[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[mitsho]

We can do it the other way around: Gandhi can be an alternate leader to all the different Indian civs: Maurya, Chola, Mughal etc.

But India is exhibit A why I believe the next civ game will use a more dynamic concept of civ. The current static idea is just too limiting and either makes us do blob civs or any sort of mental contortions...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

right they’re dynasties but not dynasties of india, they’re dynasties of tamilkam and hindustan, respectively

Isn't Hindustan just the Persian term referring to the whole subcontinent?
Either way I'm not claiming they are dynasties of all of India, unlike the ones that ruled all of China, but they are a dynasty that was located in India.

 

[BuchiTaton]

right they’re dynasties but not dynasties of india, they’re dynasties of tamilkam and hindustan, respectively

I would love to see the day CIV series give some credit to India and China history and we could have these civs:

INDIA:
- Maurya (classical, eastern India+Bangladesh, buddhism, magadha)
- Chola (medieval, southern India+Ceylan, hinduism, tamil)
- Mughal (modern, western India+Pakistan, islam, urdu)

CHINA:
- Han (classical, proper China, taoism, han)
- Tufan (medieval, Tibet, buddhism, tibetan)
- Qing (modern, Manchuria, confucianism, manchu)

Like you can see all of this civs represent true empires from different eras, regions, cultures, ethnic groups, languages and religions. There are not really reasons to put them together on any contemporay India or China.

About the polemic of modern politic, use historical dynastic names could give the past on any country, like on other games as Paradox ones.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I would love to see the day CIV series give some credit to India and China history and we could have these civs:

INDIA:
- Maurya (classical, eastern India+Bangladesh, buddhism, magadha)
- Chola (medieval, southern India+Ceylan, hinduism, tamil)
- Mughal (modern, western India+Pakistan, islam, urdu)

CHINA:
- Han (classical, proper China, taoism, han)
- Tufan (medieval, Tibet, buddhism, tibetan)
- Qing (modern, Manchuria, confucianism, manchu)

Like you can see all of this civs represent true empires from different eras, regions, cultures, ethnic groups, languages and religions. There are not really reasons to put them together on any contemporay India or China.

About the polemic of modern politic, use historical dynastic names could give the past on any country, like on other games as Paradox ones.

Mmmmmm the problem with that setup is that China would likely receive the division of its "contiguous" legacy negatively.

India might not care as much, I'm not sure to what extent pan-Indian nationalism compares to Chinese nationalism.

But then you have examples like Persia and Arabia that lie somewhere in between. On balance, for a game like VI which is strongly pandering to modern nationalism, it seems like civs tend to want to consolidate empires more than to split them apart.

So the question for me isn't whether the next installment should split up India, China, Persia, Arabia. But whether doing so would even be profitable in comparison to VI which has been a massive success with the casual market as a consequence of "streamlining" and "idealizing" history. I suspect the resonance threshold would fall well above separate Indias and Chinas and people in western markets just wouldn't buy in as much.

It would be pretty neat, hypothetically, to have such a game where, instead of differentiating slightly with different leaders, we could have three or four Indian or French civs, each sharing one small common unique trait to establish continuity but otherwise being wholly distinct. That's a pipe dream though

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

India might not care as much, I'm not sure to what extent pan-Indian nationalism compares to Chinese nationalism.

I'm not sure it is a good thing the game try to cater towards some sort of nationalist agenda, by that standard we could as well represent western Europé as Rome and leave it like that.

But then you have examples like Persia

Iran would probably be the more correct term, from what I have hard. Persia mean one of the Iranian people. It could probably be divided up into the zoroastrian achaemenid to Sassanids period and the muslims period afterwards.The civ VI and past versions of Persia/Iran is just based on the achaemenid version and ignore everything afterwards, which is similar to for example how the greek civilization is treated.

Arabia that lie somewhere in between.

Arabia seems to be based on the early caliphates which is basically something like Rome, unlike Rome however there is no "modern" arabian states represented in the game.

So the question for me isn't whether the next installment should split up India, China, Persia, Arabia. But whether doing so would even be profitable in comparison to VI which has been a massive success with the casual market as a consequence of "streamlining" and "idealizing" history. I suspect the resonance threshold would fall well above separate Indias and Chinas and people in western markets just wouldn't buy in as much.

