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

[Henri Christophe]

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!

Botswana is also a great option to south Africa, even because it's last king Seretse Khama it is also it's first president, the most smooth transition of power I ever saw.

 

[CatboyEmperor]

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.

tbqh Gran Colombia isn't a good comparison since it mainly seems to have been added as a way to get Simon Bolivar as leader, and I highly doubt it'd have been included otherwise.

 

[Vahnstad]

The one i want the most isn't included and it's Muisca.

Aside of that voted for
Armenia
Ashanti
Benin
Ireland
Mughals
Swahili

Tibet/Nepal didn't vote for but I don't think it's gonna happen due to China

 

[Evie]

"Too young", is generally less about how long you've existed, and more about *when* you existed.

It's all about the fact that recent leaders present significant issues (including potentially securing permissions from living family members, the fact that it's hard to distinguish great or bad leaders without several decades of historical perspective, and so forth.

So Gran Colombia, which has a leader who lived 200 years or so ago, is ahead of African states with leaders who lived 60 years ago.

 

[Patine]

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.

Are we back to strict, "racial quotas," there?

 

[Henri Christophe]

Are we back to strict, "racial quotas," there?

Of course, this game need some kind of quota.
In my last game as Aztecs, in real location earth. I started destroying USA, Canada and Brazil to take out Moderator Action: <<SNIP>> America and just after I destroy Cree, Incas and Mapuche.

Moderator Action: Please do not use racial biases in your posting. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Krajzen]

Unrelated topic:

After attempting to educate myself in the history of nomadic Eurasia, and being surprisingly utterly bored by it, I still don't find many reasons to add many Asian horse nomad civs to the game beyond Mongols and Scythians. I don't count Tatars, Timurids, Manchus, Uyghurs etc here as those cultures weren't entirely "nomadic", especially in their most spectacular forms

I mean, okay we could add some Turkic culture for this purpose, so we'd have "horse faction but with Turkic flavour" this time, which would be something new and important seeing how crucial Turkic nomads were for the history of basically everything. But besides that, my problem with adding plenty of Central Asian Horse Nomad Cultures is how similar and interchangeable most of them seem to be, at least until you go academically deep into them. Within Turkic segment of that whole club I utterly fail to describe differences between say Khazars, Turkmen, Kazakhs, Pechenegs, Cumans, Kyrgyz etc. The same goes for countless Iranian horse nomad groups which always just circle back to the arguments whether they were or weren't "Scythians" (that problem in itself signals how similar those cultures seem).

Special mention goes for Khazars whose main distinctive characteristic is how they maybe, seemingly, allegedly, to some relative degree, quite probably, were under the influence of Judaism, but every scientist speaking about this topic has different opinion ranging from "they were second Israel" to "the entire story is fake and lame", so I, the casual, just end up with yet another super obscure Turkic horse nomad culture with unknown language. At least they weren't like Huns who required fake city list and fake language in civ5 as we know basically nothing substantial about them besides them suddenly appearing for 50 years of plunder and then disappearing - a hallmark of a great civilization.

As usual, education from you is welcome

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Unrelated topic:

After attempting to educate myself in the history of nomadic Eurasia, and being surprisingly utterly bored by it, I still don't find many reasons to add many Asian horse nomad civs to the game beyond Mongols and Scythians. I don't count Tatars, Timurids, Manchus, Uyghurs etc here as those cultures weren't entirely "nomadic", especially in their most spectacular forms

I mean, okay we could add some Turkic culture for this purpose, so we'd have "horse faction but with Turkic flavour" this time, which would be something new and important seeing how crucial Turkic nomads were for the history of basically everything. But besides that, my problem with adding plenty of Central Asian Horse Nomad Cultures is how similar and interchangeable most of them seem to be, at least until you go academically deep into them. Within Turkic segment of that whole club I utterly fail to describe differences between say Khazars, Turkmen, Kazakhs, Pechenegs, Cumans, Kyrgyz etc. The same goes for countless Iranian horse nomad groups which always just circle back to the arguments whether they were or weren't "Scythians" (that problem in itself signals how similar those cultures seem).

Special mention goes for Khazars whose main distinctive characteristic is how they maybe, seemingly, allegedly, to some relative degree, quite probably, were under the influence of Judaism, but every scientist speaking about this topic has different opinion ranging from "they were second Israel" to "the entire story is fake and lame", so I, the casual, just end up with yet another super obscure Turkic horse nomad culture with unknown language. At least they weren't like Huns who required fake city list and fake language in civ5 as we know basically nothing substantial about them besides them suddenly appearing for 50 years of plunder and then disappearing - a hallmark of a great civilization.

As usual, education from you is welcome

The pastoral lifestyle and cultural groups were enormously influential historically both as opponents to nearby 'civilized' (only in the sense of City Dwellers!) groups, but even more importantly as the agents of long-distance trade between groups living around the edges of great pastoral areas (Central Asia, Central North America - look up the history as trading middlemen of groups like the Comanches there).

