Which Civ we should have before Civilization VI?

[Depravo]

Where's Vietnam and why the hell not Tibet?

Vietnam, Tibet, Swahili then lay the DLC to rest.

 

[SirPepsi]

Estonia! Or possibly some kind of cross civ addressing latvia lithuania and estonia collectively

The Baltic Nations?

 

[Aztecopi]

Where's Vietnam and why the hell not Tibet?

Vietnam, Tibet, Swahili then lay the DLC to rest.

The PRC doesn't like Tibet.


Like it really doesn't like Tibet.

 

[ehecatzin]

Well...that poll is seriously flawed, should be multiple option.

my civ choices if they want to leave it at 50:

-Hungary
-Timurid
-Vietnam
-Hittites
-Kongo
-Latin American civ (Argentina/ Mexico/ Colombia)
-Mixtec

And if they should choose to keep on doing 9 civs and take it to 52:

-Khmer
-Sicily

I'd like to se Haida but it seems firaxis bundles all natives and mesoamericans together, and, we must have at least 2 europeans apparently

The Latin American spot is really interesting, as all three of them have very disctinct identities and could have really cool scenarios.

 

[caketastydelish]

Where's Vietnam and why the hell not Tibet?

Vietnam, Tibet, Swahili then lay the DLC to rest.

If we're going to add more Asian civs (which I wouldn't mind in the least) we should add some historically more significant ones than the two you mentioned. Africa is *extremely* lacking though so virtually any African Civ gets my approval.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I believe the OP was trying to be diplomatic. Let's also be realistic - should either Tibet or Israel be introduced into the game, the CiV series would suffer a publicity hit (I doubt they'd even be willing to take the risk).

Although explicitly mentioning that you're not including them isn't very diplomatic.

 

[caketastydelish]

Although explicitly mentioning that you're not including them isn't very diplomatic.

Plus I disagree. Pretty much every Civilization in history has had political controversy at some point or another. As long as Tibet's UU isn't 'Kung fu figher monk' Israel's UA isn't something equally racist like 'bargaining jew- get 3 GP from every player you have a declaration of friendship with' or some hogwash like that, then it shouldn't matter.

edit: That said, I think there are far more important civs they could add besides Israel and Tibet anyway, but they shouldn't avoid them for political reasons.

 

[DerCivMeister]

I really don't see the need for the Holy Roman Empire to be a civ in the game. I mean, that wasn't it's own civ, it was just a collection of medieval France, Germany and Rome. Besides, in the scenario "Into the Renaissance", you can vote for Holy Roman Emperor, so that seems close enough to me.

As for civs I want to see, I actually would say Israel. They have been an important civilization (although controversial) since the beginning of time. I don't see the need though for controversy to erupt over including them. Obviously, if they made them like the modern nation of Israel, that would be a bit distasteful. However, I'm sure they know that they have made Mao Zedong the leader of China multiple times. I don't see how it could get much more risky than that. I think the ancient civilization of Israel should be added, with a leader like David or Solomon. They should have a religious unique ability, like maybe they could make the enhancer belief Messiah their UA and then make something else the enhancer belief for faster great prophets, or maybe they could say that if Jerusalem is a holy city, it can never be converted to another religion. Or perhaps holy sites can provide double faith yeilds since all of the 3 biggest religions in the world have major holy sites in Jerusalem (Christianity, Judaism and Islam).

 

[SirPepsi]

Although explicitly mentioning that you're not including them isn't very diplomatic.

Plus I disagree. Pretty much every Civilization in history has had political controversy at some point or another. As long as Tibet's UU isn't 'Kung fu figher monk' Israel's UA isn't something equally racist like 'bargaining jew- get 3 GP from every player you have a declaration of friendship with' or some hogwash like that, then it shouldn't matter.

edit: That said, I think there are far more important civs they could add besides Israel and Tibet anyway, but they shouldn't avoid them for political reasons.

@Louis: Agreed.

@Cake: Yes, but you're looking at this rationally. Controversy has eclipsed nearly every corner of the planet at some point or another. (The US's policies of Indian-Removal, par exemple). But the difference between your point and the situation at hand is the context of modern times. Because of the current tension, it might impair the company from making as many sales as they normally would. This is the primary reason for refusing to include Israel/Tibet/Palestine/Tawain/Serbia, etc.

______________

To return to the original topic, however, I'd like to see Canada in the game as a symbol of progression and diplomacy. That is the main reason I chose to include them at the top of my list. Besides, who doesn't love: O Canada, Terre de Nos Aieux, etc.? Just kidding, haha. I think it'd be wonderful to play as the Canadians.

Canada:

Unique Unit: The Mounty (+35% combat within Canada, +10% happiness in any city with the unit in an adjacent tile, +.3 Nationwide happiness per Mounty with Freedom)

Unique Building: Fur-Post (+2 GPT per trade route originating from a city w/ this building, +3GPT w/ fur)

Unique Ability: Strive for Success (+ 1 influence per turn w/ City States after discovering Printing Press, +7 Science per turn per Civilization you have a DoF with after discovering Printing Press)

 

[Merciorum]

Why put in Australia or Canada and take space up that could be used to put civs in your poll?

Ooh burn .

And kinda true, they really shouldn't be on there.

Why on earth is Sumer not on the poll? It's the obvious top choice by far.

EDIT: It is, and I'm an idiot .

 

[JFD]

HRE. I would like to see what unique UA they could receive, after what Venice got. After that: Nepal.

edit: That said, I think there are far more important civs they could add besides Israel and Tibet anyway, but they shouldn't avoid them for political reasons.

Yes they should. They're a game-making business, not a consulate. And importance is hardly a dominating factor.

