Which Civ we should have before Civilization VI?

[jtravers88]

None of these.

Let's get more depth in diplomacy with the ai.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

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.

There's no issue over the Harrapans, i was deomonstrating the Mughals are exlcuded. However, even if the Harrapans were included, India would still be a terrible civ.

 

[Godmother]

I signed up just to react in this thread. I find it surprising that very few people have mentioned the Minoan civ. Historians discuss wether they are Indo-European or not, but they sure weren't Greek. They were very oriented towards trade and I suppose that a labyrinth would be the obvious choice for their UB.

I support all the ancient civ suggestions, such as Harappa and Sumer/Akkad/Hittites/...
As much as we really don't need another civ originated on the Italic Peninsula, I'd really like to have an Etrurian civ, especially since they were so influential in the early Roman empire, not to mention the Romans pretty much copied all of their stuff.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I signed up just to react in this thread. I find it surprising that very few people have mentioned the Minoan civ. Historians discuss wether they are Indo-European or not, but they sure weren't Greek. They were very oriented towards trade and I suppose that a labyrinth would be the obvious choice for their UB.

I support all the ancient civ suggestions, such as Harappa and Sumer/Akkad/Hittites/...
As much as we really don't need another civ originated on the Italic Peninsula, I'd really like to have an Etrurian civ, especially since they were so influential in the early Roman empire, not to mention the Romans pretty much copied all of their stuff.

I've gotta agree, both those civs sounds really interesting and i'd like to see them one day More than anything else, i don't want civ 6 to role up with the same suspects in tow as civilizations, at least before we've had a lot of diversity pushed through in civ 5.

My top two requests have gotta be more from south/south east asia and more from south america

In particular, i'd love to see the Harappa, Khmer and Muisca.

 

[PhilBowles]

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,

Boudicca, meet True_Candyman. True_Candyman, meet a bizarre agglomerate civ loosely-based on (mostly) British Celts of the Roman period, led by an East Anglian general (who speaks modern Welsh) with a capital in a medieval Scottish city, a UA "Druidic Lore" based on a religious caste that never reached Scotland, a Pictish Warrior UU that - by contrast - is Scottish, a UB for the same ancient/classical-era civ that replaces a Renaissance building, and with a city list that also includes such inappropriate city choices as Dublin (a medieval Norse city) and Cardiff (which didn't even become a city until 1905, although an older Norman-founded castle and town existed there from the 12th Century onwards).

Then there's the bizarre mismatch between the Polynesian leader, UU and UI. Not to mention a city list in which all cities except the capital are islands (why not follow what they did with Honolulu and use modern cities on those islands? Such as Funafuti instead of Tuvalu).

India is, at worst, a missed opportunity to include more varied civs from the same region, but as represented it's far from the worst-conceived civ in the game. It represents a genuine unified entity with a period-appropriate leader (who, contrary to popular myth around here, is not unique among Civ leaders in not having ruled his society) and mostly a contemporary city list (the only anachronism being a capital in Delhi rather than New Delhi) and, while terrible conceptually ("Population Growth"?), the UA too is appropriate to the period represented.

India has a bad choice of capital, and a UU and UB inconsistent with its setting, but that's a pretty minor transgression - not too dissimilar to the problem with Majapahit-era Indonesia using a fully modern Indonesian city list, or Siam representing (in its leader, UA and city list) a non-Siamese society the Siamese conquered, and with consequently anachronistic Siamese uniques (one of which has to be the worst-conceived of any unique in the game, based as it is on a legend of a single king's ride into battle on an elephant). It's certainly nothing to compare with the Celtic abomination.

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 completely agree here.

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....

Another civ best-represented in its medieval incarnation.

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.

Its colonial involvement in Africa was significant, albeit the area that became the Belgian Congo was originally founded as a private state by the Belgian king.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Boudicca, meet True_Candyman. True_Candyman, meet a bizarre agglomerate civ loosely-based on (mostly) British Celts of the Roman period, led by an East Anglian general (who speaks modern Welsh) with a capital in a medieval Scottish city, a UA "Druidic Lore" based on a religious caste that never reached Scotland, a Pictish Warrior UU that - by contrast - is Scottish, a UB for the same ancient/classical-era civ that replaces a Renaissance building, and with a city list that also includes such inappropriate city choices as Dublin (a medieval Norse city) and Cardiff (which didn't even become a city until 1905, although an older Norman-founded castle and town existed there from the 12th Century onwards).

