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

[Evie]

An interesting line of thought, if slightly marred by the part where we are basically taking the Indian colonial blob problem and doing it even worse (because African national borders are even more artificial than India's). I disagree that creating Kenya that combines elements of Swahili and Massai would make for a more interesting civ: I think it would lead to a frankenciv with mismatched bonuses that doesn't know what it wants to be and fails at being a fun Massai civ OR a fun Swahili civ.

Your boring civ is another player's cool civ.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

1) Countries themselves (colonies) are very young, but cultures they cover are centuries old, and their areas contained civilizations two millenia ago already (though local archeology is obviously in its cradle yet). So no 'wah too young' argument, they definitely have more of a 'civilization' feel than Australia and Canada anyway. Besides, I'm damn sure we have several civs in series which existed for less than 60 - 120 years.

I like the idea. My only problem is considering the countries themselves are very young, at least even younger than Australia and Canada, there doesn't seem to be that many potential possible leaders.
Besides Jomo Kenyatta, few others have died only within the past twenty years or are still alive.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I would prefer Swahilli over Kenya or Tanzania, because Swahilli is more ancient, that means, it can have a more ancient leader and it was made without europeans influence.

 

[Connor_CivFan]

I don’t see how Kenya and Tanzania are considered too young when we have Gran Colombia in the game.
Both Kenya and Tanzania have existed for 60+ years (both of which have long and rich history that predates their independence) while Gran Colombia didn’t even survive 12 years.

 

[Xandinho]

Well, the political state of Gran Colombia existed for such a short time, but if you consider Colombia and maybe its other successor states as parts of the Gran Colombian civilization, so it still exists today.

 

[Krajzen]

Most of African colonial countries have existed for over 120 years if we include colonial period, and why not, seeing as we dont consider the history of USA, Brazil, Mexico, Philippines, Australia, Canada etc to only begin with independence. People and their cultures existed here before as well. Indonesia and Philippines didnt exist as independent countries before later 20th century and they were molded by colonizers.

For example Philippines as an independent country is not much older than African states, its culture has been shaped by colonizers far longer and to a deeper degree than African ones, and it doesnt have that much higher development level and global importance than Kenya or Ghana. Yet we always see suggestions to include Indonesia (colonial construct, with Jakarata being Dutch founded city) or Philippines in the game, instead of "Medang/Javanese/Majapahit/Tagalog/Maynila" civilizations

I dont deny that in the vast majority of cases it is way better to include precolonial African civs over postcolonial ones, but I just suddenly found myself enjoying playing devils advocate against (seemingly) common approaches against the inclusion of cetain modern African countries

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

For example Philippines as an independent country is not much older than African states, its culture has been shaped by colonizers far longer and to a deeper degree than African ones, and it doesnt have that much higher development level and global importance than Kenya or Ghana. Yet we always see suggestions to include Indonesia (colonial construct, with Jakarata being Dutch founded city) or Philippines in the game, instead of "Medang/Javanese/Majapahit/Tagalog/Maynila" civilizations

Well in regards to Indonesia, it's always been portrayed as actually the Majapahit. But for clarity sake they just call it Indonesia, because even many developers for Civ 5 did not know who the Majapahit was when Ed Beach wanted to include them as a civilization. I guess that does beg the question whether they would call a civ Nigeria or Kenya, but base it off of either the Yoruba or the Swahili. I doubt it, considering I feel like those groups of people are at least more known to the western world.

I dont deny that in the vast majority of cases it is way better to include precolonial African civs over postcolonial ones, but I just suddenly found myself enjoying playing devils advocate against (seemingly) common approaches against the inclusion of cetain modern African countries

I'd consider Kenya/Tanzania, and possibly Nigeria, but that's probably about it.

 

[Krajzen]

I'd consider Kenya/Tanzania, and possibly Nigeria, but that's probably about it.

I'd consider Ghana and Kenya, maaaaybe also Tanzania and Senegal but they have weaker arguments for their inclusion, and I wouldn't consider Nigeria at all as a country which could/should be added to civ series as a modern African civilization.

Kenya and Ghana are prime candidates, because they are at the very top of the most succesful Subsaharan countries. You can't argue they are small, as Kenya has population of 53m people and Ghana has 31m. You can't argue they are obscure, as they are fairly well known across the world for being African countries. You can't argue they have no importance, as they are among like top 5 countries most important for the entire postcolonial era of African history, and they are very active members of United Nations. You can't argue they are too poor and miserable to warrant being seriously added to the game, because they aren't that much worse developed than India, Indonesia and Vietnam. You can't argue they have no remarkable leaders, as both of them have leaders incredibly important for global anti colonial movements (as does Tanzania, not sure about Senegal). And finally, in both cases you can't argue they are entirely covered by preceding precolonial civs, because Akan people are slightly less than half of Ghana and Swahilli culture is only a small part of Kenya. As for Ghana, I'd still prefer Akan civilization, but Ghana itself would be perfectly fine civ for the game; as for Kenya, I genuinely think modern country would be cooler civ than Swahilli.
Tanzania has mostly similar benefits as Kenya, but weaker arguments in all aspects (poorer, less notable, less known etc), while Senegal is here just because of my sympathy for how chill and nice this country's postcolonial history is when compared with most of the continent.

