[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Hoppip22]

DLC 3 and DLC 6 are shipping with a new map (not map script) so it could be a hint to what civs they include. Middle-east and N.America are very possible maps.

The only new maps I could see them adding would be Middle East and Americas maps. If that's the case, I'd guess that the packs would either go:

Maya & Colombia; Ethiopia; Babylon & Byzantium (Middle East Map); Portugal; Vietnam & Kublai Khan; Iroquois (Americas Map)

or (preferably for me)

Maya & Colombia; Ethiopia; Iroquois & new Native Civ ?Navajo? (Americas Map); Vietnam; Portugal & Byzantine alt leader for Rome; Babylon (Middle East Map)

This way they could release groups based on region and introduce new maps with the new regions.

Obviously I make a lot of assumptions here
thoughts?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The only new maps I could see them adding would be Middle East and Americas maps. If that's the case, I'd guess that the packs would either go:

Maya & Colombia; Ethiopia; Babylon & Byzantium (Middle East Map); Portugal; Vietnam & Kublai Khan; Iroquois (Americas Map)

or (preferably for me)

Maya & Colombia; Ethiopia; Iroquois & new Native Civ ?Navajo? (Americas Map); Vietnam; Portugal & Byzantine alt leader for Rome; Babylon (Middle East Map)

This way they could release groups based on region and introduce new maps with the new regions.

Obviously I make a lot of assumptions here
thoughts?

It's very possible the new map types might not be based off of Earth, but I'm not sure what they would be.
I would like the Middle East Map to cover more of the Mediterranean, at least up to the Italian peninsula especially if it would come with a Byzantine Civ/leader for Rome.

I guess I'm looking more towards a Mediterranean World Map from Italy to Persia with some of North Africa.

 

[Zaarin]

yeah i think these city states are a decent idea of who *won’t* be in New Frontier. Ghaznavids (also Mughals?) and Taino are the big ones, both of which I would’ve been happy with. I’m surprised we are still yet to see Samarqand and Muscat as commercial city-states, so perhaps it’s not too late for the Timurids and the Sultanate of Oman to still show up.

Or Sogdia, whose most important city was Marakanda (Samarkand).

this is why Cherokee would be my favorite east coast civ to go into the game, over the Iroquois

Cherokee are tough to find leaders for, as their leadership sold them out, lining their own pockets at the expense of the Cherokee people. The Creek face the same problem.

It is something like having Greta as the leader of Sweden, maybe even more ridiculous than that as atleast Greta is not a semi legendary figure and will likely be relevant for much longer than a single year or so that Jeanne was.

Greta was relevant? At least Joan of Arc actually did some things...

 

[Navelgazer]

Cherokee are tough to find leaders for, as their leadership sold them out, lining their own pockets at the expense of the Cherokee people. The Creek face the same problem.

Sequoyah wasn't a political leader but was still a well-studied heroic-figure who absolutely "led" the Cherokee through their technological leap forward. His syllabary directly inspired the Cree syllabary and led to many other written languages to follow, he's the first Native American to have a statue in the National Statuary Hall and has appeared on the dollar coin. His life story is epic and his reputation is still strong. I feel like by the Gandhi rule, he would be the best choice of leader for a Cherokee civ.

 

[Inawordyes]

Cherokee are tough to find leaders for, as their leadership sold them out, lining their own pockets at the expense of the Cherokee people. The Creek face the same problem.

There are a few good leader options for the Cherokee - Attakullakulla, his son Dragging Canoe, and John Ross (who actively opposed giving up Cherokee lands and led the Cherokee National Party in fighting for the right to stay; the smaller Treaty Party signed the land away behind Ross’s back without his knowledge).

My personal favorite though, who I just discovered the other day, would be Nanyehi, Attakullakulla’s niece and Dragging Canoe’s cousin. After taking up her husband’s rifle during a battle against the Creek in which he was shot and killed, she was granted the title of “Ghigau” (Beloved Woman in Cherokee), which gave her the distinction of being the only female on the Cherokee General Council.

Her role in shaping events and guiding the Cherokee through the Revolutionary War would give ample room for the concept of a Big Personality leader. Plus she’s female, so while that doesn’t make her a better choice than John Ross or her cousin and uncle just because of her gender, she is someone that would provide that diversity without feeling forced, like she was chosen just because she’s female.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

There are a few good leader options for the Cherokee - Attakullakulla, his son Dragging Canoe, and John Ross (who actively opposed giving up Cherokee lands and led the Cherokee National Party in fighting for the right to stay; the smaller Treaty Party signed the land away behind Ross’s back without his knowledge).

