Which Civ we should have before Civilization VI?

[ACivFan]

Heck, you glossed over the best parts! You skipped over how Khmer controlled nearly the whole economy of south asia for a while (if anyone wanted to move anything anywhere, they had to go through or stop in the Khmer), thus they spread their culture and goods an absurd distance. Nepal's mixing of Buddism, Sihkism, Tao, and confusionism revolutionize the religions and spread chinese culture to india, indian culture to china, all while remaining culturally distinct, essentially making them a massive religious railway. It's comments like the iceland one that make me sad I'm into history, for it seems few else are .

Except Southeast Asians, especially the Anstronesian subgroup represented by the Chams, Malacca, and Majapahit,..., love to take it to the sea rather than making their trade inland. And trading between these maritime states made up the bulk of Southeast Asian commercial activities. Hence, the Khmers didn't really control the economy of Southeast Asia; in fact I highly doubt if they were ever the largest economy there at all. They might have the largest population but that doesn't necessarily mean they command the largest economy.

Trading between the more land-bound Tai-Kradai and Austro-Asiatic subgroups were pale in comparison with the Austronesian group. To make the matter worse, the Khmers' two immediate neighbors are Vietnam and Siam. One only trade with East Asia (via the sea) for most of its history, and the other pretty much declared war on the Khmers once it was formed.

 

[Princeofnigeria]

Except Southeast Asians, especially the Anstronesian subgroup represented by the Chams, Malacca, and Majapahit,..., love to take it to the sea rather than making their trade inland. And trading between these maritime states made up the bulk of Southeast Asian commercial activities. Hence, the Khmers didn't really control the economy of Southeast Asia; in fact I highly doubt if they were ever the largest economy there at all. They might have the largest population but that doesn't necessarily mean they command the largest economy.

Trading between the more land-bound Tai-Kradai and Austro-Asiatic subgroups were pale in comparison with the Austronesian group. To make the matter worse, the Khmers' two immediate neighbors are Vietnam and Siam. One only trade with East Asia (via the sea) for most of its history, and the other pretty much declared war on the Khmers once it was formed.

Truly? Well I appoligize then for my misinformation, and hope not to repeat it in the future.

 

[Sheershaw]

I understand that they removed Lhasa from the Chinese version of the game - renaming a city-state is very different from removing a civ. It might have been feasible in earlier incarnations of the game, but not in a world with leaderscreens, voice-acted dialogue and unique unit/building graphics that all add development time and expense.

I'd say it'd be pretty easy to remove Tibet for a Chinese release. Yes, Chinese players might miss out on one civ. I imagine it'd be as easy as removing Babylon or Denmark from a game.

I imagine the bulk of their sales come from Europe and America anyways.

 

[DyadoMraz]

2. Slavic Nation - Basically an amalgamation of Romania, Moldavia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, and Albania. Leader would be Vlad the Impaler as he is a cultural icon and folk hero to the region.

Are you trying to cause a war? These nations DO NOT like each other
Bundling them together and under one leader would cause more controversy than representing Israel as the modern Kingdom of Heaven
While you're at it, you might throw Turkey in the mix to make it even more amusing

Apart from that, there isn't any other Slavic nation significant enough next to Poland and Russia in my opinion. Others - while interesting - are just too small to compare. If it was Eastern European nation, things become different. Hungary is one big candidate here. Vlad Țepeș for Romania would be interesting as well.

Excuse me? I don't mean to bash on other nations but isn't Poland most famous for being invaded by Germany?
Compare that to Bulgaria which is directly responsible for the creation and spread of 2 of the most used alphabets in history, the spread of eastern orthodoxy among slavic people and was instrumental for Constantinople not falling centuries earlier than it did even though ironically it was also a major rival and threat to the Byzantine Empire
Armenia, Hungary and Romania would also be prime candidates

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I find your comments racist at best. Using the term "euro-centric" multiple times in a row clearly shows your disdain for white skinned people in general. And if you are one then you bring us all shame. It really should not matter whether there are more civs from one continent than another and eventually it is going to end up that way anyways because some of the best written records in history were kept by europeans (the church namely). Yes civs like japan and korea recorded their own history and china was recording before anyone else even which is why they are represented in the game. Suggesting there are simply too many "european" or white civs in the game is not helpful to this discussion.

*spits out coffee* Well that escalated quickly!

This is just so unfathomably uncalled for and i think you very clearly lack an understanding of what eurocentrism is, because part of it you actually displayed in your post.

