[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[PhilBowles]

South Africa is hardly the problem with the Zulu and Kongo. And I'm pretty sure the closest thing to modern Africa we might get would be Ethiopia.


I'm pretty sure Scotland is intended to be the "Celts" replacement this time around, or the start of the tradition to break up the "Celtic" blob. Gaul might be probable though only if there happens to be a second pass as Scotland isn't really portrayed as being "Celtic" influenced at all.

I still don't like describing what they've done with Scotland as 'replacing' the Celts. I see Scotland as a purely demographic decision - they want to represent the British nationalities (and the American communities that identify themselves, however inaccurately in many cases, as being descended from them) other than the English. The Celts did that in Civ V, Scotland does that this time around - maybe, indeed, Ireland will next time. If, indeed, that's the priority rather than having a pre-Roman Western European civ the Gauls don't achieve that objective.

So, yes, the Scots take the Celts' place, but as is tirelessly pointed out the Scots are not Celtic (in Civ terms) - it's a replacement because the two civs are meant to represent the Scottish demographic in different games, not because they want the Celts as a 'deblobbed' civ in the same way they want a Viking civ with a national identity.

I didn't say their pop culture image was accurate. Pop culture images rarely are.

As Lucretia Borgia and Richard III would be all too pleased to testify...

Well for the Olmecs we can just go back to what I said earlier about the giant talking colossal head from The Legends of the Hidden Temple.

Bu realistically it would be hard to implement and it's at least nice to see them as city-states/minor nations. I think it would be easier to implement some of them in like a Mythology spinoff game, but that's a whole new topic.

The Olmecs are represented as the La Venta city state, and have a colossal head improvement.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

For Africa, I think after Ethiopia if the devs want to add more Civs, I think a Swahili blob, Zimbabwe, Ashanti, Dahomey, Morocco/Berbers, or Benin should come first. I really don't want any more colonial/post-colonial nations. Especially not for Africa.

Someone also posed the question of how your list would change if we had two "Frontier Passes". For me, quite a bit actually. My best case scenario for the current Frontier Pass, based on what we know, would be Maya, Gran Colombia, Ethiopia, Portugal, Byzantium, Babylon, Austria, and the Cherokee, plus William of Orange as an alternate Dutch leader.

However, if we have two passes, that changes things. For the first pass, I'd want to see the Maya, Gran Colombia, Ethiopia, Portugal, Babylon, Cherokee, Thailand/Sukhothai, Byzantium, and William of Orange as a Dutch leader. In the second pass, I'd like to see the Iroquois, Austria, Italy, a Swahili Civ, Vietnam/Burma, Assyria, a Western-North American Civ (think Apache, Sioux, Navajo, or Chinook), Celts/Gaul, and an Egyptian alternate leader. Normally, I wouldn't be too happy with Italy or the Celts if it meant that we'd miss out on say, Austria, a Native American Civ, or Babylon. However, if we'd get two packs, I'd be super happy to see those in the game. I guess it's just an order of priority.

I think I’ve said this before but Zimbabwe simply isn’t well attested. Mutapa, its more successful and better understood successor makes more sense

If we got two packs, in my dream world, I’d like to see

Maya
Gran Colombia
Ethiopia
Babylon
Timurids
Portugal
Vietnam
Byzantium
Kublai Khan

Assyria
Hittites or Elam
Mutapa
Ireland
Tlingit or Salish
Navajo
Burma
Oman or Swahili
Ramses, Hadrian, Isabella or Yongle

of course, with the first pack i’m more realistic. Ideally, I would want to skip the Byzantines in place of more new civs

 

[Bast]

Right now we have two entirely medieval SE Asian civs with a religious focus representing Southeast Asia - Burma would be a good candidate to replace one of them in a later Civ game, but we don't need a third medieval SE Asian civ. What sets Vietnam apart is the length of its history - it could be represented by a much older civ (representing the faction resistant to China, as a popular suggestion is to have it led by the Trung Sisters), or by a modern one (and while Indonesia could be represented as a modern civ it's not the approach Firaxis has taken or one there seems any demand for) - potentially in addition to medieval societies in modern Vietnam such as the Champa, but most people who want Vietnam seem to want a civ that's recognisably culturally Vietnamese rather than another Indian-derived SE Asian state like the Champa.

