1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Eagle Pursuit, May 11, 2020.

  1. Thormodr

    Thormodr Servant of Civ Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,886
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    I would like that, too. A nod to ancient Ethiopia plus a culturally focused Ethiopia would be really cool. :)
     
  2. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,320
    Civ V did this in reverse by having a stela unique building, but I'd rather the focus was predominantly on the ancient civ whether or not a later-game unit was added. In general I prefer civs to be grounded in a single time period, which at least initially Civ VI did a better job with than Civ V's grab-bag of bits taken from throughout a society's history..
     
    Thenewwwguy likes this.
  3. AntSou

    AntSou Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2019
    Messages:
    1,928
    Ormuz (Ormus) was also in Civ V. I think there's a chance Portugal comes with both Ormuz and Malacca.

    That Malacca in particular is yet not represented in the game is an oversight, so hopefully it will be adressed.

    Doesn't quite count. It's attached to a Civ.

    I want a Caribean Corsair unique naval raider unit which provides Gold for each naval unit killed, plus a small lump of Diplo Favor per additional Civs the target is at war with.

    E.g. Target at war with 3 Civs. You get 10 Diplo everytime a Corsair you own sinks a target naval unit.

    Target at war with 2 Civs, you get 5 Diplo.

    Target at war with yourself only, no Diplo for sinking, just Gold.
     
  4. Navelgazer

    Navelgazer King

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2012
    Messages:
    761
    Gender:
    Male
    They could also continue to give a suzerain bonus as if an independent city state even after being conquered, though that might cause Firaxis some issues w/r/t international markets.
     
  5. Thenewwwguy

    Thenewwwguy Emperor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2020
    Messages:
    1,482
    Gender:
    Male
    For an ‘Inuit’ city state you could do Nuuk, although that’s Greenland more generally.
     
    AvianBritish likes this.
  6. Navelgazer

    Navelgazer King

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2012
    Messages:
    761
    Gender:
    Male
    Also, I wouldn't hate Haile Selassie as Ethiopia's leader (if nothing else I see his picture up in every Ethiopian restaurant I go to, which speaks to his place among the people involved) but agree that Zara Yaqob would be more interesting, from an aesthetic perspective if nothing else.
     
  7. The Kingmaker

    The Kingmaker Alexander

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,922
    My top five new civilizations that I seriously doubt will make it in, but would love to see anyway, in no particular order:

    1) The Kushans, led by Kanishka
    2) Syria (with a Palmyrene flavor), led by Zenobia
    3) The Cherokee (or another of the 5 civilized tribes), led by Sequoyah
    4) Al-Andalus/The Moors (essentially Morocco with a stronger Iberian component), led by Yusuf ibn Tashfin or Yaqub al Mansur
    5) Italy (Renaissance-themed, with multiple leaders for different city-states, Greece-style), led by Lorenzo de’ Medici AND Caterina Sforza or Lucretia or Cesare Borgia or Enrico Dandolo
     
    Meluhhan likes this.
  8. KnightModern

    KnightModern Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2017
    Messages:
    136
    Gender:
    Male
    I think that Iroquois is a good choice for new civilization, especially with longhouse that could be improvement or building

    those three could be a good choice, if only for assassin's creed easter egg achievements
     
  9. Prima Italia

    Prima Italia Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2017
    Messages:
    95
    Gender:
    Female
    I never said anything about Europe, its reprensentation or anything else. I do not why you keep bringing it up even though I deleted that stanza in my previous reply to you.

    That is your opinion. I do not agree with it. I think they are over represented in the game. We will have to agree to disagree. What is not an opinion however is that there are civs that have been in prior multiple entries to the series and are still not in Civ 6 yet. Civs like Babylon, who have been in every entry, Byzantium and Portugal. They have precedent. At least they should.
     
    Meluhhan, AsH2 and Metecury like this.
  10. Abaxial

    Abaxial King

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2017
    Messages:
    920
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually, I don't want dual leaders for any nation, but that doesn't stop me discussing names for those who do like this mechanic.

