Which Civ we should have before Civilization VI?

[Obark]

Israel was historically irrelevant, and in modern times its only significance on the world stage is as a point of contention between more important powers - making Jerusalem's representation as a city-state an almost perfect fit.

Exactly. I don't think ancient Israel was very relevant in history either. When you look at it, it's not a very glorious one. They essentially kept being enslaved and conquered by more powerful nations. As for modern Israel... it's just way too controversial. Not to mention it exists only since a few decades.

I don't understand the parts of this thread regarding controversy. I mean, being able to play as the slave-owning Confederate South isn't controversial? And it's not like all Civ leaders were ideal figures of leadership. I mean Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun certainly won't "good" guys.

There is no problem having the Mongols and Genghis Khan in the game since... well they basically created the biggest empire in history but more than anything it was centuries ago. That's the thing. Today, very few people care whether Genghis Khan was a bloodthirsty criminal or not. On the other hand if you start fiddling with adding countries like say Serbia, Kosovo, Georgia, Israel, Tibet... you are bound to have passions running high and some pretty bad blood from players.

 

[Godmother]

I changed my signature exclusively for you (and anyone who overvalue their own opinion, not superliminal BTW).

Well, sorry if the point I was trying to make came across wrong, which it clearly did. But it is MY opinion that Firaxis is obviously trying to keep things as unoffensive as possible (including more female leaders where the obvious choice would be a male leader, getting rid of slavery etc.) and from a business point of view, I think they've made the right choices. Of course ignorance shouldn't be an excuse for getting it wrong, but getting it all 100% historically correct sounds like a damn hard job, especially when different etnicities are involved. That being said, I do think that anachronisms are pretty unavoidable in this game and we shouldn't fuss about it so much. It's not like they're not trying, right?
Not trying to come up with a cheap excuse here, but as you may have noticed, English isn't my native language, so things may come across slightly different than I intend them to

On topic, I suppose an Israelian civ that focuses more on ancient/biblical kingdom of Samaria/Judah could eventually be an option? They might have been not so historically relevant when it comes to politics and military, but I think their cultural and religious role in the Ancient world has been quite significant.

 

[fuzzatron717]

I can't believe Canada is the second most popular on the poll! I vote for Canada.

My Canada civ idea below.

 

[PhilBowles]

Well. Even though I am not hardcore history fan, I knew something is wrong when I found out Celt's capital is Edinburgh.

If Total War can manage to find and name Iceni and other period-appropriate Celtic settlements, Firaxis should be able to.

As a technically Siamese. I can't object most of it. I can say that most of Siam's city list is Sukhothai-based modern Thailand.

Well, the cities still exist, but most seem to be either cities that were important during the Sukothai period or, if not, at least modern cities in the right general area of northern Thailand (such as Lampang and Khorat - the latter in the list as Ratchasima). I don't know if Muang Sualang still exists - a quick Google search reveals that Civ V is the commonest use of that name, although I've found a passing reference to it as a significant Sukhothai town. As far as I can tell from a quick browse of the city list, Ayutthaya is the only representative from Peninsular Thailand. The developers did enough research to obtain a period-appropriate city list (as they sadly didn't for Indonesia, for instance) at least for the early cities (I've never seen or expanded enough to have come across such bizarre anachronisms as Vientiane, Luang Prabang or Ayutthaya, which I find are in the Siamese city list). From that it seems plain they had the Sukothai period particularly in mind.

Having said all that, Siam is my favourite civ to play, and with my interest in SE Asia among my favourites thematically.

I still don't think Siam's UA and AI playstyle is compatible with the history and culture (AFAIK, "Father Governs Children" is actually the legal system, not something related with CS)

I believe you're right; I understand it's a legal code from the 12th Century, possibly attributable to Ramkhamhaeng himself, and so period-appropriate for Sukothai (and predating Siam), but know nothing else about it. It doesn't surprise me that it doesn't involve interactions with minor powers. As a mechanic it does make Siam interesting to play but - as you say - not particularly obviously Thai.

