[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[AntSou]

One thing I think people aren't fully considering is that nothing stops Pack #3, #4 and #6 to include an Alt Leader.

So they could still add Constantine as an alt for Rome (or even Justinian/Theodora as has been suggested, though I think that's pushing it) and have him also lead the new Civilisation of Byzantium. I think that's perfectly acceptable. The Civilization of Byzantium and its unique units/infrastructure would reflect the history of the empire at its peak. That's surely no weirder than Cleopatra leading Ancient Egypt or Eleanor leading Industrial England.
---

Another reason why Rome is the most won civ is because you can win as Rome on Turn 1 with only score victory enabled and game length set to one turn.

All you do is to settle your settler on the spot and you win. It counts for the achievement.

If you play on Deity, you will get the Deity achievement.

The only way for you to lose in that is that you have to forget to settle the settler.

Firaxis knows this trick, but they don't bother to patch it.

Not everyone plays Civ for fun. Some play to win and some of those want to find the easiest way to win.

Nice catch. I had read about that but completely forgot.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

One thing I think people aren't fully considering is that nothing stops Pack #3, #4 and #6 to include an Alt Leader.

So they could still add Constantine as an alt for Rome (or even Justinian/Theodora as has been suggested, though I think that's pushing it) and have him also lead the new Civilisation of Byzantium. I think that's perfectly acceptable. The Civilization of Byzantium and its unique units/infrastructure would reflect the history of the empire at its peak. That's surely no weirder than Cleopatra leading Ancient Egypt or Eleanor leading Industrial England.
---

The problem with Constantine is there was no separate Eastern Empire at the time so I don't think they would make him an alt. for the Byzantines. But I agree that it's a stretch no matter what, but still plausible.

It's also been mentioned about having a leader for both Portugal and Brazil, but that seems to me less likely because I think we'd get a Portuguese leader earlier from the Age of Discovery.

 

[Prima Italia]

It does not necessarily mean that Rome is the "most popular" civ. It only means that more players were able to win a game as Rome than as other civs. It could be partly influenced by its popularity, but the data is distorted by the difficulty of a victory as Rome.

Of course it does. If the sample size was smaller you would have point but millions of people have bought Civ VI. The chances of people playing games not until completion with a certain civ that would be cumulatively greater than Rome's completed games and uncompleted games is slight.

Rome was also one of the most played in Civ V. If I can recall correctly only second to America which is a very popular civ in itself. It is not a coincidence that in two different entries of the series with different mechanics and so on have Rome at the top or near the top. Rome, America and Germany are are highly played in both entries. It can be easily surmised that it has nothing to do with mechanics or ease of play but with civ itself.

 

[AntSou]

The problem with Constantine is there was no separate Eastern Empire at the time so I don't think they would make him an alt.

I think if anything that seems to make him a stronger candidate as an alt for Rome.

There being no Eastern Empire doesn't seem that essential to me. He did found a new Imperial seat at Byzantium and set the ball rolling for the Catholic Church.

Frederick leads Germany after all and Dido leads Phoenicia.

It's also been mentioned about having a leader for both Portugal and Brazil

I don't see how. Pedro I is an important figure in the History of Portugal, but I put zero chance at Firaxis releasing two leaders with the same name and with direct blood ties.

The only other valid option would be John VI, father of Pedro I, who is better known for having been forced to flee Lisbon due to the Napoleonic invasions.

__________________
__________________

Of course it does. If the sample size was smaller you would have point but millions of people have bought Civ VI. The chances of people playing games not until completion with a certain civ that would be cumulatively greater than Rome's completed games and uncompleted games is slight.

Someone just pointed out you can win a game with Rome in one turn.

Rome was also one of the most played in Civ V. If I can recall correctly only second to America which is a very popular civ in itself. It is not a coincidence that in two different entries of the series with different mechanics and so on have Rome at the top or near the top. Rome, America and Germany are are highly played in both entries. It can be easily surmised that it has nothing to do with mechanics or ease of play but with civ itself.

"ONE OF THE MOST" played is leagues away from "THE MOST BY FAR" when potentially all you've got left is one spot, which was my point from the start...

