What previously unseen civs would you like you see in civ7?

[Krajzen]

The title is obvious, please vote in the poll and explain your choice here for increased fun factor.

The poll includes 30 civs which I think are a set of the most spectacular, well known or pooular suggestions. I limit the max amount of ootions you can select to 10 to prevent "I want all of them lol" voting and to reflect the reality that the amount of them that could get slots in a new game is probably around 10, so we need priorities. I didn't implement the "Other" option because its result in a ooll doesn't really tell anything meaningful. Yeah it is obvious that there are many more desired civilizations from across the globe, but I can't include them all in a poll and an "other" option that covers 200 options doesn't cover any of them.

My personal favourites would be Italy, Andalusia, Mughals, Timurids, Swahilli, Ireland, Bohemia, Missisipi and Burma. The first three of those are orobably the most important global civilizations that are absent in the series, and they had to be fought for due to the bizarre assumption that they are 'covered' by Rome, Arabia/Morocco and India. No they are not, they are very distinctive and awesome cultures on their own. Timurids because of their massive historical importance and just to combat the ludicrous ideas that they were "nomads in tents" "no different from Mongols" "only one great leader" and "did nothing but destroy" (all that is false). The remaining five are great cultures thst would foll great gaps in their respective regions.

Have fun!

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Here are my picks:

Ashanti: We quite frankly need more African Civs, and this would be a great choice for the next new African Civ in the series.

Bohemia: Mostly because of the Hussites.

Bulgaria: More Balkan representation in the Civilization series!

Chola: A Trading Civilization with bonuses towards City-States and Naval Units? Yes, please!

Hebrews: The ancient state of Israel, not the modern one.

Italy: I would like them as a unified Nation, like Greece. If it's not possible, we could do Milan, Venice, or Genoa.

Philippines: Because Pinoy Pride, lol.

Switzerland: The amount of potential Abilities you could slap on this Civ is just too much for me to state right now.

Tibet: I don't have a good reason, I just really want Tibet for some reason.

Timurids:

Timurids because of their massive historical importance and just to combat the ludicrous ideas that they were "nomads in tents" "no different from Mongols" "only one great leader" and "did nothing but destroy" (all that is false).

*CLAP* *CLAP* *CLAP*

YES. This is so true, and I am so glad someone has the same thought as me. The Timurids were MUCH more than just conquerors and mass genociders. They: controlled much of the Silk Road; ushered in a new Renaissance of Science, Literature, Art; and so much more.

 

[BuchiTaton]

From this list my must tier are Tamils and Tibetans, others interesting options are Afghans, Armenians and Benin.

Now some points:

- GURKANI, instead of Timurids/Mughals, give them Ulugh Beg for science and Akbar for culture.
- SOMALIA, their trading history is older than Swahilis and proudly fought back againts rival nations and colonial powers like the ethiopians, omanis, portuguese, british and italians.
- MANCHURIA, the Jurchen/Manchus conquered China one and a half times, but for some reason most people lose notion of the magnitude of that, specialy when both times started as a local resistance againts the biggest powers on the region.
- MISSISSIPPI, could only be as the Mucogee, Choctaw, Chickasaw or other mississippian related nation since Cahokia lack recorded history for leaders.

It would be great if CIV7 dont have civs names as Persia, Arabia, India or China while have some like Ottomans and Byzantines, if the last two have dynastic/period related names for what could be named Turks and Romans (alternate leader) so we could have also Achaemenids, Umayyads, Mauryans and Han.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Like @BuchiTaton, some of my picks are actually 'modified' from my real desires:

Missisipi - really means Choctaw or other 'descendant' groups, because we simply do not have enough information about Leaders and politics for Cahokian

Timurids - really means Gurkani or Kushans or even the Sogdians because the game really, really needs a classic Silk Road Middleman Civ and has for quite a while. Bring on the Bactrian Camel as a Trade-specific UU!

Mughuls and Chola - because I'm really over the India Blob and it's 'way past time the rich and varied politics and culture of that region get some more Love.

