities in each continent. It has a very pragmatic mercantile reason that traduced in another massive source of riches for the European Colonial Empires, being Portugal the first, the last and by far the biggest example of this model. Others of the most notorious elements from Portuguese history like the Naval Discoveries and the Feitorias to monopolize the trade of oversea foreign tradegoods pretty much are both in real history and in-game design steps that would lead to a reason to also found your own oversea cities to produce exotic resources to export.
1- Unique explorer ship > 2- Built trade routes to foreign ports > 3- Use its benefits to expand and improve your own products
The whole process mean "complete a cycle" of naval control and trade enrichment.
* Comparative role: Slave labor in colonial plantations was not unique to Portugal but it was the main figure of this model, like Spain is to forced conversion when everyone had some examples of missionary work, or England to piracy when all others have some degree of privateering. The only other top element of Portugal is start the Age of Discovery with the most notorious naval explorers, but even in the model of Factories France, England and Netherland dethroned Portugal to achieve a control over Africa and Asia that the Portuguese never accomplished. Similarly in game just explore the map is pointless if you dont have something of value to use that territory, seize the available coast for your own cities and exotic resources would make the naval exploration more significative. Ironically unruly slave raiders like Bandeirantes (in America) and Prazeros (in Africa) were the ones going deep inland.
Like said, Netherland have a huge thematic overlap with Portugal, but also Venice/Genoa and Hansetic Leage, even others like England, Spain and Norway/Dermark just from Europe can justify strong naval and exploration elements. Lets not start with Phoenician, Arab, Javanese/Malay, Tamil, Polynesian, etc. So just naval exploration and trade are not enough to make Portugal notorious.
But what about other elements? From medieval time the Reconquista elements about resistance and religion are some of the most generic to come with since most cultures in history can justify a moment of resistance and fervor. Portuguese art and science is overshadowed by most of the main European nations, and even if one of these elements are selected there are not simultaneous and complementary to naval exploration and trade like the labor in their plantations.
* Similary dark elements: Again, Barbary Corsairs, Jenissaries, Mamluks, Conquistadors, etc. Also have pretty dark stories behind them. Still if history must be sanitised others names could be used instead of "Triangular Trade", like "Treaty of Tordesillas" since its meant the possibility for Portugal to develop this complementary colonial expansion and trade. The historic relevance of the Triangular Trade is there and Portugal is the most notorious example of it.

This is not a footnote in Portugal history, neither an isolated anachronistic element forced for the sake of represent different periods. It was a synergic element with the others of the Portuguese golden era, a world's history relevant and excelsed by Portugal. Now after all this, the design focus is not slavery, like Ottomans are not the "slavery civ" just because some slave related elements, and neither is supposed to be the ideal or "the must" design for Portugal, is only a suggestion with explained justification for an relevant aspect of Portuguese history that is poorly explored in-game.

 

[Patine]

* Design synergy: The historical "Triangular Trade" add value to the colonial trade by control and explotiation of the different conditions and market necessities in each continent. It has a very pragmatic mercantile reason that traduced in another massive source of riches for the European Colonial Empires, being Portugal the first, the last and by far the biggest example of this model. Others of the most notorious elements from Portuguese history like the Naval Discoveries and the Feitorias to monopolize the trade of oversea foreign tradegoods pretty much are both in real history and in-game design steps that would lead to a reason to also found your own oversea cities to produce exotic resources to export.
1- Unique explorer ship > 2- Built trade routes to foreign ports > 3- Use its benefits to expand and improve your own products
The whole process mean "complete a cycle" of naval control and trade enrichment.
* Comparative role: Slave labor in colonial plantations was not unique to Portugal but it was the main figure of this model, like Spain is to forced conversion when everyone had some examples of missionary work, or England to piracy when all others have some degree of privateering. The only other top element of Portugal is start the Age of Discovery with the most notorious naval explorers, but even in the model of Factories France, England and Netherland dethroned Portugal to achieve a control over Africa and Asia that the Portuguese never accomplished. Similarly in game just explore the map is pointless if you dont have something of value to use that territory, seize the available coast for your own cities and exotic resources would make the naval exploration more significative. Ironically unruly slave raiders like Bandeirantes (in America) and Prazeros (in Africa) were the ones going deep inland.
Like said, Netherland have a huge thematic overlap with Portugal, but also Venice/Genoa and Hansetic Leage, even others like England, Spain and Norway/Dermark just from Europe can justify strong naval and exploration elements. Lets not start with Phoenician, Arab, Javanese/Malay, Tamil, Polynesian, etc. So just naval exploration and trade are not enough to make Portugal notorious.
But what about other elements? From medieval time the Reconquista elements about resistance and religion are some of the most generic to come with since most cultures in history can justify a moment of resistance and fervor. Portuguese art and science is overshadowed by most of the main European nations, and even if one of these elements are selected there are not simultaneous and complementary to naval exploration and trade like the labor in their plantations.
* Similary dark elements: Again, Barbary Corsairs, Jenissaries, Mamluks, Conquistadors, etc. Also have pretty dark stories behind them. Still if history must be sanitised others names could be used instead of "Triangular Trade", like "Treaty of Tordesillas" since its meant the possibility for Portugal to develop this complementary colonial expansion and trade. The historic relevance of the Triangular Trade is there and Portugal is the most notorious example of it.

