Which Civ we should have before Civilization VI?

Which Civ we need?

  • Timurid

    Votes: 21 3.5%
  • Khmer

    Votes: 27 4.5%
  • Holy Roman Empire

    Votes: 41 6.9%
  • Australia

    Votes: 33 5.5%
  • Gran Colombia

    Votes: 21 3.5%
  • Sumerians

    Votes: 54 9.0%
  • Nepal

    Votes: 11 1.8%
  • Mughal Empire

    Votes: 15 2.5%
  • Hungary

    Votes: 49 8.2%
  • Hittites

    Votes: 36 6.0%
  • Canada

    Votes: 67 11.2%
  • Argentina

    Votes: 11 1.8%
  • Inuit

    Votes: 38 6.4%
  • Sioux

    Votes: 25 4.2%
  • Mali

    Votes: 10 1.7%
  • Kongo

    Votes: 49 8.2%
  • Swali

    Votes: 5 0.8%
  • Other (I purposely not put Israel and Tibet)

    Votes: 85 14.2%

  • Total voters
    598
Honestly, my heart goes to the Khmer. But my reason strongly claims Sumerians. Why ? Simple : a game called civilization is not "perfect", although I'd replace the word for "complete", without the "first civilization". So, I'll go with Sumerians. They're primordial as the first civilization. I wouldn't counting from 2 or 3, but from 1.
 
Honestly, my heart goes to the Khmer. But my reason strongly claims Sumerians. Why ? Simple : a game called civilization is not "perfect", although I'd replace the word for "complete", without the "first civilization". So, I'll go with Sumerians. They're primordial as the first civilization. I wouldn't counting from 2 or 3, but from 1.

The first civilization according to whom is a question that comes to mind. it's all subjective, which is why they aren't in at the moment. I'd like to see them too, but not because they may be the "first" civilization. They were a dominant civilization in their time, and that's good enough for me. :goodjob:
 
Too many ethnic civs in the poll. We need more European and/or Commonwealth civs.
 
Tally ho then,

I vote Uganda, Guyana, Papua New Guinea and Bangladesh as my top 4. :goodjob:

In other news, i really hope you are being sarcastic...

Only 3/9 civs in BNW were European. Last thing we need are more obscure Asian or African civs.
 
Honestly, my heart goes to the Khmer. But my reason strongly claims Sumerians. Why ? Simple : a game called civilization is not "perfect", although I'd replace the word for "complete", without the "first civilization". So, I'll go with Sumerians. They're primordial as the first civilization. I wouldn't counting from 2 or 3, but from 1.
I completely agree. They're at least a much stronger choice than ing Israel... Seriously, why do some of you people want to see Israel, of all things, as a full-fledged civilisation? Ancient Israel was on the whole pretty insignificant, and modern Israel is way too controversial, as has been stated many times, and far too reliant on its powerful allies (i.e. the USA) to be considered a great power.
 
Only 3/9 civs in BNW were European. Last thing we need are more obscure Asian or African civs.
And why do you think they're considered "obscure", according to you? Perhaps because you have a way too eurocentric view of history? There's nothing wrong in broadening the horizons of one's audiences, and present to them the history and "character" of great civilisations they may not have heard of. I, at least, enjoy reading the Civilopedia entries on the various civilisations. I think that Songhay was an excellent choice in this regard.
 
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.

No, both the PRC and the ROC acknowledge Tibet was not de jure part of China until the Yuan dynasty. There is no comparison with Taiwan.

I don't know where this assumption the inclusion of Tibet under a pre-modern leader will automatically lead to the game being banned in China comes from. And even if it might, when did we become so unbelievably weak? I'm better-disposed towards the PRC than the average bear, but caving in to pressure groups in defiance of history puts us ever further down a very dark path.
 
I think the concept of adding a tiny native american tribe is shortsighted. That's the equivalent of adding the Alemanni, Cherusci, or any of the other 30 or so German tribes in place of Germany, or any of the 30 or so Gallic tribes in place of France, or the state of Tennessee instead of the United States.

Therefore, what I would have preferred to see would have been a nation called Native Americans. In fact, they were one people originating from the same area (Northeast Asia) that nomadically crossed into North America over the Bearing Straight and the chain of islands in the Pacific.
 
And why do you think they're considered "obscure", according to you? Perhaps because you have a way too eurocentric view of history? There's nothing wrong in broadening the horizons of one's audiences, and present to them the history and "character" of great civilisations they may not have heard of. I, at least, enjoy reading the Civilopedia entries on the various civilisations. I think that Songhay was an excellent choice in this regard.

If Civ V had been developed by an Asian company, it would be Asian-centric. If Civ V had been developed by an African company, it would be African-centric. Civ V was developed by a western company, therefore it should be western/eurocentric.
 
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?

From European colonies Mexico, Vietnam and the Central African Republic have been 'empires' too. Anyway Brazil is a fait accompli regardless of its civilisationitudinal legitimacy.
 
I think "Inuit" as a civ is a bit ridiculous considering how small their population was, how little they built in terms of infrastructure, and how little technological progress they made.
 
I think "Inuit" as a civ is a bit ridiculous considering how small their population was, how little they built in terms of infrastructure, and how little technological progress they made.

I concur.
 
Only 3/9 civs in BNW were European. Last thing we need are more obscure Asian or African civs.

From your blase use of "ethnic" as a derogatory slander of the world outside Europe to your ignorance of what constitutes the commonwealth, i would recommend you go and read up on what your asking not to be included before you write it off. You could surprise yourself :goodjob:

They are only obscure because the west likes hiding in its own little past fantasy :p Obscurity is very subjective.

If Civ V had been developed by an Asian company, it would be Asian-centric. If Civ V had been developed by an African company, it would be African-centric. Civ V was developed by a western company, therefore it should be western/eurocentric.

What an odd argument, I thought we'd grown out of "an eye for an eye"? It shouldn't be anything-centric. Obviously that's difficult as everything is the product of the society it's constructed in. However, that should stop us trying to expand our horizons. Civ 5 SHOULD be a fair representation of everything that encompasses a very broad definition of civilization, regardless of geography, time or any other superficial generalization.
 
1. Vietnam
2. Sumeria
3. Ukraine
4. Hungary
5. Khmer
6. Kongo
7. Mexico/Argentina/other Latin American civ?
8. Timurid/other central Asian civ?
9. Yugoslavia/Bulgaria/Romania/etc
 
mhh on that list I'd vote Sumerians and the Holy Roman Empire.

But personally I feel there is already enough civs. Adding another ten or so could become a bit ridiculous...
 
Back
Top Bottom