7 New Civs You'd Like to See in Civ7

Yes, they should use the name "the Kazakh". Kazakhstan is the modern nation-state that doesn't fully correspond with the Kazakh Khanate
Ethnically, it does. And the borders are VERY similar, to be pedantic.

Khazakh_Khanate.png


Kazakhstan.jpg

And, Kazakhstan could easily be considered a spiritual successor nation to the Kazakh Khanate (and certainly few modern Kazakhs dispute the notion). I'm not advocating a Modern Kazakh civ whose only viable leader is still alive, but just pointing out the continuity of civ's in a Civ game (like the Achaemenids and Safavids are Persians and the Han and Qing Dynasty are Chinese Dynasties).
 
People of the Steppe: May continue to build encampments after reaching the Ancient Era and settling your first city. +2 Science, Culture, Gold, Faith, and Production for every turn that you do not convert one of your encampments to your capital city. Cannot build settlers and found more cities.

Note that encampment is a term that might be used to describe earlier moveable settlements in a "Neolithic" Era. They are still able to produce units and have yields around it.

The idea behind this is you can stay as nomadic as long as you want. Though in order to have more cities you would have to go out and conquer them with units.

This is why I proposed 'Pastoral Settlers' that cost much less to build, but it takes 2 to form a City while only 1 can build a Settlement to expand territory. That allows the pastoral group to expand fairly rapidly and later convert to city-building when pastoralism becomes less efficient compared to Industrialization.

A flat prohibition on pastoral groups both makes their survival later very problematic and also is simply not accurate given that Scythian, Mongol, Kushan, and other pastoral nomadic groups did build cities and even used them as Capitals.
About a model for Pastoral societies:
1- For every civ whatever they are Agrarian, Pastoral or Maritime now Settlers took the the role of Workers/Builders to make "Improvements" but now these are Villages (Farming, Pastoral, Fishing, Mining, Forestry, etc.) founded by Settlers using their "Settler Charges" similar to "Builder Charges".​
2- Like the "minor civs" (barbarians) Villages that can be changed of position when needed, you can also turn them back to settlers (with only one charge) but of course this have down sides like take X numbers of turns and lose the foundation cost, so players would not going to move villages all the time, just when is really needed. This cover a very real process were people are displaced and migrate even if they are not your classical seminomad-pastorial culture.​
3- For the players that pick the Pastoral Society specialization option in early game, you get a serie of bonuses like.​
* All Pastoral Villages citizens become Warrior class instead of the regular Labourer class.​
* Pastoral Villages take just one turn to be dismantled, their cost or settling is refunded, and the resource (Horses, Camels, Sheep, Reindeer, etc.) moves with them.​
* Their Settlers have +3 movement points.​
* Can train the special units Horse Archers and Camel Riders with the proper resource.​
So Pastoral turn to a be a common option with bonuses over pretty much regular civ mechanics that do not compromise the rest of the regular gameplay neither is exclusive to one civ when the game would for sure end with many civs that were pastoral/nomadic historically.
 
Ethnically, it does. And the borders are VERY similar, to be pedantic.

View attachment 689437

View attachment 689438
And, Kazakhstan could easily be considered a spiritual successor nation to the Kazakh Khanate (and certainly few modern Kazakhs dispute the notion). I'm not advocating a Modern Kazakh civ whose only viable leader is still alive, but just pointing out the continuity of civ's in a Civ game (like the Achaemenids and Safavids are Persians and the Han and Qing Dynasty are Chinese Dynasties).
"Ethnically" is a loaded word to use with any pastoral group. They were almost all Tribal Confederations, frequently very diverse in their 'ethnicity'. In fact, your first map, of the Kazakh Khanate shows its division into the Small, Middle and Great Jüz (Hordes) - separate Kazakh groups under the overall Kazakh title. Note also that in addition to the Turkic Kazakhs, the area also had percentages of other pastoral groups like the Mongol Dzungar Khanate, and the Khwarazm (Khiva Khanate), Uzbeks, Turkmens, and Kirghiz. As mentioned, even today 30% of the population of Kazakhstan is non-Kazakh.

- And similar interpretation could be applied to virtually every central Asian group, horde, Ordo or confederation from prehistory on, and to the 'Germanic' groups that migrated into the old western Roman Empire: once peoples started moving, all the nice, distinct lines indicating ethnic or other distinctions got blurred pretty quickly
 
I dont see the point with all the quibble about Kazakhs and Kazakhstan. There is an obvious relation between the people and the nation, whatever how recent, diverse, foreign dominated or recognized their state was. If we can not abstract the relation of the Kazakh people and the modern nation they dominate now, then I think the use of "history" and "civilization" has lost any versitality for on-game representation.
I mean are we supposed to have both a Kazakh and Kazakhstan civs at the same time in game? I guess no, so should not be a problem to put them together as the same in game. The ancestors of Kazakhastan were mostly Kazakh, these and most of the other were nomadic at some point anyway, so the transformation from a previous way of life to the one of the modern state is there anyway, in their history and they stoped being a "non city" people at some point anyway.

