Which Civ we should have before Civilization VI?

[God of Kings]

Canada should be in. It is the only G8 country not to have its own civ in any Civ game.

 

[ferretbacon]

1. Nepal because the game still has room for more Asian civs, and the Himalayan region is unrepresented (and so someone can interact with mountains)

2. The Inuit (so someone can interact with snow/ice tiles)

3. HRE because I'm in the minority that would love to have them back. Charlemagne is an interesting character, the Landsknecht could be moved over (giving Germany more opportunity to change), and Dark Age Europe could get some solid representation. I posited an HRE idea a while back... off the top of my head, the UA was:

Patchwork Empire: Assume direct control over allied city-state's military units during war. Receive GPT from each allied city-state when at peace.

In my opinion, this would simultaneously represent the patchwork nature of the HRE (holding various non-contiguous client states) and would also represent feudal levies/taxation.

The UB I came up with was the Abbey, which was a library replacement; same as the library, except that it cost more hammers, provided 1 faith per turn, and gave you 3 science per 2 population instead of 2. It was inspired by the Carolingian Renaissance.

 

[Merciorum]

Canada should be in. It is the only G8 country not to have its own civ in any Civ game.

Canada fails on A) diversity and B) world contribution. Not that Canada isn't freaking awesome (Vimy Ridge alone proves that, as well as Eskimos and the CN Tower and shizzle) but I don't think it has yet become important enough to be a civ.

 

[Blackknight1239]

Canada fails on A) diversity and B) world contribution. Not that Canada isn't freaking awesome (Vimy Ridge alone proves that, as well as Eskimos and the CN Tower and shizzle) but I don't think it has yet become important enough to be a civ.

Was Peacekeeping and the UN not good enough for you?

 

[Titanis Walleri]

I would really like to see Australia or Israel the most.

 

[caketastydelish]

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.

First of all, I wouldn't call a one-city civ (venice) 'overpowered' by any definition. Second, the civs that already have terrain based bonuses like the inuits would hypothetically (Aztecs, Iriquois, etc) are far from boring. The game can still be plenty interactive, but that's even besides the point. What if someone is going for something besides a conquest victory and just wants to be left alone? They'd have a halfway decent chance, even on a higher difficulty setting. It could be seen as an alternative Civ for non-conquest victories as opposed to Poland/Egypt/France.

For instance, there are a hell of a lot of Conquest civs, but no two are exactly identical. America is all about depriving your closest neighbors of land to prevent them from getting the good tiles, then eventually wipe them out since you have superior resources on your side (the +1 vision helps a lot too, in fact that part probably helps even more).

Aztecs are probably the most 'straightforward' conquest civ for obvious reasons.

Assyria and the Huns have great UU/UA's for conquest (although even between the two of them, you go about it somewhat differently).

And so on and so forth.

In terms of using Civs for specific victory types, if anything it's the conquest civs that are overdone. If the inuits got a) a UA that allowed Tundra tiles to be useful, B) a UU (preferably a defensive one) that retained its bonus even after upgrading it to a later era unit and C) a UB that increased culture/science/something non-combat related, I think they would be pretty darn interesting.

Also, Venice is cool.

 

[eldiablonoche]

Canada fails on A) diversity and B) world contribution. Not that Canada isn't freaking awesome (Vimy Ridge alone proves that, as well as Eskimos and the CN Tower and shizzle) but I don't think it has yet become important enough to be a civ.

Totally. I mean... what has Canada ever contributed to the world? We've never invented anything.

 

[jaldaen]

Based on what Firaxis has done in the past, whatever Civilization(s) is chosen, it will have a scenario attached to it. Of course, maybe Firaxis will give us another Double Civilization pack, though again, there'll probably be some kind of scenario with two interrelated Civilizations. So the question should be, "What possible civilization(s) would provide us with the most interesting scenario?"

Right now, a lot of the suggestions don't really strike me as high concept enough to have a scenario that sets itself apart from already established scenarios.

Hmmm... I wonder if I should make a separate thread to discuss possible DLC in this light. Or should I just leave it here... Hmmm.

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

Totally. I mean... what has Canada ever contributed to the world? We've never invented anything.