    While one can complain about so many European nations, the fact is, this is a game about civilisation, and that means a degree of societal organisation lacking in native tribes. The standard Civ VI texts about world empire, etc, read perfectly sensisbly when said about France, but read very oddly concerning the Cree. And for most people, all these various North American tribes tend to blur into one another - blame Hollywood - as "pesky injuns". It's a fact of life that for various reasons, a chunk of the Earth's surface comprising Europe, North Africa, and SW Asia threw up a whole tapestry of civilised nations not really matched elsewhere.

    To clarify Austria-Hungary: I mention it as justification for including Austria, which was a major player in the Napoleonic wars. Admittedly, it all gets a bit muddled: Hapsburgs - Holy Roman Empire - Bohemia etc etc. "Germany" didn't exist as a nation until the 1800s at the earliest (n.b. 1800s is a decade).

    For more Asians: the Xi Xia (wiped out by the Mongols); Tibet (has no-one mentioned Tibet yet?)
     
    Prima Italia likes this.
  11. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    6,871
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    The Iroquois was a confederation of 5 to 6 different tribes that rose to more than just mere chiefdoms, but a whole council of the different tribes, and possibly contributed to some of the ideas for the U.S. Constitution.
    They also carved out a big "empire" in NA before the Europeans arrived and practiced farming and living in settlements.

    I also want the Navajo who learned to farm and domesticate animals in the SW desert from there various interactions with the Pueblo and the Spanish.

    They should at least be considered right?

    Don't get me wrong I would love Austria and Italy as well, at least Maria Theresa being back.
    Austria's problem for inclusion is Germany, as the HRE civ, and Hungary's inclusion though so I can see it getting bypassed.
     
    bbbt, Hoppip22 and Zaarin like this.
  12. CivLuvah

    CivLuvah Deity

    Joined:
    May 27, 2008
    Messages:
    2,083
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    From Philippines, now Canada
    What's your definition of "Native American" though? If you mean all of the Americas, there are already five. If you mean the indigenous peoples of North America (US and Canada), then there's just one. To rebut your point there, the Iroquois, a Native American "civ" has been in previous games before and are still not in Civ6 yet.

    Meanwhile Europe has 13 (14 if you count Georgia), with one having two leaders (Greece), one that overlaps another one (Eleanor), and one that's technically a part of the same cultural sphere (Macedon)

    It'll be impossible for the devs to add Tibet as a civ. We don't want to anger China, now do we?
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2020
  13. The Civs 6

    The Civs 6 King

    Joined:
    May 27, 2020
    Messages:
    704
    The problem is that, editions so far of, Civilization only represents cultures with intense cultivation and writing. Certainly I can say that the mainstream (which is what Firaxis cares about), has not accepted that there is any evidentiary basis that any indigenous American entities (other than those already included) had either of those. Civilization cannot adequately represent nomadic or pastoral ways of life. They cannot even represent the Steppe-style empires, which is something that we do indeed have a lot of historical experience with. To me, contemplating including the Inuits is as absurd as including Apple or Walmart as civilizations (and if the Civ designers ever choose to do this, you heard it here first). You would just need a different type of video game, some sort of "Pastoral, Steppe, and non-Agricultural Entity Simulator".

    Frankly it's also a disservice to the Huns, or various North American entities, to pigeonhole them into the Civilization box.
     
    Prima Italia likes this.
  14. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    6,871
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    I agree to some extent. The Huns shouldn't have been implemented in Civ 5 because they basically had no city names and played like a barbarian faction.
    I don't think we should exclude Scythia though, which was a better improvement. Scythia at least had settlements.

    As for certain Native American tribes, the more nomadic they are the harder it is to include them such as the Shoshone, Sioux, Comanche etc.
    The Cree to an extent were somewhat nomadic, but not all were so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
    That's the reason why I think if we do get another NA tribe it won't be a Plains culture because Poundmaker was a Plains Cree.

    The Iroquois however were not nomadic and developed farming techniques so I would include them as a possible civilization, which they should. That is the same with many NA tribes on the East coast, PNW and certain tribes in the SW and SE.
     
