[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[DWilson]

I think Catherine was chosen as a very cost effective, and yet realistic, way to show another side of France. After all, they don't need new models for the personas, just some new code and cosmetic additions.

I'm particularly excited for modders getting the ability to create persona abilities (possibly even a pack of them)

 

[GenyaArikado]

I'm aware; I think Louis was extraneous with or without a second Catherine. But it's still more love given to Catherine than I think is necessary.

I guess my issue isn't magnificence Catherine's abilities specifically, but that it's pretty much shutting down getting Napoleon or Charlemagne. That, and I would have much preferred they do a second costume for a civ that didn't already have alt leaders. Why not an alternate for Frederick? Or Hojo? Or Saladin?

They are not shutting down any alternate leaders for France lol... They weren't even an option in first place. It already has two

Why her? Ed loves Catherine's period and probably he is the reason she's in. God knows that if i was Civ6 main dev, all i'd give you for Egypt would be a Cleopatra alt in roman fashion because i love Cleopatra and I hate the daily trashing she gets

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I think Catherine was chosen as a very cost effective, and yet realistic, way to show another side of France. After all, they don't need new models for the personas, just some new code and cosmetic additions.

I'm particularly excited for modders getting the ability to create persona abilities (possibly even a pack of them)

A side that Eleanor didn't already show off a bit? And why France over any other base game civ without alternate leaders?

They are not shutting down any alternate leaders for France lol... They weren't even an option in first place. Why? Because Ed loves Catherine's period and probably he is the reason she's in. God knows that if i was Civ6 main dev, all i'd give you for Egypt would be a Cleopatra alt in roman fashion

I get that Beach has a thing for Catherine but it was enough just to include her. We didn't need this.

And you're right I don't think a third leader was even close to happening, but I still think dedicating whatever resources they saw fit to use on costumes toward...more Catherine...was kind of a waste. Not when we could have gotten a second playstyle for Germany, Russia, Arabia, Egypt, Rome, China, Japan.

 

[GenyaArikado]

Idk but personally i'm happy we got alt Cat. I'd be cool if we got more leader skins but that's a topic for another thread, i think

 

[Aurelesk]

I think Catherine was chosen as a very cost effective, and yet realistic, way to show another side of France. After all, they don't need new models for the personas, just some new code and cosmetic additions.

I'm particularly excited for modders getting the ability to create persona abilities (possibly even a pack of them)

Now I am expecting Mod Editor for casual with no experience in coding, allowing to create and edit civilizations, leaders, unit, infracstructure, and all. Even a character creator tool like you could do in a Sims game. A man can only hope.

 

[Patine]

If the last alt leader slot was European, I'd be really happy if it were Russian, either Olga of Kiev or Ivan the Terrible would be nice choices for me, and I wouldn't complain. But if I were to choose, I'd say that Egypt is the one that is most desperately in need of an alt leader at the moment, I particularly think that the game needs a pharaoh. But Kublai Khan leading either China or Mongolia is good too and I don't complain, it just wouldn't be my first choice.

Olga of Kiev as an alternate RUSSIAN leader may cause contention and controversy in modern Ukraine.

 

[mitsho]

I still love their inclusion of Catherine for France. I remember me proposing her as a female leader for France when such threads were about (around the time of Civ 5 or 4?). But that topic has been debated to death, just wanted to say I'm on the other side of that argument.

I'm actually quite interested in how much work these two alternative skins of the two leaders will take. And will they take a spot in the civ selection screen. It's already strange to have two Eleanors in there. It just shows that the User Interface for the game set-up screen hasn't been thoroughly designed.

 

[PhilBowles]

Egypt has a Pharaoh. Stop discriminating Cleopatra for her ethnicity jesuschrist

When people say they want a Pharoah they aren't taking aim at Cleopatra's ethnicity specifically - it's shorthand for asking for a ruler of Ancient Egypt (crudely, the period ending with the end of the New Kingdom), not a classical leader. Yes, technically Cleopatra VII had the title Pharaoh but I'm sure you're aware that she is not generally thought of as 'a pharaoh' by people with more than a superficial pop culture knowledge of Egypt and suggesting otherwise is pointlessly pedantic.

Cleopatra is a characteristic ruler, but she's not associated with - and far postdates - any of the notable achievements of the Egyptian civilisation (other than her own palace in Alexandria). That makes her a poor representation of an Egyptian civ in a game like Civilization, especially since all of Egypt's uniques in Civ VI are based around Ancient Egypt.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Siam could have Prangs, or Wats as in Civ V, but I don't think they'd take both civs in a religious direction if they did use Siam. I like the fact that they represented barays with the UA and still made room for the Prasat for the Khmer. As above I suspect there are plenty of reasons Siam is unlikely, but lack of unique options isn't one of them.