As opponents their influence was two-fold. On the one hand, they provided either models for influential military types (horse archers, mounted lancers) or provided such troops as mercenaries to non-pastoral groups. I've said it before, anybody who fielded horse archers did it by either being pastorals or hiring pastorals - city dwellers simply didn't have the opportunity to develop the skilll-set required. On the other hand, the mercenary troops or the original pastoral groups occasionally simply conquered the Civil types and set up new or partially new 'Civilizations' themselves. Most successful in this regard were the Turks - Ottomans and the Mongols - Yuan, Mughuls, Great Horde.

Which means that they cannot be simply left out of Civ VII unless you also plan to leave out any and all large masses of steppe/prairie that spawned them.

But it does NOT mean that every patch of prairie/steppe terrain needs to 'spawn' another Pastoral Civ.

In fact, a better model might be something like a Pastoral City State: a City-State-sized entity that does not have a fixed site, does have troops that can be 'hired', that can be allied with, that could also spawn 'barbarian' raiders to torment neighboring Civs and States, and that can build/maintain Trade Routes, possibly over longer land distances than normal (City-based) routes and can trade goods from other Civs to third parties - which alone would make them a Special Player in the economic game.

Thus, the game could get the influence and representation of the Pastoral groups without cluttering the map with 'Civs' that are in most particulars very similar. -"Seen one horse archer, seen 'em all" so to speak.

Since I've already argued elsewhere for a 'nomadic' start for everybody in the game, the major Pastoral Civs that formed more permanent Civil Entities (Persians, Turks, Mongols) could simply be the ones that, for various reasons, stay nomadic/pastoral after others settle down and start throwing wattle and daub and mud bricks together.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Actually, I would question the need of an exclusive "nomad" mechanic for civs like Mongols. Any proper empire from Central Asia take control of existing cities and/or sent to build new ones. Cities like Karabalghasun, Karakorum, Samandar, Sarai, etc. Remind us that a successfull empire needs an administrative core than was achieved only by the duality of pastorial camps and the agrarian cities. The example of the fugacious Huns in Europe vs the centuries of Hunas in Asia point to this.

A better representation of civs from the steppes and deserts of Eurasia and also Northen Africa would be the production of powerful warriors from their pastorial camps in addition to regular cities NOT as replacement.

Something really different to the regular civ model would be the case of Comanches being urban-less, descentralized and not even proper pastorial. So if somebody need a unique real Nomadic mechanic save it for them.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Actually, I would question the need of an exclusive "nomad" mechanic for civs like Mongols. Any proper empire from Central Asia take control of existing cities and/or sent to build new ones. Cities like Karabalghasun, Karakorum, Samandar, Sarai, etc. Remind us that a successfull empire needs an administrative core than was achieved only by the duality of pastorial camps and the agrarian cities. The example of the fugacious Huns in Europe vs the centuries of Hunas in Asia point to this.

A better representation of civs from the steppes and deserts of Eurasia and also Northen Africa would be the production of powerful warriors from their pastorial camps in addition to regular cities NOT as replacement.

Something really different to the regular civ model would be the case of Comanches being urban-less, descentralized and not even proper pastorial. So if somebody need a unique real Nomadic mechanic save it for them.

I do agree with you that a nomadic ability isn't necessarily needed for Mongolia.

If they decide to include the Huns or Scythia again, I think something similar would be needed, or someone like the Comanche or the Berbers as you mentioned. I still would like the nomadic mechanic be available for all civs, at the beginning of the game, but at the same time it should be beneficial and last longer for the civs mentioned above.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Actually, I would question the need of an exclusive "nomad" mechanic for civs like Mongols. Any proper empire from Central Asia take control of existing cities and/or sent to build new ones. Cities like Karabalghasun, Karakorum, Samandar, Sarai, etc. Remind us that a successfull empire needs an administrative core than was achieved only by the duality of pastorial camps and the agrarian cities. The example of the fugacious Huns in Europe vs the centuries of Hunas in Asia point to this..

Purely Pastoral is a 'sub-Civ' that will remain such unless they also get the benefit of a settled City somewhere/somehow. The 'Royal Scyths' of the southern Ukraine managed it by simply dominating the Greek city colonies from the Don (Tanais) River delta to the Crimea. Several of the excavated city-sites show indications of having a population that was mixed: Greek and Scythian, and the Greek artisans were producing exquisite goldwork to Scythian art-styles so they were, basically, Scythian cities even if the political control was less than direct. Mongols and other later Central Asian pastorals managed it by simply conquering the cities and running them the same way more 'settled' Civs did. Having options to accomplish the same goal is Always Good IMHO.

better representation of civs from the steppes and deserts of Eurasia and also Northen Africa would be the production of powerful warriors from their pastorial camps in addition to regular cities NOT as replacement..