Bohemia, Bulgaria and Ireland - not because Europe needs any more Civs, God Knows, but because each of these could bring some really unique combinations of Uniques to the game:
Bohemia - Hussites, Beer: Religious, Amenity, Military bonuses right there
Bulgaria - from one of the earliest 'urban' states in the world (Cucuteni-Trypilla) to Roman Frontier to (briefly) the strongest military power in the Balkans, a long history combining City Development, Military, and Trade
Ireland - At various times, a cultural, technology/learning, religious, and even expansionist ('Scots' came from Ireland, so a case can be made for modern Celtic 'culture' being entirely Irish) powerhouse.

And finally:
Armenia - because first, including the Shulaveri-Shimu and Maikop Cultures they date back to Neolithic, and second, they have at least 4 native Dynasties to chose leaders from, and third, they seem to have been the first to cultivate the wine grape and invented quantity wine-making machinery (presses, vats, etc) - too many things going for them to be left out of the game this long . . .

 

[Zaarin]

My choices unsurprisingly look very similar to @Boris Gudenuf 's, but since there are also some differences I'll go through mine as well.

Afghanistan: I am constantly campaigning for more Central Asian civs, and I think a cultural/defensive Afghan civ led by Ahmad Shah Durrani would fit the bill. Plus I love the Pashtun language.

Al-Andalus: Not necessarily a high priority, but I would be interested in seeing an al-Andalus/Caliphate of Cordóba civ led by Abd ar-Rahman.

Armenia: Can replace Georgia next time around, lots of great leader choices, early adopter of Christianity, unique script, weirdest Indo-European language, etc.

Bohemia: Hussites! Jan Žižka or George of Poděbrady would be decent choices, among others.

Bulgaria: Not as high a priority for me as for some, but I think it would be a good addition.

Chola/Tamil: I'm all for splitting up India.

Hebrews: One can wish.

Ireland: My choice for Civ7's Celtic civ.

Kievan Rus': Not a high priority, but would be something new and different.

Timurids: Honestly we just need more Central Asian civs. I'm with @BuchiTaton for calling them Gurkani and giving them Ulugh Beg as a leader. However, my top pick for Central Asia is and always will be the Sogdians led by Oxyartes.


I also would have voted for, given more votes:
Mississippi: Like others have stated, I'm not eager for a "Rome led by Romulus Augustulus" situation, but I'd be all for one of the successor confederations. Choctaw led by Pushmataha gets my vote.

Yemen: I don't mind chopping up Arabia a bit, either. I would love to see a Ḥimyarite civilization, but I suspect there is just too little to work with--but I'd still take a city-state/minor civ.


Not on the list, but I'd also like to see:
Powhatan: Mostly for the man himself.

PNW Tribe: Tlingit and Haida are my top choices.

Muisca

New Mesoamerican civ: Mixtec, Zapotec, Purupecha, etc.

Elam: Was very different from both the Mesopotamian Big Three and from Persia and would make an interesting addition.

Touareg/Berbers

Palmyra/Aram: Zenobia.


(Not having anything from Africa on this list doesn't mean I don't want more African civs. I just lack the knowledge to propose any.)

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Like @BuchiTaton,
And finally:
Armenia - because first, including the Shulaveri-Shimu and Maikop Cultures they date back to Neolithic, and second, they have at least 4 native Dynasties to chose leaders from, and third, they seem to have been the first to cultivate the wine grape and invented quantity wine-making machinery (presses, vats, etc) - too many things going for them to be left out of the game this long . . .

And because Renaissance big brand of light cavalry--The Stratiotai--originates here?

