[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

That of course is the other issue - not only Gandhi, but of the three opportunities they've had to present India's history through uniques and abilities they've screwed up appallingly twice. Civ VI, I agree, is the only incarnation that's even made an effort to take India's long history seriously.

I suspect civ VII may see India being split up into several civs but I would still suspect it will be the same old Gandhi, elephants and stereotyped India..

 

[PhilBowles]

I suspect civ VII may see India being split up into several civs but I would still suspect it will be the same old Gandhi, elephants and stereotyped India..

Well, every civ is stereotyped and elephants are probably here to stay but they can do a much better job with India than they have had. If they continue with the alternate leaders route - which is rather pointless as implemented in both Civ IV and Civ VI - they should probably not tie the uniques to the civ, but to the leader, so that it's essentially the reverse of the present version: a civ has a common ability that it provides to a leader with their own unit(s) and civilian unique(s), rather than a leader providing a single ability to a civ that has uniques that may be wholly divorced from that leader. That would allow an umbrella 'India' that could have leaders representing different periods better than the current one; ditto China, England, Germany, Rome/Byzantium, Greece/Macedon and other long-lived states that underwent major shifts in culture or focus through time.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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.

Yes the early Byzantine empire did still have legions but they fell out of use later. Justinian himself built baths in Constantinople still using the Roman designs.

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.

As long as they do continue to use Gandhi, I don't see India being broken up. I doubt they would have a separate civ called India with the Mughals also. I do agree that this is the best iteration of India we have gotten due to the fact that we have Chandragupta also leading.

they should probably not tie the uniques to the civ, but to the leader, so that it's essentially the reverse of the present version: a civ has a common ability that it provides to a leader with their own unit(s) and civilian unique(s), rather than a leader providing a single ability to a civ that has uniques that may be wholly divorced from that leader.

I'm fine with leaving a single unique unit tied to the Civ because for some Civs it might not necessarily work out. Like I'm not sure what kind of UU you would give Kristina of Sweden for instance unless some would be non combat related?
But I agree it could work with England: Henry V (Longbowman), Elizabeth (Sea Dog), Victoria (Redcoat)

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Yes the early Byzantine empire did still have legions but they fell out of use later. Justinian himself built baths in Constantinople still using the Roman designs.

Legions as they look like in game had fallen out of use long Before Justinian and Rome was hardly the only one building bath although to be fair you said Roman style bath, medieval Europé had alot of Bathhouses and I think Ottomans had their own bathhouses.

As long as they do continue to use Gandhi, I don't see India being broken up. I doubt they would have a separate civ called India with the Mughals also. I do agree that this is the best iteration of India we have gotten due to the fact that we have Chandragupta also leading.

It would be nice if they atleast once could keep Gandhi away from civ so to make room for other interpretation of India.

I'm fine with leaving a single unique unit tied to the Civ because for some Civs it might not necessarily work out. Like I'm not sure what kind of UU you would give Kristina of Sweden for instance unless some would be non combat related?
But I agree it could work with England: Henry V (Longbowman), Elizabeth (Sea Dog), Victoria (Redcoat)

You can create a system of minor unique units and infrastructure which you can select upon entering an era, like here we could put stuff like baths, cataphracts and other stuff that was not that unique but could still add some variety over just having generic stuff.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

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.

I think this is a good place to note that conquering generally worked differently in India. It was frowned upon to incorporate other kingdoms into your own land outright from the classical period on, so the reason the chola ‘had influence’ in North India and Southeast Asia is because they conquered those nations and turned them into client states.

The Maurya preceded this expectation, while the Mughals outright ignored it.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

As long as they do continue to use Gandhi, I don't see India being broken up. I doubt they would have a separate civ called India with the Mughals also. I do agree that this is the best iteration of India we have gotten due to the fact that we have Chandragupta also leading.

Yes, India using Chandragupta Maurya is fairly well designed, tbh.

Theoretically, they could have the Mughals, Maurya, Chola and the Republic, although that would be weird.

 

[AsH2]

..
I'm fine with leaving a single unique unit tied to the Civ because for some Civs it might not necessarily work out. Like I'm not sure what kind of UU you would give Kristina of Sweden for instance unless some would be non combat related?
..

It seems like Kristina is the archetype of librarians, so I think her UU could be a lieutenant, the 'library cop', who tracks down missing great works - able to pick them up from 'vapid fops'..

 

[PhilBowles]

I'm fine with leaving a single unique unit tied to the Civ because for some Civs it might not necessarily work out. Like I'm not sure what kind of UU you would give Kristina of Sweden for instance unless some would be non combat related?
But I agree it could work with England: Henry V (Longbowman), Elizabeth (Sea Dog), Victoria (Redcoat)

I doubt Sweden would be one of the civs first in line to have alternate leaders, and the uniques could still be things characteristic of the broad period to which the leaders belonged rather than necessarily something they made particularly active use of, or something they coined (for instance, the association of Henry V with longbows is based on Agincourt, but this was towards the end of the era when they were a relevant military force and they would have been suitable as a unique for any English ruler from Edward I to Henry VI). Caroleans were part of the Swedish military during Kristina's period, for instance.