Meanwhile, Nigeria, in my opinion is a bad idea for addition to this series because I consider this country to be in a completely disastrous state nowadays and endemically since its inception, with much worse arguments for any sort of common identity than Kenya/Tanzania/Ghana/Senegal, very clearly divided between several civilizations, alien to each other, in a constant state of ethno - religious bloodhsed for six decades. It also lacks a beloved founding father leader (unlike Kenya, Tanzania and Ghana for example), and civilizations contained within it (Yoruba, Hausa, Kanem, Igbo, Edo/Benin) are entirely capable of functioning on their own in a game like this. Unlike for example my doubts about medieval Swahilli Kilwa civ, which utterly lacks charismatic leader, seems very one dimensional and doesn't have that great documentation at all.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

You can't argue they have no remarkable leaders, as both of them have leaders incredibly important for global anti colonial movements (as does Tanzania, not sure about Senegal).

Senghor

 

[Xandinho]

Well in regards to Indonesia, it's always been portrayed as actually the Majapahit. But for clarity sake they just call it Indonesia, because even many developers for Civ 5 did not know who the Majapahit was when Ed Beach wanted to include them as a civilization. I guess that does beg the question whether they would call a civ Nigeria or Kenya, but base it off of either the Yoruba or the Swahili. I doubt it, considering I feel like those groups of people are at least more known to the western world.

Well, Mapuche is also pretty obscure and they decided to call it by its real name instead of Chile. So, in Civ7, I'd prefer that they call the civ as Majapahit and not Indonesia, it's lot more appropriate. Unless they want to design the civ based on modern Indonesia, which I don't think will happen.

 

[Aurelesk]

Kenya and Ghana are prime candidates, because they are at the very top of the most succesful Subsaharan countries. You can't argue they are small, as Kenya has population of 53m people and Ghana has 31m. You can't argue they are obscure, as they are fairly well known across the world for being African countries.

I don't know: I believe people knows more about Kenya and Ghana because they are former english colonial lands, and the world is now vastly influenced by english-speaking media. To tell the truth, apart from Olympic games and sports team, I know nothing about those countries before I went to educate myself. Well, I know some about the Ghana Empire and his trans-Shararan trade due to school, but I am pretty sure it is Mali nowadays and not the today-Ghana.

Meanwhile, I know a lot more about countries like Burkina Faso (Upper Volta) and his many leaders / coups like Thomas Sankara or Benin (Dahomey) and how their culture shaped the African descent of the New World despite christian effort to erase it. But that would be a little obscure from other people, maybe becausesince they are former french colonial lands and I am familiar with french-speaking country, I have the reverse bias too. Maybe that's is why I knew about them since school too...

Senghor

It is really weird how my Senghor went from a pioneer of liberation in Senegal to almost a shame in the country in the last 10 years. I remember having a discussion with a former friend from Senegal telling me how great he was, how he played the french into having a smooth peaceful independance while being proud of having the french Enlightment value which made the former french colonial more tolerant than the english or muslim ones (like homosexuality being not criminalized in former french colonial countries but punished in most english or muslim country, well I should check that before repeat dumbly what he told me). And now, the same guy is telling me the exact opposite, how Senghor was a fool and got played by the french (and told me Russia is the real hope of Africa... what went wrong?!).

But... I cannot generalize that from just the opinion of one guy. Maybe I am completely wrong (so, do not hesitate to add more information so everyone can enjoy!).

Africa is mutating: they kind of writing history now. Yet, Civilization tend to stop anything that happened after WWII. So I guess we are stuck with precolonial African civilizations instead, or anti-colonial ones?

 

[Evie]

The fundamental problem with post-WW2 history is leaders (even post-WWI leaders really, but with more wiggle room). It's impossible to take a long perspective on the work and accomplishment of Men who lived that closely to us, and modern political bias and interpretation will weigh heavily on who is or is not viewed as good leader.

Which is the main problem with most modern African options.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

If we were to include Senghor as a leader, it would rest on his intellectual commitment to Négritude and his tenure as the first President of Senegal. Along with Jeanne and Paulette Nardal, and his usual companions Césaire and Damas, Senghor helped carve an intellectual space for emerging African identity that could be validated and humanized against (and beyond) the racism they had individually experienced growing up. Senghor in particular explored the substance in such a philosophical commitment, choosing to embrace négritude, independence, and African socialism, for instance. His writings along with others from the movement are widely available in French and English.

Of course, evaluating Senghor as a leader of Senegal would be better informed by those who lived or continue to live with the consequences of his leadership. And, as Evie prudently points out, perspective is a real problem for much of recent history. That said, I would broadly support postcolonial representation in the game, particularly for African states, and see Senghor as a candidate in that regard.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Meanwhile, Nigeria, in my opinion is a bad idea for addition to this series because I consider this country to be in a completely disastrous state nowadays and endemically since its inception, with much worse arguments for any sort of common identity than Kenya/Tanzania/Ghana/Senegal, very clearly divided between several civilizations, alien to each other, in a constant state of ethno - religious bloodhsed for six decades. It also lacks a beloved founding father leader (unlike Kenya, Tanzania and Ghana for example), and civilizations contained within it (Yoruba, Hausa, Kanem, Igbo, Edo/Benin) are entirely capable of functioning on their own in a game like this. Unlike for example my doubts about medieval Swahilli Kilwa civ, which utterly lacks charismatic leader, seems very one dimensional and doesn't have that great documentation at all.

