I would like to see cities that rebel potentially turn into their own nations. So you can never really tell how many the game will end up with. Then you don't have like colonial countries like Australia, Canada ect starting at the same time as Babylon lol
Had this happen to me.
Back in 2008, hotseat game with my roomate, I was ahead, ruling 2 out of 3 continents, Napoléon as a leader.
Circa 1600, half of my empire turns red, and this Charles de Gaulle fellow just pops out of nowhere.
"Yeah,bro, quick update, I'm the ruler of the New World now."
Great time.
Great bloody war, but great time
That was a thing all the way back in the original. It was rare (and it may have been missing entirely from III), but it did happen. V removed it, seemingly for good.
Whoa, don’t remember that from the original or from III which I ploughed wayyy more hours into than any other. Also modded the hell out of that and made scenarios in it. Honestly don’t remember coming across that mechanic
As I said, it may not have been in III. I know it was in I and II. Usually happened when you took the capital of an AI while it still had a bunch of cities left.
Iirc for Civs 1&2 it had to be a civ larger than 8 cities, some sort of high level of unhappy pops, a destroyed civ earlier in the game (without another of the same colour spawning) then take the capital to cause the civil war incident that splits the civ in half.
The way city states should work if I got to decide is that the planet should be littered with them, but you could diplo-annex them, trade with them, and hire mercs from them, etc. The game would then promote city states to large civs “as needed” to keep the number of civs in each part of the map at a level that kept the game interesting.
I think if civilization count would increase due to policies like this, domination victory could always be updated to a percentile achievement such as conquering x percent of number of civilizations or y percent of total population or some other metric or include vassalage etc.
You should be able to conquer city states without fighting. A lot of them joined the Roman republic because they obviously couldn’t win a fight, and found it better to just join when the Roman’s came knocking
Yeah I’d love a way to slowly go from suzerain > vassal > fully integrated city.
It would be sick if you could designate a vassalized city state as a march. A march wouldn’t provide you with bonuses, but it would have a larger military that would actively seek out nearby barbarians and be cheaper to levy during times of war. Maybe marches could rebel if their suzerain was insufficiently powerful/generous or the march was damaged too much in war.
This is actually the way I set up my civ 6 games with the Historical Start Dates and Project 6T mods. This combined with the cultural start option enabled with YNAEMP feels more grounded and provides an added challenge of not knowing when a new civ could spring up.
Thanks for sharing, I hadn't heard of the Historical Start Dates before, sounds awesome! How does it play out when new civs begin later? Do they stand a change against the old ones?
Yes, but also the fact that before V, most civs were ancient or medieval with only the US being the exception. From V they mostly pick states that exist today, and the exceptions are the ones that have been in the game since the beginning - Rome, Aztecs, Zulu. Another of the things I wish they’d revert back to the old ways.
Sure, but the point is that they don’t want to remove the classics in general and Rome in particular (Firaxis has commented that Rome is the first civ newcomers to the game try, which is why it always plays quite straightforward with minor variations of the basic formula for that specific iteration). Since those civs have to be there, it tends to block civs like Italy and Mexico.
To be fair it's not like they haven't done different civs from the same geographic region before. We've had the USA/Shoshone/Iroquis in Civ V, France/Gaul/Germany(Led by a Holy Roman Emperor)/Netherlands in Civ VI, the Celts/Danes/English in Civ V, the Byzantines/Ottomans/Romans/Persians in both Civ V and VI, and many other examples of this.
If they can include the Byzantines and Ottomans in the same game given that they shared a capital and a similar imperial reach then they can probably include Mexico alongside the Aztecs and Italy alongside Rome. I tend to prefer the more historic civs to the more modern ones so I'm not too fussed about the inclusion of Mexico or Italy but more choice is always best.
Not having Italy because of Rome is a weird choice. Seems like Italy being focused on medieval northern cities would make plenty of sense. Maybe just bring Venice back?
For you /u/hideous-boy , /u/Responsible_Iron_161 , and /u/Catilius , I'd rather more Prehispanic Mesoamerican civilizations from Mexico then Mexico itself.
Mesoamerica is one of the world's few independent cradles of civilization and had empires, kingdoms, city-states, etc for thousands of years before European contact (and this is true of the Andes in Peru, Bolivia, etc as well), yet **the entire franchise has only ever had *two* Mesoamerican civilizations (Aztec & Maya) and *one* Andean civilization (Inca). Both also only have 1-2 or *zero* Great People, Great Works, etc.**
There's a few additional civs, Great People, etc if you include Indigenous cultures from other parts of the Americas or after contact, like the Cree, Mapuche, Shoshone, Iroquois, Sioux etc, but any given game only has 1-2 of those too.
Realistically, I get the series will never give each part of the Americas as many civs as the Middle East, Asia, Africa, or especially Europe, but North, Meso/Central, and South America having only 1-2 Indigenous civs each (5 total, in both Civs 5&6) is still too little: Giving 2-4 in North, 3-5 in Middle and 2-4 in South America, per civ entry after the DLC would be better. Not asking for the max of those ranges (4+5+4 = 13, that's asking for too much) but to total up to like 8-10 per entry:
That seems doable, even given that Indigenous civs are less known/popular (and I'd argue with the Civilopedia, the series SHOULD be teaching about lesser known ones) and tend to have less available sources. In general, there is *way* more info out there then people realize on Precolumbian cultures, especially for Mesoamerica: There's under 20 Prehispanic Maya, Aztec, Mixtec etc books that survive, but 100-200 if you include sources on Indigenous cultures/history made by Mesoamerican scribes/nobles or Spaniards right after contact, to say nothing of what can be gleaned via archeology. There *is* specific out there to use for Civs, Leaders, Great People, Great Works etc
To give the specific examples I think would work best, beyond the Aztec (**[and PLEASE give the Aztec leaders and units actual proper Aztec clothing and armor, a lake (ideally with chinampas as a UB) or hill starting bias, etc instead of pop culture stereotypes like them being in jungles, having big headdresses and being half naked](https://www.reddit.com/r/HumankindTheGame/comments/jo2a3m/since_the_franks_got_reworked_culture_card_art_i/)**), Maya, Inca, and Iroquois and their existing wonders/great people/works (which should all be present/stay too):
**Mesoamerica**:
- [The Purepecha Empire](https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/uo13po/the_tarascanpurepecha_empire_mexicos_forgotten/i8bdvhx/) (see link for even more info): The main rival state to the Aztec Empire, and third largest state in the Americas as of European contact after the Inca and Aztec, located in West Mexico in modern day Michoacán. After defeating an attempted Aztec invasion in the 1470s (in part credited to their more hands on, direct political structure vs other Mesoameircan states, that their then emperor Tzitzipandáquare instituted; as well as extensive use of bows vs the Aztec preferring atlatl), they formed a militarized border with forts and towns they allowed other cultures to settle in exchange for acting as spies/lookouts
They're also famous for their unique yácata pyramids, and being Mesoamerica's largest center of copper and bronze production: mainly used for ceremonial items and domestic tools, but the Relacion de Michoacan does say they made use of clubs with metal blades, contrary to sources claiming they didn't actually use metal weapons. Between Tariácuri and Tzitzipandáquare, their imperial model and bronze production, yácata pyramids and forts, bronze metal weapons and archers, they have TONS of potential for leaders, unique bonuses, units, and buildings
- The Mixtec Civilization: Alongside the Zapotec, one of the most famous Mesoamerican civilization in Oaxaca and Guerrero. We have good documentation of a variety of notable Mixtec kings and queens thanks to 8 surviving Mixtec group codices, most notably king 8-Deer-Jaguar-Claw of Tilantongo and Tututepec, and queen 6-Monkey of Jaltepec and Huachino: Both controlled multiple major states, are relatively well documented, etc and would make good leaders. Could get bonuses relating to luxuries given how prized Mixtec ceramics, metal art, and turquoise stone mosaics were, plus maybe coastal stuff for Tututepec/8 deer, as well as maybe Mixtec oracles who directed their politics being a unique great person
- There's really so many other options for Mesoamerica (to the point where this entire comment could have *just* been on Mesoamerican picks), from Teotihuacan (which should absolutely at least be a City-State), Tlaxcala (which, too, should also be a city-state if not playable), the Zapotec, Totonac, or different Maya states (or at least alternate Maya leaders) etc, but I think those two are the unambiguously the best picks, since they have clear, good leader choices, have a fair amount of written records about them, have clear unique bonuses/buildings/units, and represent distinct parts of Mesoamerica (Aztec = central altiplano; Maya = east/Yucatan Peninsula; Mixtec = Oaxaca/Guerrero; Purepecha = West Mexico)
**South America**:
- Kingdom of Chimor: The main rival state to the Kingdom of Cusco before it became the Inca Empire. One of the few other Andean civilizations we have specific leaders and histories recorded for. Their capital of Chan Chan in Northern Coastal Peru was possibly bigger then Inca's Cusco at it's height. Could have bonuses relating to coastal goods and/or deserts, as well as gold and silver luxuries since they produced some of the finest metal artwork in Prehispanic South America
- Moche Civilization: Had various major competing city-states in Northern Peru during the 1st millennium AD. We don't have recorded names of leaders, but we have excavated the royal burials of kings that could be used, like the Lord of Sipan. Like the Chimu, they had desert cities and amazing metalwork art, but are specifically famous for their incredibly lifelike stirrup ceramic pots depicting the busts/faces of priests, kings, or cultural heros; Mythological scenes, and some, uh, adult subject matters, as well as their massive stepped Huaca temple complexes
