[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Patine]

Elizabeth's religiosity was basically confined to being kind of her father's daughter in that respect and also wanting independence from Rome. If you want fierce Protestantism, look to anabaptist Germany or modern day America.

Wolesley, Cramner, and Cromwell were the REAL architects and engineers of the English Reformation. Henry VIII just gave them the royal commission to go to work.

 

[Zaarin]

Elizabeth's religiosity was basically confined to being kind of her father's daughter in that respect and also wanting independence from Rome. If you want fierce Protestantism, look to anabaptist Germany or modern day America.

Or, you know, the Lion of the North--which is the chief reason I find Kristina a disappointing choice for Sweden. Germany was torn between Lutheranism and Catholicism, and both persecuted the Anabaptists--that's why they ended up in the US. As slim as their chance of appearing in any iteration is, I'd love to see a Hussite-flavored Bohemia in Civ.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

A think a “dynasty” feature might be nice, letting you toggle between a handful of leaders for the more long-lived or infamous civs.

I think that's the problem when it comes to establishing what should constitute a civ: Maurya and Mughal vs. India, or Ummayad and Abbasid vs. Arabia etc.
There's no reason that we can't have one Civ for India, Arabia, and China each, in my opinion, but maybe have more options when it comes to choosing leaders.
I think that's sort of the problem I have with Humankind for example. Sure 60 options sounds great on paper but I don't want 3, 4, or 5 of the options to be the various dynasties of China,Germany or France.
Then I don't think we would have room for others because if you do it for one, what's stopping Bourbon France from being a separate civ than Napoleonic France?

 

[The Kingmaker]

How is that different from the (admittedly underutilized) alt leaders we have now, though?

For starters, it wouldn’t be admittedly underutilized.

Imagine having the possibility of choosing from Alfred, Edward I, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I or Victoria at the start of the game. (Granted that’s way more leaders than I’d expect for any civ. Let’s presume a max of 3 as set by Civ4.) All the leaders would have individual traits, and they would all share England’s faction traits. As Tudor leaders, Henry and Elizabeth would both share whatever the Tudor dynasty bonus was. The other dynasties might have different bonuses.

Of course this might open the door to a lot of leader packs. But I like the idea of the same civ being played in different ways. Do you want Housecarls, Longbowman, or Sea Dogs? Is your bonus Burghal Hideage? Or Sun Never Sets? Maybe you get the Redcoats no matter what.

I also like the possibility of a different leader from your civ breaking off in a civil war.

And if you pick random leader, then you really won’t know how you’ll be playing the civ until you start.

Anyway, just an idea.

At any rate, I think the solution is making the main civs more diverse, versatile and customizable, rather than breaking them up into a dozen smaller civs.

 

[Zaarin]

Imagine having the possibility of choosing from Alfred, Edward I, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I or Victoria at the start of the game. (Granted that’s way more leaders than I’d expect for any civ. Let’s presume a max of 3 as set by Civ4.) All the leaders would have individual traits, and they would all share England’s faction traits.

This is where it breaks down for me. I can't see any way to convincingly make Alfred and Victoria part of the same civilization--there's just too great a gap between Angleland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Similar problems exist for other civs--that's why Alexander got Macedon'd, for instance.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

This is where it breaks down for me. I can't see any way to convincingly make Alfred and Victoria part of the same civilization--there's just too great a gap between Angleland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Similar problems exist for other civs--that's why Alexander got Macedon'd, for instance.

Well then there's Eleanor of Aquitaine for Medieval England.

I like the idea. I don't know of inherit dynasty bonuses are needed though but I think a medieval leader, a Renaissance leader like Elizabeth, and a U.K. leader like Victoria or even Churchill would feel right while giving them leader bonuses and their own unique unit in addition.
I would feel the same with France, Germany, India, China, and even Russia being represented by at least 3 leaders from three different eras of their history.

 

[The Kingmaker]

This is where it breaks down for me. I can't see any way to convincingly make Alfred and Victoria part of the same civilization--there's just too great a gap between Angleland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Similar problems exist for other civs--that's why Alexander got Macedon'd, for instance.

Yet there is continuity from Alfred to Vicky. She was his direct descendant. And only 1000 years separate the two of them. That’s way less than the, what, 2600 years between Khufu and Cleopatra?

Also, I would be less opposed to Alexander being a Greek leader if Macedon was a “sub-civ” of Greece.

If Mesopotamia was a parent civ, you could play as Sumer, Akkad, Assyria and Babylon. They would all build those darn ziggurats, while simultaneously having their own UUs, traits and maybe UIs/UBs.

 

[The Civs 6]

I really wouldn't count on that.

I think the comercial purpose of alt leaders is to be able to revisit Civs from profitable markets.

So I'd expect an American alt (the new Roosevelt?) and an alt for China before Rome gets one.

