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

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

An alternative could be to have the Uzbeks led by Muhammad Shaybani in lieu of a syncretic Transoxianan civilization, as I had done so in previous lists. Or maybe just have a Timurid civilization and be done at that.

Either one of those would make more sense, if you want to have a Perso-Turkic culture. Though I would personally just use the Mughals.

Take off the Tatars for the Manchu. Cut out Bohemia for a South American civ (Guarani or Cambeba/Omagua?).

I guess if you are going for indigenous civs I'd go with someone from the southern part like the Guarini or the Mapuche again, since you have the northern part covered with the Muisca.

I hardly ever play with TSL (takes the fun out of exploration) and so this wasn't for me a big priority. I believe the civilizations centred in modern Nigeria are ethno-linguistically diverse enough to justify simultaneous inclusion?
Not sure which is the fourth civ in Anatolia: Byzantium, Ottomans, Hittites and ?

I'd like a civ from modern-day Nigeria too, but I can agree that giving them 4 out of 9 possible slots, almost half, for Sub-Saharan Africa might be too much.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

in the least, but I must say that some (not all, but some) of these lists do clearly show their artificial quota-driven, politicized, and even odd bases

No quota, simply a dedication to making sure that certain geographical regions aren't underrepresented. Sure, these regions are arbitrary, but so are most of the things we take for granted.
Again I ask, what politics? You can't keep referring to politics without clearly identifying it. Only then can there be any sort of constructive discussion, instead of casting vague aspersions.
Odd bases?

 

[Patine]

Take off the Tatars for the Manchu

The Manchu were not that significant or noteworthy of a civ before becoming the ruling Qing Dynasty of China (and then basically melded into the Mandate of Heaven like foreign dynasties were often wont to do - though in their way and style - they still ruled China above and beyond being a separate state or nation), and they were certainly pretty pitiful after (Japanese Puppet State of Manchukuo, anyone). I don't see any value filling a finite slot with the Manchus as their own civ.

 

[Patine]

No quota, simply a dedication to making sure that certain geographical regions aren't underrepresented. Sure, these regions are arbitrary, but so are most of the things we take for granted.
Again I ask, what politics? You can't keep referring to politics without clearly identifying it. Only then can there be any sort of constructive discussion, instead of casting vague aspersions.
Odd bases?

Odd choices would be a better term than off bases, in some cases, I guess. And I feel there's a better way to allow proper, "representation," (which, in and of itself, is a subjective and arbitrary concept, given limited civ slots) than hard equal numbers by historio-continental regions, with, "straddling," civ's hammered, like proud nails, into one arbitrary slot or another.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Though I would personally just use the Mughals.

The Mughals can't represent the Golden Age that flourished in Samarkand and Bukhara. Otherwise, Northern India is represented by my Hindustani civ.

 

[pineappledan]

59 names in an alphabetical list isn’t easily intelligible. I didn’t catch for instance, that the Aztecs were dropped for the purepecha, Poland was dropped for Lithuania, or that Ethiopia was swapped for Somalia until the list was broken up. There’s no politics except what people bring to it.

I counted them as 59. I believe you've missed the Berbers, not sure who else

You are correct, looks like I dropped 2 names in the rearranging.

Not sure which is the fourth civ in Anatolia: Byzantium, Ottomans, Hittites and ?

If you went with Tiridates III then the capital would be far enough into the western part of the Armenian highlands that it would be inside modern day Turkey.

Edit: Vagharshapat is just inside present day Armenia.

 

[Patine]

The Mughals can't represent the Golden Age that flourished in Samarkand and Bukhara. Otherwise, Northern India is represented by my Hindustani civ.

What is this, "Hindustani," civ (which, to my knowledge, is the name of a transitional lingua franca from Sanskrit evolving into Hindi and Urdu, and not a singular nation or civilization of any cohesion) meant to represent. Wouldn't actual cultural-political-civilization entities of real definition like the Maurya, Gupta, or Maratha Empires, make more sense. This, "Hindustani," civ seems like Gandhi's, "India," but only receding from the Modern and Raj periods, and the Dravidian south, but still being a, "blob," civ. Unless you can clarify in a way that dispels that unflattering image.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

What is this, "Hindustani," civ (which, to my knowledge, is the name of a transitional lingua franca from Sanskrit evolving into Hindi and Urdu, and not a singular nation or civilization of any cohesion) meant to represent. Wouldn't actual cultural-political-civilization entities of real definition like the Maurya, Gupta, or Maratha Empires, make more sense. This, "Hindustani," civ seems like Gandhi's, "India," but only receding from the Modern and Raj periods, and the Dravidian south, but still being a, "blob," civ. Unless you can clarify in a way that dispels that unflattering image.

A catch-all representation of the Islamic sultanates of northern India, including Delhi and Jaunpur, whose administrative and social structures formed the basis for the Mughal Empire, in my opinion an extremely important part of Indian history that should not be overlooked if India is to be deblobbed. Not sure how you think that is similar to an India blob, which is practically representing an entire continent as a single civilization.

I don't believe a civilization should be always be based on a discrete people, culture or polity; common aspects of culture, society and administration are enough for me to be represented as a civilization.

 

[Patine]

A catch-all representation of the Islamic sultanates of northern India, including Delhi and Jaunpur, whose administrative and social structures formed the basis for the Mughal Empire, in my opinion an extremely important part of Indian history that should not be overlooked if India is to be deblobbed. Not sure how you think that is similar to an India blob, which is practically representing an entire continent as a single civilization.

