[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Republic of San Montuoso]

Robespierre chopped off an awful lot of heads for being "republican."

At least he was true to his ideaology and not an hypocritical

We talked about the snake Talleyrand, but Napoleon fought on the revolutionary side, but quickly decided that "the monarchy is bad... except if it's me on the throne". He betrayed the republic by destroying it. Robespierre never betrayed the Republic. But, I'll admit that, he might be the best representative for it neither

 

[Zaarin]

At least he was true to his ideaology and not an hypocritical

We talked about the snake Talleyrand, but Napoleon fought on the revolutionary side, but quickly decided that "the monarchy is bad... except if it's me on the throne". He betrayed the republic by destroying it. Robespierre never betrayed the Republic. But, I'll admit that, he might be the best representative for it neither

Oh, I wasn't arguing in favor of Napoleon; I've always thought he was a rather boring pick among France's many interesting leaders.

 

[XX36789]

I think with the Mayans and Ethiopia back, they should focus only on brand-new civs, especially ones like Colombia that represent a very unique place and time period.

 

[Jewelrunna]

Why does everybody always want Napoleon to represent France? Please. If you want a militaristic leader, go for Louis XIV, but not Napoleon.
Having France represented by Napoleon would be like having Russia represented by Stalin: a fierce and strong leader that managed to put the country on a better spot on the map, but also an incredible tyrant, that completely betrayed a somewhat fined ideology for personal purpose. Napoleon waged war against all of Europe, reestablished slavery in a somewhat slave-free country, destroy the last bits of regionalism, transformed a proto-democracy into a tyrannical autocracy... And people still want him to represent France? Please, we have so many better leader that we don't need Popoleon to represent us. I'd even prefer Napoleon the Third rather than the petit caporal. Or maybe give France a true republican leader rather than the monarchist ones. Robespierre, Clemenceau, anything by Popoleon.

Yes, and Genghis Khan, Qin Shi Huang, and Philip II were known for their progressive social reforms and were not warmongering tyrants at all...
I would be against having Stalin in the game for obvious reasons, but this is a bad comparison. Acting like Napoleon didn't permanently alter the shape of European History and increase the spread of liberal reforms throughout the continent, regardless of how he himself might've betrayed those ideals through actions in other ways. But you could point to almost any leader within Civilization, and you'll find stains on their legacy.
For what it's worth, I personally would rather see someone like Louis XIV represent France, but Napoleon would certainly be more representative of France's history than Catherine de Medici or Eleanor. And to be fair, I do like having Catherine in the game but I find her inclusion more dubious considering that the only other French leader we have isn't a very good choice for representing them in my opinion.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

So it's not really that they would "limit" themselves but rather that their rule becomes naturally the limitation. They wouldn't put Porto asides Lisbon because Portugal is already represented, in the same way they would not put Danemark with coastal raiding abilities while Norway already fulfills this role.

I have noticed this and agree with you but Copenhagen could still be in the game as a city-state but not necessarily with a Viking ability, since the Viking Civ is called Norway.

 

[PhilBowles]

Then they've done a remarkably horrible job. The only thing Sumerian about the "Sumeria" civ is the mule cart (which may or may not have actually been used in warfare).

I think you're expecting a bit too much specialist knowledge from either Firaxis or the audience - Gilgamesh, ziggurats and the key city names are widely associated with the Sumerians, even if not exclusively so. I don't have your specialist knowledge of the area to know how accurate that is. Nippur and Sippar, the cities on the Sumerian list that are usually given to Babylon, are from the little I know more appropriate for the Sumerians.

I agree with you that the Sumerian implementation in Civ VI is poor, but that's because 'super-aggressive science civ' is not the first thing that comes to mind when thinking of Sumerians, I'm not a fan of fictional (or at least fictionalised) leaders and Artificial Growth Hornone Gilgamesh is silly.

