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

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

  • Afghanistan

    Votes: 7 11.7%
  • Andalusia (or "Moors" in general)

    Votes: 13 21.7%
  • Armenia

    Votes: 19 31.7%
  • Argentina

    Votes: 18 30.0%
  • Ashanti

    Votes: 20 33.3%
  • Belgium (or Flanders)

    Votes: 7 11.7%
  • Benin

    Votes: 16 26.7%
  • Bohemia (Czech)

    Votes: 14 23.3%
  • Bulgaria

    Votes: 19 31.7%
  • Burma

    Votes: 15 25.0%
  • Chola (or "Tamil" in general)

    Votes: 18 30.0%
  • Hebrews

    Votes: 24 40.0%
  • Ireland

    Votes: 23 38.3%
  • Italy (united like Greeks or a specific state)

    Votes: 26 43.3%
  • Kievan Rus

    Votes: 11 18.3%
  • Lithuania

    Votes: 4 6.7%
  • Mexico

    Votes: 16 26.7%
  • Missisipi (Cahokia)

    Votes: 15 25.0%
  • Mughals

    Votes: 14 23.3%
  • Nepal

    Votes: 7 11.7%
  • Philippines

    Votes: 11 18.3%
  • Romania

    Votes: 10 16.7%
  • Serbia

    Votes: 3 5.0%
  • Sri Lanka

    Votes: 6 10.0%
  • Swahili (or Kilwa)

    Votes: 21 35.0%
  • Switzerland

    Votes: 7 11.7%
  • Tibet

    Votes: 24 40.0%
  • Timurids

    Votes: 16 26.7%
  • Yemen

    Votes: 6 10.0%
  • Zimbabwe

    Votes: 20 33.3%

  • Total voters
    60
Italy was also represented with Rome and Venice in civ 5 kind of and Vatican city state. (?) However, Italy did come out in HK and Rome.
I think the reveal of Venice in Civ 5 gave people hope, including me, that we would possibly get something else in Civ 6, whether that was an actual Italian civ or another playable city-state. Instead we got 3 city-states: Bologna, Venice, and Vatican City.
 
My thoughts on these choices, starting with the firm belief that we are already at saturation for European civilizations and that at this point a future game should not add more than one or two European civilization without taking an equal number out first.

1. Afghanistan - an interesting and underrated choice for developing the areas of India and surrounding. Home to a number of interesting polities. Not a must have to me, but I wouldn't be against it. É

2. Andalusia - if we are to have a "Moors" civilization, it should probably be focused on the Maghreb side of the equation, not the Iberian one that's already saturated with Spain and Portugal. Morocco, or Berbers, yes, Andalusia, no.

3. Armenia - not opposed to them, not very strongly in favor, but if they are included they should alternate with Georgia. No game should have both of them at the same time.

4. Argentina - the strongest alternative Latin American colony to Gran Colombia. I'm not against it, not for it, but they could take turns replacing each other (Mexico maybe too, but Mexico I feel is disadvantaged by Mesoamerican civilization being much higher on the priority list for that area.

5. Ashanti - One of the stronger options along with Benin for a Gulf Coast state, and adding one or the other would definitely be a plus in my opinion, although it's not even in my top three for African additions (that would be Zimbabwe, Swahili and Hausa).

6. Belgium - No. Also no, and several additional shades of no. Tiny European statelets that were kinda forced together for geopolitical reasons are so far down the priority list we shouldn't even consider them. Plus, from a civilization (not political state) standpoint, Flanders is already part of the Dutch civilization and Wallonia part of the French one. We definitely don't need to deblob that.

7. Benin - See Ashanti: I'd like to see one or the other, having both would probably be a little much.

8. Bohemia - definitely one of the more notable European pieces, but firmly also falling under the "we have enough Eurocivs already". I'm thinking that they should be taking turns with Hungary as the resident Central European civ.

9. Bulgaria - a really interesting choice for Southeastern Europe, with a lot of history to it. They should permanently replace Macedon (which can be merged back into Greece, enough already with the fragmentation), although (see below) I could see a case for rotating them

10. Burma - I'm not sure we really want another Indochinese civilization (as in three separate one at the smae time), but I have no problem with Burma taking Vietnam or Khmer's spot for the next game.

