[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Truronian]

What? If it is an alt for an R&F civ then it has to require R&F. GS has nothing to do with it.

I think the argument is that you wouldn't need either expansion to play the new leader with the new civ. It doesn't completely rule out this possibility, but the wording on the Civ website makes it sound like it's going to be an alt for one of the R&F civs only; every other possibility would technically be playable with just Vanilla or with Vanilla & GS.

 

[WillowBrook]

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 see zero good reasons why the alt leader should also lead a base game civ - they are trying new things here. Also, I don't see why they would say you need R&F to play the leader if you can play it with a base game (or any non-R&F) civ. I think the only logical interpretation of the R&F requirement is that the new leader leads only a R&F civ (or more than one R&F civ, but that seems highly unlikely), as the civs are the only thing not also included in GS.

Now, they have been inaccurate in their marketing material in the past, but if the requirement is accurate, it means that we almost certainly are getting an alt leader for a R&F civ and no other civ. Kublai Khan seems a reasonable bet, and I wouldn't expect him to also lead China. I also wouldn't be surprised to see a different Mongolian leader or one for the Netherlands, Korea, or Scotland.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Ah I see .... I was assuming the requirement of Rise and Fall meant it had to be a Civ from that pack, but it could also simply imply using mechanics from that expansion. Thanks!

It does. I was just saying there is a possibility that Kublai Khan could lead China as well as Mongolia.

 

[krmarci]

ok let’s avoid politics here, but the USSR wasn’t all bad....

... if you ignore the hundreds of millions of deaths it caused. Yes, hundreds.

"Victoria leads England... and India.... and the Zulu... and Australia... and Canada... and Egypt... and Nubia *Sarah gasps for air* in Sid Meier's Civilization VI"

That's great! I want that!

 

[Thenewwwguy]

... if you ignore the hundreds of millions of deaths it caused. Yes, hundreds.



That's great! I want that!

Simply from a historical perspective, a lot of the domestic deaths attributed to the USSR weren’t actually the fault of the USSR, while the deaths caused by their foreign interference, while many, were overshadowed by the deaths that the US caused during foreign interference.

 

[GenyaArikado]

Simply from a historical perspective, a lot of the domestic deaths attributed to the USSR weren’t actually the fault of the USSR, while the deaths caused by their foreign interference, while many, were overshadowed by the deaths that the US caused during foreign interference.

Sigh. USSR didn't handle things well. Neither does USA but at least USA has gay rights and does NOT have a Chernobyl incident. Ultimately this is OT, lets just agree to disagree.

 

[Browd]

Moderator Action: Yes, very off topic. Please move on.

 

[Patine]

For the alternate leader I'm betting (as many are) on Kublai. I'm thinking he could have bonuses that involve him moving his seat of power into conquered lands. Something like:

- Conquered capitals are instantly annexed and become the new fully loyal Mongol capital. All pillaged buildings and land in new capital are restored. +10% yields in new capital; -10% yields in old capital.

That is probably not well balanced; I'm not much of a domination player so I'm a little unsure on the numbers. Something like that would give Kublai an interesting niche where the 'centre' of his empire would move during the course of the game.

He wasn't nearly as "mobile," a conqueror as his grandfather. He got settled in Beijing pretty quickly, actually.

 

[Truronian]

He wasn't nearly as "mobile," a conqueror as his grandfather. He got settled in Beijing pretty quickly, actually.

True. I think conceptually it would be nice to have him focused on developing conquered land to the detriment of old territory. Perhaps a better idea would be to have him be a leader which can go for culture victories but relies on conquered land to do so.

 

[Patine]

The series, which began in 1999, had, until (2010), Mao as one of the leaders, while Stalin was a leader of Russia for Civ1 (1991) and Civ4 (2005). Napoleon was a leader for France in Civ1, Civ 4 and Civ5. Hannibal was a leader for Carthage from Civ 2 (1996) up to Civ 4. I wouldn't say it's a matter of attitudes changing 50 to 100 years ago or from now, so much as our level of sensitivity around these figures has changed within a short span of time.

That's not a correct year. Civ2 was first released in 1996. Civ1 was first released for DOS as an operating system, like the original Colonization, Pirates, and Railroad Tycoon were.

 

[Patine]

Well obviously the designers of Civs 1-4 didn't have to deal with the monster that is contemporary social media activism. So that wasn't a factor in their calculations about whether these decisions would affect sales. Also in Civ 5 Wu Zetian (another historically infamous leader, by the way), was the leader of China, not Mao.

Civ1, like such games as Ultima 1-5, Might & Magic 1-3, Bard's Tale (like all of them), and even the original release of Doom had next to influence from Internet fan feedback.

 

[The Civs 6]

Civ1, like such games as Ultima 1-5, Might & Magic 1-3, Bard's Tale (like all of them), and even the original release of Doom had next to influence from Internet fan feedback.

