[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[leif erikson]

beats me. He accused them of using the far right eugenics i think

Moderator Action: Enough!
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I would prefer they use the term “civilization” to “empire” anyway. When the game talks about the Georgian, Maori or Canadian empires, it just feels goofy.

1) Almost-empire kingdoms (Kongo, Georgia, Phoenicia)

According to Wikipedia at least, the name Georgian Empire is synonymous with the medieval Kingdom of Georgia, though I have yet to find that name anywhere else. It talks about it being a pan-Caucasian empire.
Phoenicia is close enough with Carthage similarities.

If they released Ireland, players would then be complaining why one small kingdom got in while Switzerland, Belgium, Finland, and Bohemia were passed over. The more they can keep the standard within some definition of "large," they don't have to deal with the backlash of failing to please everyone.)

I think the main complaint would be that they picked another European Civ from the British Isles, which could be considered part of Victoria's "United Kingdom" civ along with Scotland.
Though if they were based on more Celtic influences that would make people happy.

 

[Zaarin]

I think the main complaint would be that they picked another European Civ from the British Isles, which could be considered part of Victoria's "United Kingdom" civ along with Scotland.

I mean, India is also part of Victoria's United Kingdom under the same terms as Ireland. Plus I'm pretty certain the Ireland most people want is Medieval Ireland, before it was conquered by successive Danish, Norman, and English invaders.

Phoenicia is close enough with Carthage similarities.

Even discounting Carthage, Tyre had an empire of overseas colonies like Kition on Crete, various Mediterranean islands (including Sicily and Corsica), Gader (modern Cadiz, Spain), and, of course, Carthage (which continued to pay tribute to Tyre long after it became the more important city).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I mean, India is also part of Victoria's United Kingdom under the same terms as Ireland. Plus I'm pretty certain the Ireland most people want is Medieval Ireland, before it was conquered by successive Danish, Norman, and English invaders.

I agree. It wouldn't be my complaint but I have seen others bring it up with Scotland. Barring Scotland, she does say she's Queen of Ireland in her introduction.
I think most people wanted Medieval Scotland too. We sort of did but only with Robert the Bruce, as the leader.

In that case they should reconcile us with Ethiopia.
Give us a modern leader and make the Civ ability, UU, and unique infrastructure all from different time periods.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I agree. It wouldn't be my complaint but I have seen others bring it up with Scotland. Barring Scotland, she does say she's Queen of Ireland in her introduction.
I think most people wanted Medieval Scotland too. We sort of did but only with Robert the Bruce, as the leader.

In that case they should reconcile us with Ethiopia.
Give us a modern leader and make the Civ ability, UU, and unique infrastructure all from different time periods.

robert the bruce would’ve been a good medieval scottish leader had the rest of scotland’s design been medieval.

Also, I don’t know if the devs are aware or not, but very little of scotland past 1100 was particularly celtic to begin with, just the highlands, and islands

it was never the best replacement for the celts. I’d rather have Ireland than any of those civs, specifically Medieval, Brian-led Ireland

 

[PhoenicianGold]

According to Wikipedia at least, the name Georgian Empire is synonymous with the medieval Kingdom of Georgia, though I have yet to find that name anywhere else. It talks about it being a pan-Caucasian empire.
Phoenicia is close enough with Carthage similarities.

Yeah I noticed the same thing about the wiki. It also showed up on the wiki list of empires although I could have sworn it wasn't on that list prior to R&F....

Point being, Phoenicia was still an "empire". As far as I can tell, the devs haven't really deviated from imperialist or expansionist civs. Again the biggest stretch is Scotland and I think that only barely made the cut on a technicality.

I think the main complaint would be that they picked another European Civ from the British Isles, which could be considered part of Victoria's "United Kingdom" civ along with Scotland.
Though if they were based on more Celtic influences that would make people happy.

That's the main complaint now though with Scotland. If we had Scotland and England blobbed into Britain, and a separate Irish civ, the complaints about two Isles civs would remain. But the complaints about how boring Scotland is would be gone.

 

[Zaarin]

very little of scotland past 1100 was particularly celtic to begin with, just the highlands, and islands

The islands--whether the Hebrides or the Northern Isles--were economically and administratively a rather unimportant part of Scotland and I wouldn't want a civ designed around them, but the Norse-Gaelic culture that developed there is really cool. There we go: let's have Norwegian Vikings again in Civ7, but make Thorfinn the Mighty the ruler. Sure, people might find it weird that Norway's TSL start location is in northern Scotland, but those islands were Norwegian for most of the Middle Ages. That was a joke. As cool as Norse-Gaelic culture is, they're probably not the best option for Norway, anymore than for Scotland.

 

[The Kingmaker]

it was never the best replacement for the celts. I’d rather have Ireland than any of those civs, specifically Medieval, Brian-led Ireland

And I’m still hoping that Scotland wasn’t really intended to replace the Celts at all...

