[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Zaarin]

I disagree there. I think the incorrect assumption there was by Lordeus, who chose to associate Scotland with the Celts.

I see the Gauls as the only true Celtic representatives in the game. Scotland is imo another variant of the Anglophone sphere in a game packed with them.

I think Firaxis' original intention was that Scotland was the Celtic representation, but they later realized that some of the fanbase (*cough*we*cough*) received that poorly due to the very Anglo-Norman and especially British character of Civ6's Scotland and so added the Gauls in NFP. I don't think there's any evidence for the kind of long-term plan that some people here have attributed to Firaxis.

 

[SMcM]

To be fair that chart was made pre NFP, and before Gaul and was even announced, so I think saying that Scotland equals Celts, was a relatable comparison at the time, considering in Civ 5 their capital was Edinburgh.

I am aware, my point is that new civs added with NFP has exposed the flaw in the thinking behind that graphic. It was always erroneous to suggest Scotland ruling out further Celtic civs imo (regardless of if you consider Scotland Celtic representation at all or not). And, yes, I completely forgot about Vietnam. I think that further reinforces my point, as if we can have them along with Khmer, I see no reason why Khmer and Siam should be considered interchangeable.

I disagree there. I think the incorrect assumption there was by Lordeus, who chose to associate Scotland with the Celts.

My criticism was of Lordeus, not the developers, so we aren't in disagreement exactly. As for who are considered "true Celtic representatives", as Alexander's Hetaroi points out, the Celts had a Scottish capital in Civ 5. So it is debatable whether or not Firaxis regards them as Celtic representation, but also imo it is an ultimately unimportant question. My whole point is that that they may sometimes add multiple related civs to the game.

Another example is Scandinavia- Norway in Civ 6 does admittedly fit the 'viking' slot Denmark did in Civ 5, but we do also have Sweden in both games, which also is culturally very closely related. Perhaps it is unlikely, as these countries seem to be mostly used most importantly as Viking representation, but in the future they could have a Danish or Norwegian leader from a later period, e.g. Margaret I, Christian IX, Haakon IV. Regardless, it seems weird to consider Norway and Denmark as equivalents when Sweden is separately in the game also.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I am aware, my point is that new civs added with NFP has exposed the flaw in the thinking behind that graphic. It was always erroneous to suggest Scotland ruling out further Celtic civs imo (regardless of if you consider Scotland Celtic representation at all or not). And, yes, I completely forgot about Vietnam. I think that further reinforces my point, as if we can have them along with Khmer, I see no reason why Khmer and Siam should be considered interchangeable.

I agree with the notion that both Khmer and Siam can appear together in a game. Though it's quite reasonable to also see that Khmer was in Civ 4 and didn't return in Civ 5, in which Siam appeared instead.

One way to differentiate is at least make Siam have abilities and uniques around the Industrial Era, considering SEA usually gets civs based around the Medieval Era. Lady Trieu was the only exception that I can think of.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I also really doubt they are going to put Portugal as the last civilization for this Pass. If they attempt to do some sort of rotation for European civilizations and avoid to be too crowded: they could go for a Portugal / Netherlands rotation (assuming Spain is a staple). Which feel extremely wrong, but it "works": they are kind of a trade / exploration / maritime civilization.

I believe they went for some kind of "continent" from West to East: America (Gran Colombia & Maya), Africa (Ethiopia), Europe (Byzantium & Gaul), Middle East (Babylon) and Asia (Kublai Khan & Vietnam). Either they go for an Eastern civilization like the Philippines or some Oceania one, like Tonga / Hawai. As long it is not New Zealand.
So I believe it is Tonga time!



Do you want an half done, rip off ,up to date, poorly done (screen shot of a sheet on MSpaint), hugely controversial version of it with only the civilization list? No? Too bad!

Spoiler :

In blue: from the original picture. Basicly, those from the same theme.
In yellow: my own addition. Clearly not the same, but it feels that the inclusion of one lower the chance of the other to appear.

About the Sioux, Iroquois and the Cree: they are not the same: not the same area, not the same people. I want to see the Iroquois in the game, but I feel the inclusion of the Cree lower the chance of the Iroquois or the Sioux (or any north America native american civilization) to show up, even if it is the least unlikely of the whole.
From gameplay perspective, the Iroquois and the Cree are the "friendly trading native american" civilization that search to seal Alliance. If the Iroquois are coming back in Civilization VI, they need an other focus (hopefully: not a "friendly" one).

Sumeria and Assyria: same area, not the same civilization. I believe the inclusion of one exclude the second, even if it feels extremely wrong.

Austria and Hungary: Not the same area, not the same civilization. From gameplay perspective, they both are surprisingly close. They focus over the control of City-State and have the same unique unit: the Hussar / Huszár. They were also once a single empire (the Austrian-Hungarian empire), this leads to think that Austria inclusion is rather unlikely.