Using the term "eurocentric" does not mean you have a disdain for white people. If you think that, then NEVER EVER read a modern history book, you will cry. I think you may need to step back and think about how you view society. What places do you see as backward? As undeveloped? As unadvanced? Why is the west a dominant force in the world? The basis behind eurocentrism is the typical response to these questions based on ignorance and misunderstanding, and the idea behind pointing it out is making people think critically about WHY they think of the world in the way they do, and challenging them to think about if there are any plausible alternative ways to perceive the world.

You make a good point when you say it shouldn't matter how many civs are from each continent. However, history doesn't stop at writing these days. Archaeology has expanded so much now it gives us a plausible alternative (and less subjective version of events) to writing as a method of analyzing history. This allows for a great deal more civs than simply europe and east asia provide. However, there is a tendency among those uneducated in history to see things through the wrong lens, and look at peoples as backward for not having written etc. So it IS important to say, isn't that enough europeans for now, aren't there better options elsewhere? I say it is important because even if there are not better options elsewhere, it is always important to look, to think critically about the merits of civilizations outside the european box and instead of judging them as unworthy of the title of civ because they didnt write applaud them for the many things they did that europe never developed.

At the end of the day anything humans develop is arbitrary, so no invention is objectively better than another, no culture is objectively better than other, no peoples are better than any other. So don't you think it might be a little off that in a game celebrating the civilization of humanity, that almost 50% of civs are from the smallest continent that's never contained anywhere near that percentage of the worlds population? Don't you think that displays a subjective preference for European and western cultures? Because that's euro-centrism, and it's very old hat now.

 

[PhilBowles]

Are you trying to cause a war? These nations DO NOT like each other
Bundling them together and under one leader would cause more controversy than representing Israel as the modern Kingdom of Heaven
While you're at it, you might throw Turkey in the mix to make it even more amusing

Well, that would just be deliberately provocative. Turkey should be represented in its appropriate place, as part of the same civ as Greece.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Well, that would just be deliberately provocative. Turkey should be represented in its appropriate place, as part of the same civ as Greece.

I always thought a Turkey/Armenia civ would be better than a Turkey/Greece civ

 

[Newfarian]

I suspect it wouldn't be terribly useful. Wars tend to be declared and go on forever - you won't get many GGs that way. Melee units are weaker than ranged, and how often do you have a surplus of workers unless you're out conquering yourself?

Thanks for the comments. I have only played in LAN games against my friend and the AI, and therefore am unfamiliar with the dynamics of multiplayer games. In my games, wars are a rarity (at least in BNW), which is what inspired me to tie GGs spawning to declarations of war: No war, no need for a GG. But if wars in MP mode "go on forever," well then, I like your idea better, i.e., Vietnamese units generating more points towards a GG while defending.

With regards to workers, it is my experience that I do not have a surplus of workers in the early and mid game. However, past the modern era, I end up deleting workers, because (1) all of the tiles around my home cities are improved (with the occasional technological advancement requiring further improvement, e.g., uranium mining), and (2) I gain quite a few captured workers from wars (usually started by someone else) that can be used to improve newly-captured cities and repair damaged tiles.

There is another benefit to this worker-to-military unit upgrade, however: Workers are much cheaper to produce! In times of war, a Vietnamese worker could be produced (or purchased) in each city quickly, and then upgraded to the military unit. I would imagine that that is a unique attribute that should not be underestimated. Maybe instead of the military unit upgrade being either melee or range, the worker could upgrade to a Vietnamese UU (this could be the Fire Lancer) that has both melee and range abilities with strengths adjusted for balance. That would certainly be an interesting new mechanic, no?

Good UI, but rice as a unique for any civ is conceptually bizarre. Considering that marsh has so few resources, and no food resources, it's strange that Firaxis have stubbornly avoided adding it to the game.

I am guessing that you worry that since rice is produced by so many different cultures that making it a unique bonus resource for the Vietnamese would be immersion-killing? I can see that, too. Granted, there are other uniques in the game that aren't really unique in the real world (war elephants, Great Galleass vs galleass, polders, pepper, etc.), but I do agree that the existence of other unjustified uniques should not excuse the creation of additional ones.

I guess what it comes down to is whether "rice as a unique bonus resource on marsh tiles, tied to a UB, the Water Puppet Theatre, for generating Happiness" makes for an interesting mechanic, or whether it would ruin the immersion for the player.

