Which Civ we should have before Civilization VI?

[Depravo]

Al-Andalus would be interesting too, as a sort of science/culture hybrid civ (that may be stepping on Korea's toes gameplay-wise, mind).

Morocco is an adequate representation of the Maghreb / al-Andalus, at least for me.

 

[Depravo]

I think an inherent tundra/snow tile bonus would be awesome regardless of whether they reworked denmark with it or added some new civ. The sami deserve just as much representation as any native american civ which is represented in the game as they have similarly preserved much of their culture.

The inuit idk much about specifically but seriously a bonus on tundra/snow (or BOTH if you want an OP bonus) would make those lousy cities you always dread founding near the north and south edges of the map worthwhile. Possible a UI which could only be built on tundra/snow? This bonus would make that section of the map more relevant in the same way the unique improvements which can be built on deserts/flood plains (kasbah/polder) have.

Some places are just categorically worse for intensive human settlement than others. A pure hunter-gathering society in the high latitudes requires about 10 sq km per individual. This is exactly why there has never been a civilisation up there. Same goes for people lobbying for an Australian Aboriginal civ.

 

[pansitkanton]

Majapahit is basically the civ though (represented through the UA, UU and UB.) It's just called Indonesia for, what I imagine, is marketing purposes and accessibility.

If you can accept that, than we basically have a Majapahit civ (even says so in the leader intro screen). If not, then think of Indonesia as a historical, cultural, and geographical extension of Majapahit - because it mostly is.

Sure, but like what I said, the concept of Indonesia never existed at that time; there wasn't any "Indonesia." If Firaxis is trying to channel the Indonesian civilization with the political idea of the contemporary, then it's totally against what Majapahit was. Modern Indonesia is a unitary republic, with clearly defined sovereign powers and boundaries that reach up to the middle portion of New Guinea. Majapahit, on the other hand, is more loose and is based on patronage among lesser kingdoms, rajahnates and trade outposts. Its influence is more fluid and the extent only reached until the coastal areas of present-day Irian Jaya (West Guinea); however, it also reached southern portions of Thailand, Borneo and the Philippines. The map on the loading page partially shows "Indonesia's" territory which includes entire Borneo and the Malaya Peninsula. I suppose they are using the Majapahit territory as their basis, so why not just use Majapahit instead? The blur of naming by Firaxis creates a large confusion because these two entities are technically different.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Cahokia is a city state currently, and the Iroquois and the mississippians are two different entities operating for the most part in different time periods.

As has been pointed out, the Iroquois have nothing todo with Mississippians.

I know that, I actually lived 20 minutes from Cahokia (and even went there) until recently. I knew Cahokia was in the game and thought it had been included in the Iroquois city list but I was mistaken because it is a city state. I know they were completely different civilizations however.

I'd like to see them included, but they have the same problem the Olmec have: we dont know enough about them, both are fine as CS. There are other native civilizations we actually know a lot about that could make it in.

Well we do know quite a bit about them and we know they had massive influence over a great deal of North America. I'm not saying we know as much about them as say, the Aztecs and much of the reason why we don't know more is because the US foolishly didn't protect their cites. St. Louis was once called 'mound city' because of the number of Cahokian mounds that dotted the city. They were sadly all destroyed to use the dirt as back fill. Still, we know a lot about their culture, their practices and their architecture. Enough I think to make a new civ - especially as they would fill in a largely empty gap in North America.

About the Inuit and making use of tundra/snow, TBH I think Russia could be tweaked a little to take advantage of tundra (and fix the Krepost), and it would make sense flavour wise, I dont see the need to create a whole civ to use tundra, and unlike snow, jungle and desert already have interesting bonuses that make civs starting there even more interesting, I fear that Inuits would only make snow tiles ok, nothing outstanding.

Besides, I'd rather see the Haida,but thats just personal preference.

I agree Russia could utilize Tundra a lot more even though most of Russia's population lives far from it. However, I don't think there's a reason not to include the Inuit because tundra is boring or un-advantageous. They could be given lots of bonuses to offset the bleak terrain. Plus, they were a finalist in the last expansion but lost out to Brazil.

