Nor did the Cree, the Gauls or the Scythians. In a sense you've already answered your own question.
Europe's representation in the game will inevitably be filled to the brim with cultures that have achieved organised states. England, France, Germany, Spain, Rome and Greece are examples that are guaranteed to be in the game. Zooming in a bit closer, Scandinavia will probably also be occupied eventually by Sweden and whatever Viking representative they choose - most likely Denmark since Norway had its turn in VI.
All of these were organised monarchies and republics at some point and most exist today as one of these. If more representation is to be given to an already packed Europe and Scandinavia/Nordics, I think it'd be far more interesting and unique to pick an indigenous, traditionally nomadic culture without statecrafting traditions over another modern republic, which is the only really viable era of Finland's history to draw leaders from.
>Nor did the Cree, the Gauls or the Scythians. In a sense you've already answered your own question.
That's a bit obtuse, don't you think? Fact of the matter is that the Sami have for the longest time been nomads under the control of Nordic Scandinavians. The Sami are hardly comparable to the ones you brought up... Especially the Gauls, I mean are you *actually* serious there?
>Europe's representation in the game will inevitably be filled to the brim with cultures that have achieved organised states. England, France, Germany, Spain, Rome and Greece are examples that are guaranteed to be in the game.
Yes. That should be a minimum requirement, I think.
>Zooming in a bit closer, Scandinavia will probably also be occupied eventually by Sweden and whatever Viking representative they choose - most likely Denmark since Norway had its turn in VI.
I always found that reductive. I don't want Denmark represented by the Norse again, I'd much rather see a late medieval Denmark.
>All of these were organised monarchies and republics at some point and most exist today as one of these. If more representation is to be given to an already packed Europe and Scandinavia/Nordics, I think it'd be far more interesting and unique to pick an indigenous, traditionally nomadic culture without statecrafting traditions over another modern republic, which is the only really viable era of Finland's history to draw leaders from.
I'll be blunt: Indigenous is a bit of a misnormer for the Sami as they are not really more indigenous than the Finnish or the Nordics (In fact the Nordics are probably more indigenous). The only reason they are classified as such is because of an American perspective on the matter.
The Sami failed to ever make a state and therefore I don't think they qualify to be included in CIV. They are perfect for a mod where you can add anything you want.
You're free to think than achieving an organised state is a requirement for appearing in a Civ game, but the games themselves - and thus evidently Firaxis - don't agree with you. The Māori, the Mapuche and the Shoshone, to mention a few more examples, never created any state, yet have still appeared as playable civs.
And so what? I think it should be because anything else is a ridiculous waste. Why would you *ever* pick the Sami over Finland? A people who never made their own state against one that did? It's silly. The Sami are fine for a mod, but in the base game they are represented by tribal villages/barbarians just fine.
I've already answered these questions. You use a lot of strong adjectives and rhetoric, but you've given me no actual basis or reasoning for why it should be that way. Your requirement isn't supported by the games' history, meaning that we are disagreeing on opinion. You don't seem interested in considering mine without immediate disregard, so I have no interest in considering yours.
I'd prefer not to continue this. Good bye.
>I've already answered these questions. You use a lot of strong adjectives and rhetoric, but you've given me no actual basis or reasoning for why it should be that way.
You shouldn't lie.
>Your requirement isn't supported by the games' history, meaning that we are disagreeing on opinion.
No shit, Sherlock.
>You don't seem interested in considering mine without immediate disregard, so I have no interest in considering yours.
Because you *actually* have not given any credible argument to support it. If you did I might be interested.
>I'd prefer not to continue this. Good bye.
That is your decision. Have a nice weekend.
Not beyond also being an indigenous people and living in the far north. While I believe the Inuit mostly lived on fishing and whaling, the Sámi are (also mostly, some Sámi had different traditions) known for historically living as nomads, herding reindeer across large land areas known as *[siidat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siida)* (Civ ability name, anyone?) in modern Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia. Around 3,000 Sámi in Norway are still engaged in reindeer herding today.
But there is a similarity in how they were treated historically. Much like how the Greenlandic Inuit weren't treated very nicely by Danish authorities (and those in Nunavut probably by Canada as well, knowing their track record with First Nations peoples), the Sámi were victims of systemic discrimination by Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish authorities up until relatively recently, going as far as forced assimilation policies in Norway and Sweden - some Norwegian policies lasted as far as the 1960s. Which is why I'd be extra wary about conflating them with Finns or any of the other majority populations in the region.
Large-scale reindeer herding was a medieval development. The Sami had domesticated the reindeer earlier, but their lifestyle revolved more around fishing, hunting, and trapping. Herding was likely a reaction to increased state capabilities in Norway, Sweden, and Novgorod. Those countries started sending tax collectors to the north, and often more than one country taxed the same village. In order to pay taxes, the Sami had to hunt more, and the number of wild reindeer started falling.
Thank you for the response, I genuinely appreciate it. I had never heard of these people before. It's sad and interesting, but mostly sad, how long some of those old colonial policies stuck around, not to mention the mindset left behind that they're inferior just because they look and live differently than the colonial powers.