 

[poom3619]

I find your comments racist at best. Using the term "euro-centric" multiple times in a row clearly shows your disdain for white skinned people in general. And if you are one then you bring us all shame. It really should not matter whether there are more civs from one continent than another and eventually it is going to end up that way anyways because some of the best written records in history were kept by europeans (the church namely). Yes civs like japan and korea recorded their own history and china was recording before anyone else even which is why they are represented in the game. Suggesting there are simply too many "european" or white civs in the game is not helpful to this discussion.

If you ask me, I never thought Europe (except the Eastern part) is REALLY overcrowded in CiV until I realize that how small the space between real-life Austria, Rome and Greece, and then dev decided to put Venice civ in a middle of it. While Central Asia, Africa, Americas have only a or two civs represents a vast region that can fit the whole Europe.

There are vast array of interesting "civ" all over the world beyond the Europe if you change your viewpoint. Maybe start from searching for data of civ you never knew.

 

[bcaiko]

Sorry, I really missed civs like Vietnam and Khazars... And I don't include Israel or Tibet for controversial/political/mercantile reasons. They are too controversial nations (especially Tibet, that the game would be banned in China, a big market today. Like putting Hitler as leader of Germany). I would like play as Salomon with Israel, but Firaxis will probably avoid taking risks just to please the fans... And Jerusalem and Lhasa as city-states works a bit.

Yeah, but you knew people would be voting for them anyway, and really what does it matter if you let people vote for them? You created a poll of what people want to see, not what is actually going to be in the game. By trying to avoid a false controversy, you've created one.

And the minute Civ4 added modern mass murderers like Stalin in Mao as leaders, they gave up all claims to fearing modern political controversy. I suspect the only reason Hitler wasn't available in that game was because such an action would have gotten the game outright banned in Germany, which is a major market.

As ridiculous as I find any Israel "controversy" (they exist, de facto; the current nation-state has existed for over 60 years now; and there's no denying Israeli history), such a controversy could easily be circumvented by offering Israel as a DLC and not as a part of a package. Places where Israel's existence is contested (are those even major markets?) can eschew the DLC and other places - like in North America, Europe, and Israel - CivFans will likely buy the DLC in droves.

I'll also mention that I'm surprised not to see Mexico make the list. They have an interesting history and had independence long before either Canada or Austrailia, and even before Brazil.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

And the minute Civ4 added modern mass murderers like Stalin in Mao as leaders, they gave up all claims to fearing modern political controversy. I suspect the only reason Hitler wasn't available in that game was because such an action would have gotten the game outright banned in Germany, which is a major market.

As ridiculous as I find any Israel "controversy" (they exist, de facto; the current nation-state has existed for over 60 years now; and there's no denying Israeli history), such a controversy could easily be circumvented by offering Israel as a DLC and not as a part of a package. Places where Israel's existence is contested (are those even major markets?) can eschew the DLC and other places - like in North America, Europe, and Israel - CivFans will likely buy the DLC in droves.

I find these two issues keep cropping up in this thread, and both seem to miss the point at least as far as i'm concerned, and i'm sure i'm not the only one.

Firstly, the game it's proposed Israel be added to is Civ 5, not civ 4. While precedent set in civ 4 is all well and good, it has clearly been overridden by a preference for more sensitive options in civ v. We have no stalin or mao anymore and no sign of them returning in the foreseeable future. So while the may have given up such claims for civ 4, they have very evidently restored them for civ 5.

Secondly, the controversy isn't over whether or not israel exists (though de facto was an especially appropriate choice of words in this instance). It is whether it should exist. People aren't saying "lalala can't hear you" (ok, well some people are ), they are saying they will not deal with a state that is against their values and committing human rights violations (among other nasty stuff). There is currently an intellectual boycott on Israel by parts of the west that a growing number of people want expanded into the kind of trade, cultural and sporting boycott that was put in place against Apartheid South Africa. Some of the key proponents of sanctions against Israel are in the European Union; France, Germany and Scandinavia in particular have been outspoken in admonishing Israel for some of it's more dubious activities. Among the people of the EU, Israel's popularity is even lower. I point you towards this article:
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs...ar-countries-and-its-getting-worse-bbc-survey

If they were to add Israel, they should absolutely 100% steer clear of the modern state. They may be guaranteed some sales, particularly in the US, but over here in the EU adding modern Israel would be enough to put people off the franchise.

 

[Danielion]

Excuse me? I don't mean to bash on other nations but isn't Poland most famous for being invaded by Germany?

Poland is by large the biggest Slavic nation next to Russia, in my opinion. Everyone knows about the winged hussars and Jan Sobieski, for instance. Everyone knows about the Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania. Conversely is Bulgaria today known as the country that's the most corrupt and in the worst shape in all of the EU and is still not accepted to Schengen and probably won't be before Croatia'll be admitted to it. Not meaning to bash Bulgaria, but just saying how easy it is to judge modern history.

