[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Thenewwwguy]

Portugal and Spain have both existed in the same game for 3 iterations of Civ. I don't see the need to start rotating them now when they haven't. As I've said above the exploration niche hasn't been filled yet and Portugal would be the best Civ to do it. Have unique Great Admirals, naval units get experience points for exploration, science from water coastal tiles (navigational science) etc.

Mali and Songhai ended up controlling the same geographic territory and major cities like Timbuktu, so I agree that is harder to implement. Plus Songhai as pointed out are more warlike and expansive compared to Mali so not similar playstyles. Honestly that's why I'm not convinced Morocco will return as Mali took some desert trading aspects.

Siam and Khmer could easily coexist if we possibly have another frontier pass and closer to 60 civs but for some reason they have decided to alternate the mainland SE Asian civs, considering they are close and influential. I do admit the way the Khmer are designed do make Siam unlikely, but I think if the devs wanted to they could find some way to make them return.



Firaxis Devs:
"So let's talk about Carthage. People complained in Civ 5 how militaristic they were and how they were lead by a fictitious woman, and not Hannibal."

"Right so maybe instead we should make them less militaristic, and dump the War Elephants."

"Well we can't give them Hannibal then."

"You're right. How about making Phoenicia then and focus more on the maritime trading aspects?"

"Are there any Phoenician leaders we know about?"

"Oh there's one I have in mind, and she's a valid female choice."

In all fairness, wasn’t Hannibal not a leader of Carthage? Even if ppl wanted to bring back the Carthaginian Empire specifically rather than treating it as a branch off of Phonecia as Civ 6 has, if you didn’t want to go the semi-mythical route of dido, you’d need someone who actually led Carthage, not just a general of Carthage.

That said, I don’t mind Phonecia’s implementation and I would love to see them return, maybe with Pygmalion as a leader?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

In all fairness, wasn’t Hannibal not a leader of Carthage? Even if ppl wanted to bring back the Carthaginian Empire specifically rather than treating it as a branch off of Phonecia as Civ 6 has, if you didn’t want to go the semi-mythical route of dido, you’d need someone who actually led Carthage, not just a general of Carthage.

That said, I don’t mind Phonecia’s implementation and I would love to see them return, maybe with Pygmalion as a leader?

He wasn't just a general but was a statesman as well when not at war. Though his reforms didn't work out with the Carthage aristocracy and he is most remembered for being a great tactician and general.

The problem is nothing is really known about Phoenician kings and Dido makes the most sense, even though all accounts that we know are from a story, which would be the same story that Pygmalion is in.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Firaxis Devs:
"So let's talk about Carthage. People complained in Civ 5 how militaristic they were and how they were lead by a fictitious woman, and not Hannibal."

"Right so maybe instead we should make them less militaristic, and dump the War Elephants."

"Well we can't give them Hannibal then."

"You're right. How about making Phoenicia then and focus more on the maritime trading aspects?"

"Are there any Phoenician leaders we know about?"

"Oh there's one I have in mind, and she's a valid female choice."

I'm not sure if that's how it went down. We already had Dido leading Carthage in V. I think if VI was already trying to lean into representing contiguous cultural legacies, as with India/Maurya, Germany/HRE, etc., to some extent with Sumeria/Akkadia and Scythia/general kurgan cultures...then it kind of made sense to combine Phoenicia and Carthage. It just so happens that Phoenicia also facilitates far more interesting mechanical design than just another militaristic civ like Carthage.

Those Civs play differently though. The Khmer were skilled extremely skilled engineers (the jungle cities complete with sophisticated infrastructure, the barays, the war machines, gunpowder/fireworks) while the Siamese have a more pronounced cultural angle. Likewise the Mali were an economic powerhouse compared to the warlike Songhai.

It's not so much a question of 'oh this civ made it in last time, let's rotate them out." It's more like "okay, we need a civ who can do this and this, which region haven't we added to the game yet? what building and unit haven't we replaced yet? do they have a leader from an unrepresented time period? a valid female choice? someone who is considered a folk hero/heroine?"

Blame ignorance for making people believe these Civs are interchangeable. They're not.

Mmmmmm it's a little more complicated than that, though. I think there is absolutely an apparent goal to represent large, regionally influential cultures and generally avoiding overlapping very historically related civs like Mali/Songhai or Khmer/Siam.