Then there's the bizarre mismatch between the Polynesian leader, UU and UI. Not to mention a city list in which all cities except the capital are islands (why not follow what they did with Honolulu and use modern cities on those islands? Such as Funafuti instead of Tuvalu).

India is, at worst, a missed opportunity to include more varied civs from the same region, but as represented it's far from the worst-conceived civ in the game. It represents a genuine unified entity with a period-appropriate leader (who, contrary to popular myth around here, is not unique among Civ leaders in not having ruled his society) and mostly a contemporary city list (the only anachronism being a capital in Delhi rather than New Delhi) and, while terrible conceptually ("Population Growth"?), the UA too is appropriate to the period represented.

India has a bad choice of capital, and a UU and UB inconsistent with its setting, but that's a pretty minor transgression - not too dissimilar to the problem with Majapahit-era Indonesia using a fully modern Indonesian city list, or Siam representing (in its leader, UA and city list) a non-Siamese society the Siamese conquered, and with consequently anachronistic Siamese uniques (one of which has to be the worst-conceived of any unique in the game, based as it is on a legend of a single king's ride into battle on an elephant). It's certainly nothing to compare with the Celtic abomination.

Its colonial involvement in Africa was significant, albeit the area that became the Belgian Congo was originally founded as a private state by the Belgian king.

I covered the celtic abomination in another post later, don't you worry I agree with you that they are probably worse as a representation, but for the most part i like to pretend they don't exist XD I feel like India trumps it though by being the sole representation of South Asia. The Celts have England and France (maybe even some other west europeans, depending on your definition) to kinda cover the huge great chasms it may or may not conceptually cover. India is just an ever present disappointment, failing to give credit to the vast wealth of history south asia has.

I know it's a funky modern country that's the main representation, but that in itself is a bit of a travesty too You are right in pointing out that it is graced by being a genuine entity...


So in conclusion, i think we can agree:
Celts =
India = Redo please

I'll give you Belgium had some significance in the Congo, but i still don't see it as much of a civilization. For the most part its colonial ventures were abysmal failures, not to mention short lived and benefiting from the success of its precursors so that's not really much of a reason to include them. It didn't do anything particularly special in that regard, it just hopped on the train being driven by the rest of northern europe. And there's still the problem with it not really being a thing, but rather being two things awkwardly smooshed together. I'd definitely not see it as a prime candidate at the very least.

 

[Depravo]

... civ loosely-based on (mostly) British Celts of the Roman period, led by an East Anglian general (who speaks modern Welsh) with a capital in a medieval Scottish city, a UA "Druidic Lore" based on a religious caste that never reached Scotland, a Pictish Warrior UU that

Next you'll tell me the rugged mountainscape of Boudicca's diplo screen is in some way unreflective of her historic homeland of Norfolk.

 

[Godmother]

I'll give you Belgium had some significance in the Congo, but i still don't see it as much of a civilization. For the most part its colonial ventures were abysmal failures, not to mention short lived and benefiting from the success of its precursors so that's not really much of a reason to include them. It didn't do anything particularly special in that regard, it just hopped on the train being driven by the rest of northern europe. And there's still the problem with it not really being a thing, but rather being two things awkwardly smooshed together. I'd definitely not see it as a prime candidate at the very least.

I agree that a belgian civ would be quite awkward, especially because there seems to be no such thing as a belgian etnicity or even belgian nationalism. I really prefer actual civilizations to nations.

However, I wish they had included more Flemish city-states! I'm surprised Bruges has never made it to the list of city-states.

Also, slightly off topic, I sincerely miss the ability to choose between multiple leaders. I'm not referring to any Hitler/Stalin crap, but I quite liked having the option to choose between leaders from a different era, eg Napoleon/De Gaulle

 

[Liufeng]

I covered the celtic abomination in another post later, don't you worry I agree with you that they are probably worse as a representation, but for the most part i like to pretend they don't exist XD I feel like India trumps it though by being the sole representation of South Asia. The Celts have England and France (maybe even some other west europeans, depending on your definition) to kinda cover the huge great chasms it may or may not conceptually cover. India is just an ever present disappointment, failing to give credit to the vast wealth of history south asia has.

I know it's a funky modern country that's the main representation, but that in itself is a bit of a travesty too You are right in pointing out that it is graced by being a genuine entity...


So in conclusion, i think we can agree:
Celts =
India = Redo please

I'll give you Belgium had some significance in the Congo, but i still don't see it as much of a civilization. For the most part its colonial ventures were abysmal failures, not to mention short lived and benefiting from the success of its precursors so that's not really much of a reason to include them. It didn't do anything particularly special in that regard, it just hopped on the train being driven by the rest of northern europe. And there's still the problem with it not really being a thing, but rather being two things awkwardly smooshed together. I'd definitely not see it as a prime candidate at the very least.

