Which of these civilizations do you hope to see?

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm still curious to see the set of independent criteria you would use to generate a satisfactory list of civs. (Where independent criteria are criteria that can be applied to every potential civilization without consideration of the placement of other civs on the list.)

That's not quite a challenge - I don't feel confident either way in whether such a set of criteria can be constructed. But I'd rather see these criteria in practice rather than just accepting such a set exists based on the idea.

If a good set of criteria can't be listed at all, it's not that valuable a claim to say that such criteria that includes a particular civilization can't be listed.

And if such a set of criteria can be listed, well, I'm just curious what yours personally would be anyway.

People are using criteria whether they look at it or not. If they weren't the civ pool would look different over the years.

When I'm not posting from my phone I'll take a stab at the list I'd use later. This is too slow.

 

[AbsintheRed]

That's why I said beyond preference. You need some reasonable criteria to include civs or not include them.

I made a strong claim: there's nothing you can use besides preference that would consistently include Phoenicia unless the civ pool is large. This claim can be viewed as a challenge; I'm basically saying that I don't believe that posters can come up with criteria that will include Phoenicia without excluding civs in every title or more deserving civs based on their on stated standards.

If you don't believe me or want to show me I'm wrong, completely scratch preference as a factor and try to come up with that inclusion criteria.

Actually I meant preference for choosing which criterias to use, not preference for the civ itself.
So yeah, I'm saying that it's not impossible at all that someone has specific criterias (and I mean generic criterias here), in which Phoenicia is in the top30 civs.

To use my previous example, a perfectly valid criteria (and one which I would definitely use) would be to exclude all civs which started as modern colonies. Or we can just say all civs which didn't exist before 1500AD, to avoid the confusion with ancient Greek colonies.
Someone might even have a criteria that only ancient and classical era civs are valid choices.
For a civ like Phoenicia it's not hard to come up with personal criterias which makes them among the top choices.

I think your view is only valid for civs which have way too many better choices among the very similar civs.
Phoenicia is definitely not one of them.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So yeah, I'm saying that it's not impossible at all that someone has specific criterias (and I mean generic criterias here), in which Phoenicia is in the top30 civs.

If they did that, are they happy with the resulting top 30? I guessed that the answer is no. I could be persuaded to change my mind easily by seeing such criteria that reasonably places them top 30 and is still self-consistent.

Or we can just say all civs which didn't exist before 1500AD, to avoid the confusion with ancient Greek colonies.

Spain as it is now did not exist before 1500. Japan as represented in the game didn't. Russia didn't. India as it has been represented to this point didn't (you could go with Ashoka's version though, ignoring Gandhi/Mughal forts etc). Ottomans barely make the cut.

If you're happy to have a title without USA/Spain/Japan/Russia/Germany, then it works as a cutoff and is potentially valid, but these are not to be made lightly as you can see.

Here are some that I would use or at least consider using, open to modification:

1. Knowledge of civ - We need basis for UU/UB/UA/Agenda to make the civ interesting, regardless of other factors. While civ is only loosely based on reality, there is some expectation that the civs give a nod to their actual history so we don't want to skip this. There are some civs where this isn't so easy.

2. Anticipated popularity - People pick civs they want to play, and from a $$$ perspective you're going to put in stuff that people recognize and want to use. Make no mistake, this is the primary reason USA and Germany are mainstays. It's not fair, but you want the game to sell and be popular or it doesn't matter.

3. Historical empire size/population - Let's get an objective measure in play. I don't think the Delhi sultanate is necessarily more important than France mind you, but this is good for perspective because it and #4 are far less likely to be biased.

4. Historical empire longevity - Pretty important in a game where you're trying to stand the test of time.

5. Unique mechanics - Per #1, we're still talking about a game. All else equal or similar when comparing 1-4, you would prefer to use options that give the player more replay value.

6. TSL smoothing - Not for the purposes of TSL specifically, but a good look to make sure each area of the world is adequately represented. If you look at this metric, you'll notice that there are five NA nations (counting Mesoamerica) and one in India/China each, with Europe being overwhelmingly crowded. It would make more sense to represent areas of the world more evenly, and thus you'd prefer fewer nations in Europe and more in India and China.