I don't think of if as strictly wanting civs that fit a particular design mold, except in the most general sense. Clearly a lot of mechanics are uniquely designed around the particular civ's identity and weren't intended to fill any particular mechanical niches. Although I'm sure civs which better fit a niche are perhaps tweaked a bit if it doesn't take much effort to harmonize their identity with a purely mechanical idea.

I think there is a sort of "mechanical balancing," but I'm pretty sure it isn't between geographically overlapping civs. More likely, we got Mali over Songhai because Songhai is a generic militaristic civ and Mali offered more diverse options for a second desert-bias civ. The argument for Khmer is a little hazier, but generally I think civs are not only competing regionally with each other, but also with other civs which beg similar mechanics. For example, it seems unlikely that we would get both Oman and Morocco, given that they both would be muslim offshoot empires with a strong naval trade bias. Or, if Tibet were even an option, we probably wouldn't get both Tibet and Burma since they both share similar religious strengths.

And, generally, I think the more militaristic/domination-oriented a civ is, the less likely it will be included. VI is clearly trying to stray away from encouraging domination victories and it's frankly the least interesting design space. I was honestly surprised Colombia received a domination treatment, because as a general rule it has seemed that where a culture can do anything but dominate, the devs have preferred to lean into that, and Colombia has music, luxury resources, trade going for it.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm not sure if that's how it went down. We already had Dido leading Carthage in V. I think if VI was already trying to lean into representing contiguous cultural legacies, as with India/Maurya, Germany/HRE, etc., to some extent with Sumeria/Akkadia and Scythia/general kurgan cultures...then it kind of made sense to combine Phoenicia and Carthage. It just so happens that Phoenicia also facilitates far more interesting mechanical design than just another militaristic civ like Carthage.

It most likely didn't go down specifically like that. I said it kind of jokingly.
Though I do agree they probably wanted to change it up and Phoenicia, in my mind, was the right way to go.

And, generally, I think the more militaristic/domination-oriented a civ is, the less likely it will be included. VI is clearly trying to stray away from encouraging domination victories and it's frankly the least interesting design space. I was honestly surprised Colombia received a domination treatment, because as a general rule it has seemed that where a culture can do anything but dominate, the devs have preferred to lean into that, and Colombia has music, luxury resources, trade going for it.

There are subtle hints at luxuries (haciendas built next to plantations, which are mostly luxury resources), and music (llaneros with guitars) but I agree there could have been more. But then again Simon Bolivar was all about military campaigns.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Mmmmmm it's a little more complicated than that, though. I think there is absolutely an apparent goal to represent large, regionally influential cultures and generally avoiding overlapping very historically related civs like Mali/Songhai or Khmer/Siam.

I don't think of if as strictly wanting civs that fit a particular design mold, except in the most general sense. Clearly a lot of mechanics are uniquely designed around the particular civ's identity and weren't intended to fill any particular mechanical niches. Although I'm sure civs which better fit a niche are perhaps tweaked a bit if it doesn't take much effort to harmonize their identity with a purely mechanical idea.

I think there is a sort of "mechanical balancing," but I'm pretty sure it isn't between geographically overlapping civs. More likely, we got Mali over Songhai because Songhai is a generic militaristic civ and Mali offered more diverse options for a second desert-bias civ. The argument for Khmer is a little hazier, but generally I think civs are not only competing regionally with each other, but also with other civs which beg similar mechanics. For example, it seems unlikely that we would get both Oman and Morocco, given that they both would be muslim offshoot empires with a strong naval trade bias. Or, if Tibet were even an option, we probably wouldn't get both Tibet and Burma since they both share similar religious strengths.

And, generally, I think the more militaristic/domination-oriented a civ is, the less likely it will be included. VI is clearly trying to stray away from encouraging domination victories and it's frankly the least interesting design space. I was honestly surprised Colombia received a domination treatment, because as a general rule it has seemed that where a culture can do anything but dominate, the devs have preferred to lean into that, and Colombia has music, luxury resources, trade going for it.

right i mean there’s this aspect, which is part of it:

Siam was a Khmer breakaway state, Songhai replaced the Mali. Despite both pairs being designed differently in Civ 5/6, they shared a lot. Songhai continued the gold/salt trade. Siam initially shared a lot of culture with Khmer and as they differentiated, you saw more differences.