 

[Tachii]

Lol, I can't believe Canada is like the second most chosen here.

Well, I am Canadian, but we didn't really do that much at all. But I'd like to play it for well, I am a Canadian, lol.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Sure, but like what I said, the concept of Indonesia never existed at that time; there wasn't any "Indonesia." If Firaxis is trying to channel the Indonesian civilization with the political idea of the contemporary, then it's totally against what Majapahit was. Modern Indonesia is a unitary republic, with clearly defined sovereign powers and boundaries that reach up to the middle portion of New Guinea. Majapahit, on the other hand, is more loose and is based on patronage among lesser kingdoms, rajahnates and trade outposts. Its influence is more fluid and the extent only reached until the coastal areas of present-day Irian Jaya (West Guinea); however, it also reached southern portions of Thailand, Borneo and the Philippines. The map on the loading page partially shows "Indonesia's" territory which includes entire Borneo and the Malaya Peninsula. I suppose they are using the Majapahit territory as their basis, so why not just use Majapahit instead? The blur of naming by Firaxis creates a large confusion because these two entities are technically different.

The game uses (at least geographically) the modern entities of Germany, China, India, and so on to represent the entirety of their regions' history, so I don't think Indonesia/Majapahit is alone in that regard. Yes, the two are different, but this isn't a PI game where the historical accuracy of names is much more important - they need something accessible to most people. Majapahit isn't as accessible as Indonesia similarly to how Gupta or Maghada or even Mughals aren't as accessible as India. Whether you agree or not of course is another matter, but that's where the devs' logic stands.

 

[SnowKomodo]

The game uses (at least geographically) the modern entities of Germany, China, India, and so on to represent the entirety of their regions' history, so I don't think Indonesia/Majapahit is alone in that regard. Yes, the two are different, but this isn't a PI game where the historical accuracy of names is much more important - they need something accessible to most people. Majapahit isn't as accessible as Indonesia similarly to how Gupta or Maghada or even Mughals aren't as accessible as India. Whether you agree or not of course is another matter, but that's where the devs' logic stands.

Not to mention blob civs like Polynesia (includes everything from Hawaii to the Maori people) to Shoshone (includes both the Shoshone and Comanche tribes)

I don't see why Indonesia is constantly singled out in this regard when they are just as culturally and historically connected as the other civs with modern names

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Lol, I can't believe Canada is like the second most chosen here.

Well, I am Canadian, but we didn't really do that much at all. But I'd like to play it for well, I am a Canadian, lol.

I said earlier a Canadian or Australian civ would strictly be 'fan service'. Absolutely no offense intended, but neither civilization have contributed greatly or had a turn in the spot light on the world stage in a way that warrants a dedicated civ. I like Canada and Australia, but their inclusion over other civs don't make a lot of sense to me.

 

[SnowKomodo]

I said earlier a Canadian or Australian civ would strictly be 'fan service'. Absolutely no offense intended, but neither civilization have contributed greatly or had a turn in the spot light on the world stage in a way that warrants a dedicated civ. I like Canada and Australia, but their inclusion over other civs don't make a lot of sense to me.

I think the fan service reason is a more than sensible point of justification. I mean, the devs were even close to including them in BNW if not for Brazil

This is just a video game, remember, the fans are what it's all about

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I know and I expect it will happen. In a perfect world where the devs had unlimited time and resources to work on any and all civs they wanted, I'd even support it. But, given the limits that reality presents, I personally don't think it's a great move to implement them. That said, as you say, fan service is important. I'm just saying it doesn't make much sense from a gameplay standpoint or for a balance-of-civs state.

 

[ehecatzin]

I think the reason Brazil got in instead of Canada or Australia is precisely because they are not an english speaking nation (and we already have America covering the anglo post-colonial spot).

England-America, Portugal-Brazil and Spain-(Mexico,Colombia or Argentina), nothing against Canada and Australia, but I just dont see them getting in before a spanish speaking latin american civ, besides any of the latin americans could feature really interesting scenarios.

