What unlikely civs would you want to see?

AaronTBD

Warlord
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
175
What unlikely civs would you want to see?
(They're not very popular, and will likely not be in civ 6)

I'll name some of mine and what type they would be based on!

Ainu - Cultural/Religious and/or Productive
Hussites - Militaristic
Zimbabwe - Economic
Cheyenne - Militaristic/Religious
Sri Lanka - Religious/Scientific
Khazar Khanate - Militaristic/Cultural (also the closest thing to a Jewish civ)

What are yours?
 
I second Zimbabwe as an Economic/Defensive civ. They could have a walled Commercial Hub similar to what the Gauls have for their Industrial Zone (the Great Zimbabwe was not unique, just the greatest). Maybe a bit of culture related to their soapstone carvings.

I'd also like to see the Navajo at some point.

Heck, even having either of these as city-states would be nice.
 
I don't know their exact attributes but these come to mind to flesh out regions: By Civ 7 or so, maybe the world map can be big enough that a Earth map doesn't end with, say, Zulu running up to the Nile automatically...one day....

Akan/Ashanti/"New" Ghana for West Africa.
Kanem for Central Africa .
Garamantes or just 'Libya' umbrella civ for North Africa.
Swahili or Bugunda or Zimbabwe for East/South Africa.
Tamils for South Asia.
Salish for North America.
Mapuche or Muisca for South America.
Yemen or Oman for Arabia, break it up a little.
Malay or Malacca for SEA.
 
Last edited:
Swahili, Zimbabwe, Madagascar, Oman, Haida, Haiti, Rwanda - the lattermost of which being the most unlikely, perhaps - are on my list of civs that I want to see at some point that I'm not incredibly confident will ever make it into the game. I do think Oman has a chance for 6, though, if there's an additional round of DLC civs after New Frontier pass (and I hope there is!).
 
Mapuche or Muisca for South America.
The Mapuche are in.

My most wanted would probably be Ancient Israelites/Hebrews.
 
Mine wouldn't necessarily be specific Civs, but 2 mechanisms that would allow the game to show the reality of Civs already in the game:

1. A Real representation of City State Civs in which each city was slightly different, they all shared a basic culture/language, but never quite shared a government. High on this list would be Classical Greece, Renaissance Italy, the Taklamakhan, medieval/renaissance Flanders, and even central Russia pre-Grand Duchy of Muscovy, in which Moscow, Tver, Vladimir, Suzdal, Novgorod, Ryazan, etc were all nearly co-equal and competing.

2. A Mechanism to allow Nomadic/Pastoral starts that provide competitive, playable Civs until the Renaissance. High on this list would be Scythians/Sarmatians, Mongols, Huns, Cheyennes, Lakotah Souix.

Workable game solutions to the City State Civ and Pastoral Civ problems would extend the potential list of playable Civs much more than any tweaking with individual Civ Lists, but I strongly suspect at this point that 'solving' those problems (either or both) will have to wait for Civ VII.
 
Mine wouldn't necessarily be specific Civs, but 2 mechanisms that would allow the game to show the reality of Civs already in the game:

1. A Real representation of City State Civs in which each city was slightly different, they all shared a basic culture/language, but never quite shared a government. High on this list would be Classical Greece, Renaissance Italy, the Taklamakhan, medieval/renaissance Flanders, and even central Russia pre-Grand Duchy of Muscovy, in which Moscow, Tver, Vladimir, Suzdal, Novgorod, Ryazan, etc were all nearly co-equal and competing.

2. A Mechanism to allow Nomadic/Pastoral starts that provide competitive, playable Civs until the Renaissance. High on this list would be Scythians/Sarmatians, Mongols, Huns, Cheyennes, Lakotah Souix.

Workable game solutions to the City State Civ and Pastoral Civ problems would extend the potential list of playable Civs much more than any tweaking with individual Civ Lists, but I strongly suspect at this point that 'solving' those problems (either or both) will have to wait for Civ VII.

I am a firm supporter of adding more "political structures" in 4x games. How should they be represented in the game mechanics is a difficult design problem though - to my knowledge even Humankind (at the current stage) doesn't have a way to represent them. It certainly is a hopeful direction.
 
I am a firm supporter of adding more "political structures" in 4x games. How should they be represented in the game mechanics is a difficult design problem though - to my knowledge even Humankind (at the current stage) doesn't have a way to represent them. It certainly is a hopeful direction.

