7 New Civs You'd Like to See in Civ7

[pokiehl]

Yes. In my mind instead of using gold as a resource for purchasing, they could use other forms of currency such as resources.

You could also have more abstract mechanics like exchanging another yield for purchasing (Culture, Food…).

Not using gold seems like the last “obvious” twist idea Firaxis hasn’t explored yet. Maybe we’ll see this in 7.

 

[GeneralZift]

Why some people so uptight about this stuff? The most fluid of the mechanics are these abstract concepts of Faith and Culture.
At a very elementary glance, the natives of America had plenty of these. Particularly faith. So why couldn't they have faith bonuses?

It really feels like you're being a contrarian, because even Civ6 Kongo gets faith bonuses, as a Civ that literally cannot found a religion (and doesn't care to spread it across the map)

 

[Patine]

You could also have more abstract mechanics like exchanging another yield for purchasing (Culture, Food…).

My big concern, like nomadic, pastoral civ's, is it's viability into the late game. Plus, "gold," as portrayed in Civ-series games, is obviously more abstracted than literal, in that notion, as a generic form of resource management.

 

[Patine]

At a very elementary glance, the natives of America had plenty of these. Particularly faith. So why couldn't they have faith bonuses?

Faith bonuese tend to appear in Civ's who stronngly proccelityze their faith, or are otherwise (like the Aztecs) are very aggressive with them. Every hisyorical civ HAD religion.

Why some people so uptight about this stuff?

It really feels like you're being a contrarian, because even Civ6 Kongo gets faith bonuses, as a Civ that literally cannot found a religion (and doesn't care to spread it across the map)

Again, my differing opinions on things are being derided as problematic and an obstancle to discussion, rather than me expressing my point-of-view. I think such toxic conduct should be ended now, wouldn't you? And the Kongo, like Scythia, have wonky mechanics in my viewpoint.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

There are already religious components in Civ VI that increase the 'spread' of the religion, allowing cheaper Missionaries or 'passive' spread at greater distances, etc. That implies (to me, at least) that any 'real' ability or inability to spread a religion is immaterial to the game's modeling of it: a Native American Civ with a religion that includes a bunch of the 'spread bonus' components is going to be the Proselytizing Giant of the game., or at least a contender for the title.

As to Gold/Money, to me the big differentiator is in the ease with which transactions can be made, and that is related to a coinage, later a currency system.

By around 3000 BCE (early Bronze Age) in Mesopotamia and Egypt they were using standard-weight bronze or copper pieces to accurately weigh small objects in scales. These may represent 'proto-coins' and may have been used as such, but the archeological jury is still out - which is probably a good thing for us gamers, because that would put the first 'coinage' so early that it would practically preclude any non-coin system.
Between 640 and 625 BCE in both China and Lydia (western Anatolia) stamped or cast coins were being produced, complete with comparative values of bronze, gold and silver and inscriptions and designs on the coins. This is the usual rough period when Money is considered to have started, but a whole bunch of other things, including natural shells, manufactured beads, and (referring back to the top) weights of metal were also used. Unfortunately for them as an 'alternative' to semi-precious metal coinage, they all were replaced by 'real' money as soon as it was available.

Not saying that a non-money/Gold economy and/or value system can't be made to work, (Science Fiction, in fact, has explored several alternative systems, but the key word is 'Fiction') but except in very early or very 'niche' groups, it would be largely an artificial construct.

 

[pokiehl]

it would be largely an artificial construct.

You can say this about practically any single element of generic gameplay in the game. You can also level this at civ-specific mechanics like Civ 5's Venice "no settlers" malus, Civ 6 Mali's production penalty, etc.

In short, "it's not 100% historically accurate" isn't a very compelling argument against something for inclusion in these games. Firaxis doesn't care, and I don't think most players care that much either. We know we're playing a videogame.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

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.

I don't like mixing historical polities and peoples with modern nation-states. It's the same for me when it comes to representing a Samanid/Bukharan/Khivan civ as 'Uzbekistan', or a Qoyunlu/Turcoman/Eldiguzid civ as 'Azerbaijan', or Kievan Rus' as 'Ukraine'.

Better to call them just 'the Kazakh' and be done with it. As was mentioned before, 'Kazakhstan' was not used for any geographical region or polity pre-USSR, I don't agree with using it for a civ

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And the Kongo, like Scythia, have wonky mechanics in my viewpoint.

But they still have culture and faith mechanics made by the developers, which could still be applied to any possible Native American civ if they wanted to.