11. Chola, Tamil - well, I might generalize to Dravidian right now (to include Vijayanagar as well) as things stand right now, but yes, we do need a Southern Indian civilization (also, Tamil might be problematic as a name due to political associations of that name). Must have addition.

12. Hebrews - would love them, we all know the politics of it are...what they are.

13. Ireland - my personal favorite European addition, but it should replace Scotland, Gaul, or both (I vote for both, that frees up a slot) - we should never have all three at the same time, and even two I'm not sold on.

14. Italy - The only European civilization I would consider adding without taking one away first. But that's only for an Italian civilization covering all of Italy, not for the various Italian statelets taken individually. We have a mechanism for City States, it's called City States, and they are not full civilizations.

15. Kievan Rus - Not politically possible right now for dumbfoundedly obvious reasons. There's plenty enough Russian history (and arguably even enough Ukrainian history via the Cossack) to include both without stepping into that hornet nest.

16. Lithuania - kind of an interesting choice, but not, I think, to the point where I would want to spend a new European slot on them, and I don't really see who in Europe they would alternate with (not Poland, I'm thinking).

17. Mexico - a good candidate for a Latin American civ, but condemned, I think, to remain behind Argentina and Gran Colombia because we have far more interesting civs to focus on in that area.

18. Mississippi (Cahokia) - We don't know enough about them (no language, no leaders, etc). City state they are, and city state they are condemned to remain. Very disappointed that this was the only North American native option on the list.

19. Mughals - As I have stated elsewhere, I am against confusing "state" and "civilization". To me, the earlier Mughals are part of whatever civilization we might consider the Timurids (a dynasty, not a civ) to be - Turkic or Mongolian or whatever - and the later Mughals are part of the Ganges plain Indian civilization that also include the Maurya, Gupta, Delhi Sultanate, etc. Do I want them better represented in the game by having Mughals leader of appropriate civilizations? Yes. Do I want Mughals as their own civilization? No.

20. Nepal - An interesting thought for deblobbing India. I could certainly see it. but it's not a very high priority for me.

21. Philippines - An intriguing possibility but not one I have strong feelings about.

22. Romania - Not a bad choice, but fairly low priority on the list of European civs for inclusion.

23. Serbia - Higher than Romania. I'd not be against having them and Bulgaria take turn as the Balkan civilization (once we merge Macedon back in Greece where it belongs), but Bulgaria is the higher priority of the two for me.

24. Sri Lanka - I'm not particularly for or against them, I really don't know what the case for their inclusion is.

25. Swahili. Yes. yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. `My number one bar none favorite inclusion. Please.

26. Switzerland - Not as bad as Belgium, but that's still not pretty far down the priority list. Far too much risk of being a cliché "banking and neutrality" civilization.

27. Tibet. Would love to, not gonna happen.

28. Timurids. A dynasty is not a civilization. Ottomans get away on the technicality that they're the Turkish civilization by another name (but should really be named Turkish), but the Timurids are a part-Turkish (already in game), part Mongol (already in game), part Persian (already in game) civilization.

29. Yemen. It could be an interesting choice, but honestly I view it as low on my priority list.

30. Zimbabwe - Second only to Swahili on my african priority list, and a much, much, much, much, infinitely, humongously better Southern African civ than freaking Shaka and his memetic Zulus.
 
13. Ireland - my personal favorite European addition, but it should replace Scotland, Gaul, or both (I vote for both, that frees up a slot) - we should never have all three at the same time, and even two I'm not sold on.
I initially felt that way too, though I also feel like it would be bad to take away a Classical Era European civilization that wasn't Greece and Rome. My thinking was they could potentially do the Goths, or a particular Goth group, or just pick another Celtic tribe.

14. Italy - The only European civilization I would consider adding without taking one away first. But that's only for an Italian civilization covering all of Italy, not for the various Italian statelets taken individually. We have a mechanism for City States, it's called City States, and they are not full civilizations.
I agree. I'd still like elements of the Renaissance in their bonuses and abilities because that's really the most interesting part of their history.

15. Kievan Rus - Not politically possible right now for dumbfoundedly obvious reasons. There's plenty enough Russian history (and arguably even enough Ukrainian history via the Cossack) to include both without stepping into that hornet nest.
I'd love a Kyiv city-state at least with the potential to hire a Cossack UU.