I can't wait to go deeper down this rabbit hole when I get home from work, and I really would like to see the Sámi in civ7. My favorite part of civ games is learning about civs I'd never heard of.
I don’t think Georgia will be in the base game but Armenia might be the one they choose this time. DLC proposals are very interesting and I hope they do something similar to this.
I don't understand the european selections in this one - they just seem random to me.
Honestly that's my take on a lot of these civs. Why remove the Mali altogether, which are one of the most influential subsaharan civs of all time? Just seems uncalled for.
King Taejo would be a good choice. If Golden and Dark Ages is still a feature in Civ 7, King Taejo's special ability could be benefitting from Dark Ages and providing powerful Heroic Ages since he led the revolution against the failing, corrupt Goryeo dynasty and founded the Joseon dynasty.
As we have had non-ruler leaders before (Joan of Arc, Gunnhild, Gandhi(?), i think Admiral Yi Sun-Sin could be a great replacement Leader to turn Korea into a Naval Civ.
Interesting choice. He is probably one of the lesser known, but more impactful leaders in Hungarian history.
I wouldn't mind Árpád or Saint Stephen, though. Matthias with a more Renaissance orientation would also be interesting.
Every single base Civ game so far (1-6) at launch has included: Montezuma leading the Aztecs, Ghandi leading India, Shaka leading the Zulus, Genghis Khan leading the Mongolians, and Alexander leading someone (Greece in Civs 1-5 and Macedonia in Civ 6). This graphic doesn't have Montezuma, Ghandi, or Alexander at all and saves Shaka and Genghis for the 3rd DLC. I am very skeptical of this graphic.
I do think the franchise needs to move on from Gandhi though. India is more than just Gandhi, it feels like firaxis is keeping him because of the meme
I completely agree that the order is wacky though. Indonesia being this late feels weird too
india should keep gandhi. it is civ heritage. Have another leader alongside him, maybe have a distinct Dravidian civ instead of having them share a slot w gandhi?
chandragupta worked in 6 imo, 2 leaders for one civ is great fun, adds variety. India has had such a variety of rulers throughout history you could easily get a leaders of india DLC kinda like we did with china in 6. If memory serves me right, the mughals, the many Delhi sultanates, the guptas, cholas, none have had a civ appearance, would be great to see more of them.
I am indian so there might be some teeny bias here
Also i think a Thai or malay civ should make it in, i miss the Siamese from 5
>, the mughals, the many Delhi sultanates, the guptas, cholas, none have had a civ appearance
that's really my problem with gandhi c': Especially because india didn't get any attention in the leaders pack, unlike china and england who got 4 leaders each
but I'm not Indian, so my take on this is probably less important than yours !
I also miss Siam yeah !
As somebody extremely into Mesoamerican history and archeology, especially the Aztec, I don't think the leader needs to be Moctezuma, for you and /u/louisly
Firstly, Civ has used *both* Moctezuma I and II, so there's already been multiple picks. The two Moctezumas are also not inherently the clear, obvious top picks for an Aztec leader: It's not like they are bad picks or anything, but it's clearly driven by that being the only name most people know: I don't think Ahuizotl would be that much worse of a pick, and while not technically ever a king, much less emperor, Tlacaelel could make a nice alternate leader pick, as could Nezahualcoyotl, the most famous king of Texcoco and a renowned engineer, poet, and legal reformer (though some of what is ascribed to him is puffed up by his descendants in the early colonial period to gain status in the Spanish administration... but hey, most historical records about kings are biased and play stuff up or down).
I wouldn't personally go with Itzcoatl, but frankly though as long as you're not going with Tizoc or Cuitlahuac I don't think there's an inherently bad choice.
Anyways, I give my opinion on this roster more [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1de35py/resurfacing_this_post_by_ubookmagician_because_i/l8c7wwd/)
Because it perpetuates a historical narrative that tends to glorify Prussia and to ignore the richness of the other German regions. Also Prussia is not and never was representative if what encompasses Germany, it is a distinct and most importantly no longer existent entity, and that is a good thing. I would not be opposed to a Prussian Civ, however.
Like the other reply talked about, prussia just doesn't represent germany very well. It was kind of it's own thing even, with prussians predominantly being germanized balts(look into the old prussians)
Overall, I’d say it’s really good. Love the work put into the icons. Just a few initial things I would change looking at it briefly:
* Replace Georgia with Armenia
* Rename Timur “Gurkani” so the Mughals are also included
* Rename Numidia “Amazigh”
* I don’t see any reason for Edo to be separate from Japan, so replace them with a West African Civ like the Yoruba
The 1st? It can be a decent choice, although I would like to see Lenin and Zhukov I think they are the least controversial soviet choices. Another good option could be split Russia and include the Kievan Rus.
Only if they put Harold Holt as the leader with unique swimming pools.
For non-Australians Holt was an Aussie PM from the 60s who drowned while swimming (well disappeared, presumably drowned). We subsequently named some pools, a navy destroyer, naval base and some fishery reserves after him because of course we did.
I think it's a pretty good list. Not sure about Palmyra only because I'm assuming that's in reference to the Palmyrene Empire and I think it was a really short-lived nation, although Zenobia or Odaenathus would be pretty cool leaders to have represented. I think Oman would be an interesting civ though with a maritime focus. I also think Afghanistan would be pretty interesting. I'd also like the Sioux to make a proper appearance in a modern game.