Huns and Scythia: They are the horse ridding nomadic people from Central Asia. Not the same era, nor the same civilization, I believe we are in the Sumeria / Assyria case.

Shoshone and Mapuche: this is going to be the most controversial. How could I team up these civilizations when they are not even sharing the same hemisphere. You are right: it doesn't make sense. They are nothing alike. It is like saying that Shoshone and Russia are the same for the tile grabbing mechanic, or with the Cree for having a unique Scout, or with the Mapuche for having a unique Cavalry unit and some "defense of the native land" mechanic. And I took the last argument: "the defense of the native land" with a cavalry unit. It sounds cheap, and it is. But the point is, if the Shoshone are coming back, they need a new focus.

If they redo a new Pass, I hope we could see some of this civilizations:

1. Iroquois & Haiti
2. Benin/Dahomey (or Ashanti) & Morocco/Berbers.
3. Portugal (maybe the Franks for Charlemagne, but "too much french related civilization" is a good argument)
4. Assyria and/or the Hitttes
5. Philippines (but I like to be disappointed, and this civilization starts to be oddly popular).

O they could do the "everyone is here" and put back all civilizations, excluding the blobs one (Celts, Vikings, Native American, Polynesia...), which means we would have the Iroquois, Shoshone and Sioux all at once, I guess.

I generally agree with this assessment, including the categorization of the Mapuche. The only thing I might change is that you could view Austria in V as succeeding the HRE in IV.

Philippines is a surprisingly popular proposition, but I just don't see it happening. At least Vietnam was an empire...Philippines are really more of a vassal kingdom for most of their existence, were never very imperialist or expansionist, and fall quite comfortably into city-state territory.

However, if at any point the civ franchise decides to broaden gameplay and call its civs "nations" or "cultures" or "peoples" as opposed to empires, I could absolutely see Philippines being a frontrunner for new additions.

 

[SMcM]

I agree with the notion that both Khmer and Siam can appear together in a game. Though it's quite reasonable to also see that Khmer was in Civ 4 and didn't return in Civ 5, in which Siam appeared instead.

Yes, but that ignores the other examples I have given. That chart doesn't simply note that they alternated- like I said, the same is true of Sumeria and Assyria. And yet those aren't being lumped together on the same chart. The chart basically equates the two civs, the same way it does for Sioux and Native Americans (which is reasonable in that case).

Anyway I would accept that ultimately it is a very trivial thing I am debating here, someone's opinion on a completely unofficial chart, but I was just using it to highlight a logical error I've seen made before.

The faulty logic which that chart uses, basically suggesting there is one mainland SEA slot which Siam and Khmer might alternate for (now disproved, as you rightly pointed out by Vietnam), and that there is one Celtic slot (which it claimed Scotland filled, but now we have Gaul too), has been used a number of times in conversations I've seen on this site.

 

[Codeword Iroquois]

Considering Netherlands and Portugal has co-existed for the past 3 games I doubt they will start doing that.


Interesting enough I also found that Vietnam took away the Iroquois ability they had in Civ 5 for units to move faster through woods and rainforests. Though that's not a big deal as I can see their UU getting that instead of all the units.

Which just means some bonus better suited towards the Iroquois if they get in. Longhouse UI? Some sort of Confederacy (of the Iroquois variety) based UU?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yes, but that ignores the other examples I have given. That chart doesn't simply note that they alternated- like I said, the same is true of Sumeria and Assyria. And yet those aren't being lumped together on the same chart. The chart basically equates the two civs, the same way it does for Sioux and Native Americans (which is reasonable in that case).

Anyway I would accept that ultimately it is a very trivial thing I am debating here, someone's opinion on a completely unofficial chart, but I was just using it to highlight a logical error I've seen made before.

The faulty logic which that chart uses, basically suggesting there is one mainland SEA slot which Siam and Khmer might alternate for (now disproved, as you rightly pointed out by Vietnam), and that there is one Celtic slot (which it claimed Scotland filled, but now we have Gaul too), has been used a number of times in conversations I've seen on this site.

I'm sure the layout of the chart would change if they updated the information and civs from the NFP now that we have Babylon, Gaul and Vietnam.

 

[Aurelesk]

Considering Netherlands and Portugal has co-existed for the past 3 games I doubt they will start doing that.

Seeing as Civ 6 Netherlands has nothing to do with maritime trading or a colonial empire, Portugal certainly seems right.

Absolutely. It was just a hypothesis in case they really want to reduce European countries representation in the game. I think it is rather odd they didn't add Portugal yet, that is why I thougth of this.

The only thing I might change is that you could view Austria in V as succeeding the HRE in IV.

My first reaction when I read this was: "This is non sense! How dare you even think of that!".