I'm not sure if you meant "next to no influence", which I wouldn't entirely agree with, but just to elaborate, back then there were not the kind of prominent "make Sonic's arms blue again" kind of campaigns. Gamer culture was different, communication technology was less sophisticated, and ultimately I think gamers of that era were a little less entitled (not a magnitude less, but a little less).

But I digress because this is starting to get off topic. Back to previous Civ leaders, is Winston Churchill also a person non grata? Obviously he'll go down as the most legendary PM (not necessarily the best) of Britain. And that means something for a country who conquered much of the known world as a Parliamentary government with a largely ornamental monarchy. But he was an unabashed supporter of colonialism, and I bet there are other bad things that he did.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

True. I think conceptually it would be nice to have him focused on developing conquered land to the detriment of old territory. Perhaps a better idea would be to have him be a leader which can go for culture victories but relies on conquered land to do so.

Agree. That’s a smart way of going about his design.

Well obviously the designers of Civs 1-4 didn't have to deal with the monster that is contemporary social media activism. So that wasn't a factor in their calculations about whether these decisions would affect sales. Also in Civ 5 Wu Zetian (another historically infamous leader, by the way), was the leader of China, not Mao.

Yup, they wouldn’t have massive pushback for leader choices in the development era of the internet. Although, I don’t think Wu Zetian is poorly looked upon.

I'm not sure if you meant "next to no influence", which I wouldn't entirely agree with, but just to elaborate, back then there were not the kind of prominent "make Sonic's arms blue again" kind of campaigns. Gamer culture was different, communication technology was less sophisticated, and ultimately I think gamers of that era were a little less entitled (not a magnitude less, but a little less).

But I digress because this is starting to get off topic. Back to previous Civ leaders, is Winston Churchill also a person non grata? Obviously he'll go down as the most legendary PM (not necessarily the best) of Britain. And that means something for a country who conquered much of the known world as a Parliamentary government with a largely ornamental monarchy. But he was an unabashed supporter of colonialism, and I bet there are other bad things that he did.

Yes, Gamer culture on the internet was very small until the late 2000s.

And yes, Churchill was a poor (dare I say evil) leader, widely disliked, was immensely racist and supported colonialism vehemently. If he got into civ, I would perhaps not buy the DLC or game that he was in.

 

[Patine]

Agree. That’s a smart way of going about his design.

Yup, they wouldn’t have massive pushback for leader choices in the development era of the internet. Although, I don’t think Wu Zetian is poorly looked upon.


Yes, Gamer culture on the internet was very small until the late 2000s.

And yes, Churchill was a poor (dare I say evil) leader, widely disliked, was immensely racist and supported colonialism vehemently. If he got into civ, I would perhaps not buy the DLC or game that he was in.

Civ2 had a default, female Aztec leader (that iteration had one default leader for each gender for each civ, though renaming your leader, or even your civ, wasn't a big deal, because civ's had no intrinsic qualities other than the colour scheme where you couldn't have two civ's of the same colour in one game) who was named Nazca, which, of course, is not a person, but a whole civ, and an Andean one, not even a Mesoamerican one. THAT was weird! Melinche, for instance, may have been a wee bit controversial as a female Aztec leader, but would have still been a BETTER choice comparatively, especially given some of the other phoned-in female default leaders in Civ2.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

If the western front wasn't kept open by Churchill, the Nazis would probably have defeated the Soviet Union. Or if Churchill didn't get involved and Stalin did win, the continent would probably be just as screwed up as Russia is today. The point is that while the Eastern front gets seriously and wrongfully downplayed in the West, the Western front was also crucial for the (happy? less evil?) outcome for World War 2 than the other possibilities.

But this is really off topic, especially because I would agree that Stalin should be in the game too, but for trivial sensitivities. Certainly he is a more relevant leader than a pure figurehead like Queen Victoria.

I think it is more important for the leaders in VI to be figureheads than to be competent leaders, since part of VI's attempts to distinguish itself from V is to give the civ a personality to play off of. Victoria is an excellent choice for representing the idea of England, regardless of her actual influence.

I think many are too lost in historical pedantry like this to appreciate that the developers are trying to make a game that is fun to play, and that often clashes with or even supercedes textbook expectations.

I wouldn't mind a Stalin, especially the way Russia is designed as kind of a grand tour in the same way other base game civs like England, France, Germany, India, and Japan are designed. Doubly so now that Eleanor doesn't seem to match the French/English uniques either. The USSR I think was large and influential enough to excuse its relatively short existence.

Although I would much prefer Olga of Kiev so we could get some vicarious Ukrainian representation and make the lavra unique feel more at home. I'm really hoping they release a few more alternate leaders at some point after NF.

 

[The Civs 6]

I think it is more important for the leaders in VI to be figureheads than to be competent leaders, since part of VI's attempts to distinguish itself from V is to give the civ a personality to play off of. Victoria is an excellent choice for representing the idea of England, regardless of her actual influence.

