7 New Civs You'd Like to See in Civ7

[Patine]

All well and good until your one and only city gets nuked

My Huns have no cities. They place super-improvements in neutral land and periodically spawn units

Yes, much of the complication of this text comes from abilities that would in practice probably want to be generic options.

Probably a better implementation of the Huns than what Civ 5 did. At least it's better than founding random cities from other civilizations city lists.

The basic problem with 'City State Civs' or Tall Civs is that in a game where there is no overwhelming punishment for it, small states get conquered sooner or later unless they have the classic Starting Position Behind a Mountain With Only One Tile Leading To It. And even then survival ain't certain.

And I suggest that at least part of the problem is the Victory Conditions.

"One More Turn" is a Myth. What has always been important is The Last Turn and how you are doing Then and only then. Gotten to Mars? Conquered the last foreign Capital? Converted the last bunch of Taoist holdouts? Victory Conditions have always been based on how you do in the Last Turn of the game, and everything before that is just Preliminaries.

So how about changing that.

Make one or more Victory Conditions based on How You Play the game instead of How You End It.

Had the largest percentage of your Population Ecstatic for the largest number of turns: achieve "This Happy Land" Victory.

Went the entire game without a rebellion, civil war, or Free City breakaway: achieve "Harmonious Realm"Victory

Never had a famine or food shortage in any city: achieve "Seven Fat Years" Victory.

And note that the three examples would all be easier for a small state to achieve than a large one . . .

I don't know. Variety in types of civ's is a good idea, I agree, but bizarre, arbitrary, artificial, and plastic hamstringing and stiff limits on a civ, and as hard limits, still seems VERY jarring to deal with. Especially when it does not even REALLY refect the civilization, in question, historically. And, would nomadic, pastoral civ's truly remain such once the Industrial Age hit, in any case.

 

[GeneralZIft]

My Huns have no cities. They place super-improvements in neutral land and periodically spawn units

Oh right not even the capital? So how do you lose?

 

[Patine]

Oh right not even the capital? So how do you lose?

How does one win with such a scheme? I don't think it would work in a civ game, at least not beyond very early on.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't know. Variety in types of civ's is a good idea, I agree, but bizarre, arbitrary, artificial, and plastic hamstringing and stiff limits on a civ, and as hard limits, still seems VERY jarring to deal with. Especially when it does not even REALLY refect the civilization, in question, historically. And, would nomadic, pastoral civ's truly remain such once the Industrial Age hit, in any case.

I feel like you could ask that question for any tribal society that they make into a civ. I also never agreed with the implementation of either the Huns or Venice as civs in Civ 5. I do agree that it needs to feel like you are still playing a civ by acquiring many cities.

How does one win with such a scheme? I don't think it would work in a civ game, at least not beyond very early on.

I think not being able to have any "cities" is too extreme. I'd at least give them a capital. From there maybe you can't train any settlers but to obtain new cities you'd need to conquer them.

 

[Patine]

I feel like you could ask that question for any tribal society that they make into a civ. I also never agreed with the implementation of either the Huns or Venice as civs in Civ 5. I do agree that it needs to feel like you are still playing a civ by acquiring many cities.

I think not being able to have any "cities" is too extreme. I'd at least give them a capital. From there maybe you can't train any settlers but to obtain new cities you'd need to conquer them.

"Tribal society," as a permanent, unchanging fixture, with no evolution to be made in more modern eras, is kind of a Colonial and racist concept - an almost, "Noble Savage," notion. There are many nations today that recognize tribal lineages of the majority of their people in an official way, but they are not orgaized in a tribal structure, otherwise, but as modern nations (albeit, almost always Third World ones).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

"Tribal society," as a permanent, unchanging fixture, with no evolution to be made in more modern eras, is kind of a Colonial and racist concept - an almost, "Noble Savage," notion. There are many nations today that recognize tribal lineages of the majority of their people in an official way, but they are not orgaized in a tribal structure, otherwise, but as modern nations (albeit, almost always Third World ones).