 

[Thenewwwguy]

And I’m still hoping that Scotland wasn’t really intended to replace the Celts at all...

that would be good hope for the gauls or ireland

 

[PhilBowles]

it was never the best replacement for the celts. I’d rather have Ireland than any of those civs, specifically Medieval, Brian-led Ireland

It was a fine replacement for the Celts once you recognise what the devs' priorities are: they don't particularly care about representing ancient European tribal groups, they care about representing the modern non-English demographics in the British Isles, people who collectively use the label "Celts" even though it's historically anachronistic.

That's why Civ V's 'Celts' were a mishmash of Welsh, Irish and Scottish with a pre-Saxon British leader from Norfolk, and why Boudicca has been a leader option for the Celts in previous games. Scotland more satisfactorily achieves the goal of representing at least part of the demographic Firaxis is aiming at - however bad its implementation - so "The Celts" become unnecessary.

People who start from the view that Firaxis wants the Celts (i.e. the ancient civ) in the game and decided to use a single country to represent them, as they did with the Vikings, are looking at it backwards. They didn't put the Scots in the game because they wanted to represent the Celts - at least since Civ 4 the Celts have been in the game because they wanted to represent Scotland (and Ireland and Wales). Only in Civ III was there any reasonable attempt to portray the Celts as a coherent, non-British civ.

That's why I think the Gauls are a non-starter: the Celts have never been in the game on their own merits as a society (for which the Gauls are the best option), they've been in the game as surrogates for non-English Brits. That they never revisited the Civ III Gallic Celts in later games speaks volumes.

 

[Zaarin]

It was a fine replacement for the Celts once you recognise what the devs' priorities are: they don't particularly care about representing ancient European tribal groups, they care about representing the modern non-English demographics in the British Isles, people who collectively use the label "Celts" even though it's historically anachronistic.

I wouldn't say it's anachronistic. While there are a few linguists who disagree and while there is no agreement about the details, there is general academic consensus that Goidelic and Brythonic are related to Gaulish and Hispano-Celtic. It's only anachronistic if they have the Medieval rulers call themselves Celts, as the modern Celtic nations didn't start calling themselves Celtic (or rather start being called Celtic) until the 18th century.

People who start from the view that Firaxis wants the Celts (i.e. the ancient civ) in the game and decided to use a single country to represent them, as they did with the Vikings, are looking at it backwards. They didn't put the Scots in the game because they wanted to represent the Celts

I agree with your assessment, but I think it's unfortunate. Of the Medieval Celtic nations, only Ireland is all that interesting; the Welsh were absorbed by England really quickly, the Scots were more Anglo-Norman than Irish (the Highlands and the Isles were considered a wild frontier far from the center of power), and the Bretons would be more French than Celtic (though a prime candidate for an Arthurian-flavored civ, by which I mean a civ suffused with Arthurian-style chivalry and poetry, not one led by Arthur). Man doesn't even come into the discussion; it was an Irish colony.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I wouldn't say it's anachronistic. While there are a few linguists who disagree and while there is no agreement about the details, there is general academic consensus that Goidelic and Brythonic are related to Gaulish and Hispano-Celtic. It's only anachronistic if they have the Medieval rulers call themselves Celts, as the modern Celtic nations didn't start calling themselves Celtic (or rather start being called Celtic) until the 18th century.


I agree with your assessment, but I think it's unfortunate. Of the Medieval Celtic nations, only Ireland is all that interesting; the Welsh were absorbed by England really quickly, the Scots were more Anglo-Norman than Irish (the Highlands and the Isles were considered a wild frontier far from the center of power), and the Bretons would be more French than Celtic (though a prime candidate for an Arthurian-flavored civ, by which I mean a civ suffused with Arthurian-style chivalry and poetry, not one led by Arthur). Man doesn't even come into the discussion; it was an Irish colony.

Reasonably then, the best ways to represent celts in civ would be Ireland or the Gauls

 

[Patine]

I wouldn't say it's anachronistic. While there are a few linguists who disagree and while there is no agreement about the details, there is general academic consensus that Goidelic and Brythonic are related to Gaulish and Hispano-Celtic. It's only anachronistic if they have the Medieval rulers call themselves Celts, as the modern Celtic nations didn't start calling themselves Celtic (or rather start being called Celtic) until the 18th century.


I agree with your assessment, but I think it's unfortunate. Of the Medieval Celtic nations, only Ireland is all that interesting; the Welsh were absorbed by England really quickly, the Scots were more Anglo-Norman than Irish (the Highlands and the Isles were considered a wild frontier far from the center of power), and the Bretons would be more French than Celtic (though a prime candidate for an Arthurian-flavored civ, by which I mean a civ suffused with Arthurian-style chivalry and poetry, not one led by Arthur). Man doesn't even come into the discussion; it was an Irish colony.

Didn't the Medieval English kings and lords use terms like "the Celtic <insert derogative for rabble> on the Frontiers of the Realm," and such, or is that just in Hollywood and British cinema?