Why not an India which would represent its whole (or at least try to do so) instead of just a part of it ? Like

Leader : Gandhi -> Modern Era
UA : The nine gems : All Great People are produced 50% during Golden ages -> Classical Era
UU : Sepoy -> Colonial Era
UB : Moghol fort -> Moghol Era

It's just a scratch, but you get the idea.

 

[Danielion]

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...

Depends. I think more Cubans would indeed sympathise with Castro. I'm not quite sure about Cuban exiles (people actually having access to Civ 5, for the time being that is; because even communist Cuba must open up soon), as many of them have fled his regime. As for charisma, I guess Castro also wins in that regard. I don't mind either way.

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.

I think that is the best option indeed, take someone of before the Communist Revolution who's well respected.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Why not an India which would represent its whole (or at least try to do so) instead of just a part of it ? Like

Leader : Gandhi -> Modern Era
UA : The nine gems : All Great People are produced 50% during Golden ages -> Classical Era
UU : Sepoy -> Colonial Era
UB : Moghol fort -> Moghol Era

It's just a scratch, but you get the idea.

Because that's exactly what we have now...

With the precedent of Byzantium and the Ottomans, there is potential to have 3 of 4 very distinct civs from south asia at least. South Asia has history dating back as far as the middle east and north africa, countless successful empires and polities and yet we get the modern nation state, led by Gandhi with little bits here and there from various different empires that have controlled India at various points. That seems odd to me.

Given the hugely varied groups of people that have controlled various parts of India, to group them all together as one and say that'll do is such a disappointing outcome. This is an area that covers thousands of miles, with regimes that have moved in and controlled it from even further, an area with some of the most remarkably varied architectural and religious heritage, yet they are all represented by a modern state and Gandhi.

 

[DyadoMraz]

Eastern Europe is SEVERELY underrepresented
I'd go with Bulgaria, Hungary, Armenia & Serbia in that order
A Sumerian civ could also be cool

I have zero interest in any of the options in the poll apart from the ones I mentioned

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

Depends. I think more Cubans would indeed sympathise with Castro. I'm not quite sure about Cuban exiles (people actually having access to Civ 5, for the time being that is; because even communist Cuba must open up soon), as many of them have fled his regime. As for charisma, I guess Castro also wins in that regard. I don't mind either way.

Well, I don't think they'll be playing Civ 5 in Cuba, even if they were to 'open up' what with the whole US trade embargo on them

However, I do agree that is a better choice, Castro is of course the best, or I should say, will be in say 30 years, when it won't be as controversial.

 

[Danielion]

I agree that a belgian civ would be quite awkward, especially because there seems to be no such thing as a belgian etnicity or even belgian nationalism. I really prefer actual civilizations to nations.

However, I wish they had included more Flemish city-states! I'm surprised Bruges has never made it to the list of city-states.

Also, slightly off topic, I sincerely miss the ability to choose between multiple leaders. I'm not referring to any Hitler/Stalin crap, but I quite liked having the option to choose between leaders from a different era, eg Napoleon/De Gaulle

Moderator Action: Offensive video removed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

*in a moment of total boredom*
Stephen Fry: "This programme would be dangerously exciting to a Belgian, would it?"

I agree, a Belgian civ would make no sense. I'm glad my city is a mercantile city-state, though, as cities is as far as patriotism gets here (and of course Flemish or Dutch-speaking nationalism, but it's not as strong as that of real nation states).
Bruges would indeed be a good choice, but it would also be a mercantile, like it was in the Middle Ages before the Zwin channel silted. Two mercantile Flemish cities would be overkill in a way. Could also be made maritime, though. I'm all for it.

 

[Gucumatz]

Castro would make more sense, since Che was Argentinian and not a ruler of Cuba, though he is something of a hero there, even more so than in the rest of Latin America.

I'm not sure how feasible either would be with political correctness being what it is, wouldn't want a controversy on our hands, since that's why we avoid Tibet and Jerusalem (though I don't personally think they'd be nearly as popular if we were allowed to have them...)

Don't even perpetuate the myth that Che is a hero in Latin America. I have seen him burned in effigy too many times to even remotely think that opinion is funny anymore. He is blamed for bringing in the US to countless Latin American countries scaring the US into thinking everyone was a communist. A murderer wannabe genocidal freak, that if he had his way would have been worse than Hitler should never be considered - ever, as a leader.