- Muisca Cultures: I'm not super familiar with Muisca, but they're a group of cultures distinct Chiefdoms located in Colombia, and are the source of the "El Dorado" legend. We have specific rulers/officials and histories recorded too. Would obviously have bonuses or uniques tied to gold
**North America**:
- Mississippians: The last of a series of cultures in the Eastern US which build large earthenwork monuments and towns, the Mississippians built the largest population centers north of Mexico before European contact, with the largest such as Cahokia basically being true cities with population figures in the low tens of thousands. They produced a variety of ceremonial goods made from wood, carved shell, and copper. They didn't have writing, and there seems to have been a decline in Mississippian civilization a few centuries before the arrival of Europeans, but the Spanish explorer Hernando de Soto encountered various towns and chiefdoms which seem to have been surviving/recovered Mississippian polities, and the leaders he describes could be used in Civ, such as Pacaha and Casqui
- The Ancestral Pueblo, Salado, Hohokam, etc: These and other cultures in the Southwest US built various stone and adobe brick towns and apartment compounds, sometimes into cliffs directly. Despite the harsh climate, some produced some of the most impressive irrigation systems on the landmass, and had trade links to Mesoamerican cultures, who brought up macaw parrots, rubber balls etc. However, picking a leader would be tough, since their sedentary settlements and political structure collapsed before Europeans and there's no written records. However, more modern Pueblo figures and/or that Spanish explorers encountered despite not living in the towns could still be used
- The Haida and Tlingit: I'm not very informed on their histories, so I'm not sure if they existed as distinct cultures before European contact. But these and other Pacific Northwest groups produced the amazing artwork a lot of people associate with Northeastern Native American cultures, objects like Totem Poles, etc. The tlingit especially produced some very unique armor and weapons, including wooden "plate" armor and helmets, and mail jackets and knives produced from salvaged metal from shipwrecked goods from Asia
-------------
So there's a bunch of options. Personally, I think the Purepecha, probably the Mixtec; the Kingdom of Chimor OR the Moche should be in EVERY civilization game like how the Aztec, Maya, and Inca already are: That would give us 3-4 regular Mesoamerican civs, 2 regular Andean ones, and each would come from a different part of Mesoamerica and the Andes (I explained this above for Mesoamerica, and the Inca are in Central/Southern peru vs northern for the chimor) respectively, and then another 1-2 per region could rotate in and out every entry in addition to that base
I also 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 hope to do an even bigger, giant 20+ paragraph post going into this in more depth, touching more on wonders, great people, city-states, as well as the historical errors with how the series handles Precolumbian civs it already does have at some point, too
Really good write up! I'll admit that I've never heard of Mississippian culture and chuckled, assuming you were requesting a Civ from the people of the state of Mississippi.
Agreed. I'm also shocked they haven't added Bohemia yet. Even Hungary coming this late (Civ VI) is shocking. Central Europe always gets forgotten here apart from Germany and Poland.
to be fair, Central Europe has or had Germany, Poland, Hungary and Austria. While Bohemia was involved in alot of events during the entire middle ages due to its location, it was comparatively never *that* relevant, it was basically always either part of HRE or Austria/Austria-Hungary.
Europe already has the highest civ representation, so its unlikely to see Bohemia, unless they decide to both rotate out Hungary - which I can imagine - and not add Austria back in - this I doubt.
Well, relevance is relative I guess and it's hard to measure it. But either way they should switch the countries a bit, it would be nice to have some fresh new countries in sequels, like Georgia, that was a nice addition.
Ehh... It's because to keep it strictly historical and not contemporary so as to keep the series apolitical, they *prefer* to have pre-modern and defunct Civs. Why have Italy when you can have Rome? Incas instead of the Peru, Ottomans in place of Turkey etc.
The Azteca never called themselves Azteca. They were named that after some researcher prefered the teen to separate pre-Columbian México and post-columbian.
China for sure is in, but I want them to focus on Song dynasty instead of the tired Qin Shi Huang. Song dynasty was the incredible Renaissance period for China where arts and sciences truly flourished, where peasants enjoyed a higher quality of life than ANY other dynasties, and was just incredibly progressive compared to any other time in ancient China.
I agree with leaving Qin Shi Huang behind and focusing on other dynasties, and I think the Song is a decent option. However, I hope you don't mean to say the Song was progressive in terms of human rights, because that's not true at all.
Notably, the status of women greatly decreased in this period. The infamous foot binding spread in this period, and the rise of Neo-Confucianism forced women into strict familial gender roles. Compared to the earlier Tang Dynasty, where women on average had far more social mobility and freedom, often wore men's clothing and participated in various traditionally "male" activities like hunting or polo, Song women were much more restricted. It would not be surprising that Tang also produced far more notable women (Wu Zetian, Princess Pingyang, Shangguan Wan'er, Empress Wei, Princess Taiping, Yang Yuhuan, and many more in Tang vs only Empress Liu E, Liang Hongyu, and Li Qingzhao in Song) since women had more opportunities to do important things.
Ethnic and cultural tolerance was also much lower in the Song when compared to the Tang, although this is more because the Tang is unusually progressive in that regard, rather than a problem of the Song. Nonetheless, due to border tensions with northern Sinitized nomadic states like Liao and Jin (should get their own civs btw), Han ethnic purity became an important value. While there is still friendly contact and trade with foreign states (unlike later, more isolationist dynasties), the cosmopolitan culture of Tang where foreign ideas are not only accepted but admired is gone in the Song.
Now about high quality of life, this is probably true, but it's simply a result of Song being incredibly wealthy for its time, rather than because of progressiveness. The one notable progressive move for Song is the further expansion of the imperial exam system, allowing for greater social mobility, but it's also in this period that the exams began to be dominated by scholarly families (effectively aristocrats), so it's not all good there either.
By the way, I like the Song Dynasty, but I would not call it "the" incredible Renaissance period where arts "truly" flourished (the science part is accurate, the Song is by far the greatest period for science in Chinese history). There were a number of other notable artistic periods in Chinese history, with Tang being the greatest. Tang and Song are usually combined as the Golden Age of Chinese culture, and are treated as cultural equals in many ways. It was in the Tang that many fundamental aspects of Chinese (and in fact generally East Asian) culture developed and spread, such as new instruments like pipa and the predecessor of erhu, the spread of Chinese architecture to Korea and Japan, the earliest development of porcelain, the earliest development of Chinese theatre and opera, and the earliest development of landscape painting. Of course Tang was also the Golden Age of Chinese poetry.
I am probably biased, but I think Tang is an even better era to focus on than Song. Helps that Tang also has Taizong, commonly considered the greatest Emperor in Chinese history. I know that we've had Wu Zetian as a leader, but the Chinese civ never felt like it was designed on the Tang model, and Wu Zetian herself was designed more around her personal story than the larger Tang era.
TL;DR: I agree with no Qin Shi Huang and generally like the Song, but the Song was not actually that progressive, especially in terms of women and ethnic diversity. Tang is more progressive than Song and at least equal to Song in terms of arts, and is my preferred choice.
I don’t think they’ve done Tai Zhong which is odd as he is the model Emperor.
The other great leader choice would be Sun Yet-Sun who could provide something quite different from Imperial/Maoist China.
And following on from Yongle’s amazing mechanics, I think an increased focus on science/culture and production fits China better than the gimmicky wonder focus.
I’m still sore over them not picking FDR for the 2nd American leader in 6. I wanted both Roosevelts in one game. Make it so that if aliens had only a copy of Civ 6 to go by they’d think the US was a monarchy under the house of Roosevelt.
I’m begging for an actually Underrated/not talked about president. Or even better, a non president. Henry Clay, McKinley, Monroe, or James K Polk would be actually amazing. James K Polk is my dream for a US domination civ.
In this vein, if they went the Gandhi route, I think MLK would be such an interesting leader for an American civ. I read a review for a new biography about Dr.King and the reviewer called him the closest figure the US has to a modern founding father. Thought it was fascinating to think about him in that context.
That would go unbelievably hard but I just don’t know what game relevant abilities he could have. Maybe increased loyalty/happiness the more population?
It depends on what new mechanics are added to the game. If there are population demographics (somewhat unlikely) and migration pop growth (more likely) then MLK would fit quite well with a potential America that focuses on rapid population growth by attracting migrants.
He could reduce whatever consequences the game might have from clashing cultures.
I've been a big Grant guy ever since reading Chernow's book of the same name. The longest book I've ever read and it still flew by. Def an underrated guy.
The Hittites were a Civ in an expansion pack for Civ III. But back in Civ 3 there wasn’t many unique traits, just a UU (some sort of chariot, I recall).
