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

Your original list had the Sokoto caliphate as its own thing, rather than just having Usman Dan Fodio as an alt leader for the Hausa?
Not my original list, just the revised one after I received feedback on my first one. I originally did think of Usman dan Fodio as alternate leader for the Hausa, but Zaarin assured me that the Hausa and Fulani were very different, so I disregarded that idea. Not that I was really in favour of the Sokoto Caliphate, considering it was a relatively modern and relatively short-lived affair.
 
Not my original list, just the revised one after I received feedback on my first one. I originally did think of Usman dan Fodio as alternate leader for the Hausa, but Zaarin assured me that the Hausa and Fulani were very different, so I disregarded that idea. Not that I was really in favour of the Sokoto Caliphate, considering it was a relatively modern and relatively short-lived affair.
I guess? But all the cities and the vast majority of the actual populace were Hausas. Dan Fodio and many of his followers being Fulani doesn’t erase the fact that his caliphate was mainly Hausa in its composition, culture, and institutions. You’re already wading into this mixed civ with Al-Andalus, where an upper stratum of people are ruling over an even more radically different cultural group.

Going back to your comment about the diversity of people in Nigeria. While true that there are both a lot of people and groups in Nigeria, it’s a relatively small patch of dirt. No matter how diverse the cultures are, the UUs will all reflect the realities of the geographic “meta”, and all converge on the weapons and tactics that work in their environment. Warfare in the Sahel revolved around cavalry or camelry because the terrain is relatively flat, open, with little tree cover. To the extent that archery was present, the available trees weren’t capable of making bows with high draw weights, so quilted cloth armour on horses was enough to repel most projectiles. Near the coast, horses were rendered useless for both attackers and defenders, because they couldn’t easily navigate the forests and would simply contract sleeping sickness from the indigenous biting flies and die.

The religions, languages and institutions of the people living in west Africa are wonderfully diverse, but they will all reflect these basic geographic realities to some extent with their UUs, and that’s at least 1/3 of the components. This is why it is worth considering the geographic proximity of civs in your list, beyond just how the TSLs will look.
 
Ah, but that comparison would only make sense if I were introducing Abd-ar-Rahman III as an alternative leader for Spain.
Spain, or even Castile, Aragon, Leon, Andalusia, etc., as a nation, culture, and identity is not the same at all as Al-Andalus, the Cordoba Caliphate, the Taifas, the Granada Emirate, or what have you, despite occupying the same geographical territorial and people with roughly the same genetic lineage, given the historical context and everything defining national identity. It would be as wrong-headed, lazy, and wading into contentious waters as just saying either the Gauls or the Franks were the same as France - or that the Aztecs were the same as Mexico. It would be very clumsy and show disregard to the history involved. Abd-ar-Rahman II was NOT an alternate leader of Spain - he was an ENEMY of Spain, or at least of Proto-Spanish Kingdoms.
 
Spain, or even Castile, Aragon, Leon, Andalusia, etc., as a nation, culture, and identity is not the same at all as Al-Andalus, the Cordoba Caliphate, the Taifas, the Granada Emirate, or what have you, despite occupying the same geographical territorial and people with roughly the same genetic lineage, given the historical context and everything defining national identity. It would be as wrong-headed, lazy, and wading into contentious waters as just saying either the Gauls or the Franks were the same as France - or that the Aztecs were the same as Mexico. It would be very clumsy and show disregard to the history involved. Abd-ar-Rahman II was NOT an alternate leader of Spain - he was an ENEMY of Spain, or at least of Proto-Spanish Kingdoms.
🤦‍♂️
 
I don't comprehend the response.
Your comment is kinda bolstering the point he was trying to make while sounding like a disagreement. He did not seriously propose making the Moorish emir a Spanish leader, he illustrated on his example why he dropped another alt leader from his revised list - precisely because it would be a bad choice. Essentially, you're overexplaining his point.
 
Now that you mention it, that is rather a lot, more than twice the modern world's ratio of Muslim to non-Muslim.
According to Google,
number of Muslims in the world: 1.9 Billion (24% of the 7.9 billion people on earth)
number of majority Muslim states: 50 (25.6% of the 195 recognized UN states)

So your 24% Muslim list is actually proportionate if that is how you wanted to do it. However, if you made your civ list that way you would have no room for any leaders following pagan or dead religions, any pre-Columbian American civs, etc.
 