Right now for Political Structures we have various government types in both Civ VI and Humankind, with various features, pluses and minuses to them, but no real difference in their structure and development. From what I have seen so far, this is true of both Humankind in its currently-revealed state of development and of Civ VI.

More importantly, there is no difference in the structure of the Civ that has any form of government: the very real differences between a pastoral group, even one as large and influential as the Mongols, Lakotah or Huns in their respective realms, or a City State political structure like the Classical Greeks or Gauls.
Given that the games have delved deeply into differences in architecture, religion, language, and culture from all parts of the world (with, admittedly, mixed results which give the CivFanatics hundreds of topics for discussion) it is becoming embarrassing that they cannot model variations in Political and Social Structure represented by the pastoral and city state periods of Civ development AT ALL.

Civ VI swiped at the pastoral civ with the Maori - a 'nautical nomad' starting Civ, but it basically progresses only fitfully until they settle down and found a city. Humankind's 'neolithic start' looked like a framework for a 'nomadic/pastoral' start and game style, but it apparently amounts to little more than an extended First Turn in which you get to beat up some animals and find a good city site. There is no real indication from either that 'nomads/pastoralists' could have any scientific development capability, which would come as a mighty shock to the Gauls, who managed to develop the long iron sword, link mail armor, sophisticated saddles and riding tack and chariots, wagons, and well-paved and surveyed roads over which to ride in them, mostly before they had founded any cities!
 
Right now for Political Structures we have various government types in both Civ VI and Humankind, with various features, pluses and minuses to them, but no real difference in their structure and development. From what I have seen so far, this is true of both Humankind in its currently-revealed state of development and of Civ VI.

More importantly, there is no difference in the structure of the Civ that has any form of government: the very real differences between a pastoral group, even one as large and influential as the Mongols, Lakotah or Huns in their respective realms, or a City State political structure like the Classical Greeks or Gauls.
Given that the games have delved deeply into differences in architecture, religion, language, and culture from all parts of the world (with, admittedly, mixed results which give the CivFanatics hundreds of topics for discussion) it is becoming embarrassing that they cannot model variations in Political and Social Structure represented by the pastoral and city state periods of Civ development AT ALL.

Civ VI swiped at the pastoral civ with the Maori - a 'nautical nomad' starting Civ, but it basically progresses only fitfully until they settle down and found a city. Humankind's 'neolithic start' looked like a framework for a 'nomadic/pastoral' start and game style, but it apparently amounts to little more than an extended First Turn in which you get to beat up some animals and find a good city site. There is no real indication from either that 'nomads/pastoralists' could have any scientific development capability, which would come as a mighty shock to the Gauls, who managed to develop the long iron sword, link mail armor, sophisticated saddles and riding tack and chariots, wagons, and well-paved and surveyed roads over which to ride in them, mostly before they had founded any cities!

I would say Gauls weren't nomads (their did farm) and they had proto-cities (Oppidum). and nomadic people in general acquire techs through trades (things like goldworking, wheel, and stirrup were exceptions - these were very "steppe techs"). Besides those I agree with your points.

City states and steppe people have distinct political structures compare to territorial states and they were underrepresented in 4x games. I just personally don't have any idea about how to represent them besides a yield/specialization difference between different cities (in this case, Humankind does better than Civ) and improvements.
 
I would love to see, however unlikely, a Kalmar Denmark or Coast Salish.
 
I would say Gauls weren't nomads (their did farm) and they had proto-cities (Oppidum). and nomadic people in general acquire techs through trades (things like goldworking, wheel, and stirrup were exceptions - these were very "steppe techs"). Besides those I agree with your points.

City states and steppe people have distinct political structures compare to territorial states and they were underrepresented in 4x games. I just personally don't have any idea about how to represent them besides a yield/specialization difference between different cities (in this case, Humankind does better than Civ) and improvements.

Gauls are a special case, that I did not define well enough. Yes, they had agriculture and yes, they had fixed settlements, but they had no urban concentrations and in fact many of the dunon/oppidum were not settlements at all - some are only a couple of acres in size - so probably had religious significance as sites to visit rather than places to live. They only started grouping into city-size concentrations in the century or two before Caesar's conquest, which means their invention of long swords, link mail armor, significant wheel and horse furniture technologies all occurred before they had cities, making them a significant exception to the old 'rule' that cities are required for technological progress.

