Which Civ we should have before Civilization VI?

[Heart Break Kid]

Because there isn't much you can do with smaller, or less known Civs. When a smaller or less known Civ gets included they usually have to have very generic unique units, buildings/improvements, and abilities. The same thing somewhat happened with Venice - The Great Galleass.

If anything it would be best to merge some aspects of the Inut into another Civilization candidate, namely Canada.

Well, yeah that's the idea. People want the Inuit because they would reasonably be programmed with unique gameplay mechanics.

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

For me, I'd like to see an Afghan Civ, it seems to tick lots of boxes, it's from a relatively underrepresented area, yet achieved far more than other Civs people ask for from outside Europe. It could have a very unique game play style, hills and mountain based, a la Inca, but would probably also have some pretty high bonuses for defense, since it is historically known as 'The graveyard of Empires'. It could also have some nice bonuses for trade, due to its importance in the silk road, which is something often asked for, good Silk Road Civs.

Also, an Omani Civ is, again, a Non-European, important, influential and powerful civ, that could play nicely, obviously water based, and with a trade benefit, or maybe a focus on the part it played in the slave trade, though that may be a little bit dark for Civ ahah.

The two could be released as a sort of trade pack, perhaps with a scenario in which the goal is to manipulate trade in order to win, the Silk road would make a very interesting scenario, with a map from China to Egypt, all trying to make the most money, with various smaller goals, like owning the largest stretch of road, or the longest sea trade route.

That would be perfect for me, got some nice ideas for UAs, UBs and UUs for those two, as well as a few others for some others on my wish list. Hmmm... maybe I should learn to mod.

 

[Danielion]

Che Guevara of Cuba and could bring in tobacco or something new. I voted Nepal.

Or they could have one with Batista, because despite being a dictator and American puppet, I fear Cuba was in less worse of a state under his rule than how it became later.

 

[Danielion]

Well, yeah that's the idea. People want the Inuit because they would reasonably be programmed with unique gameplay mechanics.

With bonuses on ice and tundra tiles.

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

Or they could have one with Batista, because despite being a dictator and American puppet, I fear Cuba was in less worse of a state under his rule than how it became later.

I know controversy isnt as big a deal with Cuba, I mean, they don't have to worry about it being banned there ahah, however, Batista is probably not a good idea, whether or not you agree with socialism or Castro himself, Fidel is more recognisable than Batista, more interesting and actually accomplished something, whereas batista accomplished little more than being excessively cruel, being a puppet and being overthrown...

 

[bevelnator]

The best choice of leader for Cuba in my opinion is Jose Marti. He never lead the country but he's a figure respected by both the exiles and communists. Besides, Ghandi never lead India.

 

[Dai]

I feel like Castro is tricky, because he's not only still alive, but was in power until just a few years ago. Currently, the most recent leaders in the game are Gandhi, who's not only been dead for over 60 years, but who's almost universally considered a hero, and Haile Selassie, who's 35 years passed and, while not as universally revered as Gandhi, and whose status as a messianic figure might require some sensitivity in his portrayal, is pretty clearly not as divisive as Castro. Castro's far and away the most recognizable Cuban leader to most people today, but using a contemporary leader, especially such a controversial one, seems tricky.

 

[Ergo Sum]

Just objectively speaking - the best options are:

Postcolonial:
Mexico/Peru/Argentina/Cuba in descending order
Pakistan/Bangladesh
Vietnam (I think presenting them as a modern civ would be a decent option)
Philippines
Myanmar

Precolonial:
Tibet or Himalayans
Swahili
Kongo

Europeans(clearly lowest priority):
Italy
Hungary
Bohemia
Ukraine
Belgium?

 

[poom3619]

My totally subjective want list as Civ5 BNW DLC:
something-varaman's Khmer
Trung Sister's Vietnam
Kongo
Inuit
medieval-ish Tibet
Khazar
Cuba

Just objectively speaking - the best options are:..

Objectively speaking? Do you ever asking mass of people's or anyone's opinion about it? I guess not.

 

[SnowKomodo]

Just objectively speaking - the best options are:

Postcolonial:
Mexico/Peru/Argentina/Cuba in descending order
Pakistan/Bangladesh
Vietnam (I think presenting them as a modern civ would be a decent option)
Philippines
Myanmar

It makes way more sense to portray Myanmar as the Pagan Kingdom. That was their shining moment in history and even throughout Southeast Asia they were one of the greatest empires to have existed. They would just call it "Myanmar" sort of like how fellow SEA civ Majapahit is called Indonesia

 

[TPangolin]

Australian/Canadian civs would be brilliant. Both have native peoples and cultures that can be used in their Unique Attributes (and can potentially cover huge swaths of time like America, Ethiopia, Japan, Russia, Germany, Denmark, Arabia, Brazil and Poland). Both the Inuits and the Aboriginals can offer a proverbial myriad of attributes to a potential AUS/CAN DLC in the way of abilities, units or even buildings.