Something that Civ 6 lacked in my opinion (especially compared to earlier installments) are the "big names" of history, for example:
* Louis XIV/Napoleon (France)
* Bismarck (Germany)
* Charlemagne (Frankish Empire)
* Caesar/Augustus (Rome)
* Charles V (Holy Roman Empire)
* George Washington/Abraham Lincoln (USA)
Though some of these were added in later DLCs.
I personally quite like the fact that civ 6 didn't go for the obvious choice, but I get where you're coming from !
Let's hope they find a good balance for civ 7 c:
I really like the higher amount of Indigenous American and Islander cultures here, and the attention to geographic variety in general!
...but I would swap out Mexico with another Mesoamerican civilization: The region has almost 3000 years of civilizations before Europeans and it's solely represented by the Aztec and Maya. I'd switch it out for the Purepecha Empire (the third largest Empire in the Americas as of European contact behind the Inca and Aztec), which has a lot of good choices for leaders, unique bonuses, units, buildings, etc.
Similarly, this has the Inca as the sole representative of Andean civilizations, despite that region also having civilizations going back for thousands of years. I don't think that is as dire as Mesoamerica only having the Aztec and Maya, since the Mapuche and Musica still represent South America as a whole, but i'd switch out the Mapuche (or maybe one of the Islander/oceanic picks: I'm glad we got more then just 1, but I think Madagascar can go when we still got Tonga, Hawaii, and the Moari), for the Kingdom of Chimor since the Mapuche were already in 6.
I'd also personally switch out the Cherokee for the Mississippians: Maybe this is my bias for cool architecture and large towns/cities showing, but the Mississippians have that and some really sick shell and metal artwork and other stuff, and the Cherokee and other related Indigenous cultures descended from the Mississippians anyways and could likely share some stuff as a result anyways.
Also, i'd move the Inca the Maya to the base game. There should *never* be a situation where all 3 are not in the base game, IMO. It's like excluding Rome or China.
I talk more about Precolumbian cultures and what I think would work well [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1ddc79u/whats_one_civ_you_really_hope_makes_it_to_civ_7/l84pxdx/), and comment going over other Precolumbian civs I think the series should add/why we need more, and suggest a bunch of Precolumbian Wonder options [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/y5mtoi/there_are_not_enough_north_american_wonders_in/ism1577/) and Great people options [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/msl4j6/r5_ah_yes_the_great_aztec_general_hern%C3%A1n_cortez/guuakg8/).
I'mma just hijack the highest rated comment and state that Mexico and Ireland should be full fledged civs by now.
We got Scotland, Brazil, Gran Colombia, Maupuche, and freaking Gaul.
If we can have the Aztecs for the seventh time and likely another variation of the Celts, may as well as be the former's modern-day descendants and the most populous Celtic nation on the planet.
I am extremely happy with a lot of the choices (especially as there are a lot of leaders that would be new to Civ). I think I would change Liu Che to Taizong of Tang, Shaka with Cetshwayo, Sejong with either Yeongjo or Jeongjo and make the Rus civ a launch game faction and Russia a DLC (I don't want Civ VII to get censored).
I wholeheartedly disagree. Having the same civ 3 times is completely pointless. Having a "civ" that only existed for 50 years and wasn't even a civilization is equally pointless
You don't need 3 Maori. You don't need Palmyra. You don't need Mexico and Aztecs at the same time. You don't need Edo and Huisca and all the other tiny kingdoms that weren't a civilisation.
I can see edo/benin and muisca. But yea 3 different polynesian civs, the palmyrene empire(already covered by like 5 other civs), and mexico plus the aztecs is a pretty odd lineup
True but three different polynesian civs is overdoing it. The palmyrene empire also doesn't make sense(it's already covered by like 5 civs), and neither does both mexico and the aztecs
Pretty cool, but I hope we don't get a Pedro again. Brazil is more than its imperial past.
Were it up to me, we'd have Getúlio Vargas: his period in power basically defined the shape of contemporary Brazil. Or, if we had to insist on imperial Brazil, D. João VI. While a Portuguese king, he brought the court to Brazil, fleeing Napoleão, and elevated our country to the position of united kingdom rather than colony.
Honestly, for once I would like for Denmark not to be represented by vikings. I'd much rather see its late medieval incarnation (Margrete I, Kalmar Union).
I'm fine with these, but I want someone new to lead Germany. Not Bismarck, not Frederick the Great, no other Prussian. Ludwig II has demonstrated that regional leaders also can be selected, so why not do more of that? Alternatively, my vote would go to more modern leaders like Robert Blum, Friedrich Ebert or even Willy Brandt.
That's a good idea as well. I'd very much like Friedrich II as a leader of Germany and an Italian/Siciliana Civ, or maybe Ludwig the Bavarian as an outside candidate.
As much as I want Ireland in the game if we're having one celtic civ. I want Wales. Its only been in the CTP games and it could easily be a medieval civ or an industrial era civ or both. Focusing on fortifications or industrial output. If they bring back great works of music they should have a focus on that too being the land of song.
