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

[Krajzen]

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.

Oh, I get it now. I respect your consistent views on this topic. I also think Turkish civ would be doable this way.
One one hand I kind of agree with you that civs based on dynasties feel weird, but on another hand I genuinely think there is simply no way to otherwise include some, well, genuine distinctive civs and cultures. They are just very convenient for this game format. I'd like to see "Islamic Egypt" separate civ but because of name overlap you can't do that unless you just name it after one of imperial Egyptian sultanstes. And I have genuinely tried and failed to find the way to convey the concept of you know "specific brand of Islamic civilization found in Central Asia" without using dynasty names such as Timurids etc - and failed. "Uzbeks" are not nearly the same, and I am not sure if we should tie the concept of civilization to modern day national identies. Dynasty named are sometimes convenient.

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.

Tbh I think around 50 civs is what series should remain for now, as it is an enormous amount already, and it is better to focus on polishing each of them and their distinctive nature. So assuming that yeah I'd agree with you. For example in the next game I'd exchange Scotland for Ireland, Sweden for Ukraine, Hungary for Italy, Poland for Czech, Norway for Denmark. I'd consider one more Euro slot (and Id give it to Bułgaria) if we got 57 civs next time, which I think is too much.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I think around 50 civs is what series should remain for now

I still hopping they add more civs than just 50 as in Civ 6. If the graphs are way more cartoonish it can arrive in the one hundred civs in civ7. What should to be enought civs to do all underrepresentead areas of the world. Because nowadays just Europe is well represented.

Norway for Denmark

Both have the Vikings aesthetic, what can bring just a Viking civilization.

Scotland for Ireland

Take out Scotland to put the IReland can be a good option, but I still prefer a Celtic civ as in Civ 5.

Poland for Czech

Nothing against the Czech, but I guess Poland will still appearing in this game, at least they was an empire for a time.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Tbh I think around 50 civs is what series should remain for now, as it is an enormous amount already, and it is better to focus on polishing each of them and their distinctive nature. So assuming that yeah I'd agree with you. For example in the next game I'd exchange Scotland for Ireland, Sweden for Ukraine, Hungary for Italy, Poland for Czech, Norway for Denmark. I'd consider one more Euro slot (and Id give it to Bułgaria) if we got 57 civs next time, which I think is too much.

I'd be surprised at this point if Sweden or Poland will sit out after appearing in two consecutive games, with Poland almost making the base game this time around. I think it's more likely that a Czech/Bohemia civ might replace Hungary, but I definitely wouldn't mind Italy taking that spot. I agree about Ireland over Scotland.
I wouldn't be surprised if they try to maybe even reach 60 civs eventually, however.

Take out Scotland to put the IReland can be a good option, but I still prefer a Celtic civ as in Civ 5.

That's what Gaul is for.

 

[awesome]

The year is 2091, and we are celebrating 100 years of the Civilization series with the release of Civilixatoon 15! Donald Trump leads the American civilization as one of 100 civilizations, most of which are basically the same thing.

 

[Henri Christophe]

The year is 2091, and we are celebrating 100 years of the Civilization series with the release of Civilixatoon 15! Donald Trump leads the American civilization as one of 100 civilizations, most of which are basically the same thing.

In the year 2091 I want to see Barack Obama as leader of USA because he was it's first black president and had a noble prize.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Beware heading into politics and current events in this thread.

 

[Bechhold]

The Mexican Empire, Cherokees, and modern Italy.

 

[Henri Christophe]

The Mexican Empire

Nothing against Maximilian of Habsburgo to lead the Mexican Empire, but I would prefer someone as Benito Juarez to lead a Mexican civ.
Because we already have some white leaders in Americas as Canada, Brazil and USA. If Mexico become a civ it should be leader by an indigenous dude as Benito Juarez who have Zapotec heritage.

 

[Evie]

If you want an indigenous mexican civ, there's many to chose from.

Mexico is a pretty poor choice for that.

 

[Marla_Singer]

If you want an indigenous mexican civ, there's many to chose from.

Mexico is a pretty poor choice for that.

Mexico's name in itself comes from Mexica Aztecs who were ruling the Empire from Tenochtitlan. Modern Mexico is the direct successor of the Aztec Empire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexica

 

[Evie]

I'm well aware.

I'm also well aware that in common English parlance Mexico as a cultural and political entity (as opposed to a geographic region), thus as a civ, designate colonial and post-colonial Mexico, where the pre-colonial Mexica Aztecs are generally known as Aztecs, Aztec Empire politically, and indeed already in the game as such.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I'm well aware.

I'm also well aware that in common English parlance Mexico as a cultural and political entity (as opposed to a geographic region), thus as a civ, designate colonial and post-colonial Mexico, where the pre-colonial Mexica Aztecs are generally known as Aztecs, Aztec Empire politically, and indeed already in the game as such.

Indeed, I recall a Mexican guy who told me once that it's not so different than the Celts with the invasion of Gaul by the Romans. He's correct, modern France is born as a Roman colony in pretty much the same way as modern Mexico is born as a Spanish colony.