Portugal and Spain is a bit of a different case. In civ 6, based on the way Spain is designed, they wouldn’t overlap too much. But if the goal in civ 6 (and hopefully 7) is meant to be a world tour of all the different cultures, historical niches and interesting ‘big’ personalities, they don’t differentiate much over a whole history. So from a purely overall game design perspective, if the goal is a world tour of interesting cultures and personalities, one of those two nations is better spent elsewhere, like native america, or oceania.

Yes, both are historically relevant and have appeared together in the past, but while Mali/Songhai haven’t appeared together and neither have Khmer/Siam, all 4 of those civs are all completely worthy of appearing in civ. It just makes sense to feature one of each pair and spend time and effort showing off different sides of this world tour.

 

[Zaarin]

In all fairness, wasn’t Hannibal not a leader of Carthage? Even if ppl wanted to bring back the Carthaginian Empire specifically rather than treating it as a branch off of Phonecia as Civ 6 has, if you didn’t want to go the semi-mythical route of dido, you’d need someone who actually led Carthage, not just a general of Carthage.

Hannibal was a sufet, the equivalent of a Roman senator. Carthage was an oligarchy without an executive head so sufets are your options for political leaders, unless you choose one of the Magonid kings (which would be fine, too).

The problem is nothing is really known about Phoenician kings and Dido makes the most sense, even though all accounts that we know are from a story, which would be the same story that Pygmalion is in.

Hiram II of Tyre. We don't know a lot about him, but enough to make a leader out of him. If we can use the Aeneid as a source, we can use the Bible as a source, and Hiram II is independently attested anyway.

just another militaristic civ like Carthage.

*angry breathing intensifies* Carthage is remembered as a militaristic civ because that's how Rome thought of them. If I were designing Carthage, I'd lean heavily towards maritime supremacy, trade, exploration, and culture (a lot of people don't know this, but Carthage had a strong native theater tradition, including both original plays and translations of Greek plays--such as the one Plautus quotes in Poenulus).

 

[PhoenicianGold]

There are subtle hints at luxuries (haciendas built next to plantations, which are mostly luxury resources), and music (llaneros with guitars) but I agree there could have been more. But then again Simon Bolivar was all about military campaigns.

Yeah, and that's why I somewhat accept the design, because it wouldn't have gotten in without Bolivar as the leader. And, as far as I can tell, only the vanilla civs got the "grand tour" treatment (like how Germany has pieces from modern Germany, the HRE, the Hanseatic League), whereas all the DLC and expansion civs appear to--mostly--draw from specific iterations of the culture. It seemed unlikely we would get a Bolivar Columbia with a Museo del Oro UI or Guecha UU so I'm fine with the design. If anything, it's not the uniques that I'm disappointed in, but that the design is so vanilla.

 

[riddleofsteel]

Hannibal was a sufet, the equivalent of a Roman senator. Carthage was an oligarchy without an executive head so sufets are your options for political leaders, unless you choose one of the Magonid kings (which would be fine, too).


Hiram II of Tyre. We don't know a lot about him, but enough to make a leader out of him. If we can use the Aeneid as a source, we can use the Bible as a source, and Hiram II is independently attested anyway.


*angry breathing intensifies* Carthage is remembered as a militaristic civ because that's how Rome thought of them. If I were designing Carthage, I'd lean heavily towards maritime supremacy, trade, exploration, and culture (a lot of people don't know this, but Carthage had a strong native theater tradition, including both original plays and translations of Greek plays--such as the one Plautus quotes in Poenulus).

Too right. They took a lot of crap and smearing by Rome. Honestly, nobody deserved to smack Rome around more than the Carthaginians.

 

[The Civs 6]

Hannibal was a sufet, the equivalent of a Roman senator. Carthage was an oligarchy without an executive head so sufets are your options for political leaders, unless you choose one of the Magonid kings (which would be fine, too).


Hiram II of Tyre. We don't know a lot about him, but enough to make a leader out of him. If we can use the Aeneid as a source, we can use the Bible as a source, and Hiram II is independently attested anyway.


*angry breathing intensifies* Carthage is remembered as a militaristic civ because that's how Rome thought of them. If I were designing Carthage, I'd lean heavily towards maritime supremacy, trade, exploration, and culture (a lot of people don't know this, but Carthage had a strong native theater tradition, including both original plays and translations of Greek plays--such as the one Plautus quotes in Poenulus).

