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. CivLuvah

    CivLuvah Deity

    Joined:
    May 27, 2008
    Messages:
    2,056
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    From Philippines, now Canada
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2020
    AntSou likes this.
  2. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    1,597
    Well I'm generally against the dual leader gimmick anyway that people have proposed with the Trungs or Justinian/Theodora. Seems to have diminishing returns as they don't represent different periods/polities, and otherwise dilutes the idea that leaders are supposed to personify their culture and provide a consistent AI "personality" to play against. Not to mention, I don't see why Vietnam or Byzantium are special enough to merit such a gimmick when half of the existing civs were, at some point, governed by multiple influential people.

    Also, governors and dark ages were added in R&F, though the distinction between R&F and GS here is somewhat meaningless.

    I think I like the last idea the best, Alexios and Anna as a GW.

    This is precisely the problem I have with the Trung sisters being a gimmicky dual leader. They have a lot of resonance because people have this stupid preconception in their head that Asian sisters are to some extent "Siamese twins," even if not attached at the hip. A sexy two-for-one if you're looking to have a good time.

    This is problematic on two fronts, one because it is impliedly racist because Vietnam is not Siam. And two, because there are many people who are quick to presume or misunderstand that the Trung sisters do not, in fact, fit that orientalist fantasy. They were not twins.

    I see the Trung sisters gimmick as trying to force them into kind of a racist box. However, I think if any civ would show off a unique governor well, I think Trung Nhi is more deserving of a prominent secondary role than most of the other proposed dual leader couplings.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2020
    Kjimmet, Thenewwwguy and CivLuvah like this.
  3. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    6,232
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    The thing is I still think there is design space for the Byzantines.
    I don't usually associate Byzantines with walls for a unique infrastructure but they could easily get a Hippodrome, like they did in Civ 4. I would make it an improvement and add amenities and culture when built next to an Entertainment and or a horse resource.
    The Dromon could easily be a quadrireme replacement and have a stronger ranged attack and deal damage to any other naval units for several turns on the space it attacked with a "Greek fire" ability.
    I would also think that the Byzantines could benefit from having some ability like unlocking new governments or social policies with faith. Combining faith and government would make them feel more unique like an Ecumenical Council ability.

    Even though mechanically it does fit, the name might be a problem and be a reason why it won't happen. I still think the Byzantines will make it in. It's just a question for me is will they introduce a new leader that could lead a new Civ and an old one? If that's the case a Byzantine and Roman leader makes the most sense, at least more so than leader for both Brazil and Portugal.

    As for Portugal I don't picture them being religious focused at all as Spain has that for 3 of its attributes, so I don't think they've been mechanically replaced by Spain.
     
    AntSou and Zaarin like this.
  4. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    1,597
    Ah but see, I don't think these uniques necessitate that Byzantium be separate from Rome.

    1) The hippodrome was just as equally a Roman feature (just as baths were just as easily a Byzantine feature), so I don't see this as weighing much in either direction for Byzantium's inclusion.
    2) A dromon with greek fire is just a unique unit and could just as easily be part of the leader's abilities.
    3) I think the developers will tread carefully around Byzantium and government policies/faith. They did something similar with religion and adding an extra belief and it made for one of the most underwhelming and useless civs in V.

    As I see it, the mechanical "potential" seen in Byzantium comes primarily from having a dromon/greek fire UU, and maybe some sort of faith-related bonus, which although pushing how wide a LA can stretch is still conceivable. An idea:

    Replace the Roman bath UD with a hippodrome UI. I would say of the two, the hippodrome is more uniquely Roman, especially now that Hungary has a bath UB.
    Add a Byzantine leader for Rome with maybe a unique government/religion mechanic and throw in the dromon for free. "Byzantium" now gets the hippodrome, as well as legions which reflect earlier Byzantium and make far more sense as a Byzantine unique than cataphracts, and all the expected trade bonuses from the "All Roads" ability.

    It's not a problem if Byzantium is Rome and all roads lead through the state of "Rome."
     