It would also be possible for leaders to share a unique, if for instance there was a district or building more characteristic for their period but the military units were a good fit for either period (or vice versa). So, for instance, a Victorian English civ could have a unique industrial district and a Napoleonic English civ a unique harbor to reflect a different focus, but both could share the Redcoat.

 

[AsH2]

..
Caroleans were part of the Swedish military during Kristina's period, for instance.
..

Actually, they were not..

Spoiler Christina,_Queen_of_Sweden :

Christina (18 December 1626 – 19 April 1689) became Queen of Sweden at the age of almost six.[note 1] As a member of the House of Vasa, she succeeded her father Gustavus Adolphus upon his death at the Battle of Lützen, but began ruling the Swedish Empire when she reached the age of 18.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina,_Queen_of_Sweden

Spoiler Caroleans :

Caroleans (Swedish: karoliner) were soldiers of the Swedish kings Charles XI and Charles XII. In the late 17th and early 18th centuries, in order to compensate for its lack of manpower and resources, Sweden strove for innovative ways to make a more effective army.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroleans

 

[PhilBowles]

Actually, they were not..

Spoiler Christina,_Queen_of_Sweden :

Christina (18 December 1626 – 19 April 1689) became Queen of Sweden at the age of almost six.[note 1] As a member of the House of Vasa, she succeeded her father Gustavus Adolphus upon his death at the Battle of Lützen, but began ruling the Swedish Empire when she reached the age of 18.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina,_Queen_of_Sweden

Spoiler Caroleans :

Caroleans (Swedish: karoliner) were soldiers of the Swedish kings Charles XI and Charles XII. In the late 17th and early 18th centuries, in order to compensate for its lack of manpower and resources, Sweden strove for innovative ways to make a more effective army.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroleans

That will teach me to go from the Civ V wiki, which places them in the period from 1660 to 1718. Still, if Civ V can use a unit that's anachronistic for Gustavus Adolphus they can use the same unit for his daughter.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That will teach me to go from the Civ V wiki, which places them in the period from 1660 to 1718. Still, if Civ V can use a unit that's anachronistic for Gustavus Adolphus they can use the same unit for his daughter.

Yes that's strange. The wiki should say 1680 instead.

Not saying the Carolean shouldn't be the UU for Sweden anyway, but I was under the impression that you wanted a UU for every leader instead of the Civ.
But I guess you only meant for the ones with alternate leaders, because the Caroleans would also not go with her father too if we were basing it off of their time period.

 

[Virdrago]

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.

Actually, there's evidence that the numbers are inflated, by up to 10 times, the number of people the Mongols killed. The Persian writers had a tendency to inflate their numbers massively when describing the Mongol horde, and it seems Genghis himself promoted this, as it meant cities would surrender easily, saving the Mongols time and effort. His sons did the same thing. A lot of it was extremely effective propaganda. For instance Samarkand, the Khwarezm capital and largest city, is estimated to have had a size of 100,000 at the time Genghis attacked it, but he is supposed to have killed 1.2 million people in the border town of Urgench, which was maybe two-thirds the size of Samarkand.

 

[PhilBowles]

Yes that's strange. The wiki should say 1680 instead.

Not saying the Carolean shouldn't be the UU for Sweden anyway, but I was under the impression that you wanted a UU for every leader instead of the Civ.

Well, I don't see leaders as being of any interest for their own sake - they'd just be chosen to represent a specific period in history, so that the game can accommodate periods where a civ's culture was radically different or its focus differed from what you'd typically expect and so allow things like Chola and Maurya to exist as separate entities under a familiar name. Kristina would just be a surrogate for 'Renaissance Sweden' in that example. There are a lot of civs that can be represented well just with a single time period and leader, either because they were short-lived or because common themes can be reflected well in a unitary design, and others that are more variable.

I don't look at Civ VI India and think "Chandragupta Maurya is a great character to have as a rival" - I look at it and think "This civ represents Maurya India pretty well. Shame about the Bollywood figurehead".

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Actually, there's evidence that the numbers are inflated, by up to 10 times, the number of people the Mongols killed. The Persian writers had a tendency to inflate their numbers massively when describing the Mongol horde, and it seems Genghis himself promoted this, as it meant cities would surrender easily, saving the Mongols time and effort. His sons did the same thing. A lot of it was extremely effective propaganda. For instance Samarkand, the Khwarezm capital and largest city, is estimated to have had a size of 100,000 at the time Genghis attacked it, but he is supposed to have killed 1.2 million people in the border town of Urgench, which was maybe two-thirds the size of Samarkand.

