[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Hi guys,

I am usually just a quit reader, but I think in todays civ game I found a hint to Babylon beeing added.

While playing the game showed a rumor of "...babylonian capital Bologna was captured...". Its obviously a bug, but maybe its a mistake by the devs who included some babylon lines already.

Below I added the picture of the game as evidence. Its in german....sorry


View attachment 557454

Some people are going to be disappointed that a Bolognese city-state makes Italy unlikely, but for me I'll just be ecstatic to have Babylon. (Too bad it makes Assyria unlikely, but that was always a long shot.)

I don't know about that honestly. Both Bologna and Babylon are already scientific city-states in the game so it probably is just a bug.

Unless you're talking about the CdM reskin, I would highly doubt that. I wouldn't say it would be absurd were France to get three leaders; it would be absurd for France to have three when China, Egypt, Rome, Arabia, and other civs have no alternate leaders, however.

From what I can see, her new ability and agenda will make it like France does have three leaders, but in two.

 

[Zaarin]

I don't know about that honestly. Both Bologna and Babylon are already scientific city-states in the game so it probably is just a bug.

Ah, I forgot Bologna is already in the game. I virtually never see it so I assumed Babylon was being replaced by Bologna. You're right.

From what I can see, her new ability and agenda will make it like France does have three leaders, but in two.

Yes, but it has two CdM's, which to me is kind of pointless but also a less frustrating scenario than if France had CdM, Eleanor, and, say, Marie Antoinette (because God forbid France be run by a man ) while other civs can't get more than the leader they started with. Animating and modeling the leader is the expensive part, after all: she might function as a new leader, but she's still just CdM with a new dress.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I mean, looking at a map, SE Asia is much smaller than those two continents.

And Singapore ups the total mainland city states to one. Then Indonesia and Bandar Brunei double the representation.

Two civs & city states isn't as bad as you make it sound, even if I want there to be more.

Okay but that covers a land mass area pretty close to SA, and we still have half the representation. And, again, it feels quite weird to have both Armagh and Cardiff, or Brussels and Geneva and Bologna, and other regions densely filled with smaller, less influential kingdoms, and still have no sign of three very large and storied empires from the SE Asia region. If the point of VI is to try to rep every major empire or kingdom larger than about Bohemia with a civ or city state, SE Asia is pretty clearly short three "must-haves" for the civ/CS list to feel "complete."

Now I'm just trying to imagine how to design this without using the Loyalty mechanic or Governors or anything else not in Vanilla, since the historical flavor of Haiti/Louverture is the righteous, violent slave revolt into founding an independent nation of self-freed peoples. Vanilla mechanics don't lend themselves towards those concepts.

I think the design could possibly integrate the use of pillaging to conquer cities, as burning plantations was a major part of the revolution, and I could see Vodou Priests being a UU replacement for Missionaries who could be spent to give a combat bonus to adjacent units against districts (in reference to Vodou Priests signaling the start of the revolution.)

This is tough, though.

Could Caguana in fact be hinting at the possibility of Haiti? It's on a completely different island and still leaves open the possibility of a Caribbean civ.

What if one of the two civ packs were Navajo and Haiti? I don't think it's likely at all, but if they are throwing out tradition maybe we could feasibly see four American civs haha.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yes, but it has two CdM's, which to me is kind of pointless but also a less frustrating scenario than if France had CdM, Eleanor, and, say, Marie Antoinette (because God forbid France be run by a man ) while other civs can't get more than the leader they started with. Animating and modeling the leader is the expensive part, after all: she might function as a new leader, but she's still just CdM with a new dress.

That's basically what I was saying. Catherine the Magnificence will basically be a Louis XIV, in my mind, but as herself.

Nobody would want to play as Marie Antoinette and have loyalty problems all the time with no amenities to keep your citizens happy and no food either.

 

[Zaarin]

Nobody would want to play as Marie Antoinette and have loyalty problems all the time with no amenities to keep your citizens happy and no food either.

Eh, history has been a bit harsh on Marie Antoinette. I'm not saying I want her to lead France, but she wasn't the self-absorbed fool that most (hostile, revolutionary) historians have taken her for. But I was also jabbing at Firaxis for piling on female leaders for one of the in-game civs most hostile to female leadership.

 

[Kmart_Elvis]

Yes the new leader does require an expansion so they could have something to do with loyalty or the Govt. Plaza, but not any of the new civs.

It has to be an R+F leader because it specifically says you need R+F. GS has all the R+F mechanics, except for the civs. They would have said it required R+F or GS, if they were just going to use the mechanics. Therefore, the only reason you would be required to have R+F is if it's a R+F civ.

 

[dc1215]

I’m pretty convinced it will be a Mongolia or Netherlands alt leader at this point, but is there a possibility that there is some type of mechanic that a RF leader uses, which is not in the game code unless you have RF, which this new leader’s mechanics might build upon? Forgive the ignorance related to the game’s coding — i’m just hoping for a different alt leader than what is likely...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It has to be an R+F leader because it specifically says you need R+F. GS has all the R+F mechanics, except for the civs. They would have said it required R+F or GS, if they were just going to use the mechanics. Therefore, the only reason you would be required to have R+F is if it's a R+F civ.