  5. AntSou

    AntSou Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2019
    Messages:
    1,715
    They weren't even similar! Shame on you! Here's irrefutable evidence of how different they looked from each other:
    Spoiler :


    Hint: They're the ones on the elephants... probably.


    Dude..

    Duuude..

    Spoiler :
    That's some weird @#**.


    Ok, let me just try and take it in parts.

    WHAT ON EARTH are you on about? In what space-time continuum are you living where this a thing?

    And how can the kink be for Siamese twins without the conjoined part? That sounds a lot like bacon without pork.

    Without the conjoined part, then the kink is just... twins? Asian twins if you will.

    The rest of your theory falls apart :mischief:

    1. Without being conjoined, siamese twins are just twins;

    2. I'm still trying to decipher who is supposed to be offended by the guy who has a kink for Unconjoined-Siamese-Vietnamese twins. Is it the Vietnamese or Thai People?

    3. The hypothetical weirdo has probably never even heard of Siam. How can he be confusing the Vietnamese for a People he is not even aware exist?

    4. Siamese twin is just a term? An expression? How do you jump from Siamese twins meaning conjoined twins to Siamese twins as in twins from Siam?

    Well, here is my theory: I think you've repeatedly seen the Trung Sisters being represented as twins in modern art, including in the mod for Civ 5, and you created a theory in your head for why that might be.

    Here's my explanation, which granted is a boring one:

    - 3D art is a pain in the back and time consuming, so they just copy & pasted it with minor adjustments to be done with it. :)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 5, 2020
  6. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    6,232
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    I would say Roman Baths are definitely more Roman than a hippodrome though, because those were specifically of Greek origin and somewhat different than the Roman Circus. Plus it makes sense that Rome would get an enhanced Aqueduct district.

    I agree with you on the rest that it could be plausible for an alt. leader though probably not for the NFP, unless they were releasing the Byzantine Civ with the new leader leading Rome as well.

    I also agree about the cataphracts not being a UU, since they weren't unique to the Byzantines. They would be better off as a universal heavy cavalry unit in the Classical era, though even that isn't needed.
     
    AntSou and Thenewwwguy like this.
  7. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    1,597
    True, but the Byzantine idea of a hippodrome was basically a Roman Circus, and I think that is the iteration that would conceptually unify Rome and Byzantium. Plus, if any ancient or classical civ deserved to be "the entertainment" civ, it would be the one that is best known for "bread and circuses." I can't really think of many hippodrome concepts outside of Greco-Roman tradition; I can, however, think of several examples of aqueducts outside of Rome, including Khmer, the Maya, and patches along the East African/Omani coast. Roman aqueducts were very iconic and prolific, but not quite as unique to the Romans as the hippodrome I believe. Baths are less common, but hot spring baths are everywhere.

    I would support a universal cataphract unit. Or maybe if we ever get Armenia it would better suit them as a UU.
     
  8. GenyaArikado

    GenyaArikado Judge of Love

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Messages:
    749
    That's a dishonest comparison. England was a cultural civ with a museum UA which while still far later than Eleanor's period, would have still felt thematically appropiate until they realized "Oopsie, -18 loyalty per theater too strong" and changed it
     
    Alexander's Hetaroi likes this.
  9. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    1,597
    Except I observed here that the devs could similarly change the Roman UA/UI/UU to accommodate a second Byzantine leader. The reason for doing so, whether to balance mechanically or aesthetically, is kind of irrelevant. Point is, they did it before and aren't prevented from doing it again.
     
  10. Kimiimaro

    Kimiimaro King

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2017
    Messages:
    3,742
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Paskov
    Michael VIII Palaiologos is post 1204, but isn't that bad choice of a leader, to be honest.

    About early Byzantine leader, I guess Herakleios would be good enough as not too Roman? After all, it was he who established the title of Basileus and made Greek the official language of the Empire. He's also a very interesting leader, and one of the most important ones in Byzantine history - he turned the result of the almost lost Byzantine-Sassanid war, and while his Empire lost part of its lands to Rashidun, it didn't collapse fully like the Sassanid Empire.
     
