[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Alexander did not really create an Empire, he more like usurped an empire, in terms of difficulty it look like it probably was easier/smoother than for example the conquest of Bulgaria by Basil II or not as brutal as the Sassanid-Byzantine war which lasted nearly 30 years.

There is no Byzantine equivalent of Alexander

Depend on what you mean, people like Basil II seems to have been as capable if not more capable than Alexander as ruler of their nation.​

It was Alexanders successors who created the myth around Alexander and also stuff about themself so to make it sound like they had the favor of dieties on their side. Naming cities in your name seems to have been common amongst the Macedonians as Alexander's successors did the same.

But even if you combine the Persian Empire from Cyrus all way to the end of the successor kingdom you get a timespan of like 600 years while the Byzantine Empire/Eastern Roman Empire lasted for nearly 1000 years after the fall of the western Roman Empire and if you start from Augustus it lasted for nearly 1500 years and unlike Alexander, the Roman conquered alot of territories that had never been united Before as well lasting much longer.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Alexander did not really create an Empire, he more like usurped an empire, in terms of difficulty it look like it probably was easier/smoother than for example the conquest of Bulgaria by Basil II or not as brutal as the Sassanid-Byzantine war which lasted nearly 30 years.

So, like Bolivar. And Alexander just as much represents Greece as Bolivar represents Spain.

But even if you combine the Persian Empire from Cyrus all way to the end of the successor kingdom you get a timespan of like 600 years while the Byzantine Empire/Eastern Roman Empire lasted for nearly 1000 years after the fall of the western Roman Empire and if you start from Augustus it lasted for nearly 1500 years and unlike Alexander, the Roman conquered alot of territories that had never been united Before as well lasting much longer.

You seem to be putting forth a lot of arguments from "importance" as if that overcomes arguments from cultural continuity. China has lasted 3 milennia and we don't have separate dynasties distinguishing the Qin versus the Jin versus the Yuan versus the Qing. Modern India is an admixture of the legacies of several large, enduring subcontinental empires and yet we don't have the Chola and Mughals separate from Maurya and post-Raj India.

In a game where Sumeria is functioning as a general Akkadian placeholder; Carthage was blobbed into a greater Phoenician culture; and we treat Magna Germania, the Holy Roman Empire, the Kingdom of Germany, and the Federal Republic of Germany as "Germany," I still do not see a hardline necessity for Byzantium to be separate from "Rome."

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

You seem to be putting forth a lot of arguments from "importance" as if that overcomes arguments from cultural continuity. China has lasted 3 milennia and we don't have separate dynasties distinguishing the Qin versus the Jin versus the Yuan versus the Qing. Modern India is an admixture of the legacies of several large, enduring subcontinental empires and yet we don't have the Chola and Mughals separate from Maurya and post-Raj India.

In a game where Sumeria is functioning as a general Akkadian placeholder; Carthage was blobbed into a greater Phoenician culture; and we treat Magna Germania, the Holy Roman Empire, the Kingdom of Germany, and the Federal Republic of Germany as "Germany," I still do not see a hardline necessity for Byzantium to be separate from "Rome."

In civilization IV we had holy roman empire civilization and modern germany is just a part of the old holy roman empire. Civilization V we had Austria which is a german speaking nation but not Germany. For India, yes a Mughal Empire would make sense but for some reason have never been included, the current India end up being a quite strange mix of things, in civilization IV their unique unit was fast worker and in civilization V their ability was called population growth.

China could also be split up into several civs, the current version have a quite boring unique ability and it feels a bit wrong to build great walls in the modern era. I think the main issue is you cant represent stuff like India or China with just 1 UU and 1 UI, it may work for footnote civs like Alexander's Macedonia who had a quite short existance.

I think what is really needed is some way like how Humankind will do it with ability to change civilization, but maybe less extreme like each era you can select like 1 minor UU and 1 minor UI so your civ don't end up being pretty generic past its uniques.

 

[Tony Sing]

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).

Hmm, Iook like you have mixed up Ming, Qin and Song a lot.

