[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Thenewwwguy]

The Civ5 Celt civ was an absolute mess, with its Welsh-speaking, woad-painted, dreadlocked, kilted Iceni leader, with a "Pictish" unique unit, with an Anglo-Norman capital, throwing an Irish ceilidh while frolicking in the woods with her druids...I'd rather the Celts never appear again than appear in the form of that blobby, stereotyped trainwreck.

^^

 

[PhilBowles]

IIRC the Celtic city list was based on the "Six Celtic Nations" and pulled equally from each, which is a nice touch even if it was weird to have to cycle through the Isle of Man to get back to Scottish or Irish names.

The problem is, most of the currently prominent cities in those areas are not of Celtic origin - although they were often built on the sites of hillforts or earlier Celtic settlements, they have their modern importance/prominence mainly as a result of British, French or Irish administrative needs rather than any historical relevance to the society. Dublin is Norse. Edinburgh and Cardiff are Norman-era English. Truro is a 13th Century English constituency. Nantes seems to have been Roman, or at least no earlier settlement of significance is known from the site according to Wikipedia. And so on and so forth.

The Civ5 Celt civ was an absolute mess, with its Welsh-speaking, woad-painted, dreadlocked, kilted Iceni leader, with a "Pictish" unique unit, with an Anglo-Norman capital, throwing an Irish ceilidh while frolicking in the woods with her druids...I'd rather the Celts never appear again than appear in the form of that blobby, stereotyped trainwreck.

The Civ V incarnation was certainly the worst, but Celts were a blob civ in Civ II and Civ IV as well. The Civ II incarnation made a more serious attempt than IV or V to produce something coherent, including using Celtic settlements with Celtic names - but it still combined the Irish/Scots with the Welsh, which as I've pointed out previously on this thread is an anachronism derived from modern notions of Celtic identity. Civ IV had mostly mainland Celtic settlements, but the units spoke Irish and Boudica was a leader option.

Only the essentially Gallic Celts of Civ III represented something close to a historical civilisation.

 

[Navelgazer]

The way Civ VI does things, we'd probably just straight up get "Ireland" as the civ rather than "Celts,' which would solve a lot of those problems. But we're also not going to get Ireland, at least not in New Frontier.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

The way Civ VI does things, we'd probably just straight up get "Ireland" as the civ rather than "Celts,' which would solve a lot of those problems. But we're also not going to get Ireland, at least not in New Frontier.

it’s possible we could get ireland with portugal in a europe pack

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It somewhat irritated me that Civ IV did this with at least one, and I think several, Khmer cities: most notably, Yasodharapura and Angkor Thom were the same place (archaeologists define them as being slightly different sites in time, but it appears the Khmer didn't make this distinction).

Civ 6 still has both of them as separate cities I believe. As pointed out earlier both Aleppo and Halab appear on Arabia cities as well. It might just be a way to add more city names and research less possible cities to make the list.

The way Civ VI does things, we'd probably just straight up get "Ireland" as the civ rather than "Celts,' which would solve a lot of those problems. But we're also not going to get Ireland, at least not in New Frontier.

I think it we were to get a Celtic civilization it would be Gaul. But as I've stated before I think Scotland is the Celts replacement, no matter how un-Celtic like they are.

 

[PhilBowles]

Civ 6 still has both of them as separate cities I believe. As pointed out earlier both Aleppo and Halab appear on Arabia cities as well. It might just be a way to add more city names and research less possible cities to make the list.

Yes, it's disappointing - I looked back through the Civ IV Khmer city list and it had done a better job than I remembered: that's the only duplicate. The Khmer covered a large area and had a lot of settlements we know about - there's no reason they needed a single duplicate on the list.

Also, the naming convention in Civ IV was odd - most cities used the Khmer names even when there's a more familiar archaeological name, but we have Angkor Thom and Angkor Wat as city names. Angkor Wat even makes more sense as Vrah Visnoluka, since the temple itself is a Wonder under the same name (Chichen Itza was at least called Chichen Itza for at least part of its time as an active settlement, and we don't know with certainty what Machu Picchu was called, but where a city and a Wonder share a name I think they should try to use a different name in the city list where possible).

