Which Civ we should have before Civilization VI?

[morgan_gibson87]

Why is Italy always missing on these polls?

Mainly because 'Italy' is not a civilisation. Italy unified in the 19th century. It is an agglomeration of different cultures, hence the deep divisions, for instance, between North and South.

Similarly, if countries like 'Canada' and 'Australia' are ever included in this or future iterations of the series, I will stop playing Civilization. Canada and Australia are not CIVILIZATIONS; they're not culturally or socially distinct from England, anymore than New Zealand etc is. Indeed, these countries best serve, as they do currently in the game, as sources for city-states (Melbourne, Toronto, Sydney etc).

 

[caketastydelish]

Not to mention both Rome and Venice are already in the game.

It would be even worse than asking for 'Iran' despite Persia already being there.

 

[morgan_gibson87]

It has to be Sumeria. They have the cultural and historical impact necessary to truly qualify as a civilization!

 

[Tyrvos]

I voted Australia, but really I think any late game team like Brazil. I think the games just lacking those teams.

 

[jaldaen]

It has to be Sumeria. They have the cultural and historical impact necessary to truly qualify as a civilization!

Sumeria would work as a new civilization since there is a definite scenario potential to them, although as Urdnot_Scott points out below, they are included in a Scanrio already.

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

Not really since they've already been included in the wonder scenario, it would be like saying we should add Kongo as then we could have some sort of scramble for Africa scenario

 

[Morningcalm]

Khazars, Hebrews and Sumeria are missing. Australia and Canada are not going to make it, nor should they (no offense). Civ should be more about "civs" than "nations" (though there are many notable European exceptions in Civ, to be sure).

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

(though there are many notable European exceptions in Civ, to be sure).

Who do you mean?

 

[caketastydelish]

Who do you mean?

Poland, and having both Denmark and Sweden rather than just 'vikings' to name two.

But at least those two had more historical significance (even as just a nation) than Canada or Australia by far.

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

Poland, and having both Denmark and Sweden rather than just 'vikings' to name two.

But at least those two had more historical significance (even as just a nation) than Canada or Australia by far.

Well, the Kingdom of Poland as it is currently, maybe, but mighty poland-lithuania? Surely you can't write them off? Large, powerful, a barrier to both Russian and Ottoman expansion AND knights with wings stuck on the back? come on, whats not to like?

Sweden isn't a representation of viking sweden, thats like saying we shouldnt have Germany, England and Holland, as all we need is Germanic Tribes. its a representation of the Empire of Sweden, the upholder of protestantism and a true great power in the 17th Century

though, I do agree about the colonial nations, a poor, boring and stupid idea, no offence guys!

 

[PhilBowles]

Not to mention both Rome and Venice are already in the game.

It would be even worse than asking for 'Iran' despite Persia already being there.

That at least would just be a name change (a name that's been used for the country in Farsi since the 2nd Century BC, I believe - it just took the rest of the world a little while to catch on). An Italy agglomeration would be more heinous - however a couple of the 'civs' suggested in the poll and in subsequent replies were no such things, and Mississippians (not in the poll, but suggested since) aren't even a definable ethnic group.

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

That still wouldn't work. The political issue with China is not the present occupation, it's the baggage that goes with it - in the same way that the Chinese don't claim Taiwan because they care about owning the island, they claim it because there are two competing concepts of who owns China: Taiwan doesn't claim independence from China, it claims rightful ownership of China (Taiwan was founded by rulers of an ousted dynasty, or something similar) - recognising an independent Taiwan would entail China recognising Taiwan's territorial claim to the mainland.

The Tibet situation is something similar. The current occupation is the latest phase in a cycle of invasions and counter-invasions of the same core territory, sometimes under Chinese governance and sometimes under Tibetan. Historical Tibet and modern China are essentially much the same empire under different rulers. Recognising Tibet as ever having been independent is a threat to the national One China philosophy, which forms the basis of the Chinese government's claim to all of its territory (Taiwan included), not merely to Tibet. Again, it's much more than a conflict over a rather undesirable tract of land. This is the case even though the Tibetan former governing class no longer makes any claims to Chinese territory, and indeed the Dalai Lama's official policy is reconciliation as an autonomous region of China, in exchange for China enforcing respect for Tibetan rights and Tibetan self-determination.

 

[tomtom5858]

Similarly, if countries like 'Canada' and 'Australia' are ever included in this or future iterations of the series, I will stop playing Civilization. Canada and Australia are not CIVILIZATIONS; they're not culturally or socially distinct from England, anymore than New Zealand etc is. Indeed, these countries best serve, as they do currently in the game, as sources for city-states (Melbourne, Toronto, Sydney etc).

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.

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

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.

Brazil is SHOCKINGLY distinct from portugal in its culture, history and social structure, perhaps the most so out of all colonial nations, even more than the US. Brazil somehow managed to create a culture not only unique from its mother state, but also from anything ever seen before. Its kind of amazing, canada managed to create... uh... um... Mounties (and arby n the chief but I dont think that'll score it many points on the civ list)

Besides, the important thing about Brazil in-game, is that it represents the Brazillian Empire, an enormous and successful state, how many other colonial nations created an empire?

 

[caketastydelish]

Well, the Kingdom of Poland as it is currently, maybe, but mighty poland-lithuania? Surely you can't write them off? Large, powerful, a barrier to both Russian and Ottoman expansion AND knights with wings stuck on the back? come on, whats not to like?

