Which Civ we should have before Civilization VI?

[Urdnot_Scott]

Haiti and Mexico

Okay I should have been more specific, an Empire that lasted at least 10 years

 

[PhilBowles]

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

I see Sweden as a civ added because of the available leader choice rather than the civ. The UA plays in an interesting way, but has no connection to the "Nobel Prize" title (EDIT: which, incidentally, is hosted by Norway. Alfred Nobel was Swedish, but the prizes have nothing at all to do with Sweden) and the Carolean could almost as easily have been any other civ's rifle UU. It's not an obviously "Swedish" civ in theme.

This strongly contrasts with Denmark, whose UA and Berserkers make them a great "Viking" civ, and I feel the power of essentially free embarking/disembarking is overlooked. It's brilliant for quick exploring in the early game, rapid settlement on islands, and of course the raiding it's thematically designed for.

 

[caketastydelish]

Haiti and Mexico

Brazil is of much more world importance than either of those countries, especially Haiti. Were it not for the large number of Mexican immigrants Americans would know virtually nothing about Mexico. For the record I'm not trying to put them down, I'm just saying the developers are limited in time and resources so they have to prioritize.

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

Perhaps they should give Rome a modern unit that was used after the formation of Italy as a country. Not only do Bastilla's suck, but with the sole exception of the Huns I really hate it when both of a Civ's UU's come from the very same era anyway.

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.

Dude, I am an Iranian-American with an 'ask a persian' thread on this very site; you're preaching to the choir.

Anyway, the name is irrelevant. I know Iran was always called Iran by the Iranians themselves, but the name is just a name, and the political territory of the land (just to start us off with) of modern Iran and ancient Persia are vastly different, and that's just the very first thing off the list. Even if Italy was still called Rome to this day it wouldn't make a difference to me because they're different for all practical means and purposes except 1) the modern country more or less involves the 'center of gravity' in terms of geographical location to the ancient one and 2) they both have the same name.
It's come up as a serious suggestion more often than I've seen the Inuit. Cahokia as a CS is a perfect representation.

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

I see Sweden as a civ added because of the available leader choice rather than the civ. The UA plays in an interesting way, but has no connection to the "Nobel Prize" title and the Carolean could almost as easily have been any other civ's rifle UU. It's not an obviously "Swedish" civ in theme.

This strongly contrasts with Denmark, whose UA and Berserkers make them a great "Viking" civ, and I feel the power of essentially free embarking/disembarking is overlooked. It's brilliant for quick exploring in the early game, rapid settlement on islands, and of course the raiding it's thematically designed for.

Yeah, but I still think, leader or not, they deserve their place. The Carolean may be not very specialized, but in reality, they weren't anything more than just very well organised and powerful soldiers, so giving them a promotion that makes them more powerful makes sense, if it is a little bit boring. Besides, the UA is linked to the Nobel prize in that it generates science through being peaceful, which is obviously linked to the Nobel prize.

Denmark may be fun to play and for raiding, the problem is just that this doesnt lend itself to any victory, taking cities is still difficult inland, and the beserker is kind of boring, I think it could do with a teeeeny tweak to the beserker and you'd be good, I love playing them and don't think they need to be changed dramatically like others here

 

[synulia]

Vancouver!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZDdcO4_5wA

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

Vancouver!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZDdcO4_5wA

Well its decided, Canada really cannot be a civ after I've seen this...

 

[ahawk]

Holy Roman Empire, given that it was a significant empire and that it appeared in Civ 4.

Honestly, HRE, as well as Australia, Canada, Mexico, and Nigeria should all also be included. All the countries I just listed have reasonably large populations or landmass, and I'm a bit surprised that BNW actually didn't add any of these, especially since (other than HRE) they are all more modern states and BNW focuses on late game.

 

[jaldaen]

If Canada becomes a civilization, then Mexico should, too... and it should be a Double Civ pack. The scenario could be set between 1810-1860 and called Manifest Destiny. That way you have a bunch of wars going on. Mexico's War of Independence, War of 1812, various Indian Wars (Creek, Seminole, Apache, etc.), Mexican-American War, etc.

Actually, that might make a cool mod... hmmm... make it so modders!

 

[Phrozen]

I voted other.

I would like to see the Haida or Salish to represent the Pacific Northwest tribes who were non-migratory and had a trading network extending from British Columbia down to Oregon. Funnily, enough the totem poles and animal representations in the tribes art is more well known then the actual tribes.

The other I would like to see is the Cherokee or Seminole tribes. The five "civilized" tribes are not represented at all.

 

[PhilBowles]

Perhaps they should give Rome a modern unit that was used after the formation of Italy as a country. Not only do Bastilla's suck, but with the sole exception of the Huns I really hate it when both of a Civ's UU's come from the very same era anyway.

I wouldn't want to see that, quite apart from the paucity of suitable post-unification Italian units. Rome is best-known for its military, and has a lot of characteristically Roman military units; if it's to be stuck with only one 'Roman' UU I'd prefer it to be because they get a UB in the Ballista's place (the Colosseum as a generic building is a holdover from a time before UBs existed).

In general I prefer a civ to represent a single, coherent historical period rather than an amalgam of the society's entire history, but I still prefer one civ per country/empire - if England was a wholly Elizabethan civ, without the Ship of the Line or a UA called Sun Never Sets, I'd still recognise it as representing prior medieval England, the pre-unification Anglo-Saxon states, Industrial Era Britain and the modern country all in one.