This is not a footnote in Portugal history, neither an isolated anachronistic element forced for the sake of represent different periods. It was a synergic element with the others of the Portuguese golden era, a world's history relevant and excelsed by Portugal. Now after all this, the design focus is not slavery, like Ottomans are not the "slavery civ" just because some slave related elements, and neither is supposed to be the ideal or "the must" design for Portugal, is only a suggestion with explained justification for an relevant aspect of Portuguese history that is poorly explored in-game.

Still, my question remains unanswered, and there are other perfectly good options for Portugal that do not explicitly mention slavery.

 

[Evie]

If you create a civilization that is punished by losing or diminishing its special abilities with the abolition of slavery, you're effectively creating a civilization that is openly rewarded for maintaining slavery.

That's (really) not something the game should be doing from a PR perspective.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'd personally like a Portugal civ mainly evolved around exploration, rather than mostly trading. Hopefully they could keep the Navigation School.
That would open up the Dutch to be the primary Early Modern trading civ, while the religious/colonizer one can be Spain.
As for England, well I hope we don't get a "Trade Agreement" version again. I'm hoping for cultural/domination oriented one with Elizabeth.

 

[Naeshar]

Since everyone already discussed heavily their picks and details, I found this thread and will drop my 12 pennies:
1. Rome
2. China
3. India
4. Egypt
5. France
6. Germany
7. Mongolia
8. England
9. Spain
10. America
11. Brazil
12. Babylon
I prefer starting out with fewer base civs led by their founders or greatest golden age leaders this time.
The civs should be less fleshed out at start and form their identity in-game, such as warmongering, city sprawling or wonder building. None of that ahistorical science focus, please.

 

[BuchiTaton]

If you create a civilization that is punished by losing or diminishing its special abilities with the abolition of slavery, you're effectively creating a civilization that is openly rewarded for maintaining slavery.

That's (really) not something the game should be doing from a PR perspective.

This is a good observation. Still there are many options to compensate it, for example the "triangulated" luxury resources would change their effect after Emancipation to yield Favor for a powerfull diplomatic victorty civ. After all diplomatic pressure was one of the reason for the gradual ban of slavery in diffrerent regions of the Portuguese empire, and Portugal itself have an interesting history of diplomatic relations (also add to justify the name of "Treaty of Tordesillas" for the diplomatic element). The whole idea is open to ballance, for example the bonus is supposed to include:
* +1 Gold from each "triangulated" (own resource upgraded by foreign city with Feitoria) luxury resource.
* Double regular yield from "triangulated" luxury resource.
* After Emancipation one of the previous bonus is changed to earn Favor (I am not sure which one would be better for balance).
The bonus requires to built a Feitoria to asign each of your own resources, but maybe if it is too powerfull it could be limited to a list of luxury resources.

I'd personally like a Portugal civ mainly evolved around exploration, rather than mostly trading. Hopefully they could keep the Navigation School.
That would open up the Dutch to be the primary Early Modern trading civ, while the religious/colonizer one can be Spain.
As for England, well I hope we don't get a "Trade Agreement" version again. I'm hoping for cultural/domination oriented one with Elizabeth.

Portugal would still be the naval exploration civ, this role is covered by their UU naval unit. But a civ cant be just the exploration civ, do something with the explored land is important and this is why I am suggesting to have an additional motivation to explore. Feitorias already gives a reason to find other players/CS to trade but the use of "Triangular Trade/Treaty of Tordesillas" also motive to found cities in vacant coastal land. This aspect by the way also add to differentiate Portugal from Netherland since now we can see a way bigger "cultural Portuguese" descendant populations around the world than Dutch one (260M vs 40M), result of a bigger colonization than the more administrative nature of Dutch empire.