What about organized, ritualistic infanticide?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

right i mean there’s this aspect, which is part of it:

Siam was a Khmer breakaway state, Songhai replaced the Mali. Despite both pairs being designed differently in Civ 5/6, they shared a lot. Songhai continued the gold/salt trade. Siam initially shared a lot of culture with Khmer and as they differentiated, you saw more differences.

Portugal and Spain is a bit of a different case. In civ 6, based on the way Spain is designed, they wouldn’t overlap too much. But if the goal in civ 6 (and hopefully 7) is meant to be a world tour of all the different cultures, historical niches and interesting ‘big’ personalities, they don’t differentiate much over a whole history. So from a purely overall game design perspective, if the goal is a world tour of interesting cultures and personalities, one of those two nations is better spent elsewhere, like native america, or oceania.

Yes, both are historically relevant and have appeared together in the past, but while Mali/Songhai haven’t appeared together and neither have Khmer/Siam, all 4 of those civs are all completely worthy of appearing in civ. It just makes sense to feature one of each pair and spend time and effort showing off different sides of this world tour.

If it were up to me I would put the Khmer as the mainstay mainland SE Asia Civ and alternate the others (Siam, Vietnam, Burma etc.). They were the original dominant empire in the region and is the reason why SE Asia is the Buddhist hub that they are today.

Same for Mali as the West Africa representative as Ghana (Wagadou) is hard to implement and I guess Songhai seems so militaristic. Then we can branch out and alternate from several of the coastal kingdoms such as Benin, Dahomey, Ashanti etc.

I still don't think we should do that with Spain and Portugal though as both are too influential on world history to be excluded.

Yeah, and that's why I somewhat accept the design, because it wouldn't have gotten in without Bolivar as the leader. And, as far as I can tell, only the vanilla civs got the "grand tour" treatment (like how Germany has pieces from modern Germany, the HRE, the Hanseatic League), whereas all the DLC and expansion civs appear to--mostly--draw from specific iterations of the culture. It seemed unlikely we would get a Bolivar Columbia with a Museo del Oro UI or Guecha UU so I'm fine with the design. If anything, it's not the uniques that I'm disappointed in, but that the design is so vanilla.

Considering they called it "Gran Colombia" I'm not surprised. I wouldn't have expected a UU from the Muisca anyway.

I hope Ethiopia gets that "grand tour" approach, especially if the leader is modern. I want more earlier unique attributes such as a Rock-Hewn Church UI or a Shotelai UU.

 

[Patine]

I don’t know if I’d go that far. He did have an awful lot of people killed. Granted, so did both of his daughters. But in Henry’s case, it seemed to be based on pique as much as anything else.

Other than four of his six wives, he didn't kill anymore than most monarchs of his day by any measure - certainly less than Karl V or Suleyman the Magnificent (I think Ivan the Terrible was nearing contemporary in time period to him, too) - even Francois I probably offed more people than Henry VIII. But you seem stuck on his pop culture of a PARTICULARLY and GRATUITIOUSLY bad monarch for his day, which doesn't seem to bear out. Plus, regardless, even if he did have a lot of people killed, I absolutely DETEST the sick and warped obsession some have with "body count Olympics," as the SOLE determining factor of how horrible or not a leader was, with all other context ignored. It's a vile and despicable measuring stick and way of viewing things, ultimately.

 

[Patine]

So I'm glad the only way we could get it was with Dido.

A Leader of Dubious Existence...

 

[Zaarin]

What about organized, ritualistic infanticide?

The evidence is ambiguous. We can start by writing off anything the Romans said, because the Romans accused all of their enemies of human sacrifice. Phoenician/Punic textual evidence suggests it did occur, but archaeological evidence doesn't support its occurrence on a large scale. So, no, I wouldn't consider it one of the defining aspects of Carthaginian culture.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Considering they called it "Gran Colombia" I'm not surprised. I wouldn't have expected a UU from the Muisca anyway.

I hope Ethiopia gets that "grand tour" approach, especially if the leader is modern. I want more earlier unique attributes such as a Rock-Hewn Church UI or a Shotelai UU.

Yeah initially I was a bit perturbed that they called it Gran Columbia, but juxtaposing it against nearly every other DLC civ being from a particular period, and the Ottomans still not being called the Osmons, it fits with the rest of the game's design sensibility. (And I guess this points toward another general problem I have with the game which is the arbitrary hopping between endonyms and exonyms. Why do we have Jadwiga but not Piotr?)