19. Mughals - As I have stated elsewhere, I am against confusing "state" and "civilization". To me, the earlier Mughals are part of whatever civilization we might consider the Timurids (a dynasty, not a civ) to be - Turkic or Mongolian or whatever - and the later Mughals are part of the Ganges plain Indian civilization that also include the Maurya, Gupta, Delhi Sultanate, etc. Do I want them better represented in the game by having Mughals leader of appropriate civilizations? Yes. Do I want Mughal as their own civilization? No.
As I've said before I feel like they are the most likely out of all the Indian dynasties to become a potential civ because of their Turkic/Mongolian/Persian origins, separate from a more Hindi oriented Indian civ. I feel like they have more name recognition then the Chola/Tamils do for that reason.
 
2. Andalusia - if we are to have a "Moors" civilization, it should probably be focused on the Maghreb side of the equation, not the Iberian one that's already saturated with Spain and Portugal. Morocco, or Berbers, yes, Andalusia, no.
I need to disagree on that, have a muslim empire in Europe should be very fun. I know Iberian peninsula is already very full, but I don't mind to have more one civ there if is someone special as Andalusia. And should be fun to have a scenario with Andalusia and the Charlegmagne's empire.


5. Ashanti - One of the stronger options along with Benin for a Gulf Coast state, and adding one or the other would definitely be a plus in my opinion, although it's not even in my top three for African additions (that would be Zimbabwe, Swahili and Hausa).
I think this game need to have at least one slavery kingdom, Ashanti is one of the best options of this spot, but I still prefer Oyo or Dahomey. Oyo because it can have a semi-mythical king as Shango, who is praised as the thunder/fire god in Americas or Dahomey who can have the amazing Amazons warrios (ahosi) as Unique Unit.


4. Argentina - the strongest alternative Latin American colony to Gran Colombia. I'm not against it, not for it, but they could take turns replacing each other (Mexico maybe too, but Mexico I feel is disadvantaged by Mesoamerican civilization being much higher on the priority list for that area.
I support Argentina and Colombia in this game, but instead I'm against Mexico because I think Mexico is already well represented by meso-american civilizations. Aztecs and Mayas was the one who ever come, but we can give the 3rd spot to other meso-americans as the Toltecs, Mixtecs or Zapotecs.

12. Hebrews - would love them, we all know the politics of it are...what they are.
I also want to see a Jew civilization in this game, but unfortennely modern day Israel make this very controversial.


28. Timurids. A dynasty is not a civilization. Ottomans get away on the technicality that they're the Turkish civilization by another name (but should really be named Turkish), but the Timurids are a part-Turkish (already in game), part Mongol (already in game), part Persian (already in game) civilization.
I would like to have Timurids in this game, even if this empire just have one man. It was a strong man, maybe they can come with the Holy Roman Empire with Charlesmagne who was also just one leader empire.

22. Romania - Not a bad choice, but fairly low priority on the list of European civs for inclusion.
I like the inclusion of Romania because it's leader Vlad Dracula, if civ7 have a mythological flavour it can have some Vampires as Unique Unit.

24. Sri Lanka - I'm not particularly for or against them, I really don't know what the case for their inclusion is.
I think better then include Sri Lanka is to have debloobing India with several civs.


30. Zimbabwe - Second only to Swahili on my african priority list, and a much, much, much, much, infinitely, humongously better Southern African civ than freaking Shaka and his memetic Zulus.
I like the Zimbabwe civ the most, and I think it can be a buffer to the Zulu rapid expansion
 
Oh yeah, definitely to me an Italian civ include the Italian renaissance, and all the little Italian baby states of the Renaissance. Italy, the civilization, predates Italy, the country, by centuries. Florence, Genoa, Milan, Venice, etc - all are to me part of Italian civilization.
 