 

[Xandinho]

For me, Portugal's Civ6 design is perfectly fine, a little unbalanced, but totally fine. It ticks all the boxes for good gameplay: fun, unique and quite historically appropriate. I really wouldn't complain if this model of Portugal keeped for the next editions.

Portugal: exploration and maritime trade.
Spain: colonization and religious conversion.
England: naval supremacy and colonization.
Netherlands: maritime trade and culture/science.

 

[pineappledan]

I'm rooting for an espionage and warfare England, personally. Go Perfidious Albion on 'em.

I've spoken my piece re: Portugal. I wouldn't consider adding them unless they had 70+ slots for civs. The Chola can do their science/trade route niche while also adding more diverse languages and aesthetics to the game with a Sangam UB that is more historically consequential and attestable than the Portuguese navigation schools (if they even existed), and Ainurruvar trade posts built into a UA.

 

[Patine]

This is a good observation. Still there are many options to compensate it, for example the "triangulated" luxury resources would change their effect after Emancipation to yield Favor for a powerfull diplomatic victorty civ. After all diplomatic pressure was one of the reason for the gradual ban of slavery in diffrerent regions of the Portuguese empire, and Portugal itself have an interesting history of diplomatic relations (also add to justify the name of "Treaty of Tordesillas" for the diplomatic element). The whole idea is open to ballance, for example the bonus is supposed to include:
* +1 Gold from each "triangulated" (own resource upgraded by foreign city with Feitoria) luxury resource.
* Double regular yield from "triangulated" luxury resource.
* After Emancipation one of the previous bonus is changed to earn Favor (I am not sure which one would be better for balance).
The bonus requires to built a Feitoria to asign each of your own resources, but maybe if it is too powerfull it could be limited to a list of luxury resources.

Portugal would still be the naval exploration civ, this role is covered by their UU naval unit. But a civ cant be just the exploration civ, do something with the explored land is important and this is why I am suggesting to have an additional motivation to explore. Feitorias already gives a reason to find other players/CS to trade but the use of "Triangular Trade/Treaty of Tordesillas" also motive to found cities in vacant coastal land. This aspect by the way also add to differentiate Portugal from Netherland since now we can see a way bigger "cultural Portuguese" descendant populations around the world than Dutch one (260M vs 40M), result of a bigger colonization than the more administrative nature of Dutch empire.

I still don't see any appreciable gain or benefit to having this as the Civ focus, and see it as only detrimental. Navigation-based benefits could easily replace the sale of forced labour as a civ UA, and the Cassador or Organ Gun would be make a much better UU than a slave raider. I see no merit or value in this line of thinking. And, for the record, I'm not a proponent of focusing on Barbary benefits for the Ottomans, either.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I still don't see any appreciable gain or benefit to having this as the Civ focus, and see it as only detrimental. Navigation-based benefits could easily replace the sale of forced labour as a civ UA, and the Cassador or Organ Gun would be make a much better UU than a slave raider. I see no merit or value in this line of thinking. And, for the record, I'm not a proponent of focusing on Barbary benefits for the Ottomans, either.

OR as a UU, the Caravel or Nau, both reconnaissance vessels with new capabilities and the later with a serious Trade Boost on long distance open ocean trade routes. Both tie in much better and more generally with Portugal's opening of the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asian trade.

 

[Patine]

The Cholas are a VERY fascinating and intriguing civ, and probably deserve a slot in a Civ iteration in the near future (when Firaxis stops thinking of India in terms of the Post-British Raj INC Nationalistic artificial construct it usually does). But I do not believe, myself, in the value of considering civ's AGAINST EACH OTHER, unless their cultural and/or geographic proximity are very tight, and not because of a similar thematic concepts.

 

[Evie]

I concur "they can occupy the same mechanical slot" is not, to me, a reason to exclude a civ.

 

[Krajzen]

Yeah, I mean there are many civilizations from around the world for which you don't really have a choice but make them mostly about, let's say, guerilla warfare or naval trade, but there are infinite ways to spin this in mechanial terms. After all there can be hardly a Civ game without Portuguese, Dutch and Phoenicians/Carthaginians, despite them all being about money and sea.