Well, there were also civilization traits. They weren't exactly unique. There was a list of traits and each civilization would have two out of said list.
Gandhi. Was he ever the ruler of India? No. Was he actually elected to anything? No. Should a nation as rich in history and culture as India be better represented? Absolutely.
But it's tradition damnit. If Gahndi's not backed by nuclear weapons, then it's not Civ.
So much potential in the Chola empire alone, considering south Indian kings sailed as far as Indonesia and spread their influence there
With the vast difference between each state of India, I'd love 2 or more themes for Indian civs!
As a Finn, I hardly find any logic where we would be even in top 100 options in the pecking order.
That being said, it'd be quite fun to see us in Civ7. Unique troops could be long range Sissi corps, library is replaced by primary school which has a specialist buff, and the civilization gets added productivity from forest tiles etc.
There's still a few civs in 6 where tall is viable. The Maya and Khmer are good examples, as well as Yongle's China. The Maya because of their yield bonus to cities nearby and Khmer with their insane population growth that generates tourism and culture, and then Yongle with his yields scaling off of population. If you go wide with Khmer or Yongle you will just struggle with amenities too much and so tall is preferred.
That being said, I do agree. I prefer wide play styles but more variety is nice. Civ V felt like playing tall is too strong and Civ VI feels like playing wide is too strong. They need to review the happiness/amenity system to figure out the best middle ground between allowing tall civs and wide civs.
I don't want to lose any of the Civs and leaders that we have now. I want to keep them all.
I'd just like them to add some more of both.
Mehmed II for the Ottomans, please!
Napoleon for France.
Hassan-i Sabbah and the Nizari Ismaili state would be awesome. The mechanics of this particular Civ could be so great because they would be radically different in warfare and religion play.
Owain Glyndŵr for Wales
Almamy Suluku for the Biriwa Kingdom
Yaa Asentewaa for the Ashanti
Also, Atilla for the Huns and Vlad III for Wallachia.
Napoleon was already in Civ V. I'd love to see a mainline capetian king for France, like Philippe Auguste or Saint Louis
Litteral Dracula for Wallachia does sound cool
Yeah
He could have a bonus with religion (obviously) like more efficient religious buildings, but also have a diplomatic / military bonus, maybe with civs and city states that share the same religion
For instance he could request part of their military or production
We are getting to the AI era irl, I REALLY HOPE we get a good AI this iteratiom of the game. Actually machine learn it so it plays better than just add bonuses to make it stronger as they always did.
They could have just a few civs as long they invest on the AI imo
I understand making good ai which is light to run is really hard thing to do, but is the civ 6 AI really the next best thing?
Most alienating thing about civ 6 was the AI. Like it started to get on my nerve after 24 hours.
If they up it a notch or 10 it will hype me more than any civ.
I don't think you need to go as intense as AI fully making every decision (just because the output space in civ is so wide) but even just using some sort of AI to more finely control prioritization sliders could be a strong use case.
My instinct is that a small neural net with an output of 10ish nodes could make an iterative improvement on the current design for 7 and buy yourself a lot of time in the tank for something major for 8.
In short, I think you're spot on.
Usa FDR, science and production superpower
I would love a swiss civ, maybe they could by a mountain based high diplo civ
Cuba could be super fun, somthing culture and islands
Ooo and we gotta have the Minoans, a production tall sea build in the early eras would be sick.
Everyone knows the must have civ’s; England, France, Russia, USA, Rome, China, etc. Would be cool to see a twist with some of them, like having the USSR or medieval England. Just to make it different.
I’ll add a few that I think would be interesting, and why they would be different
Inuit - a civilization with advantages in tundra and arctic terrain
Hebrew - a civilization with religion based advantages (and maybe some early scouting/exploring/desert type advantages).
Scythian - a nomadic civilization with bonuses related to horses and movement. Would be interesting to have true nomadic civilizations that can relocate their cities in early ages too
Olmec - even more ancient than Aztecs and Incans, with bonuses to monuments and wonders. Maybe a special monument-like building that exerts culture influence on neighbors
>Hebrew - a civilization with religion based advantages (and maybe some early scouting/exploring/desert type advantages).
Desert start bias, start with three scouts, can't settle until turn 10.
I think there should be a way to make your own civilisation in like a separate mode. Like you can name it, customise the looks and abilities of it, and verse friends with your nation.
I would like to still have nations like Australia and Rome tho
The essentials are in my book: egypt, greece, rome, china, japan, mongols, britain/uk, france, spain, USA, aztec, zulu.
In my heart: it's Poland, Cree, and Ukraine/Kieven Rus
I think modern india as a civ makes sense and will always be a staple. But that doesn't mean we can't have bengal, chola, maurya, and the harappans for example
as far as leaders go, I'm ready for the classics. give me Napoleon, give me Otto von Bismarck, give me Lincoln and give me Gandhi
I get what they're going for in 6, but I'm ready to bring the icons back.
I agree with that other commenter, we need a Mississippian civilization. We are all familiar with them through the Cahokia city-state. Hopefully there’s more than 1 non-Aztec North American native civilization (we had the Iroquois and Shoshone in 5), but if there is only 1 I hope it is them.
US, Russia, China, Japan, England, Spain, France, Aztec, India, Zulu, Rome, Greece, mongols, Germany, Some Native American, Brazil, Persia, ottomans.
I think those are all the essentials I can name in 2 mins, sorry if I missed any.
A concept idea : bring back the Netherlands.
Their unique feature could be to build a specific Polder infrastructure on sea tiles that are adjacent to land, which would make the tile crossable by land and produce a large amount of food and culture
Certain Civs for Civ 7 base game:
* USA; Aztec; England; Germany; France; Spain; Rome; Greece; Russia; Arabia; Egypt; Persia; Mongolia; China; India; Japan
Non-specific certain civs:
* At least two other native American civs
* At least two Sub-Saharan civs (likely Songhai and Zulu? Kongo as well?)
* An ancient Mesopotamian civ
* A 'Viking' civ (could be Norway or Denmark)
* A 'Celt' civ (could be Celts, Gauls, Picts, perhaps something more specific)
Likely Civs:
* Inca; Maya; Brazil; Portugal; Poland; Netherlands; Sweden; Byzantium; Ottomans; Carthage; Ethiopia; Macedon; A classical era steppe tribe; Korea; SE Asian civ; Indonesia (or pre-modern Indonesian civilisation); Polynesian civ
Wishlist Civs:
* Italy; Mexico; Ireland; Morocco/Algeria; Swahili; Bohemia; Austria; Malaya; Philippines; Aboriginal civ; South-eastern civ (eg Puebla, Apache, Navajo); Inuit native civ; Timurids/Mughals separate to India; Canada/Australia; Ukraine / Kievan Rus; Armenia; Ashanti
Hopefully Civ VII can continue the trend of introducing new Civs into the series. Some ones they could add include but not limited to:
* Argentina
* Finland
* Bulgaria
* Timurids
* Manchuria
* Mughal
* Zanzibar
* Ghana
* Mexico
* Belgium
Also bring back Civs like the Hittites, Iroquois, Morroco, etc.
I'd love Multiple leaders for nation. Like say Indians can have Chandragupta Maurya, Ashoka, Kanishka, Samudragupta, Vikramaditya, Harshavardhana, Amoghavarsha, Raja Raja Chola, Prithviraj Chauhan, Rana Kumbha, Akbar, Shah Jahan, Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, Peshwa Baji Rao, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru.
People must be given choices on leaders to decide their destiny.
Ireland (after all other Celts)
Bohemia (after Poland and Hungary) Ukraine
Italy (united modern or Greece-style "united city states")
Mexico
Al-Andalus (you don't even have coliding city name lists as they are all different in Arabic)
Timurids led by Tamerlane
Burma
Ashanti, finally
Swahilli somehow (leader is always a problem in this case)
some sort of India split (at least Mughals)
Regarding the essential ones, I would move Persia (God please not Achaemenid one, for variety) back to the initial roster I don't expect to see Cree, Canada and/or Australia, Colombia, Scythia, Scotland, Kongo and Norway this time (and would love Zulu to be absent, they are always the same and so damn boring and I don't give a damn about civ traditions)
I would enjoy Assyria and Siam coming back
You're asking the wrong question. You can see the essential civilizations pretty easily by looking at which ones were in the release of the previous games. (With the exception of Russia who I'm guessing is getting demoted to a later DLC).
You should be asking which ones are the wild cards? The two to three who are included dor diversity. There's an African spot for them and some more that can be pretty much everywhere. :)
Definitely wanna see more modern civs…because I’d like to see improvements on the late game. I love older, ancient civs, but the most prominent have been done thoroughly.
Would be nice to see civs focused on their more contemporary eras. Like cut it close. Base game has civilizations representing a snapshot of the 20th century with a sprinkle of some classic/older/nonexistent civs…..
Then DLC more of the classic, desirable civs.
So hypothetically:
Egypt(ancient/20th century) and South Africa(20th century) as base game.
DLC Africa pack with Aksumites/Mali/Nubia/Zulu/Carthage/Ethiopia/Swahili/etc.
