[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Jeppetto]

I have seen it once in over 2000 hours of play; if I hadn't been aiming for a 500 turn score victory, I would have won the game long before. English Eleanor nuked Catherine. Twice.

But that sounds like their personal problems being solved. I think the base AI used the 500 turns to evolve way more personality than it should have. If I were you I would delete the game savefiles, remove the harddisk holding what's left of the data, lock it in metal box and throw it into deep see or we're having AI versus humans scenario soon.

 

[Zaarin]

It took me a while to figure out what you were trying to say, but I see it now. I can't believe you lumped in the Latin American countries with the Anglo ones.

I consider it shorthand for "all of those postcolonial countries that have absolutely no business being in the game."

Since Asia is so big that I'm expecting East Asia, with Kublai Khan and Vietnam, to be a different pack than a Middle East pack which could include either Assyria and/or Babylon.

I agree. Most Westerners don't think of the Middle East as part of Asia, even though, of course, it is.

 

[SagarRathore]

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.

I m from India so I think I can give my opinion on it.I think most Indian will prefer India as one unit(as they see India as one civilization) just like how Mahatma Gandhi said "Though India is nation in making(during freedom struggle),it is a civilization"
I would argue India,China as continuous civilization.I see many arguments here which though agree for China but not for India & the principal argument is India does not had one unified central structure for long time like China.
I think this type of classification is not right considering people,situations,geographies r different in every part of world & obviously they lead to different phenomena.
So though LONG unified central authority is a good argument but it is not necessary.
Chinese geography(traditional han territory) lent itself to political,cultural unity.Presence of nomadic people just north also push them for unity.
Moreover Chinese population is regime-phile.The concept like mandate of heaven though help to establish united indegenous empires but it also help invaders.
India is different case(at least if u take whole subcontinent),It is well protected by himalayas(unlike China which is open to steppes).
No empire whether indegenous or foreign would not last very long.It is difficult to conquer,manage & that is not because it is some kind of amalgum but the nature,philosophy of people(also geography) is different.The absence of concept like mandate of heaven,divine right of king in India also project different nature of people.
So to see continuity in India,it is better to observe traditions,philosophy,concepts,customs etc though u will find unified,central authority also but it will be for less time.
So I will argue India is a FRACTAL civilization and one will see thousands of examples of it through out it's at least(3500-4000 years) of history.
It is ultimately based in Sanskrit/Vedic traditions bind by Ramayana,Mahabhara, Puranas etc,which is periodically revitalized by India kings(Kuru,Mauryas,Gupta,Rajputs,Cholas,Maratha etc)
Due to it's fractal nature it keeps on surviving whether u impose Persian,English etc culture over it.
Now from this view(which i believe a good majority of Indians share),India requires a leader which truly can represent it's spirit,traditions,philosophy.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I didn't bring up any of those things. I pointed out that we have Braustralcanalombia, Poland (by Firaxis' explicit statement), probably Hungary, etc. because Firaxis wants to appeal to nationalist fanbases in those countries. That's hardly a conspiracy. It's kind of obvious, and in several cases it's by Firaxis' own explicit statement.

I would also include Scotland as a modern gaming market, and think the nationalist pandering is the strongest indicator that the devs will try to shoehorn a unified Italian civ in somehow. I believe it is the largest economy without a civ in VI at the moment.

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.

As far as Steam is concerned, the two are about comparable. But V was never released on iOS, Linux, PS, Xbox, Ninetendo... As far as raw sales go it undoubtedly made more of a profit for Firaxis than V.

Now, would V have sold as well on a multiplatform release? Maybe. But I do think the whole Disneyfied culture wooyay aesthetic appeals to a broader market than V's grandiose approach to history.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I agree. Most Westerners don't think of the Middle East as part of Asia, even though, of course, it is.

I'll also add that Egypt is culturally considered in the Middle East too so there is a possibility that they could include a Civ from North Africa, as Ethiopia would only represent Sub-Sahara Africa.
Then there's Turkey too, which the Byzantines could go there too as it is closer to those Civs than it would be to Portugal or any others in Western Europe.

 

[Xandinho]

I didn't bring up any of those things. I pointed out that we have Braustralcanalombia, Poland (by Firaxis' explicit statement), probably Hungary, etc. because Firaxis wants to appeal to nationalist fanbases in those countries. That's hardly a conspiracy. It's kind of obvious, and in several cases it's by Firaxis' own explicit statement.