In Civ VI, at least, there is consistency to the language used - most cities use the names familiar to archaeologists and tourists rather than the original names.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Yes, it's disappointing - I looked back through the Civ IV Khmer city list and it had done a better job than I remembered: that's the only duplicate. The Khmer covered a large area and had a lot of settlements we know about - there's no reason they needed a single duplicate on the list.

Also, the naming convention in Civ IV was odd - most cities used the Khmer names even when there's a more familiar archaeological name, but we have Angkor Thom and Angkor Wat as city names. Angkor Wat even makes more sense as Vrah Visnoluka, since the temple itself is a Wonder under the same name (Chichen Itza was at least called Chichen Itza for at least part of its time as an active settlement, and we don't know with certainty what Machu Picchu was called, but where a city and a Wonder share a name I think they should try to use a different name in the city list where possible).

In Civ VI, at least, there is consistency to the language used - most cities use the names familiar to archaeologists and tourists rather than the original names.

with the exception to yasodharapura, for some reason

 

[Zaarin]

As pointed out earlier both Aleppo and Halab appear on Arabia cities as well. It might just be a way to add more city names and research less possible cities to make the list.

Because the Middle East is totally lacking in noteworthy cities.

In Civ VI, at least, there is consistency to the language used - most cities use the names familiar to archaeologists and tourists rather than the original names.

With a few random exceptions, like anachronistic Ra-Kadet in place of Alexandria (and this was before Alexander came in to Alexanderize the world ).

 

[Navelgazer]

I think it we were to get a Celtic civilization it would be Gaul. But as I've stated before I think Scotland is the Celts replacement, no matter how un-Celtic like they are.

I agree. I think it's like how Norway's representation means there won't be a Denmark.Scotland's design isn't "Celtic" at all, really, but it basically impedes any more Celtic or Irish civ, I think.

And that's probably fine, to be honest. Ireland isn't an empire, but a diaspora. Which is why we tend to want it represented but also why representing it has proven so difficult. Civ VI has been good about avoiding "blob" civs and a Celtic/Irish one would just invite a ton of issues there.

 

[Zaarin]

Ireland isn't an empire, but a diaspora.

The diaspora happened very recently in historic terms.

Which is why we tend to want it represented but also why representing it has proven so difficult.

Medieval Ireland would be very easy to represent well IMO. (Though I'm fine with it as a city-state; I'd prefer Gaul in Civ6 and Ireland in Civ7.)

 

[Navelgazer]

I spoke clumsily there. The "Irish" diaspora was relatively recent. The "Celtic" diaspora is how we get those "Six Celtic Nations" to begin with.

I love Ireland, I'm Irish by ancestry and think their history is fascinating and rich. And while I'm generally not interested in the "this doesn't count as an Empire" arguments, I think it's hard to make the case for Ireland as one. Then again, that's also true of Scotland, whose dreams of Empire were encapsulated by the Panamanian boondoggle and the Poyais scam.

Gauls could be interesting (Even More France!) but my only point was that I seriously doubt we're getting anything Irish/Celtic in Civ VI. Scotland got that spot. Portugal will get the European expansion for New Frontier, and if there are two, the second will be either Byzantium (if that's not part of the Middle East pack) or Renaissance Italy.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I don’t think Scotland crowds out Celts the way Norway crowds out Nordic civs.

Scotland thematically leaves room for you to add a more celtic civ bcs scotland is anglo-norman in nature and isn’t very ‘celtic’ in its design

Norway on the other hand is more generically viking and leaves less room for other civs that would reasonably be viking, like Denmark or Iceland

 

[God of Kings]

In Civ VI, at least, there is consistency to the language used - most cities use the names familiar to archaeologists and tourists rather than the original names.

Don't forget the Scythian city of Seven Brothers.

 

[Zaarin]

I spoke clumsily there. The "Irish" diaspora was relatively recent. The "Celtic" diaspora is how we get those "Six Celtic Nations" to begin with.