The uproar of having Stalin and Mao thankfully means we will never see either again either. Suggesting Che, is just as bad as those people on the Civ 5 facebook post that keep ranting for Hitler

 

[Byzantine Bomb]

I have that DVD! John Cleese's top picks are among the best.
Dyado, I'd also like to see an Armenia civ.

 

[Princeofnigeria]

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.

I agree that people threatening to leave over 1 stupid side are quite agravating. I was very displeased with the viki- er, "Denmark" civ, and you know what I did? I didn't buy them. One day they were really cheap on steam and bundled with korea (the other civ I hadn't got because I was too busy to play for a while) and bought both. I still don't like playing the Nor- er, "Denmark", but I'm not going to abandon civ as a wholee. I REALLY hate the huns and the celts, so I don't play with them, and should they be in my game I just call them something else.
Also, I am getting real fed up with people bringing up Polynesia for "these sides have no historical impact and never effected anything". Go read my posts a few pages back for more info, but the Polynesians were frickin' amazing and left a moneumental mark over an absurdly large and rather difficult to traverse region.
As for amalgamations, I would declare the various (yet connected) cultural groups that inhabit the Polynesian islands to be far closer in both culture and blood than that of the Aborigenee and british colonial/ penal interlopers, and closer than the inuits and invading french/ english.

 

[ehecatzin]

Don't even perpetuate the myth that Che is a hero in Latin America. I have seen him burned in effigy too many times to even remotely think that opinion is funny anymore. He is blamed for bringing in the US to countless Latin American countries scaring the US into thinking everyone was a communist. A murderer wannabe genocidal freak, that if he had his way would have been worse than Hitler should never be considered - ever, as a leader.

The uproar of having Stalin and Mao thankfully means we will never see either again either. Suggesting Che, is just as bad as those people on the Civ 5 facebook post that keep ranting for Hitler

I agree completely, Che is a very controversial figure to say the least. If Cuba made it into civ it would have to be Castro, and even then, its an iffy choice seeing as the man is still alive, and again, not without controversy, imagine the cuban american community reacting to a glorified Castro in game, adding Cuba is asking for trouble.

But if Firaxis wanted to add a latin american revolutionary figure there's plenty to choose from without stirring so much controversy (Im looking at you Bolivar) heck there's even quite a few recognizable Mexican revolutionaries as well, even if he never lead Mexico, Zapata would make one hell of a leaderscreen.

 

[Xandinho]

I want to see Sumeria and the Khmer

But Vietnam, Canada, Argentina, Olmecs, Hittites, Nepal and Gran Colombia is also interesting

I believe that only Sumeria and Khmer will launch in DLC, the other civs included only in Civilization VI

 

[Dai]

Then there's the bizarre mismatch between the Polynesian leader, UU and UI. Not to mention a city list in which all cities except the capital are islands (why not follow what they did with Honolulu and use modern cities on those islands? Such as Funafuti instead of Tuvalu).

I don't know that Firaxis did this intentionally, and I certainly can't speak for everybody, but in the parts of the world that are covered by the Polynesian in-game civ that I'm most familiar with, people don't really identify themselves as strongly as associated with particular towns/cities as they seem to in the United States (where I live now). The one Polynesian city name that really makes no sense to me is Oahu, because Honolulu, the city used as the capital for the Civ, is ON Oahu. The city list also contains a ton of stuff in and around New Zealand, because New Zealand is huge. There seems to be a bend towards using recognizable names over more precise locations, although not always - the city list includes Kiritimati, which is part of Kiribati, even though the name Kiribati is much more familiar.

There are also some superficially confusing decisions where small and lightly-populated outlier islands and atolls are used as city names in place of the much larger, better-known and more populous islands that they're near. For example, Kapingamarangi and Nukuoro are on the list instead of Pohnpei, which on the surface is like representing Britain with Jersey and the Isle of Man. However, those islands are culturally and ethnically Polynesian, while Pohnpei is Micronesian (and now, kind of lots of things, because it's such a hot spot!) The city list reflects more research than I'd necessarily have expected (or the influence of people familiar with the culture of a bunch of islands and atolls that literally only have a few thousand residents.) You could make an argument that they could have just lumped Micronesia and eastern Melanesia in with the Polynesians (given how different people groups are lumped together in other Civs, like India), which would have allowed for a greater number of more-recognizable city names, like Fiji, Palau, Guam and Pohnpei, but they decided not to do that.

Which can only mean one thing: MICRONESIA CIV INCOMING. (Probably not.)