And this could provide the 'path' to turn the choice of going from Hunter-gatherer Nomad (the 'default' start for everyone) to Pastoral instead of City Dweller early in the game from being a dead end pastoral sub-Civ to a Scythian, Persian, Mongolian, Turkic, etc. Civilization. The Powerful Warriors are already historically attested pretty specifically: horse-archers, mounted lancers, camel-riding cavalry. The spoked wheel chariot is also pretty thoroughly identified archeologically now as a Steppe Nomad invention that spread from west-central Asia (roughly, north and west of the modern Caspian Sea) south into the Middle east and east into China and west into Europe (along with many of the Steppe Warriors themselves) so there is a nice set of choices to make the Pastoral Warrior a possible city conquerer and set the Pastoral group on the road to Civilization Contestant from the Ancient Era onwards.

Something really different to the regular civ model would be the case of Comanches being urban-less, descentralized and not even proper pastorial. So if somebody need a unique real Nomadic mechanic save it for them.

The North American groups that moved into the Great Plains with horses had a 'special' resource that wasn't available anywhere else: the Massive Herds of Bison.
While they are too big to be easily herded (cattle are intimidated by a man on a horse or even a bunch of men on foot making noise, Bison are definitely NOT. Nothing less than a helicopter roaring at them just above the grfound (Nap Of The Earth flying) will make them move, so trying to herd them on foot or horseback is a good way to wind up being stomped into a pastoral pancake. At least, that's my conclusion from having herded cattle off a firing range in Fort Hood, Texas, and watching people try to herd Bison off the firing ranges at Fort Sill, Oklahoma) Bison provide far more resources from hunting than cattle or any other ruminant herd. Bison leather is thick enough to be bullet-proof, bison horn and bone sturdy enough to build small houses out of, and a single adult bison can provide enough meat to feed dozens of people for a week. The return in useful resources from hunting Bison is simply much, much better than hunting cattle, deer, horses, or any other animal available to groups in Eurasia.
That allowed the 'plains indians' like the Comanche, Lakota Sioux, or Cheyenne to develop lifestyles and material cultures every bit as rich as the Central Asian groups got from herding, and project political, trade, and military influence in the same manner as happened out of Central Asia.

 

[Haig]

Paraguay led by Solano Lopez, with the general strategy for the civ being an underdog that tries to challenge the big dogs.

Mate tea and guarani people could include somehow in the design.

Might be just a bit too controversial because of the horrible total war nature Paraguyan war.

 

[Patine]

Might be just a bit too controversial because of the horrible total war nature Paraguyan war.

This style of war was actually more common in history than many realize. The, "controversial," examples usually had a lot of other horrid features, too. I mean, Lincoln's total war campaign is rarely vilified, except by Southern Lost Cause advocates.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Paraguay led by Solano Lopez, with the general strategy for the civ being an underdog that tries to challenge the big dogs.

Mate tea and guarani people could include somehow in the design.

Might be just a bit too controversial because of the horrible total war nature Paraguyan war.

I would like to see a Paraguayan civ, but I think it is better to have a Guarani civ lead by Sepé Tiaraju

 

[Patine]

I would like to see a Paraguayan civ, but I think it is better to have a Guarani civ lead by Sepé Tiaraju

Other than being canonized 250 years later, I can't find much hard information about, other than he didn't seem to be a political leader and he wasn't very successful in achieving independence. In my view, he's a very dubious choice.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Other than being canonized 250 years later, I can't find much hard information about, other than he didn't seem to be a political leader and he wasn't very successful in achieving independence. In my view, he's a very dubious choice.

Maybe not the most amazing leader of Civilization, because he leads the Guaranitic wars but have lost it in early battle. (I Guess he fall of the horse and was one of the firsts to die in battle). But, it is the best option to lead Guarani after Solano López. I don't know other names to lead the Guarani civilization

 

[Patine]

Maybe not the most amazing leader of Civilization, because he leads the Guaranitic wars but have lost it in early battle. (I Guess he fall of the horse and was one of the firsts to die in battle). But, it is the best option to lead Guarani after Solano López. I don't know other names to lead the Guarani civilization

But the yet the pre-Independence Guarani are somehow a much preferred idea to Paraguay, despite having a lot less material, information, and names? Somehow...

 

[Xandinho]

Paraguay seems too small to be a playable civ, but a nice candidate for a city-state, though. Anyway, I think it's fouth best option for a modern civ in South America, after Brazil, Gran Colombia and Argentina, meaning it's still possible if the game reaches at least 80 playable civs someday.
I've seen here some suggestions for a hybrid civilization of Paraguay with Guarani, which I think would be pretty strange. Guarani would be better if they want to include something from central South America someday. Oberá is another leader's option, but unfortunately I didn't find any information about him in English to post here.

 

[Patine]

Anyway, I think it's fouth best option for a modern civ in South America, after Brazil, Gran Colombia and Argentina

I'm still not a big fan of the inclusion of Gran Colombia, given the brevity of it's existence, and it geographically blocked up the option of the Muisca (who, as another poster here noted, is tragically missing from the above poll).

 

[reddishrecue]

TBh I don't know who to vote for here. Some of the civilizations are in HK already, all up to the developers.