Marketing really matters, see USA since Civ1 , but some of these civs were obvious choices if devs wanted to increase representation from their respective regions. I mean, Brazil is an obvious choice for more South American civs besides Inca and Australia for Oceania. Canada is maybe the most striking marketing reason since we already had Cree and two other Anglophone nations. And I think Hungary was an alternative to Austria, and I particularly prefer Hungary over Austria, and I wouldn't mind seeing Hungary replacing Austria again in Civ7 .

 

[The Kingmaker]

I just hope that this round of DLC does well enough that we get a second round (the Final Frontier, perhaps?).

Civ6 has now moved into unprecedented territory with a multiplicity of new platforms + post-XP2 content. “New Frontier” is an apt name for this content.

Perhaps Final Frontier would then give us some fun experimental civs, assuming New Frontier’s content is going to be at least 50% old favorites, if not more.

Time to meme it into existence.

 

[Zaarin]

Marketing really matters, see USA since Civ1 , but some of these civs were obvious choices if devs wanted to increase representation from their respective regions. I mean, Brazil is an obvious choice for more South American civs besides Inca and Australia for Oceania. Canada is maybe the most striking marketing reason since we already had Cree and two other Anglophone nations. And I think Hungary was an alternative to Austria, and I particularly prefer Hungary over Austria, and I wouldn't mind seeing Hungary replacing Austria again in Civ7 .

That they're obvious choices for pandering doesn't mean I have to like the pandering. As I've said before, I'd happily see the USA cut, too. Like I said, I like Hungary's inclusion (though I want Maria Theresa back in Civ7), and there's more to its inclusion than simple market pandering, of course. I simply wouldn't be surprised if one of the motives for including it was to appeal to the Hungarian market.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I would also include Scotland as a modern gaming market, and think the nationalist pandering is the strongest indicator that the devs will try to shoehorn a unified Italian civ in somehow. I believe it is the largest economy without a civ in VI at the moment.

I hope that's the case. I know the past 2 expansions have released one returning European (Dutch and Sweden) and one new one (Scotland and Hungary, though Georgia could be debatable) but if two of the returning ones, Portugal and Byzantines, are big names will they replace a unified Italy with it?

I just hope that this round of DLC does well enough that we get a second round (the Final Frontier, perhaps?).

Civ6 has now moved into unprecedented territory with a multiplicity of new platforms + post-XP2 content. “New Frontier” is an apt name for this content.

I agree, it is an apt name. I'm not sure if it means they will do a second one or it's just testing to see if this will be something that they decide to do more of for future games.

That they're obvious choices for pandering doesn't mean I have to like the pandering. As I've said before, I'd happily see the USA cut, too. Like I said, I like Hungary's inclusion (though I want Maria Theresa back in Civ7), and there's more to its inclusion than simple market pandering, of course. I simply wouldn't be surprised if one of the motives for including it was to appeal to the Hungarian market.

If the marketing had said that the alt. leader would require GS, I would have jumped on the Maria Theresa leads Germany and Hungary bandwagon, no matter the fact that I would probably be 100% wrong.

 

[Zaarin]

If the marketing had said that the alt. leader would require GS, I would have jumped on the Maria Theresa leads Germany and Hungary bandwagon, no matter the fact that I would probably be 100% wrong.

This would have made me so happy.

 

[Xandinho]

That they're obvious choices for pandering doesn't mean I have to like the pandering. As I've said before, I'd happily see the USA cut, too. Like I said, I like Hungary's inclusion (though I want Maria Theresa back in Civ7), and there's more to its inclusion than simple market pandering, of course. I simply wouldn't be surprised if one of the motives for including it was to appeal to the Hungarian market.

Although some people here don't seem to approve the idea, I wouldn't mind having Austria in the game represented by an alternative leader to Germany , like Maria Theresa. Hungary, on the other hand, would prefer it to be always represented in the game as its own civ.

 

[Zaarin]

Although some people here don't seem to approve the idea, I wouldn't mind having Austria in the game represented by an alternative leader to Germany , like Maria Theresa. Hungary, on the other hand, would prefer it to be always represented in the game as its own civ.