Yes, it is important to keep in mind that fear was a very useful tool and the purpose was to make enemies surrender without costly sieges by a policy of not harming anyone if they surrender immediately or total destruction otherwise. Also it was not unique to the Mongols, for example the Romans did the exact same thing. Worth to keep in mind that stuff like borders is a recent thing, for example the Roman Empire may look big but its ability to Control the territories was quite limited compared to countries today which was a reason why massive conquest was possible in the past because Control was more a nominal thing rather than hard like today so the massive empires of the past should not be though of the same way as we think about countries today.

That will teach me to go from the Civ V wiki, which places them in the period from 1660 to 1718. Still, if Civ V can use a unit that's anachronistic for Gustavus Adolphus they can use the same unit for his daughter.

The unit is tied to the civ not to the leader and the timespan between it and the leader is quite close unlike many other cases.

Keep in mind that the World in absolute terms have advanced more in terms of economy and probably technology in the last 60 years than the rest of human history combined, France during Napoleon was closer in terms of technology and economy standard to ancient rome than todays countries but this is not represented in civilization VI for quite obvious reason.

 

[Abaxial]

Actually, there's evidence that the numbers are inflated, by up to 10 times, the number of people the Mongols killed. The Persian writers had a tendency to inflate their numbers massively when describing the Mongol horde, and it seems Genghis himself promoted this, as it meant cities would surrender easily, saving the Mongols time and effort. His sons did the same thing. A lot of it was extremely effective propaganda. For instance Samarkand, the Khwarezm capital and largest city, is estimated to have had a size of 100,000 at the time Genghis attacked it, but he is supposed to have killed 1.2 million people in the border town of Urgench, which was maybe two-thirds the size of Samarkand.

Oh, so he only slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocents instead of millions? So that's all right then!

It remains the fact that if a historical civ is to be excluded because they did nasty things, then Genghis should be first out the window.

 

[DWilson]

It remains the fact that if a historical civ is to be excluded because they did nasty things, then Genghis should be first out the window.

I mean, there are many with notably higher death tolls. I wouldn't say the first, by any means.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Oh, so he only slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocents instead of millions? So that's all right then!

It remains the fact that if a historical civ is to be excluded because they did nasty things, then Genghis should be first out the window.

if death tolls excluded leaders or civs, we should never see Britain and Rome again, I guess.

Genghis’s death count wasn’t out of the extraordinary for his time. It was pretty consistent with most of his contemporaries, and considering he conquered much more land, his deaths/land ratio is probsbly much lower.

 

[CivLuvah]

It remains the fact that if a historical civ is to be excluded because they did nasty things, then Genghis should be first out the window.

Tell me though, which empire in world history didn't do nasty things to other... entities to achieve prominence? Of course, that doesn't mean we have to condone or praise everything they did, but it's not really helpful to be overly didactic either.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I think this "if we can't have Hitler we can't have anyone" kind of thinking is absurd and reductionist. and @Abaxial statement is peak ridiculousness. Even if we take his logic for granted (which one shouldn't) it's still completely wrong. There are dozens of people I'd throw out before Genghis.. As some others have mentioned, Great Britian would be out the window pretty fast. Famines, colonialism & friends would like a word.

Also "Death Count" in itself is super meaningless, so why do we act like it's meaningful? The allies killed a metric ****ton of people in WW2, but I don't necessarily think it's bad. I think it was a necessary evil to stop an even bigger evil.

Though I must admit I totally agree with @Abaxial s statement that peacemongering Civilizations/leaders mostly get ignored, both by Civ and world history, and I think it is a shame.

Tell me though, which empire in world history didn't do nasty things to other... entities to achieve prominence?

Kind of a moot point because an "empire" is already defined as compromising of a number of territories which were at one point independent. and since it very rarely happens that nations or peoples forfeit their independence willingly, the idea of an empire already more or less precludes violent conquest, so your question does not make much sense.

Also, I would definitely say there are measurable and meaningful degrees of nasty. Cyrus for example was a relatively progressive leader for his time (even though he didn't "outlaw slavery" as some people claim) and he seemed to be conscious of many of the ills that people suffered, and even tried to alleviate some. Now contrast this with a Josef Stalin, a Pol Pot, even someone like a Leopold II. Some leaders are more cruel than others. Some nations commit atrocities far worse than others. There is a meaningful difference between outright genocide and war of conquest and defensive war.

 

[CivLuvah]

Kind of a moot point because an "empire" is already defined as compromising of a number of territories which were at one point independent. and since it very rarely happens that nations or peoples forfeit their independence willingly, the idea of an empire already more or less precludes violent conquest, so your question does not make much sense.

I was trying to rebut @Abaxial's point without risking angering the mods, but I think you said it better than I did.