Which Civ we should have before Civilization VI?

[Petiscator]

I'd actually like to see Romenia, judge me please. Hungary, Sumerians and the Hittites too!

 

[PhilBowles]

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

You may be thinking of the Pueblo; I haven't heard anything about Inuit being considered for a civ. The idea's improbable enough for them to be a joke civ, and I've seen them suggested alongside other joke ideas such as Sealand.

 

[InsanelyApple]

My Top 10 in no particular order

1) Colombia with Simon Bolivar
2) Kongo
3) Romania with Vlad the Impaler (sucky leader, though great marketing. "Play as Dracula")
4) Ukraine
5) Cherokee with John Ross
6) Holy Rome with Charlemagne (haters gonna hate)
7) Inuit
8) Vietnam with Trung Sisters
9) Khmer
10) Tibet

 

[caketastydelish]

More significant Asian civs such as?

Basically any Asian Civ in Civ IV that wasn't included in Civ V.

 

[kingchris20]

You may be thinking of the Pueblo; I haven't heard anything about Inuit being considered for a civ. The idea's improbable enough for them to be a joke civ, and I've seen them suggested alongside other joke ideas such as Sealand.

No, it was on the Polycast interview, they talked about all the civs that were in consideration, like for the Brazil spot, Canada and Australia were in the running

The Shoshone spot, Pueblo, Sioux, and the Inuit were in the running, Pueblo won, but got axed then it went to the Shoshone

 

[Civking5]

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

May be not Canada, but they can put Alberta as a civ in game. No? ( I live in calgary). Anyway, I voted for Sumerians since they were in previous civ games.

 

[drubell]

We should discontinue adding civs that have already existed and instead focus on civs that would be around in the future. Since we have the XCom Unit in the Information Age we can easily add in Sectoidland that has unique stuff for Information Age units/buildings

 

[EricTheGreat12]

May be not Canada, but they can put Alberta as a civ in game. No? ( I live in calgary)

No offense, but Alberta being a civ is a bad idea .Plus, what would be their UA, UU and UB?

 

[Civking5]

I was being sarcastic. As I said I voted for sumeria.

 

[Byzantine Bomb]

Armenia anyone?

 

[Princeofnigeria]

On list:
2. Nepal
3. Sudan
5. Vietnam
6. Kmher
Other:
1. Olmec
4. South Africa
7. Pueblo

 

[Snes]

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).

I can see the headlines now: "Firaxis Creates Game that Acknowledges that Israel Exists!" Are people really so angry at Israel that any inclusion of them as a playable civilization would cause them to not purchase the game?

Even if Israel's modern history is that controversial, that still leaves ancient Israel up for consideration. They were kind of important in their region up through the Classical era, and their capital city is a key location in all three Abrahamic religions.

 

[Dai]

There's so many Civs in the game that at this point I'd be more interested in cultures and people groups that are more "out there" in terms of distinctiveness, rather than just adding the next-most-important European/Asian/African/Old Timey Middle-Eastern Civ. I'm also interested in Civs that naturally lend themselves to interesting new game experiences. A good example of this is Polynesia. I'm from the Pacific (Micronesia), and I'll be the first to admit that from a purely "most important civilizations" standpoint, Polynesia is kind of an odd fit, both because there's never been anything even remotely like a unified Polynesian empire and because regardless of what you're counting as Polynesia, Pacific cultural and military history is less enduring than that of most of the represented Civs. But I'm really happy to have Polynesia in the game, not only for personal reasons, but because I really like how the implementation in the game offers a unique (but still Civ-feeling, balanced, and fair) play experience, and using a special ability that's perfectly suited to Polynesia. Even if Polynesia isn't as "worthy" on some metrics as some other civs, I'm rather have it over a lot of others because it's different. (But not totally crazy or anything.)

With 40+ Civs already in the game, I'm still happy for Civs that are just "Stronger version of some horse unit, random building produces some yield it does not normally produce in addition to normal yield, generally helpful ability that doesn't make too many waves", but I'm more actively excited for Civs that shake things up a little bit more.

From this perspective, even if, say, Sumer for example, is incredibly important historically, I'm primarily interested in it as a vehicle for interesting and new gameplay experiences. I have enough options for "core experience" civs that I feel like I could go forever with those. I'd rather have more Polynesias.

I recognize that Polynesias are tough to design and tough to make elegant; Polynesia lucks out in that it happens that removing one simple game rule makes for an interesting, useful and potent ability that doesn't pidgeonhole the civ into a single role or anything. I'm not saying that every civ needs to be a total wackyworld civ or anything, but if you gave me an option, I'd much rather pay for five new Venices than five new Polands. (I do really like Poland, though.)

