[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Zaarin]

Well I'm sure you are more knowledgeable about him than I am, but I think in the mainstream is legacy is the absolutely disastrous Franco-Prussian war (including the diplomatic bungling that lead up to it), the disastrous and arguably immoral attempt to conquer Mexico, and bringing back despotism to a France that had almost successfully shaken it off in favor of democracy.

That's because history has a tendency to focus on foreign policy more so than domestic policy; for instance, history doesn't often mention that Bismarck was an absolute abysmal failure on the domestic front. I also wouldn't call Napoleon III a despot, certainly not more so than any other monarch and far less so than some who are already in the game. Napoleon III wouldn't be my top pick for France (I prefer a Medieval or Renaissance French king), but I wouldn't write him off, either.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

They could go for a very militaristic Gwanggaeto or Taejo of Joseon, but Korea is so heavily built around science it would feel strange. I can't see any way to make Sejong meaningfully different from Seondeok.

With their crazy science output already they could compete with Simon Bolivar.
Also if Korea did get any military bonuses, I feel it would be defensive in nature like the Hwacha already.

"Saitō Makoto leads Japan and Korea in Sid Meier's Civilization VI." That won't make anyone upset. No controversy there at all.

Well Stalin leading Georgia and Russia would be worse, but it won't happen.

But who says that the new R&F leader has to lead two civilizations? That's just something that you've made up. Why can't the Dutch just get a second leader and leave it at that? Or any of the others? I don't think that they're all equally likely, but surely the Dutch and Korea have to be in the running.

I agree with that. I'm not even sure that if Kublai Khan did get in he would also lead China, but it's a possibility. At least more likely than a Dutch or Scottish leader leading England as well.

 

[Zaarin]

Well Stalin leading Georgia and Russia would be worse, but it won't happen.

I'm not sure it would be worse. Saitō Makoto is hated in Korea, and he wasn't exactly popular as Prime Minister of Japan, either.

 

[The Civs 6]

That's because history has a tendency to focus on foreign policy more so than domestic policy; for instance, history doesn't often mention that Bismarck was an absolute abysmal failure on the domestic front. I also wouldn't call Napoleon III a despot, certainly not more so than any other monarch and far less so than some who are already in the game. Napoleon III wouldn't be my top pick for France (I prefer a Medieval or Renaissance French king), but I wouldn't write him off, either.

I just don't see him as an option, because I think there is kind of a binary to success or failure. Richard Nixon arguably pulled off the greatest foreign policy move in American history, which completely turned the Cold War on its head in America's favor. But due to the scandals associated with him, he is a failure as a president. Likewise Napoleon III basically allowed a major European power to have its capitol taken over by a rival, and to me that is a "fail state".

The obvious choice for France's leader is King Louis the 14th, but France isn't getting another leader because the designers really wanted Eleanor of Aquitane for some reason, instead of you know, one of the most famous sovereigns of all time. Not to mention Napoleon and Charlemagne, who are two incredibly important historical leaders by their own merits...

 

[sonicmyst]

I still think a militaristic Korean leader is possible without overpowering Korea.

Remember that Seondeok's ability is one big science multiplier. If an alt-leader has an ability not based in science, then Korea won't be that OP.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I still think a militaristic Korean leader is possible without overpowering Korea.

Remember that Seondeok's ability is one big science multiplier. If an alt-leader has an ability not based in science, then Korea won't be that OP.

I was kind of joking. But because of their inherit science output from the Seowon and mines around the Seowon, they already have a big advantage when it comes to having more advanced units than their counterparts of the same era.

 

[Zaarin]

Likewise Napoleon III basically allowed a major European power to have its capitol taken over by a rival, and to me that is a "fail state".

Cleopatra says hi.

I still think a militaristic Korean leader is possible without overpowering Korea.

Remember that Seondeok's ability is one big science multiplier. If an alt-leader has an ability not based in science, then Korea won't be that OP.

Korea's ability is called "Three Kingdoms," which limits our options to a Goguryeo or Baekje leader. Gwanggaeto is the only likely option there, and the science from mines and Seowon wouldn't suit him so well as Seondeok.

 

[DWilson]

Korea's ability is called "Three Kingdoms," which limits our options to a Goguryeo or Baekje leader. Gwanggaeto is the only likely option there, and the science from mines and Seowon wouldn't suit him so well as Seondeok.

Ehh, I wouldn't feel so limited. Often the origins of the abilities are fairly disconnected.

 

[Zaarin]

Ehh, I wouldn't feel so limited. Often the origins of the abilities are fairly disconnected.