First, Ming is built up by Han people after expelling Mongols, and Qin is eventually formed by Manchurian after defeating Ming

And if you want China leader that is for exploration and trade, Ming is the actually the WORST choice and what you actually should look for is Song
Ming and Qin has adapted Sea ban for several time and limited the trade with the foreign, also Ming actually is quite conservative, especially after the huge defeat in Tumu Crisis by the Mongols (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumu_Crisis)

Besides this, if you want to find a leader represent the culture side of China, you better find it in Tang or Song. It is actually the golden period for the development of Chinese culture. From what I understand, Han is better to be represented as the military side for China to represent the long conflict with the horse riding civ Xiongnu

And actually I feel there is definitely a need to add at least one more leader for China,
and China has no doubt that can support 2 more leader

For example, Han Wu Di which eliminate the thread of Xiongnu and further standardize the Emperor system from Qin, can be represent as bonus of military power when declaring war, but with increasing maintenance cost when war

Song dynasty can be focus of trading and culture, but with the cost of weaker military

 

[PhoenicianGold]

In civilization IV we had holy roman empire civilization and modern germany is just a part of the old holy roman empire. Civilization V we had Austria which is a german speaking nation but not Germany. For India, yes a Mughal Empire would make sense but for some reason have never been included, the current India end up being a quite strange mix of things, in civilization IV their unique unit was fast worker and in civilization V their ability was called population growth.

I and others find a separate Mughal civ problematic, where the Mughals and Chola were just as much responsible for periods of Indian unification and forming the current Indian legacy as the Mauryan empire.

China could also be split up into several civs, the current version have a quite boring unique ability and it feels a bit wrong to build great walls in the modern era. I think the main issue is you cant represent stuff like India or China with just 1 UU and 1 UI, it may work for footnote civs like Alexander's Macedonia who had a quite short existance.

Except China was not split into several civs. VI has trended toward consolidating civs into cultural continuities, largely it seems to conserve resources so the devs could focus on new regions of the world. While an argument can be made as to how effectively civs like India and China are portrayed (and a counterargument that their overarching flavor and core values are still maintained with these choices), the fact is that this is what VI's design philosophy seems to be. We can't just start asking the devs to "fix" three years of deliberate creative decisions to make room for civs that don't fit VI's design, and Byzantium is one of those civs that is kind of on the fence between being Scotland or Eleanor.

I think what is really needed is some way like how Humankind will do it with ability to change civilization, but maybe less extreme like each era you can select like 1 minor UU and 1 minor UI so your civ don't end up being pretty generic past its uniques.

While that may be more interesting, I think Civilization would have to undergo a pretty significant identity change to accommodate that. Humankind's central gimmick is the cultural mashup. Civ's central gimmick is pretty strongly tied to figureheads and the integrity of the cultures they represent. I think for Civ to move in that direction it would likely have to abandon the idea of including great people as leaders for its civs; and given how much history nerds like to obsess over historical figures I suspect that would be a very unpopular decision.

 

[Zaarin]

First, Ming is built up by Han people after expelling Mongols, and Qin is eventually formed by Manchurian after defeating Ming

I believe you mean Qing. The Qin dynasty is already represented in the game by its only member.

Besides this, if you want to find a leader represent the culture side of China, you better find it in Tang or Song. It is actually the golden period for the development of Chinese culture.

Agreed. In Civ7, I hope they finally make the long-overdue choice of Taizong of Tang for China. (He replaced Mao in China for Civ4, but he'd be new to the non-Chinese market.)

 

[Kimiimaro]

And if you want China leader that is for exploration and trade, Ming is the actually the WORST choice and what you actually should look for is Song
Ming and Qin has adapted Sea ban for several time and limited the trade with the foreign, also Ming actually is quite conservative, especially after the huge defeat in Tumu Crisis by the Mongols (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumu_Crisis)

I suppose they might have meant Yongle Emperor of Ming for the exploration/trade part, with his treasure fleets he sent as far as to Africa to show off the wealth of China representing the two traits.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I and others find a separate Mughal civ problematic, where the Mughals and Chola were just as much responsible for periods of Indian unification and forming the current Indian legacy as the Mauryan empire.

It is not any less problematic than the Macedonian civilization and Argubly less so. They controlled not just much of what is today India but also parts of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and they was related to Timurids.

While that may be more interesting, I think Civilization would have to undergo a pretty significant identity change to accommodate that. Humankind's central gimmick is the cultural mashup. Civ's central gimmick is pretty strongly tied to figureheads and the integrity of the cultures they represent. I think for Civ to move in that direction it would likely have to abandon the idea of including great people as leaders for its civs; and given how much history nerds like to obsess over historical figures I suspect that would be a very unpopular decision.