 

[aluelkdf]

If you look at Asia for example, the continent is dominated by several very large civs. The entire northern half of Asia is Russia, then you have China, Mongolia (the Mongolian empire was once HUGE). Then you have smaller civs like Korea and Japan. All these civs are in the game. And considering that Asia is the largest continent, they have lots of room to spread out.

If you look at Europe by contrast, Europe is very small. And Europe is very fractured. Instead of having massive civs like China and Russia, there are many smaller civs competing over a small area of land.

This is why Europe has many civs and appears to be "crowded" when you play an earth map with true start locations. It has nothing to do with Eurocentrism, it's just how Europe is. But I guess hating white people is just trendy and too much fun to let reality get in the way.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

If you look at Asia for example, the continent is dominated by several very large civs. The entire northern half of Asia is Russia, then you have China, Mongolia (the Mongolian empire was once HUGE). Then you have smaller civs like Korea and Japan. All these civs are in the game. And considering that Asia is the largest continent, they have lots of room to spread out.

If you look at Europe by contrast, Europe is very small. And Europe is very fractured. Instead of having massive civs like China and Russia, there are many smaller civs competing over a small area of land.

This is why Europe has many civs and appears to be "crowded" when you play an earth map with true start locations. It has nothing to do with Eurocentrism, it's just how Europe is. But I guess hating white people is just trendy and too much fun to let reality get in the way.

So we're just gunna ignore the hundreds of groups of people that live within Russia, China and Mongolia who have historically been independent and still have some autonomy, or at the very least almost nothing to do with the state they are represented by?

Ironically, the ignorance you display about asia has everything to do with eurocentrism.

 

[Gucumatz]

I find your comments racist at best. Using the term "euro-centric" multiple times in a row clearly shows your disdain for white skinned people in general. And if you are one then you bring us all shame. It really should not matter whether there are more civs from one continent than another and eventually it is going to end up that way anyways because some of the best written records in history were kept by europeans (the church namely). Yes civs like japan and korea recorded their own history and china was recording before anyone else even which is why they are represented in the game. Suggesting there are simply too many "european" or white civs in the game is not helpful to this discussion.

I am afraid you don't understand what "Euro-Centric" means or the context I have been using it in. If we were to get an expansion, we will get European civs - even though the most worthy European civs have been pretty much all included. This fact means that even though pretty much everyone categorically agrees that Europe's best and a good representation of middle-tier civs have been included means that we will see European civs that are fairly insignificant compared to civs we can find elsewhere in the world.

Using the term Euro-Centric isn't a keyword for "Anti-White" - welcome to the world
----------

There are dozens of civs with historical records, archaeological records, etc. that held massive empires, confederacies, etc. that will never ever come close to getting included or if they do they will come at a sacrifice to other civs.

Examples: Including Siam meant we didn't get to see powerful empires and civs like the Khmer, Burma, Vietnam, the Champa, etc. That's just southeast Asia:

Then ie we get a civ like the Huns primarily because of European focus when we could have gotten civs like: the Khazars, Timurids, Tibet (although unfortunately they won't get in because of Chinese biases)

That's just central Asia and Southeastern Asia - Don't get people started on Africa or the Americas where countless Empires are completely neglected.

Now you may not like, but even a civ like Romania/Hungary in Europe would be preferable because at least they had more influence in their regions than either Canada or Australia. Including Canada or Australia who have little to merit their inclusion except for Euro-Centric bias, is the definition of Euro-Centrism, whether you like it or not. And just because you dislike someone's opinion, it doesn't mean you ought to go playing race cards - especially if you don't understand the crux of what someone's talking about

 

[hobbsyoyo]

A select one (as opposed to multiple) and not one of the more suggested ones (Vietnam)?

I'm going to say:

Vietnam
Mississippians
Kongo
Haida

All of which I guess are in the Other category

I'd also like the Khmer, but I think that's a lower priority. The reason being that it's better to have something unlike that which we've already seen, not different but arguably better.

I can't remember exactly but I think the Iriquois already cover the Mississippians with Cahokia. That said, the Mississippians do deserve a civ.

A really interesting Civ would be the Inuit. They would dominate tilted axis maps and would open up the 20% of every map that doesn't get used (tundra/snow/ice). That would be a lot of fun and interesting because no civ has really ever made use of that terrain with a UU or UB AFAIK.