For weighting, I'd place #1 as minimum criteria (that way we're not putting fantasy civs in the base game). The more reliable marketing data is available, the higher I'd weight #2. If popular civs proved to make no difference I'd give #2 no weight at all, but if they're crucial to success this would be the strongest factor, so it depends on what the models show for the people who have information on it.

3 and 4 are weighted similarly based on nation's ranking, and give civs priority for their region for TSL smoothing. 5 is a "tie-ish" breaker.

 

[ImperialChaos]

I want a unified Italy. Rome, Florence, Milan, Venice, Genoa, Naples. A cultural powerhouse civ. No more various old civs and city states.

 

[m15a]

Here are some that I would use or at least consider using, open to modification:

1. Knowledge of civ - We need basis for UU/UB/UA/Agenda to make the civ interesting, regardless of other factors. While civ is only loosely based on reality, there is some expectation that the civs give a nod to their actual history so we don't want to skip this. There are some civs where this isn't so easy.

2. Anticipated popularity - People pick civs they want to play, and from a $$$ perspective you're going to put in stuff that people recognize and want to use. Make no mistake, this is the primary reason USA and Germany are mainstays. It's not fair, but you want the game to sell and be popular or it doesn't matter.

3. Historical empire size/population - Let's get an objective measure in play. I don't think the Delhi sultanate is necessarily more important than France mind you, but this is good for perspective because it and #4 are far less likely to be biased.

4. Historical empire longevity - Pretty important in a game where you're trying to stand the test of time.

5. Unique mechanics - Per #1, we're still talking about a game. All else equal or similar when comparing 1-4, you would prefer to use options that give the player more replay value.

6. TSL smoothing - Not for the purposes of TSL specifically, but a good look to make sure each area of the world is adequately represented. If you look at this metric, you'll notice that there are five NA nations (counting Mesoamerica) and one in India/China each, with Europe being overwhelmingly crowded. It would make more sense to represent areas of the world more evenly, and thus you'd prefer fewer nations in Europe and more in India and China.

For weighting, I'd place #1 as minimum criteria (that way we're not putting fantasy civs in the base game). The more reliable marketing data is available, the higher I'd weight #2. If popular civs proved to make no difference I'd give #2 no weight at all, but if they're crucial to success this would be the strongest factor, so it depends on what the models show for the people who have information on it.

3 and 4 are weighted similarly based on nation's ranking, and give civs priority for their region for TSL smoothing. 5 is a "tie-ish" breaker.

These are fine criteria generally speaking, but I think generating a list of civs from the criteria would be difficult if not impossible.

#1 is a pretty simple criterion, but it results in an very large list of civs (which is fine).

#2, #5, and #6 cannot be applied to each civ independently. Regarding #2, how many additional players a particular civ attracts depends on the other civs in the game. For example, Phoenicia might be attractive to ancient history fans, but if those people are already playing civ because Greece is in, then they're not adding to the sales. Anyway, that marketing data may or may not exist and, either way, we don't have access to it so we can't use it to see if a certain civ passes the test.

For #5, how unique a mechanic is depends on the other mechanics in the game. But, more importantly, we have no idea what sort of ideas the designers come up with until they do. Potentially, some unique mechanics could be connected to any civilization. It's just dependent on the designers' creativity and knowledge.

For #6, the interdependence is pretty obvious. You could use it to argue for more civs in a certain region, although since we only know a handful of the civs in a game and a new civ game could theoretically have any distribution of civilizations, the criterion could only be used as "smoothing" as you say, after other criteria are used.

So, that leaves #3 and #4 as criteria that we can measure for a certain civilization. They're pretty good criteria IMO, but there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. For example, should population be scaled based on world population at the time or not? And if so, are we counting only people that live in "civilizations"? Do populations only weakly controlled by a civilization count less? Does size mean the largest extent of the civilization? What if that area was quickly lost? What if much of that area is sparsely populated? What if the control of the area was disputed? Is 100 years 3000 years ago worth as much in terms of longevity as 100 years of the last century?