 

[Patine]

I don't like mixing historical polities and peoples with modern nation-states. It's the same for me when it comes to representing a Samanid/Bukharan/Khivan civ as 'Uzbekistan', or a Qoyunlu/Turcoman/Eldiguzid civ as 'Azerbaijan', or Kievan Rus' as 'Ukraine'.

Better to call them just 'the Kazakh' and be done with it. As was mentioned before, 'Kazakhstan' was not used for any geographical region or polity pre-USSR, I don't agree with using it for a civ

What leads to such a dislike when obvious successor state is present? Such a sharp separation seems MORE arbitary and artificual than seeing obvious succession of states, even if interrupted by conquerors and with different governments and broad lifestyles.

 

[Patine]

But those are culture and faith mechanics made by the developers, which could still be applied to any possible Native American civ if they wanted to.

But why are Native Americans having faith and culture bonuses, rather than ones that fit more organically, viewed as such a necessity? And why iare they having, "distinctive cultures and religious beliefs," viewed as greater rationale for such bonuses than every other civ who has those (which is EVERY civ without culture and/or religious bonues)?

 

[Patine]

But they still have culture and faith mechanics made by the developers, which could still be applied to any possible Native American civ if they wanted to.

And, just because they were made by Firaxis developers doesn't mean I'm fond of them.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

You can say this about practically any single element of generic gameplay in the game. You can also level this at civ-specific mechanics like Civ 5's Venice "no settlers" malus, Civ 6 Mali's production penalty, etc.

In short, "it's not 100% historically accurate" isn't a very compelling argument against something for inclusion in these games. Firaxis doesn't care, and I don't think most players care that much either. We know we're playing a videogame.

Very, very true.​

​

But the point of emphasizing 'artificial construct' is that such a thing is necessarily the product of the imagination of the game designers, and as I have said before, I simply do not trust Firaxis (or, to be fair, any other set of game designers) to get it right without a model to guide them. And just in case anybody hasn't noticed, I think history is a good source of such models, if you can find them.​

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

But why are Native Americans having faith and culture bonuses, rather than ones that fit more organically, viewed as such a necessity?

What does culture in the civ series represent to you? The Native Americans could build totem poles which gave culture to them in Civ 4. Why couldn't a Haida/Tlingit civ build one for extra culture bonuses in a future game?
That's what me, and others, are wondering.

 

[GeneralZift]

I just wanted to talk about my ideas

 

[Patine]

What does culture in the civ series represent to you? The Native Americans could build totem poles which gave culture to them in Civ 4. Why couldn't a Haida/Tlingit civ build one for extra culture bonuses in a future game?
That's what me, and others, are wondering.

Culture has been, since the notion was introduced in Civ3, the power to imprint one's cultural ideals and sphere of influence on other civ's by their compelling quality. The fact that all of the Native American civ's were highly regionalized in cultural influence speaks against that as a civ bonus and strongpoint.

I just wanted to talk about my ideas

And I too, am expressing views and opinions that are in disagreement, but my views are being treated as, somehow, less valid and, supposedly, only made for contrarian argument, and not because they stand on their own. And, for the third time, this attirude must cease.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The fact that all of the Native American civ's were highly regionalized in cultural influence speaks against that as a civ bonus and strongpoint.

I never expressed my opinion that every single Native American civ should receive faith and cultural bonuses. But I don't see a compelling reason why some couldn't considering they, and similar cultures, have in the current and past games.

 

[Patine]

I never expressed my opinion that every single Native American civ should receive faith and cultural bonuses. But I don't see a compelling reason why some couldn't considering they, and similar cultures, have in the current and past games.

My viewpoint is mostly based on how the notions play out in-game.

 

[GeneralZift]

Could have a border growth rate bonus instead of extra culture. And bonus faith makes sense. At the cost of spendable money. Maybe their soldiers don't cost (as much?) upkeep but they do cost food (?)

 

[Patine]

Could have a border growth rate bonus instead of extra culture. And bonus faith makes sense. At the cost of spendable money. Maybe their soldiers don't cost (as much?) upkeep but they do cost food (?)

Again, civ's with a faith bonus should be big procelytizers or religiously aggressive, to make sense in how it works in-game. And I still don't see, "gold," as just literal currency but societal resource management, and it certainly to be portrayed that way.

 

[Evie]

I wouldn't say faith is exclusively about proselytizing or religious aggression, seeing that it's arguably one of the most polyvalent resources in the game between Monumentality/Grandmaster Chapel/Moksha (not to mention purchasing great people, building naturalists/national parks, and building rock bands).

But then, that's just me.