 

[pokiehl]

Since we're back to beating the Byzantine dead horse, I'll paraphrase some of my prior thoughts here:

Reducing the Byzantines to an alt of Rome and compensating by giving them multiple "leader unique" components, unique icons, unique art, etc. is so much more convoluted than just giving the Byzantines their own civ, especially just to satisfy a superficial desire to "make use of the alternate leader mechanic" or "not take up a civ slot" (which itself is a fallacious premise).

The fact is the classical Rome focus of the Rome civ immediately jumps out as anachronistic and out-of-place to players when mixed with a Byzantine leader. If a separate civ bothers anyone that much, it's simple to edit the text to say Rome instead of Byzantium.

The Byzantines are a staple of Civ and they're a fan-favorite faction. They've been separate from Rome ever since they were first introduced to the series and I want to see it kept that way.

 

[CivLuvah]

Another reason why Rome is the most won civ is because you can win as Rome on Turn 1 with only score victory enabled and game length set to one turn.

All you do is to settle your settler on the spot and you win. It counts for the achievement.

If you play on Deity, you will get the Deity achievement.

The only way for you to lose in that is that you have to forget to settle the settler.

Firaxis knows this trick, but they don't bother to patch it.

Not everyone plays Civ for fun. Some play to win and some of those want to find the easiest way to win.

If players knew about that then, that percentage I mentioned would have gone up

 

[Haig]

Its june so we can say that new DLC arrives next month! Adding the free content we get this month, I really like this pass system.

I just wish they reveal the names of civs included in pack #3 like they have revealed Ethiopia and the title of game mode.

Vietnam would be cool for pack #5 but people shouldnt think it as locked. I think is possible its a trade oriented dlc with Portugal, Netherlands leader and economy based district and game mode.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

It will probably be like three different varieties of Greece or something.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

If you are willing to make such change you can as well create a whole new civilization.

The time gap between the 3 greek leaders are smaller than time gap between Trajan and Justinian and the time gap between Alexander and Timur is simply massive.

In fact Bulgaria + Byzantines make about as much sense as Macedonia + Persia, could even throw a scenario with these two civilizations.​

Reducing the Byzantines to an alt of Rome and compensating by giving them multiple "leader unique" components, unique icons, unique art, etc. is so much more convoluted than just giving the Byzantines their own civ, especially just to satisfy a superficial desire to "make use of the alternate leader mechanic" or "not take up a civ slot" (which itself is a fallacious premise).

Yes, you could make a whole new civilization, but that wouldn't really communicate as much historically or within the context of VI's themes as putting that same effort toward drawing ludohistorical connections between Rome and Byzantium.

I don't see the reasoning as fallacious at all, if the point of alternate leaders is to:

1) Show off the breadth and diversity of a civ's history.
2) Give big and popular civs more playstyles to enjoy.

Sure, from a Byzantine-centric perspective it feels reductive, but from a Rome-centric or even an overall game design perspective, putting in the effort to tie the two civs together actually makes a lot of sense.

I recognize that Byzantium has some huge fans. But you also have to recognize that Byzantium is part of a larger cultural continuity and a broader global community, wherein not everything needs to revolve around Byzantium. We can have a game without an official, separate Byzantium, and if that would ever make sense in any installment of civ, it would be VI.

I wouldn't be opposed to a Bulgaria + Byzantium pack. But, again, I don't see a separate Byzantium as being all that necessary to VI's grand picture. Not when we have Hungary over Austria, Carthage blobbed into Phoenicia, and Georgia functioning just fine as a kind of mechanical/aesthetic stand-in for Byzantium.

The fact is the classical Rome focus of the Rome civ immediately jumps out as anachronistic and out-of-place to players when mixed with a Byzantine leader. If a separate civ bothers anyone that much, it's simple to edit the text to say Rome instead of Byzantium.

The Byzantines are a staple of Civ and they're a fan-favorite faction. They've been separate from Rome ever since they were first introduced to the series and I want to see it kept that way.

It really doesn't stand out as anachronistic, though, except as juxtaposed against an idealized late Byzantine civ that has yet to actually happen in the series. If we get someone as Theodora as a leader, the hypothetical distinction falls apart and, in fact, we would then be complaining about why she wasn't blobbed into Rome if we weren't getting the Byzantium everyone wanted anyway.

And it's more than just text. There would be unique art assets and music developed for Byzantium. Which, is yet another thing I feel is unnecessary where Rome's theme "Magna Mater" is about an Anatolian goddess, which all but begs a Roman leader with a Constantinople TSL and makes just as much sense for an early Byzantine civ.