Similarly, I'm glad that past civ games got Huns and Scythians, as there are many ways to make non - Mongol steppe cultures interesting, and we are talking about two thousands years of such cultures forming in vastly different contexts.

I'm only salty when we have like two European cultures from the extremely close geographic and cultural niche, such as Scandinavia somehow getting two civs per game twice in a row, or four Anglo - Saxon civs, whereas there are like three Islamic civilizations in game in total (Arabia, Ottomans and Mali; I don't count ancient Persia or pre-islamic Indonesia there), or Indian subcontinent has one civ and two leaders

 

[pineappledan]

I'm only salty when we have like two European cultures from the extremely close geographic and cultural niche, such as Scandinavia somehow getting two civs per game twice in a row, or four Anglo - Saxon civs, whereas there are like three Islamic civilizations in game in total (Arabia, Ottomans and Mali; I don't count ancient Persia or pre-islamic Indonesia there), or Indian subcontinent has one civ and two leaders

Or two civs that are very close geographically (Iberia), historically (both descended from crusader states/Visigothic restorations) and culturally (Portuguese and Spanish are mutually intelligible).

So what I am saying is that Portugal already cramps Spain, and there's another civ in an underrepresented part of the world whose history of scientific ingenuity, military adventurism, participation in wars of Religion, and opening of new trade routes mirrors that of Portugal.
I already think that -- in a vacuum -- a Tamil civ ought to be prioritized and that Portugal ought to be de-prioritized for the finite slots. It also just so happens that the most obvious bonuses for the two are very similar.

But I also just disagree that mechanical niche isn't a reason to exclude some potential civs. You can try to emphasize different things about two cultures, but if the most interesting thing about their two histories is, ultimately, very similar to another group then the devs are left bending the two civs into pretzels trying to emphasize tiny differences instead of just rotating the two. I certainly think there is enough material for both Portugal and the Chola that you wouldn't have to mangle their histories terribly to come up with 2 different-enough kits for both, but at the same time there's only so many naval trade civs that ought to be in a single game before it gets repetitive. For another example, the Mapuche fill a very similar gameplay niche as the Comanches or Apaches. Even though Patagonia and Aridoamerica are pretty far away from each other, I don't see how you don't end up with two civs with a late game mounted UU and an emphasis on pillaging/raiding. I half-suspect this is why we’ve never had a PNW civ before; because the Haida are too close thematically with Vikings, and the devs don’t know of any other groups

 

[Marla_Singer]

My post may look unpopular at first sight but here are my thoughts while reading you.

As described by Soren Johnson 12 years ago, there are three kind of Civilization players: challenge, sandbox and narrative. If the game only addresses to the narrative crowd, then it risks getting too "scripted" therefore losing in replayability. As I see it, gameplay depth should also be about "that was so fun, how could I do better next time?" (i.e. challenge) or "that was so fun, how would the game evolve in doing things differently next time?" (i.e. sandbox) rather than only limited to "how would the game feel if I pick another nation?" (i.e. narrative).

Bringing narrative elements can be good (particularly as preconditions), but if things get too scripted, then they become too predictable and you no longer see the point in replaying again as you already know how it will go. Hence why I believe the replayability potentials of "challenge" and "sandbox" are ultimately superior. It's all a matter of finding the right balance.

As a sidenote, yes, Soren Johnson (Civ3, Civ4, Old World) and Brian Reynolds (Civ2, Colonization, SMAC), are both civ game designers I retrospectively appreciate the most.

 

[Patine]

I strongly disagree with civ's being directly compared against each other by presumed theme or niche close to (though not as much as) strict continental or meta-region or linguistic, or religious/cultural caps or quotas, directly, especially when arbitrary and contentious qualifiers are going to be expected to make the decision. The overall list should be holistic and organic, but broadly representative in a sweeping history, in composition. I'm afraid I'm not going to be swayed by your, or other posters', "rigid slot-based system," and we have to agree to disagree, however difficult that may be.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Portugal I can see as Civ no. 35-60. Possibly a bit earlier or later too. Anyways, I think a Portugese civ should be based off of trade routes from exploration, or something related towards the Age of Exploration. Heck, this may be a hot take, but I'd even allow Henry the Navigator to be Portugal's leader! On what Pineapple Dan was saying, I admit that he is saying something that is, in my opinion, correct. We should priortize a Tamil/Haida civ over a Portugal/Viking civ