Which Civs would you include in Civ6?

[SS-18 ICBM]

Is the Edit option on one's posts invisible now or something?

A dog sled unit would be cool! (pun semi-intended )

I'm trying to figure out which unit that would replace. So far I'm thinking of a faster-moving Worker.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

so Western historians knows more about the Middle East than Poland?

Didn't say there weren't problems with the history of the middle east either. The extreme lack of public knowledge of world history is a shame and it does stem a great deal from modern politics, and other factors of course like geography, culture etc. And of course, lack of interest and time.

But the fact that Poland were seen as part of an evil empire for half a century, and all but cut off from western civilization certainly hasn't helped show their true colours through history. Poland hasn't been a big player in Europe since the 1700's like Sweden so it's less in the contemporary narrative to start with.

 

[Domen]

US became fully independent, and already in the 18th century - much earlier than Canada.

Moreover, the US is a major superpower now, while Canada never has been.

 

[Domen]

Also, Brazil is there to represent South America.

Not a very good reson to be there.

SA only had Inca in the whole Civ4.

If you want something in the Amazon river basin, let it be the Amazon civilization:

"The Rise and Fall of the Amazon Chiefdoms" by Anna C. Roosevelt:

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/hom_0439-4216_1993_num_33_126_369640

============================

Edit:

Brazil gained independence rather late compared to most of other states in South America:

 

[otaman1]

wait, what about Britain and US?

What do you mean? They're always gonna be in CiV, no matter what

 

[Domen]

If we assume Portugal is included, what would be their unique unit?

The bandeiras / paulistas aka slave hunters ??? ...

 

[Xandinho]

My ideas:

Vanilla:
America
A Native American
Arabia
Aztecs
Babylon
Brazil
Byzantium
Celts
China
Denmark
Egypt
England
Ethiopia
France
Germany
Greece
Inca
India
Indonesia
Japan
Korea
Ottomans
Persia
Rome
Russia
Siam
Spain

Expansion #1:
Austria
Carthage
Khmer
Maya
Mongolia
Netherlands
Poland
Polynesia
Portugal
Sumer
Sweden
Zulus

Expansion #2:
A Native American
Assyria
Canada
Hungary
Huns
Kongo
Morocco
Olmec
Songhai
Vietnam

 

[Arcanine101]

Didn't say there weren't problems with the history of the middle east either. The extreme lack of public knowledge of world history is a shame and it does stem a great deal from modern politics, and other factors of course like geography, culture etc. And of course, lack of interest and time.

But the fact that Poland were seen as part of an evil empire for half a century, and all but cut off from western civilization certainly hasn't helped show their true colours through history. Poland hasn't been a big player in Europe since the 1700's like Sweden so it's less in the contemporary narrative to start with.

no, I see your point. I said Poland isn't worthy to be in Civ and you said it is because it had a good empire in the East and that the public was just not well-informed because the Westerners didn't care about Eastern Europe history. Which I think is untrue because Russia and the Middle East are well-respected.

 

[Arcanine101]

I don't get why Siam and Khmer are seen as the same.
Spain and Portugal are the same and they both are in the game.
Scandinavia, Denmark and Sweden are the same and they both are in the game.

Siam is different to Khmer just as France is different to England.
In all actuality, I can find more differences in these two civilizations than Spain and Portugal and Scandinavia, Denmark and Sweden.

 

[Arcanine101]

oh, and add Germany and Austria in the comparison.
And Netherlands and either France or Germany.

 

[Guandao]

I don't get why Siam and Khmer are seen as the same.
Spain and Portugal are the same and they both are in the game.
Scandinavia, Denmark and Sweden are the same and they both are in the game.

Siam is different to Khmer just as France is different to England.
In all actuality, I can find more differences in these two civilizations than Spain and Portugal and Scandinavia, Denmark and Sweden.

Southeast Asian countries are the "same" to those not familiar to them. Khmer and Thai languages are unrelated to each other while most of Europe's languages are part of the same family.

 

[Guandao]

I would like them to change most of the leaders for Civ6. It does not always have to be the "greatest" ruler. Otherwise, it'll be boring. They can keep the same voice actors and have them say similar things. Why have Washington again when you can put Lincoln?