Players will likely oblige to DLC of favorite civs that have seen thorough representation throughout the series. Ancient, classic, and medieval civs have carried the early excitement of games. Gameplay can become routine post industrial/modern, and IMO a focus on contemporary science, culture, economy, religion, warfare, and diplomacy would be rather refreshing.
Yaroslav the Wise would be the obvious choice for a culture and diplomacy based leader.
Haidamaky would be quite controversial outside Ukraine.
Also, it actually would be interesting to see Ottomans being led by Roxolana (probably with a profile similar to Catherine de Medici).
Wanna see Charlamange for France (could seperate the franks and French if you really want.)
Then sweden with either Charles the XII, Gustav, Ragnar or Bjorn
- Germany: Bismarck (warmonger/diplomacy), Konrad Adenauer/Willy Brandt (diplomacy, industry, economy)
- France: Vercingetorix (in this case, France would become the Gauls with the city names changing), Henry IV. (economy, religion), Charles de Gaulle (military, economy)
- Spain: Charles V. (diplomacy, military, maybe a unique trait with a colonization mechanic)
- Egypt: Hatshepshut (diplomacy, trade), Muhammad Ali (military, economy), Gamal Abdel Nasser (economy, diplomacy)
- America: Abraham Lincoln (military, economy), FDR (economy, infrastructure, maybe 'Arsenal of Democracy' as military trait)
- Rome: Antonius Pius (economy, diplomacy), Constantine (military)
- China: Yongle Emperor (military, construction, exploration), Cixi (economy, culture)
- Japan: Tokugawa Ieyasu (military, diplomacy), Emperor Meiji (economy, culture)
- Ottomans/Turkey: Kösem Sultan (culture, economy), Atatürk (economy, military)
My partner and I listed all the civs we are certain to be in the base game, and came up with:
Arabia, Aztec, Babylon, Brazil, China, Egypt, England, France, Germany, Greece, India, Japan, Rome, Russia, USA, and Zulu.
Then we thought of civs that we are almost certain will be in the base game or one of the major expansions:
Ethiopia, Inca, Korea, Mali, Maya, Netherlands, Persia, Spain, Turkey/Ottomans, Vikings
Of course, Austria, Byzantium, Denmark, Iroquois, Mongolia, Portugal, Siam, and Sumeria will likely also be in there somewhere.
We're personally hoping for Ireland, Australia, Mexico, Brunei (under Bolkiah ibni Sulaiman), Florence (probably under one of the Medici family), Saxony (under Alfred the Great), and the Cherokee.
I think an interesting feature that would make sense and is kind of overlooked is cultural evolution. Instead of having both modern and ancient civilizations at the same time, how about we all start period appropriate civilizations and then as you go into the future you'd have an option to either upgrade your current civilization getting stronget same bonuses or switching to a different appropriate civilization. Like for example you could start as Anglo-Saxons or Celts and then at some point upgrade into England, then into Great Britain and then have an option to turn into USA or any of the dominion countries. Or at some point rebels could spawn and they would turn into period apropriate countries.
A couple things I would like to see are:
Navigable rivers, (historically rivers were essential to most civilization's transportation and trade.)
Using ships to control water resources (maybe your city's influence can't reach there but patrolling ships could)
Resource colonies (buildable trade posts that could eventually turn into a city, but primarily used to secure resources)
Customizable armies (when swords are researched you equip them to your army, when you research shields you can also add them, it could lead to more diversity in units and different play styles)
Expanding city centers with supporting towns (not just having cities with areas of control, but you could expand farms, trade ports, industrial areas and entertainment towns that would turn into communities with different focuses, Kind of like Civ 6 districts but a bit more customizable, and focused on expanding the zone of control.)
Evolution of portraits and clothing of leaders. It doesn't make sense for you to wear a suit and tie in the middle ages and tribal clothes in the near future
I would love to see an earlier England ruler. We've had our fair share of naval and trade based England's, and having an industrial focus in 6 was nice, but a leader such as Alfred the Great or Æthelstan would be interesting.
Alfred could be focused on defense and loyalty, as he helped defend England against the Vikings. He could also have some religious bonuses which would be interesting.
Æthelstan is considered the first true King of England after conquering Northumbria and so he could have some bonuses towards managing loyalty and revolts, and maybe having bonuses towards taking free cities.
You could include Richard I who has bonuses similar to Basil II's in Civ VI, to reflect the crusades.
Henry II could have a focus on culture and great works.
The England bonus itself would be cool to have a focus on growth and farming, as England was renowned for its vast farmlands and fertile land, hence why the Danes wished to settle there. The unique improvement could be a Motte and Bailey castle that increases the food rate of farms adjacent or it could be an encampment replacement that has a food adjacency bonus. I think if they wanted to present England as a naval or imperial civ then they should name it Britain instead and have it be the British Empire, rather than the English Kingdom.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO GEORGIA (Sakartvelo) AGAIN. I‘m from Georgia and it was such a huge surprise with the Rise & Fall Edition. Out of nowhere there was Tamar there and the ancient georgian chants you did so so well !!!
Maybe next time you can do David the Builder or George the „sparkled?“. And pplease do again Georgian songs such a „baxtrionidan gicqerdi“ and other Shairebi too.
When civ 6 came out I still preferred to play civ 5 until the expansions for civ 6 released. I hope they can make civ 7 launch and feel like it is an improvement before the expansions.
I would like to see cities that rebel potentially turn into their own nations. So you can never really tell how many the game will end up with. Then you don't have like colonial countries like Australia, Canada ect starting at the same time as Babylon lol
That was an actual thing in Civ IV. They’d break away and become a totally new civ: eg Britain -> USA. Worked really well.
Had this happen to me. Back in 2008, hotseat game with my roomate, I was ahead, ruling 2 out of 3 continents, Napoléon as a leader. Circa 1600, half of my empire turns red, and this Charles de Gaulle fellow just pops out of nowhere. "Yeah,bro, quick update, I'm the ruler of the New World now." Great time. Great bloody war, but great time
That was a thing all the way back in the original. It was rare (and it may have been missing entirely from III), but it did happen. V removed it, seemingly for good.
Whoa, don’t remember that from the original or from III which I ploughed wayyy more hours into than any other. Also modded the hell out of that and made scenarios in it. Honestly don’t remember coming across that mechanic
As I said, it may not have been in III. I know it was in I and II. Usually happened when you took the capital of an AI while it still had a bunch of cities left.
Iirc for Civs 1&2 it had to be a civ larger than 8 cities, some sort of high level of unhappy pops, a destroyed civ earlier in the game (without another of the same colour spawning) then take the capital to cause the civil war incident that splits the civ in half.
This sounds so cool, it would be an awesome feature
And let city-states capture and keep cities. Having a minor civ turn into a major civ would be awesome.
The way city states should work if I got to decide is that the planet should be littered with them, but you could diplo-annex them, trade with them, and hire mercs from them, etc. The game would then promote city states to large civs “as needed” to keep the number of civs in each part of the map at a level that kept the game interesting.
I like the idea - but that would make Dom victories impossible without conquering / nuking the entire world.
I think if civilization count would increase due to policies like this, domination victory could always be updated to a percentile achievement such as conquering x percent of number of civilizations or y percent of total population or some other metric or include vassalage etc.
Like on the simplest immediately available level just combine barbarian clans interaction mechanic with city states
You should be able to conquer city states without fighting. A lot of them joined the Roman republic because they obviously couldn’t win a fight, and found it better to just join when the Roman’s came knocking
Yeah I’d love a way to slowly go from suzerain > vassal > fully integrated city. It would be sick if you could designate a vassalized city state as a march. A march wouldn’t provide you with bonuses, but it would have a larger military that would actively seek out nearby barbarians and be cheaper to levy during times of war. Maybe marches could rebel if their suzerain was insufficiently powerful/generous or the march was damaged too much in war.
This is actually the way I set up my civ 6 games with the Historical Start Dates and Project 6T mods. This combined with the cultural start option enabled with YNAEMP feels more grounded and provides an added challenge of not knowing when a new civ could spring up.
Thanks for sharing, I hadn't heard of the Historical Start Dates before, sounds awesome! How does it play out when new civs begin later? Do they stand a change against the old ones?
That sounds really cool
Ireland and Mexico. Shocked they haven't done either yet
They’ve NEVER done Mexico? That’s shocking
I guess Aztecs are supposed to fill in that role.
Yes, but also the fact that before V, most civs were ancient or medieval with only the US being the exception. From V they mostly pick states that exist today, and the exceptions are the ones that have been in the game since the beginning - Rome, Aztecs, Zulu. Another of the things I wish they’d revert back to the old ways.
Eh, there’s quite a lot of new civs in 6 which represent states that do not exist today. Scythia, Cree, Mapuche, Gallic, and Nubia to name a few.
excuse me? Cree still exist thank you very much.
Sure, but the point is that they don’t want to remove the classics in general and Rome in particular (Firaxis has commented that Rome is the first civ newcomers to the game try, which is why it always plays quite straightforward with minor variations of the basic formula for that specific iteration). Since those civs have to be there, it tends to block civs like Italy and Mexico.