I disagree. If they were taking the stance of rostering than they could've put Burma in this game rather than Khmer. We've seen Khmer before and Jayavarman. And what makes you think that they won't put Khmer in again in Civ VII and then we'll be back in the same situation? From a modern nation perspective/commercial sales perspective sure Vietnam makes more sense but how much is that really worth? I mean if that's the case, why didn't they put Vietnam or Phillippines in before Khmer. I very much doubt Cambodia is a big market. Leader personality is another problem. I doubt they would put Trung Sisters. Whereas Burma has Bayingnaung who is actually well known in foreing SEA nations like Thailand due to his conquest.

 

[PhilBowles]

I disagree. If they were taking the stance of rostering than they could've put Burma in this game rather than Khmer. We've seen Khmer before and Jayavarman. And what makes you think that they won't put Khmer in again in Civ VII and then we'll be back in the same situation? From a modern nation perspective/commercial sales perspective sure Vietnam makes more sense but how much is that really worth? I mean if that's the case, why didn't they put Vietnam or Phillippines in before Khmer. I very much doubt Cambodia is a big market. Leader personality is another problem. I doubt they would put Trung Sisters. Whereas Burma has Bayingnaung who is actually well known in foreing SEA nations like Thailand due to his conquest.

Civ VI was in part a sop to the Civ IV players who didn't like Civ V, and it seems they were deliberate in revisiting some of Civ IV's civs over adding new ones (though Jayarvarman is new - Suryavarman II was the Civ IV leader). As for the Khmer, they were the most obvious representative for SE Asia when Civ first included that area as being both significant and well-known to Western audiences. If you're going to include one civ from Southeast Asia the Khmer are the best option on historical as well as popular recognition grounds. Jayarvarman VII also qualifies as a 'big personality' - he pioneered the major phase of Khmer expansion, defeated the Champa who until then had been their major rivals, and stuck his face all over the Bayon.

I don't think it was until Civ V that Firaxis really paid attention to the non-Western part of its audience in terms of civ selection, and Burma is much more poorly-known in the West than it deserves to be. That we had to wait until Civ IV to get Southeast Asian representation at all, and until Civ V to get Indonesia, speaks volumes (especially as even when they added Indonesia they used a modern name despite the civ being effectively Majapahit - and unlike Civ VI, Civ V had the Majapahit capital in its city list).

If the Khmer aren't back for Civ VII Burma's a reasonable prospect - Siam rather backfired as it was one of the civs Firaxis said they added for local appeal, and controversy over the leader image actually ended up with the game being censored there.

I don't think the Philippines is an especially good option, since Southeast Asia is especially rich in developed urban societies on both the mainland and Indonesia but not in the Philippines - for a comparatively small area it would be overrepresented with as many as three civs, and so the Philippines would be ousting a more appropriate civ.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

The issue with southeast asia is there’s a lot of historically justifiable civs without much space. Siam, Vietnam, Champa, Khmer and Burma are all worthy, it’s just a matter of which you’d like to see (I’m not counting Indonesia as SEA. For these purposes, I’m only counting the peninsula)

I’d argue that after Indonesia, which either under the Majapahit or Srivijaya should be a constant as a civ, the next regionally notable (and in many cases, stronger than the Majapahit) is the Khmer (I personally prefer Suryavarman as he built Angkor Wat, and represents the more notable, successful, Hindu period, but Jayavarman is equally as interesting and successful). After that, the Champa are big, serving as the big rivals against the Khmer for its existence, although Burma also served in that capacity to an extent. Thailand/Siam was a breakaway state from the Khmer and as a result doesn’t make too much sense to include with the Khmer, especially if its an earlier Thai leader like Ramkhanhaeng, who served before Thai culture and political disambiguation fully differentiated.

One could also argue that as long as Gandhi is India’s leader, Burma is actually included within it.

So I’d say that Khmer and Indonesia should always appear, and one of Thailand and Burma should appear to represent SEA west of the Khmer and Vietnam or Champa to represent SEA east of the Khmer.

Additionally, including early Thailand as Sukhothai would mean the Khmer would have to pick a leader that didn’t rule over the Khmer while Thailand was still a part of it, so if Thailand is the pick, I’d like to see Narai, like the Suktriract mod, rather than ramkhanhaeng.

