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

[Alashiya]

He's on my personal wishlist. I think he would make an interesting mercenary-oriented leader, specifically.

inclined to agree

 

[ColtSeavers]

Dido & Phoenicia

Carthago please!

 

[Zaarin]

Carthago please!

Carthage is Phoenicia, though. As late as the fifth century we have Augustine's report that the people of Carthage still referred to themselves as "Sorim" (Tyrians) and "Chanani" (Canaanites), and from inscriptional evidence we know they were probably still speaking Punic until the Arab conquest. The only way I could see a separate Carthaginian civ would be by putting it in the Exploration Age...which would be weird but chronologically no weirder (in fact, less weird) than Antiquity Mississippians. It would make me a happy Phoenicophile, but I think I'll have to wait for a mod for that one...

Personally I prefer calling the civ Phoenicia because it includes Carthage but doesn't exclude Lebanon*, Cyprus, Cilicia, or other Phoenician holdings, it doesn't frame the civ as an "anti-Rome" civ, and it heightens the odds of the civ being focused on maritime trade, exploration, and colonization rather than the Punic Wars. It can still contain Carthaginian elements and have Carthaginian leaders. "Phoenician" also seems to be the identity the people had for themselves, as well, even in the west.

*Not a modern term! Originally it referred to the Lebanon and Antilebanon Mountains, but there is evidence for the Phoenician East being referred to as Lebanon in contrast to Carthage already from the 4th century.

 

[Krajzen]

Personally I prefer calling the civ Phoenicia because it includes Carthage but doesn't exclude Lebanon*, Cyprus, Cilicia, or other Phoenician holdings, it doesn't frame the civ as an "anti-Rome" civ, and it heightens the odds of the civ being focused on maritime trade, exploration, and colonization rather than the Punic Wars. It can still contain Carthaginian elements and have Carthaginian leaders. "Phoenician" also seems to be the identity the people had for themselves, as well, even in the west.

Wonderfully summed up. I would also add "Phoenicia" is better than "Carthage" in the similar way "Greece" is better than "Macedonia" or "however you name Alexander's Empire" - sure, the latter was the most spectacular display of given civilization, but by focusing on it we miss a lot of much larger cultural phenomenon it was a part of. We can easily contain everything Carthago stood for within the broader Phoenician design, while also containing Lebanese homeland etc.

 

[Krajzen]

So anyway some of the civs I would like to see:

Scythians - not only they are very interesting group of peoples (?) (it not a coherent culture on its own), they would feel fantastic as an ancient progenitor to like half of Eurasia

Swahilii/Kilwa - because finally we can include them in this game, after bypassing the usual "who's gonna be the leader" problem, and they are super cool, and they would offer a lot of great linkages within Africa and between African civs and the broader Indian Ocean civs. I actually somewhat regret Firaxis didn't go with them instead of Songhai, because Axum->Swahilli->Buganda line would feel actually sensible for me.

Modern Egypt, modern Greece, Italian city state civ and modern Italy - as we can finally resolve the endless "how to include overlapping civs" in a very satisfying way

Seljuks - as a very interesting civ, precedessor to Ottomans, alternative to Abbasids for the second ancient Middle Eastern civ, the link between MENA region and Central Asia...

 

[GeneralZIft]

Can we get SU since we can't have Stalin or is that also an issue?

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I think modern Russia would be adequately represented by the Russian Empire of Peter the Great uptil the 1900s. And in my opinion Communism/Socialism is best represented as an Ideology that any civ can adopt in the Modern Age rather than in the form of a Soviet faction

 

[Krajzen]

Yeah, Soviet Union as a civ brings the obvious problem "what if AI takes it and then gets any ideology very different from marxism - such as neoliberalism, monarchism, islamism etc" I mean it would be very bizarre

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

Yeah, Soviet Union as a civ brings the obvious problem "what if AI takes it and then gets any ideology very different from marxism - such as neoliberalism, monarchism, islamism etc" I mean it would be very bizarre

I think that is kinda the point of civ, no? What if Egypt evolves into Mongolia? What if China builds the Pyramids? etc. Even as players, not everyone is guaranteed to pick ideologies that are based on real life events. that is the norm of civ games at this point. As unlikely as it is, I'd love to see the soviet union.

 

[Evie]

The problem is not the history, it’s the name. Soviet is not a geographic or ethnic name; it’s a name for a specific form of socialist local worker organization. It’s essentially the same problem as calling a civ “The Old Republic” and then having them pick monarchy while keeping the name.

 

[Patine]

Micronesia as a semi-blob might be a nice, neglected corner, with navigation stick charts, stone money, warriors with shark-skin armour and shark-tooth-studded spears and maca-like weapons, and Nan Madol as a wonder.

 

[BuchiTaton]

The problem is not the history, it’s the name. Soviet is not a geographic or ethnic name; it’s a name for a specific form of socialist local worker organization. It’s essentially the same problem as calling a civ “The Old Republic” and then having them pick monarchy while keeping the name.

Many of the modern dynastic based and or specific govenment form civs would have a similar problem.

Under the civ identity change mechanic a lot of main/popular civs likely would end filling slots with particular versions of themselves that are very specific regimens. This mechanic is a can of worms for a lot of inconsistencies, inequalities, contradictions and limitations in how some cultures could change but others cant.

 

[GeneralZIft]

To be fair I guess there's no way getting around the name, even if you called it USSR.
I'm just a fan of cold war era aesthetics I appreciate when Civ leans in or allows you to sort of mimick that tension in the game. Civ5 did that well

 

[Evie]

Very, very few civilizations have specific government form civs names in the modern age. I'Ve seen people suggest them like "French Republic" and "Greek Republic" as ways to have two different France and two different Greece ; I strongly oppose that kind of name duplication, and I think it's wishful thinking by people still clinging to the idea of playing a single civilization the whole game.

I strongly doubt Firaxis will do that kind of monkeying around with hairsplitting distinctions. We're far more likely to see a lot of (yes, main and popular) civs that only appear in one or two eras, than civs using a bevy of technicalo names to get away with staying in the game.

Dynasties are a bit of an oddball, yes, and I've stated many times I don't like but it's a long established way of refering to certain empires, *and generally more recognizable than the alternatives*. In at least one case, the dynasty is also by conflation the name of the ruling ethnic group of that dynasty (that's the Ottomans, and I think there is a case for the Mughal too).

In any event, in Russia's specific case, there is no need whatsoever for the Soviets (unless we go shopping for wholly unnecessary trouble by adding a fourth age to the game, and we don'T need a fourth age when splitting available civilizations in three is already a headache ; and most of the potential contemporary civs are already in as modern civs). Russia only appears midway through the sixteenth century, and is most associated with teh eighteenth to twenty-first. It firmly belongs to the Imperial Games of the Modern era. Any of Kievan Rus, Muscovy or Novgorod can better represent the proto-Russias of the exploration era while still being moderately recognizable, while the ancient era shouldn't even *have* Russia. (Not sorry). (And spare me the "but modern name" - France and Mexico and Spain are in without problems, and America and Britain are well known shorthand of the real modern name of both nations that would be otherwise too cumbersome.)

Soviet is neither a good name nor a useful name.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

To be fair I guess there's no way getting around the name, even if you called it USSR.
I'm just a fan of cold war era aesthetics I appreciate when Civ leans in or allows you to sort of mimick that tension in the game. Civ5 did that well

Humankind calls them the Soviets, so if you were looking for a name to call them that might be the best bet.

But like others I'm fine with just Modern Russians being represented by its Imperial period.

 

[Evie]

Humankind also has the Modern era split two and a half way (Early Modern, Industrial and Contemporary), with the Russians in Industrial. They actually have a good (well, bad, because seven eras was a design mistake, but still) excuse for using both names.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Humankind calls them the Soviets, so if you were looking for a name to call them that might be the best bet.

But like others I'm fine with just Modern Russians being represented by its Imperial period.