From that perspective, if I'm just picking blindly, I'm actually somewhat interested in stuff like the Inuit. I mean, sure you could make a boring Inuit and a Sumer that totally blows my mind, but those aren't the things I'd expect.

 

[quantum42]

Add Finland.

As for the Holy Roman Empire, my history professor in college said that the HRE was neither holy, Roman, or an Empire.

 

[caketastydelish]

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!

Supposing the Inuit's have a UA of boosting their production/food in tundra tiles I would actually be all for Inuit's in the game. Not only because I personally think Native American civs are cool, but far more importantly because that would be really interesting from a strategical standpoint.

Where as those types of tiles are (mostly) useless to other civs for building cities, that would mean the inuits can build cities with a lot more options. That said, their UU would almost certainly come too early in the game, but if it can 'keep' their upgrade such as the Aztec Jaguar then I'd play as them for a good while.

 

[DerCivMeister]

Supposing the Inuit's have a UA of boosting their production/food in tundra tiles I would actually be all for Inuit's in the game. Not only because I personally think Native American civs are cool, but far more importantly because that would be really interesting from a strategical standpoint.

Where as those types of tiles are (mostly) useless to other civs for building cities, that would mean the inuits can build cities with a lot more options. That said, their UU would almost certainly come too early in the game, but if it can 'keep' their upgrade such as the Aztec Jaguar then I'd play as them for a good while.

I wouldn't mind that at all. There are civs that excel in almost every single start type; jungle, desert, coastal, hills, forest, but really nobody that excels in tundra or snow (unless you count Denmark, but really, no). I think it would be interesting to see an Iroquois of the tundra!

 

[PhilBowles]

From that perspective, if I'm just picking blindly, I'm actually somewhat interested in stuff like the Inuit. I mean, sure you could make a boring Inuit and a Sumer that totally blows my mind, but those aren't the things I'd expect.

Nice post, though most such "oddball" civs aren't ones you'd think of in advance necessarily - they're civs that turn out to be interesting because of certain mechanics, but predictive/most wanted threads won't pick them up.

On the Inuit, though, a boring civ is precisely what I'd expect. They only make sense with a snow or at best tundra bias, and that intrinsically pigeonholes them as a "civ that gets a boost to make bad terrain useful" civ a la Russia or Morocco (anyone think Russia's among the more interesting civs? No? Thought not). What's more they'd start with such poor terrain that they'd need to devote most of their uniques just to making terrain no one else wants comparable with the basic terrain everyone else gets, rather than doing anything interestingly different.

Which leads to the second problem: if you have a civ that's specialised in terrain no one else wants, you end up playing a rather non-interactive game since no one's going to be coveting your territory or having much other reason to value or interact with you (not so far removed from the Inuit in reality), and you aren't needing to compete with other players for their territory or to claim choice spots before they get there. I'd also expect replayability to be extremely limited due to the way snow is arrayed on maps - you're going to be settling a lot in a line along the poles, largely irrespective of what else is happening on the map.

Sure, you may want to break out of the polar regions to colonise other areas, since that's bound to be as good for you as for anyone else, but then you raise the question "So, what's the point of having an Inuit civ, again?" A Venice comparison may indeed be apt - I loved the idea in principle, but playing Venice is astonishingly dull, and not just because the civ appears overpowered.

This is why I'm against the Inuit particularly: in principle it's a stupid idea for a civ, but much more significantly I can't envisage a practical way of making them interesting without sacrificing the whole point of an Inuit civ - i.e. an association with an otherwise useless terrain type. Inuit's an idea that looks superficially "cool, no one's done that so it's a great idea!" but on examination is likely to produce the reaction "Ah, now I see why no one's done that - it's actually a pretty terrible idea".

In principle I can see ways to make Sumer quite unique, because really it was - this is a society that developed the first lasting urban centres, not an established society that sent out settlers on a predefined mission to found new colonies. It could have a new form of city settlement without going the Venice route; perhaps a UA that allows a Worker to found a Civ IV-style "cottage" that over time grows into a city. Something that really gives the feel of growing a civ completely from scratch.

 

[danieladler]

Too many civs already

 

[gunnergoz]

I'd like to see any or all of the following: the Phoenicians, Mycenaeans, and/or Etruscans. Ancient cultures, true but the actual precursors of many modern civs and for that reason I think they deserve a shot for a place in Sid Meier's Civ series.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Add Finland.

As for the Holy Roman Empire, my history professor in college said that the HRE was neither holy, Roman, or an Empire.

Your history professor was Voltaire