This also ties in with other more completely pastoral/nomadic Civs like the Cimmerians and Scythians, who after all were riding horses with fairly sophisticated saddles and harness before any of the 'settled' Civs were, or the Koreans who were hunting whales with boats and harpoons before they had cities (around 6000 BCE, in fact, well before the nominal Start of Game). Finding a way to model in-game this 'pre-urban' Technological Progress is, I think, one of the keys to making a pastoral Civ work in any game.
 
Gauls are a special case, that I did not define well enough. Yes, they had agriculture and yes, they had fixed settlements, but they had no urban concentrations and in fact many of the dunon/oppidum were not settlements at all - some are only a couple of acres in size - so probably had religious significance as sites to visit rather than places to live. They only started grouping into city-size concentrations in the century or two before Caesar's conquest, which means their invention of long swords, link mail armor, significant wheel and horse furniture technologies all occurred before they had cities, making them a significant exception to the old 'rule' that cities are required for technological progress..

So.
What do you think if 'City' is to be additional either tech or civics or shouldn't?
 
What unlikely civs would you want to see?
(They're not very popular, and will likely not be in civ 6)

I'll name some of mine and what type they would be based on!

Ainu - Cultural/Religious and/or Productive
Hussites - Militaristic
Zimbabwe - Economic
Cheyenne - Militaristic/Religious
Sri Lanka - Religious/Scientific
Khazar Khanate - Militaristic/Cultural (also the closest thing to a Jewish civ)

What are yours?
The Hussites weren't really a Civilization. Maybe a Hussite could lead the Bohemian Civilization, like Jan Zizka. Look him up, he was an original madlad. :)
 
Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka aren't that unlikely, they are somewhat famous. You wanna hear a dream of a great and unlikely civ? Well I'd love if the game got Yoruba.
"What on Earth is Yoruba, is this some kind of salad?"
Yoruba is one of three dominant ethnicities of Nigeria and my favourite. Wait that sounded racist, nevermind. Today it is 40 milion people, so it by no means a small nation; third largest in Africa IIRC. Also, hello people who casually refer to African cultures as "tribes". Nigeria is itself very undeservedly underrated regarding history, even in the context of Subsaharan Africa, while it has always been the most densely populated part of Africa full of sophisticated civilizations. And EVEN IF someone is respecting Nigeria this way, it is always Hausa, Benin or maybe Igbo cultures, not Yoruba. So as you can see, it is one of the ultimate hipster civilizations.

"So what those Yoruba guys did"
If I recall correctly, the most dense urbanization of precolonial Africa, very refined systems of government and society, beautiful religious systems, some of most famous artwork and cultural stuff of the continent, and powerful cultural influence on modern Nigeria and global culture via the unfortunate distinction of being very significant part of Transatlantic slaves.

For more information, read some Wikipedia articles on Yoruba people and Oyo kingdom.
 
Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka aren't that unlikely, they are somewhat famous. You wanna hear a dream of a great and unlikely civ? Well I'd love if the game got Yoruba.
"What on Earth is Yoruba, is this some kind of salad?"
Yoruba is one of three dominant ethnicities of Nigeria and my favourite. Wait that sounded racist, nevermind. Today it is 40 milion people, so it by no means a small nation; third largest in Africa IIRC. Also, hello people who casually refer to African cultures as "tribes". Nigeria is itself very undeservedly underrated regarding history, even in the context of Subsaharan Africa, while it has always been the most densely populated part of Africa full of sophisticated civilizations. And EVEN IF someone is respecting Nigeria this way, it is always Hausa, Benin or maybe Igbo cultures, not Yoruba. So as you can see, it is one of the ultimate hipster civilizations.

"So what those Yoruba guys did"
If I recall correctly, the most dense urbanization of precolonial Africa, very refined systems of government and society, beautiful religious systems, some of most famous artwork and cultural stuff of the continent, and powerful cultural influence on modern Nigeria and global culture via the unfortunate distinction of being very significant part of Transatlantic slaves.

For more information, read some Wikipedia articles on Yoruba people and Oyo kingdom.

I am both dying from laughter from this and agreeing with its points, lol. :crazyeye::crazyeye:
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom