[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Xandinho]

Well, with NFP we will have 50 civs in the game and maybe that was the devs' intention from the beginning? But who knows if NFP sells well they will not open the possibility for a second round of passes? Then perhaps we'll have both Babylon and Assyria in the game, and more some like Morocco, Austria, Iroquois and Siam. I wouldn't mind, I prefer that they keep working on Civ6 instead of jumping to Civ7 and starting over from zero again .

 

[DWilson]

That gets a hard no from me. Ptolemaic Egypt at least wasn't as far removed from Ancient Egypt as the Ayyubids were.

My thought is that they are considered a part of the history of overall Egyptian culture, as are Ptolemaic and modern Egypt, much like the Yuan and Qing dynasties of China. Is Egypt meant to be Ancient Egypt, Classical Egypt, or all of Egyptian culture?

 

[Zaarin]

My thought is that they are considered a part of the history of overall Egyptian culture, as are Ptolemaic and modern Egypt, much like the Yuan and Qing dynasties of China. Is Egypt meant to be Ancient Egypt, Classical Egypt, or all of Egyptian culture?

There's a definite break in Egyptian culture after the Islamic conquest. They fill the same geography, but I wouldn't call the Arab Republic of Egypt a successor civilization to Ancient Egypt. Coptic culture is somewhat closer, but the Copts are a minority in Egypt, just like Assyrians in Iraq/Iran. Or to carry on that metaphor, the Arab Republic of Egypt is about as closely related to Pharaonic Egypt as the Republic of Iraq is to Assyria. (And you're correct that strictly speaking Ancient Egypt is generally regarded as ending with the New Kingdom, but the Ptolemies ruled over the Copts who carried on Ancient Egyptian culture. So while I'd prefer an actual Ancient Egyptian leader next time, Cleopatra is far less of a stretch for Ancient Egypt than Saladin would be in my opinion.) To carry that further, Saladin may have been headquartered in Egypt, but he makes far more sense as an Arab leader as he was the de facto caliph in his time period (although he never carried the title).

 

[DWilson]

There's a definite break in Egyptian culture after the Islamic conquest. They fill the same geography, but I wouldn't call the Arab Republic of Egypt a successor civilization to Ancient Egypt. Coptic culture is somewhat closer, but the Copts are a minority in Egypt, just like Assyrians in Iraq/Iran. Or to carry on that metaphor, the Arab Republic of Egypt is about as closely related to Pharaonic Egypt as the Republic of Iraq is to Assyria. (And you're correct that strictly speaking Ancient Egypt is generally regarded as ending with the New Kingdom, but the Ptolemies ruled over the Copts who carried on Ancient Egyptian culture. So while I'd prefer an actual Ancient Egyptian leader next time, Cleopatra is far less of a stretch for Ancient Egypt than Saladin would be in my opinion.) To carry that further, Saladin may have been headquartered in Egypt, but he makes far more sense as an Arab leader as he was the de facto caliph in his time period (although he never carried the title).

It's interesting to me, as I suspect (and may be wrong- this will likely spark discussions with my Coptic friends) many Egyptians today would disagree. While many of their lifestyle practices have changed, and some dramatically in a relatively short period following their conquest into the various Arabian caliphates and empires, I suspect they might argue that it's the people that matter, and highlight the distinct Egyptian traits that help distinguish them today from the rest of the modern Muslim world. I think it would be more acceptable for him to lead both if the Ayyubids are considered Egyptian, which they seem to be- though the definition of Egyptian used may be stretched, and if there was an additional Arabian leader (maybe an official caliph, for example).

I might see if I can make a mod to make him playable with Egypt. I will fully understand if you can't bring yourself to use it (lol).

 

[Zaarin]

It's interesting to me, as I suspect (and may be wrong- this will likely spark discussions with my Coptic friends) many Egyptians today would disagree.

I'm sure they would, but while self-identification certainly has ethnographic value, I'm not sure how valuable it is from a historiographic perspective. I'd point out that Hungarian nationalists believe themselves to be Huns and/or Sumerians, and the Poles have historically self-identified as Sarmatians. Also, since you mention Copts, I'll say again that Copts are clearly far closer in culture (and, apparently, genetics) to Ancient Egyptians than the general Egyptian population, even now that they no longer speak Coptic as a daily language, but the Copts are a very small part of the Egyptian populace (they can seem larger to Westerners because a disproportionate amount of the Egyptian diaspora is Coptic--my city actually has a fairly large Coptic population and a Coptic Orthodox Church).

 

[DWilson]

I'm sure they would, but while self-identification certainly has ethnographic value, I'm not sure how valuable it is from a historiographic perspective. I'd point out that Hungarian nationalists believe themselves to be Huns and/or Sumerians, and the Poles have historically self-identified as Sarmatians. Also, since you mention Copts, I'll say again that Copts are clearly far closer in culture (and, apparently, genetics) to Ancient Egyptians than the general Egyptian population, even now that they no longer speak Coptic as a daily language, but the Copts are a very small part of the Egyptian populace (they can seem larger to Westerners because a disproportionate amount of the Egyptian diaspora is Coptic--my city actually has a fairly large Coptic population and a Coptic Orthodox Church).

I would say self-identification holds more sway in an instant like this, where the people and geography are largely the same, even with a serious and significant culture shift. It is surely an imperfect analogy, but I would still consider the peoples before the Normans to have been part of English civilization, for example.

And I definitely recognize your point about the Copts. I mainly mentioned them as I have a good friendship with recent immigrants who might be able to comment and have a discussion on their society, culture, and history as a whole, even beyond their particular sect of Modern Egyptian community.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Those were examples. There's a lot longer list of civs I'd want in before I felt complacent enough to ignore that Braustralcanalombia was in.

Well there are only so many NearEast/Mesopotamian Civs that we can get.

Just out of curiosity, would it be considered appropriate for Saladin to be playable as the leader of Egypt? I realize he doesn't fit with Ancient Egypt, but Cleopatra doesn't really either.

The Ptolemaic Kingdom is still portrayed as being part of the line of Ancient Egyptian Dynasties, and that is what Egypt in the game has always represents. I'd personally keep them separate.

The Ayyubid Dynasty that Saladin ruled was still under a much larger Abbasid Caliphate, so to me he only makes sense as an Arabian leader.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Modern Iranians still often lay claim to Cyrus despite simultaneously living in a highly islamicized society that has lost a lot of the achaemenid’s legacy. Slavic North Macedonians lay claim to the decidedly Greek Alexander. National identification means little if it’s at odds with reality within history

@Zaarin do hungarians really think they’re related to sumerians? WTH,

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Austria was considered one of the world’s most powerful empires from the 1500s to 1900s

But I’d prefer that they don’t appear in this game given their gimmicks have already been covered

The first Bulgarian empire lasted from the 600s to the 1000s, pushed back Byzantine invasion of Europe and invented the writing system adopted by all Slavic languages. There was also a second Bulgarian empire from the 1100st to 1300s which unified most of the south slavic peoples. Not to mention the third Bulgarian state that came after, or Greater Bulgaria which came before.

That's at least as influential as Austria, and honestly, Austria was only an empire by itself for a brief stint in the 1800s. Most of its power came from the unification with Hungary (and attempt at unification with Bohemia in a triarchy), and Hungary was a far older and more enduring culture anyway.

Austria lies somewhere between a Portugal and a Venice. It may have been politically imperial, but at its heart it's just a very stubborn breakoff state that didn't accomplish nearly as much globally as the Dutch.

This is very much true. If the civ roster were much fuller and Canada and Australia weren't taking slots from more important civs like Babylon, Assyria, Byzantium, etc., sure, I'd roll my eyes, put them on my ban list, and not really care that they're in the game.

And I would do the same for Babylon, Assyria, and Byzantium in a roster that didn't include at least Burma and Vietnam, and Bulgaria. We prioritize different things. You want your cradles of civilization covered. I want as much of the map filled as possible.

Those were examples. There's a lot longer list of civs I'd want in before I felt complacent enough to ignore that Braustralcanalombia was in.

Oh come on. Brazil was in V. It's not that bad.

And actually as far as American "empires" go, we don't have many. Colombia and maybe Mexico were the only things close enough to justify new content.

Colombia in my eyes and with respect to whatever the hell VI has decided it wants to do is great. Generally, and with respect to your tastes its....fine. It's fine. It's.....fine. It's. Fine.

I'm sure they would, but while self-identification certainly has ethnographic value, I'm not sure how valuable it is from a historiographic perspective. I'd point out that Hungarian nationalists believe themselves to be Huns and/or Sumerians, and the Poles have historically self-identified as Sarmatians. Also, since you mention Copts, I'll say again that Copts are clearly far closer in culture (and, apparently, genetics) to Ancient Egyptians than the general Egyptian population, even now that they no longer speak Coptic as a daily language, but the Copts are a very small part of the Egyptian populace (they can seem larger to Westerners because a disproportionate amount of the Egyptian diaspora is Coptic--my city actually has a fairly large Coptic population and a Coptic Orthodox Church).

I was aware of the Hungarians claims to Hunnic heritage. I thought it was Albanians which claimed closer heritage to Sumerians. The Polish stuff surprises me although I guess it's no more a stretch than the Hun-garians. Very interesting stuff.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Well, with NFP we will have 50 civs in the game and maybe that was the devs' intention from the beginning? But who knows if NFP sells well they will not open the possibility for a second round of passes? Then perhaps we'll have both Babylon and Assyria in the game, and more some like Morocco, Austria, Iroquois and Siam. I wouldn't mind, I prefer that they keep working on Civ6 instead of jumping to Civ7 and starting over from zero again .

I agree. I’d much rather they perfect Civ VI than jump to Civ VII.

I know there’s only like a 1% chance of this happening, but I hope they continue on to the 60 civ threshold. That’s only ten more after NF.

They could bring back everything worthy of revisiting (and ditch the Huns, etc.), plus several fun new choices. Here’s some ideas (minus the ones we already know: Maya, GC, and Ethiopia).

Returning Favorites
Austria
Assyria
Babylon
Byzantium
Gaul (instead of Celts)
Hittites
Iroquois
Italy (instead of Venice)
Morocco (or al-Andalus or Berbers)
Portugal
Siam
(I left off the Huns, Denmark, the Sioux, Shoshone, Songhai, and Kamehameha’s Polynesia (Hawai’i) but I’m open-minded if someone wants to make a case for any of them.)

Newbies - take your pick
Ashanti/Benin/Oyo
Cherokee/Creek
Kilwa/Swahili
Kushans
Navajo/Apache
Syria/Palmyra
Timurids/Gurkhani/Tatars
Vietnam/Burma
Zimbabwe/Mutapa
(I didn’t make any more European suggestions, because I think Europe will be quite full enough if the old favorites above return. But of course Bulgaria seems a sensible option, among others.)

I recognize that everyone has their own preferences and am open to hearing what other civs people want to see.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

but at its heart it's just a very stubborn breakoff state

Austria RAN the HRE for like four hundred years wHat

Zimbabwe

I’d prefer Mutapa, Zimbabwe’s successor state, as it’s better attested too and overall more successful. I like these ideas. Read my post regarding my hopes if we get a second season though

 

[The Kingmaker]

Austria RAN the HRE for like four hundred years wHat


I’d prefer Mutapa, Zimbabwe’s successor state, as it’s better attested too and overall more successful. I like these ideas. Read my post regarding my hopes if we get a second season though

I actually almost put down “Zimbabwe/Mutapa.” I’ll go ahead and edit them in to my post.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I agree. I’d much rather they perfect Civ VI than jump to Civ VII.

I know there’s only like a 1% chance of this happening, but I hope they continue on to the 60 civ threshold. That’s only ten more after NF.

They could bring back everything worthy of revisiting (and ditch the Huns, etc.), plus several fun new choices. Here’s some ideas (minus the ones we already know: Maya, GC, and Ethiopia).

Returning Favorites
Austria
Assyria
Babylon
Byzantium
Gaul (instead of Celts)
Hittites
Iroquois
Italy (instead of Venice)
Morocco (or al-Andalus or Berbers)
Portugal
Siam
(I left off the Huns, Denmark, the Sioux, Shoshone, Songhai, and Kamehameha’s Polynesia (Hawai’i) but I’m open-minded if someone wants to make a case for any of them.)

Newbies - take your pick
Ashanti/Benin/Oyo
Cherokee/Creek
Kilwa/Swahili
Kushans
Navajo/Apache
Syria/Palmyra
Timurids/Gurkhani/Tatars
Vietnam/Burma
Zimbabwe/Mutapa
(I didn’t make any more European suggestions, because I think Europe will be quite full enough if the old favorites above return. But of course Bulgaria seems a sensible option, among others.)

I recognize that everyone has their own preferences and am open to hearing what other civs people want to see.

Hey. HEY.

I like the Huns. I could totally see a Hun clone civ built out of Scythian assets.

Plenty of us have observed some niche design space for Denmark led by Margaret I. If you're arguing for Third-Germany (Austria), then we certainly can argue for Third-Norway.

I would be very surprised if we got a Gurkhani civ and a Kushan civ. Those seem pretty mutually exclusive geographically.

However, Burma and Vietnam fill sufficiently different geographic and cultural gaps that I resent them being lumped together as equivalents.

And do we really need Siam?

 

[The Kingmaker]

Hey. HEY.

I like the Huns. I could totally see a Hun clone civ built out of Scythian assets.

Plenty of us have observed some niche design space for Denmark led by Margaret I. If you're arguing for Third-Germany (Austria), then we certainly can argue for Third-Norway.

I would be very surprised if we got a Gurkhani civ and a Kushan civ. Those seem pretty mutually exclusive geographically.

However, Burma and Vietnam fill sufficiently different geographic and cultural gaps that I resent them being lumped together as equivalents.

And do we really need Siam?

Easy does it now.

I’ll preface my comments by saying I only posted some loose suggestions. I intentionally gave more options than there are slots to fill, even in my proposed Final Frontier scenario.

If you want Denmark instead of Austria, you’re welcome to it. I don’t think we’ll actually get either one at this point. The V Reborn team already added Austria back, and Denmark is still a possibility, so, there’s that. We might get the Huns that way too, if we can persuade them to keep modding.

I readily acknowledge that we’ll be very lucky to get even one central Asian civ. Although I really prefer the Kushans, I wouldn’t be upset to see Timur make an appearance.

I also acknowledge we’ll be lucky to get one more SE Asian civ. I think Siam may have actually cooked its goose when Thailand banned Civ5 in a fit of pique. Given the fan support, I think Vietnam is at least the more likely contender at this point. But I thought Burma worthy of mentioning. Sukitract has actually done a Burma mod that’s supposed to be pretty good. His latest stuff is FXS-level content.

I stand by my usual sentiment that “more is more.” I will gladly take whatever FXS gives, even though I might not get all my wishes granted.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Easy does it now.

I’ll preface my comments by saying I only posted some loose suggestions. I intentionally gave more options than there are slots to fill, even in my proposed Final Frontier scenario.

If you want Denmark instead of Austria, you’re welcome to it. I don’t think we’ll actually get either one at this point. The V Reborn team already added Austria back, and Denmark is still a possibility, so, there’s that. We might get the Huns that way too, if we can persuade them to keep modding.

I readily acknowledge that we’ll be very lucky to get even one central Asian civ. Although I really prefer the Kushans, I wouldn’t be upset to see Timur make an appearance.

I also acknowledge we’ll be lucky to get one more SE Asian civ. I think Siam may have actually cooked its goose when Thailand banned Civ5 in a fit of pique. Given the fan support, I think Vietnam is at least the more likely contender at this point. But I thought Burma worthy of mentioning. Sukitract has actually done a Burma mod that’s supposed to be pretty good. His latest stuff is FXS-level content.

I stand by my usual sentiment that “more is more.” I will gladly take whatever FXS gives, even though I might not get all my wishes granted.

the Kushans are technically south asian, so no one says we can’t have them and the timurids

 

[The Kingmaker]

I think he was just saying we’re not likely to get two civs who both occupied the ‘Stans.

 

[Vizurok]

Modern Iranians still often lay claim to Cyrus despite simultaneously living in a highly islamicized society that has lost a lot of the achaemenid’s legacy. Slavic North Macedonians lay claim to the decidedly Greek Alexander. National identification means little if it’s at odds with reality within history

@Zaarin do hungarians really think they’re related to sumerians? WTH,

To clear up things, I can assure all of you that we don't. There are conspiracy theorist nutjobs that toy with this idea along with other crazy hits like "Hungarians come from Sirius" or "Jesus was Hungarian but I would say that every country has their own share of tinfoil hat "historians".

As for the Hunnic origins, that's much more widespread. Although there is no real scientificially proven link between the two peoples, historians and politicans always kind of liked this narrative as it linked the current nation to a very powerful precedessor. Naturally, common folk also fancied this idea, so it still reamins in circulation even currently. Also, to be honest, this whole relation things is a very subjective matter to define: the Huns' core area during their golden age was certainly in modern day Hungary and the Huns came from the generic area that Hungarians originated from, so linking the two people is not such big a leap of faith. Obviously, this link is not strong at all, and could be made to every single Steppe-based nomadic tribe touring Europe in the 5-10th centuries.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I think he was just saying we’re not likely to get two civs who both occupied the ‘Stans.

not necessarily. Even if we got the Timurids, they serve to fill in the Former Soviet Republic Stans, like Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan. The Kushans (or Ghaznavids) would neatly nestle in between as fillers of Afghanistan and Pakistan, where they were based, which is currently only represented empires centered elsewhere (namely pataliputra and pasagardae) which so happened to conquer those lands.

 

[Guynemer]

I'd point out that Hungarian nationalists believe themselves to be... Sumerians,

what in the god damn...?

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Eh I'm not unhappy with representing modern empires like America, Canada, Australia, Brazil (and India, Ethiopia). The past couple centuries have seen an exponential increase in human technology and culture and having a few civs exemplify that seems fair. Canada represents global diplomacy. America represents conservativism and the media explosion. Australia seems to represent frontier expansionism generally. Brazil is the closest thing to an empire and we really could use more "party" civs.

Keep in mind that the game the time period of 1800 to 2000 is represented by 4 or 5 eras (if we add in the future era) out of a total 8 or 9 eras (with future era). This mean half the eras in Civilization VI represent a very small part of human history and if each era should have an equal amount of civilizations, half or more of the civs would be modern.