My personal favorite though, who I just discovered the other day, would be Nanyehi, Attakullakulla’s niece and Dragging Canoe’s cousin. After taking up her husband’s rifle during a battle against the Creek in which he was shot and killed, she was granted the title of “Ghigau” (Beloved Woman in Cherokee), which gave her the distinction of being the only female on the Cherokee General Council.

Her role in shaping events and guiding the Cherokee through the Revolutionary War would give ample room for the concept of a Big Personality leader. Plus she’s female, so while that doesn’t make her a better choice than John Ross or her cousin and uncle just because of her gender, she is someone that would provide that diversity without feeling forced, like she was chosen just because she’s female.

she seems like a good pick

The only new maps I could see them adding would be Middle East and Americas maps. If that's the case, I'd guess that the packs would either go:

Maya & Colombia; Ethiopia; Babylon & Byzantium (Middle East Map); Portugal; Vietnam & Kublai Khan; Iroquois (Americas Map)

or (preferably for me)

Maya & Colombia; Ethiopia; Iroquois & new Native Civ ?Navajo? (Americas Map); Vietnam; Portugal & Byzantine alt leader for Rome; Babylon (Middle East Map)

This way they could release groups based on region and introduce new maps with the new regions.

Obviously I make a lot of assumptions here
thoughts?

I’m thinking along similar lines

1. Maya, Colombia
2. Ethiopia
3. Babylon/Assyria and Timurids/Oman (Middle East Map)
4. Tlingit/Salish/Navajo
5. Vietnam/Chola/Philippines and Kublai Khan
6. Wildcard — Ireland, Gauls, Hawaii, Another Native American Civ, Italy, Hittites, Berbers, Tonga

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Just want to point out that the Lahore city-state, while possibly indicating that the Mughals and Ghaznavids are out of contention, is actually representing the Sikh Confederacy. It grants a unique faith-purchased combat unit called the Nihang.

Also, if there was any doubt that Caguana was representing anything other than the Taino, it grants the Batay UI.

(And Hunza, despite linguistic confusion, is almost certainly repping the Muisca because it grants a gold bonus for trade route distance).

I am actually quite happy with the Taino, Sikh, and Muisca being represented by city-states. I didn't think they had a strong chance of becoming civs, but the use of CS's as nods to runners-up has been both brilliant and pedantically satisfying.

I also think the absence of Samarkand and treatment of Lahore as a CS strongly suggests the Timurids are in this season.

There is one thing I still find quite odd. We do not have Pagan, Bangkok, nor Hanoi as city-states. Now that we are getting literally every other corner of the map filled out with city-states, the lack of representation of very large, influential empires in SE Asia bothers me greatly. I really hope the fact that the developers are not giving this region any attention indicates a lot of uncertainty and/or plans for the area, maybe creating a second SE Asia DLC pack after this season pass.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Just want to point out that the Lahore city-state, while possibly indicating that the Mughals and Ghaznavids are out of contention, is actually representing the Sikh Confederacy. It grants a unique faith-purchased combat unit called the Nihang.

Also, if there was any doubt that Caguana was representing anything other than the Taino, it grants the Batay UI.

(And Hunza, despite linguistic confusion, is almost certainly repping the Muisca because it grants a gold bonus for trade route distance).

I am actually quite happy with the Taino, Sikh, and Muisca being represented by city-states. I didn't think they had a strong chance of becoming civs, but the use of CS's as nods to runners-up has been both brilliant and pedantically satisfying.

I also think the absence of Samarkand and treatment of Lahore as a CS strongly suggests the Timurids are in this season.

There is one thing I still find quite odd. We do not have Pagan, Bangkok, nor Hanoi as city-states. Now that we are getting literally every other corner of the map filled out with city-states, the lack of representation of very large, influential empires in SE Asia bothers me greatly. I really hope the fact that the developers are not giving this region any attention indicates a lot of uncertainty and/or plans for the area, maybe creating a second SE Asia DLC pack after this season pass.

we have more city states coming in later i believe (or at least it isn’t ruled out), so with Vietnam and potentially Burma being in the game, a Bangkok or Vientiane city state might be in the works, although since we have Sukritact Siam i wouldn’t mind if Bangkok wasn’t a city state since i’d have it replaced anyway

although Lahore likely represents the Sikh Confederacy, it’s a city that was also of key importance to the Ghaznavids and the Mughals, so it does essentially rule them out as well.

