Which CIV IV, V and VI civs should become mainstays?

I wasn't aware of this, interesting. How do you disable a civ in order to be able to play as Austria?

 

Comfortably enough, Civ III came with a game editor.

 

Thanks. I'll check out my CIII complete edition. A new civ for me to play as in Civ3, how exciting...

 

My thoughts on Khmer and Siam is that: The mainland SEA (aka Indochina) has quite a long history of Rise & Fall of kingdoms after kingdoms, and out of them there are a handful number that can be used as a civ, which means the SEA slot should be rotated between them. Indonesia is far enough from them they get their own slot.
I'm not too fond of Africa so anyone is fine as long as it fills the continent (and Egypt is a must anyway).

 

As the poll doesn't include all the civs in my list, hereby I present my ideal mainstays of the game.

In my opinion of basic Must have civs:
(Red= rotatable civs, Green= unmovable civs)
Euro(centric)pe:
Britain
Rome
Greece
France
Spain
Germany
Russia
Byzantine
Vikings (Denmark/ Norway/ Sweden)

Eastern Asia
China
Japan
Korea
Mongolia

South-eastern Asia
India
Khmer/Siam/Vietnam
Philippines/Indonesia/Malaysia

Middle east:
Arabia
Iran/ Persia
Turkey
Mesopotamia (Babylon/Sumer/Assyria)
Non arabic semitics (Israel, Syria, Canaanite, Levant)

Oceania:
Polynesia/ wherever the islands they are from

Africa:
Egypt
Carthage
Morocco (Islamic Africa)
Other African civs (Mali/Kongo/South Africa)

North America:
USA
Native americans

Meso/south America:
Aztec/Maya/Olmec
Inca/other southern American civ

That will make up to approximately 30 civs, which are viewed as basic requirements in my opinion. There are always rooms to add extra civs to enrich the game.
And I am not objecting to any addition of other civs, but these are the civs that I think, are essential to appear in the game.

 

They all are pretty comparable, sadly. Norway was strongest around the time of Harald Hadrada in the 1000s, spanning Norway, Iceland, Greenland, and (and disputably parts of Britain and Denmark). Denmark was the strongest around the time of Margaret 1 in the 1300s, incorporating the entirety of Scandinavia. And Sweden was strongest under Gustav Adolphus in the 1600s, conquering Finland, part of Norway, and much of the Baltic countries; less territory overall, but it has remained the dominant culture in the area since.

So really, the argument is over preference of time period. Do you want a naval civ that was more relevant in the distant past (Norway, Denmark), or in the present day (Sweden)? Both the vikings and the more modern Scandinavian powers are important, so picking between the two is impossible. And if you exclude that from the equation, how do you choose between three similarly sized empires, just in different centuries?

It's roughly comparable to asking players whether they think the Rashidun, Umayyad, or Fatimid caliphate should be a mainstay. Or the Qin, Jin, or Tang dynasties. Or Frankia, Prussia, and Bohemia. If there's no clear winner, the choice is arbitrary and not worth seriously considering. I mean, is VI honestly better with Sweden over Denmark or Denmark over Sweden, or without either of them? We have a viking civ already, so the majority of consumers' needs are already met.

EDIT: I actually thought of an elegant solution. Norway is ancient civ. Sweden is modern civ. Margaret of Denmark is added as an alternate leader for both civs. Two civs. Three leaders. Perfect balance.