"Soviet" is just the Russian word for 'Council', an indication of the Collective decision-making that was the basis for Russian Communist ieology.

But it was, of course, a complete fabrication.

Actual decision-making was centralized, top-down, ad not subject to modification from the bottom. And regardless of the nominal organization of the State, all important decisions for most of the 'Soviet' era were made by a small group or one man at the top. It was a purely dictatorial system with the major problem of all such systems throughout history: when the dictator dies, there is a power struggle to replace him because there is no workable system in place to replace him legally (a problem which Russia faces to this day).

While Soviet Russia was an extremely important factor in 20th century history, it was therefore very much a continuation of Imperial Russian history since the 17th century (at least) and not the Clean Break so many people assume it was. Including it in the game is certainly possible and even necessary if 20th century history is to be represented at all, but it would be as a Totalitarian state, not a 'Communist' one by any Marxian definition, and a Civ saddled with an economic system (top-down state control) that proved to be a ghastly failure and, frankly, would be a major burden to any player that tried a realisic or even representational version of it.

 

[Patine]

Micronesia as a semi-blob might be a nice, neglected corner, with navigation stick charts, stone money, warriors with shark-skin armour and shark-tooth-studded spears and maca-like weapons, and Nan Madol as a wonder.

I think this is like the 3rd or 4th time I've suggested Micronesians in some form (though the first for Civ7), and each time it get's quietly ignored by all. I'm not sure the cause of such disdain, to be honest.

 

[Kankan]

It would be cool to have some more African civs in the game especially to help keep civ progression for African civs organic

Nok - Would be a great precursor for multiple potential West African civs especially in Nigeria and potentially also the Ashanti in Ghana, main issue is lack of info about the Nok

Wagadou (Ghana Empire) - A very fascinating civ famous for its role in beginning the Trans-Saharan trade, could be an antiquity civ that’d be a precursor to Songhai (and Mali if it gets brought back)

Ife - Another interesting civ that would be quite fitting for the game due to it being the main precursor to Oyo and Benin/Edo and historically was a major trading power in West Africa and home to the biggest urban centre in the region at the time, Ilé-Ifẹ̀

Benin/Edo - It’d be really cool to see the Walls of Benin appear in a civ game, and given how it was around until 1897 (and to the present in the form of a more ceremonial position) it would also make sense as a Modern Era civ. I also imagine there’d be a reference to the Benin Bronzes

Oyo - Another interesting civ especially for its cavalry and retention of high urbanisation also found under Ife that could also fit in the Modern Era

Sokoto - Could be a good successor to Songhai in the Modern Era

Mutapa, Swahili, Kilwa - Could all provide a smoother progression into Buganda since all of the 3 are similarly also Bantu (Mutapa would be Exploration, Swahili would be Antiquity and Kilwa would be Exploration), it also helps if Zulu returns as a dlc civ since I’m not too sure how good a Nguni civ may be

Hausa - Amina having her civ would also be fantastic!

Adal, Ajuraan - Both could succeed Aksum in the exploration age as both are extremely interesting civs (They’d likely be succeeded by Ethiopia in the Modern age)

Numidia - This would also be an interesting antiquity North African civ

Morocco - Unsure what era would work better but could be split into dynasties, but regardless would also be an interesting North African civ

Ndongo - Would be an interesting exploration civ but unsure what antiquity civ it would follow

Wassolou - Would also be interesting in the Modern age

Ashanti - Would also be a cool Modern age civ which I wouldn’t be surprised if it gets featured eventually

Leaders like Oduduwa, Samori Touré, Askia, Mansa Musa, Usman dan Fodio, Nzinga Mbande, Zara Yaqob, Yaa Asantewa and Menelik II would also be cool to see

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

I think this is like the 3rd or 4th time I've suggested Micronesians in some form (though the first for Civ7), and each time it get's quietly ignored by all. I'm not sure the cause of such disdain, to be honest.

Speaking for myself I just don’t know enough about the topic to engage with it. It’s nothing personal