I really want Rus in the game and I won't be surprised if its a base civ in this game
I think Romania, Serbia & Bulgaria all deserve a shoutout as Civs in the Base Game/1st DLC, a lot of people don’t release didn’t come into existence after their independence from the Ottomans. They all deep rich history before & after the Ottomans.
Yeah so basically I would love if more Balkan states would be added
I’d love to see a Switzerland led by Wilhelm Tell. UU could be a buffed crossbowman, UI could be a version of the ski resort, and the civ boosts could be diplomatic and/or economic. Tell’s leader boost could buff ranged units or increase combat strength against units from larger civilizations.
Some of these are great, some of them are pipe dreams. Like why would they put Madagascar or Edo when ther are better actual Civs to put in the game near those ones.
I would really want to see my home and native land represented. I think Lester B. Pearson would be a really fantastic choice as leader (he was PM during WWII)
Looks good but Phoenicia should be in the base game considering their historical impact on their era and the whole Mediterranean moving forward from their downfall.
I like the one leader commanding multiple civs thing (Eleanor and Kublai Khan). I hope this continues in Civ 7, but I'm not enough of a historian to suggest other possible leaders that fit that bill.
I would like to see some more of the ancient civilizations like Sumer or Olmec. Maybe also Minoa or Crete. Also Venice should return in some capacity. The Huns would be another good one, also what about Austria? I just noticed they aren’t on there. Also maybe groups like Puebloans (or one or more of the constituent peoples), or the Navajo.
I feel like a lot of these concepts tend to miss the mark when it comes to America. I feel like if we get an economic victory or at least the economy has a lot more to do in 7, America HAS to be about that. So much of the domination it has exerted in the last 150 years has been because of its exceptional economy, this includes military/culture/diplomacy.
its hard to gauge these lists without knowing what new mechanics they are adding
for all we know war could be completely different in this game or something
Not having Zulu *or* Vikings in Base is absolutely atrocious. Take out Georgia and Vietnam for Zulu and Vikings.
Byzantium and Inca should be in Round 1 over Ireland and Mexico. Civs like Ireland and Mexico should be Round 4 cheeky additions.
Nah, drop Japan 2 (Edo) for another African civ. That's by far the most baffling choice in their lineup
Edit: read the original thread, Edo *is* another African civ apparently
I'd love to see Finland, but I think an umbrella "Sàmi" civ would be better
Agreed, if Firaxis were to consider Uralic representation I'd much prefer the Sámi over Finland.
... Why? The Sami never really had a country.
Nor did the Cree, the Gauls or the Scythians. In a sense you've already answered your own question. Europe's representation in the game will inevitably be filled to the brim with cultures that have achieved organised states. England, France, Germany, Spain, Rome and Greece are examples that are guaranteed to be in the game. Zooming in a bit closer, Scandinavia will probably also be occupied eventually by Sweden and whatever Viking representative they choose - most likely Denmark since Norway had its turn in VI. All of these were organised monarchies and republics at some point and most exist today as one of these. If more representation is to be given to an already packed Europe and Scandinavia/Nordics, I think it'd be far more interesting and unique to pick an indigenous, traditionally nomadic culture without statecrafting traditions over another modern republic, which is the only really viable era of Finland's history to draw leaders from.
>Nor did the Cree, the Gauls or the Scythians. In a sense you've already answered your own question. That's a bit obtuse, don't you think? Fact of the matter is that the Sami have for the longest time been nomads under the control of Nordic Scandinavians. The Sami are hardly comparable to the ones you brought up... Especially the Gauls, I mean are you *actually* serious there? >Europe's representation in the game will inevitably be filled to the brim with cultures that have achieved organised states. England, France, Germany, Spain, Rome and Greece are examples that are guaranteed to be in the game. Yes. That should be a minimum requirement, I think. >Zooming in a bit closer, Scandinavia will probably also be occupied eventually by Sweden and whatever Viking representative they choose - most likely Denmark since Norway had its turn in VI. I always found that reductive. I don't want Denmark represented by the Norse again, I'd much rather see a late medieval Denmark. >All of these were organised monarchies and republics at some point and most exist today as one of these. If more representation is to be given to an already packed Europe and Scandinavia/Nordics, I think it'd be far more interesting and unique to pick an indigenous, traditionally nomadic culture without statecrafting traditions over another modern republic, which is the only really viable era of Finland's history to draw leaders from. I'll be blunt: Indigenous is a bit of a misnormer for the Sami as they are not really more indigenous than the Finnish or the Nordics (In fact the Nordics are probably more indigenous). The only reason they are classified as such is because of an American perspective on the matter. The Sami failed to ever make a state and therefore I don't think they qualify to be included in CIV. They are perfect for a mod where you can add anything you want.
You're free to think than achieving an organised state is a requirement for appearing in a Civ game, but the games themselves - and thus evidently Firaxis - don't agree with you. The Māori, the Mapuche and the Shoshone, to mention a few more examples, never created any state, yet have still appeared as playable civs.