I'm not saying these criteria are bad, but with all these dependencies and unknowns, how can you say where a certain civ would be ranked based on these criteria? The criteria could be used to show that certain civs clearly belong in the game (say, Rome or England or China) or civs that clearly don't (say, Inuit). But there's a big region of uncertainty.

I don't know much about Phoenicia (I remember learning about it in school although I don't remember what I learned), but based on just skimming Wikipedia, I think at least none of these criteria can be used to clearly rule it out. It lasted 1000 years and covered a large region with colonies. Someone with more knowledge of Phoenecia (and who actually want it in the game) could probably describe it such that it sounds like it'd rank very high with those criteria. Someone that doesn't want it in the game can interpret the criteria another way and make a strong argument for it ranking much lower.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

#1 is a pretty simple criterion, but it results in an very large list of civs (which is fine).

Of course, it's intended as a filter, but not a crushing one, just one to maintain historical flavor.

Anyway, that marketing data may or may not exist and, either way, we don't have access to it so we can't use it to see if a certain civ passes the test.

It's market research potentially worth doing, and it wouldn't surprise me if they have already done at least some in that regard. As I said, I would weight this category anywhere from "almost no weight" to "highly" depending on the information available to me, if I were making the decisions. If you forced me to give a list to put in the actual game tomorrow as if I magically became a developer, I would not weight this category very much beyond historic civ title sales in different areas of the world. Guessing would otherwise be worse than useless.

But the developers might have more information and if I'm picking, I using as much as I can cost-effectively acquire.

For example, should population be scaled based on world population at the time or not? And if so, are we counting only people that live in "civilizations"?

Yes, no respectively.

Does size mean the largest extent of the civilization? What if that area was quickly lost?

Size at height and duration are both good objective factors. Reward size but penalize short-lived empires or empires whose max size was brief (but they themselves lasted much longer so still get some credit).

Do populations only weakly controlled by a civilization count less?

My initial model answer would be "no", because this factor would be difficult to use without bias and similarly difficult to era-adjust. I don't anticipate it changing the model results much either because weakly controlled populations don't seem to be something you'd see in a long lasting/large empire. Maybe I'm mistaken however.

What if much of that area is sparsely populated?

We're factoring population separately so covering this. If a nation has 3000000 people in one city and a ton of wasteland otherwise or 3000000 people equally distributed on the same amount of total land I'd grade them evenly. If there's a reason it's wrong to do so I could be convinced otherwise, but I don't expect this factor to have heaps of meaningful outliers in the context of a civ abstraction.

What if the control of the area was disputed?

Disputes are not created equally. Who had force of law in the region/got the population to pay taxes/etc?

Is 100 years 3000 years ago worth as much in terms of longevity as 100 years of the last century?

Initially, yes. Do we have a reason to believe it's useful to weight early or late empire longevity?

I'm not saying these criteria are bad, but with all these dependencies and unknowns, how can you say where a certain civ would be ranked based on these criteria?

You use the objective measures to get a list, then you fudge it slightly to fit for TSL and maybe the occasional cool idea (probably not the latter, which as you say could be added for most civs regardless)

Now that I've detailed it, Phoenicia would outrank Carthage pretty handily, and that's part of the reason we set the criteria first; it's better for resisting bias.

I also underestimated Tibet a bit, and maybe we need to include criteria against nations that would get the game banned in large markets :/.

The Chinese dynasties and large competition in the middle east over different eras is a problem too. Same deal with Persia, where "Persia" in-game could mean one of quite a few nations.

For many situations what the developers did to over-simplify India in Civ V (which could have Ashoka's empire, Chola, Mughals, whatever) makes sense for some of the hotly contested regions in terms of having numerous impressive nations in their region. For example Egypt could draw on both its ancient stuff and Mamluk times. This way you can give a nod to areas of the world while still having some TSL spacing.