Keep in mind that Civ V according to steamchart had similar if not more players than Civ VI, so Civ VI have not been that successful in replacing its predecessor. If that have anything to do with the design of the civs I don't know.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Iran would probably be the more correct term, from what I have hard. Persia mean one of the Iranian people. It could probably be divided up into the zoroastrian achaemenid to Sassanids period and the muslims period afterwards.The civ VI and past versions of Persia/Iran is just based on the achaemenid version and ignore everything afterwards, which is similar to for example how the greek civilization is treated.

incoming @Zaarin and how the Achaemenids are unconfirmed as zoroastrian in nature.

So the way i see it, if there is dynastic contiguity as a civ, those should be viewed as one civ, but if there was no unity through the historical representation, it makes more sense to view them as different civs.

Chola and Mughals? Different Civs

Ming and Han? Same Civ

Achaemenids and Seljuks? Same Civs

this would basically reduce the subjectivity as to whether something deserves a seperate civ, as different cultures within the same land makes sense for why they might be alt leaders.

If the main Indian leader was gandhi, like in civ 6, then it makes more sense to make the Mughals and Chola alt leaders, cuz the Republic of India encompasses all of the subcontinent, while Mughals, Maurya and Chola do not. but if there is no Republic of India civ, those three nations are distinct geographically and cultural identity-wise enough to be considered different

 

[Jeppetto]

All this talk about splitting India and China but we'e already meming about 50 Shades of Greece

 

[Zaarin]

Achaemenids and Seljuks? Same Civs

If the Achaemenids and Seljuks are the same civ, China, Korea, and Japan are the same civ. Except that one could actually make a better case for treating the Sinosphere as a single civ than Turkic petty kingdoms in Anatolia and the Levant as the same civ as Persia.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

If the Achaemenids and Seljuks are the same civ, China, Korea, and Japan are the same civ. Except that one could actually make a better case for treating the Sinosphere as a single civ than Turkic petty kingdoms in Anatolia and the Levant as the same civ as Persia.

the Seljuk were turks who ruled Persia. Although I would personally prefer they ruled a seperate civ

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

But then you have examples like Persia and Arabia that lie somewhere in between. On balance, for a game like VI which is strongly pandering to modern nationalism, it seems like civs tend to want to consolidate empires more than to split them apart.

It's easier to see Classical Achaemenid Persia, and the Arabian Caliphates of the Middle Ages, as the Golden Ages of their respective histories and what the casual history fans at least know, and base the abilities off of them.

Keep in mind that Civ V according to steamchart had similar if not more players than Civ VI, so Civ VI have not been that successful in replacing its predecessor. If that have anything to do with the design of the civs I don't know.

I think that's in part to Civ 5 being a complete game and it having full modding capabilities to make it the game everybody wants. I think in time Civ VI will get there when they finish and release the tools.

 

[Zaarin]

the Seljuk were turks who ruled Persia. Although I would personally prefer they ruled a seperate civ

Point being, though, they were Turks, and not even Persianized Turks.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Point being, though, they were Turks, and not even Persianized Turks.

fair enough, they definitely should be classified as a seperate civ, but given the blobbing criteria that others have layed out, they’d be a persian civ.

Persia and Arabia are odd cases that fall somewhere between India’s lack of unity which is blobbed in and China’s contiguous history filled with dynasties that pushed for different cultural focuses. It’s hard to necessarily say where they’d fall on the India ‘split it up’ to China ‘keep it together’ spectrum

 

[The Kingmaker]

Given both modern political considerations and the general public’s limited awareness, I think we’ll be lucky if we get the multi-leader approach.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Given both modern political considerations and the general public’s limited awareness, I think we’ll be lucky if we get the multi-leader approach.

i think you’re overstating political considerations. A game which literally labels India’s ability as ‘Population Growth’ doesn’t care about nationalism, and rightfully so (not the name. There could’ve been a better name)

People get all figity about nationalism in regards to civ just because including Tibet would result in a China ban. That’s literally the only consideration that firaxis likely takes in regards to nationalism because that would SEVERLY hurt their bottom line. Multiple leaders or dividing India wouldn’t have a similar effect in India or elsewhere