 

[Xandinho]

There are other civilizations that would also be nice to see in the game:

Gran Colombia
Empire of Benin
Belgium
Romania
Zapotec
Pakistan
Kongo

 

[Kyriakos]

Indeed Khmer is not the same as Siam, not in architecture, not in their capital, and not in the overall territory.

However it still is true that they were both powers in the very same region (southermost part of east Asia), most of their empires covered pretty much the same space, and Siam effectively replaced Khmer in the early medieval ages.

If only one of the two is in, i vote for Khmer, because it has an even more characteristic architecture of monuments (although Siam also has amazing architecture).

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

no, I see your point. I said Poland isn't worthy to be in Civ and you said it is because it had a good empire in the East and that the public was just not well-informed because the Westerners didn't care about Eastern Europe history. Which I think is untrue because Russia and the Middle East are well-respected.

I didn't say they don't care about the history of Eastern Europe. Russia is thoroughly examined because it was a superpower. The middle east is thoroughly examined because its in a state now and been analysed to death as to why. Poland has always been seen as a vassal, or that place that gets invaded and thus gets overlooked.

Before you go saying Poland isn't worthy of civ, ask yourself what you're basing that off? You seem to know little to nothing of it's history, at least i presume that's why you ask what it did of significance. So really you are saying Poland is undeserving because it's history hasn't been pronounced to the world. Because it isn't public knowledge. The reason it isn't in public knowledge is debatable and irrelevant really.

If you look into Poland's history yourself however, you may begin to understand why they have a place.

 

[Xandinho]

The Poland deserves to be in Civilization. The Poland was a great kingdom in the past and had a significant importance in the history of Europe. Today Poland is a member of NATO. I want to see Poland in Civilization 6

 

[BackseatTyrant]

Rather than saying what I'd like to see, let me tell you what I'd like to NOT see as civs in the next installment:

• Holy Roman Empire (Has more similarities with EU than with sovereign nations)
• Italy (I don't like the idea of ancient Rome and renaissance Rome spawning parallel to each other)
• Vikings (Not at all representative of Scandinavia, the way Firaxis did it in Civ5 was perfect)
• India (to lump together all these different cultural and political entities into one civ is a sin I cannot forgive)
• China (See India. Though China has in comparison, had a more unitary rule throughout history, so naming it Han China would make me a bit happier)
• The Zulus (Mutapa deserve that spot so much more)
• The Huns (They didn't have as much of a political entity as the Mongols did)
• Lumping all native American tribes into one Civ is another no-no.
• Polynesia (Like with India, it's better if it was split into Hawaii, Samoa, the Maoris etc)
• Greece (Rename Alexander the Great's reign to Macedon, and cont the Greek city-states as, well, city-states)
• Modern Israel (What would the inclusion of this civ imply, if other more important or interesting civs were excluded because of this?)
• Confederates, Nazis, Soviets etc. (NO.)
• Africa (Big. Fakkakkakkakkakking. NOOOOOOOOO.)

Hope I got that out of the way.

 

[W|M]

Sources ??? Proofs ???

Also do you mean that the people were rich or that the state treasury was rich, because these are two different things?

The state treasury of Spain was richer.

Some historical GDP per capita estimations here, but Portugal is not included:

http://www.notechmagazine.com/2011/...ce-as-well-off-as-todays-poorest-nations.html

Converter of past dollars to present dollars:

http://stats.areppim.com/calc/calc_usdlrxdeflator.php

Here's some information on the main Brazilian mining town. If you go inside any of the cathedrals, you see huge amounts of gold in them, even though most of the gold ended up with the Portuguese Crown.

Spain was bankrupt for much of the 17th Century and suffered massively from hyperinflation during this time.

Historical GDP and past dollar-current dollar estimates make no sense and are widely inaccurate.

 

[Domen]

If you go inside any of the cathedrals [in Portugal], you see huge amounts of gold in them

That the Church was rich, does not mean that the state / king and the people were too.

Actually, if the Church was so rich, it is quite likely that the king and / or the people were not.

and that the public was just not well-informed because the Westerners didn't care about Eastern Europe history

This should not be written in past tense, this should be written in present tense.

Westerns of the past were well-informed about Eastern European events. For example this guy (Henry Brereton):

http://archive.org/stream/cu31924028446072#page/n95/mode/2up

Title page:

 

[Domen]

They could inlude Czechia-Moravia (merging Great Moravia, kingdom of Bohemia, Czechoslovakia and Czech Republic in one civilization).