I need to disagree on that, have a muslim empire in Europe should be very fun. I know Iberian peninsula is already very full, but I don't mind to have more one civ there if is someone special as Andalusia. And should be fun to have a scenario with Andalusia and the Charlegmagne's empire.
I mean we also have the Ottomans. :mischief:
But I agree that if we want to have a "Moorish civ", I'd much rather it be located in North Africa.
 
in general

Eh I think you have too strict geographic symmetry criteria. Historical geography is not fair and by its nature it may feature many small cultures in one area (Europe), one gigantic culture which is hard to split in any way (China), or nothing (Siberia). Yeah I wouldn't like Europe to have more than like 35 - 40% of all civs, but it is also a relative amount and we dont know the total amount of factions in the next game, so we have no context to calculate precise amount of factions anyway. After all, why exactly can't we have both Armenia and Georgia, or both Colombia and Argentina, or both Ashanti and Benin in the same game, provided Europe is like less than 40% of all civs and all major parts of the world have something. What really matters are diverse, fun, great cultures of history good for a video game, not spreadsheets calibrated for the perfect spatial configuration of shapes in topological space.

2. Andalusia - if we are to have a "Moors" civilization, it should probably be focused on the Maghreb side of the equation, not the Iberian one that's already saturated with Spain and Portugal. Morocco, or Berbers, yes, Andalusia, no.

Tbh Eurocentrism is about cultures, not strict geographic criteria. The series has stupidly few Islamic civilizations (in civ6 out of 50 civs we got Arabia, Ottomans and Mali), so can't we just add some very spectacular ones. Andalusia was honestly one of the most important civilizations in history that hasnt been already present in series (next to Italy, some Central Asian guys and India/China splits) sooo...

7. Benin - See Ashanti: I'd like to see one or the other, having both would probably be a little much.

Aren't they separated by like 1000 kilometers or something? :D

12. Hebrews - would love them, we all know the politics of it are...what they are.

Hebrews, Judea, Jews and Judaism are not "political", modern state of Israel is certainly controversial to put it mildly :p but almost no one would like to have it in the game for one reason or another anyway. Idk why can't we add ancient Judea and Jewish people to the game - the only people who would be offended by that are antisemites and idk, ancient Judea denialists? And we shouldn't cater to them very much.

15. Kievan Rus - Not politically possible right now for dumbfoundedly obvious reasons. There's plenty enough Russian history (and arguably even enough Ukrainian history via the Cossack) to include both without stepping into that hornet nest.

Yeah I agree and I would totally replace it with Ukraine option. KR would simultaneously
infuriate both nations while overlapping with obligatory Russian civ.

17. Mexico - a good candidate for a Latin American civ, but condemned, I think, to remain behind Argentina and Gran Colombia because we have far more interesting civs to focus on in that area.

It is worth noting that literally half of Mexico is outside Mesoamerica cultural zone, while Maya covered not just Yucatan but also Guatemala, Belize, Salvador and west Honduras, so why not? It is extremely different culture and era anyway. The question worth pondering is 'would you accept Mexican culture, unchanged, if borders were just cut to exclude Maya and Aztec - if yes, then it is kinda sad to ignore such great culture just because of some overlap and modern political boundaries.

18. Mississippi (Cahokia) - We don't know enough about them (no language, no leaders, etc). City state they are, and city state they are condemned to remain. Very disappointed that this was the only North American native option on the list.

The problem with Native American tribes is that there are so many of them and they are all similarly small so I had no idea what to even include in the poll. They's probably require their own poll. And I also didnt want to make a "just whatever Native American civ" option.

19. Mughals - As I have stated elsewhere, I am against confusing "state" and "civilization". To me, the earlier Mughals are part of whatever civilization we might consider the Timurids (a dynasty, not a civ) to be - Turkic or Mongolian or whatever - and the later Mughals are part of the Ganges plain Indian civilization that also include the Maurya, Gupta, Delhi Sultanate, etc. Do I want them better represented in the game by having Mughals leader of appropriate civilizations? Yes. Do I want Mughals as their own civilization? No.

Frankly at this point everything can get into this series as a "civilization" (hello Australia and Canada). Also it is worth mentioning that if we become that precise about meaning of that term, we shouldn't allow almost all Native Americans into the game as technically they dont fulfill the basic criteria, and yet we still want to have them in a game; so if we can have stateless, cityless tribes as civs, why not Mughals as well, who seem closer to the original concept of civilization :p

24. Sri Lanka - I'm not particularly for or against them, I really don't know what the case for their inclusion is

Distinctive civilization with 2,500 years long history and great importance for the history of Buddhism :) especially as civ series tend to get what, one Buddhist civ per game?