 

[Zaarin]

i think you’re overstating political considerations. A game which literally labels India’s ability as ‘Population Growth’ doesn’t care about nationalism, and rightfully so (not the name. There could’ve been a better name)

People get all figity about nationalism in regards to civ just because including Tibet would result in a China ban. That’s literally the only consideration that firaxis likely takes in regards to nationalism because that would SEVERLY hurt their bottom line. Multiple leaders or dividing India wouldn’t have a similar effect in India or elsewhere

I think you're mistaken. Firaxis is very eager to appeal to nationalism when it can bring in sales. See the inclusion of Brazil, Australia, Canada, and Gran Colombia. They explicitly stated that Poland returned because Poland is an important emerging market for strategy games. Though I was delighted to see them included, I wouldn't be surprised Hungary was considered for a similar reason. Firaxis is clearly conscious of how they can use nationalism as a marketing tool.

 

[The Kingmaker]

i think you’re overstating political considerations. A game which literally labels India’s ability as ‘Population Growth’ doesn’t care about nationalism, and rightfully so (not the name. There could’ve been a better name)

People get all figity about nationalism in regards to civ just because including Tibet would result in a China ban. That’s literally the only consideration that firaxis likely takes in regards to nationalism because that would SEVERLY hurt their bottom line. Multiple leaders or dividing India wouldn’t have a similar effect in India or elsewhere

See what @Zaarin said above.

There’s lots of political/marketing considerations when deciding what civs and leaders are added:

*No Tibet, as you mentioned. Also no Uighurstan or breaking China into smaller civs.
*No more Mao in the game because in course of gameplay his defeat could be depicted, which is anathema in China. 2K China edited him out for the version of Civ4 sold in the PRC, and he hasn’t been seen since CivRev.
*No Israel or Palestine.
*No Adolf Hitler or Nazis for Germany.
*No Confederacy for America.
*No Muhammad leading the Arabs. No Abu Bakr since Civ3.
*Civ5 was banned in Thailand because the Ramkhamhaeng animation had a passing resemblance to a controversial politician.
*Only Shoguns and Shikkens lead Japan, because the depiction of emperors is sacrosanct.
*Turkey is always called “the Ottomans” or “the Ottoman Empire,” never “Turkey,” “the Turks,” or even “Ottoman Turks.”
*No Stalin since Civ4.
*Limited number of 20th century leaders, mostly individuals with innocuous reputations like Gandhi. Haven’t even seen Churchill, FDR or DeGaulle since Civ4.
*Modern audiences are now favored with inclusion when their countries weren’t historically in most previous games: see Brazil, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Poland, Hungary, etc.

 

[AntSou]

*Turkey is always called “the Ottomans” or “the Ottoman Empire,” never “Turkey,” “the Turks,” or even “Ottoman Turks.”

What's the reason for this one?

 

[Thenewwwguy]

What's the reason for this one?

Ataturk, modern Turkey’s founding fathers, rejected the Ottomans and remnants of their rule as uncivilized, eastern, not ‘culturally turkish’ and not modern. He sought to westernize and ‘turkify’ the nation, and distance it from the Ottomans, which he saw as heavily influenced by Arabia. This is why he famously banned the fez, which wasn’t a turkish headwear, according to him, and moved the capital to Ankara, as Istanbul/Constantinyye was too closely associated with Ottoman Rule

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: This thread is about Possible Civs for The Frontier Pass. If you wish to discuss current events or politics, please take it to the History forum or Off Topic forum.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I agree. The Chola or the Mughals being represented by India, or by a separate civ, aren't necessarily a priority. I have other needs and wants and right now I think India is fine represented with not only Gandhi but Chandragupta for Civ 6.

I've been thinking about this. My first reflexive thought is that India is much more complex than we're getting right now, and rightfully should be represented by multiple civs in the game.

But players buying the game are in the modern times. Would players (customers) from India prefer to play as one of the many parts of their rich past, or as what they have grown up to know and feel part of as India? Clearly I'm speaking from a position of ignorance here so apologies in advance.