Vietnam and Burma both also have the advantage of being more differentiable from the Khmer compared to Thailand and Champa, as both were not Hindu or Hindu influenced, which varies it up. Vietnam has even more advantage in that regard than Burma because unlike Burma, Majapahit, Srivijaya, Khmer, Siam and Champa, it was not a Chola client state or heavily influenced by Tamil at all, compared to the other 6

 

[PhilBowles]

Vietnam and Burma both also have the advantage of being more differentiable from the Khmer compared to Thailand and Champa, as both were not Hindu or Hindu influenced, which varies it up. Vietnam has even more advantage in that regard than Burma because unlike Burma, Majapahit, Srivijaya, Khmer, Siam and Champa, it was not a Chola client state or heavily influenced by Tamil at all, compared to the other 6

That's not really a level of differentiation that can be visible in a Civ game. Burma in the Pagan period makes sense as a religious civ, just as the Khmer do - that it's a different religion in reality doesn't really differentiate them. Similarly the SE Asian graphic set would be as appropriate for Burma as for Khmer or Sukothai, as the architecture is broadly similar (Thailand survived longer as an urban society than Cambodia did and evolved its own later-period architecture such as the stupas of Ayutthaya, but they were still Indian-influenced).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The Olmecs are represented as the La Venta city state, and have a colossal head improvement.

That's why I mentioned it's nice to at least have them as represented, if they can't be their own playable Civ.
The talking colossal head as a leader was a joke though.

I’d argue that after Indonesia, which either under the Majapahit or Srivijaya should be a constant as a civ, the next regionally notable (and in many cases, stronger than the Majapahit) is the Khmer (I personally prefer Suryavarman as he built Angkor Wat, and represents the more notable, successful, Hindu period, but Jayavarman is equally as interesting and successful).

I agree that if I had to pick a mainland SE Asia to keep recurring it would be the Khmer due to their massive influence. I think the main reason they chose Jayavarman is because he was Buddhist, and it mostly reflects the whole SE Asian region today.
It's also a nice contrast to the Hindusism influenced Majapahit.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

That's why I mentioned it's nice to at least have them as represented, if they can't be their own playable Civ.
The talking colossal head as a leader was a joke though.


I agree that if I had to pick a mainland SE Asia to keep recurring it would be the Khmer due to their massive influence. I think the main reason they chose Jayavarman is because he was Buddhist, and it mostly reflects the whole SE Asian region today.
It's also a nice contrast to the Hindusism influenced Majapahit.

Jayavarman was mahayana buddhist and SEA today is theravada. Jayavarman is a perfectly fine leader, even if i think suryavarman would’ve been better, but i don’t think his purpose is to reflect modern SEA. Burma would do that better, or Thailand

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Jayavarman was mahayana buddhist and SEA today is theravada. Jayavarman is a perfectly fine leader, even if i think suryavarman would’ve been better, but i don’t think his purpose is to reflect modern SEA. Burma would do that better, or Thailand

I don't think the difference matters because there is only one type of Buddhism in the game. My point was I think that's why they went with the most prominent Buddhist leader, instead of a Hindu one, since they did go with the Khmer.

 

[Zaarin]

I don't think the difference matters because there is only one type of Buddhism in the game.

Maybe in the future Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism will get split like they did for Christianity. In the meantime there's Tomatekh's Historical Religion mod, but the point is moot in this case as all of Civ6's Buddhist leaders are Mahayana.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Maybe in the future Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism will get split like they did for Christianity. In the meantime there's Tomatekh's Historical Religion mod, but the point is moot in this case as all of Civ6's Buddhist leaders are Mahayana.

i love historical religions

 

[Abaxial]

There used to be a chocolate bar marketed as "Aztec" which had a TV commercial featuring Aztec warriors in full fig -

.
It was evidently thought that Aztecs were not that obscure!

Phillipines - there is a not bad Phillipines civ available in the Steam Workshop.

 

[PhilBowles]

There used to be a chocolate bar marketed as "Aztec" which had a TV commercial featuring Aztec warriors in full fig -

.
It was evidently thought that Aztecs were not that obscure!

In much the same period there was a serial in Dr Who's first series called "The Aztecs" as well (and none to this day about the Maya or the Inca). It's possible that that popularity wasn't mirrored across the Atlantic - both Cadbury's and Dr Who being British - or that awareness had waned in the following 20 years, but I don't think so (and Dr Who was conceived by a Canadian). That was my point: the Aztecs were chosen in Civ I because of their big pop culture footprint rather than their relevance, just as the Zulu were in because the Michael Caine film was a familiar part of pop culture for Sid Meier's generation.