Mine.
- Brand new civ.
1. Burma, one of the three Mekhong Giants. They should appear alongside Siam and Vietnam in the world stage. representing rivalties amongs the three. All three are Elephant empires, riverine empires, as well as 'gunpowder empires'.
Leader: Hsibushin (King Alaungphaya). First King of Kaungbaung 'The Last Dynasty' of Burma, uncannny ability to fight wars on two fronts--Ayutthaya to the East, and Qing China invaders up north.
Capitol: Ava/ Inwa
2. Manchu; They were as distinct as Indians and Moguls. and both began as invading 'barbarians' only to create their own civilizations later on.
Leaders:
- Nulhaci/ Nurhaci (努爾哈赤). Qing founder
Capitol: Hetu Ala / Xinbin, Liaoning.
- Kang Xi or Qiang Long. (May also lead China instead, )
Capitol: Beijing (Both as Manchu and Chinese)
3. Italy (As a distinct civ to Roma). Medieval to Industrial era civ.
UU: Arbalest crossbowmen (Super crossbowmen, i Don't really like Condottieri much because they aren't really loyal chaps), or Galleass.
Leaders:
- one of Venetian Doge: Traders
Capitol: Venice
- one Late Roman leader: Shared with Roma and maybe Byzantium
Capitol: Ravenna
- Naples leader, seat will also be Naples
- Victor Emmanuel III (or other big name Savoy monarchs)
Capitol: Roma (Except if Rome is in the game as well, the capitol will be either Cagliari or Turin)
UU. Bersaglieri (basic infantry).
- A pope (Rules from Roma or Vatican, depending what country does he leads, always speak Latin regardless of a country he leads)
Ability: Pontifex Maximus.
Trait: Religious (Similiar to Phillip II of Spain or Vasil II of Byzantium), has different war declarations if a player adopts the same religion as him and later declares war while still remains faithful to the said religion (Excommunicated heretic), if player follows different religion entirely he will call his war 'Crusade'.
UU: Papacy Guard (Purchase with faith only, expensive, limited numbers per holy site, never obsolete and becomes stronger with associated techs and civics attained.)
4. Ukraine:
Leader: The first cossack leader but i can't remember his name
UU: Cossack (Renaissance UU, actually Imperial Russian cavalry forces weren't solely Cossacks, Russia should get Streltsy instead)
Unique building: Sich. (What should it be?)

About Lavra: It should no longer be Russian exclusive. Actually this complex originated in Old Byzantium.

5. Israel:
Ability: Promised Land. (likely to earn Prophet first)
Leader: Solomon
Another religious, and defensive. Ancient to classical civ.
UU: Zealot (a type of infantry), similar to Civ6 Conquistadores but more defensive.

6. Sudanese
Leader: The Mahdi
UU: Ansar.

I'm not really good at Native Americans of any kind sorry. but the alternate 'Americans' could be either
1. Deseret. Also Religious civ. A missionary can recruit unit with any non-hostile CS using the same charge as 'spread religion) but with different command.
Seat: Salt Lake City.
2: Paiyute (Cannot found a religion on its own but can build holy sites). again not really easy to think of any cool units beyond any wildwest cav. but they're more associated to Mormon settlers one way or another.
3. Texas (A short lived republic created by Mexican shaky politics, originally Mexico wanted to populate Northern territories inherited from Bourbon Spain largely to prevent American landgrabs (These territory were originally claimed and respected on paper, recognized by European powers, Actually Spanish Empire did extend all the way North to what's now Canada, too bad these lands were too harsh and less attractives (particularly to Spaniards) to develop beyond a handful of Catholic Missions and some frontier bases (Presidio should be Spanish UI, buildable only outside home continent or several hexes away from capitol) similiar to Blockhouses to the Northern portions of North America, or American copycat referred to as 'Fort' (but actually more of a castle than an actual Fortress, usually made of timberwood or clay, built to defend against opponents without big guns.), thus settlement invitations were sent fourth, it turned out that Americans got the invitations first and began settling a territory referred to as Tejas (Back then part of another province, an origin to the word 'Lone Star'). As Mexican government changed (violently) so did policy that eventually upset 'Blonde Peoples' settled in Tejas, especially the Centralization (and more Importantly, 'Catholic Theocracy', which legalize Roman Catholicism only. Settlers up north followed different religions or different forms of Christianity entirely. This repeated the same 'mistakes' Papacy did couples of century ago to 'solve Reformation Heresy problem', something that Papacy failed in the end. In Europe, dispuites between Catholicism and so many Reformation Churches had already been 'settled' and no longer a valid Casus Beli (There were bigger threat to the Church--Naionalism which challenged the Papacy considerably). In Mexico and Latin America, not so much. 'Texans' sue for independence, but Mexican central government refused, instead AFAIK a religious sentiment was used by Gen. Santa Ana so he could declare that his war is 'Holy Crusade of 19th Century'. Santa Ana's army won victories after victories and ALMOST finished off 'Texan Heresy' only to be captured by a group of daring Texas Rangers.
4. Mexico.
Leader: Either Santa Ana or Ben Juarez.
UU: a kinda lancer.

