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. The Kingmaker

    The Kingmaker Alexander

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,922
    These are the Civs with multiple leaders from Civ 4:

    America (3)
    Celts (2)
    China (2)
    Egypt (2)
    England (3)
    France (3)
    Germany (2)
    Greece (2)
    India (2)
    Mongolia (2)
    Ottoman Turks (2)
    Persia (2)
    Rome (2)
    Russia (3)

    Here’s the comparative Civ6 multiple leader scene:

    England (1.5)
    France (1.5)
    Greece (3, counting Macedon)
    India (2)
    Unknown DLC (?)

    Here’s my thoughts, based on the above:
    *America doesn’t really need two, though I can at least understand giving them a second president. They definitely don’t need three.
    *If the Celts should manage to be deblobbed, then they don’t need two. (Civ4’s choices were a Gaul and a Briton.)
    *China, England, France, Germany, Greece, India, and Russia all really could have three.
    *Egypt, Mongolia, Persia and Rome each deserve at least two, and an argument could be made for three.
    *The Ottomans don’t really need two.
    *Arabia, Japan and Spain probably do deserve two.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2020
    Meluhhan, Thenewwwguy and AntSou like this.
  2. Lord Lakely

    Lord Lakely Idea Fountain

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,926
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Belgium
    I think there are only a handful of Civs that really would *deserve* (let alone need) more than two leaders total. Those are India, Greece, England, Russia and Persia

    The following would be okay with more than one leader: Turks (one Ottoman and one Seljuk/Turkish leader), Romans (incl. Byzantium), France, Germany, China, Arabia, Egypt and Japan.

    The rest? Probably shouldn't be given more than just the one. The only reason why the aforementioned civs would even merit an additional slot is due to their long continuous history (like England, China and Egypt) or their fragmented, blobby nature (India, Russia, Greece) giving them many different aspects to work with.

    Although I personally would prefer an approach similar to Macedon where they make the "alternative" leaders separate Civs altogether...
     
    Thenewwwguy likes this.
  3. mitsho

    mitsho Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Messages:
    7,855
    Location:
    Europe, more or less
    Deserve is such a strong word. I'd be curious for you to explain your reasoning why you f.e. put India in one group and China in another or why England has a longer history than say Egypt or Korea? You are on a very slippery slope to racism there.

    The pathway for civ, however, points away from these grand millennia-spanning civs. As you state, they can get blobby and they are hard to balance against each other. Early Game Benefits will always be way better and they need to invent early era bonuses for later era civs (see Gran Colombia).

    I expect a more dynamic system for Civ 7 than the rigid one we have now.
     
  4. AntSou

    AntSou Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2019
    Messages:
    1,919
    I think your logic is the wrong way around.

    Historical possibilities do not open the door for more leader packs, but rather resource constraints restrict the amount of Civs/Leaders which can be planned for the entirity of the game's cycle.

    Your argument seems to completely ignore that. It's not as if Firaxis lacks ideas, but in the end they can only add so much.

    Really? And when was that? Have you seen the rooster of leaders for Civ 4? Have you seen the priorities since before that?

    You've made the argument that population density should be an important factor when selecting Civs, yet provided no meaningful justification as to why.

    Well, for starters, most important is a useless characterization, almost as useless as most interesting. Saying most important is what one does when one can't actually be bothered to use meaningful specifics.

    No there isn't because that makes no sense.

    The only Historian I can see writing something like that is one desperately trying to come up with a catchy title for his paperback. How Mongolia seized the power of Horseys to become the most important civilization in History.

    a) You just claimed that Mongolia can be considered the most important civilization in History.

    Which would make Mongolia the most important civilization in Western History since World History includes Western History.

    b) Just like Spain can't be one of the most important "civilizations" in Mesoamerican History because they are not Mesoamerican themselves. That's some logic.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2020
  5. Prima Italia

    Prima Italia Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2017
    Messages:
    95
    Gender:
    Female
    I hope so since Rome is probably by far the most popular civ and my favourite civ. Personally, I would like to see a more conquest like element to Rome rather then the Trajan Column although that is just preference. I would also like to see Augustus back. Just having him in a game makes it more epic in my opinion.

    I do not see any of the Byzantine emperors leading Rome. None of the Byzantine cities are in the Rome city list and the series has treated them as different enties since Civ 3.
     
    Meluhhan likes this.
  6. GenyaArikado

    GenyaArikado Judge of Love

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Messages:
    764
    I'd love Octavian too. Imagine Octavian vs Cleopatra + her current boy/girltoy
     
    Meluhhan and Prima Italia like this.
  7. The Kingmaker

    The Kingmaker Alexander

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,922
    Do I really need to put a caveat on every random idea? Of course it won’t happen and we’re likely to just see a repetition of existing patterns because of development constraints, 2K, etc., etc.

    Albeit Soren Johnson’s new Old World implements dynasties in an ingenious way, showing that it is at least possible to do so in a 4X style game.
     
    AntSou likes this.
  8. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    6,855
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    The earliest civilizations, which influenced the development of the western civilizations, were in Mesopotamia. I wouldn't call them western as that did start at Ancient Greece, but they were influential.
     