    AntSou likes this.
  11. Denkt

    Denkt Left permamently

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    3,654
    If you are willing to change every aspect of a civ you can as well create a new civ. They even created Macedonia which is culturally and timeframe closer to greece than Byzantine is to Romans. Trade and bath is not unique to romans and roadbuilding fit more the Romans than the Byzantines.
     
  12. Neirai

    Neirai the Forgiven

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,045
    Location:
    Canada
    Guilty as charged.
    Actually, I was under the impression that they were twins. But of course not Siamese twins because they were never, ever portrayed as conjoined.

    I have no fetish for twins, conjoined or otherwise.

    Also when someone says Siamese twins I have no connection to Thailand regarding the phrase; I do think when left to ponder it that we should stop calling conjoined things Siamese because what the hell is with that? Our first popular case of conjoined twins comes from Thailand and now we call everything that's conjoined Siamese? This rant is based on the fact that in Canada I've seen two-headed water pipe valves marked clearly with an official government sign (for firemen, they hook up hoses to the things to fight fires with) as "Siamese Connection" although I've noticed in the past few years that those signs have started changing........

    AntSou is wrong though: the Civ 5 mod art is not 3d art ;), but for two non-artists it was very hard to make art that doesn't look like 100% crap, that's for sure.

    Edit: in my defence, it's hard when you live on the other side of the world to know the difference between very popular misconceptions and truth when you're doing research on the internet and the misconceptions are portrayed as true everywhere you look. It's true, we should have done better research (in retrospect) but we did an amount of research and turns out we got suckered.
     
    Meluhhan and AntSou like this.
  13. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    1,597
    I'm pretty sure I didn't suggest changing every aspect of Rome to accommodate a Byzantine alternate leader. What I suggested was to change the bath UD to a hippodrome UI, something which would make more sense as unifying Rome and Byzantium conceptually, as well as pulling Rome away from the other "infrastructure" civs and into an amenities/entertainment niche which none of the other ancient/classical civs can fill.

    Also, Macedonia was included specifically to pair with Persia, and/or show off the one of the only instances in history where a singular cult of personality built an empire. It was included for Alexander, not to have another Greek leader. So unless you can point toward a Byzantine leader who was as massively influential as Alexander as to have over a dozen cities named after them, I don't find your Greece/Macedon analogy to apply very well to Rome/Byzantium.
     
  14. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    6,232
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    The Bath gives amenities anyway so I don't see the point of changing it as you also mentioned Romans Baths were also built across the Byzantine Empire.

    England was changed to accommodate the new power system in Gathering Storm, which fits with the whole Industrial Revolution theme that Great Britain was known for, so I don't see any need to change anything about Rome except the possibility of a leader. I'd just leave the possibility of a hippodrome exclusively to a Byzantine Civ, based off of the one located in Constantinople.
     
  15. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    1,597
    I imagine a hippodrome would be mostly an aesthetic change, although I can't imagine that it would be mechanically identical to the baths. Point being, it is totally possible.

    I generally haven't enjoyed uniques which are mostly based off of singular structures like the observatory and lavra (and, more pointedly, Minas Gerais and De Zeven Provenien). I would rather the concept of a hippodrome/circus be included generally as representing Roman and Byzantine culture instead of resting on only the most notable example in Constantinople (and, really not even the most renowned compared to the Circus Maximus).
     
  16. Neirai

    Neirai the Forgiven

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,045
    Location:
    Canada
    Modders (who I know, are not Firaxis) have even built leaders who affect the base civ's traits, so you could have Justinian have part of his UA be "replaces the Bath with the Hippodrome when leading Rome".
     
    PhoenicianGold and AntSou like this.
  17. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    6,232
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    Well they would have to base the graphic of a hippodrome off of one particular structure though, no matter if it was the one in Constantinople or Rome. Just like they decided to base the observatory off of the most famous one in Chichen Itza.
     