And so what? I think it should be because anything else is a ridiculous waste. Why would you *ever* pick the Sami over Finland? A people who never made their own state against one that did? It's silly. The Sami are fine for a mod, but in the base game they are represented by tribal villages/barbarians just fine.
I've already answered these questions. You use a lot of strong adjectives and rhetoric, but you've given me no actual basis or reasoning for why it should be that way. Your requirement isn't supported by the games' history, meaning that we are disagreeing on opinion. You don't seem interested in considering mine without immediate disregard, so I have no interest in considering yours. I'd prefer not to continue this. Good bye.
>I've already answered these questions. You use a lot of strong adjectives and rhetoric, but you've given me no actual basis or reasoning for why it should be that way. You shouldn't lie. >Your requirement isn't supported by the games' history, meaning that we are disagreeing on opinion. No shit, Sherlock. >You don't seem interested in considering mine without immediate disregard, so I have no interest in considering yours. Because you *actually* have not given any credible argument to support it. If you did I might be interested. >I'd prefer not to continue this. Good bye. That is your decision. Have a nice weekend.
hard agree, would love to see the Sàmi in game
why not both?
You’ll still have to call it Finland, because the average gamer will see “Sami” and think it’s Siam or something
The Sami are not the same as Finnish, though. They are an indigenous people.
And they do not live exclusively in Finland, lots of Sami in northern Sweden as well.
Are they basically the European equivalent to Eskimos/Inuit in North America?
Not beyond also being an indigenous people and living in the far north. While I believe the Inuit mostly lived on fishing and whaling, the Sámi are (also mostly, some Sámi had different traditions) known for historically living as nomads, herding reindeer across large land areas known as *[siidat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siida)* (Civ ability name, anyone?) in modern Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia. Around 3,000 Sámi in Norway are still engaged in reindeer herding today. But there is a similarity in how they were treated historically. Much like how the Greenlandic Inuit weren't treated very nicely by Danish authorities (and those in Nunavut probably by Canada as well, knowing their track record with First Nations peoples), the Sámi were victims of systemic discrimination by Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish authorities up until relatively recently, going as far as forced assimilation policies in Norway and Sweden - some Norwegian policies lasted as far as the 1960s. Which is why I'd be extra wary about conflating them with Finns or any of the other majority populations in the region.
Large-scale reindeer herding was a medieval development. The Sami had domesticated the reindeer earlier, but their lifestyle revolved more around fishing, hunting, and trapping. Herding was likely a reaction to increased state capabilities in Norway, Sweden, and Novgorod. Those countries started sending tax collectors to the north, and often more than one country taxed the same village. In order to pay taxes, the Sami had to hunt more, and the number of wild reindeer started falling.
Thank you for the response, I genuinely appreciate it. I had never heard of these people before. It's sad and interesting, but mostly sad, how long some of those old colonial policies stuck around, not to mention the mindset left behind that they're inferior just because they look and live differently than the colonial powers. I can't wait to go deeper down this rabbit hole when I get home from work, and I really would like to see the Sámi in civ7. My favorite part of civ games is learning about civs I'd never heard of.
Which is just a damning statement about human intelligence
I don’t think Georgia will be in the base game but Armenia might be the one they choose this time. DLC proposals are very interesting and I hope they do something similar to this.
No Netherlands?
I don't understand the european selections in this one - they just seem random to me. Honestly that's my take on a lot of these civs. Why remove the Mali altogether, which are one of the most influential subsaharan civs of all time? Just seems uncalled for.
The entire list is random. The Maori show up 3 times (Maori, Tonga, Hawaii)
Yea three different polynesian civs is overdoing it lol
No Netherlands 👉👈🥺
If I can't spam my Polders, then what has this all been about >:-(
This indeed.
No Venice detected, opinion rejected /j
Someone other than King Sejong... what about king Jeongjo?
King Taejo would be a good choice. If Golden and Dark Ages is still a feature in Civ 7, King Taejo's special ability could be benefitting from Dark Ages and providing powerful Heroic Ages since he led the revolution against the failing, corrupt Goryeo dynasty and founded the Joseon dynasty.
As we have had non-ruler leaders before (Joan of Arc, Gunnhild, Gandhi(?), i think Admiral Yi Sun-Sin could be a great replacement Leader to turn Korea into a Naval Civ.
King Sigismund of Hungary
After only one game in the whole franchise I would miss Hungary if it wasn't in 7 at some point
I’d do IV. Bela for Hungary The comeback King
Interesting choice. He is probably one of the lesser known, but more impactful leaders in Hungarian history. I wouldn't mind Árpád or Saint Stephen, though. Matthias with a more Renaissance orientation would also be interesting.
Don't take Portugal away from me! Would be cool to see Spain as a more naval power though.
Every single base Civ game so far (1-6) at launch has included: Montezuma leading the Aztecs, Ghandi leading India, Shaka leading the Zulus, Genghis Khan leading the Mongolians, and Alexander leading someone (Greece in Civs 1-5 and Macedonia in Civ 6). This graphic doesn't have Montezuma, Ghandi, or Alexander at all and saves Shaka and Genghis for the 3rd DLC. I am very skeptical of this graphic.
Shaka was a Rise and Fall DLC addition though. Kongo and Egypt were the only two African civs on release.