    Zaarin likes this.
  9. Denkt

    Denkt Returned

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    3,819
    Byzantine Empire existed for nearly 1000 years after the fall of western Roman Empire and for much of its existance greek was the offical language rather than latin and there are probably many other major differences which set it apart from the Roman Empire. In terms of relevance, well Basil II may very well have been the most powerful medieval christian monarch to get an idea, so yes no matter what a good case can probably be made for their inclusion.
     
  10. Zaarin

    Zaarin Chief Medical Officer, DS9

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    8,905
    Location:
    Terok Nor
    Yes, no Near Eastern influence found its way into Europe. The Greeks certainly didn't get their math and astronomy from Babylon and Egypt, for instance. The world conveniently isolates itself in pockets for the ease of artificial human categories. :rolleyes:
     
    WorldWarIV, Sirimiri, Kjimmet and 4 others like this.
  11. Thenewwwguy

    Thenewwwguy Emperor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2020
    Messages:
    1,475
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, I’d prefer alt leaders as seperate civs, but making sure that alt leaders would qualify as separate civ’s, so they specifically couldn’t be a dynasty to one main nation, but a different nation that occupied a different space.

    So Mughals and Maurya count as different civs, but Han and Ming, while both arguably the most influential chinese dynasties, both considered themselves the rulers of ‘China’ so Yongle and Wudi could be alt leaders to a China civ, while Rajaraja Chola, Chandragupta Maurya and Akbar could have their own civs.

    That said, that’s a pipe dream.

    I agree with you that India, Persia and Greece could reasonably deserve more than two leaders. For Russia, I think 2 is more appropriate (I see the case to pick two of Catherine, Alexander II and Peter) and with England, I can see the case but I’d personally pick one more early leader, like, say, Richard the Lionheart, and one Rennaissance/Industrial Leader like Elizabeth or Victoria.

    I’d rather the seljuks be outright their own civ or appear as an alt to Persia than an alt to a Turk civ (that would lead to a load of various issues, not beginning to consider that outside of their ethnicity, they were nothing alike. And if you’re combining civs by ethnicity, then why wouldn’t the Timurids or Mughals also be alts for the Turks)

    Rome deserves two, I agree, personally, I’d pick someone early on, like Augustus, and a later ruler, like Hadrian, but if they develop a way to differentiate the Chola, Maurya and Mughals under ‘India’, then I have no problem with the Byzantines occupying an alt spot, because they’d have enough flavor to define that leaders’ playstyle as representative of the Byzantines. That said, they do distinguish themselves from Rome just as much as any of the three subcontinental empires I mentioned do from India, so I hope Firaxis will be consistent.

    Japan could receive a feudal lord like Tokugawa or Oda + Meiji, so that’s a good assessment

    Egypt could deserve two as well, simply on the basis of their long history.

    For Greece, I’d imagine the choices would be Alexander, an athenian and an Spartan, maybe to switch it up a bit, they could do Leonidas and Solon?

    Ummm I don’t think determining which civ’s deserve more alt leaders than others leads to racism lmao, way to go with the slippery slope fallacy.

    India is undoubtedly deserving of three because in its 5000+ year history as a subcontinent, it has only been united once: By the British. None of the Kingdoms and Empires preceding the British ever controlled all of India, even if they claimed that they did, and most didn’t even do that. This also feeds into the fact that nearly every major empire in Indian history has come from a different ethnicity and culture. The Chola, Pallava and Pandya were Tamil, the Maurya and Gupta were Bihari, the Mughals were Turks, the Chera modern day Malayali, Rajputs Marathi.

    The current civ 6 form of India is very unrepresentative of the 5000 yr+ history it’s supposed to represent as a blob civ. So 3 leaders makes sense to disambiguish the various kingdoms. In my mind, you’ll get the most varied gameplay from the Chola, the most powerful South Indian Empire, the Mughals and the Maurya.

    China’s dynasties were historically and culturally very diverse. Yes, the Yuan were Mongols, yes, the Ming were Manchurian. Every Chinese dynasty, however, controlled most or all what was historically considered China. Undoubtedly, the Ming strategy varied greatly from the Qin’s. This is why China is deserving of two leaders (I’d personally want a Han and a Ming emperor—Ming for exploration and trade, Han for culture). But I don’t know if there was enough differentiation (outright different languages, like India, not just different dialects, or general cultural rather than police differences) to justify more than 2. As for England, Egypt and Korea, they kinda fall into the same catagory as china in my mind, that they have had different points in history which differentiate enough to justify 2 leaders, but not enough to justify 3 or deblobbing
     
  12. The Kingmaker

    The Kingmaker Alexander

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,922
    Those artificial human categories are the source of many of our problems. For instance, the ancients didn’t see themselves as European, Asian or African. “Western” civilization is a modern construct intended to tie modern Euro-American civilization’s heritage to Greece and Rome, but sadly, it often neglects the many other influences that took place.
     