    Kjimmet, CivLuvah, Zaarin and 3 others like this.
  15. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    1,807
    Actually I proposed "global culture empires" a while back such as Vatican City, Disneyland, and, yes, Apple Park. So I half beat you. :p

    I think it really comes down to semantics and tradition versus actual design goals. The term "civilization" is clearly loaded with preconceptions of what a civ is, and yet V and especially VI have strayed really hard from that strict definition in an attempt represent regionally influential cultures, regardless of how "civilized" they were.
     
  16. The Civs 6

    The Civs 6 King

    Joined:
    May 27, 2020
    Messages:
    704
    That is where I don't agree. I find nothing problematic with the pre-conceptions behind a definition of civilization, as long as you also include some qualification with the uh moral superiority that is a pre-conception as well. At the very least, you can't reject the term as merely a forensic or clinical description of a specific type of culture that has proven so successful as to drive all others practically to extinction.
     
  17. Thenewwwguy

    Thenewwwguy Emperor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2020
    Messages:
    1,482
    Gender:
    Male
    Our traditional definition of what a civ is, again, is very eurocentric though, so I respect the dev team’s willingness to stray from that. Like if we consider ‘civilization’ to be cultures and nations with both a writing system and settled lifestyle, you wouldn’t be able to include the Maori (no written language until contact with Brits), the Aztecs (no written language until contact with Spanish), the Inca (Used knotted ropes to convey information), the Mongols (had settlements, but were nomadic), Scythians (same) and any Hungarian leader before and including Arpad.

    When modern Anthropology and History really developed as western intellectual topics, the definitions of being civilized and civilization were created to exclude who western europeans and americans considered undeveloped and backwards. So I find the traditional considerations of what defines a civilization to be problematic to some degree.

    I prefer to consider this question: did a nation or culture have a significant impact in their local or international timeline.

    I agree that the capability to build settlements and using agriculture are musts, if not simply for practical purposes of including them in the game (It would be quite hard to include completely traditional hunter gatherers like say, the maasai, or cultures which focused on small village settlements, like the inuit, despite the historical and cultural influences both have undoubtedly had)

    But we also can’t consider what a Civ is from the traditional Eurocentric perspective, because just because there were only two (arguably 3 or 4 depending if you count the Iroquois confederacy and the Mayan city states, which at times were united) ‘Great Empires’ in the New World doesn’t mean that other Native American nations and cultures are less deserving of status, both as a civ in the game but also being recognized as a culture of merit.


    In addition to the points Alexander’s Hetaroi makes above, consider the Chinook and Haida who were so skilled in ship building that they could carve canoes which, some historians believe, could’ve traveled to South America or Hawaii.

    Or the Salish, Squamish or Tlingit, who in the Upper Northwest were known for their advanced ability regarding textiles, not to mention their skill in farming.

    The ‘Five Civilized Tribes’, as they were contemporarily known as, would also make good civ’s, as their flexibility in organization and strong governmental development created strong, united, provincial areas which helped them survive well into the manifest destiny era of American Expansion.

    And of course, the plains nations were able to build settlements with little agriculture, and were some of the most skilled mounted horse people of all time, let alone the new world. They also developed a complex religion with as much depth as the old world religions.


    The idea that the native american groups we have in this game is enough is really problematic, from a historical perspective, a current events perspective and from the perspective of the game. The ‘great kingdoms’ of Europe and Asia, while some specific instances could be improved upon (cough cough Asian blob civs), are well represented in this game. While each popular civ candidate remaining in Europe and Asia is undoubtedly deserving of a spot in civ, at a certain point, what they bring to the table, while historically different, is pretty limited, and adding them anyway, ends up being a matter of personal national pride than historical deservingness. Perhaps the unrepresented European civs can appear in civ 7, but every region of europe, every major cultural/language group and every historical time period has been represented fairly well in civ 6.

    In the Americas, we have 4 deserving post colonial nations representing more modern times. Whether we need all of them is a whole different argument, but these 4 nations are undoubtedly worthy. They, however, represent the colonizers.

    On the other hand, in the america’s, we have only 5 nations representing the natives to the land. Among these 5, 3 should appear in every version of the game regardless (Maya, Aztec/Mexica and Inca). The other 2, while worthy representatives of their geographical regions and cultures, do not begin to represent or fill in for, all of the cultures that we’re missing out on. The Mapuche are an incredibly interesting and historical appealing story, in many ways mirroring the fight against colonialism that we see in other notable indigenous peoples, like the Maori. Likewise, the Cree have historically, and continue to, play an important role in the history of Central Canada.