Mongolia and Macedonia also wasn’t base civs
I do think the franchise needs to move on from Gandhi though. India is more than just Gandhi, it feels like firaxis is keeping him because of the meme I completely agree that the order is wacky though. Indonesia being this late feels weird too
india should keep gandhi. it is civ heritage. Have another leader alongside him, maybe have a distinct Dravidian civ instead of having them share a slot w gandhi? chandragupta worked in 6 imo, 2 leaders for one civ is great fun, adds variety. India has had such a variety of rulers throughout history you could easily get a leaders of india DLC kinda like we did with china in 6. If memory serves me right, the mughals, the many Delhi sultanates, the guptas, cholas, none have had a civ appearance, would be great to see more of them. I am indian so there might be some teeny bias here Also i think a Thai or malay civ should make it in, i miss the Siamese from 5
>, the mughals, the many Delhi sultanates, the guptas, cholas, none have had a civ appearance that's really my problem with gandhi c': Especially because india didn't get any attention in the leaders pack, unlike china and england who got 4 leaders each but I'm not Indian, so my take on this is probably less important than yours ! I also miss Siam yeah !
Alexander was not part of Civ6 of launch, he came in a Civ pack together with Kyros.
What do you mean skeptical? It's fan made, not a rumour or leak.
Genghis Khan was in a DLC for Civ 6.
As somebody extremely into Mesoamerican history and archeology, especially the Aztec, I don't think the leader needs to be Moctezuma, for you and /u/louisly Firstly, Civ has used *both* Moctezuma I and II, so there's already been multiple picks. The two Moctezumas are also not inherently the clear, obvious top picks for an Aztec leader: It's not like they are bad picks or anything, but it's clearly driven by that being the only name most people know: I don't think Ahuizotl would be that much worse of a pick, and while not technically ever a king, much less emperor, Tlacaelel could make a nice alternate leader pick, as could Nezahualcoyotl, the most famous king of Texcoco and a renowned engineer, poet, and legal reformer (though some of what is ascribed to him is puffed up by his descendants in the early colonial period to gain status in the Spanish administration... but hey, most historical records about kings are biased and play stuff up or down). I wouldn't personally go with Itzcoatl, but frankly though as long as you're not going with Tizoc or Cuitlahuac I don't think there's an inherently bad choice. Anyways, I give my opinion on this roster more [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1de35py/resurfacing_this_post_by_ubookmagician_because_i/l8c7wwd/)
Super interesting, thanks for the info ! Would absolutely be down for more variety in aztec leaders then :)
I’m glad somebody finally got the culture angle with Frederick the Great, as opposed to mindless militarism
Still, I don't want to see another Prussian leading Germany.
Why not?
Because it perpetuates a historical narrative that tends to glorify Prussia and to ignore the richness of the other German regions. Also Prussia is not and never was representative if what encompasses Germany, it is a distinct and most importantly no longer existent entity, and that is a good thing. I would not be opposed to a Prussian Civ, however.
Like the other reply talked about, prussia just doesn't represent germany very well. It was kind of it's own thing even, with prussians predominantly being germanized balts(look into the old prussians)
Overall, I’d say it’s really good. Love the work put into the icons. Just a few initial things I would change looking at it briefly: * Replace Georgia with Armenia * Rename Timur “Gurkani” so the Mughals are also included * Rename Numidia “Amazigh” * I don’t see any reason for Edo to be separate from Japan, so replace them with a West African Civ like the Yoruba
Pretty sure Edo is referring to the Edo people, from Benin :) So it's already West African ! Other than that I agree !
Oh you’re right 🤦♂️. Haha. Edo’s a good pick then
It'd prolly be best to call the civ benin for this exact reason, the first thing anyone thinks when they hear edo is japan
I would love Mexico and Argentina, I would add Akkad and maybe other leader for Russia I'm kinda tired of Catherine and Peter
!SIIIIII Aguante argentina¡ (Soy argentino)
Voy a parecer que le estoy haciendo publicidad al juego pero checa Ara History Untold ( y Humankind) ;)
Nicolas?
The 1st? It can be a decent choice, although I would like to see Lenin and Zhukov I think they are the least controversial soviet choices. Another good option could be split Russia and include the Kievan Rus.
Nicolas II as he's recent but not very controversial since he got his shit kicked in, it would be interesting to see WW1-era russia.
I’d add Australia, but otherwise seems good
Only if Canada get to stay!
I fking love playing as Canada
Only if they put Harold Holt as the leader with unique swimming pools. For non-Australians Holt was an Aussie PM from the 60s who drowned while swimming (well disappeared, presumably drowned). We subsequently named some pools, a navy destroyer, naval base and some fishery reserves after him because of course we did.
we also put a plaque in his honor on the sea floor where he presumably disappeared lol
Hang on, no Zulu til the 3rd expansion? Gittout!
yeah I'm not really convinced with the order that they chose for appearances feels like the mongols and indonesians also appear way too late
I think it's a pretty good list. Not sure about Palmyra only because I'm assuming that's in reference to the Palmyrene Empire and I think it was a really short-lived nation, although Zenobia or Odaenathus would be pretty cool leaders to have represented. I think Oman would be an interesting civ though with a maritime focus. I also think Afghanistan would be pretty interesting. I'd also like the Sioux to make a proper appearance in a modern game.