Wats are already a worship building in the Holy Site so that's unlikely and if they went that route it would be too similar for the Khmer.
The best idea that I saw was the mod that used the Floating Market as the unique Commercial Hub.
Also I would be surprised if they didn't get a unique Elephant unit, but I'm not sure how it would be much different than India unless they made it ranged.

As for all the possible Civ 5 civs that got "replaced" Siam still has the best shot to return though over Austria, Songhai, Denmark and the Huns, at least in my opinion.

As for the Egypt debate, I'm quite fine with Cleopatra. Same with Qin for China. I wouldn't mind an alternate leader for those Civs through at this point Egypt isn't likely, but I can live with Cleopatra representing Egypt solely.

 

[PhilBowles]

Wats are already a worship building in the Holy Site so that's unlikely and if they went that route it would be too similar for the Khmer.
The best idea that I saw was the mod that used the Floating Market as the unique Commercial Hub.
Also I would be surprised if they didn't get a unique Elephant unit, but I'm not sure how it would be much different than India unless they made it ranged.

As for all the possible Civ 5 civs that got "replaced" Siam still has the best shot to return though over Austria, Songhai, Denmark and the Huns, at least in my opinion.

As for the Egypt debate, I'm quite fine with Cleopatra. Same with Qin for China. I wouldn't mind an alternate leader for those Civs through at this point Egypt isn't likely, but I can live with Cleopatra representing Egypt solely.

I don't see any particular reason to expect any of those back. I'm not even sure I'd call Austria a civ that got replaced - Hungary is an entirely different civ.

Civ VI in general has looked to Civ IV over Civ V for its inspiration, hence Khmer over Siam, Sumeria over Assyria and Mali over Songhai. I still expect that, if we have only two more returning civs, they'll be Portugal and Babylon and that, if we have three, the final one will be Byzantium.

That completes the Civ IV roster (minus the always-contentious Celts), with the single-nation substitutions for blob civs and ignoring the fact that Civ IV had two civs representing the same real-world civilisation (Germany/HRE) since both are covered by Civ VI's Germany.

 

[Arianrhod]

God knows that if i was Civ6 main dev, all i'd give you for Egypt would be a Cleopatra alt in roman fashion because i love Cleopatra and I hate the daily trashing she gets

I continue to be amazed that one person can be as bothered as you are over "trashings" that wouldn't even exist if they'd just added Hatshepsut instead of Gorgo.

In one stroke, that single exchange deletes every reason people have to be upset about Cleopatra, while making Macedon less redundant in the process.

 

[Morningcalm]

I still love their inclusion of Catherine for France. I remember me proposing her as a female leader for France when such threads were about (around the time of Civ 5 or 4?). But that topic has been debated to death, just wanted to say I'm on the other side of that argument.

I'm actually quite interested in how much work these two alternative skins of the two leaders will take. And will they take a spot in the civ selection screen. It's already strange to have two Eleanors in there. It just shows that the User Interface for the game set-up screen hasn't been thoroughly designed.

Agreed. Catherine is a worthy leader, despite the hate she gets for being Italian or female or not Napoleon, etc. She beat Elizabeth I in combat at Le Havre, uniting French Catholics and Protestants in that action, and she tried multiple times to make peace between the two factions, even if she did ultimately resort to trying to have the Protestant leader killed (which led to the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre). She definitely fits French cultural themes too, with her magnificences and fashions.

 

[Kimiimaro]

To be frank, the more I look at Timurids, the more I enjoy the idea of them being a playable civ, if we do not get the Mughal Empire, which was established by Babur, who was a member of the house of Timur. A silk road empire covering large part of Central Asia, and including cities like Samarkand, Khiva or Bukhara which conquered all of Persia and also overpowered the Ottoman Empire of their time. They have potential to get the magnificent blue domes of Uzbek cities as model for their palace, or even better, their city architecture. They're also different from your everyday horse raiders, as they adopted gunpowder and war elephants in their warfare. I'm not convinced that we'll get them in this season pack, but I think they'd be a pleasant surprise.

 

[Abaxial]

Austria: the civilization appeared one time under the leadership of Maria Theresa. She also appeared leading the Holy Roman Empire one time. But: isn't the Hungarian kind of took the place? The city-state leverage and the Hussar unique unit kind of make me feel the Austrian isn't going to make it.