The thing is how civilization VI does it with unique units and unique infrastructure is very problematic, especially with something like China or Egypt which have existed for a very long time.​

 

[PhoenicianGold]

It is not any less problematic than the Macedonian civilization and Argubly less so.

Arguably. Maybe. Although I think it coincides much more strongly with Indian identity than Macedonia does with Grecian identity. And again we still have a similar lack of an Alexander-type figure that begs breaking off the Mughals from India. However, we do have that sort of figure with the Timurids, who may be chosen to vicariously represent the Mughals and occupy a less specifically Indian niche on the map.

T

he thing is how civilization VI does it with unique units and unique infrastructure is very problematic, especially with something like China or Egypt which have existed for a very long time.

I think it is only problematic if you insist on a completely different format of the game wherein every polity/era/culture needs to be clearly represented and distinguished from the others. And I think it's pretty obvious as a matter of scale why the developers don't feel like they have the resources to develop a fun, rich game while obligating themselves to four Indian civs, six Chinese civs, four Russian civs, and six Arabic civs. As it stands, VI seems to be, in the interest of efficiency, trying to consolidate culturally contiguous empires into singular, enduring "cultures." That seems to be the working theme, and I don't really see much point in complaining that it should be otherwise when the design philosophy was already chosen, plans were already laid out, and the game is nearing completion under that vision.

Now, I'm all for advocating for a different system of civ selection and development in later installments. But whatever VI's meritocracy is for selecting and designing civs may be, it is pretty set in stone at this point and will only suit different visions after some heavy modding. Unless and until we start seeing developers make decisions that expressly deviate from their design principles for the sake of pleasing fans, we can't really expect them to go outside of the box they have built. And that box, for now, says one China, one India, one Egypt (and, within reasonable interpretation, one Rome).

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Arguably. Maybe. Although I think it coincides much more strongly with Indian identity than Macedonia does with Grecian identity. And again we still have a similar lack of an Alexander-type figure that begs breaking off the Mughals from India. However, we do have that sort of figure with the Timurids, who may be chosen to vicariously represent the Mughals and occupy a less specifically Indian niche on the map.

What do you consider an Alexander-type? Several of the Mughal Emperors conquered alot of land and controlled significant larger population and wealth than Alexander managed to do. Akbar in particular not only was a very successful conqueror but also developed the empire so it would last Another 100 year or so and even tried to create his own religion.

 

[PhilBowles]

It is not any less problematic than the Macedonian civilization and Argubly less so. They controlled not just much of what is today India but also parts of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and they was related to Timurids.

Depending on era, England consisted of literally just England; England and Wales; the United Kingdom in its current form; or the British Empire in varying geographical extent. Civs in-game are defined by culture or nationality rather than by differences in territorial extent over time. Macedon is an easy target as a society that didn't see itself as culturally distinct from the Greeks, but it can at least justify treatment as a separate civ on the basis that it demands an almost wholly different city list from Greece, over a wider area.

The assorted Indian civs don't really warrant that - yes, you lose some cities from their city list that represent areas extraneous to their modern territory, but that's no different from England not having Jamestown, Cardiff, Belfast or Kuching on its city list. India can represent Mughals or Chola (or Maratha, the major unifying Indian civ no one seems as interested in for some reason) with the same broad Indian city list that represents India's core territory.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

What do you consider an Alexander-type? Several of the Mughal Emperors conquered alot of land and controlled significant larger population and wealth than Alexander managed to do. Akbar in particular not only was a very successful conqueror but also developed the empire so it would last Another 100 year or so and even tried to create his own religion.

Any conqueror whose personality was ultimately the central and defining feature of that polity, to the point that the "empire" rose with their rise to power, and fell with their ousting or death. And I guess, as a matter of scale, that the empire/personality was large enough to leave a lasting influence.

I would say only Bolivar comes closest to the analogy, given that Gran Colombia rose and fell with him, and formed the cultural bedrock for all of the nations it briefly encompassed.

Other almost-Alexanders would include:

1) Attila the Hun - never really a structured empire, but again the Hunnic "empire" was solidly defined by Attila and no other leader.

2) Matthias Corvinus - although Hungary was never really an empire, it reached its furthest extent briefly under his aggressive expansion. However, Hungary existed long before and long after Corvinus so the two aren't as synonymous as Alexander and Macedon.

3) Timur - Tamerlane was pretty much the defining feature of the Timurids; had they not lingered for another century he would have been an Alexander.

