[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I'm honestly quite disappointed with Norway's representation, as it feels much more like a generic Viking civ than a Norwegian civ. It's why I use p0kiehl's rework myself.

They could simply have called it the vikings or something and nobody would have noticed the difference.

For Sweden, we have its Era of Great Power, quite obviously, as that is what both representations of the country since Civ4 have mostly based themselves on. Though Sweden's abilities does span further into Swedish history than Norway's abilities do, on account of the Nobel Prize ability and the Open-Air Museum.

Sweden is Argubly one of the best designed civs in Civ VI, it cover a wide time period, not based much on sterotypes and is an interesting civ in terms of gameplay with unique competitions and its focus on doing things to get benefits rather than just getting bonuses unlike for example Gran Columbia.

More civs designed the way they made Sweden would be nice to see.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I’m not as worried about the small number of duplicate leaders Firaxis is releasing (just one with New Frontier!), now that I’ve learned a modding team is converting the Civ5 leaders for Civ6 (except for the duplicates, like Alexander or Shaka). That could give us 30+ FXS quality leaders, 8-9 of which could be new civs not found in the game (yet).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm honestly quite disappointed with Norway's representation, as it feels much more like a generic Viking civ than a Norwegian civ. It's why I use p0kiehl's rework myself.

I mean maybe it's just me, but when I think of Norway, the first thing that always comes to my mind is Vikings. Not even Denmark gets that. I think of the pastries.

But I agree that there are definitely other parts of Norwegian history, but I'd rather them not call a civ the Vikings again, since that is the name of just a particular group of the people, the raiders, and wouldn't accommodate all the people living there. The Norse, however, would be an appropriate name.

 

[I Feel Good About This]

Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse here but why are people down on the Byzantines? They are arguably the most important/notable (whatever adjective you want to use) civ not already in the game and I feel they would fit in great. They have awesome personalities available in potential leaders, good potential for a faith/military dynamic, and any number of political or social directions. Maybe it's just my bias as I find the Byzantines fascinating to study but I can't really see the argument for their exclusion. I guess people have mentioned the number of existing Greek civs included but I don't know, this doesn't seem like a strong argument when leaving out one of the most impactful empires in Europe and the Middle East.

 

[Zaarin]

Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse here but why are people down on the Byzantines? They are arguably the most important/notable (whatever adjective you want to use) civ not already in the game and I feel they would fit in great. They have awesome personalities available in potential leaders, good potential for a faith/military dynamic, and any number of political or social directions. Maybe it's just my bias as I find the Byzantines fascinating to study but I can't really see the argument for their exclusion. I guess people have mentioned the number of existing Greek civs included but I don't know, this doesn't seem like a strong argument when leaving out one of the most impactful empires in Europe and the Middle East.

Overall, I agree with you. The game doesn't feel complete without the Byzantines (though personally I'd argue that Babylon/Assyria is the most important civ not yet in the game). The only thing that would make me somewhat okay with missing the Byzantines is the fact that we do have such a glut of Greek and Hellenistic leaders already in the game. Oh, and we can skip the Byzantines if we're just going to get Justinian or Theodora again. They're boring. Time for someone new. Alexios I Komnenos or Basil II. Just not dull and dusty Justinian/Theodora again.

 

[I Feel Good About This]

Overall, I agree with you. The game doesn't feel complete without the Byzantines (though personally I'd argue that Babylon/Assyria is the most important civ not yet in the game). The only thing that would make me somewhat okay with missing the Byzantines is the fact that we do have such a glut of Greek and Hellenistic leaders already in the game. Oh, and we can skip the Byzantines if we're just going to get Justinian or Theodora again. They're boring. Time for someone new. Alexios I Komnenos or Basil II. Just not dull and dusty Justinian/Theodora again.

Definitely agree with the leader selection. Never really understood Theodora in the first place and I feel like you can include Justinian's Code as part of the civ ability if you need any representation for him. The thing I'm really worried about is the idea going around of Constantine as an alternate Roman leader. Being the "Eastern Roman Empire" does not mean the Byzantines should be shoehorned in as just a Roman alternate. I think that would be really disingenuous and at that point I'd probably rather wait until Civ 7.

 

[GunsGermsandSteel]

Has anyone mentioned Switzerland yet? They have a very unique history although I can't think of a standout leader for them.

Unique Unit - Swiss Pikemen. High production. More HP than standard pikeman. Starts with chokepoint promotion.
Civ bonus - % bonus related to not being at war. Bonuses associated with adjacency to mountain tiles.
Unique building - Swiss bank. +1 gold for each civ you have an embassy with.

 

[Reconciliator]

Thanks for the like!

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Being the "Eastern Roman Empire" does not mean the Byzantines should be shoehorned in as just a Roman alternate. I think that would be really disingenuous and at that point I'd probably rather wait until Civ 7.

I mean I fit into the camp of I would be okay with that to get them in the game somehow, but would rather them be their own Civ too. I think the latter will be most likely anyway.