Mmm. I personally feel like including Israel as non-OCC (Venice-ish) major civ is simply... uncanny. Although if Tibet is major civ would be nice, and with CiV inclusion of City-States. There are lot of "proto-civ" that is at last represented in Civ serie which they would hardly have a chance otherwise. So IMO, There IS Israel, representing anything in stripped border of City of Jerusalem, but as Wikipedia pointed out that Jerusalem is captured and recaptured 44 times. It's up to one's interpretation that what Jerusalem is representing which also applied to any CS, anything in Civ actually.

I think including Jerusalem as a CS was inspired, and it would be a shame to include an Israel civ that would probably have to include it (which itself might be a source of controversy) - Jerusalem's history as a point of contention between major powers long predates Israel, and it makes much more sense to include it as an independent entity.

Of course one way around the "Israel controversy" might simply be to rename the civ Canaan and focus it heavily on the ancient society - but again you run into the question "why them?" when they weren't a very relevant power.

 

[Yig]

Vietnam (Tsung Sisters) - Double leader is awesome.
Kongo
Romania (Vlad) - Its friggin Vlad, nuff said.
Inuits - Add a civ who is happy to start in the tundra/snow.
Nigeria

 

[morgan_gibson87]

Similarly, if countries like "Brazil" are ever included in this or future iterations of the series, I will stop playing Civilization. Brazil is not a CIVILIZATION; it's not culturally or socially distinct from Portugal. Indeed, this country best serves, as it formerly did in the game, as a source for a city-state (Rio).

And yet I don't see you crusading for the elimination of Brazil as a civ. Your hypocrisy is astounding.

Are you kidding me? Brazil has distinctly contributed culturally and socially to global civilization. Australia on the other hand has the Opera House... and not much else (aside from xenophobia and an amazing diplomatic capacity to suck up to the Great Powers of its time - US, UK etc).

Keep in mind, also, that I am saying this as an Australian.

 

[ehecatzin]

But no, really, there are some interesting possibilities. Mexico's early years were politically pretty fascinating.

The one thing Zapata has going for him is that he would make a very cool leaderscreen, I agree that Juarez is the no brainer choice for Mexico, 3 times president, fought a civil war for secular government, kicked the French out of Mexico all done while on the run on a carriage wearing a tuxedo,thats badass. and I'll be honest, a Juarez with a complete lack of emotion even when you declare war would be cool to see as well.

 

[otaman1]

Vietnam (Tsung Sisters) - Double leader is awesome.
Kongo
Romania (Vlad) - Its friggin Vlad, nuff said.
Inuits - Add a civ who is happy to start in the tundra/snow.
Nigeria

Who would be the leader of Kongo? Pedro II of Kongo?

 

[geoaraujo]

Inuits - Add a civ who is happy to start in the tundra/snow.
Nigeria

Nice one!

 

[Louis XXIV]

Who would be the leader of Kongo? Pedro II of Kongo?

I prefer Afonso Mvemba a Nzinga or his father João I Nzinga a Nkuwu. You can drop the Portuguese name too if you want.

 

[DeutschDachs]

I'd love a Czech/Bohemia civ, entirely on ethnic bias.

Barring that, I agree that Sumer seems like an obvious missing option.

I root for this too, mostly because Charles IV would be my favorite civ leader by far

 

[Depravo]

The one thing Zapata has going for him is that he would make a very cool leaderscreen, I agree that Juarez is the no brainer choice for Mexico, 3 times president, fought a civil war for secular government, kicked the French out of Mexico all done while on the run on a carriage wearing a tuxedo,thats badass. and I'll be honest, a Juarez with a complete lack of emotion even when you declare war would be cool to see as well.

Guerrero was pretty hardcore too. They could have Plutarco Elias Calles with a 'Sinister Masonic Conspiracy' UA that converts religious followers into cash.

 

[ehecatzin]

Guerrero was pretty hardcore too. They could have Plutarco Elias Calles with a 'Sinister Masonic Conspiracy' UA that converts religious followers into cash.

Yeah Vicente Guerrero is also one my main choices, it sort of depends on the period they want to depict.

 

[DyadoMraz]

Are you kidding me? Brazil has distinctly contributed culturally and socially to global civilization.