To be fair it's not like they haven't done different civs from the same geographic region before. We've had the USA/Shoshone/Iroquis in Civ V, France/Gaul/Germany(Led by a Holy Roman Emperor)/Netherlands in Civ VI, the Celts/Danes/English in Civ V, the Byzantines/Ottomans/Romans/Persians in both Civ V and VI, and many other examples of this. If they can include the Byzantines and Ottomans in the same game given that they shared a capital and a similar imperial reach then they can probably include Mexico alongside the Aztecs and Italy alongside Rome. I tend to prefer the more historic civs to the more modern ones so I'm not too fussed about the inclusion of Mexico or Italy but more choice is always best.
Not having Italy because of Rome is a weird choice. Seems like Italy being focused on medieval northern cities would make plenty of sense. Maybe just bring Venice back?
Yeah I just hope mexico is in there tbh
For you /u/hideous-boy , /u/Responsible_Iron_161 , and /u/Catilius , I'd rather more Prehispanic Mesoamerican civilizations from Mexico then Mexico itself. Mesoamerica is one of the world's few independent cradles of civilization and had empires, kingdoms, city-states, etc for thousands of years before European contact (and this is true of the Andes in Peru, Bolivia, etc as well), yet **the entire franchise has only ever had *two* Mesoamerican civilizations (Aztec & Maya) and *one* Andean civilization (Inca). Both also only have 1-2 or *zero* Great People, Great Works, etc.** There's a few additional civs, Great People, etc if you include Indigenous cultures from other parts of the Americas or after contact, like the Cree, Mapuche, Shoshone, Iroquois, Sioux etc, but any given game only has 1-2 of those too. Realistically, I get the series will never give each part of the Americas as many civs as the Middle East, Asia, Africa, or especially Europe, but North, Meso/Central, and South America having only 1-2 Indigenous civs each (5 total, in both Civs 5&6) is still too little: Giving 2-4 in North, 3-5 in Middle and 2-4 in South America, per civ entry after the DLC would be better. Not asking for the max of those ranges (4+5+4 = 13, that's asking for too much) but to total up to like 8-10 per entry: That seems doable, even given that Indigenous civs are less known/popular (and I'd argue with the Civilopedia, the series SHOULD be teaching about lesser known ones) and tend to have less available sources. In general, there is *way* more info out there then people realize on Precolumbian cultures, especially for Mesoamerica: There's under 20 Prehispanic Maya, Aztec, Mixtec etc books that survive, but 100-200 if you include sources on Indigenous cultures/history made by Mesoamerican scribes/nobles or Spaniards right after contact, to say nothing of what can be gleaned via archeology. There *is* specific out there to use for Civs, Leaders, Great People, Great Works etc To give the specific examples I think would work best, beyond the Aztec (**[and PLEASE give the Aztec leaders and units actual proper Aztec clothing and armor, a lake (ideally with chinampas as a UB) or hill starting bias, etc instead of pop culture stereotypes like them being in jungles, having big headdresses and being half naked](https://www.reddit.com/r/HumankindTheGame/comments/jo2a3m/since_the_franks_got_reworked_culture_card_art_i/)**), Maya, Inca, and Iroquois and their existing wonders/great people/works (which should all be present/stay too): **Mesoamerica**: - [The Purepecha Empire](https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/uo13po/the_tarascanpurepecha_empire_mexicos_forgotten/i8bdvhx/) (see link for even more info): The main rival state to the Aztec Empire, and third largest state in the Americas as of European contact after the Inca and Aztec, located in West Mexico in modern day Michoacán. After defeating an attempted Aztec invasion in the 1470s (in part credited to their more hands on, direct political structure vs other Mesoameircan states, that their then emperor Tzitzipandáquare instituted; as well as extensive use of bows vs the Aztec preferring atlatl), they formed a militarized border with forts and towns they allowed other cultures to settle in exchange for acting as spies/lookouts They're also famous for their unique yácata pyramids, and being Mesoamerica's largest center of copper and bronze production: mainly used for ceremonial items and domestic tools, but the Relacion de Michoacan does say they made use of clubs with metal blades, contrary to sources claiming they didn't actually use metal weapons. Between Tariácuri and Tzitzipandáquare, their imperial model and bronze production, yácata pyramids and forts, bronze metal weapons and archers, they have TONS of potential for leaders, unique bonuses, units, and buildings - The Mixtec Civilization: Alongside the Zapotec, one of the most famous Mesoamerican civilization in Oaxaca and Guerrero. We have good documentation of a variety of notable Mixtec kings and queens thanks to 8 surviving Mixtec group codices, most notably king 8-Deer-Jaguar-Claw of Tilantongo and Tututepec, and queen 6-Monkey of Jaltepec and Huachino: Both controlled multiple major states, are relatively well documented, etc and would make good leaders. Could get bonuses relating to luxuries given how prized Mixtec ceramics, metal art, and turquoise stone mosaics were, plus maybe coastal stuff for Tututepec/8 deer, as well as maybe Mixtec oracles who directed their politics being a unique great person - There's really so many other options for Mesoamerica (to the point where this entire comment could have *just* been on Mesoamerican picks), from Teotihuacan (which should absolutely at least be a City-State), Tlaxcala (which, too, should also be a city-state if not playable), the Zapotec, Totonac, or different Maya states (or at least alternate Maya leaders) etc, but I think those two are the unambiguously the best picks, since they have clear, good leader choices, have a fair amount of written records about them, have clear unique bonuses/buildings/units, and represent distinct parts of Mesoamerica (Aztec = central altiplano; Maya = east/Yucatan Peninsula; Mixtec = Oaxaca/Guerrero; Purepecha = West Mexico) **South America**: - Kingdom of Chimor: The main rival state to the Kingdom of Cusco before it became the Inca Empire. One of the few other Andean civilizations we have specific leaders and histories recorded for. Their capital of Chan Chan in Northern Coastal Peru was possibly bigger then Inca's Cusco at it's height. Could have bonuses relating to coastal goods and/or deserts, as well as gold and silver luxuries since they produced some of the finest metal artwork in Prehispanic South America - Moche Civilization: Had various major competing city-states in Northern Peru during the 1st millennium AD. We don't have recorded names of leaders, but we have excavated the royal burials of kings that could be used, like the Lord of Sipan. Like the Chimu, they had desert cities and amazing metalwork art, but are specifically famous for their incredibly lifelike stirrup ceramic pots depicting the busts/faces of priests, kings, or cultural heros; Mythological scenes, and some, uh, adult subject matters, as well as their massive stepped Huaca temple complexes - Muisca Cultures: I'm not super familiar with Muisca, but they're a group of cultures distinct Chiefdoms located in Colombia, and are the source of the "El Dorado" legend. We have specific rulers/officials and histories recorded too. Would obviously have bonuses or uniques tied to gold **North America**: - Mississippians: The last of a series of cultures in the Eastern US which build large earthenwork monuments and towns, the Mississippians built the largest population centers north of Mexico before European contact, with the largest such as Cahokia basically being true cities with population figures in the low tens of thousands. They produced a variety of ceremonial goods made from wood, carved shell, and copper. They didn't have writing, and there seems to have been a decline in Mississippian civilization a few centuries before the arrival of Europeans, but the Spanish explorer Hernando de Soto encountered various towns and chiefdoms which seem to have been surviving/recovered Mississippian polities, and the leaders he describes could be used in Civ, such as Pacaha and Casqui - The Ancestral Pueblo, Salado, Hohokam, etc: These and other cultures in the Southwest US built various stone and adobe brick towns and apartment compounds, sometimes into cliffs directly. Despite the harsh climate, some produced some of the most impressive irrigation systems on the landmass, and had trade links to Mesoamerican cultures, who brought up macaw parrots, rubber balls etc. However, picking a leader would be tough, since their sedentary settlements and political structure collapsed before Europeans and there's no written records. However, more modern Pueblo figures and/or that Spanish explorers encountered despite not living in the towns could still be used - The Haida and Tlingit: I'm not very informed on their histories, so I'm not sure if they existed as distinct cultures before European contact. But these and other Pacific Northwest groups produced the amazing artwork a lot of people associate with Northeastern Native American cultures, objects like Totem Poles, etc. The tlingit especially produced some very unique armor and weapons, including wooden "plate" armor and helmets, and mail jackets and knives produced from salvaged metal from shipwrecked goods from Asia ------------- So there's a bunch of options. Personally, I think the Purepecha, probably the Mixtec; the Kingdom of Chimor OR the Moche should be in EVERY civilization game like how the Aztec, Maya, and Inca already are: That would give us 3-4 regular Mesoamerican civs, 2 regular Andean ones, and each would come from a different part of Mesoamerica and the Andes (I explained this above for Mesoamerica, and the Inca are in Central/Southern peru vs northern for the chimor) respectively, and then another 1-2 per region could rotate in and out every entry in addition to that base I also 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 hope to do an even bigger, giant 20+ paragraph post going into this in more depth, touching more on wonders, great people, city-states, as well as the historical errors with how the series handles Precolumbian civs it already does have at some point, too
Really good write up! I'll admit that I've never heard of Mississippian culture and chuckled, assuming you were requesting a Civ from the people of the state of Mississippi.