26. Switzerland - Not as bad as Belgium, but that's still not pretty far down the priority list. Far too much risk of being a cliché "banking and neutrality" civilization.

I am not that keen on Belgium myself, but I'd take it any day over Swiss 'centuries of neutrality and peace, no grand narratives or drama of any way' mild civilization. Honestly I would replace both those options with something else if I remade the poll now.

28. Timurids. A dynasty is not a civilization. Ottomans get away on the technicality that they're the Turkish civilization by another name (but should really be named Turkish), but the Timurids are a part-Turkish (already in game), part Mongol (already in game), part Persian (already in game) civilization.

Your attempt to circumvent that contradiction doesn't works, because Ottomans by the same logic was part - Turkic, part - Persian, part - Greek, part - Balkan civilization; they had a ton of non Turkish blood in their veins; an enormous amount of their top elites and top military units were all sorts of minorites from the empire; and it is hard to argue "this is overall Turkish civ" if is specifically excludes ancient Turks, Seljuks, Rum, Beyliks and modern Turkey and just focuses on - Ottomans Empire. If Ottomans can get in, so can Timurids, Mughals etc, they operate on exact same rules.

30. Zimbabwe - Second only to Swahili on my african priority list, and a much, much, much, much, infinitely, humongously better Southern African civ than freaking Shaka and his memetic Zulus.

Yeah, Zulu are the most boring entry in civ series. They only got into the series as a staple because of enormous ignorance on African history in 90s, as if there weren't like 20 or 30 more impressive and varied Subsaharan civs to choose from. They always have the same leader, unit, building and brute force gameplay profile, because they just cannot have anything else because their state was too damn small, short living and unsophisticated to have potential for much more content in a game like this.
 
I am not that keen on Belgium myself, but I'd take it any day over Swiss 'centuries of neutrality and peace, no grand narratives or drama of any way' mild civilization. Honestly I would replace both those options with something else if I remade the poll now.
The Franks under Charlemagne would get my vote if you want to choose from a hypothetical hybrid French/German option from the general area. :D
 
Let me rephrase then: I think the Ottomans should be renamed Turkish civilization and represent a larger swathe of Turkish people. They should not be limited to a single dynasty. Until/unless that happens, I will tolerate the Ottomans as a stand-in for the proper Turkish civilization, but I don't want more civilizations like that added in the game.

And I stand by European saturation. I don't think we should lower the number of European civs from what it is now, but I think we should generally try not to add more new European slots. The rest of the world needs new spots far more than Europe does at this point. Say the number of civs increase by 7 again (like Civ VI, which increased from 43 to 50: I think we should have only one European civ (Italy) out of the seven. Any other new European civ should rotate with existing ones, not take a new spot. Maybe if we have more than seven new civs next game (say 10), we might consider two new European civs, but even then. European should get very, very few additional civ slots from here on out, because it already has enough of them.
 
Yeah, Zulu are the most boring entry in civ series. They only got into the series as a staple because of enormous ignorance on African history in 90s, as if there weren't like 20 or 30 more impressive and varied Subsaharan civs to choose from. They always have the same leader, unit, building and brute force gameplay profile, because they just cannot have anything else because their state was too damn small, short living and unsophisticated to have potential for much more content in a game like this.
I need to disagree on that, the Zulus aren't boring. They are one of my favorits civs and have Zulus since Civ1 is a very good point to Fireaxis.
I know they aren't the biggest empire on Africa, but they defeated the British in a battle, what is very impressive.

And the Zulu can have an alternative leader as Cetshwayo, Firexais never explored an alternative leader to the Zulus but should be cool to have Cetshwayo as an alternative leader to the Zulus
 
Winning one battle does not a civilization make.

That's precisely the kind of "Who cares about history, it's all about whoever is memetic in the United States/on the internet right now" Civ I/II thinking that got us six games worth of Gandhi, four of Mao, two of Stalin and so forth.

The Zulu are not a completely horrible choice to have, but so much of Africa has been shoved to the wayside to make room for Shaka and his memes that he really needs to sit back and let the rest of Africa have their turn for a change.
 