If that is so, Firaxis has completely lost their way. Rome is the most important civilization, other than China, in the history of the world.

In general I am so tired of games where I get neighbors like Canada, Australia, Georgia (which has a smaller population than the American state of the same name), Hungary. Gee what epic history. What a epochal struggle I am going to have with Wilfred freaking Laurier. But we need the maple syrup guzzling hockey rink building Canadians to get the Canadian market instead of, you know, August Caeasar.

 

[Zaarin]

Yet there is continuity from Alfred to Vicky.

Yes, but their civilizations were very different. The bonuses that suit Alfred wouldn't really suit Vicky and vice versa.

She was his direct descendant.

Uh...England didn't have an unbroken dynasty. There were no Anglo-Saxon kings after Harold Godwinson. For centuries, the English kings were French. The Tudors were Welsh. The Stuarts were Scots. Vicky was German.

If Mesopotamia was a parent civ, you could play as Sumer, Akkad, Assyria and Babylon.

That gets a hard no from me, unless France, Germany, and England all get a Western European parent civ or China, Japan, and Korea get an East Asian parent civ.

Rome is the most important civilization, other than China, in the history of the world.

That's an incredibly loaded statement--not to mention an incredibly skewed view of history.

 

[Xandinho]

I think the comercial purpose of alt leaders is to be able to revisit Civs from profitable markets.

So I'd expect an American alt (the new Roosevelt?) and an alt for China before Rome gets one.

I think another American leader is unlikely since they are going to add another Teddy Roosevelt with his new persona.

Particularly, I think that we will have only one more alternative leader and this is Kublai Khan, and it would still be within your argument as this may please the large Chinese market.

 

[The Civs 6]

That's an incredibly loaded statement--not to mention an incredibly skewed view of history.

Okay offer your very unique, unconventional, and highly learned alternative view. While you are at it give evidence of another political entity that survived for over 1500 years.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Uh...England didn't have an unbroken dynasty. There were no Anglo-Saxon kings after Harold Godwinson. For centuries, the English kings were French. The Tudors were Welsh. The Stuarts were Scots. Vicky was German.

I know this. (I do have a Masters in Anglo-Saxon history.) Yet all of the English monarchs from Henry II onward were descendants of Alfred. And all of them from Edward III onward were actually descendants of Harold Godwinson too! Check the genealogies.

Recall that the ruling dynasties of the medieval nations intermarried prodigiously. Their descendants might be culturally Scottish, German, etc., but biologically they were all a mishmash.

 

[Zaarin]

Okay offer your very unique, unconventional, and highly learned alternative view.

Rome was built on the shoulders of the empires that came before it: Babylon, Persia, Alexander's Hellenistic empire, Carthage. It didn't appear out of the ether. Rome conquered a large swath of territory, and if conquering large swaths of territory is the definition of "most important civilization" then that would make Mongolia the most important civilization in history. I'm not arguing that Rome was not important, but calling them "the most important" is an incredibly charged descriptor. I'd argue Babylon was the most important civilization in Western history, because every other civilization in the West (with the exception of Egypt, who was its contemporary) was built on its foundations.

While you are at it give evidence of a political entity that survived for over 1500 years.

Egypt. Babylon. Assyria. England. China. The Catholic Church. Ethiopia.

 

[The Civs 6]

Rome was built on the shoulders of the empires that came before it: Babylon, Persia, Alexander's Hellenistic empire, Carthage. It didn't appear out of the ether. Rome conquered a large swath of territory, and if conquering large swaths of territory is the definition of "most important civilization" then that would make Mongolia the most important civilization in history. I'm not arguing that Rome was not important, but calling them "the most important" is an incredibly charged descriptor. I'd argue Babylon was the most important civilization in Western history, because every other civilization in the West (with the exception of Egypt, who was its contemporary) was built on its foundations.


Egypt. Babylon. Assyria. England. China. The Catholic Church. Ethiopia.

First of all, there is a reasonable argument that Mongolia - over China and Rome - is the most important civilization in history. Using your loose definitions of continuity you could trace a line from Hun to Mongols.

And Babylon can't be the most important civilization in Western history. Because they were not a Western civilization.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

If that is so, Firaxis has completely lost their way. Rome is the most important civilization, other than China, in the history of the world.

In general I am so tired of games where I get neighbors like Canada, Australia, Georgia (which has a smaller population than the American state of the same name), Hungary. Gee what epic history. What a epochal struggle I am going to have with Wilfred freaking Laurier. But we need the maple syrup guzzling hockey rink building Canadians to get the Canadian market instead of, you know, August Caeasar.

Civ is about picking cultures and nations which were, are, or will be, great powers in their regions or world.

Georgia was a regional powerhouse during the time of Tamar, controlling the whole caucuses and more during her reign.

