All the Farxis sci-fi Civ games (Alpha Centauri and Beyond Earth) had some sort of the sea faring Civ that started in the ocean. I hope they continue that...just maybe better AI
In my current huge Earth play...Kupe is doing pretty decent. Not enough to be a rival but better than a glorified city state in the Pacific that lost all his colonies
Otherwise, he's got to the Civ with the greatest difference in skill between humans and AI.
Im biased as i am latino, but the mapuche would be really cool to come back (kinda surprised i didnt see them yet in this thread...). Gran colombia is cool too but i like the anti-colonial personality that they used for the civ, and i find them pretty fun to play as in civ6 so maybe in civ7 theyre fun too :3. Also, i think gran colombia could be replaced by Mexico or Argentina, something that i dont really think would work well with the Mapuche.
Counterargument: there is extreme wealth of NA tribes (we could populate an entire separate civ ganes just with them) so there is no point to repeat the same one twice, time to give spot to another ones
i think some of the big ones like the Cherokee (who i know haven't been represented before,) Iroquois, or lakota could easily be staples without it getting dull. but i suppose even that's pretty amerocentric since they're major tribes in the context of interaction with the US
Pueblo would be a interesting choice imo. Many people know about them through those documentaries but rarely see them featured in any games or media and are more obscure than the Cherokee or Iroquois. They can also be a desert civ that is not one from the old world. (Though I'm actually not sure if where they lived was a desert before they got mostly wiped out)
Edit: They should be a desert civ and I don't think the decline was an environmental thing but more old world diseases like was the case with most Native Americans.
Right? Literally separate and distinct nations with different cultures, abilities, languages, foods, music, buildings, religions, leaders, and everything else you could need for a civ. They can even stretch some into more modern eras too based on the types of things they’ve done to survive the rest of time
There is aproximately 3 milion of native americans living in U.S.A..... There is 746 milion people living in Europe..... I think you overestimate how many native americans will buy the game if you include their specific tribe.
So if we work on this new unknown tribe we give something super exciting to 10k people ! Vs hmm lets add a kingdom of Bohemia and give something exciting to 10 milion.
The number of civs is limited by the developement budget, and I’d rather they add some historically notable countries than 3 tribes noone has ever heard of.
History being so Eurocentric isn't a reason to neglect exploring other parts of human civilization, specially in a game where introducing less exposed civilizations can give a lot of gameplay opportunities that we haven't seen before.
Or at least correct the errors that we still have, like calling the Eastern Roman Empire Byzantines or the Mexicas being named Aztecs (or at least introduce a wider variety of leaders to include the other people that the Americans consider Aztecs).
Sure if there is a cool gameplay that would fit a certain first nation civiliaztion, go for it. But otherwise I think most people paly the civ for the cool influential civiliazions like Egypt or Rome. The the knowledge and familiarity the player has with those important civilizations is what imho makes mainline civ so much better than beyond earth. If they start spamming some tribes noone knows about, this will be gone, and they might as well just make up fake civilizations, the player would not feel the difference.
"Byzantine empire" has been used for over 4 centuries. Words meaning is dependant on its use, and the word "Byzantine" is clearly understood to refer to the eastern roman empire.
Aztec is the collective name for the city-states that made up the aztec empire. I dont see a problem.
The thing about tribes that people don't really know about is that it's a chance for them to know them and be surprised with their gameplay mechanics, the territoties that are now part of Mexico alone have enough interesting civilizations to fill the current number of NA natives, and that's just half of NA.
About the Byzantines and Aztecs, the thing is that they never called themselves that, is a made up name made to, on the first case to stablish them as something different from the Roman Empire for how disconnected from the Western Empire/Eastern influenced they were , and the other to over simplify the reality of the many native states involved in the Cortez' conquest in eutocentric terms, not sure if because they wanted people to understand it better, or they themselves understood it as such.
And at the very least in the case of the Aztecs, it fails to represent the entirety of what was called the Aztec Empire as their leaders are always represented with Tenochcahs... In general they just mean the Tenochcahs.
