[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Kupe Navigator]

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.

There is a mod for that... I hope team would adopt it like they did with pins.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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.

Here is my idea for a UA at least which kind of follows your idea. But instead of limiting a city to only one district, maybe just one specialty district instead.
Birthplace of the Renaissance:
Each city becomes a specialist city depending on the type of specialty district it constructs first after your capital:

Scientific cities: Universities gain great Engineer points and tourism based off of campus adjacency bonuses.

Cultural cities: Art museums are automatically themed when completed and provide gold.

Religious cities: Worship buildings provide tourism when built.Trade routes from your Holy city provide more gold to you from cities with your religion.

Industrial cities: Workshops provide extra production when producing wonders and Great Scientist, Writer, Artist, and Musician points.

Trade cities: Banks provide extra gold and add one trader capacity.

Militaristic cities: Armories allow a discount when levying units.

Maritime cities: Shipyards can be used to build fleets and armadas.

 

[PhilBowles]

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.

We've discussed this before - I'm referring to historical societies, not to language groups. The language group took its name from the artefact culture - it's not something that can meaningfully be used to define what is or is not "Celtic", because the association between the languages and Celtic artefacts is itself an inference from places where Celtic artefacts have been found, some of which are in areas with modern Celtic-speaking peoples. There was probably never any historical society that combined the populations of mainland Western Europe, Wales, Ireland and Scotland into a single cultural entity - as you say, that's an invention of the 18th Century.

A Celtic civ incorporating British groups and mainland Gauls is most likely akin to having a 'Viking' civ that incorporates England alongside Scandinavia because of a shared Germanic root language and the presence of Norse artifacts in both places. There are commonalities due both to cultural diffusion and the genuine descent of English culture from settlers from Scandinavia, but at no point in time was it meaningful to consider the Norse and the English the same cultural entity.

You make basically all of these arguments against the Scythian blob - the Celts are exactly the same situation, an artefact culture that appears not to have existed at any point as a coherent cultural entity. Naming a language group after those artefacts doesn't change the reasoning involved.

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

Unless they were following Geoffrey of Monmouth and pretending Brennus was actually British...

They also had a Gallic Warrior, indeed (and although 'Dun' is a Scottish or Irish term similar hillforts are found in Gallic areas). Yes, I may be guilty of minimising the Gallic side of Civ IV - but their city list was a mishmash of mostly British cities with some mainland inclusions.

What I should have said is that Civ III is the only game that tries to present the Celts as 'purely' Gallic. The Celts of Civ II and Civ V were fully British, and Civ IV's was an unholy mishmash of mainland and Continental Celts.

 

[Zaarin]

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

Zenobia of Palmyra.

We've discussed this before - I'm referring to historical societies, not to language groups. The language group took its name from the artefact culture - it's not something that can meaningfully be used to define what is or is not "Celtic", because the association between the languages and Celtic artefacts is itself an inference from places where Celtic artefacts have been found, some of which are in areas with modern Celtic-speaking peoples. There was probably never any historical society that combined the populations of mainland Western Europe, Wales, Ireland and Scotland into a single cultural entity - as you say, that's an invention of the 18th Century.

A Celtic civ incorporating British groups and mainland Gauls is most likely akin to having a 'Viking' civ that incorporates England alongside Scandinavia because of a shared Germanic root language and the presence of Norse artifacts in both places. There are commonalities due both to cultural diffusion and the genuine descent of English culture from settlers from Scandinavia, but at no point in time was it meaningful to consider the Norse and the English the same cultural entity.

You make basically all of these arguments against the Scythian blob - the Celts are exactly the same situation, an artefact culture that appears not to have existed at any point as a coherent cultural entity. Naming a language group after those artefacts doesn't change the reasoning involved.