Has anyone mentioned Switzerland yet? They have a very unique history although I can't think of a standout leader for them.

John Calvin?

 

[Jewelrunna]

Overall, I agree with you. The game doesn't feel complete without the Byzantines (though personally I'd argue that Babylon/Assyria is the most important civ not yet in the game). The only thing that would make me somewhat okay with missing the Byzantines is the fact that we do have such a glut of Greek and Hellenistic leaders already in the game. Oh, and we can skip the Byzantines if we're just going to get Justinian or Theodora again. They're boring. Time for someone new. Alexios I Komnenos or Basil II. Just not dull and dusty Justinian/Theodora again.

While I'd love to see Justinian back (how dare you call him dusty ), Alexios or Basil would be awesome! Wouldn't be disappointed at all if we saw any of those three showed up, unless they were in the form of a Roman alt-leader. Then I would be very disappointed.

I think I'm pretty boring in terms of my Civ wishes, because most of the ones I want to see from this pass are returning Civs. Babylon, Assyria, Portugal, Austria, Iroquois, and Byzantium are my main wishes (the Maya and Ethiopia are already here, so check them off). I think Civ VI does a great job of including some unorthodox Civs that you wouldn't expect to see (particularly happy about Scotland, Hungary, Scythia, Gran Colombia, and Mapuche), but I'd feel pretty disappointed if they came at the cost of some Civs who are staples for the franchise or who are historically significant. Though I'd be ok with seeing the Navajo or some other Native American Civ replace the Iroquois, or Assyria not making it in if they only want one Mesopotamian in this pass. I also really want Siam back, but it'd be fine if they chose Vietnam instead. The only ones I'd be grieviously disappointed to not see in the game are Babylon, Portugal, and Byzantium. And I'd be disappointed if there's no Native North American Civ in this pass either,

 

[I Feel Good About This]

I think I'm pretty boring in terms of my Civ wishes, because most of the ones I want to see from this pass are returning Civs. Babylon, Assyria, Portugal, Austria, Iroquois, and Byzantium are my main wishes (the Maya and Ethiopia are already here, so check them off). I think Civ VI does a great job of including some unorthodox Civs that you wouldn't expect to see (particularly happy about Scotland, Hungary, Scythia, Gran Colombia, and Mapuche), but I'd feel pretty disappointed if they came at the cost of some Civs who are staples for the franchise or who are historically significant. Though I'd be ok with seeing the Navajo or some other Native American Civ replace the Iroquois, or Assyria not making it in if they only want one Mesopotamian in this pass. I also really want Siam back, but it'd be fine if they chose Vietnam instead. The only ones I'd be grieviously disappointed to not see in the game are Babylon, Portugal, and Byzantium. And I'd be disappointed if there's no Native North American Civ in this pass either,

As someone with admittedly limited knowledge on Native Americans what about the Sioux? Aren't they one of the larger tribes and distinct in their political activities, particularly with regards to the US?

 

[Jeppetto]

Culture seems better-defined than faith at this point - faith started out following the Civ V concept of literal religious faith, but its use - purely for the mechanical reason of ensuring it's relevant in non-religious games - for naturalist, rock bands and Great People - makes no sense in that context: even if you interpret faith in rock stars as a cultural 'ideology' it makes no sense that both they and naturalists cost faith but produce culture: they should thematically relate to either one system or the other. And Great People certainly represent cultural achievements.

The Faith with them is more posing fanbase and strong conviction on same level as religion. In this case passionate environmentalism is seen not like policy to be used by government or created art but strong conviction that it is the right thing. With Rock bands, you could argue that some fans outright worship their celebrity idols. If Government Yield was introduced, it would heavily step on toes of definition of Culture Yield (which would now focus on society's ideas like vegetarianism/veganism, environmentalism, philantropy etc rather than policies), but the evolution of Faith Yield from religious conviction to general conviction makes sense to me.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

As someone with admittedly limited knowledge on Native Americans what about the Sioux? Aren't they one of the larger tribes and distinct in their political activities, particularly with regards to the US?

The Sioux have the problem of mainly being another nomadic Great Plains culture that ultimately got it's name recognition for the struggle against the U.S. in the 1800s.
There aren't a great deal of possible city names to go off of either and would probably be another Civ similar to Scythia already. Also Poundmaker, himself was from the Plains so I'd rather see something different.

There are a plenty of other tribes to choose from that could have more unique abilities. The Navajo actually are the second largest tribe today, after the Cherokee, and would be distinct, maybe being able to farm in the desert, like they have done in real life.

Then there are the Pacific NW tribes, like the Tlingit and Haida, with totem poles and lived in settlements as well.

Then there are all the tribes in the eastern part of the U.S. that would work well, including even the Iroquois again.

 

[Turrdy]

Has anyone mentioned Switzerland yet? They have a very unique history although I can't think of a standout leader for them.

Unique Unit - Swiss Pikemen. High production. More HP than standard pikeman. Starts with chokepoint promotion.
Civ bonus - % bonus related to not being at war. Bonuses associated with adjacency to mountain tiles.
Unique building - Swiss bank. +1 gold for each civ you have an embassy with.