    Kjimmet, Meluhhan, Zaarin and 2 others like this.
  13. The Civs 6

    The Civs 6 King

    Joined:
    May 27, 2020
    Messages:
    704
    If you are going to throw around a label like "Western civilization", you have already come into the discussion drawing those arbitrary distinctions, so the burden of proof for proving that they exist is not on me.

    As I asked someone else who plays the skeptic, provide your very unconventional, well-learned and novel view of history that leads you to disagree so vehemently with the mainstream of society.

    First of all, the only other person I have ever heard use the term "the ancients" is George Tsoukalas, the host of Ancient Aliens, when postulating on what "the ancients" believed. Secondly, no the Greeks and Romans did not have the exact same categories. As anyone who has ever read a chapter from Classical History 101 knows, they had Hellenes versus barbarians. So it was just a slightly different way of categorizing.

    The reason that modern Western civilizations see themselves as similar to the Romans is because there is an indirect line of continuity that starts from Rome. Again, as someone who has picked up a book on history and read 10 pages knows, the Franks and HRE thought of themselves as continuous with the Romans. They didn't see themselves as continuous with the Persians, the Babylonians. If you have some cute theory for why there is no such continuity, I'd gladly read the dissertation that would be required to prove it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 3, 2020
    Prima Italia likes this.
  14. Guynemer

    Guynemer King

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Messages:
    785
    If you are trying to get people to not take your opinions seriously, this seems to be an excellent way to do so.

    Moderator Action: Misrepresenting someone's quoted text is trolling. If you cannot post in a civil manner, please refrain from posting. Browd
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 3, 2020
    Zaarin, AntSou and Thenewwwguy like this.
  15. The Kingmaker

    The Kingmaker Alexander

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,922
    You’re reading a lot into a very short post. For one, I didn’t make any comments about medieval people in that post at all. I understand that there is a lot of history to unpack, and that it can’t all be summed up in a single forum post, nor should such be attempted.

    My points were essentially:

    1. Ancient people didn’t categorize themselves with the same categories modern people use.
    2. Modern “western” historiography had a specific agenda.

    I’m not making “cute” theories or trying to argue with anyone. No need to get your nose bent out of joint.
     
    Kjimmet, CivLuvah, Meluhhan and 2 others like this.
  16. SammyKhalifa

    SammyKhalifa Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    5,932
    I like it in Old World but wouldn't want to see it in Civ. I think it makes it a different game.
     
    Zaarin and Thenewwwguy like this.
  17. Abaxial

    Abaxial King

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2017
    Messages:
    918
    Gender:
    Male
    No-one suggesting Orange Free State? A new one for Africa. A colonial civ that spoke Afrikaans instead of English or Spanish. Some sort of mechanic based around the Great Trek - maybe settlers move twice as fast?
     
  18. Thenewwwguy

    Thenewwwguy Emperor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2020
    Messages:
    1,475
    Gender:
    Male
    An Interesting notion but I don’t know how much of a ‘civ’ rhat is. Even the less ‘civ’-ey inclusions in the game are more absolute as nation states deserving entry in the game than that. Orange Free State was Dutch Settlers after all. I don’t know if it defines itself when it had a history of pretty much being settled by Dutch ppl, having wars with the natives, including the already in-the-game Zulu, and being incorporated into English South Africa.

    One civ I really want to see given relation to settling that is more viable is the Tonga Empire. I want to see them get bonuses to settling on 1 or 2 tile islands.

    If we were specifically considering civ 7, I’d prefer they, rather than the Maori, start in the ocean.
     
    Alexander's Hetaroi likes this.
  19. Jeppetto

    Jeppetto Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2018
    Messages:
    595
    Gender:
    Male
    I didn't even know this thread existed and it already accumulated 140 pages, lul.

    I personally hope for scientific Babylon still. Being hella greedy there, but Maya don't cut it as the Science one-trick pony I anticipated compared to Korea, then again, Korea ended up as oof to balance design. I still like Maya, I love the Observatory, it really changes the placement logic and how I plan cities and honestly finding Mountain spot good enough for Campus is always head-ache, which is why I prefer Korea and Maya over China who, as far as I know is the competetive Science Victory candidate due to the early Wonders.

    And I still have small spark of hope for Venice. Once again kinda greedy since Mali already has the "buy the victory" niché but I also want Grey Eminence controlling City-State niché, even If it's not Venice. Just some papa who manages his little children without a care in the world and they give him cool bonuses and DF in return like the good well-behaving kids they are who love their papa.
     
    Haig likes this.
  20. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    6,855
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    Not that I don't like post-colonial nations, but I think we've hit the max with Gran Colombia finally having a Spanish speaking one.

    And I'd rather not any from Africa as it's much easier making pre-colonial Civs from the various kingdoms and empires.
    The best option would be Nigeria, but then again I'd pick Benin (the pre-colonial kingdom located in present-day Nigeria) over them as well.

    I wouldn't be surprised if Babylon could end up being the playable city-state, but instead of buying you have to conquer.
     
    Kjimmet, Thenewwwguy and Jeppetto like this.

Share This Page