Maybe, but having a Joseon king leading Three Kingdoms Korea still feels super weird to me--far weirder than the Queen of Silla having a Joseon unique unit, incidentally.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Maybe, but having a Joseon king leading Three Kingdoms Korea still feels super weird to me--far weirder than the Queen of Silla having a Joseon unique unit, incidentally.

If Hojo can lead Japan through the Meiji Restoration, I'm sure it would be fine.

 

[The Civs 6]

Cleopatra says hi.


Korea's ability is called "Three Kingdoms," which limits our options to a Goguryeo or Baekje leader. Gwanggaeto is the only likely option there, and the science from mines and Seowon wouldn't suit him so well as Seondeok.

Fair point, and I wouldn't be the only one who would prefer other Egyptian rulers to Cleopatra. With that said, I think there is a difference between Cleopatra who successfully staved off Rome's inevitable conquest of Egypt for a while, while transforming Egypt into the power base for Marc Antony, whereas Napoleon the third bungled his way into a war with a Germany that few thought was an equal match for France, and then losing the war in absolutely epic fashion.

 

[Zaarin]

If Hojo can lead Japan through the Meiji Restoration, I'm sure it would be fine.

Fair. Coincidentally, now that we've established that Japan doesn't have to be Sengoku Jidai, I'm hoping for a Heian Japan in Civ7.

 

[The Civs 6]

If Hojo can lead Japan through the Meiji Restoration, I'm sure it would be fine.

Or Catherine de Medici having a Guarde Imperiale, or Eleanor of Aquitane having a Royal Naval Dockyard, or Roosevelt having a P-51 Mustang, or Frederick the Great having U-boats...

 

[Zaarin]

Fair point, and I wouldn't be the only one who would prefer other Egyptian rulers to Cleopatra. With that said, I think there is a difference between Cleopatra who successfully staved off Rome's inevitable conquest of Egypt for a while, while transforming Egypt into the power base for Marc Antony, whereas Napoleon the third bungled his way into a war with a Germany that few thought was an equal match for France, and then losing the war in absolutely epic fashion.

Yes, Cleopatra did the best she could with the hand she was dealt, but that's still ignoring that Napoleon III was a huge success on the home front. Allowing himself to be baited by Bismarck was stupid, but Bismarck was clever and had employed that strategy before with great success. Again, Napoleon III wouldn't be my top choice to lead France, and Cleopatra wouldn't even make my list to lead Egypt. I still think you're writing off Napoleon III too quickly, though.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Or Catherine de Medici having a Guarde Imperiale

They knew we weren't going get Napoleon in Civ 6 so I think they decided to give us a UU based around him.
It's the same reason I think we got the Sea Dog UU for England, as a replacement for not having Elizabeth.

 

[Zaarin]

It's the same reason I think we got the Sea Dog UU for England, as a replacement for not having Elizabeth.

Sadly.

 

[Abaxial]

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.

Well, this is all very well, but many of the civs we have in the game, or civs proposed for additions, never left any lasting impression on world history. Maori, yes. Confined to New Zealand and then rolled over by British colonisers. On the other hand - Italy - conquered Libya and Abyssinia - fairly rubbish under Mussolini but more of a world power than Georgia ever was.

But yes - "how do you design unique strengths for these civs"? It would make more sense to think of an interesting mechanic and THEN seeing what nation/tribe you can hang it on.

 

[GenyaArikado]

How about the minoans? Their empire was good until an earthquake killed everyone.

It did such a good job that we barely know anything about them without the greek lense

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Like I said before the dutch leader has always been William the Silent aka William of Orange (the first) in the civ games (before Wilhelmina), who lead the Dutch in the 80 years war against the Spanish and has never set foot on British soil. He is the father of the fatherland in Dutch history. So he's not a English leader unless they make William III (only English nickname was William of Orange cause he was their only Dutch leader) who sat on the British throne, the Dutch leader. But him before William the Silent I have my doubts.
Most Dutch male leaders were named William and almost all were named "of Orange", so I understand the confusion people have.

And like I said earlier, any possible leader likely would also have to lead a base game civ, so if they picked a William of Orange who isn’t the one who also ruled England, he wouldn’t fulfill the criteria that has applied to all alt leaders so far: they are alts to base game civs

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And like I said earlier, any possible leader likely would also have to lead a base game civ, so if they picked a William of Orange who isn’t the one who also ruled England, he wouldn’t fulfill the criteria that has applied to all alt leaders so far: they are alts to base game civs

I'm pretty sure it could just be a R&F civ. It's not 100% certain it will be a dual leader for a base game Civ as well. Sure all the others were but since they threw out Eleanor leading 2 civs, anything is possible.

I mean if that were the case then I would say Kublai would probably be a guarantee.