According to Google,
number of Muslims in the world: 1.9 Billion (24% of the 7.9 billion people on earth)
number of majority Muslim states: 50 (25.6% of the 195 recognized UN states)

So your 24% Muslim list is actually proportionate if that is how you wanted to do it. However, if you made your civ list that way you would have no room for any leaders following pagan or dead religions, any pre-Columbian American civs, etc.
Just for clarification's sake, that is not how I wanted to do it. It was never my intention for the number of Muslim civilizations/leaders to be proportional to the modern-day population, (or for any other religion or ethnicity).
 
Distributing civs by population is not that good of an idea. I base it off of merit, mechanics, and diversity - unless the customers at my school coerce me to place their vile figureheads as leaders.

For Islamic civs never used, I think the Timurids under Timur or his descendant, Ulugh Beg (the astronomer king) would be amazing.
 
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.
So from the list of @Bonyduck Campersang
- Civs like Serbia, Miami, Taino, Muisca, Punjab, Wanga, Samoa just to name some are in no way more historical relevant that the impact of Jin/Qing for world history. Should all these be rejected also since are not "valuable"?
After all these kinds of civs are representing regional quotas like the Eastern European civ, the native NA civ, the native SA civ, the Bantu civ, Polynesian civ, etc. Arent we supposed to disregard those "representation quota" civs (despite CIV already have clear regional slots for long time).
- It was specified that Manchus would be in instead of Tatars, in a list that already have Mongols, Transaxonia(Timurids), Ottomans, Afghanistan, etc. Tatars are way more redundant with those others in many ways and neither the Golden Orde or Crimean Khanate are at the level of Jin/Qing
- Around 60 civs in the list and only three would use a Far East set, less that the many options for MiddleEast/CentralAsia options. So even for visual reasons Manchus add more.
 
To explain some of the rather bizarre-seeming choices in my list, I should like to explain that my latest list was based on my previous lists, in which I challenged myself to:

A) retain the number of civs per continent from Civilization VI
B) replace all those civilizations I do not believe need to be included in every game (the non-staples)
C) include no modern post-colonial nations
D) choose those leaders who have not been represented in the series before

As I revised my lists I disregarded some rules for certain civilizations, but for the most part I kept myself bound to them. It was a fun challenge. I think I'll do it again sometime, this time trying not to break any of the rules.
 
To explain some of the rather bizarre-seeming choices in my list, I should like to explain that my latest list was based on my previous lists, in which I challenged myself to:

A) retain the number of civs per continent from Civilization VI
B) replace all those civilizations I do not believe need to be included in every game (the non-staples)
C) include no modern post-colonial nations
D) choose those leaders who have not been represented in the series before

As I revised my lists I disregarded some rules for certain civilizations, but for the most part I kept myself bound to them. It was a fun challenge. I think I'll do it again sometime, this time trying not to break any of the rules.
Yep, your list and its rules are an interesting design excercise. Everything OK with it.

What I found ironic is @Patine idea that Manchu civ dont deserve a slot between so many civs, even despite a lot of less transcendental (the ones that actually could be called out as "representation quota" by political oriented minds) and/or more redundant are not questioned. The same goes for many civs already in CIV series.
 