Okay, I realize that. I'm also talking about people such as Gaul who never built true cities, and never even made it to the Medieval period, but still lived in tribal confederacies. This civ is all about alternate history so if there's a way that we could integrate these civs playstyles by being more realistic to their historic counterparts, I'm all for it.

 

[pineappledan]

The idea would be that the Huns are basically a faction that allows you to play as the barbarians. Essentially you become a PvE element on the map, and you are giving up any clear victory path in order to do that.

Probably more of a DLC or game mode faction than a proper civ, but being able to basically DM a multiplayer game with your friends as the barbs could be pretty fun.

 

[Patine]

Okay, I realize that. I'm also talking about people such as Gaul who never built true cities, and never even made it to the Medieval period, but still lived in tribal confederacies. This civ is all about alternate history so if there's a way that we could integrate these civs playstyles by being more realistic to their historic counterparts, I'm all for it.

The thing is, would they stay at that sort of organization once the Industral Age dawned, realistically? Would any tribal culture not inhibited by Colonialist control tactics? And, how could they compete at that compete at stage if they did?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The thing is, would they stay at that sort of organization once the Industral Age dawned, realistically? Would any tribal culture not inhibited by Colonialist control tactics? And, how could they compete at that compete at stage if they did?

I never once implied that they would. Just because you can play as Gaul or Scythia does not mean you can't later become a Gallic Theocracy or a Scythian Merchant Republic, therefore eventually leaving that playstyle behind.

Civ 6's implementation of Gaul already hinted at they are the closest thing to "play as the barbarians" anyway from what I can remember, at least according to the Devs. Not being able to build districts adjacent to each other (so no mega cities) and having their unique Industrial zone act like another encampment etc.

 

[Patine]

I never once implied that they would. Just because you can play as Gaul or Scythia does not mean you can't later become a Gallic Theocracy or a Scythian Merchant Republic, therefore eventually leaving that playstyle behind.

Civ 6's implementation of Gaul already hinted at they are the closest thing to "play as the barbarians" anyway from what I can remember, at least according to the Devs. Not being able to build districts adjacent to each other (so no mega cities) and having their unique Industrial zone act like another encampment etc.

Well, adjacency mechanics, cartoonish religion systems, cardboard Cold War ideologies, and other things, are features should be replaced by new and innovative mechanics in future iterations, in my view. But, there's also reason (or rationale) a tribal civ in Antiquity can't have a metropolis in the Modern Age.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Okay, I realize that. I'm also talking about people such as Gaul who never built true cities, and never even made it to the Medieval period, but still lived in tribal confederacies. This civ is all about alternate history so if there's a way that we could integrate these civs playstyles by being more realistic to their historic counterparts, I'm all for it.

Sorry, Bibracte, a Gallic 'city', is now estimated by the archeologists to have had about 20,000 people. That makes it as large as Medieval Paris, and the largest urban concentration in Europe north or west of Italy - and larger than any contemporary city in Greece other than Syracuse or Athens, probably. The Gauls also had good roads, better wheeled vehicle technology than the Romans (the Latin words for elements of wagon steering mechanisms and harness are all borrowed, usually a pretty good sign that the technology was borrowed, too) and the distances between their cities were so well surveyed (and marked on road signs!) that Roman Gaul kept the Gallic measurements in 'leagues' until the end of the Empire - the Romans couldn't do any better.

It would be more accurate, I think, to characterize the Gauls as being on the cusp of becoming 'civilized' (as in the 'classic' definition: a large percentage of people living in cities or towns) but didn't quite make it all the way before being conquered.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I don't know. Variety in types of civ's is a good idea, I agree, but bizarre, arbitrary, artificial, and plastic hamstringing and stiff limits on a civ, and as hard limits, still seems VERY jarring to deal with. Especially when it does not even REALLY refect the civilization, in question, historically. And, would nomadic, pastoral civ's truly remain such once the Industrial Age hit, in any case.