 

[Navelgazer]

On a historical basis, having Theodora or Justinian or Constantine as an alt leader for Rome would be very cool, and we've seen from other alt-leaders that their capital could be Constantinople with no problem. But having "All Roads Lead to Rome," the Legion, and the Bath as the civ's basis wouldn't be very flavorful.

Also the architectural style of the Eastern Roman Empire is gorgeous and distinct from the Western, but that might not be a problem.

Basically, the reason I doubt Byzantium will be instituted as a Roman alt-leader is that they'd be leaning entirely on the LUA for civ Flavor. Trying to imagine an LUA that could pull off that trick is giving me a headache.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

On a historical basis, having Theodora or Justinian or Constantine as an alt leader for Rome would be very cool, and we've seen from other alt-leaders that their capital could be Constantinople with no problem. But having "All Roads Lead to Rome," the Legion, and the Bath as the civ's basis wouldn't be very flavorful.

Also the architectural style of the Eastern Roman Empire is gorgeous and distinct from the Western, but that might not be a problem.

Basically, the reason I doubt Byzantium will be instituted as a Roman alt-leader is that they'd be leaning entirely on the LUA for civ Flavor. Trying to imagine an LUA that could pull off that trick is giving me a headache.

i agree with this, but i also see byzantium being a completely different civ as reaching into the hellenic pot a hell of a lot. I’d rather avoid that scenario altogether by omitting the byzantines

in future games i’d like the ottomans to have rulers to have leaders who lead from cities which were not Istanbul if they want to also include the Byzantines. And if they want leaders like Suleiman, they should omit the Byzantines, or pick a byz leader who didn’t lead from constantinople.

 

[bbbt]

What would be some good candidates for pre-colonial Native American leaders? Besides Hiawatha or another Iroquois leader returning?

 

[Navelgazer]

I’d rather avoid that scenario altogether by omitting the byzantines

I can't go that far. By some historians, the era of the Eastern Roman Empire defines the Medieval age itself. Also there's just too much meat on the bone there to not address.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I can't go that far. By some historians, the era of the Eastern Roman Empire defines the Medieval age itself. Also there's just too much meat on the bone there to not address.

should’ve considered that before picking Suleiman instead of Mehmed and choosing 4 (FOUR!) greek leaders.

 

[Zaarin]

Sequoyah wasn't a political leader but was still a well-studied heroic-figure who absolutely "led" the Cherokee through their technological leap forward. His syllabary directly inspired the Cree syllabary and led to many other written languages to follow, he's the first Native American to have a statue in the National Statuary Hall and has appeared on the dollar coin. His life story is epic and his reputation is still strong. I feel like by the Gandhi rule, he would be the best choice of leader for a Cherokee civ.

Perhaps, but the Choctaw are right next door with a great leader in Pushmataha, which IMO makes them a lot more compelling than the Cherokee.

John Ross

John Ross was a good guy, but he was only middlingly competent and he presided over a corrupt government--a case similar to Grant where he himself wasn't corrupt but his administration was riddled in corruption.

 

[Left Field]

I would love to see a Florentine/Tuscany civ but I don't think it would happen. Even less likely is an Aragon civ, perhaps with Alfonso V or John II as their leader.

 

[TeddyMain]

What would be some good candidates for pre-colonial Native American leaders? Besides Hiawatha or another Iroquois leader returning?

The only one I can think of off the top of my head would be Ekuehnick, the legendary prehistoric leader of the Inuit, but he does fall into the "myth" category alongside Gilgamesh and Kupe. Other than that I don't really know.

 

[Zaarin]

Even less likely is an Aragon civ, perhaps with Alfonso V or John II as their leader.

I can't imagine we'd get another Iberian civ and it not be Portugal.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I can't imagine we'd get another Iberian civ and it not be Portugal.

also aragon is built in to spain since spain is literally the union of castile and aragon

 

[Zaarin]

also aragon is built in to spain since spain is literally the union of castile and aragon

That being said, I'd love an Aragonese leader of Spain in some future iteration, just because Catalan is my favorite Romance language (and Aragonese is closely related to Catalan). But if any Iberian kingdom ever got balkanized out of Spain, I'd expect to see Basque-speaking Navarre.

 

[Navelgazer]

Perhaps, but the Choctaw are right next door with a great leader in Pushmataha, which IMO makes them a lot more compelling than the Cherokee.

Choctaw would also be welcome, and Pushmataha a worthy leader. I think maybe my youth in Oklahoma (where a large amount of the people still identify themselves by their tribal backgrounds, with Cherokee by far the most prominent of those) gives me a Cherokee bias, but the Choctaw Mississippian background might lend itself to more material for Civ to work with.