So from the list of @Bonyduck Campersang
- Civs like Serbia, Miami, Taino, Muisca, Punjab, Wanga, Samoa just to name some are in no way more historical relevant that the impact of Jin/Qing for world history. Should all these be rejected also since are not "valuable"?
After all these kinds of civs are representing regional quotas like the Eastern European civ, the native NA civ, the native SA civ, the Bantu civ, Polynesian civ, etc. Arent we supposed to disregard those "representation quota" civs (despite CIV already have clear regional slots for long time).
- It was specified that Manchus would be in instead of Tatars, in a list that already have Mongols, Transaxonia(Timurids), Ottomans, Afghanistan, etc. Tatars are way more redundant with those others in many ways and neither the Golden Orde or Crimean Khanate are at the level of Jin/Qing
- Around 60 civs in the list and only three would use a Far East set, less that the many options for MiddleEast/CentralAsia options. So even for visual reasons Manchus add more.
With a realistic limited number of civ's we're likely to get, some degree of significance, interesting qualities, and market draw should be seriously considered. Plus, as I've said several times, I'm interested in wholistic representation with an eye toward filling in, "empty corners," and maintaining historical mainstays and many market favourites. I am not a proponent of, and am an opponent to, strict regional or continental quotas. I have always been consistent on this. Also, I am misquoted (or having words put in my mouth) saying the Manchus DON'T DESERVE a slot outright - I just feel they would be best represented during their day as the ruling Qing Dynasty of the Chinese Empire. I made no absolute statements like you claim I did.
 
Haven't you heard? Creating the third largest contiguous empire in history isn’t “significant or noteworthy”.

Moderator Action: Please do not troll. leif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Manchus deserve a slot, whether it be as the Qing or the Manchus themselves.
 
The Manchus deserve a slot, whether it be as the Qing or the Manchus themselves.
I'm saying, that, in my opinion, if they appear, it should be as one of the ruling Dynasties of China (the Qing), and not as the semi-nomadic, frontier, "barbarian," (using the Ming-Dynasty use of the term, not my own), late-Mongol-esque state of Nurhaci (and DEFINITELY not the WW2-era puppet state of the Empire of Japan). That is effectively what I said, and what I continue to say.
 
Haven't you heard? Creating the third largest contiguous empire in history isn’t “significant or noteworthy”.
I believe what Patine was saying that the Manchu are better represented as the Qing dynasty and not as a separate civilization because apart from that achievement (which made them effectively meld into China) they are not significant or noteworthy.

Which isn't entirely correct, because the Manchu (then called the Jurchen) also established the Jin dynasty (the one which was eventually conquered by Genghis Khan). Moreover, another thing that appeals to me is the fact that the Manchu are very different from the usual Far Eastern civs we see in the series, being the largest of the Tungusic groups. Although against this must be set that the Manchu by Nurhaci's time were extensively Mongolised, and their finest hours were when they were ruling as Chinese dynasties.

I think a much better alternative to the Manchu would be Tibet. I can't think of why I did not include them in the first place. Probably because both I play both Civ5 and Civ6 with Tibet mods, and I subconsciously registered them as a civilization that has already appeared in the game.
 
I believe what Patine was saying that the Manchu are better represented as the Qing dynasty and not as a separate civilization because apart from that achievement (which made them effectively meld into China) they are not significant or noteworthy.

Which isn't entirely correct, because the Manchu (then called the Jurchen) also established the Jin dynasty (the one which was eventually conquered by Genghis Khan). Moreover, another thing that appeals to me is the fact that the Manchu are very different from the usual Far Eastern civs we see in the series, being the largest of the Tungusic groups. Although against this must be set that the Manchu by Nurhaci's time were extensively Mongolised, and their finest hours were when they were ruling as Chinese dynasties.

I think a much better alternative to the Manchu would be Tibet. I can't think of why I did not include them in the first place. Probably because both I play both Civ5 and Civ6 with Tibet mods, and I subconsciously registered them as a civilization that has already appeared in the game.
Still, in my personal opinion, the Manchus outside of holding the Mandate of Heaven and being a foreign dynasty of, but part of the greater, Chinese Empire, are not an optimal choice for a civ slot from a finite available selection as we usually have. And, I have never said any of other civ's @BuchiTaton accusatorily - and inexplicably - threw rhetorically at me were inherently MORE worthy, at any point, and don't understand the seeming anger and offense, there.
 
I'm saying, that, in my opinion, if they appear, it should be as one of the ruling Dynasties of China (the Qing), and not as the semi-nomadic, frontier, "barbarian," (using the Ming-Dynasty use of the term, not my own), late-Mongol-esque state of Nurhaci (and DEFINITELY not the WW2-era puppet state of the Empire of Japan). That is effectively what I said, and what I continue to say.
I mean Puyi could be a leader for China... (I agree, we should not do the puppet state of Manchukuo)
 
Top Bottom