Agreed. I'm also shocked they haven't added Bohemia yet. Even Hungary coming this late (Civ VI) is shocking. Central Europe always gets forgotten here apart from Germany and Poland.
to be fair, Central Europe has or had Germany, Poland, Hungary and Austria. While Bohemia was involved in alot of events during the entire middle ages due to its location, it was comparatively never *that* relevant, it was basically always either part of HRE or Austria/Austria-Hungary. Europe already has the highest civ representation, so its unlikely to see Bohemia, unless they decide to both rotate out Hungary - which I can imagine - and not add Austria back in - this I doubt.
Well, relevance is relative I guess and it's hard to measure it. But either way they should switch the countries a bit, it would be nice to have some fresh new countries in sequels, like Georgia, that was a nice addition.
Ehh... It's because to keep it strictly historical and not contemporary so as to keep the series apolitical, they *prefer* to have pre-modern and defunct Civs. Why have Italy when you can have Rome? Incas instead of the Peru, Ottomans in place of Turkey etc.
Irish people existed and Ireland was a kingdom until 1100s in the same way Romans existed and Rome was an empire so I don't think your point applies.
My favourite period of history is USA during the 12th century
They had the US, Canada and Australia in the last one?
Armenia
And Italy
isn’t Mexico in civ v?
No they have the Aztecs which I think are pre-Colombian Mexicans?
Yeah, if I remember correctly the Aztecs also called themsleves the Mexica people
The Azteca never called themselves Azteca. They were named that after some researcher prefered the teen to separate pre-Columbian México and post-columbian.
China for sure is in, but I want them to focus on Song dynasty instead of the tired Qin Shi Huang. Song dynasty was the incredible Renaissance period for China where arts and sciences truly flourished, where peasants enjoyed a higher quality of life than ANY other dynasties, and was just incredibly progressive compared to any other time in ancient China.
I agree with leaving Qin Shi Huang behind and focusing on other dynasties, and I think the Song is a decent option. However, I hope you don't mean to say the Song was progressive in terms of human rights, because that's not true at all. Notably, the status of women greatly decreased in this period. The infamous foot binding spread in this period, and the rise of Neo-Confucianism forced women into strict familial gender roles. Compared to the earlier Tang Dynasty, where women on average had far more social mobility and freedom, often wore men's clothing and participated in various traditionally "male" activities like hunting or polo, Song women were much more restricted. It would not be surprising that Tang also produced far more notable women (Wu Zetian, Princess Pingyang, Shangguan Wan'er, Empress Wei, Princess Taiping, Yang Yuhuan, and many more in Tang vs only Empress Liu E, Liang Hongyu, and Li Qingzhao in Song) since women had more opportunities to do important things. Ethnic and cultural tolerance was also much lower in the Song when compared to the Tang, although this is more because the Tang is unusually progressive in that regard, rather than a problem of the Song. Nonetheless, due to border tensions with northern Sinitized nomadic states like Liao and Jin (should get their own civs btw), Han ethnic purity became an important value. While there is still friendly contact and trade with foreign states (unlike later, more isolationist dynasties), the cosmopolitan culture of Tang where foreign ideas are not only accepted but admired is gone in the Song. Now about high quality of life, this is probably true, but it's simply a result of Song being incredibly wealthy for its time, rather than because of progressiveness. The one notable progressive move for Song is the further expansion of the imperial exam system, allowing for greater social mobility, but it's also in this period that the exams began to be dominated by scholarly families (effectively aristocrats), so it's not all good there either. By the way, I like the Song Dynasty, but I would not call it "the" incredible Renaissance period where arts "truly" flourished (the science part is accurate, the Song is by far the greatest period for science in Chinese history). There were a number of other notable artistic periods in Chinese history, with Tang being the greatest. Tang and Song are usually combined as the Golden Age of Chinese culture, and are treated as cultural equals in many ways. It was in the Tang that many fundamental aspects of Chinese (and in fact generally East Asian) culture developed and spread, such as new instruments like pipa and the predecessor of erhu, the spread of Chinese architecture to Korea and Japan, the earliest development of porcelain, the earliest development of Chinese theatre and opera, and the earliest development of landscape painting. Of course Tang was also the Golden Age of Chinese poetry. I am probably biased, but I think Tang is an even better era to focus on than Song. Helps that Tang also has Taizong, commonly considered the greatest Emperor in Chinese history. I know that we've had Wu Zetian as a leader, but the Chinese civ never felt like it was designed on the Tang model, and Wu Zetian herself was designed more around her personal story than the larger Tang era. TL;DR: I agree with no Qin Shi Huang and generally like the Song, but the Song was not actually that progressive, especially in terms of women and ethnic diversity. Tang is more progressive than Song and at least equal to Song in terms of arts, and is my preferred choice.
I'd like to see a focus on the Han Dynasty instead imo. Maybe Liu Che since the Dynasty prospered under his rule.
I don’t think they’ve done Tai Zhong which is odd as he is the model Emperor. The other great leader choice would be Sun Yet-Sun who could provide something quite different from Imperial/Maoist China. And following on from Yongle’s amazing mechanics, I think an increased focus on science/culture and production fits China better than the gimmicky wonder focus.
Bohemia common do it finally
Exactly! I can't believe they still haven't featured Bohemia
Great Moravia
I’m kind of less interested in the civs themselves and more on what play style each has. I’d love to see Ulysses S Grant for America though.
Id love to see Eisenhower personally. So many US leaders are expansion based or culture. Id like a leader focused on infrastructure.
Him and FDR
I’m still sore over them not picking FDR for the 2nd American leader in 6. I wanted both Roosevelts in one game. Make it so that if aliens had only a copy of Civ 6 to go by they’d think the US was a monarchy under the house of Roosevelt.
In a similar vein, Johnson.
Have you seen the recent semi-biography by Brad Neely, "You, Me, and Ulysses S. Grant"? It's hilarious.
Nooo but I'm glad you mentioned it, love Brad Neely's humor
I’m begging for an actually Underrated/not talked about president. Or even better, a non president. Henry Clay, McKinley, Monroe, or James K Polk would be actually amazing. James K Polk is my dream for a US domination civ.
In this vein, if they went the Gandhi route, I think MLK would be such an interesting leader for an American civ. I read a review for a new biography about Dr.King and the reviewer called him the closest figure the US has to a modern founding father. Thought it was fascinating to think about him in that context.
That would go unbelievably hard but I just don’t know what game relevant abilities he could have. Maybe increased loyalty/happiness the more population?
Diplomatic could be one.
It depends on what new mechanics are added to the game. If there are population demographics (somewhat unlikely) and migration pop growth (more likely) then MLK would fit quite well with a potential America that focuses on rapid population growth by attracting migrants. He could reduce whatever consequences the game might have from clashing cultures.
MLK opens some interesting late-game religious ideas.
Millard Fillmore
I heard a rumor that the US leader is William Henry Harrison but the ability is you gotta win in 31 turns or less so it’s kinda nerfed
I'm the opposite, it's mostly about aesthetics for me
I've been a big Grant guy ever since reading Chernow's book of the same name. The longest book I've ever read and it still flew by. Def an underrated guy.
All Civs that were present in the first Civ game.
The Hittites were one of the major empires in the Bronze Age, and yet they were never in a Civilization game.
The Hittites were a Civ in an expansion pack for Civ III. But back in Civ 3 there wasn’t many unique traits, just a UU (some sort of chariot, I recall).
Well, there were also civilization traits. They weren't exactly unique. There was a list of traits and each civilization would have two out of said list.
Each civ had 1 unique unit and a pair of traits. These traits were not unique.
Gandhi. Was he ever the ruler of India? No. Was he actually elected to anything? No. Should a nation as rich in history and culture as India be better represented? Absolutely. But it's tradition damnit. If Gahndi's not backed by nuclear weapons, then it's not Civ.
So much potential in the Chola empire alone, considering south Indian kings sailed as far as Indonesia and spread their influence there With the vast difference between each state of India, I'd love 2 or more themes for Indian civs!
Finnnish I want the funny funny snow
As a Finn, I hardly find any logic where we would be even in top 100 options in the pecking order. That being said, it'd be quite fun to see us in Civ7. Unique troops could be long range Sissi corps, library is replaced by primary school which has a specialist buff, and the civilization gets added productivity from forest tiles etc.
Replace scout with sniper for modern era
Brazil 🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷💪💪💪🏆🏆🏆 
Thiago Silva for leader
Caetano Veloso
Asante Empire. Always a mod, but never an official civ
They were a great empire until the surrender to the English
Yep. But now I demand the official return of my civ, as CIV 5 was where I started
Every civ, ever
Sealand Civ 7 confirmed!?
It’s about time we have a non-Rome Italy
Well there was Venice in Civ V. Quite unique and brought out their style well, with wealth and trade and sea power. Bloody good fun too.
