[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Leucarum]

I feel the opposite. I feel that Australia overall is better designed than Canada. Sure Canada does have the tundra farming niche but that isn't really an accurate portrayal of them, unlike Australia who wants to mainly settle on the coast instead of inland until you are able to get Outback Stations and then survive in the harsh desert.

I agree with you on that one. Australia's ability was much more thematic. I was thinking in terms of which civ has the most mechanically interesting rather than thematically interesting. There I think Canada's theme of pacifist tundra lover has more interesting design possibilities than cities being better on the coast. But that's a judgement call.

I have wondered how Aussies feel about one of their civ's abilities being "likes to build stuff over the top of sites of natural beauty" though...Accurate for all modern civs but still a bit on the nose.

Sure--Well, maybe. Nation-states are such a novel concept that I wouldn't be too quick to make sweeping statements about them. They can develop into their own civilizations, let's say. By my judgment, Australia isn't there by a longshot, and Canada's an edge case.

Yeah those are fair comments, and in tbe post apocalyptic future who knows what will come from today's nation states... I personally think both are distinctive enough to warrant being separate civs, but maybe my bar is very low.

 

[Yudhisthira]

.

Jerusalem as city-state is fine but Jews deserve civilization not just because of only religion(which looks thou fundamental part of their identity) but as distinct people/ethnicity.
I mean there are many christian,muslim majority civs, so vatican city is fine,Similarly there is Arabic civilization with Mecca as capital but Jerusalem city-state as sole representation for Jews, it doesn't seems fair.

 

[Linklite]

Jerusalem as city-state is fine but Jews deserve civilization not just because of only religion(which looks thou fundamental part of their identity) but as distinct people/ethnicity.
I mean there are many christian,muslim majority civs, so vatican city is fine,Similarly there is Arabic civilization with Mecca as capital but Jerusalem city-state as sole representation for Jews, it doesn't seems fair.

I'm sympathetic, but there are hurdles to overcome:

• The Jews only really had two countries, Muslims and Christians have way more than that today, never mind in the past. It's not surprising that they have more civs present.
• What would you make capital? If it's Jerusalem, you upset a good portion of the Arab world, pick any other city and you upset the Jews. Firaxis isn't in the business of rocking the boat by being controversial in that way anymore, from what people say.
• Notice that the Muslim and Christian civs aren't included because they're Muslim or Christian respectively. I mean, I'm not saying that Israel shouldn't be included, less influential civs have been (ahem, *Scotland*), but they're not going to be included on the grounds of being Jewish, and that's how it should be.

I'd love to have them in, but I wonder if Firaxis is brave enough to rock that boat.

 

[Zaarin]

Since we r talking about Jews, Is there any chance of them getting representation in Civ 7 or should we wait I guess forever.

If we can't get an Israel or Judah civ, the next best way to represent them would be by having a system that includes ethnicity and minority populations. Jews have, after all, been a minority population pretty much everywhere.

Taken altogether, if I have to choose between a Phoenicia and Israel civ, I pick Phoenicia hands down. In a bit of historic irony, the Jews became far more influential after they lost their state than with it. Both the kingdoms of Judah and Samaria were small and economically, militarily, and culturally dominated by their neighbors, but Jewish exiles became prominent merchants, professionals, and intelligentsia in the Persian and Hellenistic worlds and beyond.

 

[Yudhisthira]

• The Jews only really had two countries, Muslims and Christians have way more than that today, never mind in the past. It's not surprising that they have more civs present
• 
  
• Notice that the Muslim and Christian civs aren't included because they're Muslim or Christian respectively. I mean, I'm not saying that Israel shouldn't be included, less influential civs have been (ahem, *Scotland*), but they're not going to be included on the grounds of being Jewish, and that's how it should be.

Just to make it clear, my point was in response to @Jeppetto point of Jerusalem presence for Jewish representation & its comparison with Vatican & Mecca.

Yes I fully agree that there are no Muslim & Christians civs & that's why I used term 'Christian majority' civ thou on the other hand both of these religions r universal religion but Judaism is ethnic religion much more uniquely attached to distinct culture tradition of Jewish people.

• What would you make capital? If it's Jerusalem, you upset a good portion of the Arab world, pick any other city and you upset the Jews. Firaxis isn't in the business of rocking the boat by being controversial in that way anymore, from what people say.

Thats a fair point but I wonder if we can choose another ancient city. Honestly I don't know how will people react to it. But to me it looks like at least having something than nothing.