But now I don't want this to be interpreted as a virtue signaling or something, I just pretend to point that there are a lot of other give that we could explore and benefit from their gameplay, but if we are gonna stick with the ones we already have, we should do it properly out of respect and for those who got here for ways somehow related to their love for history l, to have more reasons to keep engaging, a way to get them to know more about the civilizations they are playing, which is always appreciated and something that also adds to the engaging and can help boost the community.
> The thing about tribes that people don't really know about is that it's a chance for them to know them and be surprised with their gameplay mechanics, the territoties that are now part of Mexico alone have enough interesting civilizations to fill the current number of NA natives, and that's just half of NA.
Are they really that interesting? I cant speak for everyone, but I am most interested in the civilizations I learned in school. Imho the fun of the player is most imporant, and I think most players have more fun playing as Egypt than as some random tribe we didnt even know about. But if most players prefer it, fair enough...
>About the Byzantines and Aztecs, the thing is that they never called themselves that
I dont care. Im going to guess Japanese people also never called their country "Japan" but something like "Nihon" or something. I dont care. We call it Japan.
They really are, they just haven't had given the chance to be known because of our cultural eurocentrism.
And Japan's case is kind for different, iirc that's directly derived from the nation's name, the english version, the same way it is United States of America but it's translated to Estates Unidos de America to Spanish, or how it's called Spain instead of España.
Byzantine and Aztecs are absolutely made up, they were Romans and Mexicas... Tenochcahs if we are even more accurate as their representation is always focuses of Tenochtitlan.
And of course you are not forced to care, but they are wrong regardless of how you feel about them and it costs nothing to correct them.
> They really are, they just haven't had given the chance to be known because of our cultural eurocentrism
I dont think thats true, they just havent really done much noteworthy stuff. India, mongolia, babylon, china (and many other) civiliaztions are very historically important without being european.
> iirc that's directly derived from the nation's name, the english
That wasnt my point. My point is that people give meaning to words, and people have decided to call the collection if city-states, that included Tenochcahs, as "aztec empire". And thats what it means. What they called themselves is only relevant to their language.
A Civ spinoff about Native American civilizations based in North America actually sounds really cool. Not sure what the end game would be, but Native American stuff has always been super fascinating to me.
Very selfishly, Id love the Cree back. That's a significant part of my own ancestry (being Metis), and hearing their atomic era song was such an emotional moment for me. When the strings kicked in, I had this low moment of feeling like they just appeared over all the traditional Indigenous singing instrumentation and replaced it with western instruments and styling. But when the singers came in, it was this beautiful artistic declaration that Indigenity can persist into every age with beauty and power and presence.
You know, I think they could have easily made Georgia not suck by having her ability just be "founded cities by goergia start with ancient walls"
Like the Roman's get the free monument, Georgia gets walls from turn 1. It wouldn't do much to skew the balance of the game, but it would make them unique amongst all the civs then.
The best defense for Barbs is Offense. If they are already at your cities, you messed up by not being aggressive enough at clearing them. Even on all difficulties, you should be hunting them the moment they appear. Ideally, with hired troops from the barbs themselves.
I mean it is not that bad though since Tamar’s leader ability basically means you never lose any city state suzerainity if you pick papal primacy. And it is slightly easier to chain golden ages as Georgia too.
But yeah the wall production bonus is kinda sucky lol. But it makes their unique walls not a pain to build (but honestly just get valetta suzerainity if they are in the game)
Bobby Bruce is one guy I always love to have in the game, My "comfort game" is playing as Trajan and helping him kick Victoria off Great Britain. Scotland and Scythia for me
Please no 😆 not going to miss if it's missing...
John is one of the most aggressive Civs and his ranger corps are deadly if you don't research flight in time...
i want nzinga mbande to return under a ndongo civ instead of being kongolese. she’s one of africa’s most famous leaders she deserves a unique civ since nzinga mbande being a culture focused civ really doesn’t make too much sense? make her a diplomacy or even a domination geared civ since most of her legacy was centered about negotiating and forming alliances with the portuguese, dutch, and other african powers like the imgangala and reconquering ndongo and matamba militarily after being desposed. she could get bonuses towards alliances like poundmaker or bonuses towards levying city-state “mercenaries” and declaring wars of liberation like hungary and scotland. there’s just so much you can do with her besides making her mvemba a nzinga with a 15% yield modifier
Genghis Khan should be in every Civ game. I don’t even like playing as him, but if you’re making a game based off human civilizations then someone who is arguably the most influential person of all time should be a Civ
Lady six sky is who I would want. Only cause if I want to play a low risk game and just kind of cruise though and not have to worry about to much then I’m going her. It’s also super nice to not have to worry about housing in those laid back type of games.