 

[Zaarin]

Paiyute (Cannot found a religion on its own but can build holy sites).

But...the Paiute did found their own religion, a pretty influential one.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

But...the Paiute did found their own religion, a pretty influential one.

So, perhaps an early Great Prophet capability?

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

But...the Paiute did found their own religion, a pretty influential one.

AFAIK They were later became Mormons when the Latter Day Saints finally settled in what's now Utah. Missionaries or even adherents of Salt Lake City of the 19th Century can speak their language.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

AFAIK They were later became Mormons when the Latter Day Saints finally settled in what's now Utah. Missionaries or even adherents of Salt Lake City of the 19th Century can speak their language.

Sequence is off. The Ghost Dance started at the end of the 1880s, a generation or more After the Mormons arrived in Utah and made contact with the Paiutes. Similarities between Wovoka's (The Prophet) teaching and Mormonism or Christianity were because his father was a native Christian and the Paiutes had been in contact with both Christians and Mormons since before the Civil War. On the other hand, the Ghost Dance is directly related to the "Circle" or "Prophet" dances of numerous native American cultures west of the Mississippi, and Wovoka had an established reputation as a native prophet and religious leader long before he started proclaiming the Ghost Dance.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Eh? What 'Ghost Dance' religion really is? an offshot of Christianity like Aztec variants in Mexican Civil War of 19th Century (Cult of Talking Cross) or Taiping Rebellion (Hong's attempt to create Chinese versions of Christian State to oppose Qing rule. one of many reasons why Chinese governments of various eras hate Christianity so much (and often associate Christianity with rebellions), to the point that Qing Empress Dowager sponsorized 'Yi He Tuan' Anti-Christian terrorist group which later became 'Boxer Rebellion').

 

[Zaarin]

So, perhaps an early Great Prophet capability?

I'm not sure. As you noted in your second post, Ghost Dance was essentially a syncretic religion. Civ7 really needs some systems for reformations, schisms, and religious syncretism; someone like Wovoka would be a fantastic leader to interact with those kinds of mechanics.

Eh? What 'Ghost Dance' religion really is? an offshot of Christianity like Aztec variants in Mexican Civil War of 19th Century (Cult of Talking Cross) or Taiping Rebellion (Hong's attempt to create Chinese versions of Christian State to oppose Qing rule. one of many reasons why Chinese governments of various eras hate Christianity so much (and often associate Christianity with rebellions), to the point that Qing Empress Dowager sponsorized 'Yi He Tuan' Anti-Christian terrorist group which later became 'Boxer Rebellion').

Ghost Dance is a Native Revival religion like the ones founded by Neolin and Tenskwatawa, syncretizing indigenous belief systems with elements of Christianity (such as monotheism and heaven/hell; Neolin probably picked up pacifism from Quaker missionaries, but I would guess it was a personal conviction of Wovoka's). I'm not 100% positive about Ghost Dance specifically, but Neolin and Tenskwatawa both believed their Great Spirit was the same as the Christian God but that God had a separate revelation (their revelation, of course) for the Indians. Often their reasoning went like this: "If the Great Spirit had intended his revelation for the Red Man, he would have taught the Red Man to read. The White Man's Book [the Bible] is a good revelation for the White Man, but it is not intended for the Red Man. Instead the Great Spirit has given me this new revelation for the Red Man."