 

[Zaarin]

Didn't the Medieval English kings and lords use terms like "the Celtic <insert derogative for rabble> on the Frontiers of the Realm," and such, or is that just in Hollywood and British cinema?

No, calling the Scots/Irish/Welsh "Celts" was an Enlightenment thing. It was initially meant as derogatory, but it got picked up by romantic nationalists on one side and sentimental romantics (looking for the "Noble Savage") on the other. That being said, the Gaels and Britons recognized that their languages were related certainly no later than the High Middle Ages; the term Celtic just wasn't in use yet.

 

[The Kingmaker]

That they never revisited the Civ III Gallic Celts in later games speaks volumes.

Brennus of Gaul led the Celts in Civ4 in addition to Boudica. So at least in that assertion you are mistaken.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Who are general ‘big personality’ leaders from civs we haven’t seen yet, without regard to the viability of their civ?

The ones I’ve seen mentioned here are Brian Boru, Menelik II, Timur, Mathilda and Lorenzo di Medici

Since one of the dev’s explicit goals is to seek big personality leaders, trying to find leaders who are inherently really appealing, have interesting quirks or historical accomplishments or are just generally remembered as people with known personality quirks will probably help us in figuring out who will appear in New Frontier.

Brian Boru (Ireland), Menelik II (Ethiopia) Timur (Timurids), both Rajaraja and Rajendra Chola (Chola), Akbar and Nur Jahan (Mughals), Sabuktigin and Mahmud of Ghazna (Ghaznavids), Dihya (Berbers), Mathilda of Tuscany (Italy), Manuelito (Navajo), Tecumseh (Shawnee), Chief Seattle (Seattle), Sharjah Al-Durr (Arabia), Arwa al-Sulayhi (Yemen), al-Hasan ibn Suleiman (Swahili), personally come to mind as ‘big personality leaders’ that I personally think would be good fits

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

I would skip Florence and go with Dandolo and di Campofregoso. If we are still sticking to leaders as representing "empires" or "leagues", then the Venetian and Genoese empires should take priority over Florence.

Also, we have enough Medicis in the game.

As long as I understand you, Genoa and Venice are two similar to really offer different gameplays. They were the two sister republics, thalassocracies basing their power on trade. If we have two leaders (unlikely), there would probably be a mercantile one and a cultural one, and for culture Florence is usually the main thing.


Also, as an Opera fanatic, I really want the Opera House as a UU for Italy if they went by. I mean, for a long time (and still today), italian was/is the main language of opera. It would be a shame to overlook it with a duomo or a galleria, which are just a church/museum glorified but not with inherent different capacities.

Opera House: replace the Brodcoast Tower. Available at the Opera and Ballet civic rather than Radio technology. Contain two slots for great works of music. Also something diplomatic (+1 Envoy point per turn of +1 Diplomatic favor per turn) to show the cultural/diplomtic influence of Italy.

Or make Opera part of the CUA or something, by special projects. But if we have Italy without opera it would be a huge disappointment.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Brian Boru (Ireland), Menelik II (Ethiopia) Timur (Timurids), both Rajaraja and Rajendra Chola (Chola), Akbar and Nur Jahan (Mughals), Sabuktigin and Mahmud of Ghazna (Ghaznavids), Dihya (Berbers), Mathilda of Tuscany (Italy), Manuelito (Navajo), Tecumseh (Shawnee), Chief Seattle (Seattle), Sharjah Al-Durr (Arabia), Arwa al-Sulayhi (Yemen), al-Hasan ibn Suleiman (Swahili), personally come to mind as ‘big personality leaders’ that I personally think would be good fits

Even though the Navajo seem more likely, the one thing that the Apache do have over them is a big personality in Geronimo.
If they go with Berbers/Numidia, either Dihya or Masinissa would be a good pick.
And I'm pretty sure the devs at least know about the Trung Sisters for Vietnam right now.

 

[Jeppetto]

UA Antichi Stati Italiani
Holy Site, Campus, Harbor, Commercial Hub, Theater Square, and Harbor can only be built in your capital city. Cannot recruit Great Generals. Non-capital cities can only be built on your home continent but produce +2 science +2 faith +2 culture +2 production +1 Diplomatic Favor.

Similarily, provided we would want Italy to be expansionist nation of city-state-likes citites, I was thinking something like each city may only build one district (except Capital), but gets extra benefit, like % yield, from it. So basically you are creating a network of city-states under your rule.

 

[Jeppetto]

I would prefer they use the term “civilization” to “empire” anyway. When the game talks about the Georgian, Maori or Canadian empires, it just feels goofy.

They could also change the labels as the game goes based on your government, much like your title changed in Civ 5 based on social policy tree adopted.

So the Civ would be called as the people (specified by the leader) in Chiefdom like Hungarians, Poles, Ottomans, Maori etc. Then you can have Hungarian Republic, Polish Kingdom, Maori Empire etc. based on government choices. Would still sound goofy here and there but it would feel like following your choices in game of history you want for the played civilization.

Alternatively, wiki always seems to prefer the "people" term, like Hungarian people etc.