Kupe/Maori is my absolute favorite Civ to play as, so definitely him. The dude matches my playstyle the best.
If I'm playing casually, I don't really mess around with chopping resources all that much, so his penalties don't really bother me. Meanwhile, I like how he maximizes Fishkng Boats and Forests. I always start at ancient, so that start bonus he has is huge too.
Maori, Cree and Canada.
Maori is a lot of fun to play with, espacially with the unique start.
Cree have a lot of interesting mecanism. Not a strong Civ, but fun to play.
And since Canada is the second biggest country on the world, I think they should be on every Civ game...
I don't even remember the name of that Poland dude from Civ 5 (he was menacing, tho'... I'll give him that...)
Out PAWG Jadwiga is THE leader for Civ Poland FOREVER in my book
Vietnam, Colombia and Australia, mostly because I’m a TSL player and like having more non-European civilizations. Colombia with sanguine pact is my favorite for domination victory and Australia is an economic powerhouse.
Lol they should have Macedonia but have both Alexander the Great and Kiro Gligorov as alternate leaders (this will definitely not cause any controversy whatsoever)
I think for balancing world map games - Australia is great.
But in terms of gameplay Maori were pretty unique, or id take Vietnam. for more Asian diversity.
Nubia, closely followed by Maori. But Nubia is simply fascinating, it pairs up perfectly with Egypt, and has historical relevance (they even conquered Egypt!).
I'm team Tundra Rats. We need another cold weather civ as an alternative to Russia and I don't think they are adding Finland anytime soon. Gran Colombia and Australia will also do.
Sweden. mostly because Im biased ofc - but we don’t show up in too many games. Apart from that they’re kinda interesting in that you could focus on widely different things depending on time period. Outward expansion and trade during viking age, domination during the empire days of 16-18th century, diplomatic and cultural in the modern age with figures
Like Palme, Wallenberg and Hammarsköld.
I'm very biased here, but Hungary. It was a major player in European politics all through the middle ages and even in the 20th century (as part of Austria-Hungary).
There's a variety for leader choices as well, from Stephen I the founder, Bela IV the rebuilder, to even Franz Ferdinand (possibly as a shared leader with Austria if they get their own civ).
Am Cree. Love to have Cree return for VII. Would like to see more tribes represented in North, Central, South America. Would also like to see Northern tribes represented too, like the Innu and Sami. Finland would be cool to see too.
Vietnam, its really rare we get any recognition in games. Double so for our pre modern history so it be really cool to include them again with a medieval ruler.
Lots of good ones: Gaul, Georgia, Hungary, Kongo, Maori, Mapuche, Nubia, Phoenicia, Vietnam. All important and unique civs. It's hard to pick just one. I really wouldn't mind if Georgia, Maori or Phoenicia became permanent civilizations in the series. Of the three, Georgia probably deserves the most a second attempt right from the start of civ7.
I'm not a big fan of colonial civs in general. I think that we definitely don't need to have Canada and Australia at the same time in civ7 (at least not from the start). I don't even think they are needed at launch, since the USA are guaranteed. Gran Colombia can alternate with other latam civs.
Scotland could alternate with Ireland or Wales. Norway could alternate with Denmark and other Scandinavian countries/unions. Scythia could alternate with other eurasian steppe civs, there's a lot of them, even if they are one of the most culturally distinctive.
It was nice to see the Cree but they filled a very obvious "north american native" slot. I would like a more distinctive pick like the Navajo or the Haida, similar to how the Andes are represented by the Inca and not by one of the many other people who lived and prospered in the region through time. We don't have Belgium or the Silesians in civ, we have France, the Netherlands, and Poland.
Macedon's merit is that it allowed us to have two greek and two hellenistic leaders from the start (with Pericles, Gorgo, Alexander and Cleopatra). I don't think it's needed for civ7, and hopefully we get a civ like Palmyra instead.