They've invented less than Scotland, and no-one is clamoring for their inclusion. I love Canada but I also agree that as of yet they've not done enough to be considered alongside the Roman Empire and China as 'Civs'

 

[Talcove]

Greenland should be in. Yes.
In all seriousness, my vote goes to Canada first, and Argentina second (if only because I love the musical, 'Evita').

 

[AtlantaMarty]

Israel and Tibet would actually make the most sense. I vote for those two. Screw the controversy!

I agree with Tibet - they could easily get around China by using some 9th century leader instead of His Holiness, The 14th Dalai Lama.

But I would rather have Absaroka as a nation than Israel. It is an apartheid state created by the ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinian people. I do not recognize it. I wait for the day when all of Palestine will be returned non-violently to the Palestinian people.

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

It is an apartheid state created by the ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinian people. I do not recognize it. I wait for the day when all of Palestine will be returned non-violently to the Palestinian people.

And THIS kind of controversy is exactly why we say we can't have Israel as civ people...

 

[caketastydelish]

I can't honestly think of a single reason for Canada being in the game with the sole exception being an overwhelming demand from fans of the game, and frankly I don't see that happening.

I mean, if the fans demand some stupid pop culture reference like a 'gangamn style' civilization, or a 'zombie' civilization or some other trash, then sure. But if there's no particular demand one way or the other, they should go by default with civs that are more historically important.

 

[Merciorum]

Was Peacekeeping and the UN not good enough for you?

No.

Totally. I mean... what has Canada ever contributed to the world? We've never invented anything.

Same can be said of most every country in history. Sure, Canada has contributed stuff- a fair amount- but it hasn't yet had enough of an impact.

With regards to Israel- yes, it was important, but again, not important enough. People going on about "ethnic cleansing" reeeeeally need to calm down right about now and think about what they're saying. And then shut up, because it's hopelessly off-topic.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I'm really intrigued by the idea of an Omani or Swahili civ.

Also, i will cry if Canada or Australia or Argentina get in ahead of some other civs. I don't mind if they are added eventually (as dlc so they can be skipped...) but surely there are more pressing options to choose from first? A lot of us here seem to be blinded by our own times.

 

[eldiablonoche]

And THIS kind of controversy is exactly why we say we can't have Israel as civ people...

Yup. Modern Israel is too controversial and Ancient Israel is too debateably unimportant.

 

[caketastydelish]

Yup. Modern Israel is too controversial and Ancient Israel is too debateably unimportant.

Modren Israel is too unimportant as well. It's a country with only roughly 7 million people (lots of cities have more than all of Israel combined), there are counties in west Texas with much more land than Israel, etc.

Just because the rest of the world is obsessed with Israel (either being for it or against it) does not make it particularly important if you ask me. I mean if you're going to add modern Israel to the game you'd be better off adding Canada instead, and that's WITHOUT factoring in the stupid controversy around it.

Canada has more land than Israel to the point of no comparison, and even a much larger population despite the fact that Canada is relatively unpopulated. It's also been a country for much longer than 'modern Israel'.

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

Was Peacekeeping and the UN not good enough for you?

Yep, which is why I'd like to campaign for a Bangladeshi civ, who currently contribute almost 7000 more troops to UN peacekeeping than Canada. Or perhaps Jordan, currently contributing 1000 (more than 20x as many as Canada) more troops, despite having 1/6 of the population. Mate, if you want your country in for patriotic reasons, just say, but don't make up stupid reasons for their inclusion.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Well, I do think the Merkava would make a very good UU. While there's certainly a debate overall about Israel's influence, its military influence today is undeniably significant.

 

[caketastydelish]

Well, I do think the Merkava would make a very good UU. While there's certainly a debate overall about Israel's influence, its military influence today is undeniably significant.

Only within that immediate region, where there neighbors are second rate competitors at best. When I think of 'worlds strongest modern military' Israel wouldn't even be on the list. On a per-capita basis their military is amazing, but that doesn't mean the brute force of virtually every other country with a much larger population/resources should be overlooked.

For example, America, Russia, China and most (if not all) western Euro civs could easily beat Israel any day of the week.