A leader for Switzerland? Maybe William Tell? Not a political leader per se, but very iconic!

Some ideas:
Leader/civ bonus: Garrisoned units count as population to the city (corps/armies counts as 2/3 respectively)
Leader/civ bonus: Free cities are friendly. (that's either good or bad lol)
Leader/civ bonus: Loyalty pressure from nearby citizens is doubled and has no dark age malus, but has reduced range.
Civ bonus: Unique governour that you can send to your allies for more diplo/alliance stuff, production, and gold bonuses.
Civ bonus: Traders can move on mountains without tunnels (though, i must say that most mountain bonuses are already with the Inca)
Civ bonus: Gold cost for change of policy cards when not having finished a civic is halved (or zero)
Civ bonus: Sell custom named units (tier 2 or higher) to allies for 30 turns (as a trade item)
Civ bonus: More than one civ per alliance type allowed.
Unique improvement: Cheese factory: Replaces pasture and generates a luxury good called "Cheese" when placed on bonus ressources, i.e. cattle and sheep.
Unique improvement: Reduit: Can be built on mountains and and has a ranged attack like the encampement. only one per city.
Unique unit: Can build the unique units of civs that are allied, but has none for herself.

Just some thoughts...

 

[AntSou]

Has anyone mentioned Switzerland yet? They have a very unique history although I can't think of a standout leader for them.

Unique Unit - Swiss Pikemen. High production. More HP than standard pikeman. Starts with chokepoint promotion.
Civ bonus - % bonus related to not being at war. Bonuses associated with adjacency to mountain tiles.
Unique building - Swiss bank. +1 gold for each civ you have an embassy with.

NO! Get away, shoo!

Jokes aside, here's some issues:
- Yet another European Civ when there's still areas in the world lacking representation;
- Civ bonuses too similar to Canada, but connected to mountains rather than tundra.

How would you design Switzerland without making it too similar in style with Canada or Mali?

 

[Zaarin]

The thing I'm really worried about is the idea going around of Constantine as an alternate Roman leader. Being the "Eastern Roman Empire" does not mean the Byzantines should be shoehorned in as just a Roman alternate. I think that would be really disingenuous and at that point I'd probably rather wait until Civ 7.

I 100% agree.

Has anyone mentioned Switzerland yet? They have a very unique history although I can't think of a standout leader for them.

Switzerland's better handled as a city-state IMO.

As someone with admittedly limited knowledge on Native Americans what about the Sioux? Aren't they one of the larger tribes and distinct in their political activities, particularly with regards to the US?

To add to what @Alexander's Hetaroi said, in addition to being yet another horse raider civ lacking in permanent settlements and in addition to being chiefly noteworthy for opposing the US, the Sioux were relative newcomers to the Plains, pushed out of the Great Lakes in historical times by the Iroquois. So even if we wanted a Plains tribe and ignored the fact that Poundmaker is Plains Cree, there are better choices than the Sioux--or even better choices from adjacent regions like the Blackfoot from the Plateau or the Apache or Comanche from the Great Basin. Either way, I don't think we need another horse raider civ from any region, and I'd rather see a tribe that fills some other niche. Really the only appeal the Sioux have is pop culture cred and some great leaders, but to the first point I'd rather Civ focus on introducing new tribes rather than reinforcing stereotypes and to the second there are plenty of other tribes that have interesting leaders--e.g. Powhatan (Wahunsenacawh) of the Powhatan or Pushmataha of the Choctaw.

 

[Jewelrunna]

Now that people are mentioning them, man, I'd actually LOVE to see the Cherokee.

 

[Zaarin]

Now that people are mentioning them, man, I'd actually LOVE to see the Cherokee.

As I've brought up before, the problem with the Cherokee is they had really bad leadership. Same problem with the Creek, who were much wealthier and more influential in their time than the Cherokee. Best options for the Five Civilized Tribes are the Chickasaw and Choctaw IMO.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

So even if we wanted a Plains tribe and ignored the fact that Poundmaker is Plains Cree, there are better choices than the Sioux--or even better choices from adjacent regions like the Blackfoot from the Plateau or the Apache or Comanche from the Great Basin. Either way, I don't think we need another horse raider civ from any region, and I'd rather see a tribe that fills some other niche. Really the only appeal the Sioux have is pop culture cred and some great leaders, but to the first point I'd rather Civ focus on introducing new tribes rather than reinforcing stereotypes and to the second there are plenty of other tribes that have interesting leaders--e.g. Powhatan (Wahunsenacawh) of the Powhatan or Pushmataha of the Choctaw.

Yes, if we had to get a nomadic tribe Geronimo for the Apache would be my first choice.

 

[Zaarin]

Yes, if we had to get a nomadic tribe Geronimo for the Apache would be my first choice.

Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce would be mine (especially since the Nez Perce were the premier horse breeders of the region, being the originators of the Appaloosa horse), but Geronimo would have the name-recognition factor.