As a matter of fact, that is very often the case for non-ancient "civs" : the US is born as a British colony, Britain is born as a French (Norman) colony, France is born as a Roman colony, Rome is born as a Greek colony, Greece is born as a Minoan colony.

I've been wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea to simulate this somehow in the game. Instead of having all civs popping out in -4000 BC, they would come more progressively over time all through the game, either emerging fully independent or as colonies. Now obviously, the civilization series massively favour early start so it wouldn't be so simple to make grow a later empire surpassing older ones, but the idea sounds kinda cool to me.

 

[Henri Christophe]

If you want an indigenous mexican civ, there's many to chose from.

Mexico is a pretty poor choice for that.

I agree should be best to fullfill the Meso-America with ancient civs as Toltecs, Zapotecs, Mixtecs and Purepécha. But since we are doing a lot of post colonial civs as Brazil, USA, Canada and Colombia. I understand this desire of a modern Mexico country as a civ.
The only problem I see to add the Mexico republic as a civ is they share the same spot in real location earth with the capital of the Aztecs, they can change the name but still the same spot. What is kind of boring and I believe other mesoamerican civs should come first.

 

[Krajzen]

If you want an indigenous mexican civ, there's many to chose from.

Mexico is a pretty poor choice for that.

Yeah well, I specifically want Latin American civ of Mexico, because I think it is very powerful and cool culture and country (I'd actually say 'civilization' in this modern case) in its own right. And also because it's nice to have some fresh modern cultures in the game, and its def more distinctive than, say, Canada and Australia in this regard.

I have a provocative question, and by 'provocative' I mean 'I love Aztecs and especially Maya very much, but I shall still say this for sake of Mexico': what makes Mexican civilization less of a 'proper civilization' than Aztecs and Maya?

The mainstream definition of civilization is simply a complex society which is settled, has high population density, has urban centers with division of labour and has state organisation and bureaucracy. Differences in socioeconomic scale of organisation (or emergence of new qualities) opposed to tribal societies, hunter gatherers, nomads etc. So frequent assertion that "x is a country not a civilization" is simply a complete miss - by default every country is a civilization. Also God knows where does one civilization and and another begins (there is a concept of "Mesoamerican civilization" or "Islamic civilization" for example) so moving away Mexico with "it's just Latin American civilization" seems meaningless at best and careless mashing all those cultures together at worst (you could just as well say Aztecs are just "Mesoamerican civilization" seeing how most of their stuff is barely distinguishable for their neighbors and precedessors).

Impact on world history is really debatable between Aztecs/Maya and Mexico, because we have the obvious problem of former two having almost there entire history happen in isolation from rest of the world, while Mexico was part of the globalized economy for centuries and has hell of its distinctive cultural influences across the world completely separatedly from Mesoamerican past. I live in Poland and goddamn if tequila, sombreros, Mexican food, Mexican music and aestethics and vibes aren't extremely recognizable here in Eastern Europe. Obviously Mesoamericans are also recognizable as hell across the globe, but its not easy question at all whether they are more prominent outside history nerds circles. Plus Mexico is 120m people country with relatively powerful economy so its not a small backwater either. The biggest contributions of Mesoamerica to the globe are imho its countless agricultural products, domesticated and spreading since 16th century. As for their global cultural impact I wouldnt be so sure they'd win against Latin America.

History of Mexico is also memetic and dramatic as hell, full of great personalities, so it is like we can say it is bland either.

Accusations of eurocentrism are generally problematic for every really mixed and multicultural Mestizo country full of precolombian influences, when Mexican national identity identifies more with Aztecs than with Spanish conquistadors.

So generally it would seem that Aztecs and Maya win by the sheer exotic calculus where they are so weird they utterly stomp Mexico appearing in civ series each time just because of this alone, which is maybe true, but not after 6 times in a row when I start to think 'you know what, at this point it would be refreshing to see Mexico in release version of civ7 instead of Aztecs, to hell with traditions its not like Aztecs gonna be offended, they gonna come in the expansion after Maya"

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yeah well, I specifically want Latin American civ of Mexico, because I think it is very powerful and cool culture and country (I'd actually say 'civilization' in this modern case) in its own right. And also because it's nice to have some fresh modern cultures in the game, and its def more distinctive than, say, Canada and Australia in this regard.

I have a provocative question, and by 'provocative' I mean 'I love Aztecs and especially Maya very much, but I shall still say this for sake of Mexico': what makes Mexican civilization less of a 'proper civilization' than Aztecs and Maya?

The mainstream definition of civilization is simply a complex society which is settled, has high population density, has urban centers with division of labour and has state organisation and bureaucracy. Differences in socioeconomic scale of organisation (or emergence of new qualities) opposed to tribal societies, hunter gatherers, nomads etc. So frequent assertion that "x is a country not a civilization" is simply a complete miss - by default every country is a civilization. Also God knows where does one civilization and and another begins (there is a concept of "Mesoamerican civilization" or "Islamic civilization" for example) so moving away Mexico with "it's just Latin American civilization" seems meaningless at best and careless mashing all those cultures together at worst (you could just as well say Aztecs are just "Mesoamerican civilization" seeing how most of their stuff is barely distinguishable for their neighbors and precedessors).