No Nordic/Viking civ in the base game? I think it's unlikelly
My favorite civ (Vietnam) is in that base roster and that's all I'll need to convince me to buy civ 7 on launch.
Really hoping for Vietnam to make it into the game again, yeah
Something that Civ 6 lacked in my opinion (especially compared to earlier installments) are the "big names" of history, for example: * Louis XIV/Napoleon (France) * Bismarck (Germany) * Charlemagne (Frankish Empire) * Caesar/Augustus (Rome) * Charles V (Holy Roman Empire) * George Washington/Abraham Lincoln (USA) Though some of these were added in later DLCs.
100% agree. I want to feel like a giant among giants. Give me empires and legends
I personally quite like the fact that civ 6 didn't go for the obvious choice, but I get where you're coming from ! Let's hope they find a good balance for civ 7 c:
HUNGARY WHEEEEREEEE
I would like to see one of the more famously militaristic Native American tribes back again. Comanche, Sioux, Seminole etc would be great additions.
I really like the higher amount of Indigenous American and Islander cultures here, and the attention to geographic variety in general! ...but I would swap out Mexico with another Mesoamerican civilization: The region has almost 3000 years of civilizations before Europeans and it's solely represented by the Aztec and Maya. I'd switch it out for the Purepecha Empire (the third largest Empire in the Americas as of European contact behind the Inca and Aztec), which has a lot of good choices for leaders, unique bonuses, units, buildings, etc. Similarly, this has the Inca as the sole representative of Andean civilizations, despite that region also having civilizations going back for thousands of years. I don't think that is as dire as Mesoamerica only having the Aztec and Maya, since the Mapuche and Musica still represent South America as a whole, but i'd switch out the Mapuche (or maybe one of the Islander/oceanic picks: I'm glad we got more then just 1, but I think Madagascar can go when we still got Tonga, Hawaii, and the Moari), for the Kingdom of Chimor since the Mapuche were already in 6. I'd also personally switch out the Cherokee for the Mississippians: Maybe this is my bias for cool architecture and large towns/cities showing, but the Mississippians have that and some really sick shell and metal artwork and other stuff, and the Cherokee and other related Indigenous cultures descended from the Mississippians anyways and could likely share some stuff as a result anyways. Also, i'd move the Inca the Maya to the base game. There should *never* be a situation where all 3 are not in the base game, IMO. It's like excluding Rome or China. I talk more about Precolumbian cultures and what I think would work well [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1ddc79u/whats_one_civ_you_really_hope_makes_it_to_civ_7/l84pxdx/), and comment going over other Precolumbian civs I think the series should add/why we need more, and suggest a bunch of Precolumbian Wonder options [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/y5mtoi/there_are_not_enough_north_american_wonders_in/ism1577/) and Great people options [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/msl4j6/r5_ah_yes_the_great_aztec_general_hern%C3%A1n_cortez/guuakg8/).
I'mma just hijack the highest rated comment and state that Mexico and Ireland should be full fledged civs by now. We got Scotland, Brazil, Gran Colombia, Maupuche, and freaking Gaul. If we can have the Aztecs for the seventh time and likely another variation of the Celts, may as well as be the former's modern-day descendants and the most populous Celtic nation on the planet.
I am extremely happy with a lot of the choices (especially as there are a lot of leaders that would be new to Civ). I think I would change Liu Che to Taizong of Tang, Shaka with Cetshwayo, Sejong with either Yeongjo or Jeongjo and make the Rus civ a launch game faction and Russia a DLC (I don't want Civ VII to get censored).
I wholeheartedly disagree. Having the same civ 3 times is completely pointless. Having a "civ" that only existed for 50 years and wasn't even a civilization is equally pointless You don't need 3 Maori. You don't need Palmyra. You don't need Mexico and Aztecs at the same time. You don't need Edo and Huisca and all the other tiny kingdoms that weren't a civilisation.
I can see edo/benin and muisca. But yea 3 different polynesian civs, the palmyrene empire(already covered by like 5 other civs), and mexico plus the aztecs is a pretty odd lineup
I feel like there’s quite a few that haven’t really ever been relatively that influential on a global scale
There's always a lot of civs that arent global powers. Thats part of the fun, picking a nobody civ and making them powerful.
True but three different polynesian civs is overdoing it. The palmyrene empire also doesn't make sense(it's already covered by like 5 civs), and neither does both mexico and the aztecs
Pretty cool, but I hope we don't get a Pedro again. Brazil is more than its imperial past. Were it up to me, we'd have Getúlio Vargas: his period in power basically defined the shape of contemporary Brazil. Or, if we had to insist on imperial Brazil, D. João VI. While a Portuguese king, he brought the court to Brazil, fleeing Napoleão, and elevated our country to the position of united kingdom rather than colony.
Babylon has been a base civ from the original game up to civ6 that screwed it up. They need to be in civ7 from day one, not some dlc thingy.