 

[altayrneto]

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.

 

[PhilBowles]

Seems to allow only one, so I went for the Khmer as a personal favourite, although objectively the most deserving are the Hittites or the Sumerians. I would like a Champa civ to represent Vietnam, or Bagan for Myanmar, but that's three contenders for medieval SE Asian civs (on top of the two we already have) which would be a little over the top.

As for Israel and Tibet, in all honesty I don't see the appeal all politics aside.

The Tibetan Empire has no relation to modern Tibet, beyond a sometime capital in Lhasa and, again sometime, rulership by ethnic Tibetans, and while it had a territorial extent that justifies its claim to a place in the series, not only do I not know what could really be done to make it especially interesting, the fact that this gigantic fuedal theocracy shares its name with the current diaspora and an underclass on the Tibetan Plateau would confuse a lot of players. The reality of historical Tibet (which was a military theocracy and aggressor in wars with China as late as the 19th Century, and which the Chinese invaded following invitations by Tibetan dissidents against an autocratic government) is simply too far removed from the popular image spread by romantic recollections from a diaspora formed mostly of the former ruling class, and reinforced by the personal beliefs of the Dalai Lama and global sympathy evoked by Chinese brutality.

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. While by an accident of geography the religion that came to dominate the Western world was born in what was previously Canaan, and is now Israel, it emerged in a Roman province and was spread by Romans and Roman influence. It has no connection other than theology with Israel past or present. I can see no reason to even consider it above more relevant Middle Eastern civs yet to be represented in Civ V, such as Sumer or the Hittites.

 

[monkspider]

Khmer and especially Sumeria are essential.

 

[Maktaka]

I see Hittites and think Wololo, and then I find myself voting for them for no reason I can particularly understand.

Wololo.

 

[ehecatzin]

To return to the original topic, however, I'd like to see Canada in the game as a symbol of progression and diplomacy. That is the main reason I chose to include them at the top of my list. Besides, who doesn't love: O Canada, Terre de Nos Aieux, etc.? Just kidding, haha. I think it'd be wonderful to play as the Canadians.

If there's only one spot for another post colonial it should go to a spanish speaking country, Argentina, Mexico or Colombia, take your pick, I'd be seriously dissapointed if they added another anglo instead of one latin american.

I bring this up because aparently Firaxis bundled all post colonial together when deciding which one to add in BNW, I dont think its likely we would get 2 post colonial civs.

 

[Depravo]

If we're going to add more Asian civs (which I wouldn't mind in the least) we should add some historically more significant ones than the two you mentioned. Africa is *extremely* lacking though so virtually any African Civ gets my approval.

More significant Asian civs such as?

 

[whiplash27]

Hungary makes a lot of sense.

The Kingdom of Hungary was a multiethnic[6] country in Central Europe covering what is today Hungary, Slovakia, Transylvania (now part of Romania), Carpathian Ruthenia (now part of Ukraine), Vojvodina (now part of Serbia), Burgenland (now part of Austria), and other smaller territories surrounding present-day Hungary's borders. From 1102 it also included Croatia (except Istria), being in personal union with it, united under the King of Hungary. The kingdom existed for almost one thousand years (1000–1918 and 1920–1946) and at various points was regarded as one of the cultural centers of Europe.[7]

 

[PhilBowles]

8) Thai or Cambodia (Khmer)

There won't be a "true" Thai civ while "Siam" as it is now is in the game - Ramkhamhaeng is a Thai national icon so it would be odd for him to lead a separate civ, plus Siam is an archaic name for Thailand (not the game's Sukothai Kingdom) and both the UU and UB are Thai.

Why are people naming single states of America such as Texas or Mississippi?

"Mississippian" is the Western name of an artefact culture first associated with sites along the Mississippi River - it has nothing to do with the state. It's the native culture famous for mound-building; claims that some of these sites were as large as European cities are quite possibly exaggerations, although it is undoubtedly true that they were larger than any American city until post-independence. The largest mound "city", Cahokia, is name-checked in Civ V as a city-state (and while I don't think a Mississippian "civ" makes any sense, I was thrilled to see Cahokia in).

Problems with including the Mississipians as a civ are that there's nothing known about them, and it's not at all clear they were anything resembling a unified society - it's an archaeological designation, like "Clovis", and the mound architecture doesn't even feature in Native American oral histories or mythology as far as I'm aware. There are no known Mississippian leaders, nothing that could be used as a unique unit, no information on elements of their culture that could inspire a UA.

If that's supposed to be joke ok but I don't see why they'd seriously do that.

Inuit's presumably supposed to be a joke, but that's in the list. It even has a vote.

If we're going to add more Asian civs (which I wouldn't mind in the least) we should add some historically more significant ones than the two you mentioned.

The Champa lasted over a millennium, the longest-surviving civ in Southeast Asia. I'd argue that that makes Vietnam historically somewhat significant. Tibet's empire was extremely large and lasted about three centuries as an essentially Tibetan-led state. The Khmer are better-known, but of the remaining Asian candidates (excluding Mesopotamia), it's not clear that there are any that are "more significant" and not already represented in some form (although arguably China represents Tibet, since both were periodically under Mongol rule, China was under Tibetan rule at times, and Tibet under Chinese rule at others - it's actually not straightforward to delineate "Tibet" from "China" through most of the states' history).

 

[kingchris20]

Inuit's presumably supposed to be a joke, but that's in the list. It even has a vote.

I highly doubt that the Inuits are to be a joke, I mean Firaxis was considering them in the Shoshone spot....

Even though I highly doubt we'll even see another civ, I would say it is time for Canada to make it in!