My general impression is that if Colombia or any civ were regionally/historically important enough to get the grand tour treatment, it should have been included in the base game with the other "GOATs."

Which...come to think of it, I'm a tad disappointed that we didn't get Ethiopia in the base game. I appreciate that Kongo added some variety and fit some weird design space, but Ethiopia is probably the only civ that I think have long and diverse enough history through different iterations to merit being in the base game (maybe Bulgaria or Vietnam or Morocco, although they still feel like they could be comfortably represented by a single period like Colombia, Sweden, Scotland, Korea, etc.). So it will kind of suck if we don't get a grand tour Ethiopia only because of being released in DLC (although we do have some weird anomalies like Korea pushing the boundaries a bit).

 

[Zaarin]

Why do we have Jadwiga but not Piotr?

In English, if she's known as all, she's generally known as Jadwiga, not Hedwig.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

In English, if she's known as all, she's generally known as Jadwiga, not Hedwig.

Eh I've seen enough Hedwig to think it would stick. Plus, between all the pop culture baiting in the leader choices and designs, GoT CdM/Mattias, Moana Gitarja/Kupe, Sleeping Beauty Eleanor, Emperor's New Groove Pachacuti, etc., I would have thought that the Harry Potter reference would be seen as the more marketable name.

 

[Zaarin]

Eh I've seen enough Hedwig to think it would stick. Plus, between all the pop culture baiting in the leader choices and designs, GoT CdM/Mattias, Moana Gitarja/Kupe, Sleeping Beauty Eleanor, I would have thought that the Harry Potter reference would be seen as the more marketable name.

They could have called her "Jadzia," which is a popular nickname for Jadwiga in Poland...but I would have been disappointed if they didn't also give her spots.

 

[bbbt]

How about Oliver Cromwell for the English? How does the cultural consensus deal with a) a free thinker (for the day) populist who toppled England's fledgling absolute monarchy; b) a genocidal despot; c) England's first and only experience with republicanism/fascism (depending on your perspective), but one that ended up having no staying power; and d) a legitimately strong military leader who won the English civil war?

In an 'official' capacity, I'd guess unlikely. There's 'genocidal despot', and then there's 'genocidal despot who is still actively despised in some countries' (Ireland at least). I doubt it would be a huge furor, but enough PR blowback that they'd avoid it. Same reason I doubt we'd ever see Andrew Jackson as a US leader.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Which...come to think of it, I'm a tad disappointed that we didn't get Ethiopia in the base game. I appreciate that Kongo added some variety and fit some weird design space, but Ethiopia is probably the only civ that I think have long and diverse enough history through different iterations to merit being in the base game (maybe Bulgaria or Vietnam or Morocco, although they still feel like they could be comfortably represented by a single period like Colombia, Sweden, Scotland, Korea, etc.). So it will kind of suck if we don't get a grand tour Ethiopia only because of being released in DLC (although we do have some weird anomalies like Korea pushing the boundaries a bit).

The thing is Sweden, Scotland, Korea and even Hungary have attributes not from the same time period of the leader.
Sweden: Open Air Museum, Nobel Prizes (I considered Caroleans but she didn't predate them by long)
Scotland: Golf Course, Scottish Enlightenment, Highlander (Based off of the British Regiment)
Korea: Hwacha, Seowon
Hungary: Huszar (based off of 18th/19th century used in the alliance with Austria/Prussia etc.)

So I wouldn't rule it out when Ethiopia has had "Axum" influences in the past like the stelae UB both times. I'm just wishing for more.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

The thing is Sweden, Scotland, Korea and even Hungary have attributes not from the same time period of the leader.
Sweden: Open Air Museum, Nobel Prizes (I considered Caroleans but she didn't predate them by long)
Scotland: Golf Course, Scottish Enlightenment, Highlander (Based off of the British Regiment)
Korea: Hwacha, Seowon
Hungary: Huszar (based off of 18th/19th century used in the alliance with Austria/Prussia etc.)

So I wouldn't rule it out when Ethiopia has had "Axum" influences in the past like the stelae UB both times. I'm just wishing for more.

I guess you're right. I mean, Alfred Nobel was contemporaneous with Kristina, and it sounds like some sort of golf existed around the time of Robert the Bruce, and huszars existed for centuries prior to the Austro-Hungarian empire. But I guess there are more mini-tour civs in the DLC than I initially thought.

So here's hoping we get something similar for Ethiopia.