I have never once argued for a Celtic blob civ. I've argued tirelessly against it. However, the name "Celts" isn't just an archaeological complex like "Beakerware Culture" or "Asanovo culture." The Gauls called themselves Celts. The Celtiberians seem to have done so also. I'd lay odds so did the Lepontians and Gallicaeans. Britons, maybe or maybe not; I don't think it has any cognate in modern Brythonic languages (or Goidelic). But either way the point is that Celt isn't equivalent to "Corded Ware culture"; the corresponding archaeological cultures to the Proto-Celts are the Hallstatt and La Tène cultures. The Irish are Celtic, even if in the 11th century they wouldn't have called themselves that.

although 'Dun' is a Scottish or Irish term similar hillforts are found in Gallic areas

Gaulish dunom, Celtiberian duno.

 

[PhilBowles]

Zenobia of Palmyra.


I have never once argued for a Celtic blob civ. I've argued tirelessly against it. However, the name "Celts" isn't just an archaeological complex like "Beakerware Culture" or "Asanovo culture." The Gauls called themselves Celts.

Again, this is simply tracing an etymology - that's not the same as being a historical culture. "Celt" in English refers either to the artefact culture (and from what you say below is crude even there as it encompasses two cultural styles) or the modern British term used to create a common (but historically anachronistic) sense of identity between the Scots, Irish, Welsh and Cornish. The name Celt may have been chosen initially because it was used by a Gallic tribe, but the Gallic tribe isn't the modern meaning of the word any more than the name 'Africa' refers only to people from the Roman province of that name (now Tunisia and part of Libya).

It's exactly my point that the name 'Celts' *is* just an archaeological complex like "Beakerware Culture". Any 'Celtic' civ is going to be a blob.

 

[Zaarin]

Again, this is simply tracing an etymology - that's not the same as being a historical culture. "Celt" in English refers either to the artefact culture (and from what you say below is crude even there as it encompasses two cultural styles) or the modern British term used to create a common (but historically anachronistic) sense of identity between the Scots, Irish, Welsh and Cornish. The name Celt may have been chosen initially because it was used by a Gallic tribe, but the Gallic tribe isn't the modern meaning of the word any more than the name 'Africa' refers only to people from the Roman province of that name (now Tunisia and part of Libya).

It's exactly my point that the name 'Celts' *is* just an archaeological complex like "Beakerware Culture". Any 'Celtic' civ is going to be a blob.

And once again, not a single person in this thread has asked for a civ called "the Celts"; they've asked for a civ that belongs to a Celtic culture--the Irish or the Gauls, for example. Just like when people ask for a Native American civ they're not asking for a return of Civ4's "Native Americans."

 

[The Kingmaker]

Personally I’d love to see a Gaulish civ based on the Arverni and/or the Aedui.

 

[PhilBowles]

And once again, not a single person in this thread has asked for a civ called "the Celts"; they've asked for a civ that belongs to a Celtic culture--the Irish or the Gauls, for example. Just like when people ask for a Native American civ they're not asking for a return of Civ4's "Native Americans."

Oh, I'd be happy with either the Irish or the Gauls (though as I've mentioned I doubt the latter will happen since they don't tick the box of representing non-English British cultures that the Celts were apparently introduced to do in Civ II and focused heavily on in Civ V, and partially in Civ IV). I don't however see them as any kind of priority or a civ I'd expect to see in the same game as Scotland - which achieves the basic design goal of the Celts despite being a non-Celtic civ culturally - though. It's hard to see what useful game niche they'd fill, at least if Firaxis took the typical 'warrior culture' approach it has in past incarnations.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

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.

It would be interesting if they gave us a Venice and Genoa civs, with the same ability but with different ability names, to reflect how both were extremely mercantile.

Oh, I'd be happy with either the Irish or the Gauls (though as I've mentioned I doubt the latter will happen since they don't tick the box of representing non-English British cultures that the Celts were apparently introduced to do in Civ II and focused heavily on in Civ V, and partially in Civ IV). I don't however see them as any kind of priority or a civ I'd expect to see in the same game as Scotland - which achieves the basic design goal of the Celts despite being a non-Celtic civ culturally - though. It's hard to see what useful game niche they'd fill, at least if Firaxis took the typical 'warrior culture' approach it has in past incarnations.