How? I'm genuinely curious
All I can think of is a statue, a carnival and capoeira
None of which (by themselves or combined) has been very impactful on the rest of the world

 

[Princeofnigeria]

How? I'm genuinely curious
All I can think of is a statue, a carnival and capoeira
None of which (by themselves or combined) has been very impactful on the rest of the world

Though I disagree with the contributions listed here, and think Brazil has indeed done more, I also agree Brazil isn't ready for prime time yet. Sure, they are growing into an economic and environmental superpower, and when it is indeed one of those, great! put them in. But a it stands now I don't really think they've done enough of note to merit inclusion. I am however happy to see south America get more representation, so... My feelings on Brazil are mixed .

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Though I disagree with the contributions listed here, and think Brazil has indeed done more, I also agree Brazil isn't ready for prime time yet. Sure, they are growin into an economic and environmental superpower, and when it is indeed one of those great, put them in. But a it stands now I don't really think they've done enough of note to merit inclusion. I am however happy to see south America get more representation, so... My feelings on Brazil are mixed .

I feel the same, except i can't help having a sense of disappointment that pre-columbian south america has been overlooked. Brazil even as it is now is not as significant in today's world as a number of south american societies were in their times.

 

[Civciv5]

Canada is #1?! I must be dreaming, I have to wake up right now! What kind of sorcery is this?
My priority list would be:

1. Khmer
2. Sumer
3. Tibet
4. Kongo

These civs are a must according to me, the game would be quite complete then.
Regerding the controverse with Tibet this must be enough: Tibet isn't and will never be a part of that vile Chinese government that claims they own Tibet the 13th century and tries to shut people's mouth about it and tries to destroy any evidence of the Tibetan civilization, which is very distinct from Chinese civilization, if the government of Mao had remained so radical, the Potala Palace and all Tibetan treasures might have been destroyed. I support Tibetan independence to give the Tibetan people what is and was always theirs, the nation of Tibet which was destroyed by the vile Mao Zedong who was as worse as Hitler. However the company is all about making money, so they might not do that, but could regarding that they have Lhasa as an independent city-state and not as a part of China.

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

Canada is #1?! I must be dreaming, I have to wake up right now! What kind of sorcery is this?
My priority list would be:

1. Khmer
2. Sumer
3. Tibet
4. Kongo

These civs are a must according to me, the game would be quite complete then.
Regerding the controverse with Tibet this must be enough: Tibet isn't and will never be a part of that vile Chinese government that claims they own Tibet the 13th century and tries to shut people's mouth about it and tries to destroy any evidence of the Tibetan civilization, which is very distinct from Chinese civilization, if the government of Mao had remained so radical, the Potala Palace and all Tibetan treasures might have been destroyed. I support Tibetan independence to give the Tibetan people what is and was always theirs, the nation of Tibet which was destroyed by the vile Mao Zedong who was as worse as Hitler. However the company is all about making money, so they might not do that, but could regarding that they have Lhasa as an independent city-state and not as a part of China.

With that little speech you've kind of proved why we can't add Tibet. You really don't think what you just said was controversial?

I do agree that Canada is a bad idea though, currently only really kept afloat by patriotism and a few wrong ideas about Canadas importance, like the fact that they currently contribute so much to the UN (Which they don't) or that their culture is very distinct from both the US and the UK (Which is isn't).

As for Israel, I really don't think people would ask for it if we could add it without controversy, its just that logic where if you take a kids toy away they instantly want to play with it personally, I'd like to see some more civs related to arabia, Sumer (not really arab but you know what I mean) Oman, and Afghanistan (Again, not Arab, but an important part of the Islamic world no doubt)

 

[Teleon22]

Israel has my vote. Why exclude them and Tibet from the poll? Just because you're not a fan doesn't mean they should be excluded from consideration.

I agree and I too vote ISRAEL!!!!!!

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I agree and I too vote ISRAEL!!!!!!

It goes a little beyond simply whether or not you are a fan...

There's an intellectual boycott by half the west on Israel. And it's best not to go into what they think of the place as you go further east...