Then I remember they put Maria Theresa as a leader for Germany in Civilization II, at a time where they couldn't figure out the difference between the Frankish Empire and the Holy Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire and Germany, and Germany and Austria. So, fair enough! Even we went from the Franks to the Hungarian: what a journey! It is not even as dumb as putting the Iroquois and the Sioux in the same line. Does it mean it reduce to almost 0% the odd of witnessing the inclusion of the Frank empire in the game? Nooooooooo.....

@Duke William of Normandy (down there): Let's be frank: I do not care of lingering about the name. As long Charlemagne makes it! I did my best....

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Does it mean it reduce to almost 0% the odd of witnessing the inclusion of the Frank empire in the game? Nooooooooo.....

We could just brand it as the Carolingian Empire...

 

[Birch617]

I wouldn't mind a Carolingian Civ but please give the same type of Love/Focus that Europe has in game to other areas of the world

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

May I suggest a more modern Leader, if it pleases my fellow Civ Fanatics? Sir Seretse Khama.

 

[cosmicmangobear]

On the issue of Celtic representation, I would have vastly preferred medieval Ireland and modern Belgium over blob Gauls and British Scotland. Oh well, maybe in Civ7...

 

[Birch617]

May I suggest a more modern Leader, if it pleases my fellow Civ Fanatics? Sir Seretse Khama.

Thank you for sharing, it was very interesting to watch and i'm all in for modern africa in the game at least in one civ

 

[Zaarin]

On the issue of Celtic representation, I would have vastly preferred medieval Ireland and modern Belgium over blob Gauls and British Scotland. Oh well, maybe in Civ7...

Gauls aren't a blob, but I agree about preferring Medieval Ireland over Scotland. However, I really, really, really don't need more than a Belgium city-state (plus they're totally irrelevant in talking about Celts; Belgians are Romance-speakers, whether French or Walloon, plus some Dutch and German speakers--there have been dozens of population and culture shifts since the already dubiously Celtic Belgae).

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Then I remember they put Maria Theresa as a leader for Germany in Civilization II, at a time where they couldn't figure out the difference between the Frankish Empire and the Holy Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire and Germany, and Germany and Austria. So, fair enough! Even we went from the Franks to the Hungarian: what a journey! It is not even as dumb as putting the Iroquois and the Sioux in the same line

as far as leaders leading a civ they aren’t directly the leader of, Maria Theresa leading Germany is pretty minor

I think most of us wouldn’t be theoretically opposed to her being a leader of Germany in this game since germany in civ 6 is pretty much just the HRE, which included and was led by Hapsburg Austria for 400+ years

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

On the issue of Celtic representation, I would have vastly preferred medieval Ireland and modern Belgium over blob Gauls and British Scotland. Oh well, maybe in Civ7...

1. Historically Belgium is a 200 years old franco-Dutch blob I have nothing against Belgium but what Gauls have to do with them? Isn't better to say "I want Belgium and Ireland." It is always funny when people try some logical gymnastics to prove that Civs they want deserve more than the others.
2. Medieval Scotland apart from their origins and ancestry is not Celtic and does not represent Celtic culture the same way modern Italy is distinct from Roman Empire.

 

[cosmicmangobear]

I have nothing against Belgium but what Gauls have to do with them?

Medieval Scotland apart from their origins and ancestry is not Celtic and does not represent Celtic culture

My point exactly. In Civ6, the "Celtic" representatives are Belgian Gauls (comeplete with La Brabançonne motif in the theme) and Germanic Scots. Instead, I'd rather have one true Celtic representative (Ireland), instead of zero. And Belgium can be its own thing and not some weird hybrid or Modern European and Ancient Gaulish.

It is always funny when people try some logical gymnastics to prove that Civs they want deserve more than the others.

I agree entirely.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

I would like to see Ireland over Scotland too But clasical era Celts are different from both medieval and later Ireland and Scotland. In general continental Celts are different group from the "british" ones. The one blob argument about the Celts I agree is they were put into one very british oriented basket in previous Civ games.

 

[Lord Lakely]

1. Historically Belgium is a 200 years old franco-Dutch blob I have nothing against Belgium but what Gauls have to do with them? Isn't better to say "I want Belgium and Ireland." It is always funny when people try some logical gymnastics to prove that Civs they want deserve more than the others. .

Ambiorix ranked 6th on the list of The Greatest Belgians. That's your Gallic connection with Belgium.

Belgium, if ever set to appear, should appear either as a Medieval Era Mercantile Trade Power (in which case it's better to just name the Civ "Flanders" and retain Brussels as a City state as it is geographically located outside of Flanders), a renaissance Cultural Influence Power (not too fond of that because it's just the Dutch except with nunnaries instead of polders. lol. Italy would do this way, way better anyway) or their Industrial Era Great Power side.

Those are the 2cents from the guy who actually lives in Belgium x0x0.

 

[AntSou]

So here's a curious bit of information I found:




I'm not saying, I'm just sayin'...