Austria-Hungary was a major European power until 1918. Should not be ignored.

Celtic: the anti-blob policy prevent them to show up as "Celtic" anymore. I think Scotland replaces them, but we could have an other Celtic civilization like the Gallic, the Britons (french bias) or Ireland. But this seems very unlikely.
.

Ireland is already the subject of at least two home-made civs. Regarding Scotland, I'm surprised no-one has mentioned Mary Stuart as an alternative leader, since (a) she provides gender balance, and (b) she is probably the most famous Scottish monarch, at least in non-anglophone countries.

Danish: they were basicly the "Viking" civilization, represented by Norway. I know so little about Danish history: maybe there is an other side of the Danish to show?
.

In the Renaissance period Denmark ruled over Norway and Sweden. Christian IV was a major figure and the obvous leader. There was even a Danish colony in the Caribbean.

Iroquois: they are the "friendly trading amerindians" civilization, something the Cree are doing. If they make a come back, they need something different
.

Do we really need another Native American tribe?

 

[PhilBowles]

Austria-Hungary was a major European power until 1918. Should not be ignored.

It also existed for only 50 years, not long by the standards of European powers, and its component entities both had longer, and independently significant, histories in Europe prior to the creation of Austro-Hungary in 1867. Hungary in Civ VI is perfectly fine for representing that area of Europe, as Austria was in Civ V.

In the Renaissance period Denmark ruled over Norway and Sweden. Christian IV was a major figure and the obvous leader. There was even a Danish colony in the Caribbean.

They don't want Denmark in the game to represent Denmark as such - they wanted an individual country name and leader they could give to 'the Viking civ'. In Civ V that was Denmark in Civ VI it was Norway - both are appropriate, although Denmark is more characteristic of the Viking era as a whole. In other words, having Denmark in Civ V shouldn't be taken as a sign that they are aiming for a representation of Denmark that reflects its broader historical significance.

Do we really need another Native American tribe?

Do we really need another European state? North America is one of the areas Firaxis traditionally represents with two or more civs in Civ games, and that gets a new civ in each expansion as of Civs V and VI. While it may be that the Maya are the North American representative in New Frontier it's also possible that they're treating Mesoamerica as a distinct region even though Mexico is geographically part of the North American continent. That arrangement would imply that we haven't yet seen the North American representative for New Frontier, and unless they go with something unexpected like Cuba the only real option is a Native American tribe.

 

[Aurelesk]

I might be misunderstood @Abaxial. I was not judging if a civilization is relevant or powerful, but how probable is a civilization to come back. If the developpers could add all of them and made them all interesting, I will be happy. But the number are limited. Here, I am just giving an opinion on which civilization are likely to come back.
I even made a sheet in the process!

Civilization VI makes it clear that they would focus more on a civilization that gives them idea for new mechanics and ideas to exploit than trying to represent all the "relevant" civilization of the world.

Austria appeared one time in Civilization V, and Maria Theresa also lead the Germans in Civilization II (it was different time). So, I am give the civilization a score of 1.2 out of 6 for representation in the franchise. The thing is: the Hungarian kind of stole the idea. In Civilization V, Austria was about friendly annexing city-state with Hussar as unique unit, meanwhile Hungary is about city-state leverage with Huszar as unique unit. As you said, Austria-Hungary was a major European power. But I guess they went for Hungary this time instead of Austria. If they bring back the Austrian, they will probably focus on other ideas.

I kind of have two "problems" with Ireland (this is going to be controversial).
The first is the over-representation of english-speaking countries like England, USA, Australia, Scotland and Canada. Adding Ireland makes the number at 6. That is why if a new Celtic civilization is going to appear, I think the Gallic or Brittany (french side) are more likely. But I will be also okay with Ireland.
The second is the Armagh city-state. They did change some city-state in the past, but none of them add a unique tile improvement. Well the Monastery is rather neutral, so it will be easier than finding a replacement for La Venta. As I said, I am not against Ireland, I am just trying to figure out what it is the most likely.

Iroquois was more represented in the franchise than Austria (2 out of 6!). This is a piece of information not relevant, but hey: that's a fact! Anyway, I agree the Iroquois is very unlikely to come back.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't see any particular reason to expect any of those back. I'm not even sure I'd call Austria a civ that got replaced - Hungary is an entirely different civ.

Civ VI in general has looked to Civ IV over Civ V for its inspiration, hence Khmer over Siam, Sumeria over Assyria and Mali over Songhai. I still expect that, if we have only two more returning civs, they'll be Portugal and Babylon and that, if we have three, the final one will be Byzantium.