As I mentioned above, the Lakota changed the Ghost Dance considerably for their own ends; Wovoka, a pacifist, would not have been pleased that his religion was used to launch a crusade. He certainly made no promise that the Ghost Dance would stop bullets, though other Native prophets had made such claims in the past. Wovoka promised spiritual salvation, not the destruction of the White Man.

Worth noting, in regards to China, that a lot of religions came under attack in China during official attempts to expurgate Buddhists. This is what happened to both Nestorian Christianity under the Han dynasty and Manichaeism under the Song (Manichaeism got a reprieve under the Buddhist Yuan, but by that point it had nearly vanished anyway). It turns out the Dragon Throne often saw all foreign religions as "Buddhism."

 

[BuchiTaton]

As Mexican government changed (violently) so did policy that eventually upset 'Blonde Peoples' settled in Tejas, especially the Centralization (and more Importantly, 'Catholic Theocracy', which legalize Roman Catholicism only. Settlers up north followed different religions or different forms of Christianity entirely. This repeated the same 'mistakes' Papacy did couples of century ago to 'solve Reformation Heresy problem', something that Papacy failed in the end. In Europe, dispuites between Catholicism and so many Reformation Churches had already been 'settled' and no longer a valid Casus Beli (There were bigger threat to the Church--Naionalism which challenged the Papacy considerably). In Mexico and Latin America, not so much. 'Texans' sue for independence, but Mexican central government refused, instead AFAIK a religious sentiment was used by Gen. Santa Ana so he could declare that his war is 'Holy Crusade of 19th Century'. Santa Ana's army won victories after victories and ALMOST finished off 'Texan Heresy' only to be captured by a group of daring Texas Rangers.

This make it seems like at some point non-catholic settlers were welcomed by spanish or mexican law, but they did not. The northen frontier have a long conflict with the raiding of Comanches and Apaches, plus the fear of possible protestant colonization on a region with little real control. The same lack of population on such big territory was the reason of the massive flow of illegal anglo inmigrants to Mexico, yep illegal since the law forbidden both non-catholics and slave holders.
Santa Anna certainly took the goverment on a illegal way, was a centralist dictator and because that many others states revolted not just Texas, even the early tejanos used a flag appealing for the mexican constitution that Santa Anna violated. But curiosly the only both states that turned from a constitutional federalist uprising to a separatist insurgency are the same with a cohesive majority of non-hispanic people (the texan anglos and the yucatec mayans).

Funny enough the spanish tejanos were stripped from most of their lands on the next decades after Texan revolution, like the many native american nations that also were once american allies but americans broke their word time after time. Mexican-American war was a ethno-cultural war, one people taking the land of others. Mainly illegal recent slave holders are not any better than the Confederate States.

Both Texans and CSA were "federalist" fighting againts the central goverment that threatened their "right" to hold slaves. But each one had different result, the ones that survived until USA could save them are now freedom heroes, the ones that lost are evil traitors. Not wonder both Lincoln and Grant saw Mexican-American war as an unjust invasion. Or the irish Batallón de San Patricio troops that joined the mexican side after saw the systematic abuse of the anglos againts the catholics (irish, natives and hispanics) despite know the obvious militar disadvantage.

So please not for CSA beta version (aka Texas).

 

[Zaarin]

Both Texans and CSA were "federalist" fighting againts the central goverment that threatened their "right" to hold slaves.

I agree with most of your post, but on this one I'd caution against buying into the post-war Confederate revisionist history that argued the Confederates were fighting for "states' rights." The Southerners were all too happy to trample over states' rights when it suited them--for instance, the Fugitive Slave Act (one of the most egregious violations of states' rights in American history) and a far more draconian conscription policy than the Union's. States' rights was a Reconstruction-era myth that the South was very effective at selling. For the South, the Civil War was always about two things: slavery and white supremacy (pre-War documents are filled with horror at the possibility of racial equality and miscegenation under "Black Republican" rule).