Denmark may be fun to play and for raiding, the problem is just that this doesnt lend itself to any victory, taking cities is still difficult inland, and the beserker is kind of boring, I think it could do with a teeeeny tweak to the beserker and you'd be good, I love playing them and don't think they need to be changed dramatically like others here

I think it's fine for a civ to be a "theme civ" without needing to be 'top tier' by any means. In fact this is exactly what they should do with DLC civs to my mind, rather than trying to sell them on the basis of their strength. Lots of UAs don't directly lend themselves to any victory. I haven't tried Denmark since BNW hit, but the general improvement to the Iron Working path and greater ease of settling sites with iron should help Longsword replacements as well as other units. The Longswordsman's a good unit, and +1 movement is a strong boost - without changing the tech tree to delay Gunpowder a bit more I'm not sure the Berserker can be usefully boosted.

 

[ACivFan]

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.

If Champa ever makes it to the game, it should represent itself, a Chamic civilization, and not Vietnam. The Viets weren't the offsprings of the Chams. The two groups co-existed for millenia, and saved for the second half of the 13th century, when Mongolia invaded the Indochina peninsula, the two had been each other's number-one enemy, highest on the list of neighbors to be removed from existence.

Worse yet, unlike the Siamese and the Khmer who were fighting, too, but share similar culture, conflicting cultures was one of the very reasons the Viets and the Chams were trying to split each other's throat.

 

[PhilBowles]

If Champa ever makes it to the game, it should represent itself, a Chamic civilization, and not Vietnam. The Viets weren't the offsprings of the Chams. The two groups co-existed for millenia, and saved for the second half of the 13th century, when Mongolia invaded the Indochina peninsula, the two had been each other's number-one enemy, highest on the list of neighbors to be removed from existence.

Worse yet, unlike the Siamese and the Khmer who were fighting, too, but share similar culture, conflicting cultures was one of the very reasons the Viets and the Chams were trying to split each other's throat.

I can see the reasoning behind that, but Civ design seems to delineate by geographical region - hence India and the Mughals together, and "Siam" being represented primarily (leader, city list and UA name) by a non-Thai society the Siamese conquered.

I'd have put the Khmer high on the list of Cham enemies as well - the Champa did capture Yasodharapura; the Bayon is dedicated to Jaryavarman VII's formative victory in finally defeating Champa incursions into Khmer territory and recapturing the historical capital.

 

[kingofsealand]

Got an idea from your name...

I want Sealand!!!!

Thats what my names for! lol i think the whole thing is funny what would their special ability be? I know they can found a city on a water tile which no other enemies can attack making domination victory impossible. Also the water tile city gets to have a colocation center.

 

[kingofsealand]

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.

sealand is no joke, for i am its king and may smite you in fury

 

[caketastydelish]

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

Fair enough, but in that case give them a UA that isn't a joke. You might as well give America a UA called 'Mcdonalds'

 

[ehecatzin]

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

Yeah I agree with you, however if they wanted a civ to actually choose Judaism, the Khazars could be an interesting choice.

 

[cecilbturtle]

It's a game, after all, so I really don't understand the whole "not worthy" argument. Instead of finding the most deserving civ I'd prefer they looked at the overall game mechanics and picked a civs for the sake of greater gameplay diversity. For that reason I'd love to see, for example, a Inuit civ that can use tundra tiles or a Swiss civ focused on neutrality...

 

[kingofsealand]

Hungary isnt a bad idea or to expand upon my earlier idea a livonian civilization combining the areas that are today latvia and estonia. Lithuania really should not be lumped together because the inhabitants have ethnically different origins. Lithuania on the other hand would be really cool and is not altogether properly represented by poland. Especially as a pagan civ with piety bonuses they could be fun.

 

[ACivFan]

I can see the reasoning behind that, but Civ design seems to delineate by geographical region - hence India and the Mughals together, and "Siam" being represented primarily (leader, city list and UA name) by a non-Thai society the Siamese conquered.

Let's put it like this, the Shoshones can represent North America, a geographical area, but they can't represent the U.S., a cultural and political entity. Likewise, Champa can represent the Indochina peninsula, but they can't represent Vietnam.

The relationship between Champa and Vietnam is analogous to that between Tibet and China. One gobbled the other and went on to form a united nation state. If Firaxis is to take side, they will always choose to please the victorious one over the extinct political entity. China would be mad if Tibet is added to the game, but China would go berserk if Tibet is added to the game to represent China. Likewise is the emotion of Vietnam. Of course, Vietnam doesn't bear the clout that China has, so I think it's ok for Firaxis to go ahead and add Champa as an independent civ to the game. However, to have Champa-representing-Vietnam is a step too far.

P.S. Since you brought India and the Mughals up, notice how Firaxis tried to please India over the Mughals when naming the blob. Firaxis' policy has always been pleasing existing political entities over the extinct ones.

 

[Heart Break Kid]

I don't get why some people say Civs cannot join because they were not "important" enough. What exactly makes a Civilization important? I mean how on earth are Mexico and Israel not influential civilizations? People know things about their culture from all over the world, which is something you can't say about most Civilizations.

Aside from that, who cares? It is a dream scenario video game, where you get all these different groups of nations/tribes duking it out with each other in various ways. Why does a Civilization need to be "important", it serves no relevance to the game or what the game tries to accomplish.