That completes the Civ IV roster (minus the always-contentious Celts), with the single-nation substitutions for blob civs and ignoring the fact that Civ IV had two civs representing the same real-world civilisation (Germany/HRE) since both are covered by Civ VI's Germany.

I think it's a combination of both Germany being HRE inspired, and Hungary's inclusion that makes Austria seem unlikely to join. Honestly I'm more of a fan of Maria Theresa which is the only reason I wanted them.

I am also, probably in the minority, one of the people that thinks there is a possibility we could get Assyria over Babylon and wouldn't mind if Babylon sat out and stayed a city-state. But one of them should be necessary to add in the game.

Do we really need another Native American tribe?

Yes. One from the U.S. would be nice.

 

[luigilime]

Why do you think that? You'd first need a plausible argument that can contradict the comment made by DWilson before you.

Well because looking at the rise and fall roster if civs there isn't one that i believe is on the first spot for getting a second leader.
I mean in rise and fall we had: Cree, Netherlands, Mongolia, Georgia, Scotland, Mapuche, Zulu and Korea.
None of them and i repeat none of them for me need a second leader. Not a single one.
Because i doesn't make sense to give a leader to Scotland or korea or Mapuche when other long lastin major civilization won't have anything like egypt or China.
The only thing i find plausible with this theory is only Kublai Khan, because it would be a leader of both China and Mongolia and i would be fine with this. Because it fits in quite nicely with the other second leader choices, greece for the athens/sparta duality, india because is such a huge and long lasting civilization that deserved another leader, and england/ france since they are major players in Europe.
Other option are just too out in the blue imo.
And another thing, firaxis has clearly stated that they are first of all concentrating on new playstyles rather than the civs themselves, so it is more probable they have found a unique playstyle using some rise and fall mechanics (does gathering storm really have all the rise and fall mechanics? So if someone wanted to buy rise and fall or gathering storm now they would be getting r&f only for the additional civs? It's a bit strange but i don't really know the answer so it's probably just my ignorance) and then found a civ to connect it with and not the other way around.
That's my point of view though, i will stand corrected when that pack is revealed. Who knows.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And another thing, firaxis has clearly stated that they are first of all concentrating on new playstyles rather than the civs themselves, so it is more probable they have found a unique playstyle using some rise and fall mechanics (does gathering storm really have all the rise and fall mechanics? So if someone wanted to buy rise and fall or gathering storm now they would be getting r&f only for the additional civs? It's a bit strange but i don't really know the answer so it's probably just my ignorance) and then found a civ to connect it with and not the other way around.

R&F doesn't have any mechanics that we didn't get in GS. Many of the GS Civs like Mali, Phoenicia and Ottomans just used R&F mechanics with governors, loyalty and ages.
I do agree that Kublai Khan does make the most sense out of all the R&F civs, than another leader for Korea.
The Dutch and Scotland would be next but I don't think we would get another European leader right after Eleanor leading two.

 

[Kwami]

Well because looking at the rise and fall roster if civs there isn't one that i believe is on the first spot for getting a second leader.
I mean in rise and fall we had: Cree, Netherlands, Mongolia, Georgia, Scotland, Mapuche, Zulu and Korea.
None of them and i repeat none of them for me need a second leader. Not a single one.
Because i doesn't make sense to give a leader to Scotland or korea or Mapuche when other long lastin major civilization won't have anything like egypt or China.
The only thing i find plausible with this theory is only Kublai Khan, because it would be a leader of both China and Mongolia and i would be fine with this. Because it fits in quite nicely with the other second leader choices, greece for the athens/sparta duality, india because is such a huge and long lasting civilization that deserved another leader, and england/ france since they are major players in Europe.
Other option are just too out in the blue imo.
And another thing, firaxis has clearly stated that they are first of all concentrating on new playstyles rather than the civs themselves, so it is more probable they have found a unique playstyle using some rise and fall mechanics (does gathering storm really have all the rise and fall mechanics? So if someone wanted to buy rise and fall or gathering storm now they would be getting r&f only for the additional civs? It's a bit strange but i don't really know the answer so it's probably just my ignorance) and then found a civ to connect it with and not the other way around.
That's my point of view though, i will stand corrected when that pack is revealed. Who knows.

Yes, Gathering Storm really does include all of the mechanics introduced in Rise & Fall. There's no reason for the teaser to specify "Requires Rise & Fall" unless the alternate leader was for a R&F civilization. So, whether you like it or not, one of those "unworthy" civilizations is getting a second leader.