I know. I was just replying to someone that none of the new Civs will require the mechanics for the expansions, but the new alt leader will so it does have to be a Civ that came from R&F and can use the mechanics from it.

 

[Kmart_Elvis]

I know. I was just replying to someone that none of the new Civs will require the mechanics for the expansions, but the new alt leader will so it does have to be a Civ that came from R&F and can use the mechanics from it.

Ah, gotcha.

 

[Harasar]

It seems so weird to me that new CIVs would not use mechanics from expansions. I think people who still interested enough in Civ 6 to buy NFP most likely have both expansions already.

Anyway, I hope devs would add more CIVs from Asia and Africa and less from Europe. I dont have any interest in Portugal or Byzantium and would be glad to see some new CIVs instead of them. The only Civ from Europe I would be interested to see is Italy, and it is my guess for the 4th pack. They would get ability to attract great people faster, and this is why new great people would be added.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Wallachia & Vlad Drakul?
Denmark & Christian IV?
Ireland & Brian Boru?

Part of the problem is the overlap between ancient and modern. I would like to see Mexico & Santa Anna, but it overlaps with Aztec, just as Italy & Garibaldi overlaps with Rome. It would be easier if it were policy to have either ALL ancient or ALL post-Renaissance.

I read somewhere that France was getting another leader, which means it would have THREE, which seems absurd.

why does everyone want to see Garibaldi for Italy? he never actually led the country—Vittorio Emmanuel II makes more sense for a unified Italy.

and SANTA ANA? really? out of all of the possible mexican leaders you pick the dictator? not Zapata? Carnaza? Villa?

And why don’t you mention Mexico overlaps with Maya too? (I know that it would also overlap with Belize or Guatemala, but the Aztecs weren’t the only mesoamerican natives in Mexico.)

 

[Hoppip22]

I am always baffled by the overwhelming demand for a united Italian civ. I totally understand and personally want representation from the very important and influential Italian city-states, but I feel like Rome has always stood in for the idea of a united Italy/Italian empire and thus adding another version of it seems Eurocentric for Eurocentrism's sake. Like, there are important European empires that influenced major parts of world history, like Portugal or Austria, which (to me) deserve inclusion more than United Italy... I've yet to be sold on the idea, other than some great potential gameplay mechanics that I keep seeing be proposed.

 

[The Civs 6]

the more i think about the sweep of history, the more problematic the lack of byzantine representation looks. but i think the idea of alt leaders is a perfect way to work in Justinian or Constantine as an alt leader for Rome (although that makes it less likely to have Augustus or republican Rome, which is kind of sad)

i think the problem with mexico and italy is what sort of positive lasting impression do either of those countries leave in mainstream history? mexico is generally known as a dysfunctional state, while we all know modern Italy's unfortunate legacy as Hitler's junior partner. and i'm not even saying they have bad cases on this basis - but how do you design unique strengths for these civs?

i'd like to see more subsaharan african, southeast asian, and central asian representation. i don't know what specific nations or civs - but that's kind of why, i see Civ as a chance to learn more about regions i don't know much about.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I am always baffled by the overwhelming demand for a united Italian civ. I totally understand and personally want representation from the very important and influential Italian city-states, but I feel like Rome has always stood in for the idea of a united Italy/Italian empire and thus adding another version of it seems Eurocentric for Eurocentrism's sake. Like, there are important European empires that influenced major parts of world history, like Portugal or Austria, which (to me) deserve inclusion more than United Italy... I've yet to be sold on the idea, other than some great potential gameplay mechanics that I keep seeing be proposed.

When I say I want an Italian Civ I would want it done like they have done for Greece, Phoenicia or the Maya.
Choose a Medici from Florence, or a Doge of Venice, and make the city that they ruled the capital city. Instead of it being just a single city-state though add on Genoa, Milan, Bologna, Naples etc. to the city list.
But I agree that I'd rather not have an Italian Civ if it only represents the history of the peninsula during the 19th and 20th centuries. If that is the case then to me there are better alternatives.

 

[Navelgazer]

I am always baffled by the overwhelming demand for a united Italian civ. I totally understand and personally want representation from the very important and influential Italian city-states, but I feel like Rome has always stood in for the idea of a united Italy/Italian empire and thus adding another version of it seems Eurocentric for Eurocentrism's sake. Like, there are important European empires that influenced major parts of world history, like Portugal or Austria, which (to me) deserve inclusion more than United Italy... I've yet to be sold on the idea, other than some great potential gameplay mechanics that I keep seeing be proposed.

I think of it kind of like a Byzantium/Ottomans thing. Same territory (in part) but very different empires, eras, flavor, and both very impactful in history. Yes, it's Eurocentric, which is why I'm fine with it being left out, but on the other hand having a "Renaissance Age" for all this time without a playable Florence has felt like a very fruitful unpicked tree. It's not at all necessary for representation, the game is fine without it, etc. I just really want to play it some day.