I'd much rather a precolonial group from Nigeria too, I just feel like as far as potential postcolonial options, there's not much to go off of and Nigeria might be at the top.
But I do agree that Kenya would probably be my favorite choice, considering I was the one who mentioned the Maasai. If it's a blend of both Swahili and Massai, with other groups, in their design I'd be up for it.

Unless they want to design the civ based on modern Indonesia, which I don't think will happen.

Well it's probably either them or South Africa for a Dutch colonial civ.

I don't know: I believe people knows more about Kenya and Ghana because they are former english colonial lands, and the world is now vastly influenced by english-speaking media. To tell the truth, apart from Olympic games and sports team, I know nothing about those countries before I went to educate myself. Well, I know some about the Ghana Empire and his trans-Shararan trade due to school, but I am pretty sure it is Mali nowadays and not the today-Ghana.

I think if there's ever a first look for Ghana, it will most likely be the Medieval empire, not the modern day country which it shares its name and not the same location.

 

[Krajzen]

I have never understood the desire seen on these forums to see medieval Ghana civ. It is badly attested, half of our 'information' about it are Maghreb ramblings on what supposedly happens in this exotic faraway land, its archeology is in its infancy, it has the same problem of Swahili of being one dimensional "trade: the civilisation" in game play terms, we have no idea for its unique unit and building. We have not one but two successor civs (Mali and Songhai), which cover the same niche and are both way better documented and actually have nice candidates for personal leaders. And on top of that its name collides with one of only like 2 - 3 viable modern African civs, while there is like a dozen better precolonial civs for West Africa alone

What exactly would medieval Ghana bring to the table besides being Mali/Songhai but strapped from everything that makes them distinctive except trade_desert_caravan stuff?

 

[Evie]

What, exactly, is so wrong about trade-centric civs? That's twice now you implied that a civ should be rejected because it would be about trade.

Not *every* civ should be about trade, but having some trade-centric civ hardly seems like a problem.

(I otherwise agree that we know too little about Ghana to have them over Mali)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I have never understood the desire seen on these forums to see medieval Ghana civ. It is badly attested, half of our 'information' about it are Maghreb ramblings on what supposedly happens in this exotic faraway land, its archeology is in its infancy, it has the same problem of Swahili of being one dimensional "trade: the civilisation" in game play terms, we have no idea for its unique unit and building. We have not one but two successor civs (Mali and Songhai), which cover the same niche and are both way better documented and actually have nice candidates for personal leaders. And on top of that its name collides with one of only like 2 - 3 viable modern African civs, while there is like a dozen better precolonial civs for West Africa alone

What exactly would medieval Ghana bring to the table besides being Mali/Songhai but strapped from everything that makes them distinctive except trade_desert_caravan stuff?

I do agree that the Ghana Empire would be hard to implement, especially against Mali and Songhai, and even the trading civs of the Maghreb. Still I would expect them over the modern country of Ghana, which like you said has the same name of the empire, and I believe most people would expect that in civ if the name "Ghana" at least showed up. If we did get a civ from present-day Ghana, I'd much rather have the Ashanti.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I have never understood the desire seen on these forums to see medieval Ghana civ. It is badly attested, half of our 'information' about it are Maghreb ramblings on what supposedly happens in this exotic faraway land, its archeology is in its infancy, it has the same problem of Swahili of being one dimensional "trade: the civilisation" in game play terms, we have no idea for its unique unit and building. We have not one but two successor civs (Mali and Songhai), which cover the same niche and are both way better documented and actually have nice candidates for personal leaders. And on top of that its name collides with one of only like 2 - 3 viable modern African civs, while there is like a dozen better precolonial civs for West Africa alone

What exactly would medieval Ghana bring to the table besides being Mali/Songhai but strapped from everything that makes them distinctive except trade_desert_caravan stuff?

None of Ghana's are cool to be in civilization, the Ghana empire is better replaced by Mali/Songhai empires and speaking about the modern states it is better to do first Nigeria or South Africa. Ghana country should be better represented by Ashante empire

 

[TahamiTsunami]

I gotta bring up Botswana if we're talking about modern African countries. If your country is considered 'an African miracle' you've gotta be doing something right!

 

[The Kingmaker]

I’m all for Ashanti or another west African Civ.

I also think Central Asia is woefully underrepresented. Bactria/Soghdia, the Kushans, and Gurkani are all great candidates.

I’ve supported including the Hebrews for decades now. I also support some kind of representation for renaissance Italy.

Al-Andalus and the Goths are also good candidates.

Lastly, I’m a big fan of Zenobia’s Palmyra. Yes, “Syria” is more well-known, but that’s also a good reason not to call it that these days.

Also, please bring back Assyria.