All this is really to illustrate my core point that people expecting Civ to be anything more than pandering to popular culture are holding it to too high a standard. It's always been very loose with its criteria for historical relevance or how it represents specific cultures, and I think it's fairer to praise it for expanding over time to cover less well-known civs than to complain that certain major players are still missing, or to expect them to depart from the habit of the last 30 years and start subdividing established civs into constituent parts.

 

[Jewelrunna]

I think I’ve said this before but Zimbabwe simply isn’t well attested. Mutapa, its more successful and better understood successor makes more sense

If we got two packs, in my dream world, I’d like to see

Maya
Gran Colombia
Ethiopia
Babylon
Timurids
Portugal
Vietnam
Byzantium
Kublai Khan

Assyria
Hittites or Elam
Mutapa
Ireland
Tlingit or Salish
Navajo
Burma
Oman or Swahili
Ramses, Hadrian, Isabella or Yongle

of course, with the first pack i’m more realistic. Ideally, I would want to skip the Byzantines in place of more new civs

I don't disagree with that Mutapa take, I just said "Zimbabwe" as somewhat of a catch-all for whatever the devs would choose to represent if they went for a "Zimbabwe" Civ

 

[Shadowstrike]

One way to thread the needle there is to have a Shona civilization, which would include Great Zimbabwe, Mutapa, and the later Rozwi kingdom, as well as the modern nation of Zimbabwe.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Regarding the lack of SE Asia representation, I half wonder if Sukritact's modding is affecting official development. Either Firaxis not wanting to duplicate and invalidate his work, or maybe even having communicated to him what spaces they would leave free for him to develop. Most likely the former case, if anything.

Although, wouldn't it be wholesome if Firaxis paid Sukritact for his work (call it licensing or whatever) and then collaborated with him to release an official SE Asia expansion--perhaps with a bit of polishing and rebalancing--including some combination of Burma/Vietnam/Siam?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Regarding the lack of SE Asia representation, I half wonder if Sukritact's modding is affecting official development. Either Firaxis not wanting to duplicate and invalidate his work, or maybe even having communicated to him what spaces they would leave free for him to develop. Most likely the former case, if anything.

Although, wouldn't it be wholesome if Firaxis paid Sukritact for his work (call it licensing or whatever) and then collaborated with him to release an official SE Asia expansion--perhaps with a bit of polishing and rebalancing--including some combination of Burma/Vietnam/Siam?

Considering he made an equally good Ethiopia mod, and we are getting Ethiopia, I doubt that's the reason.

We got two in the DLC before R&F and that's the most we've had from that region in any game, already tied with Civ 5.
If we get another that would go beyond what we've ever gotten.
After the DLC and R&F featured East Asia so heavily I'm not surprised it sat out during GS. Though I don't expect any of East Asia to sit out at all in the NFP.

 

[Zaarin]

Regarding the lack of SE Asia representation, I half wonder if Sukritact's modding is affecting official development. Either Firaxis not wanting to duplicate and invalidate his work, or maybe even having communicated to him what spaces they would leave free for him to develop. Most likely the former case, if anything.

I would highly doubt that. Firaxis may pay some attention to the modding scene, but I doubt that it particularly influences their decisions. Maybe a popular mod could bring a civ to their attention, but I doubt they'd leave out a civ just because a mod exists for it.

Although, wouldn't it be wholesome if Firaxis paid Sukritact for his work (call it licensing or whatever) and then collaborated with him to release an official SE Asia expansion--perhaps with a bit of polishing and rebalancing--including some combination of Burma/Vietnam/Siam?

Ask Bethesda how much good will paid mods foster.

 

[Guynemer]

To be fair, Bethesda has made many, many decisions that have frittered away good will, paid mods being only one of them, and probably not terribly high on the list.

I'm not sure if that is an argument as to how unimportant the issue of paid mods is, or an argument as to how absolutely boneheaded and awful Bethesda's management is.

Probably both.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Ethiopia isn’t voiced and it has 2 animations.

Burma and Siam are fully voiced, fully animated and Siam has two leaders in that boat.

Firaxis has way more incentive to be avoiding Burma and Siam compared to Ethiopia, especially because they may decide to pick a leader who is not Zara Yakob anyway.