[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[AntSou]

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)

Yes, the mechanics of R&F are included in GS.

So, if a game mode requires GS mechanics, it will say it requires GS.
If it says it requires "R&F or GS", then it means it will use mechanics first introduced in R&F.
If it says it requires R&F, then it means it's using whatever was introduced in R&F which is not in GS. That must mean the Civs.

 

[Patine]

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

Although, to be fair, the Iroquois, who are an often called out for one, had traditional territory, and still have ethnic membership, on both sides of the Canadian-U.S. border in significant numbers from before such a border existed. Could they considered a U.S. or Canadian one - when they, themselves, don't see themselves as purely one or the other, in totality? Not assuming they're YOUR favourite choice, just that some such Indigenous peoples don't conform well to modern border divisions.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Although, to be fair, the Iroquois, who are an often called out for one, had traditional territory, and still have ethnic membership, on both sides of the Canadian-U.S. border in significant numbers from before such a border existed. Could they considered a U.S. or Canadian one - when they, themselves, don't see themselves as purely one or the other, in totality? Not assuming they're YOUR favourite choice, just that some such Indigenous peoples don't conform well to modern border divisions.

I realize they don't follow the conventional borders of the modern day nations. I'm just saying we only have the Cree who are primarily found and lived throughout modern-day Canada and it would be nice if we got a tribe that somewhat lived in the modern-day U.S borders, Iroquois included.

 

[Zaarin]

For all of Kublai's fanbase, is there any real "need" for a new Mongol or Chinese leader?

Yes, but a Yuan emperor wouldn't be my first choice. I'd rather have a Tang or Song emperor, personally. I wouldn't say no to Kublai leading China, though. Do we need a new Mongol leader? A little more iffy, as the Mongols are kind of a one-trick pony (pun oh so much intended). Still, a new Mongol-China leader is more appealing to me than a new leader for Scotland or the Netherlands. I wouldn't hate a new Korean leader, but I wouldn't really like to see the Seondeok-haters appeased. The Cree, Mapuche, and Zulu simply aren't getting a new leader. And while David the Builder for Georgia might be fun, let's be honest: Georgia is here because of Tamar.

Egypt has a Pharaoh. Stop discriminating Cleopatra for her ethnicity

I think the issue is less "she was Greek" and more "she wasn't Egyptian." To clarify, the Egyptians really didn't care about skin color or ethnic background; they cared about being culturally Egyptian. The Ptolemies were not culturally Egyptian; Cleopatra adopted certain elements of Egyptian culture in order to get the Copts on her side in the civil war against her brother--and maintained them mostly to scandalize the Romans. I don't hate Cleopatra (Antony and Cleopatra happens to be my second favorite Shakespeare play after King Lear, and though I wasn't able to finish it because I was in the middle of college at the time I enjoyed the parts of Stacy Schiff's biography of her that I read). I don't even hate her as an alternate leader for Egypt. It's just disappointing that a civ with 1,000 years of history got stuck with the pop culture queen.

Do we really need another Native American tribe?

And how.

Although, to be fair, the Iroquois, who are an often called out for one, had traditional territory, and still have ethnic membership, on both sides of the Canadian-U.S. border in significant numbers from before such a border existed. Could they considered a U.S. or Canadian one - when they, themselves, don't see themselves as purely one or the other, in totality? Not assuming they're YOUR favourite choice, just that some such Indigenous peoples don't conform well to modern border divisions.

Worth noting that while Iroquois land straddled the border, the Iroquois heartland was in Upstate New York, which is doubtless also where their capital would be. Iroquois wouldn't be my top pick--simply because I'd like someone new--but they'd be top 5. I wouldn't be disappointed at all to get them (unless they were horribly designed like they were in Civ5 ).

 

[Prima Italia]

Do we really need another Native American tribe?

No. I think there is too many of them in the game already.

 

[Zaarin]

No. I think there is too many of them in the game already.

One is too many? I guess to be fair, I tend to think one postcolonial nation is one too many, and we've got five now...

 

[DWilson]

One is too many? I guess to be fair, I tend to think one postcolonial nation is one too many, and we've got five now...

I'm sure they would say it's five (Aztec, Mapuche, Cree, Inca, and Maya).

That said, I still want another.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm sure they would say it's five (Aztec, Mapuche, Cree, Inca, and Maya).

That said, I still want another.

Well, the Aztec, Inca, and Maya weren't tribal, so at best they can claim two. Plus in North American the indigenous people of Mesoamerica, South America, and the Caribbean aren't usually called Native Americans, which brings us back to one.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

One is too many? I guess to be fair, I tend to think one postcolonial nation is one too many, and we've got five now...

Probably what @DWilson said.
But yeah to us from the U.S. , especially me, when we say Native American we mean any indigenous people north of Mesoamerica, not including the Inuit.
Some of us still even use the term "Indian" or "American Indian."

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Has there ever been a case in any Civ game where two civilizations had represented almost the same geographical area?

I'm just curious because some here are discounting Siam and Vietnam as upcoming new civs due to their proximity with the Khmer.

byzantines and ottomans.

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



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.