 

[Morningcalm]

Hammurabi with a culture focus and a new government sounds cool.

In reality Hammurabi was also a backstabber who betrayed all his allies and then conquered them to create a vast Babylonian Empire. If he appears in a future Civ game I would *hope* they portray him that way. If he's in the NFP though, Cyrus already covers that agenda so he would likely carry a builder-focused agenda in some form.

 

[Virdrago]

Hi guys,

I am usually just a quit reader, but I think in todays civ game I found a hint to Babylon beeing added.

While playing the game showed a rumor of "...babylonian capital Bologna was captured...". Its obviously a bug, but maybe its a mistake by the devs who included some babylon lines already.

Below I added the picture of the game as evidence. Its in german....sorry


View attachment 557454

I've had that bug for at least six months. I've just never reported it, because I thought it was from a mod.

 

[AGAST]

I think a lot of the suggestions I have read are for civilizations that would represent already saturated areas of the world map. Which is totally fine.

However, I would like to see new civilizations in parts of the map that are less represented. For example, a civilization for central Asia where the Stans are located, in Siberia, or in the far Asian north east. It would be interesting to play a civilization that could thrive there. I just don't know what those civilizations are.

Besides those, I would like to see Mexico as a new civilization, and or a native civilization from the Western U.S...

Old favorites for me are Portugal, Morocco, Austria, Byzantines.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I am always baffled by the overwhelming demand for a united Italian civ. I totally understand and personally want representation from the very important and influential Italian city-states, but I feel like Rome has always stood in for the idea of a united Italy/Italian empire and thus adding another version of it seems Eurocentric for Eurocentrism's sake. Like, there are important European empires that influenced major parts of world history, like Portugal or Austria, which (to me) deserve inclusion more than United Italy... I've yet to be sold on the idea, other than some great potential gameplay mechanics that I keep seeing be proposed.

wholeheartedly agree. European Civs I’d like to see before Italy: Ireland, Gaul, Finland, Switzerland, Basque Country, Estonia, Austria again, Croatia, Serbia, Yugoslavia, Kieran Rus, Latvia, Malta, Teutonic Knights, Hittites (kinda european?), Bulgaria, Thrace, Romania, Wallachia,

I think a lot of the suggestions I have read are for civilizations that would represent already saturated areas of the world map. Which is totally fine.

However, I would like to see new civilizations in parts of the map that are less represented. For example, a civilization for central Asia where the Stans are located, in Siberia, or in the far Asian north east. It would be interesting to play a civilization that could thrive there. I just don't know what those civilizations are.

Besides those, I would like to see Mexico as a new civilization, and or a native civilization from the Western U.S...

Old favorites for me are Portugal, Morocco, Austria, Byzantines.

agreed on everything but byz (i don’t want byz to return) and no new Mexico

For me, the ‘stans’ civ I’d want to see are the Timurids or maybe the Kazakhs or Oirat or ideally the Ghaznavids, which appear unlikely since they added Lahore as a city state.

Western NA: Tlingit, Navajo, Salish

 

[luigilime]

I am always baffled by the overwhelming demand for a united Italian civ. I totally understand and personally want representation from the very important and influential Italian city-states, but I feel like Rome has always stood in for the idea of a united Italy/Italian empire and thus adding another version of it seems Eurocentric for Eurocentrism's sake. Like, there are important European empires that influenced major parts of world history, like Portugal or Austria, which (to me) deserve inclusion more than United Italy... I've yet to be sold on the idea, other than some great potential gameplay mechanics that I keep seeing be proposed.

I really don't understand how everyone thinks that legions and baths represent italy from the middle ages onwards, and yet accepts the byzantines which was still the Roman empire but later on.
History has contiguity and societies change gradually through time so honestly every civilization that occupies the same territory is going to have close relation with the civilizations that occupied that territory in the past.
However it is also agreeable that there is a distinction to be made, and there we have to agree on a common measurement to divide different civilizations, because the same story everyone uses for italy is applicable to a lot of other civs like mexico whose pop culture is directly influenced by aztec traditions, or spain and the arabs, and much more.
So our unit of measurement has to be the same: i believe that a civilization is defined by language, institutional structure, economic structure, composition of its society
If we consider Rome and Byzantium different civilizations as many historians do due to many differences in institutions, language, economic structure and societal differences than italy and rome should be considered very very different:
The italian language has lost almost completely the use of declinations which is the backbone of latin grammar, german instead still uses it. Also the italian language uses articles that latin didn't have and also a lot of words come from germanic due to the lombard reign in the early middle ages.
The italian institutional structure in the middle ages was much more germanic (dukedoms, kingdoms and counties) than latin ( roman repubblic) and even when there were republics on the peninsula they were never comparable to the roman one.
The economic structure of rome was based on agricultural slavery, the italian economy is mainly based on manifacturies and trade since the middle ages.
Roman society was very rigid and divided into plebs and patricians, the italian society was more varied and the new patricians (nobles, dukes eccetera) had a more marginal power related to the old patricians mainly due to the power of the italian bourgeoisie.
So there are extreme substantial differences between italy and Rome.

Case closed.