 

[lp_04]

I don't know much about Phoenicia (I remember learning about it in school although I don't remember what I learned), but based on just skimming Wikipedia, I think at least none of these criteria can be used to clearly rule it out. It lasted 1000 years and covered a large region with colonies. Someone with more knowledge of Phoenecia (and who actually want it in the game) could probably describe it such that it sounds like it'd rank very high with those criteria. Someone that doesn't want it in the game can interpret the criteria another way and make a strong argument for it ranking much lower.

I am not an expert, surely, but I had the ability to study a little bit of Phoenicia in college. Although, the focus of the subject was the Phoenician relation to western Mediterranean during the last approximately 1000 years BCE. I will try to answer your question, using the criteria exposed:

#1 - Knowledge of the civ is not a problem. We know a lot of external documentary sources (from egypt, greece, assyria, perisa...) as well as some Phoenician literary information. But even better, we have a huge archaeological complex related to a "phoenician culture" spreading trough all the Mediterranean for centuries. When thinking about phoenicia, even with small/no research, one could think about: alphabet; long distance trade; colonization and relation to indigenous people, not to talk about the geopolitical impact of phoenicia in the east and the cultural impact in the west, in the 1st half of the 1st millennium BCE; or the importance of Carthage in the roman conceptualization of geopolitics (Punic Wars)

#2 - This is a highly subjective point. Personally, Phoenicia is one of the best cultural realities for a civ Game: they had historical importance, are a somewhat widely known "civilization" and could add a new innovative strategy to the game (see #5). Although, Phoenicia should only appear if the game provides some immersion to the early game (which I is not present in Civ VI, where the first 100 turns have very little to do, and you loose all the ancient/classical possible game dynamics, except for Wonders). Otherwise, adding an early game civ would be a problem, as you, as a player are only really "absorbed" by that culture during the smallest part of the game.

#3 - The original location of Phoenicia was geographically small. In population they are OK, and prevailed as a cultural group considered by many posterior governments (Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Macedonia), which implies that the population was somewhat large. Also the archaeological studies reflect cities of a considerable size, as well as a somewhat intense occupation of the "rural" areas for exploration resources.

But, as many consider, Phoenicia extends way beyond the Levant. They and a huge presence in Cyprus, Northern Africa (Carthage), western Mediterranean islands and Iberian Peninsula, Although, at least for the last region (The one I have studied more), the Phoenician presence in urban settlements was small in comparison to "natives", but the cultural influence was very high. I would consider these regions of western Mediterranean as being "Phoenician" before being "Roman" (using the concept of "civilization" expressed in this game), even more if we consider Carthage as some Phoenician reality (just like Mughal is considered India). So, in these terms, Phoenicia had a large territory and they population was OK. It is positive in the overall, but not one of the most positive factors.

#4 - If we count Carthage, Phoenicia "spread its culture" for more than 1000 years.

#5 - This is the point where Phoenicia really has a good value. A gameplay focused on coastal trade, expansion and colonization for the early game would a new strategy. This could relate to science, or to CS relations, or to Diplomacy benefits, whichever fits more the strategy that is less used for other civs.
Rome could be the same (explore/expand), but for land; Egypt is not seafarer, nor is Persia, or china, or Babylon/Sumer. Phoenicia is the early seafarer civ by Default. If we consider Carthage, there could be added an early/mid game military strength.

#6 - Phoenicia is just bad for TSL. Ottomans, Arabia, Babylon or Sumer, Egypt are better choices for that region. But if we consider the western mediterranean, then Phoenicia could have a chance.

Being that said, Phoenicia should be in the game occupying the place developers have set for Carthage. So, if Carthage is supposed to appear in the first release of civ VI, I think Phoenicia should be included instead, and assimilate some unique possibilities we have seen in Carthage on previous titles.

 

[m15a]

You use the objective measures to get a list, then you fudge it slightly to fit for TSL and maybe the occasional cool idea (probably not the latter, which as you say could be added for most civs regardless)

Now that I've detailed it, Phoenicia would outrank Carthage pretty handily, and that's part of the reason we set the criteria first; it's better for resisting bias.