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.



Do we really need another Native American tribe?

No. I think there is too many of them in the game already.

History is not Eurocentric. The fact that an outsized amount of the cast is european already is insane.

When people ask for Italy or Austria (which are worthy picks, don’t get me wrong) and then go one to say that we have enough native americans/first nations/indigenous or that they’d rather have Italy or Austria over a native american nation used as a civ, they’re saying that european civs were inherently more worthy of being in civ, which is a notion I’d like to dispel. There are dozens of native american groups that would be worthy of being in this game besides the 5 already in the game. Take the Iroquois confederacy or Cherokee, which both saw some of the most advanced bureaucratic systems in the New World bar the Inca. Likewise, consider any of the Cascadian first nations, like the Salish, Nez Perce, Chinook or Tlingit, who developed efficient ways of confirming to rough terrain, building canoes which have been suggested to have made it to Hawaii and South America. Take the Sioux, Comanche or Apache, who used the introduction of horses to enhance their already existing hunting skills and deep cultural tradition. Or the Pueblo, who dealt with the elements with their skilled architecture.

We need a minimum of one or two more native american nations in civ.

 

[DWilson]

Probably what @DWilson said.
But yeah to us from the U.S. , especially me, when we say Native American we mean any indigenous people north of Mesoamerica, not including the Inuit.
Some of us still even use the term "Indian" or "American Indian."

To be fair, many American Indians embrace that naming. What was once a term born of ignorance became an identity around which they could unite in their shared experiences.

 

[Zaarin]

Some of us still even use the term "Indian" or "American Indian."

If you've spent any time on the res, you'll find that category even includes many Native Americans.

 

[krmarci]

I think the main problem with the inclusion of native civs is the lack of data (and in the case of some, decentralisation), while the history of Europe is really well documented, with many more world famous and charismatic historical figures. But I agree, a few more civs outside of Europe wouldn't hurt.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

When people ask for Italy or Austria (which are worthy picks, don’t get me wrong) and then go one to say that we have enough native americans/first nations/indigenous or that they’d rather have Italy or Austria over a native american nation used as a civ, they’re saying that european civs were inherently more worthy of being in civ, which is a notion I’d like to dispel.

I want both.

If you've spent any time on the res, you'll find that category even includes many Native Americans.

I mean I do use that term in certain situations as well. "Indians" is the name of my mascot where I went to high school, but I know the terminology would be confusing for some people on this forum.
My high school's traditions is the essence of Civ 4's Native America but that might be off topic.

I think the problem with the inclusion of native civs is the lack of data, while the history of Europe is really well documented, with many more world famous and charismatic historical figures. But I agree, a few more civs outside of Europe wouldn't hurt.

If only North America had a Herodotus.

 

[Zaarin]

I think the problem with the inclusion of native civs is the lack of data, while the history of Europe is really well documented, with many more world famous and charismatic historical figures. But I agree, a few more civs outside of Europe wouldn't hurt.

There are plenty of Native American civs and leaders that are well documented, though. I'm not sure how much documentation helps civs get in the game: we have ~5,000 years of solid, thorough documentation of the Middle East--a good 2,500 years before the first deciphered writing in Europe--but only a handful of Middle Eastern civs, for instance. I think pop culture presence is honestly a bigger factor.

If only North America had a Herodotus.

Someone to make stuff up about those funny barbarians? Does John Smith count?

 

[Patine]

History is not Eurocentric. The fact that an outsized amount of the cast is european already is insane.

When people ask for Italy or Austria (which are worthy picks, don’t get me wrong) and then go one to say that we have enough native americans/first nations/indigenous or that they’d rather have Italy or Austria over a native american nation used as a civ, they’re saying that european civs were inherently more worthy of being in civ, which is a notion I’d like to dispel. There are dozens of native american groups that would be worthy of being in this game besides the 5 already in the game. Take the Iroquois confederacy or Cherokee, which both saw some of the most advanced bureaucratic systems in the New World bar the Inca. Likewise, consider any of the Cascadian first nations, like the Salish, Nez Perce, Chinook or Tlingit, who developed efficient ways of confirming to rough terrain, building canoes which have been suggested to have made it to Hawaii and South America. Take the Sioux, Comanche or Apache, who used the introduction of horses to enhance their already existing hunting skills and deep cultural tradition. Or the Pueblo, who dealt with the elements with their skilled architecture.

We need a minimum of one or two more native american nations in civ.

Perhaps. But it might be also be reading too much into motives. Some people might just have certain personal preferences that you're reading a certain way, and lumping with bigger trends.

There are plenty of Native American civs and leaders that are well documented, though. I'm not sure how much documentation helps civs get in the game: we have ~5,000 years of solid, thorough documentation of the Middle East--a good 2,500 years before the first deciphered writing in Europe--but only a handful of Middle Eastern civs, for instance. I think pop culture presence is honestly a bigger factor.


Someone to make stuff up about those funny barbarians? Does John Smith count?