4) Napoleon - pretty much Corvinus again. Easily synonymous with France at its furthest reach, but there is a boatload of French identity that predated and had nothing to do with Napoleon.

5) Stalin - same as Napoleon, really, although not even wholly synonymous with the USSR given it outlasted him by several more decades.

6) Augustin/Maximilian - pretty synonymous with the first and second Mexican Empires, but again Mexico preexisted and survives both and neither left much of an impact on Mexican identity.

7) Zenobia - clearly synonymous with Palmyra, although between not expanding far and how she was removed from power there really isn't much of a Palmyrene or Zenobian legacy to speak of. Though now that we have Bolivar and she is somewhat a cult figure....maybe?

And even then, none of these fellows went so far as to rename every city after themselves, so even if they did come close to Alexander levels, the sheer narcissism reflected by Alexander's empire is, I think, unmatched.

The difference is that Akbar didn't represent the same flash in the pan cult of personality spread that others did. He conquered land, he established an empire, and that empire survived. It makes him a great candidate to lead an already decided upon Mughal civ; but he alone doesn't stand out as so exceptional that a Mughal civ would need to be created just to include him.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

What do you consider an Alexander-type? Several of the Mughal Emperors conquered alot of land and controlled significant larger population and wealth than Alexander managed to do. Akbar in particular not only was a very successful conqueror but also developed the empire so it would last Another 100 year or so and even tried to create his own religion.

Yeah. If the Chola and Maurya would be alt leaders to India, so should the Mughals. If Chola and Maurya become their own civs, so should the mughals. I am of the opinion that the Mughals are inherently an Indian empire, despite their Turkic routes and their Persian culture, they incorporated and influenced North Indian culture immensely.

In Civ 6, however, they’d be the equivalent of Macedon for Greece as they would be to India. I wouldn’t mind seeing Akbar as the leader of Mughals in NF

Depending on era, England consisted of literally just England; England and Wales; the United Kingdom in its current form; or the British Empire in varying geographical extent. Civs in-game are defined by culture or nationality rather than by differences in territorial extent over time. Macedon is an easy target as a society that didn't see itself as culturally distinct from the Greeks, but it can at least justify treatment as a separate civ on the basis that it demands an almost wholly different city list from Greece, over a wider area.

The assorted Indian civs don't really warrant that - yes, you lose some cities from their city list that represent areas extraneous to their modern territory, but that's no different from England not having Jamestown, Cardiff, Belfast or Kuching on its city list. India can represent Mughals or Chola (or Maratha, the major unifying Indian civ no one seems as interested in for some reason) with the same broad Indian city list that represents India's core territory.

the maratha empire unified a lot but a lot of the constituent kingdoms that made up the confederacy were mughal client kingdoms, and they didn’t get as close to the chola, mughals, gupta or maurya to conquering the subcontinent.

Chola would command a completely different city list than any of those other unifying empires, by the way, so by that logic, they demand their own civ status

 

[Haig]

Did Byzantium also build aqueducts/baths like western Rome?

Did they use legions similar to rome?

Serious question I dont know it.

I mean if they did they could just give a Byz.alt leader different unit skin to legion and include a dromon or varangian guard as the leader uu along with a cool leader bonus, I would be fine with that.

Anyway ad the wording for dlc 5 talks about Rise and Fall leader I belive Byzantium will be a full civ if included.

But I would like to know about that legion/bath thing.

 

[Tony Sing]

I suppose they might have meant Yongle Emperor of Ming for the exploration/trade part, with his treasure fleets he sent as far as to Africa to show off the wealth of China representing the two traits.

Indeed he has sent the fleets to South Asia to show the power of Ming, also he has expelled the Mongols again and commissioned Yongle Encyclopedia in the culture side
However, after he died the fleets has been disbanded and never appear again. Ming has also adapted the Sea Ban later on to prevent the invasion of the rebel from Japan warring states period. There is no more significant culture event in Ming after the Yongle Encyclopedia

As what I understand the most special thing of Ming is their emperors that full of characteristic and highly centralized government system that most power is hold by the emperor. Of course as alt leader of China, he is definite considerable but if you want to see exploration/trade side of China, Song/Tang are better choice

Agreed. In Civ7, I hope they finally make the long-overdue choice of Taizong of Tang for China. (He replaced Mao in China for Civ4, but he'd be new to the non-Chinese market.)