I agree with @Alexander's Hetaroi that we'll either see a capital-centric Babylon or else Assyria; I feel those two concepts have the most design space open for them.

You also may be less cynical than me about the concern Firaxis gives to representing them accurately in gameplay. It's already been raised regarding existing civs that making an accurate Maori civ was less of a priority than making a civ that plays like Polynesia under whatever name. The 'play tall or suffer corruption' Maya are not a natural approach to a civ noted for a distributed city-state structure but would make more sense for - indeed - a 'capital-centric Babylon'. Gran Colombia is a generic conquest civ with stereotypically Latin American cosmetics.

Personally, if I were choosing a militarist leader for France, I'd choose Philippe Auguste.

What's wrong with Napoleon? I can appreciate that he's not appropriate if you want a cultural or other take on France, such as the mismatch between leader and civ in Civ V, but if you want a "militarist leader" I see nothing wrong with going for the obvious option. He's not a meme leader like Gandhi - Napoleon obviously warrants inclusion if the criteria we're looking for are 'effective ruler', 'national leader at a country's height', and/or 'big personality'.

EDIT: Found the original post pointing out "What's wrong with Napoleon"...

 

[Grand-Admiral Thrawn]

Robespierre wouldn’t be the best leader; he was in office for only a year, and the most notable thing he did was chop off thousands of heads

Napoleon might not be the best leader choice, but he’s one of the most influential leaders in French history. Other than focusing on his massive conquests, Firaxis could go in a diplomacy/culture route: his Napoleonic Code is the foundation for many modern legal systems

 

[PhilBowles]

Robespierre wouldn’t be the best leader; he was in office for only a year, and the most notable thing he did was chop off thousands of heads

Napoleon might not be the best leader choice, but he’s one of the most influential leaders in French history. Other than focusing on his massive conquests, Firaxis could go in a diplomacy/culture route: his Napoleonic Code is the foundation for many modern legal systems

Governance abilities within a military civ would make sense for Napoleon, but I don't think he makes sense for a civ without some kind of military focus and I know Zaarin hated that treatment in Civ V (not least because the cultural ability name had nothing to do with the Napoleonic Code or Napoleon himself).

 

[bbbt]

Why does everybody always want Napoleon to represent France? Please. If you want a militaristic leader, go for Louis XIV, but not Napoleon.
Having France represented by Napoleon would be like having Russia represented by Stalin: a fierce and strong leader that managed to put the country on a better spot on the map, but also an incredible tyrant, that completely betrayed a somewhat fined ideology for personal purpose.

With the Treaty of Paris, Napoleon lost all the lands he gained, lost lands that France had gained before him, had already sold a significant portion of France's colonial holdings, incurred massive financial penalties and basically ended France's (First) colonial empire.

I'd say he very much didn't put the country on a better spot on the map in that sense What he did do is leave be hind a significant number of cultural, military, and legal reforms that had a lasting impact.

 

[Thormodr]

There are some great female options for the Mongols.

. Khutulun, Mongolian warrior princess

Mongol women made just as stout herders and warriors as their men.

One woman, however, had the combination of both skill and might. Her name was Khutulun, and she was not only a devastating cavalrywoman but one of the greatest wrestlers the Mongols had ever seen. Born around 1260 to the ruler of a swathe of what is now western Mongolia and China, she helped her father repel — repeatedly — the invading hordes commanded by the mighty Khublai Khan, who also happened to be her great uncle. Her favorite tactic was to seize an enemy soldier and ride off with him, the explorer Marco Polo recounted, “as deftly as a hawk pounces on a bird.”