In regards to Australia/Canada, their cultures, peoples, geography and unique traits give them as much in common with Britain as Brazil has in common with the Portuguese. Not a hell of a lot. All three were colonial nations and have made their mark on the world by being unique.

I find it overly pretentious when people nag on about the meaning of a "civ". The people who threaten to leave the Civ franchise if an AUS/CAN DLC were to be released are getting too hung up on the semantics of the word "civ".

New civs should offer unique and interesting playstyles and personalities regardless of their "historical importance" (Shoshone, Polynesia, Zulu), and this is exactly what amalgam nations such as Australia and Canada can pull off brilliantly.

 

[ToodleElNoodos]

Interesting, I wonder...

Give Mexico Comanchero, bonus gold for pillaging enemy trade routes? UI: Presidio - Replaces Citadel, deals 15 damage to units further away.

Pakistan, based off the Indus valley civilization. UB: Great Bath - Replaces Colosseum. Increases happiness and +15% population growth.

Philippines, Turn-of the Century/Industrial Era. UA: Ilustrados - Gain an additional tenet when adopting an ideology, gain two additional tenets if not first. +1 bonus delegate per era since World Congress founded, when not host.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Just objectively speaking - the best options are:

Postcolonial:
Mexico/Peru/Argentina/Cuba in descending order
Pakistan/Bangladesh
Vietnam (I think presenting them as a modern civ would be a decent option)
Philippines
Myanmar

Precolonial:
Tibet or Himalayans
Swahili
Kongo

Europeans(clearly lowest priority):
Italy
Hungary
Bohemia
Ukraine
Belgium?

Just objectively speaking - most of those options peaked at times other than you've listed them for.

Mexico/Peru/Argentina/Cuba are all well and good, but they don't stand out in modern times as world leaders in anything, nor have they in their history. Most of them are quite unstable politically or economically too. There are however plenty of good options for pre-colombian civs from the Americas. South America sitll has just one....

Pakistan/Bangladesh in the world since their formation have had economic growth and a population boom, and been a little more unstable than the country that's in and already covering those bases: India. India is by far and away the worse representation of an areas history i have ever seen in this game, so to waste another opportunity to bring in a civ like the Harrapans or the Mughals or the Mauryas would just be tragic.

Vietnam as a modern civ, hmm. Well at the moment it's a jolly nice country but it's not exactly been renowned in the world for anything other than the Vietnam war. The war that's only really significant as part of the cold war, and america and russia's history. To Vietnam that wasn't a great time, and certainly not the best time in its history. Vietnam has had a much better time in the past, and i'd love to see a Hindu Vietnam in game myself as the Champa.

I have no idea why you'd want to see a modern philippines. Again that has links to colonialism through america and spain and will inevitably be a disappointment. I don't know anything about the pre-colonial history of the philippines but i'm sure they've got buckets of it.

Myanmar has been mentioned above me, but this would just be the worst precedent for civs to be added if it's modern form gets in....

Belgium is a completely artificial country that is a combination of the dutch and french civilizations. It was designed as a buffer to french aggression (essentially a puppet state), so i don't know why it has a place in the franchise. We'd be better off with the european union... But only narrowly.

As for the rest, i can agree enough with them, except that they are objectively the best options. There are plenty of other good'uns out there.

(P.S. i believe you may have meant subjectively )

Australian/Canadian civs would be brilliant. Both have native peoples and cultures that can be used in their Unique Attributes (and can potentially cover huge swaths of time like America, Ethiopia, Japan, Russia, Germany, Denmark, Arabia, Brazil and Poland). Both the Inuits and the Aboriginals can offer a proverbial myriad of attributes to a potential AUS/CAN DLC in the way of abilities, units or even buildings.

In regards to Australia/Canada, their cultures, peoples, geography and unique traits give them as much in common with Britain as Brazil has in common with the Portuguese. Not a hell of a lot. All three were colonial nations and have made their mark on the world by being unique.

Why don't we have an Israeli civ based on a Palestinian UA while we're at it? To call Australia now the same civilization that is was when it was populated by aboriginals is just absurd :S You've either gotta have one or the other in my book. There is literally no way an amalgam civ of that sort can be called a civ. What would you think if America covered all the native americans with part of their UA? I just can't even begin to describe how wrong that would be, historically and in terms of political correctness (dare i use such a phrase...)

As for the being similar to Brazil-Portugal, that's just plain wrong. Brazil has existed as an entity for over 500 years. Australia just over 200 years and Canada around 500 years too. However, brazil has also been independent for very nearly 200 years. Aus just over 60 years, Canada just over 70. Additionally, Brazil as a post colonial entity is a highly multicultural place with larger links to africa than to europe and strong links to its pre-colombian past still remain too. Australia and Canada and highly Europeanised still. They are very much majority white and majority british decendants, with Canada throwing in some french too. Neither one of these countries is far distant from the UK, and Canada has grown closer to the USA, but it's still a generic western country, while australia is basically britain with funny accents - till the 1970's they almost exclusively took british migrants and they have a similar kind of relationship to the uk as england, wales. northern ireland and scotland have with one another.