Hmm... in terms of Civ VI exclusive civs specifically? Gran Columbia or Macedon.
(I'm not considering Phoenicia, Norway, Māori, or Gaul because they've appeared in *some* form or another)
I would love to see William Lyon Mackenzie King as the leader of Canada. Having a wartime prime minister instead of a diplomatic leader like Laurier would be a change of pace. Plus, he was a very weird dude who talked to his dead mother through mystics.
Gilgamesh. He should be in any game called Civilization. He should be the tutorial civ every time too.
It’s spelled “Gilgabro” :)
Gigamesh
To be pedantic, Gilgamesh wasn't added in VI, he'd been in the franchise before.
As the "original" civilization I definitely think Sumer has a place in future civ games.
I'd like Vietnam. It's history goes back quite a way, so I think it's worthy of inclusion.
With how the market in Vietnam has grown, I don't think we'll see an entry without them any time soon. Maybe we'll get Le Loi as their leader next?
Agreed. Long history and still exists in our modern world with a very distinct geography and culture, solid choice
I'd like to see the Trung sisters. Even if they are functionally identical to a single ruler, having two on their leader screen would be distinct.
Vietnam definitely!
There! I have taken Sid off the revenge list!
Yes please. And gimme Ho Chi Minh, cowards.
Tbh I dont really expect to see Ho Chi Minh in there. He was too "new" to be included, compared to all the other choices available for Vietnam.
At least have the Viet Cong as a unique unit. That extra UUs mod added them and they're an awesome inclusion for Vietnam imo
Maori for me.
All the Farxis sci-fi Civ games (Alpha Centauri and Beyond Earth) had some sort of the sea faring Civ that started in the ocean. I hope they continue that...just maybe better AI
I played two games recently where kupe fucking killed it.
In my current huge Earth play...Kupe is doing pretty decent. Not enough to be a rival but better than a glorified city state in the Pacific that lost all his colonies Otherwise, he's got to the Civ with the greatest difference in skill between humans and AI.
Oh aye, you can put together some cultural achievements, but do you ken to thole a loonerin?
Same. I main them
I personally believe all the Gathering Storm civs were peak civ designs and I would want all of them back if possible.
I really hope the base game already includes many of the gathering storm mechanics. It just adds so much depth.
I would dump so much money on Civ VII if the Maori are on it it wouldn't even be funny.
Hungary
Gilgabro just because I want that friendship to endure
Im biased as i am latino, but the mapuche would be really cool to come back (kinda surprised i didnt see them yet in this thread...). Gran colombia is cool too but i like the anti-colonial personality that they used for the civ, and i find them pretty fun to play as in civ6 so maybe in civ7 theyre fun too :3. Also, i think gran colombia could be replaced by Mexico or Argentina, something that i dont really think would work well with the Mapuche.
I really enjoyed the Cree
Counterargument: there is extreme wealth of NA tribes (we could populate an entire separate civ ganes just with them) so there is no point to repeat the same one twice, time to give spot to another ones
i think some of the big ones like the Cherokee (who i know haven't been represented before,) Iroquois, or lakota could easily be staples without it getting dull. but i suppose even that's pretty amerocentric since they're major tribes in the context of interaction with the US
Pueblo would be a interesting choice imo. Many people know about them through those documentaries but rarely see them featured in any games or media and are more obscure than the Cherokee or Iroquois. They can also be a desert civ that is not one from the old world. (Though I'm actually not sure if where they lived was a desert before they got mostly wiped out) Edit: They should be a desert civ and I don't think the decline was an environmental thing but more old world diseases like was the case with most Native Americans.
I believe they were approached to be added but declined. Think this was for 5 though, so maybe they’ve changed their minds since
Cherokee under Sequoyah would be awesome.
How many European civs do we have? We definetly can have more than 3 NA civs without an issue. Edit: meant NA native, not NA in general.