Off the battlefield and in the wrestling ring, Khutulun went similarly undefeated. She declared that she wouldn’t marry any man who couldn't beat her in a wrestling match; those who lost would have to give her their prized horses. Suffice it to say, Khutulun had a lot of horses. By the time she was in her 20s and a spinster by Mongol standards, her parents pleaded with her to throw a match with one particularly eligible bachelor. According to Polo, she initially agreed, but once in the ring found herself unable to break the habit of a lifetime and surrender. She overpowered her suitor who, humiliated, fled; she eventually chose a husband from among her father’s men and married him without submitting him to the evidently impossible challenge to out-wrestle her.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01...who-ever-lived-who-youve-probably-never-heard

Mandukhai Khatun (1449-1510), also known as Mandukhai Sechen Khatun, was a Mongolian Empress. The word “Khatun” is the female form of the word “Khan”, as in Genghis Kahn.

Born into a family of aristocrats, she married Manduul Khan when she was 18 years old, and bore a daughter, whose name unfortunately isn’t known.

Soon after the death of her husband the Khan, Manduhai adopted the 7-year-old orphan Batmunkh, then the last living direct descendant of Genghis Kahn. Manduhai named him “Dayan Kahn”, meaning “Great Kahn” or “Khan of whole universe”.

When Dayan Khan turned 19, Manduhai married him, again becoming the Khatun or Empress. Older and more experienced than the Khan, she retained great influence over court and military. Together they reunified the Mongol retainers of the former eastern region of the Mongol Empire.

Manduhai fought in battles herself, even while pregnant, and was once injured while carrying twins of Dayan Khan. She and the twins survived, and her army won the battle.

Mandukhai managed to keep Dayan Khan in power as a Chingis Khan’s descendant and defeated the Oirats, actions which have contributed to the legends which formed about her life. She left seven sons and three daughters. The later khans and nobles of Mongolia are her descendants.

http://amazingwomeninhistory.com/queen-manduhai-wise/

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think you're expecting a bit too much specialist knowledge from either Firaxis or the audience - Gilgamesh, ziggurats and the key city names are widely associated with the Sumerians, even if not exclusively so. I don't have your specialist knowledge of the area to know how accurate that is. Nippur and Sippar, the cities on the Sumerian list that are usually given to Babylon, are from the little I know more appropriate for the Sumerians.

It has nothing to do with the cities or ziggurats for me. I think the problem is both of the abilities are a reference to the Epic of Gilgamesh.
It would have been more appropriate if they centered the Civ ability around being the "Cradle of Civilization." What specific ability would that entail I don't know because we have so many river bonuses already. I'd be fine with Gilgamesh keeping his ability if that was the case. To me that would have made it better.

 

[shaglio]

It has nothing to do with the cities or ziggurats for me. I think the problem is both of the abilities are a reference to the Epic of Gilgamesh.
It would have been more appropriate if they centered the Civ ability around being the "Cradle of Civilization." What specific ability would that entail I don't know because we have so many river bonuses already. I'd be fine with Gilgamesh keeping his ability if that was the case. To me that would have made it better.

Farms along rivers providing +1 Food is a nice start – something that was baseline in Civ 5 but was removed in Civ 6.

 

[PhilBowles]

It has nothing to do with the cities or ziggurats for me. I think the problem is both of the abilities are a reference to the Epic of Gilgamesh.
It would have been more appropriate if they centered the Civ ability around being the "Cradle of Civilization." What specific ability would that entail I don't know because we have so many river bonuses already. I'd be fine with Gilgamesh keeping his ability if that was the case. To me that would have made it better.

I completely agree - I also don't know how it would have been done, but I'd have liked something from the Sumerians that focused on early settlement and perhaps allowed them to 'evolve' cities similar to the outpost system used in some other games - not sure what advantages that could confer, but it could let them have cheaper settlers. They should have something related to farming and/or growth.

 

[Guynemer]

Farms along rivers providing +1 Food is a nice start – something that was baseline in Civ 5 but was removed in Civ 6.

The (truly excellent and fun) Civilizations Expanded mod by p0kiehl gives Gilgamesh +1 Food and Production from farms on rivers (and +1 Science from resources on rivers)

 

[Zaarin]

I think you're expecting a bit too much specialist knowledge from either Firaxis or the audience

That's fair, but...