 

[Zaarin]

And it's more than just text. There would be unique art assets and music developed for Byzantium. Which, is yet another thing I feel is unnecessary

Byzantine chant really, really begs to differ. For that matter, Byzantine architecture also begs to differ.

Rome's theme "Magna Mater" is about an Anatolian goddess

Magna Mater was one of the many mystery cults that spread throughout the empire and became essentially Roman in character, at least to varying degrees (the most extreme case being Mithras, who was so thoroughly Romanized that it's not even clear whether he actually originates in Zoroastrian Mithra).

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Byzantine chant really, really begs to differ. For that matter, Byzantine architecture also begs to differ.

One could argue that the Georgian chant has proven to be a more interesting addition, exposing people to less well-known choral styles. But also, between a Byzantine chant and a Bulgarian choir, I think the latter adds a much more different and unique soundscape to the game.

The architecture would be nice, but is it so nice as to be necessary for an entirely new civ? If we got a UD or UB for a Byzantine alt leader, we would have about as much architecture we would see in the game regardless of whether it were a separate civ or not. Just look at how lavish Russian architecture is with only the lavra (which...could easily have been Byzantine itself).

Magna Mater was one of the many mystery cults that spread throughout the empire and became essentially Roman in character, at least to varying degrees (the most extreme case being Mithras, who was so thoroughly Romanized that it's not even clear whether he actually originates in Zoroastrian Mithra).

I wasn't saying it wasn't equally Roman. Just that it originated from the Anatolian region and would very elegantly tie back to that if we got a Rome leader with a Constantinople TSL.

 

[Zaarin]

One could argue that the Georgian chant has proven to be a more interesting addition, exposing people to less well-known choral styles.

Indeed, and I'm pleased that Georgian polyphonic chanting made the game. "Shen Khar Venakhi" is my personal favorite of all the game's music. However, I don't think Byzantine and Georgian chant are so similar as to crowd each other out.

But also, between a Byzantine chant and a Bulgarian choir, I think the latter adds a much more different and unique soundscape to the game.

I love Bulgarian choral music, but I find Bulgaria's inclusion less likely than Byzantium's at this stage.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

The Roman civilization design don't even fit byzantine, if anything Byzantine should be a turtle civilization, not an expansionist civilization like Rome, maybe with massive capital strength to represent the theodosian walls.

 

[PhilBowles]

The Roman civilization design don't even fit byzantine, if anything Byzantine should be a turtle civilization, not an expansionist civilization like Rome, maybe with massive capital strength to represent the theodosian walls.

The India design doesn't fit Gandhi either. I don't think they actually will make Byzantium a Roman alternate leader - that's just a way of getting it into the game in some fashion if they don't have space for a Byzantine civ with their other choices (as we've seen two of perhaps four returning civs, and there are at least two civs that seem more likely than Byzantium: Portugal and Babylon). It may well be that they consider Georgia the stand-in for Byzantium in Civ VI and just won't include it at all, especially since it would overlap so strongly in geography and likely focus as well as leader style and architecture.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Well I'm sorry that I opened up a can of worms again.

I do want to say that I do think the Byzantines will be their own standalone Civ probably in the New Frontier Pass.

There isn't a reason why they couldn't still introduce a new leader for both Rome and the Byzantines, in my opinion. It would be the same as Eleanor for both England and France and they are still considered separate civilizations. It might not be probable, but I wouldn't say it's impossible.

The only other valid option would be John VI, father of Pedro I, who is better known for having been forced to flee Lisbon due to the Napoleonic invasions.

Yes, it was Joao VI that was mentioned, not by me.
I'd prefer Joao II personally or Manuel I which would play pretty similar.

 

[clapyourhands]

Since we're back to beating the Byzantine dead horse, I'll paraphrase some of my prior thoughts here:

Reducing the Byzantines to an alt of Rome and compensating by giving them multiple "leader unique" components, unique icons, unique art, etc. is so much more convoluted than just giving the Byzantines their own civ...

Would you go as far as to say that this implementation of Byzantium in Civ VI would be quite... byzantine?