I think many are too lost in historical pedantry like this to appreciate that the developers are trying to make a game that is fun to play, and that often clashes with or even supercedes textbook expectations.

I wouldn't mind a Stalin, especially the way Russia is designed as kind of a grand tour in the same way other base game civs like England, France, Germany, India, and Japan are designed. Doubly so now that Eleanor doesn't seem to match the French/English uniques either. The USSR I think was large and influential enough to excuse its relatively short existence.

Although I would much prefer Olga of Kiev so we could get some vicarious Ukrainian representation and make the lavra unique feel more at home. I'm really hoping they release a few more alternate leaders at some point after NF.

I agree with all of this. Just to defend myself, I didn't intend that to be a shot at Vicky so much as a reason why Churchill is especially significant. I think the exercise of distilling an essence of a long-running civilization is a more interesting challenge, and a more relevant one for the scope of Civilization, than trying to embody a single extant polity at any one time.

that's also why I am okay with Teddy Roosevelt over better presidents like Lincoln, FDR, or Washington, because Roosevelt really captures something about American civilization that the others didn't really. that's also why I would like to see William the Conqueror and Charlemagne at some point. They represent England and France's civilizations at key moments that are in the popular conscious, but have never really been fleshed out in a Civ game before.

 

[earlc]

Look if Civ were made a hundred years from now, the USSR (an enormously successful and influential empire), Israel (one of the most culturally influential civilizations of all time), Mao and the PRC (certainly one of the top 2 most important superpowers of this era) and indeed Hitler (the first person since Diocletian to command all of continental Europe) would all be shamelessly included. We all know that the tip toeing around them is a product of the same idiosyncratic sensitivity that lead British people to blush at the name of Napoleon, or Romans at Hannibal. But we don't do that now. And that's not just because history has revealed that these folks weren't monsters. Napoleon "is" still a mass murderer and a despot, while you can still find G.K. Chesterton talking about how bad Hannibal was.

I think you'll find this not to be the case regarding guys like Hitler, as time isn't the only factor involved. On one hand, by WW2 there's the renaissance of information and documentation that makes the events seem more real. We'll always have visceral documentation of these atrocities and they're forever ingrained into our society in ways guys like Napoleon are not. There's also the increased sense that we 'knew better' by the time of WW2, whereas guys like Napoleon to some extent we feel were products of their time, and particularly so for earlier leaders.

I also think that into even the distant future for as long as people are still interested in WW2 and Hitler, people will in general will be more interested in the complex societal factors that led to his rise and the temporary gains of his short-lived empire than celebrate the man himself. I think this goes for any distant future Civ game and any mainstream representation of him in general.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Civ2 had a default, female Aztec leader (that iteration had one default leader for each gender for each civ, though renaming your leader, or even your civ, wasn't a big deal, because civ's had no intrinsic qualities other than the colour scheme where you couldn't have two civ's of the same colour in one game) who was named Nazca, which, of course, is not a person, but a whole civ, and an Andean one, not even a Mesoamerican one. THAT was weird! Melinche, for instance, may have been a wee bit controversial as a female Aztec leader, but would have still been a BETTER choice comparatively, especially given some of the other phoned-in female default leaders in Civ2.

what does that have to do with my quote?

 

[The Civs 6]

I think you'll find this not to be the case regarding guys like Hitler, as time isn't the only factor involved. On one hand, by WW2 there's the renaissance of information and documentation that makes the events seem more real. We'll always have visceral documentation of these atrocities and they're forever ingrained into our society in ways guys like Napoleon are not. There's also the increased sense that we 'knew better' by the time of WW2, whereas guys like Napoleon to some extent we feel were products of their time, and particularly so for earlier leaders.

I also think that into even the distant future for as long as people are still interested in WW2 and Hitler, people will in general will be more interested in the complex societal factors that led to his rise and the temporary gains of his short-lived empire than celebrate the man himself. I think this goes for any distant future Civ game and any mainstream representation of him in general.

I'm not altogether sold on the idea that new civs or leaders are here just to celebrate them. To steer this back to this thread's topic, and as an example of what I mean, I'd be totally into the idea of a Nero, Caligula, Diocletian or Julian the Apostate as alt Roman leaders. Same with Vlad the Impaler, although I'm not sure Translyvania really rises to the level to get their own Civ (although if they do ever get included, you heard it from me first.)

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I'm not altogether sold on the idea that new civs or leaders are here just to celebrate them. To steer this back to this thread's topic, and as an example of what I mean, I'd be totally into the idea of a Nero, Caligula, Diocletian or Julian the Apostate as alt Roman leaders. Same with Vlad the Impaler, although I'm not sure Translyvania really rises to the level to get their own Civ (although if they do ever get included, you heard it from me first.)

Vlad Tepes actually led Wallachia.

I would prefer that leaders are selected for being the most benevolent or successful rather than notable. If you asked me whether I’d rather take Hadrian or Nero, I’d always say Hadrian