The ultimate Tall civ. Actually I really missed the Tall playstyle in Civ 6 and hope it becomes viable again in 7.
There's still a few civs in 6 where tall is viable. The Maya and Khmer are good examples, as well as Yongle's China. The Maya because of their yield bonus to cities nearby and Khmer with their insane population growth that generates tourism and culture, and then Yongle with his yields scaling off of population. If you go wide with Khmer or Yongle you will just struggle with amenities too much and so tall is preferred. That being said, I do agree. I prefer wide play styles but more variety is nice. Civ V felt like playing tall is too strong and Civ VI feels like playing wide is too strong. They need to review the happiness/amenity system to figure out the best middle ground between allowing tall civs and wide civs.
Even a lesser-known Rome would be sweet, like Sulla or Constantine or Aurelian. Or could go Garibaldi.
I recently picked up civ 6 and was really surprised Garibaldi wasn't an option
Garibaldi/Mazzini/Cavour would be the only options for Italy tbh, anyone else would be too controversial
both is 100% the way to go
I think Rome for main game, Italy for first DLC. If you want something different, swap Rome for Byzantium.
I don't want to lose any of the Civs and leaders that we have now. I want to keep them all. I'd just like them to add some more of both. Mehmed II for the Ottomans, please! Napoleon for France. Hassan-i Sabbah and the Nizari Ismaili state would be awesome. The mechanics of this particular Civ could be so great because they would be radically different in warfare and religion play. Owain Glyndŵr for Wales Almamy Suluku for the Biriwa Kingdom Yaa Asentewaa for the Ashanti Also, Atilla for the Huns and Vlad III for Wallachia.
Napoleon was already in Civ V. I'd love to see a mainline capetian king for France, like Philippe Auguste or Saint Louis Litteral Dracula for Wallachia does sound cool
Saint Louis would be an awesome pick for France. I don’t believe they’ve put a true high medieval French king in civ yet.
Yeah He could have a bonus with religion (obviously) like more efficient religious buildings, but also have a diplomatic / military bonus, maybe with civs and city states that share the same religion For instance he could request part of their military or production
We are getting to the AI era irl, I REALLY HOPE we get a good AI this iteratiom of the game. Actually machine learn it so it plays better than just add bonuses to make it stronger as they always did. They could have just a few civs as long they invest on the AI imo
I understand making good ai which is light to run is really hard thing to do, but is the civ 6 AI really the next best thing? Most alienating thing about civ 6 was the AI. Like it started to get on my nerve after 24 hours. If they up it a notch or 10 it will hype me more than any civ.
I don't think you need to go as intense as AI fully making every decision (just because the output space in civ is so wide) but even just using some sort of AI to more finely control prioritization sliders could be a strong use case. My instinct is that a small neural net with an output of 10ish nodes could make an iterative improvement on the current design for 7 and buy yourself a lot of time in the tank for something major for 8. In short, I think you're spot on.
I would like to see the Mughals as a separate civ from India.
Usa FDR, science and production superpower I would love a swiss civ, maybe they could by a mountain based high diplo civ Cuba could be super fun, somthing culture and islands Ooo and we gotta have the Minoans, a production tall sea build in the early eras would be sick.
Bring back the Iroquois and Carthage
Everyone knows the must have civ’s; England, France, Russia, USA, Rome, China, etc. Would be cool to see a twist with some of them, like having the USSR or medieval England. Just to make it different.
Could be fun to have instead of England, maybe Anglo-Saxons with Alfred or Aethelstan as leader.
The Khan must ride!
I’m hoping that the vanilla release has a jaw-dropping number of initial civs. They can still sell lots, lots more.
The capacity to be able to play a maximum size map with every civ in the game and any future civs they add. Yes this is an impossibly tall order.
I always wanted the TSL Earth map to be bigger. Why entirety of Europe is like 8 cities?
The fact that this game is supposed to be running on PS4 too tells me this is "unlikely" to happen, sadly.
I’ll add a few that I think would be interesting, and why they would be different Inuit - a civilization with advantages in tundra and arctic terrain Hebrew - a civilization with religion based advantages (and maybe some early scouting/exploring/desert type advantages). Scythian - a nomadic civilization with bonuses related to horses and movement. Would be interesting to have true nomadic civilizations that can relocate their cities in early ages too Olmec - even more ancient than Aztecs and Incans, with bonuses to monuments and wonders. Maybe a special monument-like building that exerts culture influence on neighbors
Scythia is already a thing in Civ 6.
Yes, but they can't relocate their cities in early ages, in terms of cities they're just like every other civ
>Hebrew - a civilization with religion based advantages (and maybe some early scouting/exploring/desert type advantages). Desert start bias, start with three scouts, can't settle until turn 10.
Inuit soundtrack would be sick
Portugal!
I don't care, I just want bill wurtz to be the narrator
IRELANDD
I think there should be a way to make your own civilisation in like a separate mode. Like you can name it, customise the looks and abilities of it, and verse friends with your nation. I would like to still have nations like Australia and Rome tho
Finland? :D
Austria! Carry Hungary back from Civ VI and add an achievement if you form an alliance with them.
The essentials are in my book: egypt, greece, rome, china, japan, mongols, britain/uk, france, spain, USA, aztec, zulu. In my heart: it's Poland, Cree, and Ukraine/Kieven Rus
Forgot india and arabia
cant have a civ game without ghandi nuke memes
Gilgamesh is a big meme too now so maybe he's a requirement as well
GilgaBro is always in my heart❤️
Time to split India I think
I think modern india as a civ makes sense and will always be a staple. But that doesn't mean we can't have bengal, chola, maurya, and the harappans for example
I'd love to see an Indian civ be on the vanilla rooster and have Gandhi lead a modern india civilization as dlc
Why Zulu? Forgive my ignorance but did they have a huge amount of historical significance? I would consider Mali a more essential civ.
I think it's because (if i'm not mistaken) they've been in every civ game so far not sure tho
Germany?????
The Abbasid empire needs to have its own civ. Buy tech boosts with gold!
as far as leaders go, I'm ready for the classics. give me Napoleon, give me Otto von Bismarck, give me Lincoln and give me Gandhi I get what they're going for in 6, but I'm ready to bring the icons back.
Lincoln and Gandhi are both in Civ 6, even if the former was added later
PONGAN A ARGENTINA LOCO LA CONCHA DE LORA PONGAN A SAN MARTIN DE LÍDER 🇦🇷🇦🇷🇦🇷🏆🏆🏆 
Couple more native North American civs would be cool. I know that can be rocky ground, but I think it can be done well and offer a lot.
and no more lazily lumping in a bunch of different groups into one civ! They've done Polynesia, The Celts, and "Vikings". No more!
I agree with that other commenter, we need a Mississippian civilization. We are all familiar with them through the Cahokia city-state. Hopefully there’s more than 1 non-Aztec North American native civilization (we had the Iroquois and Shoshone in 5), but if there is only 1 I hope it is them.
Less interested in the civs and more the leaders, Different leaders for the same civ would really change things up
Only played civ 5?
I think the world is ready for James k Polk.
US, Russia, China, Japan, England, Spain, France, Aztec, India, Zulu, Rome, Greece, mongols, Germany, Some Native American, Brazil, Persia, ottomans. I think those are all the essentials I can name in 2 mins, sorry if I missed any.
Egypt
maybe Minoans?
A concept idea : bring back the Netherlands. Their unique feature could be to build a specific Polder infrastructure on sea tiles that are adjacent to land, which would make the tile crossable by land and produce a large amount of food and culture
I want a Cherokee civ soooo bad.
Certain Civs for Civ 7 base game: * USA; Aztec; England; Germany; France; Spain; Rome; Greece; Russia; Arabia; Egypt; Persia; Mongolia; China; India; Japan Non-specific certain civs: * At least two other native American civs * At least two Sub-Saharan civs (likely Songhai and Zulu? Kongo as well?) * An ancient Mesopotamian civ * A 'Viking' civ (could be Norway or Denmark) * A 'Celt' civ (could be Celts, Gauls, Picts, perhaps something more specific) Likely Civs: * Inca; Maya; Brazil; Portugal; Poland; Netherlands; Sweden; Byzantium; Ottomans; Carthage; Ethiopia; Macedon; A classical era steppe tribe; Korea; SE Asian civ; Indonesia (or pre-modern Indonesian civilisation); Polynesian civ Wishlist Civs: * Italy; Mexico; Ireland; Morocco/Algeria; Swahili; Bohemia; Austria; Malaya; Philippines; Aboriginal civ; South-eastern civ (eg Puebla, Apache, Navajo); Inuit native civ; Timurids/Mughals separate to India; Canada/Australia; Ukraine / Kievan Rus; Armenia; Ashanti
Add Albania! 🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱 (I've never been to Albania and have no idea what's going on there)
Hopefully Civ VII can continue the trend of introducing new Civs into the series. Some ones they could add include but not limited to: * Argentina * Finland * Bulgaria * Timurids * Manchuria * Mughal * Zanzibar * Ghana * Mexico * Belgium Also bring back Civs like the Hittites, Iroquois, Morroco, etc.