    They both have distinct cultures from the American peoples of the south west and Pacific northwest, which are the best candidates for a native american civ in Civ 6.
     
  18. Zaarin

    Zaarin Chief Medical Officer, DS9

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    8,910
    Location:
    Terok Nor
    Well, you're not entirely correct. We have both Greek and Roman evidence that at least certain portions of the Gallii as well as the Celtiberii called themselves Keltoi. However, I think we're on the same page. I don't want a civilization called "the Celts"; I want something more specific (ideally the Gauls) the next time they show up. Like I said, the fact that they've done horribly the past four times isn't a justification for their continuing to do horribly.

    Virtually all the tribes in the Mississippi watershed and Eastern Woodlands were urbanized and agrarian. The indigenous people of the Pacific Northwest had the sophisticated, stratified, urbanized society one would expect of agrarians without agriculture due to the abundance of the PNW rainforests.

    Small correction: there was no agriculture in the PNW. At the time of contact, there's some evidence that the Coast Salish may have been deliberately cultivating skunk cabbage, which would mark the start of horticulture, but generally speaking both the waters and the forests were so abundant that there was no need to farm or even garden.
     
    Thenewwwguy likes this.
  19. The Civs 6

    The Civs 6 King

    Joined:
    May 27, 2020
    Messages:
    704
    The problem with all this is that there is simply no historical evidence to even support the idea that the Americas were half as populated as the European continent. I am perplexed as why the square miles should really matter. For me proportion to population alone justifies the degree of representation. And I'm fully aware that there is an emerging literature suggesting that the Americas may have been more populated - and populated earlier - than thought. But this isn't mainstream history we are talking about. It is something that is being posited in scholarly articles, but it hasn't really seeped into the popular conscious.

    There is Eurocentrism but it comes from baffling decisions - like including the Portuguese, the Dutch, and the Hungarians, and most egregiously, the Canadians, Scots, and Australia. We might as well make Wales and Essex while we are at it. We would simply not make those distinctions if we were assessing another type of culture. For example, you could easily reassess the Chinese historical record and make a litany of new Civs based on their various incarnations. This is where my objection to including those little Civs comes into play. If we looked at European history in the same grand sweep as we did the other continents, we would at least be consistent. The English may be divided into five nations (UK, America, Australia, Canada), but they (we?) are all essentially English for the way in which Civ allows us to tell stories.
     
    Hoppip22 likes this.
  20. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    1,807
    All I'm saying is that "Civilization" may be a bit of an outdated misnomer for a franchise that may be trying to pull away from including strict "civilizations" and explore new design space with cultures that don't quite fit that mold.

    I'm okay with us not getting full cultural representation of Native American peoples. Generally, we don't get the full cultural picture of any region of the world; plenty of cultural patches are skipped over in favor of larger, more influential cultures.

    But more importantly, including people who were subjugated and colonized in a game like this is a tough balancing act. Many tribes simply don't want to have anything to do with a franchise that has traditionally been and largely remains focused on conquest as a defining feature of society. Again, there are plenty of other parts of the world where we wouldn't want to include subjugated peoples; the issue is magnified in America where we have the largest disparity between the concept of "natives" (people who lived here for milennia) and "invaders" (people who came from a completely different continent, took over, and have maintained control as the dominant culture).

    If Civ strayed further away from a war-focused 4X game, I think more native tribes would be okay with media exposure. But as it stands I think only the largest and most modernized tribes would want to have anything to do with Civ. We are probably only limited to a shortlist comprising not much more than the Navajo, the Cherokee, the Sioux, and the Anishinaabe, maybe the Iroquois, and even then it would be understandable if all of them requested not to be in VI. I suspect the Shoshone would take issue at being featured more than once. I am still really, really holding out that the Navajo are of the collaborative nature which would facilitate getting at least one more civ in the game.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2020
    Meluhhan, AsH2, bbbt and 3 others like this.

Share This Page