Hence my point. They were undeniably important as a 'nation' but not so much as a 'civilization'. (for the record, though, I'm all for Poland being in the game. Because for a civ to be in the game they should be either 1) an important nation or b) a unique CIVILIZATION that the game doesn't already have something representing. Hence why Poland made the cut but Canada or Australia haven't and frankly never should).

Sweden isn't a representation of viking sweden, thats like saying we shouldnt have Germany, England and Holland, as all we need is Germanic Tribes. its a representation of the Empire of Sweden, the upholder of protestantism and a true great power in the 17th Century

touché, but I still think you might as well go with 'vikings' that have one UU for the viking era, and perhaps a later one for that era. Germany has something very similar, and so does Japan.

That at least would just be a name change (a name that's been used for the country in Farsi since the 2nd Century BC, I believe - it just took the rest of the world a little while to catch on). An Italy agglomeration would be more heinous - however a couple of the 'civs' suggested in the poll and in subsequent replies were no such things,

Believe me when I say modern Italy is as different from modern Rome (by virtually every definition in the book) as ancient persia is to modern Iran.

Mississippians (not in the poll, but suggested since) aren't even a definable ethnic group.

I hope to God the 'Mississippians' guy was joking.

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

Hence my point. They were undeniably important as a 'nation' but not so much as a 'civilization'. (for the record, though, I'm all for Poland being in the game. Because for a civ to be in the game they should be either 1) an important nation or b) a unique CIVILIZATION that the game doesn't already have something representing. Hence why Poland made the cut but Canada or Australia haven't and frankly never should).

Ohh I get what you meant now, my bad ahaha. But then very few actually get in, I think it is measured off the importance of the sort of nation, thing, and in that case colonial civs are usually beaten.

touché, but I still think you might as well go with 'vikings' that have one UU for the viking era, and perhaps a later one for that era. Germany has something very similar, and so does Japan.

Well, since Denmark has a Norwegian UU, they sort of do cover the Scandinavian nations, (except Sweden, for good reason, like I said) so you could say they already have that in all but name, though vikings would be a little bit vague considering they weren't really unified at the time.

 

[caketastydelish]

Ohh I get what you meant now, my bad ahaha. But then very few actually get in, I think it is measured off the importance of the sort of nation, thing, and in that case colonial civs are usually beaten.



Well, since Denmark has a Norwegian UU, they sort of do cover the Scandinavian nations, (except Sweden, for good reason, like I said) so you could say they already have that in all but name, though vikings would be a little bit vague considering they weren't really unified at the time.

Idk, I think they should have just stuck with Denmark only they should have buffed up all of their stuff ((both UU's and UA) so they don't suck as a civ.

Besides, Sweden never has and never will be of world importance just because they host the 'nobel prize'.

edit: 'nobel prize' would not even be among the top ten things that come to my mind when I think of Sweden, and that's coming from an English major who's also had a fair few number of history classes.

 

[Catalytic]

Voted for Sioux.

I have, over the past few years, had a fascination with Native American tribal culture and would very much like to see more of it brought to the forefront of people's attention. I see video gaming as a way to bring attention to a people with a rich culture that's on it's way to becoming endangered, if not extinct.

That said, I think Inuit might actually offer the most interesting options in terms of pure gameplay. Snow in undoubtedly the least useful land in the game, aside from the rare oil well and no one even goes there aside from swatting a barb camp, or getting the achievement for the Danes. Tundra's nearly worthless and largely avoided, even with the better than average chances for deer, stone, oil, etc. An inuit civ could receive a UA or UI to take advantage of the "unwanted" land, or bonuses that played to a hunter-fisher culture vs a farming one, sort of a Morocco analog of the north.

 

[PhilBowles]

Believe me when I say modern Italy is as different from modern Rome (by virtually every definition in the book) as ancient persia is to modern Iran.

Or as Sengoku Japan is to Meiji Japan, both of which are represented as a single civ?

Even to take the Persia example, ancient Persia differs from modern Iran ... but the state was called Persia in the West until the Shah was overthrown in 1979, and Iran in Farsi from the 2nd Century BC. You can't neatly delineate the two entities by name. We only call the state "ancient Persia" because Persia was the country's name at the time archaeologists were first exploring it (just as Mesopotamia is the 19th Century name for that region), it wasn't the country's name in Darius' time. The civ itself has a medieval UB alongside an ancient UU, the two representing very different periods of Persian history.

I hope to God the 'Mississippians' guy was joking.

It's come up as a serious suggestion more often than I've seen the Inuit. Cahokia as a CS is a perfect representation.

 

[otaman1]

Besides, the important thing about Brazil in-game, is that it represents the Brazillian Empire, an enormous and successful state, how many other colonial nations created an empire?

Haiti and Mexico

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

Idk, I think they should have just stuck with Denmark only they should have buffed up all of their stuff ((both UU's and UA) so they don't suck as a civ.

Besides, Sweden never has and never will be of world importance just because they host the 'nobel prize'.

edit: 'nobel prize' would not even be among the top first things that come to my mind when I think of Sweden, and that's coming from a current English major who's also had a fair few number of history classes.

I agree, denmark do kind of suck, and a very specific Danish raiders civ would definatley have been nice, so yeah, you're right there.

I disagree here however, Sweden has and never will be of world importance because they host the nobel prize, they were however, important for the establishment of the Swedish Empire, unifying much of scandinavia and controlling the valuable Baltic sea, winning the 30 years war for protestantism, paving the way for diminished papal control and the extreme growth of the schism, Gustav Adolphus being among the greatest generals of all time, and for doing all this with some of the worst lands in europe. But hey, nobel prize is nice too eh