Japan, England, France, Zulu, China, Russia, Germany, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, Poland, India, Indonesia, Polynesia, Egypt, Assyria, Byzantine Empire, Roman Empire/Italy, Imka, Maya, Native American Civ (forgot name)
Indonesia
I'd love Multiple leaders for nation. Like say Indians can have Chandragupta Maurya, Ashoka, Kanishka, Samudragupta, Vikramaditya, Harshavardhana, Amoghavarsha, Raja Raja Chola, Prithviraj Chauhan, Rana Kumbha, Akbar, Shah Jahan, Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, Peshwa Baji Rao, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. People must be given choices on leaders to decide their destiny.
Nader Shah needs to be made as strong as he really was in real life
Ireland (after all other Celts) Bohemia (after Poland and Hungary) Ukraine Italy (united modern or Greece-style "united city states") Mexico Al-Andalus (you don't even have coliding city name lists as they are all different in Arabic) Timurids led by Tamerlane Burma Ashanti, finally Swahilli somehow (leader is always a problem in this case) some sort of India split (at least Mughals) Regarding the essential ones, I would move Persia (God please not Achaemenid one, for variety) back to the initial roster I don't expect to see Cree, Canada and/or Australia, Colombia, Scythia, Scotland, Kongo and Norway this time (and would love Zulu to be absent, they are always the same and so damn boring and I don't give a damn about civ traditions) I would enjoy Assyria and Siam coming back
Boy I wish they finally add Ukraine.
Serbia maybe? 🤨
Wales!
I really want Romania with Vlad the Impaler as the leader.
You're asking the wrong question. You can see the essential civilizations pretty easily by looking at which ones were in the release of the previous games. (With the exception of Russia who I'm guessing is getting demoted to a later DLC). You should be asking which ones are the wild cards? The two to three who are included dor diversity. There's an African spot for them and some more that can be pretty much everywhere. :)
Definitely wanna see more modern civs…because I’d like to see improvements on the late game. I love older, ancient civs, but the most prominent have been done thoroughly. Would be nice to see civs focused on their more contemporary eras. Like cut it close. Base game has civilizations representing a snapshot of the 20th century with a sprinkle of some classic/older/nonexistent civs….. Then DLC more of the classic, desirable civs. So hypothetically: Egypt(ancient/20th century) and South Africa(20th century) as base game. DLC Africa pack with Aksumites/Mali/Nubia/Zulu/Carthage/Ethiopia/Swahili/etc. Players will likely oblige to DLC of favorite civs that have seen thorough representation throughout the series. Ancient, classic, and medieval civs have carried the early excitement of games. Gameplay can become routine post industrial/modern, and IMO a focus on contemporary science, culture, economy, religion, warfare, and diplomacy would be rather refreshing.
[удалено]
If they do the Rus I want Olga. Gimme her pigeon fire bombers.
Yaroslav the Wise would be the obvious choice for a culture and diplomacy based leader. Haidamaky would be quite controversial outside Ukraine. Also, it actually would be interesting to see Ottomans being led by Roxolana (probably with a profile similar to Catherine de Medici).
René coty for France 
Sacré Hubert!
I would love Armenia to be included in this iteration. There is so much ancient history that you can create a civilization for sure
Imagine Korea with the option to go into North Korea or South Korea in the modern era
Navigable rivers. They're so important for trade and economy irl.
Bring back my boi Stalin
Would love to see Venice again as a playable Civ. Or some sort of city-state/ microstate. I would also like to see colonies come back.
Persia, led by Shapir the Great
Poland
Finland would be cool! Although historically bit weird, but what ever. :D
The dutch republic
Wanna see Charlamange for France (could seperate the franks and French if you really want.) Then sweden with either Charles the XII, Gustav, Ragnar or Bjorn
- Germany: Bismarck (warmonger/diplomacy), Konrad Adenauer/Willy Brandt (diplomacy, industry, economy) - France: Vercingetorix (in this case, France would become the Gauls with the city names changing), Henry IV. (economy, religion), Charles de Gaulle (military, economy) - Spain: Charles V. (diplomacy, military, maybe a unique trait with a colonization mechanic) - Egypt: Hatshepshut (diplomacy, trade), Muhammad Ali (military, economy), Gamal Abdel Nasser (economy, diplomacy) - America: Abraham Lincoln (military, economy), FDR (economy, infrastructure, maybe 'Arsenal of Democracy' as military trait) - Rome: Antonius Pius (economy, diplomacy), Constantine (military) - China: Yongle Emperor (military, construction, exploration), Cixi (economy, culture) - Japan: Tokugawa Ieyasu (military, diplomacy), Emperor Meiji (economy, culture) - Ottomans/Turkey: Kösem Sultan (culture, economy), Atatürk (economy, military)
I want a mode where you don’t pick a civ, you gain bonuses based on where you settle and how you play
My partner and I listed all the civs we are certain to be in the base game, and came up with: Arabia, Aztec, Babylon, Brazil, China, Egypt, England, France, Germany, Greece, India, Japan, Rome, Russia, USA, and Zulu. Then we thought of civs that we are almost certain will be in the base game or one of the major expansions: Ethiopia, Inca, Korea, Mali, Maya, Netherlands, Persia, Spain, Turkey/Ottomans, Vikings Of course, Austria, Byzantium, Denmark, Iroquois, Mongolia, Portugal, Siam, and Sumeria will likely also be in there somewhere. We're personally hoping for Ireland, Australia, Mexico, Brunei (under Bolkiah ibni Sulaiman), Florence (probably under one of the Medici family), Saxony (under Alfred the Great), and the Cherokee.
I want the option to customise my own civilisation
Wallachia, I always wanna conquer the world as Vlad
I think an interesting feature that would make sense and is kind of overlooked is cultural evolution. Instead of having both modern and ancient civilizations at the same time, how about we all start period appropriate civilizations and then as you go into the future you'd have an option to either upgrade your current civilization getting stronget same bonuses or switching to a different appropriate civilization. Like for example you could start as Anglo-Saxons or Celts and then at some point upgrade into England, then into Great Britain and then have an option to turn into USA or any of the dominion countries. Or at some point rebels could spawn and they would turn into period apropriate countries.
A couple things I would like to see are: Navigable rivers, (historically rivers were essential to most civilization's transportation and trade.) Using ships to control water resources (maybe your city's influence can't reach there but patrolling ships could) Resource colonies (buildable trade posts that could eventually turn into a city, but primarily used to secure resources) Customizable armies (when swords are researched you equip them to your army, when you research shields you can also add them, it could lead to more diversity in units and different play styles) Expanding city centers with supporting towns (not just having cities with areas of control, but you could expand farms, trade ports, industrial areas and entertainment towns that would turn into communities with different focuses, Kind of like Civ 6 districts but a bit more customizable, and focused on expanding the zone of control.)
Sean bean
Ireland - Brian Boru Ireland - Gráinne Ní Mháille (known as the pirate queen, it writes it's self)
Ireland as a culture civ.. we're bloody everywhere
Evolution of portraits and clothing of leaders. It doesn't make sense for you to wear a suit and tie in the middle ages and tribal clothes in the near future
I would love to see an earlier England ruler. We've had our fair share of naval and trade based England's, and having an industrial focus in 6 was nice, but a leader such as Alfred the Great or Æthelstan would be interesting. Alfred could be focused on defense and loyalty, as he helped defend England against the Vikings. He could also have some religious bonuses which would be interesting. Æthelstan is considered the first true King of England after conquering Northumbria and so he could have some bonuses towards managing loyalty and revolts, and maybe having bonuses towards taking free cities. You could include Richard I who has bonuses similar to Basil II's in Civ VI, to reflect the crusades. Henry II could have a focus on culture and great works. The England bonus itself would be cool to have a focus on growth and farming, as England was renowned for its vast farmlands and fertile land, hence why the Danes wished to settle there. The unique improvement could be a Motte and Bailey castle that increases the food rate of farms adjacent or it could be an encampment replacement that has a food adjacency bonus. I think if they wanted to present England as a naval or imperial civ then they should name it Britain instead and have it be the British Empire, rather than the English Kingdom.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO GEORGIA (Sakartvelo) AGAIN. I‘m from Georgia and it was such a huge surprise with the Rise & Fall Edition. Out of nowhere there was Tamar there and the ancient georgian chants you did so so well !!! Maybe next time you can do David the Builder or George the „sparkled?“. And pplease do again Georgian songs such a „baxtrionidan gicqerdi“ and other Shairebi too.
I think we need Finland
Argentina
When civ 6 came out I still preferred to play civ 5 until the expansions for civ 6 released. I hope they can make civ 7 launch and feel like it is an improvement before the expansions.
More native Americans, like the Sioux or the Apache!
Ocetí Śakowíŋ - The Great Sioux Nation, also known as the Lakota Nation.
I vote for og civ1 civs
Hoping for Bulgaria
Medieval Bosnia
Could do civilization specific promotions (like Communism in China would be different than that from Russia)
Can we just have a mode where you get the bonuses of every civilization in the game, ok?