Since Austria was only excluded from (modern) Germany to advance Prussia's interests under Bismarck, I'd be 100% okay with representing Austria as an alt leader for Germany. As fond as I am of the Iron Chancellor, I'm pretty on board with Germany continuing to be represented by a Holy Roman Emperor, too.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Although some people here don't seem to approve the idea, I wouldn't mind having Austria in the game represented by an alternative leader to Germany , like Maria Theresa. Hungary, on the other hand, would prefer it to be always represented in the game as its own civ.

She was one of the leaders for Germany in Civ 2. But I guess that's not the best game to go by when referring to possible alt. leaders a.k.a. Shakala for the Zulu.
Still the only reason I wanted Austria was for Maria Theresa, and if Austria isn't happening, at least bring her in.

 

[The Kingmaker]

The Civ5 Leaders Reborn mod has recently added her and Austria.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

She was one of the leaders for Germany in Civ 2. But I guess that's not the best game to go by when referring to possible alt. leaders a.k.a. Shakala for the Zulu.
Still the only reason I wanted Austria was for Maria Theresa, and if Austria isn't happening, at least bring her in.

I am generally not missing any of the big names from prior installments. However, I don't think anyone misses Austria so much as they miss Maria Teresa.

In which case I propose the devs release Maria Teresa as an alternate leader. For every civ.

Maria Teresa leads Germany. Maria Teresa leads Hungary. Maria Teresa leads Spain. Maria Teresa leads the Maori.

 

[Zaarin]

I am generally not missing any of the big names from prior installments. However, I don't think anyone misses Austria so much as they miss Maria Teresa.

In which case I propose the devs release Maria Teresa as an alternate leader. For every civ.

Maria Teresa leads Germany. Maria Teresa leads Hungary. Maria Teresa leads Spain. Maria Teresa leads the Maori.

Yes! I can't wait to play as Maria Theresa of Scotland, who clearly saw a different ending to the Seven Years' War.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Maria Teresa leads Germany. Maria Teresa leads Hungary. Maria Teresa leads Spain. Maria Teresa leads the Maori.

Honestly with as many children that she had and married off it could be close to an accurate statement.

 

[Xandinho]

I'll do an update of what I expect in the next packs:

Pack 1: Latin America
Pack 2: Africa

Pack 3: Middle East
Includes Byzantines and Babylon
New Map: TSL Middle East
New wonders: Zeus Statue and maybe Solomon's Temple?
Mode mode: something related to the birth of civilizations

Pack 4: Europe
Includes Portugal
New mode: something like corporations and/or colonization

Pack 5: Far East Asia
Includes Vietnam and Kublai Khan
New wonders: maybe Borobudur and some Chinese wonder like Temple of Heaven or Tower of Porcelain

Pack 6: North America
Includes some civilization from the Southwest United States

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Had some ideas for the remaining New Frontier civs:

Pack 3:

the Philippines (Cultural/City-States focused)
the Timurids (Military/Loyalty focused)

Pack 4:

the Visigoths (Military/Barbarians focused)

Pack 5:

Csethwayo (alt leader for Zulu with a Diplomacy focus)
Madagascar (Cultural/Natural Wonder focused)

Pack 6:

the Mississippians (Economic/River focused, has a pimped out version of Cahokia Mounds as a unique district)

I can’t see this happening. At all.

I consider it shorthand for "all of those postcolonial countries that have absolutely no business being in the game."


I agree. Most Westerners don't think of the Middle East as part of Asia, even though, of course, it is.

Civilization didn’t end prior to colonization. Post-colonial nations serve more of a purpose in the game than being marketing tools. After all, Australia and Canada have played very influential roles in WW2 and world events since, while both Gran Colombia’s successor states and Brazil are of key regional importance.

While I don’t see the need for 5 post colonial nations, I have no issue with them being included in the game. History means all history, which includes post-colonialism.

 

[Zaarin]

Civilization didn’t end prior to colonization. Post-colonial nations serve more of a purpose in the game than being marketing tools. After all, Australia and Canada have played very influential roles in WW2 and world events since, while both Gran Colombia’s successor states and Brazil are of key regional importance.

While I don’t see the need for 5 post colonial nations, I have no issue with them being included in the game. History means all history, which includes post-colonialism.

You're entitled to your opinion that postcolonial nations add something meaningful to the game, and I'm entitled to my opinion that they don't. Canada and Australia were already adequately covered by England, especially Civ6's very British England. Nation-state ≠ civilization.