 

[Depravo]

Sure, but like what I said, the concept of Indonesia never existed at that time; there wasn't any "Indonesia." If Firaxis is trying to channel the Indonesian civilization with the political idea of the contemporary, then it's totally against what Majapahit was. Modern Indonesia is a unitary republic, with clearly defined sovereign powers and boundaries that reach up to the middle portion of New Guinea. Majapahit, on the other hand, is more loose and is based on patronage among lesser kingdoms, rajahnates and trade outposts. Its influence is more fluid and the extent only reached until the coastal areas of present-day Irian Jaya (West Guinea); however, it also reached southern portions of Thailand, Borneo and the Philippines.

So your problem with Indonesia is that the modern state is different in extent, name and nature from older civs in the same area with more or less spurious links to it? How is this any different from any other civ in the game?

 

[Benacer]

Hittites please. Some UA having to do with iron monopoly, that would be awesome.

 

[EricTheGreat12]

I like the idea of civs that are on this thread, but what I would really like is a bunch of new civs that are used in the already made scenarios and other ones. I find like Cold war, World War I and II, Americain Revolution and the Chinese Revolution with a bunch of new and good choice of civs will make the scenarios funner and more interesting than they already are.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I love the fact that Canada is leading the vote despite everybody not wanting it in.

 

[PhilBowles]

Not to mention blob civs like Polynesia (includes everything from Hawaii to the Maori people) to Shoshone (includes both the Shoshone and Comanche tribes)

I don't see why Indonesia is constantly singled out in this regard when they are just as culturally and historically connected as the other civs with modern names

Probably partly because Indonesia is seen as an essentially Dutch creation rather than an indigenous entity, so it gets thrown in the same basket as other "post-colonial" civs (as alluded to in the complaint above that points to its European-derived modern governance), and also partly because of people wanting a specifically Majapahit civ. India gets the same kind of flak, for both reasons - it's a colonial creation in the form represented, and many people want the Mughals.

Indonesia is in fact much truer to Majapahit than India is to the Mughals by having its UU, UB and leader all from the Majapahit period (and a UA that applies to both pre- and colonial periods).

Personally I don't care about the civ name (I often point out that it's a bizarre anachronism, but I don't lobby for renaming Siam because that's not the civ primarily represented in-game), but I would have much preferred a Majapahit-era city list.

 

[Danielion]

I love the fact that Canada is leading the vote despite everybody not wanting it in.

Popular choices are often the most reviled of them all. I don't mind Canada.

Probably partly because Indonesia is seen as an essentially Dutch creation rather than an indigenous entity, so it gets thrown in the same basket as other "post-colonial" civs (as alluded to in the complaint above that points to its European-derived modern governance),

By the way, in Dutch people have a saying "zo dronken als een Maleier" ('as drunk as a Malay'), which obviously is an expression from the colonial past of the Dutch Empire. Totally irrelevant of course.

 

[SnowKomodo]

Probably partly because Indonesia is seen as an essentially Dutch creation rather than an indigenous entity, so it gets thrown in the same basket as other "post-colonial" civs (as alluded to in the complaint above that points to its European-derived modern governance), and also partly because of people wanting a specifically Majapahit civ. India gets the same kind of flak, for both reasons - it's a colonial creation in the form represented, and many people want the Mughals.

Indonesia is in fact much truer to Majapahit than India is to the Mughals by having its UU, UB and leader all from the Majapahit period (and a UA that applies to both pre- and colonial periods).

Personally I don't care about the civ name (I often point out that it's a bizarre anachronism, but I don't lobby for renaming Siam because that's not the civ primarily represented in-game), but I would have much preferred a Majapahit-era city list.

Indonesia essentially a Dutch creation = no.

Indonesia an extension of the Majapahit and its previous Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, and Dutch rules = yes. The Dutch have special status within this list as a colonizer, but the concept of a unified Indonesia on a geographical and social scale had begun to form during the Majapahit era. The Dutch were merely responsible for strengthening this platform of ideas into something more tangible when Indonesian intellectuals declared independence in the wake of Dutch rule

But to be fair you did say partly

 

[otaman1]

Indonesia in CiV clearly represents the Majapahit Empire, with its UU, UB, and leader.

 

[Louis XXIV]

But not its UA.