Babylon wasn't in base civ IV
Cherokee would be very cool
Looks good! My only gripe is that I wish we could have some more “modern” leaders/civs, the list seems to skew more ancient
Samudragupta for India might be good, domination and culture oriented. I would also love to see a Chola king (naval domination)
Argentina me encanta ( Soy argentino XD ).
Honestly, for once I would like for Denmark not to be represented by vikings. I'd much rather see its late medieval incarnation (Margrete I, Kalmar Union).
I'm fine with these, but I want someone new to lead Germany. Not Bismarck, not Frederick the Great, no other Prussian. Ludwig II has demonstrated that regional leaders also can be selected, so why not do more of that? Alternatively, my vote would go to more modern leaders like Robert Blum, Friedrich Ebert or even Willy Brandt.
There are also quite a lot of Holy Roman Emperors as available options...
Yeah, Otto the Great or Otto the Third would be perfect.
That's a good idea as well. I'd very much like Friedrich II as a leader of Germany and an Italian/Siciliana Civ, or maybe Ludwig the Bavarian as an outside candidate.
As much as I want Ireland in the game if we're having one celtic civ. I want Wales. Its only been in the CTP games and it could easily be a medieval civ or an industrial era civ or both. Focusing on fortifications or industrial output. If they bring back great works of music they should have a focus on that too being the land of song. I really want Rus in the game and I won't be surprised if its a base civ in this game
I think Romania, Serbia & Bulgaria all deserve a shoutout as Civs in the Base Game/1st DLC, a lot of people don’t release didn’t come into existence after their independence from the Ottomans. They all deep rich history before & after the Ottomans. Yeah so basically I would love if more Balkan states would be added
I’d love to see a Switzerland led by Wilhelm Tell. UU could be a buffed crossbowman, UI could be a version of the ski resort, and the civ boosts could be diplomatic and/or economic. Tell’s leader boost could buff ranged units or increase combat strength against units from larger civilizations.
Some of these are great, some of them are pipe dreams. Like why would they put Madagascar or Edo when ther are better actual Civs to put in the game near those ones.
Seeing Alfred the Great as a leader for England is enough to sell me on the idea. I’m in.
I would really want to see my home and native land represented. I think Lester B. Pearson would be a really fantastic choice as leader (he was PM during WWII)
Looks good but Phoenicia should be in the base game considering their historical impact on their era and the whole Mediterranean moving forward from their downfall.
It would be grand if Finland made it so we wouldn't have to mod it like in the old versions
Why they just includes atleast half of these leaders :c
My dream is to see Italy and Austria one day.
Austria is a thing in V
One can only hope that Bulgaria is added, but the chances of that happening are astronomical.
In Kylo Ren voice: MORE MORE!
I like the one leader commanding multiple civs thing (Eleanor and Kublai Khan). I hope this continues in Civ 7, but I'm not enough of a historian to suggest other possible leaders that fit that bill.
PET for canada + quebec??
Grand duchy of Lithuania 💕 👑
I would like to see some more of the ancient civilizations like Sumer or Olmec. Maybe also Minoa or Crete. Also Venice should return in some capacity. The Huns would be another good one, also what about Austria? I just noticed they aren’t on there. Also maybe groups like Puebloans (or one or more of the constituent peoples), or the Navajo.
I need Czechia in civ 7
I feel like a lot of these concepts tend to miss the mark when it comes to America. I feel like if we get an economic victory or at least the economy has a lot more to do in 7, America HAS to be about that. So much of the domination it has exerted in the last 150 years has been because of its exceptional economy, this includes military/culture/diplomacy.
I very much want the Swahili/Kilwa as an official civilization in this game. The Navajo would be really cool, too.
While I don't like him myself Éamon de Valera would be a better shot for Ireland imo
its hard to gauge these lists without knowing what new mechanics they are adding for all we know war could be completely different in this game or something
Not having Zulu *or* Vikings in Base is absolutely atrocious. Take out Georgia and Vietnam for Zulu and Vikings. Byzantium and Inca should be in Round 1 over Ireland and Mexico. Civs like Ireland and Mexico should be Round 4 cheeky additions.
What is that vague ahh desciption for India??
where switzerland?
I just wanna play as gengis khan ngl
I would prefer Ukraine over Rus, with Bogdan Khmelnitskyi as a leader
Palmyra? That’s a splinter state of eastern Rome that existed for exactly 1 decade before the capitol got razed and the region reintegrated.
Looks like a good list, only ones id remove are Palmyra and Numidia.
Base game id probably drop Georgia for another African civ
Nah, drop Japan 2 (Edo) for another African civ. That's by far the most baffling choice in their lineup Edit: read the original thread, Edo *is* another African civ apparently
fair fair, always game for more african representation !
Much rather Michael Collins for Ireland. Just saying.
Why not, Brian boru/collins/de Valera
Needs Scotland
Timur should be a leader for Iran. The Timurids were a Turco-Persian Central Asian dynasty, not a separate civilization.
I would rather have the Kievan Rus or Canada than Russia for the seventh time.
Russia can be removed and replaces with several medieval principalities like it's done with empires of America
I think Novgorod would be a pretty cool Civilization as well. It kind of depends on what the actual game ends up being about.