The relevant point was that is difficult to build a viable a civ that do not use something so fundamental for all CIV mechanics as are cities and is even harder to keep that design in the last 1/3 of the game.
 
Last edited:
I want a Civ that has little use for money (perhaps you can't buy certain things like buildings) but makes up for it with high culture and faith.
I think it would be VERY difficult to make a civ out Amish or Yogi. Plus, driving up high culture almost always requires one to open up their pocketbook, if you will - I can't think, off hand, of a notable exception.
 
I want a Civ that has little use for money (perhaps you can't buy certain things like buildings) but makes up for it with high culture and faith.
Interesting idea. There are a lot of cultures to draw from that didn’t use money. Ancient Egypt is a notable example.
 
I want a Civ that has little use for money (perhaps you can't buy certain things like buildings) but makes up for it with high culture and faith.
I think it could work for a lot of Native American civs. Many tribes used other things than coins for bartering and trading, like wampum beads.
 
Interesting idea. There are a lot of cultures to draw from that didn’t use money. Ancient Egypt is a notable example.
Ancient Egypt may not have had a currency, as we know it, today, but they allocated resources in a way the obviously simulates the broader meaning of, "gold," in game. Plus, if they had survived as a civ past Antiquity, they couldn't remain on a barter-land-and-levy system and utilize many later game advances and improvements, and it's unlikely they'd inexplicably chhose to.
 
I think it could work for a lot of Native American civs. Many tribes used other things than coins for bartering and trading, like wampum beads.
But those civ's weren't big culture and faith engines. They tend to have other civ focuses. And, like I said of the Egyptians, above, I doubt they would have clung to such forms economics if they had not been conquered, but still came into a broader, global community.
 
I was thinking of Native American Civs when I thought of this. I didn't think total lack of money is feasible, but some kind of tradeoff might be fun.

Bonuses only need to be representative and not literally of a Civs historic values. So if they didn't use money at all, they don't necessarily need no Gold, but what they could do is just have less use for it, and some debuffs for it.

Native Americans don't need to be culture or faith "engines" in the classical sense (like French off the top of my head) --- but you can represent their rather unique culture of firepit dances and appeasing the gods and stuff like that.

(I'm remembering AoE3's representation of these things)
 
But those civ's weren't big culture and faith engines. They tend to have other civ focuses.
Why couldn't they? The Maori already have big culture and faith bonuses in Civ 6 for comparison. The Mapuche Chemamulls also yield culture.
It could work with the Navajo who were notable for their silverwork instead of gold, the Haida/Tlingit could build Crest Poles and have Potlach Ceremony.
Bonuses only need to be representative and not literally of a Civs historic values. So if they didn't use money at all, they don't necessarily need no Gold, but what they could do is just have less use for it, and some debuffs for it.
Yes. In my mind instead of using gold as a resource for purchasing, they could use other forms of currency such as resources.
 
Bonuses only need to be representative and not literally of a Civs historic values. So if they didn't use money at all, they don't necessarily need no Gold, but what they could do is just have less use for it, and some debuffs for it.
My point is these forms of economics remaining when more advanced currency-based advances and improvements come later in game.

but you can represent their rather unique culture of firepit dances and appeasing the gods and stuff like that.
That's not culture as defined as a game term.
 
I want a Civ that has little use for money (perhaps you can't buy certain things like buildings) but makes up for it with high culture and faith.
This sounds to me like the Incan command economy.
 
It could work with the Navajo who were notable for their silverwork instead of gold, the Haida/Tlingit could build Crest Poles and have Potlach Ceremony.
They didn't historically show a large area of cultural influence outside their specific regions.
 
But it's at least faith. :p
Native American civ's have areas of bonues very appropriate to them. It's just that culture and faith, as defined in game, are not among them. EVERY civ in history had them to the degree you speak of.
 
They didn't historically show a large area of cultural influence outside their specific regions.
Why does everything have to be an argument? In a what if scenario why couldn't it have happened?
Not Faith that ever spread, or was procelytized, which is the big factor in later Civ iterations.
Neither did Scythia. So why did the developers give them faith bonuses? Did the Celts from Civ 5 go around spreading their druid religion to other civilizations? No, but they still got faith bonuses.
Having faith bonuses does not necessarily equal founding a religion. Faith is also good for purchasing which could be what a civ needs that couldn't purchase things with gold.
 
Why does everything have to be an argument? In a what if scenario why couldn't it have happened?

Neither did Scythia. So why did the developers give them faith bonuses? Did the Celts from Civ 5 go around spreading their druid religion to other civilizations? No, but they still got faith bonuses.
The Scythia design is wonky. And I've never played the Celts (or anyone else) in Civ5. And it's not that, "everything has to be an argument," but that i hold strong opinions and views, like everyone else here does, and dismissing them as some form of contrarianism does not do your own arguements much benefit.
 
Back
Top Bottom