No more so than any other Indo-European people. The Irish have been in Ireland and the Brythons in at least the southern and quite probably the northern part of Great Britain for the duration of recorded history; there's some evidence that Brythons (or some other P-Celtic culture) may have been in Ireland before the Gaels arrived. (It's true they weren't in the British Isles in the Bronze Age, but that's not terribly relevant. The Latins were tribal chiefdoms living in the shadow of the more sophisticated Etruscans in the Bronze Age, but that doesn't stop Rome from being a civ.)

And while I'm generally not interested in the "this doesn't count as an Empire" arguments, I think it's hard to make the case for Ireland as one.

I don't think having an empire is really relevant either: see Greece, Maya, Phoenicians (though one could make an argument for Carthage), etc. Ireland has a rich cultural, intellectual, and religious history that would translate readily into a civ design.

my only point was that I seriously doubt we're getting anything Irish/Celtic in Civ VI. Scotland got that spot. Portugal will get the European expansion for New Frontier, and if there are two, the second will be either Byzantium (if that's not part of the Middle East pack) or Renaissance Italy.

I agree with this. We won't (and really shouldn't) see Ireland in Civ6. However, I think they're eagerly waiting in the wings to take Scotland's spot in Civ7, and I don't think either would crowd out the possibility of the Gauls.

 

[Navelgazer]

I don’t think Scotland crowds out Celts the way Norway crowds out Nordic civs.

Scotland thematically leaves room for you to add a more celtic civ bcs scotland is anglo-norman in nature and isn’t very ‘celtic’ in its design

Norway on the other hand is more generically viking and leaves less room for other civs that would reasonably be viking, like Denmark or Iceland

I see this point and you're not wrong. I just still don't expect anything with Scotland already there.

(I'm still frustrated by Scotland's design, BTW. Great UA, but almost unusable LUA. pointless UU, and pretty but difficult, late, non-spammable UI, which is technically synergistic with the UA but in reality is mostly for era score. The UA is powerful enough, and interesting enough for playstyle, as to still be worth it, but man the rest of that design is infuriating.)

Zaarin is right that Medieval Ireland would be the way to go if they were to do that. Either that or 20th/21st Century Financial Ireland, but I don't see that happening (especially as it's so Ulster-based.) I get why Boudicca is such a tempting leader to use, but doing so locks the design into a bunch of other bad decisions.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I see this point and you're not wrong. I just still don't expect anything with Scotland already there.

(I'm still frustrated by Scotland's design, BTW. Great UA, but almost unusable LUA. pointless UU, and pretty but difficult, late, non-spammable UI, which is technically synergistic with the UA but in reality is mostly for era score. The UA is powerful enough, and interesting enough for playstyle, as to still be worth it, but man the rest of that design is infuriating.)

Zaarin is right that Medieval Ireland would be the way to go if they were to do that. Either that or 20th/21st Century Financial Ireland, but I don't see that happening (especially as it's so Ulster-based.) I get why Boudicca is such a tempting leader to use, but doing so locks the design into a bunch of other bad decisions.

a Brian Boru civ would be the best Ireland imo, since he went from King of Munster to uniting the Island

 

[Navelgazer]

Ireland has a rich cultural, intellectual, and religious history that would translate readily into a civ design.

This I fully agree with, though it makes me long for a Joyce-era Irish civ, and there's probably not enough to build around there.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

If the we get another militaristic city-state with a UU in the next round of city-states, which cities are most likely to have that feature?

 

[Thenewwwguy]

If the we get another militaristic city-state with a UU in the next round of city-states, which cities are most likely to have that feature?

I could see Ghazna get some specific UU aimed at raiding and pillaging and such

Speaking of other city states I’d like to see, which aren’t necessarily military, I’d like to see Baikonur as a science city-state, Baku as industrial, Tirupati as religion, Dubai as economic and San Jose as culture

 

[Zaarin]

I'm hoping to see Sana'a as an Economic city-state, providing Faith to trade routes based on Luxury resources (myrrh and frankincense were heavily used throughout the Near East in religious rituals, including Egyptian mummification and the Jewish Temple incense).