 

[Zaarin]

Thats a fair point but I wonder if we can choose another ancient city. Honestly I don't know how will people react to it. But to me it looks like at least having something than nothing.

Of the two kingdoms, the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) was the richer and more influential, and it would have Samaria as its capital. That being said, Jewish rabbis insist to this day that Samaritans aren't Jews and Samaritanism isn't Judaism so...(Samaritans do have a slightly different canon and different rituals, customs, and traditions.)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Europe (2 more than Civ6)
Returned ones from Civ6: Byzantine, Dutch, English, French, Gaul, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Macedon, Poland, Portugal, Rome, Russia, Spain and Sweden.
Replacements: Denmark (in the place of Norway) and Ireland (in the place of Scotland).
New ones: Austria (I think they will be back in Civ7, but I don't think they will replace Hungary) and Venice (or other form of Italian representation).

I can see Macedon being folded back into Greece easily making room for more new European civs. Hard for me to see both Hungary and Austria getting in, but I wouldn't mind. I feel like we'd get more new ones than these. I'd throw in the Goths as a possibility and a Frankish civ with Charlemagne as possibilities.

Mesoamerica/Caribbean/Central America (same as Civ6)
Returned ones from Civ6: Aztec and Maya.
There is a chance for Haiti, but I personally don't think that is very likely.

Yeah Haiti being a Francophone nation getting in over Canada is a stretch, but one I would welcome.

South America (1 more than Civ6)
Returned ones from Civ6: Brazil, Gran Colombia (GC was a very demanded civ and it has presented the game to many Latin players, I don't see them abandoning Simon Bolivar in Civ7) and Inca.
Replacements: Argentina (in the place of Mapuche).
New one: Muisca (although Guarani is likely as well, either as a replacement for Mapuche or a new one).

I'd be surprised if we get two Spanish speaking colonial nations in the future? I think they are more interchangeable at least than the others and can easily see Argentina or Mexico instead of Gran Colombia.

Africa (1 more than Civ6)
Returned ones from Civ6: Egypt, Ethiopia, Mali and Zulu.
Replacements: Morocco or Berber (in the place of Nubia) and Ngola (in the place of Kongo).
New one: Ashanti (Madagascar is also likely).

I'd love this roster.

Oceania (same as Civ6)
Returned ones from Civ6: Australia.
Replacements: Hawaii (in the place of Maori).
There is a chance they can add one more in Oceania, so the set would be: Australia (mainly for TSL reasons and marketing), Hawaii (a new flavor) and Maori (a fan favorite in Civ6).

What are chances that we get two Polynesian civs? The Maori are definitely a favorite and I could see them returning but have a different playstyle of being more militaristic/inland. That way Hawaii or some other culture could get the early seafaring bonuses.

Middle east and Central Asian (1 more than Civ6)
Returned ones from Civ6: Arabia, Babylon, Carthage/Phoenicia, Persia, Ottomans.
Replacements: Parthia (in the place of Scythia) and Assyria (in the place of Sumer).
New one: Hittites.

How about all three Mesopotamian civs (Sumer, Babylon, Assyria) as well as the Hittities?

East and South Asian (1 more than Civ6 )
Returned ones from Civ6: China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Khmer, Korea and Vietnam.
New one: Siam (I'm betting on industrial or renascentist Siam. I don't think a Mughal civ will happen in Civ7, but they can add multiplus Indian leaders).

You forgot Mongolia.
I like this roster as well with a more modern Siam, as opposed to another medieval SEA civ. Mughals are definitely a stretch but I think it could be feasible even with an Indian civ with multiple leaders. One of the capitals was Lahore. Alternatively they could go with Babur with the Timurids from Samarkand or Kabul and focus on conquering other cities instead of founding them if city list would be a problem.

I agree with you on that one. Australia's ability was much more thematic. I was thinking in terms of which civ has the most mechanically interesting rather than thematically interesting. There I think Canada's theme of pacifist tundra lover has more interesting design possibilities than cities being better on the coast. But that's a judgement call.

I have wondered how Aussies feel about one of their civ's abilities being "likes to build stuff over the top of sites of natural beauty" though...Accurate for all modern civs but still a bit on the nose.

One thing that is often overlooked is how Australia is also a good desert civ once they are able to unlock their Outback Stations. Having at least 2 food and 2 production on all of your flat desert tiles in the late game is great.

 

[Zaarin]

I can see Macedon being folded back into Greece easily making room for more Europeans.

Bohemia, please!