Canada and Australia have been world powers since the first and second world wars and will likely continue to be as such for the foreseeable future. They’re not traditional civs, but they have qualified as civs in my mind. They’ve already had considerable impacts in world history, and likely will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. After all, history doesn’t end in the Industrial Era, and neither does civ.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

First of all, there is a reasonable argument that Mongolia - over China and Rome - is the most important civilization in history. Using your loose definitions of continuity you could trace a line from Hun to Mongols.

And Babylon can't be the most important civilization in Western history. Because they were not a Western civilization.

Rome was built on the shoulders of the empires that came before it: Babylon, Persia, Alexander's Hellenistic empire, Carthage. It didn't appear out of the ether. Rome conquered a large swath of territory, and if conquering large swaths of territory is the definition of "most important civilization" then that would make Mongolia the most important civilization in history. I'm not arguing that Rome was not important, but calling them "the most important" is an incredibly charged descriptor. I'd argue Babylon was the most important civilization in Western history, because every other civilization in the West (with the exception of Egypt, who was its contemporary) was built on its foundations.


Egypt. Babylon. Assyria. England. China. The Catholic Church. Ethiopia.

From perspectives outside of purely military perspectives, the cultures of the subcontinent could potentially take the cake for most influential or historically contiguous.

The Harappan city-states had working sewers before anywhere else. The ancient indians knew more about astronomy and math than anyone else for hundreds of years. They developed skill in building larger cities, they discovered 0 and were familiar with vaccination and herbal medicine before anyone else, had skill in metallurgy and were more scientifically advanced than anyone else up until classical greece, and the most advanced between the fall of classical greece and the scientific golden age of the Islamic era

 

[The Civs 6]

From perspectives outside of purely military perspectives, the cultures of the subcontinent could potentially take the cake for most influential or historically contiguous.

The Harappan city-states had working sewers before anywhere else. The ancient indians knew more about astronomy and math than anyone else for hundreds of years. They developed skill in building larger cities, they discovered 0 and were familiar with vaccination and herbal medicine before anyone else, had skill in metallurgy and were more scientifically advanced than anyone else up until classical greece, and the most advanced between the fall of classical greece and the scientific golden age of the Islamic era

India feels like Civ's biggest missed opportunity, in part because I don't really know what I am missing!

 

[Thenewwwguy]

India feels like Civ's biggest missed opportunity, in part because I don't really know what I am missing!

Go read up about the Chola empire. It was an amazingly powerful naval domination nation which was the predominant Indian ocean trading nation for a considerable amount of time. They were famous for building temples across south india, they exported the tamil language to Malaysia, Indonesia, Khmer, Siam and Burma, where it has been reflected in becoming a lingua franca (Malaysia, Singapore) and in the written script (Khmer, Thai, Burmese).

The Maurya and Mughals are more well known, partially because the foreign understanding of India has always been monolithic when thinking of Northern India. Many aren’t aware that the South has a different ethnic background, completely unrelated languages, different cuisine and practice Hinduism differently. It was also one of the last refuges for Buddhism in the subcontinent before it was forced to retreat into Nepal, Bhutan and Tibet. The South Indian Kingdoms of the Chola, Chera, Pandya and Pallava, and later kingdoms like the Sultanate of Mysore never got conquered at all from ancient times until the british. It’s insane. They’ve never been recognized in civ, and only using a Chola king as the Indian leader wouldn’t represent India accurately either. So the only option, in my mind, is to deblob India

 

[Lord Lakely]

India has always been a sneaky contender for a scientific civ, it's true. They mostly suffer from pop culture designating them as a highly religous, highly populous region - which is a certainly true, if shallow vision. The best course of action in future iterations would be to focus strongly on one Indian empire with a specialized identity (Maurya's conquest and espionage, Chola's trade, Mughal's productiviy

 

[Thenewwwguy]

India has always been a sneaky contender for a scientific civ, it's true. They mostly suffer from pop culture designating them as a highly religous, highly populous region - which is a certainly true, if shallow vision. The best course of action in future iterations would be to focus strongly on one Indian empire with a specialized identity (Maurya's conquest and espionage, Chola's trade, Mughal's productiviy

If the goal of alt leaders is to differentiate different empires/dynasties within an overarching blob, the ones I’d like to see are Arabia (2-Umayyad and Abassid, maybe with another like Ayyubid), Persia (2-3), India (3-4), China (2-3) and Japan (2). I think India needs AT LEAST 3–like you noted:

India civ ability: Science per pop or science being gained equally according to faith

Maurya: Either Chandragupta Maurya or Ashoka the Great: Military w/ religion or religion via espionage (spies accessible early?)

Chola: Rajaraja Chola: Special Kovil UI that replaces the temple, domination for trade (choice to make captured cities mercantile city states which you have suzerain status with)

Mughals: Akbar: Bonuses towards culture and science, unique governor (Birbal)

ofc, it would be easier to really flesh out these leaders if they were their own civs, but i’d settle for the above situation