 

[BuchiTaton]

...but on this one I'd caution against buying into the post-war Confederate revisionist history that argued the Confederates were fighting for "states' rights."

Never, that is why I used quotation marks for "federalist" and "right". I am repulsed by the idea that people could argue that their freedom is threatened when others want to end their "right" to violate the more elemental rights of another human being, also being clearly based just on their ethnicity.

This is way I am againts of have Texas as many people would understand to be againts the Confederacy, both are short living and failed states born from the reactionaries that cared more about their economic gain than the humanitarian and religious values they claimed to represent, not for nothing they were denounced by their contemporaries.

If have Texas have something to be with gameplay design just make America civ base desig for CIV7 more about the expansion to the west or "Manifest Destiny", the basic UU for America could be the Pioneer as a combatant unit instead the regular settler, maybe even found cities on the territory of other civs.

 

[Zaarin]

Never, that is why I used quotation marks for "federalist" and "right". I am repulsed by the idea that people could argue that their freedom is threatened when others want to end their "right" to violate the more elemental rights of another human being, also being clearly based just on their ethnicity.

This is way I am againts of have Texas as many people would understand to be againts the Confederacy, both are short living and failed states born from the reactionaries that cared more about their economic gain than the humanitarian and religious values they claimed to represent, not for nothing they were denounced by their contemporaries.

If have Texas have something to be with gameplay design just make America civ base desig for CIV7 more about the expansion to the west or "Manifest Destiny", the basic UU for America could be the Pioneer as a combatant unit instead the regular settler, maybe even found cities on the territory of other civs.

Ah, I'm sorry. I misunderstood your post. I completely agree with you, both about no Texas (both for the ethical issues and even more so the brevity of its existence) and about a more Expansionist America.

I took an American Revolution course last quarter and am taking an American Civil War course this quarter. What really strikes me is that Southern Revolutionaries were conscious of the discordance between fighting for liberty and holding slaves; many were embarrassed by the fact. Civil War Southerners, by contrast, could, without any hint of irony or self-awareness, write that they were fighting for "liberty and slavery."

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ So 'Texas problem' of the early 19th Century was due to the 'too many lands, too less men' particularly to the North like Tejas? The same reason why during the late 18th Century, Spanish Bourbon (through Governors of Mexico) sent off a big expedition consisted of fraiars of Franciscan monastic order (Why those of Saint Francis of Assissi a favorite Spanish Missionary for Continental Americas?) guarded with blue coat troops (Largely heavy cavalry that favored Moorish shield and lance though they also wield pistols and carbines as well) all the way from Mexico to Califormia (and maybe even as north as Oregon, which i'm not sure if Spain nominally claimed it yet by then?). By then the threat was the Russian Empire entry to Americas (Alaska, and the less known Hawaii) and led to a neccessity to 'establish presence' there. Too bad Spain didn't develop California much.

Did Mexico government of the 1820-1830 tries to induce Catholic settlers to populate Tejas to counter 'Heretic Immigrants'? particularly French, Austrians, Italians, Irish and Poles?

 

[Phrozen]

My understanding is that Mexico invited immigrants to Texas because it was largely unclaimed land and that they were losing quite badly to the Comanches in west Texas. They hoped immigration would at least distract the Comanches from their constant raids of what is today Northern Mexico.

 

[Zaarin]

Why those of Saint Francis of Assissi a favorite Spanish Missionary for Continental Americas?

Not just the Americas. Spain was a major patron of Franciscans, just like Portugal was a major patron of the Jesuits. And the two fought everywhere they went.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Not just the Americas. Spain was a major patron of Franciscans, just like Portugal was a major patron of the Jesuits. And the two fought everywhere they went.

I'm quite convinced that it was this murderous historical rivalry that was the model for the Apostle - Missionary Wars of Civ VI . . .