I don't believe a civilization should be always be based on a discrete people, culture or polity; common aspects of culture, society and administration are enough for me to be represented as a civilization.

And what about the Maurya, Gupta, and Maratha Empires, who are more representative of the breadth of history, and the majority of modern population, of Northern and Central India?

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

And what about the Maurya, Gupta, and Maratha Empires, who are more representative of the breadth of history, and the majority of modern population, of Northern and Central India?

What about 'em

 

[Patine]

What about 'em

I see the Maratha are on your list. But the Gupta and Maurya (unless they, too, are under some funky, "catch-all," grouping) I don't see off-hand.

 

[Patine]

What about 'em

As I see it, the ideal division of India would be a Hindu or Buddhist Northern Empire (like Maurya or Gupta), a Muslim Northern Empire (like the Delhi Sultanate or Mughal Empire), the Maratha in the Central/Deccan Region, and a Tamil Dynasty, with Amristar and Kandy as important city-states.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The Mughals can't represent the Golden Age that flourished in Samarkand and Bukhara. Otherwise, Northern India is represented by my Hindustani civ.

I meant specifically as a Turko-Persian culture, not necessarily one located in Central Asia. Though you could argue that could still be achieved with Babur as leader, which could encompass cities from Central Asia to Northern India.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I meant specifically as a Turko-Persian culture, not necessarily one located in Central Asia. Though you could argue that could still be achieved with Babur as leader, which could encompass cities from Central Asia to Northern India.

I care specifically about Central Asia. The Mughals simply can't represent the Golden Age of Bukhara and Samarkand.

 

[Patine]

I care specifically about Central Asia. The Mughals simply can't represent the Golden Age of Bukhara and Samarkand.

I still feel arbitrary regionalization is unworkable - and undesirable - in the broad scope, anyways. Then, not only are the artificial numbers per region invoked, "straddler," civ's, like the Mughals, or Romans, or Byzantines, or Arab Caliphates, or Moroccans, or some Tamil Dynasties, or arguably the 'Rus, must be, "hammered," arbitrarily like, "proud nails," and the whole set-up just feels so, "plastic," rather than, "organic." I still stand against, "caring specifically about regions," to this unproductive extent.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I still feel arbitrary regionalization is unworkable - and undesirable - in the broad scope, anyways. Then, not only are the artificial numbers per region invoked, "straddler," civ's, like the Mughals, or Romans, or Byzantines, or Arab Caliphates, or Moroccans, or some Tamil Dynasties, or arguably the 'Rus, must be, "hammered," arbitrarily like, "proud nails," and the whole set-up just feels so, "plastic," rather than, "organic." I still stand against, "caring specifically about regions," to this unproductive extent.

I can understand your sentiment, to an extent. I do think that some quotas are at least good to fill, or at least desirable, such as representing a Polynesian culture, Native American, West African, mainland Southeast Asian civ etc. every game.
But I also agree that it would be hard to directly represent every region equally, especially when it comes to the people of Siberia, Australian aboriginals etc. Also, in the case of the Romans and Byzantines I usually see them categorized as strictly European, at least the Romans are seen as that on this forum, and I've yet to see anyone else who disagrees with that.

 

[pineappledan]

I counted them as 59. I believe you've missed the Berbers, not sure who else.

The other one I was missing from my reorganization was Burma. So 10 from Africa with the Berbers and 8 from South/Southeast Asia.

 

[pineappledan]

I notice there's a lot of Muslims in BonyCamp's list. Civ 6 has 4 Muslims out of 67 leaders (6.0%) vs 19 Muslims out of his 78 leaders (24.3%). My own list has 5 out of 51 (9.8%)

For context, civ 6 has roughly 26/67 Christian leaders (38.8%) and my list has roughly 14/51 Christians (27.5%)

Islam is probably underrepresented in civ 6; a side-effect of including so many (Christian) European colonial states. 1 in 4 seems like a lot though.

Again I ask, what politics?

I found the politics! We can now all start ripping into each other

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I notice there's a lot of Muslims in BonyCamp's list. Civ 6 has 4 Muslims out of 67 leaders (6.0%) vs 19 Muslims out of his 78 leaders (24.3%).

For context, civ 6 has roughly 26/67 Christian leaders (38.8%) and my own list has 5 out of 51 (9.8%). for context, my list has roughly 14/51 Christians (27.5%)

Islam is probably underrepresented in civ 6; a side-effect of including so many (Christian) European colonial states. 1 in 4 seems like a lot though.

I found the politics! We can now all start ripping into each other

Now that you mention it, that is rather a lot, more than twice the modern world's ratio of Muslim to non-Muslim. I was afraid of that, which is partly why I dropped off Sokoto and the Swahili when I was revising my list.

It's not politics, more of a personal bias that I was aware of and tried to control but was not very successful.

 

[pineappledan]

which is partly why I dropped off Sokoto and the Swahili when I was revising my list

Your original list had the Sokoto caliphate and Hausa as their own things, rather than just having Usman Dan Fodio as an alt leader for the Hausa? You wanted both a coastal Swahili civ and one of the Islamized interior kingdoms they were dependent on? Yeah I’d say you were double-dipping designing bonuses would be hard with groups packed together and oversplit like that, probably.