Plus, the developers invluded Morroco and Brazil partially to make use of deserts and jungles. They also talked about the Inuit in the last polycast as well.

I also think Canada and Australia are just fan-pleasers and don't have much of a place. Particularly since we already have multiple fan pleaser civs.

Then there is Poland.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I am afraid you don't understand what "Euro-Centric" means or the context I have been using it in. If we were to get an expansion, we will get European civs - even though the most worthy European civs have been pretty much all included. This fact means that even though pretty much everyone categorically agrees that Europe's best and a good representation of middle-tier civs have been included means that we will see European civs that are fairly insignificant compared to civs we can find elsewhere in the world.

Using the term Euro-Centric isn't a keyword for "Anti-White" - welcome to the world
----------

There are dozens of civs with historical records, archaeological records, etc. that held massive empires, confederacies, etc. that will never ever come close to getting included or if they do they will come at a sacrifice to other civs.

Examples: Including Siam meant we didn't get to see powerful empires and civs like the Khmer, Burma, Vietnam, the Champa, etc. That's just southeast Asia:

Then ie we get a civ like the Huns primarily because of European focus when we could have gotten civs like: the Khazars, Timurids, Tibet (although unfortunately they won't get in because of Chinese biases)

That's just central Asia and Southeastern Asia - Don't get people started on Africa or the Americas where countless Empires are completely neglected.

Now you may not like, but even a civ like Romania/Hungary in Europe would be preferable because at least they had more influence in their regions than either Canada or Australia. Including Canada or Australia who have little to merit their inclusion except for Euro-Centric bias, is the definition of Euro-Centrism, whether you like it or not. And just because you dislike someone's opinion, it doesn't mean you ought to go playing race cards - especially if you don't understand the crux of what someone's talking about

Sub-Altern high five!

I can't remember exactly but I think the Iriquois already cover the Mississippians with Cahokia. That said, the Mississippians do deserve a civ.

Cahokia is a city state currently, and the Iroquois and the mississippians are two different entities operating for the most part in different time periods.

 

[Makavcio]

Why Israel and Tibet were not included? I have absolutely what controversy might it bring. It would be nice to see a super zealous israeli state pretty much forced to have a religion or extremely isolationistic tibetan civilization. I'm talking about a tibetan civilization, not Tibet itself for the simple reason, that afaik, from historical point of view, we should make distinction between Tibet the region and civilizations that existed there. I'm definitely not an expert in the field of history of that particular piece of our planet, nevertheless I know of at least 3 civilizations that could go under the name of Tibet.

 

[ehecatzin]

I can't remember exactly but I think the Iriquois already cover the Mississippians with Cahokia. That said, the Mississippians do deserve a civ.

A really interesting Civ would be the Inuit. They would dominate tilted axis maps and would open up the 20% of every map that doesn't get used (tundra/snow/ice). That would be a lot of fun and interesting because no civ has really ever made use of that terrain with a UU or UB AFAIK.

Plus, the developers invluded Morroco and Brazil partially to make use of deserts and jungles. They also talked about the Inuit in the last polycast as well.

As has been pointed out, the Iroquois have nothing todo with Mississippians.

I'd like to see them included, but they have the same problem the Olmec have: we dont know enough about them, both are fine as CS. There are other native civilizations we actually know a lot about that could make it in.

About the Inuit and making use of tundra/snow, TBH I think Russia could be tweaked a little to take advantage of tundra (and fix the Krepost), and it would make sense flavour wise, I dont see the need to create a whole civ to use tundra, and unlike snow, jungle and desert already have interesting bonuses that make civs starting there even more interesting, I fear that Inuits would only make snow tiles ok, nothing outstanding.

Besides, I'd rather see the Haida,but thats just personal preference.

 

[ehecatzin]

I'm talking about a tibetan civilization, not Tibet itself for the simple reason, that afaik, from historical point of view, we should make distinction between Tibet the region and civilizations that existed there. I'm definitely not an expert in the field of history of that particular piece of our planet, nevertheless I know of at least 3 civilizations that could go under the name of Tibet.

Tell that to the Chinese government, as it has been pointed out many times before, they even had to take out Lhasa CS from the Chinese release.

Tibet (or anything related to Tibet) is not going to happen, it takes 9 weeks just to animate a leaderhead, they are not going to devote that amount of production time on a whole civ they'll had to scrap.

However we know that Firaxis really likes the idea of a mountain civ, and I can see two strong candidates to fill that role: Nepal and Chachapoya. Both really interesting on their own, hopefully one of them makes it.