How about all three Mesopotamian civs (Sumer, Babylon, Assyria) as well as the Hittities?

Yes. Throw in Elam for good measure.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Bohemia, please!

You spelled Romania wrong.

Yes. Throw in Elam for good measure.

We probably need a Mesopotamian city-state at least.

 

[Zaarin]

You spelled Romania wrong.

Prague. Defenestration. Hussites. War carts.

We probably need a Mesopotamian city-state at least.

Well, Akkad is a weird fit on Sumer's list and doesn't belong on Babylon's or Assyria's so that's an option. Strictly speaking they're in Syria, but Mari or Ebla would be a couple others. And Urkesh, the great city of the Hurrians, was indeed a city-state in the technical sense. So there are still plenty of options.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Prague. Defenestration. Hussites. War carts.

Well, Akkad is a weird fit on Sumer's list and doesn't belong on Babylon's or Assyria's so that's an option. Strictly speaking they're in Syria, but Mari or Ebla would be a couple others. And Urkesh, the great city of the Hurrians, was indeed a city-state in the technical sense. So there are still plenty of options.

Palmyra is another good option for a city-state, since they’re still a long shot as a potential new civ.

 

[Zaarin]

Palmyra is another good option for a city-state, since they’re still a long shot as a potential new civ.

True, but it's likely to be on Arabia's city-list as Tadmur. On the other hand, Aleppo is on Arabia's city list twice so why not make it an Arabian city and a city-state? As far as city-states to represent Aram go, taking into consideration that Damascus and Aleppo aren't really options, Tadmur's probably the best choice. (Ebla and Mari were in Syria, but they spoke the East Semitic Eblaite language.)

 

[Menocchio]

Given Constantinople and Istanbul (and the continuing Anshan/Babylon bug...), Firaxis does not seem to have many qualms about representing the same city twice but with different names.

 

[Zaarin]

Given Constantinople and Istanbul (and the continuing Anshan/Babylon bug...), Firaxis does not seem to have many qualms about representing the same city twice but with different names.

There are several instances of that, and if they're on different civs' city lists I'm okay with that. Having Aleppo and Ḥalab both on Arabia's city list, however, is just embarrassing.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

True, but it's likely to be on Arabia's city-list as Tadmur. On the other hand, Aleppo is on Arabia's city list twice so why not make it an Arabian city and a city-state? As far as city-states to represent Aram go, taking into consideration that Damascus and Aleppo aren't really options, Tadmur's probably the best choice. (Ebla and Mari were in Syria, but they spoke the East Semitic Eblaite language.)

https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Roman_cities_(Civ6)#:~:text=Capital: Rome Possible City Names: ,of the Adriatic 26 more rows
Palmyra has actually been on the city list for Rome since the base game. It's way down the list so it most likely has never been seen by many unless they get close to 20 cities.

 

[Zaarin]

https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Roman_cities_(Civ6)#:~:text=Capital: Rome Possible City Names: ,of the Adriatic 26 more rows
Palmyra has actually been on the city list for Rome since the base game. It's way down the list so it most likely has never been seen by many unless they get close to 20 cities.

And is not on Arabia's...Weird.

 

[reddishrecue]

I was thinking Etruscans. They had a good small civ with good architecture skills (the dome) that the Romans were able to get and for vanilla because they started out when Rome was small.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I was thinking Etruscans. They had a good small civ with good architecture skills (the dome) that the Romans were able to get and for vanilla because they started out when Rome was small.

They also have the luck of having a deciphered language.

 

[Zaarin]

I was thinking Etruscans. They had a good small civ with good architecture skills (the dome) that the Romans were able to get and for vanilla because they started out when Rome was small.

They also have the luck of having a deciphered language.

I think the Etruscans would be very interesting, but I'm not sure we know enough about them. In particular, what we know of their language is very fragmentary, and a lot of what we know of their culture and politics comes from (hostile) Roman myths. I wish Humankind would include both Minoa and Etruria as civs that would be very hard to depict in Civ but are prime candidate for HK cultures (as they already did with Harappa and Olmecs).

 

[Birch617]

Jerusalem as city-state is fine but Jews deserve civilization not just because of only religion(which looks thou fundamental part of their identity) but as distinct people/ethnicity.
I mean there are many christian,muslim majority civs, so vatican city is fine,Similarly there is Arabic civilization with Mecca as capital but Jerusalem city-state as sole representation for Jews, it doesn't seems fair.

The only other civ that could maybe see in game that was of Jewish Majority would be a Simien civ lead by Gudit