[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Thenewwwguy]

My guess is 58 civs in Civ7:
Europe (2 more than Civ6)
North America (2 more than Civ6)
South America (1 more than Civ6)
Mesoamerica/Caribbean/Central America (the same number of civs as Civ6)
East Asian (1 more than Civ6 )
Middle east (1 more than Civ6)
Africa (1 more than Civ6)
Oceania (the same number of civs as Civ6)

Those guesses can be different if they decide to split India, though.

Can we already start to speculate?

i’m praying that after the amount of attention we’ve drawn to india on this discussion board, if not CivFanatics as a whole, they’ll at least consider it...

@firaxis Chola pls

 

[Zaarin]

Well it could have been New Zealand with an Aboriginal civ for Oceania.
Instead we got Australia and the Maori. In that case I'm glad it was at least the latter.

Or, you know, we could have left it at the Maori.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Or, you know, we could have left it at the Maori.

Well some of us like Australia.
At least now you can disable him if you want, and still have Uluru show up.

 

[Zaarin]

Well some of us like Australia.

On paper it looks like a nice civ ability; I wouldn't know in practice because didgeridoos. I just wish they'd given the design to someone else. Actually it might work pretty well for a PNW civ--earlier I suggested, in this thread I think, having a PNW civ's districts restricted to Coast-adjacent, and Australia's civ ability would add a nice incentive for doing so.

 

[Xandinho]

Seems like we have.
Here is my conspiracy theories:
American Staples: America, Aztec, Brazil, Inca, Maya. Returnees from previous game: Iroquois as geographically close to Canada's start. New: Argentina, Haiti, Muisca, (replaces Canada, Gran Colombia, and Mapuche), and another western "horse raider" such as Navajo/Apache or Comanche.

Central/South/East Asia Staples: China, Japan, Korea, Mongolia, India, Indonesia. Returnees: Vietnam, and either Siam or Khmer or both if Burma doesn't make it. New: Mughals (separate from India centered more around Afghanistan/Pakistan), Burma/Tibet?

Middle East: Arabia, Babylon, Carthage/Phoenicia, Persia, Ottomans. Returnees: Assyria/Sumer or both. New: Parthia and Armenia (as Scythia and Georgia replacements)?

Europe Staples: at least England, France, Germany, Greece, Russia, Rome in base game. Duh. Dutch, Byzantium, Poland, Portugal and Sweden in DLC/expansions. Maybe Spain if not in Vanilla. Returnees: Norway/Denmark for Vikings. New: Ireland (Celts), Some form of Italy, Goths (Classical Era), Franks (if Alexander can have his own civ why not Charlemagne?), Romania if Austria/Hungary don't make it.

Africa Staples: Egypt, Ethiopia (maybe Classical Era inspired over Nubia), Zulu. Returnees: Mali or Songhai, possibly Morocco. New: Berbers if no Morocco, Angola (over Kongo), something more modern instead of Ethiopia like Nigeria or South Africa?

Oceania: Australia, Maori, Hawaii/Tonga/Samoa (as the seafaring Polynesians)

I think I maybe got to about 57 so add in another wildcard somewhere for 58.

My speculations:

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).

North America (2 more than Civ6)
Returned ones from Civ6: America and Canada (yeah, I think there is a high possibility that Canada will be back in Civ6, it's a typical diplomatic passifist civ and tundra meme).
Replacements: Iroquois (in the place of Cree).
New ones: Navajo and Cherokee.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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).

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).

Overall, my set of civs for Civ7 is very similar to Civ6.

I'm actually okay with America and Brazil because I feel like they've become something different from their mother country; Americans were, in fact, already very culturally different from the English in England by the time of the Revolution. While my personal preference would be to have few or no leaders/civs more recent than the 17th century, I think there are reasonable arguments for including America and Brazil that don't apply to Australia and only apply marginally at best to Canada. Of all the civs in Civ6 I think Australia is the hardest to justify (followed very closely by Scotland in its current design, albeit not Scotland ipso facto).

Can we consider (Gran) Colombia culturally distinct enough from Spain? I think so.

 

[Zaarin]

Can we consider (Gran) Colombia culturally distinct enough from Spain? I think so.

I didn't mention it because I'm not familiar enough to say.

 

[Birch617]

Can we consider (Gran) Colombia culturally distinct enough from Spain? I think so.

From my personal experience of been Colombian :V, i do think we are very distinct from Spain, of course the influence is there as any latino country, but we were also influence alot by both our indigenous ancestor and the black slaves that arrived in the territory, of course the indigenous ancestry varies for every region, if we were to talk about the Cundiboyacense area, where the capital is, the Muisca were the most influential, as we even to this day use some muisca words like Cuca and Cucho in our normal vocabulary and a lot of towns from the area have native name (Gachanzipa, Tocanzipa, Funza, Ibague; even Bogota its like a spanification of Bacata).
Besides the Spaniard influence, Germans also had a lot of influence in areas like Cundinamarca, Santander and Valle del Cauca, introducing things like the accordion, which is very typical in Vallenato music (which also uses african percussion and native instruments), also while reading for my classes (i'm a student of Art History) there records of the influence of Moriscos (Moorish people that converted to Catholicism) and Sephardic Jews that were kick out to the Nueva Granada (Colombia).

I cannot talk that much about Venezuela and Ecuador, the most i can tell you is that Venezuela had more Italian and Portuguese influence

 

[Zaarin]

Sephardic Jews that were kick out to the Nueva Granada

I just finished writing a paper on Jews in the American colonies, most of whom were Sephardic refugees from Dutch Brazil (in contrast to the modern United States where most of our Jews are Ashkenazim). It was an interesting topic.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I just finished writing a paper on Jews in the American colonies, most of whom were Sephardic refugees from Dutch Brazil (in contrast to the modern United States where most of our Jews are Ashkenazim). It was an interesting topic.

Incidentally, I was watching about Sephardic Jews in the Americas from Extra History. While they have some... odd hot takes when it comes to gaming, their history series is something I can enjoy for the most part.

 

[Yudhisthira]

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

 

[Jeppetto]

I mean there's Jerusalem, that's at least some representation, there are such that don't even get that. And I think it will return in Civ 7 too, given that it's hard not to represent one of most important Holy Cities. Then again, it took them some time to bring Vatican City. I don't know where Mekka would stand in this.

 

[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.