I agree with you that the Sumerian implementation in Civ VI is poor, but that's because 'super-aggressive science civ' is not the first thing that comes to mind when thinking of Sumerians

That's precisely what I'm talking about. The Sumerians were not aggressive expansionists. They were only briefly unified under Sargon of Akkad; the rest of the time they were a band of city-states that warred with each other a lot more often than they warred with outsiders. Really what I'd associate Sumer with would be: 1) irrigation; 2) priest-kings; 3) lots and lots of "firsts"; and 4) remarkably honest record-keeping. In game terms, that should mean bonuses to farms with fresh water, some kind of faith bonus, and science bonuses of some kind.

You also may be less cynical than me about the concern Firaxis gives to representing them accurately in gameplay.

I'm cynical, trust me. I'm just hopeful.

What's wrong with Napoleon?

He's boring? That's a personal opinion, yes, but there's simply nothing about him I find interesting. He's also been done to death: he's been in what, five Civ games now? I'd frankly rather have his nephew if we must have a Napoleon; at least he'd be novel.

I think the problem is both of the abilities are a reference to the Epic of Gilgamesh.

This, especially since the Epic of Gilgamesh, while rooted in Sumerian sources, is ultimately a Babylo-Assyrian piece of literature. We don't have Sumer; we have The Epic of Gilgamesh civilization. It's the equivalent of having Achilles lead Greece with both his leader and civ abilities referencing The Iliad, with the difference that at least The Iliad has historical basis.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It's the equivalent of having Achilles lead Greece with both his leader and civ abilities referencing The Iliad, with the difference that at least The Iliad has historical basis.

Great now I really want the Mythology spinoff. A Trojan Horse UU would be great.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Sumer is literally just cult of gilgamesh in civ 6. It’s not representative of any nation, just Gilgamesh. Which is fine, I like Gilgamesh, both as a figure and as a leader in Civ, but I wish Sumer wasn’t the way that it is because it steps on all other possible Mesopotamian civs’ toes

 

[Guynemer]

Great now I really want the Mythology spinoff. A Trojan Horse UU would be great.

Unique unit that replaces the battering ram. Attached unit completely bypasses all wall protection when attacking the city. Only one unit Trojan Horse can exist at any one time.

 

[Zaarin]

Great now I really want the Mythology spinoff. A Trojan Horse UU would be great.

I would be 100% okay with it in a Mythology spinoff, which I think would be awesome. Just not in Civ proper. (Though for Greece, Achilles, greatest of the Greeks, needs to be Greece's Great Hero; Menelaus, Theseus, or Odysseus can lead the civ. I'd love to see Theseus portrayed like he is in Hades, a braggart who can't shut up about himself. They could just reuse Alexander in his totality. )

Sumer is literally just cult of gilgamesh in civ 6. It’s not representative of any nation, just Gilgamesh. Which is fine

It's really not to me. It's not representative of Sumer at all--it's an Assyrian epic shoehorned into a completely different civ. Even if it had to be Gilgamesh, they could have portrayed him like a Sumerian (tuck up that tunic to the armpit, shave the beard, longer hair, not ridiculously jacked...).

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I would be 100% okay with it in a Mythology spinoff, which I think would be awesome. Just not in Civ proper. (Though for Greece, Achilles, greatest of the Greeks, needs to be Greece's Great Hero; Menelaus, Theseus, or Odysseus can lead the civ. I'd love to see Theseus portrayed like he is in Hades, a braggart who can't shut up about himself. They could just reuse Alexander in his totality. )


It's really not to me. It's not representative of Sumer at all--it's an Assyrian epic shoehorned into a completely different civ. Even if it had to be Gilgamesh, they could have portrayed him like a Sumerian (tuck up that tunic to the armpit, shave the beard, longer hair, not ridiculously jacked...).

that’s what I said...