I'm not saying they are not unique as post colonial entities, everywhere is unique. But they haven't diversified a great deal yet. I wouldn't mind them being in eventually, but to me it is sacrilege that they be added before dome genuinely different, unique and successful cultures from elsewhere and other times.

 

[Alphons Rodulfo]

The main contender most obviously is the Indus Valley Civilization

Some info from the wikipedia:

"The Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) was a Bronze Age civilization (3300–1300 BCE; mature period 2600–1900 BCE) in the northwestern region of the Indian subcontinent, consisting mainly of what is now Pakistan, and parts of India, Afghanistan and Iran. Flourishing around the Indus River basin, the civilization extended east into the Ghaggar-Hakra River valley and the upper reaches of Ganges-Yamuna Doab; it extended west to the Makran coast of Balochistan, north to northeastern Afghanistan and south to Daimabad in Maharashtra. The civilization was spread over some 1,260,000 km², making it the largest known ancient civilization.

The Indus Valley is one of the world's earliest urban civilizations, along with its contemporaries, Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt. At its peak, the Indus Civilization may have had a population of well over five million. Inhabitants of the ancient Indus river valley developed new techniques in handicraft (carnelian products, seal carving) and metallurgy (copper, bronze, lead, and tin). The civilization is noted for its cities built of brick, roadside drainage system, and multistoried houses."

 

[Depravo]

I always thought of India as incorporating the Indus Valley civ. I mean, it's the very definition of an indigenous Indian civ, though as was pointed out a couple of posts above this one Civ's monolithic 'Indian' civilisation has always been a weakness of the series.

 

[Alphons Rodulfo]

I always thought of India as incorporating the Indus Valley civ. I mean, it's the very definition of an indigenous Indian civ, though as was pointed out a couple of posts above this one Civ's monolithic 'Indian' civilisation has always been a weakness of the series.

Perhaps the current description of India needs to be changed, but otherwise I see no problem. The situation is similar to America. There is one modern civilization which is named after the (sub)continent it inhabits. But that is no reason to exclude civs like the Shoshone or Cheyenne, who inhabit the same (sub)continent. The temporal, geographical and cultural overlap between those North American civs could very well be much bigger than the overlap between the Harrapans and current India.

Another example is England and the Celts.

Also, if all civilizations that have some kind of geogaphical overlap with current India are to be excluded there would also be no room for the Mughals, which are listed in the poll.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Perhaps the current description of India needs to be changed, but otherwise I see no problem. The situation is similar to America. There is one modern civilization which is named after the (sub)continent it inhabits. But that is no reason to exclude civs like the Shoshone or Cheyenne, who inhabit the same (sub)continent. The temporal, geographical and cultural overlap between those North American civs could very well be much bigger than the overlap between the Harrapans and current India.

Another example is England and the Celts.

Also, if all civilizations that have some kind of geogaphical overlap with current India are to be excluded there would also be no room for the Mughals, which are listed in the poll.

There isn't really room for the Mughals, because along with the Maurya and modern india they've been meshed into one already as part of India's uniques.

As for the point you are making, these are some completely different and opposite examples. With India, an active attempt has been made to represent the entirety of civilization that has existed in the indian subcontinent, an area comparable in its diversity and longevity to the middle east (where we have several civs). It tries to accommodate everything in South Asia to the detriment of more specific civilizations being included. In comparison, america in game is no agglomeration, it represents one continuous polity that is the post colonial nation state of the USA. It makes no attempt to represent the pre-colombian populations so there was no conflict in adding the shoshone or the iroquois, who likewise do not represent the whole of native american history.

In fact a fair comparison of India in civ 5 would be to the native american civilization in civ 4. It's just an utterly ridiculous concept. The problem with it isn't limited to the fact it excludes other history from the subcontinent either, since it also butchers the the history its trying to represent in its attempt. When it comes down to it, the India civ in civ 5 kinda embodies the ideals of the series. However, the series has kinda moved on to catch up with history and realised history isn't one continuous chain of civs that encompass a geographical area that have simply changed name over time. We shouldn't have civs like that anymore and the trend in development has been a move away; India is a relic of the past now.

As for your other example, the Celts are also a disgraceful civilization agglomerating pre-roman north west european history into one amorphous blob. But what they don't try to do is represent all of that periods history in one civ (like they do with india) so england is able to exist alongside it. It does exlcude a Scotish or Irish civ though in the same manner that the current Indian civ excludes other Souther Asian civs.

 

[Alphons Rodulfo]

All right, I see how India's current unique building, the Mughal fort, excludes the Mughals from being a separate civ. But how are the Harappans tied in with the Indians in the game? There is no connection that I know of.

 

[Chiatroll]

umm

Holy Roman Empire

and nubia

 

[Depravo]

All right, I see how India's current unique building, the Mughal fort, excludes the Mughals from being a separate civ. But how are the Harappans tied in with the Indians in the game? There is no connection that I know of.

Well, if we can fit the modern republic and the Maurya under the same umbrella, it's not too much of a stretch to throw in the Harappans, Smurfs and manticores also.