    Zaarin and PhoenicianGold like this.
  18. Jeppetto

    Jeppetto Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2018
    Messages:
    580
    Gender:
    Male
    It would be byzzare for sure
     
  19. Denkt

    Denkt Left permamently

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    3,654
    Why would they change Roman UD, which require throwing away art asset and make new art, England rework they just changed the UA of the civ which did not require making new art or throwing away old art. If they want to give Rome Another leader there is much easier option than a Byzantine emperor to pick from anyway.

    I'm not sure what the influence thing have to do with anything, Alexander success was based Heavy upon the work of his father and the skills of the people that was with him and also the empire he created was basically a precreation since it is basically the Persian empire + his fathers empire and after his Death the empire broke apart into smaller states. The persian Empire was also built upon previous empires like Babylonian Empire which in turn was built upon Assyrian Empire.

    Byzantine Empire more or less stopped the expansion of muslism states into the balkans for hundreds of years, including surviving against caliphate at its peek and like 300 years later was able to actually expand, to get an idea Alexanders successors or Cyrus Empire did only last for like 300 years It had quite major influence on the political situation for a very long time. The fall of Constantinople is sometimes even used as the end Point of middle ages.
     
    pokiehl likes this.
  20. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    1,597
    It's one asset, not a whole civ. I don't know where the line is for "too much effort," but it's of an ambiguous size with respect to whether it is worth considering.

    I think you completely missed my point, though. Nearly all empires piggyback on the infrastructure of the cultures they conquer. Pretty much none of them existed for the sake of a single person. The closest examples in history would be equally short-lived-yet-massive conquests that died with their leaders, such as Tamerlane, Napoleon, Bolivar. However France existed long before and long after Napoleon, and the French empire was never so entwined with a cult of personality as to rename cities after him. Bolivar's legacy is quite similar to Alexander's; he has a whole country named after him. And, similarly, we likely would not have had any Colombian civ in VI but for Bolivar's massive regional impact as an individual.

    My point is, Alexander's inclusion has practically nothing to do with Greece. Many other "big name" leaders have been swapped out for other civs (Napoleon, Elizabeth, Bismarck, Catherine) and they haven't been missed as absolute "must-haves", nor attempted to be justified by splitting them off into separate civs. They were not big enough as individuals to the point that they manufactured an entire empire, more or less defined differently from predecessors and succeessors, simply around their existence as a figurehead. Alexander would not have been included on top of new Greek leaders if he had not had such a disproportionately HUGE effect as an individual. Alexander is the only reason we have Macedon on top of Greece, and if by counterexample a figure as large as Alexander had never existed, we would be nodding our heads that Gorgo and Pericles were enough to represent Greece. Hell, we still could be because they are perfectly fine Greek leaders, but Alexander's effect was so weirdly unique that the devs still saw fit to manufacture a Macedonian civ just to include him.

    So, again, the analogy is flawed, because we have a Greek/Macedonian distinction in VI purely because of this bizarre, massive cult of personality that was Alexander, a person which doesn't adequately fit into representing Greece but was also so exceptional and influential as to merit consideration of breaking off a Macedonian concept from Greece. There is no Byzantine equivalent of Alexander. While there may be other justifications to include Byzantium on other merits, my point is that using Greece/Macedon as precedent is, point blank, an awful argument.

    (One could argue Constantine naming Constantinople after himself somewhat parallels Alexander, but the cult of personality wasn't as huge nor was the empire mostly coextant with Constantine's lifetime. And at any rate, choosing Constantine would kind of undermine the point of including Byzantium for the sake of having late Byzantine flavor.)

    EDIT: In fact, Macedon/Greece actually supports blobbing Byzantium with Rome. A common pedantic criticism about Alexander leading Greece in past iterations was that he wasn't actually Greek but Macedonian. The splitting off of Macedon effectively corrects this slight historical misrepresentation. Guess what another common criticism is with respect to Byzantium? That it was wholly contiguous with Rome and was known contemporaneously as "Rome," not "Byzantium." It might be a misconception the devs would consider important enough to do something about.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2020

Share This Page