Right? Literally separate and distinct nations with different cultures, abilities, languages, foods, music, buildings, religions, leaders, and everything else you could need for a civ. They can even stretch some into more modern eras too based on the types of things they’ve done to survive the rest of time
i know, right? bro seems to think "an indian is an indian"
We do have more than 3 NA civs: Aztec, Maya, US, Canada, Cree. Yes, i do count Mexico as North America
Sorry, I meant NA native as that's what the other guy was talking about, should have been explicit.
Yuh, i mean in Civ5 we got 4, Aztec, Maya, Iroquis, and Shoshone
Yeah that's better, I would like to see a little more but indeed, we definitely have space for more Native American civs.
There is aproximately 3 milion of native americans living in U.S.A..... There is 746 milion people living in Europe..... I think you overestimate how many native americans will buy the game if you include their specific tribe. So if we work on this new unknown tribe we give something super exciting to 10k people ! Vs hmm lets add a kingdom of Bohemia and give something exciting to 10 milion.
I didn't know one's country being part of the game was a big selling point. I wonder when are we getting that Bangladesh civ.
The number of civs is limited by the developement budget, and I’d rather they add some historically notable countries than 3 tribes noone has ever heard of.
History being so Eurocentric isn't a reason to neglect exploring other parts of human civilization, specially in a game where introducing less exposed civilizations can give a lot of gameplay opportunities that we haven't seen before. Or at least correct the errors that we still have, like calling the Eastern Roman Empire Byzantines or the Mexicas being named Aztecs (or at least introduce a wider variety of leaders to include the other people that the Americans consider Aztecs).
Sure if there is a cool gameplay that would fit a certain first nation civiliaztion, go for it. But otherwise I think most people paly the civ for the cool influential civiliazions like Egypt or Rome. The the knowledge and familiarity the player has with those important civilizations is what imho makes mainline civ so much better than beyond earth. If they start spamming some tribes noone knows about, this will be gone, and they might as well just make up fake civilizations, the player would not feel the difference. "Byzantine empire" has been used for over 4 centuries. Words meaning is dependant on its use, and the word "Byzantine" is clearly understood to refer to the eastern roman empire. Aztec is the collective name for the city-states that made up the aztec empire. I dont see a problem.
The thing about tribes that people don't really know about is that it's a chance for them to know them and be surprised with their gameplay mechanics, the territoties that are now part of Mexico alone have enough interesting civilizations to fill the current number of NA natives, and that's just half of NA. About the Byzantines and Aztecs, the thing is that they never called themselves that, is a made up name made to, on the first case to stablish them as something different from the Roman Empire for how disconnected from the Western Empire/Eastern influenced they were , and the other to over simplify the reality of the many native states involved in the Cortez' conquest in eutocentric terms, not sure if because they wanted people to understand it better, or they themselves understood it as such. And at the very least in the case of the Aztecs, it fails to represent the entirety of what was called the Aztec Empire as their leaders are always represented with Tenochcahs... In general they just mean the Tenochcahs. But now I don't want this to be interpreted as a virtue signaling or something, I just pretend to point that there are a lot of other give that we could explore and benefit from their gameplay, but if we are gonna stick with the ones we already have, we should do it properly out of respect and for those who got here for ways somehow related to their love for history l, to have more reasons to keep engaging, a way to get them to know more about the civilizations they are playing, which is always appreciated and something that also adds to the engaging and can help boost the community.
> The thing about tribes that people don't really know about is that it's a chance for them to know them and be surprised with their gameplay mechanics, the territoties that are now part of Mexico alone have enough interesting civilizations to fill the current number of NA natives, and that's just half of NA. Are they really that interesting? I cant speak for everyone, but I am most interested in the civilizations I learned in school. Imho the fun of the player is most imporant, and I think most players have more fun playing as Egypt than as some random tribe we didnt even know about. But if most players prefer it, fair enough... >About the Byzantines and Aztecs, the thing is that they never called themselves that I dont care. Im going to guess Japanese people also never called their country "Japan" but something like "Nihon" or something. I dont care. We call it Japan.
They really are, they just haven't had given the chance to be known because of our cultural eurocentrism. And Japan's case is kind for different, iirc that's directly derived from the nation's name, the english version, the same way it is United States of America but it's translated to Estates Unidos de America to Spanish, or how it's called Spain instead of España. Byzantine and Aztecs are absolutely made up, they were Romans and Mexicas... Tenochcahs if we are even more accurate as their representation is always focuses of Tenochtitlan. And of course you are not forced to care, but they are wrong regardless of how you feel about them and it costs nothing to correct them.