 

[Thenewwwguy]

The India design doesn't fit Gandhi either. I don't think they actually will make Byzantium a Roman alternate leader - that's just a way of getting it into the game in some fashion if they don't have space for a Byzantine civ with their other choices (as we've seen two of perhaps four returning civs, and there are at least two civs that seem more likely than Byzantium: Portugal and Babylon). It may well be that they consider Georgia the stand-in for Byzantium in Civ VI and just won't include it at all, especially since it would overlap so strongly in geography and likely focus as well as leader style and architecture.

That’s very true, and but another reason I’d rather see Akbar and Rajaraja Chola instead of Gandhi as Indian leaders (if not outright different civ)

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Indeed, and I'm pleased that Georgian polyphonic chanting made the game. "Shen Khar Venakhi" is my personal favorite of all the game's music. However, I don't think Byzantine and Georgian chant are so similar as to crowd each other out.


I love Bulgarian choral music, but I find Bulgaria's inclusion less likely than Byzantium's at this stage.

There are differences, but between the use of a female choir and generally more dissonant harmonies, Bulgarian music is more different from either Byzantine or Georgian chants than they are from each other.

I think it is unlikely at this point as well due to the high likelihood of a Chinese alternate leader, but I am not giving up hope yet. It is entirely possible that NFP contains more than four new civs and Byzantium was pushed back for later consideration to make room for fresh blood.

It's one of the least interesting ideas to me at this point. I wouldn't ragequit at a Byzantine civ, but it is absolutely something I don't care much about over all the other cool ideas circulating the boards.

The Roman civilization design don't even fit byzantine, if anything Byzantine should be a turtle civilization, not an expansionist civilization like Rome, maybe with massive capital strength to represent the theodosian walls.

The Roman design does fit early Byzantium; they were effectively the same, with baths and legions and a major trade center as their capital.

It doesn't fit late Byzantium, but what you seem to be describing mechanically as an alternative is just Georgia.

EDIT: I've observed this elsewhere, but between Georgia having unique walls and city-state suzerainty religion bonuses, Poland having territory-grabbing forts and heavy cavalry, Russia having the lavra, and the Ottomans having a unique governor and aggressive amphibious attacks, the design space left for a Byzantium civ to feel "Byzantine" is fairly narrow, if not nonexistent at this point (unless we somehow hybridized them mechanically from existing civs, which I think would be a really cool way of reflecting how Byzantium affected so many cultures).

However, there is one civ which captures at least some of the mechanical feel of Byzantium, and that is Rome. "All roads lead to Rome" is an ability that would make a lot of sense for Byzantium as well, a very trade-oriented culture with Constantinople as an even bigger hub of trade than Rome was (and all roads leading to the civ Rome, not necessarily the city). I think, with some minor adjustments like they did with England, Rome could feasibly provide a good base infrastructure for Byzantium to feel like Byzantium. Much like how I have a very similar existential crisis about how Portugal may be portrayed when its most iconic features beg for it to just be Spain-again, if not in part than as a full clone of Spain.

 

[AntSou]

What about neither too early and therefore too Roman, nor post Siege of Constantinople *? Here's a couple of ideas for a Byzantium Civ, one for Vanilla the other for GS:

Vanilla:
- John II Komnenos and Anna Komnene lead Byzantium. Regardless of which leader you choose at the selection screen, you may change leader every time you enter a new Era.

GS:
- John II Komnenos and Anna Komnene lead Byzantium. Regardless of which leader you choose at the selection screen, you may change leader every time you enter a new Era. Entering a Dark Age always forces the leader to switch.

OR

- Alexios I Komnenos leads Byzantium. Anna Komnene is added to the game as a Great Writer. Whichever Civ earns Anna Komnene gets The Alexiad Great Work plus Anna Komnene as unique governor.
___

Edit: * I meant the sack of 1204, not the siege of 1453.

 

[CivLuvah]

John II Komnenos and Anna Komnene lead Byzantium. Regardless of which leader you choose at the selection screen, you may change leader every time you enter a new Era. Entering a Dark Age always forces the leader to switch.

I immediately imagine a mechanic twist like that for the Trung sisters for Vietnam. You get forced to switch with the other sister once the one you originally had leads your civ to a dark age.

EDIT: Someone pointed out that Trung sisters are not twins, but normal sisters, and is a potentially racist assumption, so I removed the "twin" part.

Just a disclosure: I come from the same region as the Trung sisters (South-East Asia), so in my defense it's more of ignorance in my part of not knowing my neighbouring country's history well.