Well, the Aztecs called the primitive, uncouth, scantily-clad hunters-gathers of the deserts north of the Valley of Mexico "Chichimecs," a word that seems a similar derogative to "barbarian," or Chinese or Japanese analogs to the term, even though the Aztecs had been among such peoples before settling in Lake Texcoco when their famous omen presented itself.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Someone to make stuff up about those funny barbarians? Does John Smith count?

He's still European.

 

[Prima Italia]

We need a minimum of one or two more native american nations in civ.

No, we do not "need". Maybe you need one or two more Native American civs but I certainly do not.

 

[AvianBritish]

Wow... I left the forum and threads for a bit to play through a few games; and now I'm Civ'ed out again, now I feel like speculating again. But I had to catch up on 100 pages or something.

Here is my prediction (and wishlist):

July: Ethiopia (Menelik II)

September: Portugal/Brazil (João VI) & the Gauls (Vercingetorix) - I really want Portugal to be back, and a leader that can lead it and Brazil would be intresting, nodding to that intresting time during and after Neapolion for the monarchy. As for the Gauls; I am slowly feeling it will be less likely that we get a celtic Civ this time around, but I would like something to representing the ancient/classical "tribal" cultures of Europe.
+ Notre Dame, Uffizi, Brandenburg Gate, Vauxhall Cross. - I think they will put Nortre Dame in the game after recent events, and it seems to be a fan-favorite anyway. As much as I know people (including myself) would groan at another British wonder, but Vauxhall Cross would be great as a wonder for spies which hasn't been captitalised on yet; maybe granting a free spy and protects the city it's in from all offensive spy missions?
+ Lisbon CS becomes "Nassau" - representing an alliance with the pirates of the Caribbean, protecting (not plundering) your cargo.

November: Assyria (Sennacherib) - I really would prefer Assyria over Babylon. Give me the Jerwan Aqueduct (or call it Atrush Canal) as a tile improvement which can be built adjacent to a river or another Jerwan Aquaduct providing fresh water to all adjacent tiles. Acting like the Great Wall, this tile improvement can be built by builders and expanded going through your empire providing fresh water to all of your cities that do not get fresh water from existing sources.
+ Iqaluit (Religious) - An city state to represent the inuit culture without giving a whole civ to them. This would provide the Inukshuk tile improvement that can be built in snow or tundra providing food and faith to adjacent resources, just like a cold version of the Nazca Lines.
+ Huaricanga (Industrial) - A food related bonus as the Norte Chico civilization seemed to used dried food a lot and possible even as currency to pay workers; perhaps cities get production towards, buildings, wonders and districts equal to the excess food/growth in the city?
+ San Marino (Militaristic) - An intresting Italian city state which for the most part history has been independant all the way since Rome to the present day. Said to be the place where a monk hid from invading Roman forces on the top of a mountain and was never found out. I would like to hope we could get a unique tile improvement out of this that acts like the mountain tunnel, or simply get the ability to build mountain tunnels early without requiring the tech! (I've had so many game where I really wanted mountain tunnels but I wasn't the Inca and the tunnels come so very late in the game. So this one will be great!) Maybe also making it so adjacent mountains prevent cities from being seiged as opposed to contibuting to the seige.
+ Inyanga (Scientific) - I struggled to find an intresting city state in Africa for Science; but I think Inyanga (now known as Nyanga) would fit; their stone dams beat the work of most modern engineers and provided irrigation to crops. Perhaps a tile improvement that can be built on floodplains that prevent/mitigate flooding and provide +1 food to adjacent farms and plantations; a nice early and cheap dam but dosen't provide the housing, amenities, power and production you will eventually want to upgrade this tile improvement into.
+ Kathmandu (Cultural) - A bonus relating to mountains would be cool; perhaps cities with mountains get +1 housing, +1 culture and +1 faith for every unimproved mountain tile owned by the city; providing tourism equal to the culture provided; but the culture and faith increasing to 2 or 3 to rival the tourism from ski-resorts.
+ Honolulu (Trade) - A bonus to great admirals or coast? Maybe great admirals get an extra charge (like the M@H used to provide). Or lean into the Menehune myths and allow you to build fishing boats and plantations without consuming a build charge.

January: Vietnam (Trung Sisters) & Mongolia/China (Kublai Khan) - Although I would happily take Pagan/Burma/Myanmar too! Can we maybe have both? Burma and Viet Nam? Also I would love to see an alt leader for China, but I have a feeling Kublai will not go down well with Chinese officals, so he will most likely be Mongolian only.

March: Byzantium/Rome (Constantine) - A leader that can lead both Rome and Byzantium would be cool. Although I would defeinatly prefer a Native American Civiziliation from North America! But I am doubtful we will get one as I feel Maya and Gran Colombia will just represent "The Americas" both north and south.
+ Temple of Zeus, Borobudur, Shwedagon Zedi Daw, Hemji Castle.
+ Antioch CS becomes "Venice" - a nice simple "gold for every luxury resouce at the destination" bonus; although perhaps a bonus to ship building similar to Ngazargamu might be in order instead?

 

[DWilson]

I really want Portugal to be back, and a leader that can lead it and Brazil would be

I hadn't even thought of a possible dual leader that's not just another alt leader. Nice idea!