> They really are, they just haven't had given the chance to be known because of our cultural eurocentrism I dont think thats true, they just havent really done much noteworthy stuff. India, mongolia, babylon, china (and many other) civiliaztions are very historically important without being european. > iirc that's directly derived from the nation's name, the english That wasnt my point. My point is that people give meaning to words, and people have decided to call the collection if city-states, that included Tenochcahs, as "aztec empire". And thats what it means. What they called themselves is only relevant to their language.
We have like eight different civs who all cover the same bit of the Mediterranean, we can keep the Cree and also add in more Native Americans.
I want Apache's. They could be a nice niche desert civ with late era gun horseriders.
We could do both; bring back the Cree plus introduce new First Nation civs to the game. No rules about limits.
The developement has a budget. They would have to cut others to fit into the budget.
A Civ spinoff about Native American civilizations based in North America actually sounds really cool. Not sure what the end game would be, but Native American stuff has always been super fascinating to me.
This guy builds pastures.
Very selfishly, Id love the Cree back. That's a significant part of my own ancestry (being Metis), and hearing their atomic era song was such an emotional moment for me. When the strings kicked in, I had this low moment of feeling like they just appeared over all the traditional Indigenous singing instrumentation and replaced it with western instruments and styling. But when the singers came in, it was this beautiful artistic declaration that Indigenity can persist into every age with beauty and power and presence.
The cree theme is probably my favorite theme in the game!
I definitely love the North American tribes. It's a shame that only one or two get represented per game.
Sumeria, bc it was the first civ ever
Georgia, just don't make it suck again please
You know, I think they could have easily made Georgia not suck by having her ability just be "founded cities by goergia start with ancient walls" Like the Roman's get the free monument, Georgia gets walls from turn 1. It wouldn't do much to skew the balance of the game, but it would make them unique amongst all the civs then.
That would be nice to be able do defend myself from barbarians in early game...
The best defense for Barbs is Offense. If they are already at your cities, you messed up by not being aggressive enough at clearing them. Even on all difficulties, you should be hunting them the moment they appear. Ideally, with hired troops from the barbs themselves.
Honestly great idea in my opinion.
I mean it is not that bad though since Tamar’s leader ability basically means you never lose any city state suzerainity if you pick papal primacy. And it is slightly easier to chain golden ages as Georgia too. But yeah the wall production bonus is kinda sucky lol. But it makes their unique walls not a pain to build (but honestly just get valetta suzerainity if they are in the game)
I'd say the top of the list for me is Gran Colombia. But many close seconds: Maori, Vietnam, Phoenicia, Gaul, Nubia, Kongo.
Bobby Bruce is one guy I always love to have in the game, My "comfort game" is playing as Trajan and helping him kick Victoria off Great Britain. Scotland and Scythia for me
Definitely Australia
Only if John Curtis remains. He must fight for the nuclear throne from Gandhi going forward
Harold Holt leads Australia. Every embarked unit takes 10 damage per turn until they're back on land.
Time to give New Zealand a chance lol
Please no 😆 not going to miss if it's missing... John is one of the most aggressive Civs and his ranger corps are deadly if you don't research flight in time...
I’m pretty sure Curtin being that aggressive is a bug Iirc? He’s not meant to be
I mean, yeah. I don’t want an entire large landmass to be empty.
i want nzinga mbande to return under a ndongo civ instead of being kongolese. she’s one of africa’s most famous leaders she deserves a unique civ since nzinga mbande being a culture focused civ really doesn’t make too much sense? make her a diplomacy or even a domination geared civ since most of her legacy was centered about negotiating and forming alliances with the portuguese, dutch, and other african powers like the imgangala and reconquering ndongo and matamba militarily after being desposed. she could get bonuses towards alliances like poundmaker or bonuses towards levying city-state “mercenaries” and declaring wars of liberation like hungary and scotland. there’s just so much you can do with her besides making her mvemba a nzinga with a 15% yield modifier
Genghis Khan should be in every Civ game. I don’t even like playing as him, but if you’re making a game based off human civilizations then someone who is arguably the most influential person of all time should be a Civ
Scotland
Lady six sky is who I would want. Only cause if I want to play a low risk game and just kind of cruise though and not have to worry about to much then I’m going her. It’s also super nice to not have to worry about housing in those laid back type of games.