Nobody likes artificial limitations on how they can play, except masochists - who sometimes seem to be the target audience for game designs . . .

But, a pastoral Civ being handicapped in the Mid to Late Game doesn't seem to me to be any different in kind from a Civ that has most of its Uniques fall in the Industrial and later Eras and is, therefore, relatively handicapped in the early game. Not, perhaps, as severely as any attempt to stay pastoral past the Renaissance might be, but a well-designed Pastoral 'Civ' would also have some pretty good Bonuses in the early game (in Trade and Expansion as well as Military) to compensate.

Obviously, not a Civ that everyone would want to play, but I don't think variety in the form of a different set of compensating or potentially compensating features between various Eras and stages of the game is inherently 'bad design', and potential variety in 'ways to play' is not, IMHO, a Bad Thing - if well done (the eternal caveat).

 

[Patine]

doesn't seem to me to be any different in kind from a Civ that has most of its Uniques fall in the Industrial and later Eras and is, therefore, relatively handicapped in the early game.

Well, I was also a staunch critic of that overdone, but very modern-loaded, Kennedy alternate U.S. leader put up a few months ago, so...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It would be more accurate, I think, to characterize the Gauls as being on the cusp of becoming 'civilized' (as in the 'classic' definition: a large percentage of people living in cities or towns) but didn't quite make it all the way before being conquered.

I agree, and that's what I meant by what I said. Even Scythia was characterized by the Ancient Greeks as being the most civilized of all the "barbarians" that they've come across. But implementing more of a nomadic or pastoral playstyle would go well with them, or any other Eurasian steppe civ such as the Huns, Sarmatians etc.

 

[Patine]

I agree, and that's what I meant by what I said. Even Scythia was characterized by the Ancient Greeks as being the most civilized of all the "barbarians" that they've come across. But implementing more of a nomadic or pastoral playstyle would go well with them, or any other Eurasian steppe civ such as the Huns, Sarmatians etc.

My point is about such a state of a civ lasting beyond the dawn of the Industrial Age, not the concept, otherwise. Mongolia and Kazakhstan are also modern nations, now.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

My point is about such a state of a civ lasting beyond the dawn of the Industrial Age, not the concept, otherwise. Mongolia and Kazakhstan are also modern nations, now.

What does Mongolia and Kazakhstan have to with what I said? I never mentioned them. Kazakhstan is a modern nation now, like you said, and Mongolia doesn't necessarily have to have this approach, at least if Kublai Khan is the leader.
I also never said that playstyle had to last all the way until the Industrial or Modern age? As @Boris Gudenuf and others have said some civs could be more beneficial by playing this nomadic approach.

 

[Patine]

What does Mongolia and Kazakhstan have to with what I said?

Eurasian Steppe Nomads.

I also never said that playstyle had to last all the way until the Industrial or Modern age? As @Boris Gudenuf and others have said some civs could be more beneficial by playing this nomadic approach.

You also didn't actually say the playstyle was planned to chage in that era, eithrer, in your view. Do you have a vision how that would be addressed?

 

[GeneralZIft]

Make a whole new game called Civilisation: Barbarians
Where the entire game is you doing as much damage as possible
And your choices for Civs are all different Barbs
Then you get to be a Terrorist in the modern era

 

[Patine]

Make a whole new game called Civilisation: Barbarians
Where the entire game is you doing as much damage as possible
And your choices for Civs are all different Barbs
Then you get to be a Terrorist in the modern era

Except that the notion of, "barbarians," is somewhat obsolete. And, "terrorists," are specific organizations, not civ's. And, it's not REALLY that funny...

 

[GeneralZIft]

Except that the notion of, "barbarians," is somewhat obsolete. And, "terrorists," are specific organizations, not civ's. And, it's not REALLY that funny...

You're being pedantic my man, live a little