I admit that the criteria was productive for the discussion in this case, but I still don't think it's really fair to say "I'm only going to consider civilization X as a serious option if it ranks in the top 20 based on some objective ranking scheme." No forum member is going to be able to just pull that out off the top of their head. Your suggestions are a good start, but clarifying all the possible factors would take hours of discussion and probably the knowledge of historians and statisticians. And that's ignoring the question of whether the criteria listed are ones that give good results.

In the end, it's always going to be a group of people just coming up with a list of civs that sound pretty good and then choosing the final list by doing a lot of fudging and trial and error. That's what Firaxis does, too.

Avoiding or at least recognizing bias is a really important thing, so I'm not saying Firaxis should just not even try, but it is a hard thing to do. Listing objective measurable criteria is good because you can investigate each criterion independently to see if it reflects biases. (Like, if your potential criteria is representation in popular culture based on successful movies, you can recognize that there's bias in representation in movies and maybe your definition of "successful" is biased towards US perspectives.)

But favoring measurable criteria means you can favor things that are measurable. You're only "measuring what is measurable" and you can't actually always "make measurable what is not so". Basically, you're being completely biased towards things that are measurable. Important civs will be the ones that have "the numbers" even if importance has nothing to do with the numbers. And it's not just a question of quantifiable vs. not quantifiable. If you're using a known of ranking or decision criteria, then you're limiting yourself only to factors that you are able to decompose into a finite number of dimensions ("dimensions" meaning like dimensions on a graph - population and land area or two dimensions of "civilization largeness"). And then if you're combining those dimensions to get an overall ranking, you have the whole question of orthogonality, too.

TLDR: Coming up with a good objective way to rank civs isn't just a hard problem. It's a really-really-hard-if-not-impossible problem. It's much easier to poll people to see what they like.

 

[lp_04]

It's much easier to poll people to see what they like.

If they go for this poll to add some new civ, I guess they would go for Sumeria and Kongo. And I Would be fine with that. Sumeria is perhaps one of the best choices (potentially). Kongo needs more presence on civ.

 

[daft]

Because you do so at the expense of several civs that lasted centuries with peak sizes barely smaller than Roman Empire at its height and larger than many civs already included.

And whoever said land area should be a critical part of choosing a civilization to add to the game?

That way of thinking is unfair, Europe is a small continent, yet some of the most culturally/militarily/scientifically (and other such aspects) advanced and influential civilizations of all time rose out of Europe.

Just because the many Indian or Chinese civilzations of the past land area was much bigger than European ones does not mean in the slightest that a smaller European Civilization is less deserving than any civ from any other continent.
European Cultures came to dominate the world, militarily/scientifically/culturally and do so to this day.

So, Au contraire, most European Civilzations deserve to be included in the game far more than any of the most demanded "exotic" ones, demanded by people who know little about actual history, just want exotic and fascinating tribes in, rather than European ones for the sake of Earth Maps.

Never-minding the fact most Sub-Saharan civs(tribes) never built any actual cities, and the game's main aspect is building cities, you cannot build units/buildings/wonders without cities, and I'm not talking settlements or villages, real cities.

 

[Staler87]

Should great achievements be considered on this 'objective ranking' list. I mean the Sumerians made the first written language and the Phoenicians made the first phonetic alphabet. Surely these accomplishments warrant some bonus points.

 

[Iapetus303]

Civ needs more steppe / Central Asian civs. So I voted Khazars and Timurids (although possibly the latter would be too similar to Mongols). Should also have Seljuk Turks, and possibly Scythians.

Also needs more African and Native North American civs, but I don't know enough about either continent to make a recommendation.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

And whoever said land area should be a critical part of choosing a civilization to add to the game?

That way of thinking is unfair, Europe is a small continent, yet some of the most culturally/militarily/scientifically (and other such aspects) advanced and influential civilizations of all time rose out of Europe.

Just because the many Indian or Chinese civilzations of the past land area was much bigger than European ones does not mean in the slightest that a smaller European Civilization is less deserving than any civ from any other continent.
European Cultures came to dominate the world, militarily/scientifically/culturally and do so to this day.

So, Au contraire, most European Civilzations deserve to be included in the game far more than any of the most demanded "exotic" ones, demanded by people who know little about actual history, just want exotic and fascinating tribes in, rather than European ones for the sake of Earth Maps.