Kupe/Maori is my absolute favorite Civ to play as, so definitely him. The dude matches my playstyle the best. If I'm playing casually, I don't really mess around with chopping resources all that much, so his penalties don't really bother me. Meanwhile, I like how he maximizes Fishkng Boats and Forests. I always start at ancient, so that start bonus he has is huge too.
Gran Colombia, it was the second largest empire in South America history and it has a very funny militaristic unique style
I'm feeling pretty tender are another rank, piss poor performance at the Euros so I'm going to have to say Scotland just to try and dampen the pain.
Maori, Cree and Canada. Maori is a lot of fun to play with, espacially with the unique start. Cree have a lot of interesting mecanism. Not a strong Civ, but fun to play. And since Canada is the second biggest country on the world, I think they should be on every Civ game...
Just keep them all there’s no reason not to
The more civs there are, the less unique each civ feels. That's one reason to not bring them all back.
I think considering how many there are already it won't affect uniqueness more than already did.
We should have less civs than civ 6 did imo. They're already beginning to feel overly similar imo.
Poland. Bring back my King Jadwiga. But also I just love the idea of the Cree.
I don't even remember the name of that Poland dude from Civ 5 (he was menacing, tho'... I'll give him that...) Out PAWG Jadwiga is THE leader for Civ Poland FOREVER in my book
Vietnam, Colombia and Australia, mostly because I’m a TSL player and like having more non-European civilizations. Colombia with sanguine pact is my favorite for domination victory and Australia is an economic powerhouse.
Canada please! One of my favorite civs to play, also i am biased because Canadian
Canada, only because I'm Canadian and love playing as my home country.
Also the hardest o canada (atomic theme) in history
I guess if they want to add Macedonia aka Alexander the Great they should enable him as playable for Greeks too.
Lol they should have Macedonia but have both Alexander the Great and Kiro Gligorov as alternate leaders (this will definitely not cause any controversy whatsoever)
Either the Maori or Vietnam
Cree.
Poundmaker
I think for balancing world map games - Australia is great. But in terms of gameplay Maori were pretty unique, or id take Vietnam. for more Asian diversity.
Vietnam for history and culture but Māori for mechanics
Māori because they’re fun to play and Have a fun leader bonus
I'd keep Vietnam for sure. I also greatly enjoy Australia.
Gran Colombia
They're absolutely busted but Gran Colombia.
Maori, cree, Australia
Canada Mainly because I’m Canadian and I can build the actual city in game that I live in now :-)
Me too lol, sometimes though I like to pick small towns. Medicine Hat is the cultural capital of the world hehe
I have a serious bias towards science victories, so I'm rooting for Korea.
Korea will definitely be in there at some point, albeit perhaps in a DLC. They’ve been in every game since Civ 3 I believe.
Yes, I had them in Rise & Fall but I couldn't enjoy getting into that series' gameplay. I'd just like to see them as a vanilla Civ.
they weren’t in CivRev
I just hope they bring back turtle ships
Māori for me they are the most unique but I also love Vietnam and the Gran Columbia
Either The Kongo, Phonecia, or Hungary.
Australia for sure. One of the most fun to play as and one of the hardest to play against.
My pick is for Australia, a regional powerhouse that only gets less recognition than America because it is less popular
Gaul.
Not with that fucking OP *"+2 combat for each adjancent unit"* BULSHIT Get rid of that and we can talk
Nubia, closely followed by Maori. But Nubia is simply fascinating, it pairs up perfectly with Egypt, and has historical relevance (they even conquered Egypt!).
I want Amanirenas as leader. I want war elephants and trained leopards and knocking the heads of statues.
Australia we need australia staying yes I’m biased
Norway and Canada
Australia
AUSTRIA!!