Yes, I also hope that they can consider Tang Taizong as the leader of China, as he is considered as the BEST emperor thought out the Chinese history in the view of Chinese people(but seems it is not the view of the European/US people). Also similar to Han Wudi he has so many achievements that can even hold multiple ability to represent achievements in different aspect(military, economic, culture)

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Depending on era, England consisted of literally just England; England and Wales; the United Kingdom in its current form; or the British Empire in varying geographical extent. Civs in-game are defined by culture or nationality rather than by differences in territorial extent over time. Macedon is an easy target as a society that didn't see itself as culturally distinct from the Greeks, but it can at least justify treatment as a separate civ on the basis that it demands an almost wholly different city list from Greece, over a wider area.

The assorted Indian civs don't really warrant that - yes, you lose some cities from their city list that represent areas extraneous to their modern territory, but that's no different from England not having Jamestown, Cardiff, Belfast or Kuching on its city list. India can represent Mughals or Chola (or Maratha, the major unifying Indian civ no one seems as interested in for some reason) with the same broad Indian city list that represents India's core territory.

The city name list is going to be a problem in many possible cases, the easy solution is simply to allow several civs to share names on cities and if one civ found a city of that name the other civ can't found a city of the same name, that is something how the Huns in Civ V worked.

The difference is that Akbar didn't represent the same flash in the pan cult of personality spread that others did. He conquered land, he established an empire, and that empire survived. It makes him a great candidate to lead an already decided upon Mughal civ; but he alone doesn't stand out as so exceptional that a Mughal civ would need to be created just to include him.

Keep in mind that Alexander need his own civ was never the case in past games and if the empire need to fall upon Death is if anything showing flaws about the conqueror. Napoleon ended up as a captive, Alexander's Empire collapsed and Akbars would exist for more than 100 years after his Death and expand even more so Argubly Akbar was the most capable of these people, because he did not just conquer alot of land but also managed to keep his empire alive long after his Death.

 

[PhilBowles]

the maratha empire unified a lot but a lot of the constituent kingdoms that made up the confederacy were mughal client kingdoms, and they didn’t get as close to the chola, mughals, gupta or maurya to conquering the subcontinent.

From looking up maps of their territory, the Maratha controlled far more Indian territory than the Chola, who had influence in northern India and island Southeast Asia but only controlled southern and eastern India, alongside Sri Lanka.

Reading up on them the Chola definitely warrant representation in some form, but their cities - mostly being in India - could be part of a broad Indian city list. Just don't use the Sri Lankan cities, which were conquered territory in the same way as numerous cities that aren't in the English city list.

India has a long problem with poor representation of its history in Civ games due to the over-dominance of Gandhi, but I think a Chola-themed India is compatible with a single Indian civ just as Civ VI England can represent an entirely different period from Civ V England.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

India has a long problem with poor representation of its history in Civ games due to the over-dominance of Gandhi, but I think a Chola-themed India is compatible with a single Indian civ just as Civ VI England can represent an entirely different period from Civ V England.

It is somewhat better in Civ VI than Civ V population growth or Civ IV fast workers, but yes it is still basically Gandhi + Elephants. I suspect it is comparable to having Europé represented by like Romans + Huns or something like that.

Mughal Empire at its peak was maybe the most powerful political entity in the World and if it had not collapsed the British conquest of India would likely not have happened.

 

[Abaxial]

There are certain civs the devs will likely never include in a Civilization game, and the Boer Republics are on that list. It might sound interesting, but just imagine the massive amount of negative PR Firaxis would receive for including the Boers.

I rather expected someone would bring that up. Oh, those nasty Boers! The Mongols are all right, they may have massacred millions of innocent people, but not the Boers.

As an aside, a thing that always intrigues me is this. Genghis Khan, responsible for the murder of millions, is very famous, and everyone knows about him. But what about Yeh-lϋ Ch'u-ts'ai? Heard of him? He was the one who persuaded the Mongol leader Ögödei not to slaughter millions of Chinese. Kill millions - you become famous. Save millions of lives - you are forgotten about.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

As an aside, a thing that always intrigues me is this. Genghis Khan, responsible for the murder of millions, is very famous, and everyone knows about him. But what about Yeh-lϋ Ch'u-ts'ai? Heard of him? He was the one who persuaded the Mongol leader Ögödei not to slaughter millions of Chinese. Kill millions - you become famous. Save millions of lives - you are forgotten about.

True, atleast in the west there seems to be a focus on "great conquerors" and anyone that don't fit that image is seens as incompetent, lazy or negative in some way or Another.