Impact on world history is really debatable between Aztecs/Maya and Mexico, because we have the obvious problem of former two having almost there entire history happen in isolation from rest of the world, while Mexico was part of the globalized economy for centuries and has hell of its distinctive cultural influences across the world completely separatedly from Mesoamerican past. I live in Poland and goddamn if tequila, sombreros, Mexican food, Mexican music and aestethics and vibes aren't extremely recognizable here in Eastern Europe. Obviously Mesoamericans are also recognizable as hell across the globe, but its not easy question at all whether they are more prominent outside history nerds circles. Plus Mexico is 120m people country with relatively powerful economy so its not a small backwater either. The biggest contributions of Mesoamerica to the globe are imho its countless agricultural products, domesticated and spreading since 16th century. As for their global cultural impact I wouldnt be so sure they'd win against Latin America.

History of Mexico is also memetic and dramatic as hell, full of great personalities, so it is like we can say it is bland either.

Accusations of eurocentrism are generally problematic for every really mixed and multicultural Mestizo country full of precolombian influences, when Mexican national identity identifies more with Aztecs than with Spanish conquistadors.

So generally it would seem that Aztecs and Maya win by the sheer exotic calculus where they are so weird they utterly stomp Mexico appearing in civ series each time just because of this alone, which is maybe true, but not after 6 times in a row when I start to think 'you know what, at this point it would be refreshing to see Mexico in release version of civ7 instead of Aztecs, to hell with traditions its not like Aztecs gonna be offended, they gonna come in the expansion after Maya"

I think all things considered the possibility of Mexico appearing in future games is enhanced after Civ 6 giving us more postcolonial civs then maybe most people desired.

Still I understand where people are coming from with the idea that they are always going to "geographically" compete with the Aztecs/Maya. On the flipside I'm also not surprised that for the Latin American spot in Civ 6 was Gran Colombia, considering it's impact on Latin America in general, and it occupying a geographic spot we didn't have.

If it wasn't for the Mapuche getting in, I would have made a strong argument possibly for Argentina. I do have a feeling that Gran Colombia and the Mapuche might be swapped for the Muisca and Argentina for Civ 7, which I wouldn't mind.

I do see Mexico as the third most likely after Gran Colombia and Argentina, in regards to Spanish speaking nations. The only other one I could possibly think of is Cuba, but they don't really have any compelling leaders, or the Philippines. The Philippines are probably different though competing with Indonesia to be the naval SEA civ, which the latter seems to always win easily.

 

[Evie]

Reread what I said, Krajzen. I never said Mexico was a poor choice.

I said, in answer to Henri saying their leader should be Benito Juarez because he is indigenous, that Mexico is a poor choice for indigenous Mexican representation - if Mexico is there it should be as colonial/postcolonial mexico, not some hackneyed indigenous representation.

If you're looking for Zapotec representation, though, add Zapotec, not Mexico led by Benito Juarez.

If we're going to have postcolonial civ, and they seem to be here to stay, then I have nothing against Mexico as a postcolonial Latin-American civ (though I'm thinking we should still keep it to one spanish, one french, one english, one portuguese postcolonial per game, so I'd rather Mexico, GC and Argentina take turns)

 

[BuchiTaton]

Being indigenous should not be "THE" reason to have Benito Juárez as Mexico's leaders, BUT Benito Juárez still is the main option for Mexico's leader. He combines all the positive points of other famous mexican leaders without suffer any of their different faults.

 

[Evie]

I agree. If the best option for a postcolonial mexican leader hapoens to be indigenous, by all mean have him. But don't have him in a roundabout attempt to make Mexico an indigenous civ, which it is not.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Being indigenous should not be "THE" reason to have Benito Juárez as Mexico's leaders, BUT Benito Juárez still is the main option for Mexico's leader. He combines all the positive points of other famous mexican leaders without suffer any of their different faults.

Of course his heritage is also important. If we have an indigenous leader as Benito Juarez we shoul pick him. If we should to choice white guys to lead Mexico we can pick Porfirio Diaz, Maximiliano von Habsuborgo and even Hernan Cortez.

But our indigenous choice is way better.

 

[Krajzen]

Reread what I said, Krajzen. I never said Mexico was a poor choice.

I said, in answer to Henri saying their leader should be Benito Juarez because he is indigenous, that Mexico is a poor choice for indigenous Mexican representation - if Mexico is there it should be as colonial/postcolonial mexico, not some hackneyed indigenous representation.

If you're looking for Zapotec representation, though, add Zapotec, not Mexico led by Benito Juarez.

If we're going to have postcolonial civ, and they seem to be here to stay, then I have nothing against Mexico as a postcolonial Latin-American civ (though I'm thinking we should still keep it to one spanish, one french, one english, one portuguese postcolonial per game, so I'd rather Mexico, GC and Argentina take turns)

Sorry, I hadn't thought you are against Mexico, should have clarified this, didnt want to seem agressive. It was more of a poke towards several sentiments commonly appearing on these forums, such as what is the "proper" civilisation etc.