Never-minding the fact most Sub-Saharan civs(tribes) never built any actual cities, and the game's main aspect is building cities, you cannot build units/buildings/wonders without cities, and I'm not talking settlements or villages, real cities.

I went with objective measures for a reason, and that reason was to avoid random claims of cultural superiority, overexaggerated influence without a concrete measure, or some kind of military/scientific advantage which has existed in material fashion for at most 3-4% of the game's time frame.

Your criteria, please. So far you're telling me your criteria is preference, centered on bias for nations about which you are more familiar.

Never-minding the fact most Sub-Saharan civs(tribes) never built any actual cities

Based on my criteria, how many "tribes" that "never built actual cities" sustained large populations, territories, or had long lasting empires?

You're saying MY criteria is unfair? You are saying that more of Europe should be in because it's superior somehow then doing nothing to show how that's actually true. Such a stance should not be pointing fingers about fairness...

Should great achievements be considered on this 'objective ranking' list. I mean the Sumerians made the first written language and the Phoenicians made the first phonetic alphabet. Surely these accomplishments warrant some bonus points.

If you can come up with a consistent way of evaluating them, then achievements could be a reasonable factor in the criteria.

Timurids (although possibly the latter would be too similar to Mongols).

They weren't THAT similar, but considering the regions I'd rather see Khazars between the two. I also prefer Mughals to Timurids due to the lineage, longer history, regional representation.

 

[Civciv5]

Poor Burma, so unloved and underrated...

Burma has a very rich history, from the Pyu city states to the mighty Taungoo dynasty, which nearly unified Southeast Asia, even more so than the Khmer Empire. Burma is an often overlooked nation with many achievements. Such as its beautiful architecture as the Shwedagon Pagoda or Temples of Pagan. The Pagan Dynasty rivaled the Khmer Empire, while the Taungoo Empire under Bayinnaung nesrly conquered mainland Southeast Asia. A very interesting civilization indeed.
Possible leaders would br Kyansittha, Anawratha, Shin Sawbu (female!) or Bayinnaung.

I'd also like to see The Khmer Empire under Suryavarman again, this time more accurately portrayed, and with beautiful Angkor as background.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Poor Burma, so unloved and underrated...

Burma has a very rich history, from the Pyu city states to the mighty Taungoo dynasty, which nearly unified Southeast Asia, even more so than the Khmer Empire. Burma is an often overlooked nation with many achievements. Such as its beautiful architecture as the Shwedagon Pagoda or Temples of Pagan. The Pagan Dynasty rivaled the Khmer Empire, while the Taungoo Empire under Bayinnaung nesrly conquered mainland Southeast Asia. A very interesting civilization indeed.
Possible leaders would br Kyansittha, Anawratha, Shin Sawbu (female!) or Bayinnaung.

I'd also like to see The Khmer Empire under Suryavarman again, this time more accurately portrayed, and with beautiful Angkor as background.

I don't know, the alien thing they put in Civ IV played Khmer pretty strong for an AI .

Agree WRT Burma, especially since that would be pretty good in TSL too.

 

[TheKillerNacho]

I'd really like to see an ancient Israel civilization, with its leader being David or Solomon. Lots of history & mythology there. Seems odd to me it never appeared in any Civ game.

I'm not even religious but I think its a strange omission nonetheless.

 

[Haig]

Now that civs have more Uniques, would it be easy or hard to whip out them for Sumeria and Kongo, both fan favorites?

 

[nunor]

I'd really like to see an ancient Israel civilization, with its leader being David or Solomon. Lots of history & mythology there. Seems odd to me it never appeared in any Civ game.

I'm not even religious but I think its a strange omission nonetheless.

Well, not even historians agree on whether they actually existed or not.

 

[Felis Renidens]

Well, it will not be the first civ to have a mythological or semi-mythological leader. Actually, I would have preferred more civs to have mythological leaders as the leader in civ games is a god-like figure who is more like the spirit of that civ than an actual historical leader - but that's probably just me.

 

[Guandao]

Who would be picked for America? Paul Bunyan?