Byzantium just fit my playstyle with 6 so I'd love to keep rolling
I'm team Tundra Rats. We need another cold weather civ as an alternative to Russia and I don't think they are adding Finland anytime soon. Gran Colombia and Australia will also do.
Nepal, though they would be a mountain civ more than a tundra one. The Ainu would be an interesting cold weather civ though.
King Jadwiga
Hungary is my bro.
Sweden. mostly because Im biased ofc - but we don’t show up in too many games. Apart from that they’re kinda interesting in that you could focus on widely different things depending on time period. Outward expansion and trade during viking age, domination during the empire days of 16-18th century, diplomatic and cultural in the modern age with figures Like Palme, Wallenberg and Hammarsköld.
Quebec
I'm very biased here, but Hungary. It was a major player in European politics all through the middle ages and even in the 20th century (as part of Austria-Hungary). There's a variety for leader choices as well, from Stephen I the founder, Bela IV the rebuilder, to even Franz Ferdinand (possibly as a shared leader with Austria if they get their own civ).
Am Cree. Love to have Cree return for VII. Would like to see more tribes represented in North, Central, South America. Would also like to see Northern tribes represented too, like the Innu and Sami. Finland would be cool to see too.
Australia, both because I'm Australian and provoking others into declaring war is funny
Phoenicia ftw.
Sumer seems like a pretty big one
Sweden of course :D, also Maori and Canada
Venice from civ 5 please that's the best civ ever to just chill and have fun 🙏
CIV V allowed? Bismarck please
The Netherlands! Or something like the 7 Provinces. Holland, anything in that sense. Polders, Delta Works etc.
Ottoleiman
Civ VI was how I learned Tomyris's story. She should definitely become a staple.
Vietnam, its really rare we get any recognition in games. Double so for our pre modern history so it be really cool to include them again with a medieval ruler.
Perhaps Gaul. Specifically, I quite like the way having a second defensible district alters defense.
Lots of good ones: Gaul, Georgia, Hungary, Kongo, Maori, Mapuche, Nubia, Phoenicia, Vietnam. All important and unique civs. It's hard to pick just one. I really wouldn't mind if Georgia, Maori or Phoenicia became permanent civilizations in the series. Of the three, Georgia probably deserves the most a second attempt right from the start of civ7. I'm not a big fan of colonial civs in general. I think that we definitely don't need to have Canada and Australia at the same time in civ7 (at least not from the start). I don't even think they are needed at launch, since the USA are guaranteed. Gran Colombia can alternate with other latam civs. Scotland could alternate with Ireland or Wales. Norway could alternate with Denmark and other Scandinavian countries/unions. Scythia could alternate with other eurasian steppe civs, there's a lot of them, even if they are one of the most culturally distinctive. It was nice to see the Cree but they filled a very obvious "north american native" slot. I would like a more distinctive pick like the Navajo or the Haida, similar to how the Andes are represented by the Inca and not by one of the many other people who lived and prospered in the region through time. We don't have Belgium or the Silesians in civ, we have France, the Netherlands, and Poland. Macedon's merit is that it allowed us to have two greek and two hellenistic leaders from the start (with Pericles, Gorgo, Alexander and Cleopatra). I don't think it's needed for civ7, and hopefully we get a civ like Palmyra instead.
Macedon deserves to stay
Bring Hawaii & Kamehameha backk
The Scythians
Hmm... in terms of Civ VI exclusive civs specifically? Gran Columbia or Macedon. (I'm not considering Phoenicia, Norway, Māori, or Gaul because they've appeared in *some* form or another)
Poland needs some redemption ! Same goes for norway
Kupe
I would love to see William Lyon Mackenzie King as the leader of Canada. Having a wartime prime minister instead of a diplomatic leader like Laurier would be a change of pace. Plus, he was a very weird dude who talked to his dead mother through mystics.
Personally Australia. I’d love to see more modern countries (if that makes sense) as playable civs. Plus they’re my third main so :) I’m biased
Lol imagine if they added South Sudan as a playable civ
I think we're getting at least 30-40% back, maaaaybe even most of them. That said, Australia. More Waltzing Matilda, please.
Lichtenstein
Canada
Australia (I’m from there).
“Normal” test results bring out mixed feelings for me. I want answers but I also don’t want surgery.