Let me rephrase then: I think the Ottomans should be renamed Turkish civilization and represent a larger swathe of Turkish people. They should not be limited to a single dynasty. Until/unless that happens, I will tolerate the Ottomans as a stand-in for the proper Turkish civilization, but I don't want more civilizations like that added in the game.
Gurkani with leaders like Shah Rukh and Babur stand it as the Karluk/Chagatai (Uzbeks and Uyghurs are part of this branch) civ. Those leaders would speak Chagatai as their native language and born in present Uzbekistan.

Like it was told we already have "civs" that are dynasties (Ottoman), are very recent split-off states (Australia) or were far from be urban (Cree) so there are no real reasons to say no to Gurkani, specially when this dynasty was the core indentity of massive empires with a long and deep history, characteristic arts and open the chance to cover an underused region (like proper Central Asia). After all even now many countries are named after a specific person and ethnic groups whose identity come from X ancient tribal leader.
 
Last edited:
Okay if you say Gurkani I could be onboard for that.

That’s kind of what I’m driving at - getting away from highly specific short lived states to broader coverage that can cover many aspects.

Because it’s the only way we’ll get decent global representation without hundreds of civs.
 
The Franks under Charlemagne would get my vote if you want to choose from a hypothetical hybrid French/German option from the general area. :D
I think is better Charlemagne be the leader of the Holy Roman Empire. But still a good option to he replaces both France and Germany . But still more likely the HRE be a third civ together with France and Germany. Making it more euro overrepresentation. I hope the 100civs can be accomplished in Civ 7 and not in Civ 300.
 
Gurkani with leaders like Shah Rukh and Babur stand it as the Karluk/Chagatai (Uzbeks and Uyghurs are part of this branch) civ. Those leaders would speak Chagatai as their native language and born in present Uzbekistan.
You do thing Mughal is a better name to them? Gurkani I never hearad before.
 
You do thing Mughal is a better name to them? Gurkani I never hearad before.
I think Gurkani is a better name because:
1- It is the original way they were named. The other two names are recent western terms (like Byzantines and Aztecs :mischief:).
2- Cover both the "Timurid" and "Mughal" empires linking them in their Chagatai (Uzbek*) core. Of course the persian element is there also but what we need is something to put them apart from Persians, Indians and Mongols so is better to highlight what is different from the others three regular civs.
3- Timurid (after one figure) and Mughal (just another Mongols) are awful to use.
 
The Zulu are not a completely horrible choice to have, but so much of Africa has been shoved to the wayside to make room for Shaka and his memes that he really needs to sit back and let the rest of Africa have their turn for a change.
Well I've always thought that having the Shaka and the Zulus as a recurring civ at least keeps South Africa from appearing.

I think is better Charlemagne be the leader of the Holy Roman Empire.
I mean the proper Holy Roman Empire was after Charlemagne's time and did not incorporate most of present-day France, but instead was mostly German speaking territories. Calling them the Frankish Empire or Franks makes more sense.

Of course the persian element is there also but what we need is something to put them apart from Persians,
Well something non-Achaemenid will work. :mischief:
 
Well I've always thought that having the Shaka and the Zulus as a recurring civ at least keeps South Africa from appearing.
As you said somewhere in this forum, Nelson Mandela is too recent to be a leader of a civ in civ7. And he is the only possible leader to lead South Africa. Talking about that, which year do you think civilization can have a Nelson Mandela leading South Africa.
But I still see very possible a South African civ side by side with Zulu, I mean, Shaka Zulu is iconic for the series already.
 
To be honest, I've always had the feeling that Shaka and Zulu have been included so many times in the series because they're known in the media to be historical opponents of British. Why would more Zulus be appearing since Civ1, while Ethiopia and Mali, which make a lot more sense, were only included much later? Today we know that Shaka is a mascot of the series, and that we will very likely see him in Civ7 again, and I particularly have no problems with that, mainly because we have already developed a kind of "affectionate bond" for having seen him so many times. But it is a fact that Africa has much more interesting options and that have never been in the series, such as Ashanti, Benin, Berbers, Swahili and a few others. Even Kongolese and Nubian were only included in Civ6 and I find them much more interesting than Zulus.
 
I'm not sure I would call my feelings about Shaka affectionate...

There's a special place in hell for Civ's version of Shaka (and Monty) and that's all I have to say on that topic.
 
Top Bottom