While Gaul would presumably act like that, I find Ireland much more likely to act like a cultural, faith based Maya.

By picking Brian Boru, you’d be picking the man who united Ireland, and he’d also be pre-catholicism, I believe, which would also offer a more unadulterated experience.

You’d also finally get a Gaelic speaking leader, with focused abilities in very Irish things.

And of course, if they adopted my idea for a design, you’d get very irish things like bards/pili, pubs, and monestaries

 

[Zaarin]

By picking Brian Boru, you’d be picking the man who united Ireland, and he’d also be pre-catholicism, I believe, which would also offer a more unadulterated experience.

Depending on your definition. I'm not sure when exactly the Irish Church and the Roman Church worked out their differences, but Brian Boru was well post-Irish Christianity by something like five centuries.

While Gaul would presumably act like that, I find Ireland much more likely to act like a cultural, faith based Maya.

I agree with you about Ireland, but I think a well-designed Gaulish civ would be a heavy industry civ with a side of trade and warfare. From that standpoint, I think Sukritact's Gaulish civ is very well-designed. Whether Firaxis could move on from the "hippy neopagan druids with naked painted warriors" stereotype is another question.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Depending on your definition. I'm not sure when exactly the Irish Church and the Roman Church worked out their differences, but Brian Boru was well post-Irish Christianity by something like five centuries.


I agree with you about Ireland, but I think a well-designed Gaulish civ would be a heavy industry civ with a side of trade and warfare. From that standpoint, I think Sukritact's Gaulish civ is very well-designed. Whether Firaxis could move on from the "hippy neopagan druids with naked painted warriors" stereotype is another question.

i really like suk’s gaul design, and vercingetorix is probably his leader who looks the most like a firaxis designed one. I legitimately don’t see the need for firaxis to make the gauls because that one is so good.

 

[Zaarin]

i really like suk’s gaul design, and vercingetorix is probably his leader who looks the most like a firaxis designed one. I legitimately don’t see the need for firaxis to make the gauls because that one is so good.

I don't use modded civs so I'd still like to see Firaxis tackle it. I'd also prefer someone like Dumnorix as leader (though I wouldn't object to Vercingetorix).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It would be interesting if they gave us a Venice and Genoa civs, with the same ability but with different ability names, to reflect how both were extremely mercantile.

The thing about having Venice as a separate civ is to me it would be a crime if they came and didn't get a unique Canal district, now that we have canals, and none of the new Civs require the expansions.
I guess it could be rectified probably requiring them to settle on the coast but still.

Oh, I'd be happy with either the Irish or the Gauls (though as I've mentioned I doubt the latter will happen since they don't tick the box of representing non-English British cultures that the Celts were apparently introduced to do in Civ II and focused heavily on in Civ V, and partially in Civ IV). I don't however see them as any kind of priority or a civ I'd expect to see in the same game as Scotland - which achieves the basic design goal of the Celts despite being a non-Celtic civ culturally - though. It's hard to see what useful game niche they'd fill, at least if Firaxis took the typical 'warrior culture' approach it has in past incarnations.

That's how I feel. I think Ireland or Gaul is best saved for Civ 7 personally.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I don't use modded civs so I'd still like to see Firaxis tackle it. I'd also prefer someone like Dumnorix as leader (though I wouldn't object to Vercingetorix).

you should really use at least Sukritact’s animated and voiced ones—you get Burma, Thailand w/ two leaders, Gaul, Robespierre. among others. And they look almost indistinguishable from Firaxis’s leaders

 

[Zaarin]

The thing about having Venice as a separate civ is to me it would be a crime if they came and didn't get a unique Canal district, now that we have canals

That would have to be an amazing Unique Canal to not be ranked up there in usefulness with such wonderful uniques as Tamar's unique walls.

you should really use at least Sukritact’s animated and voiced ones—you get Burma, Thailand w/ two leaders, Gaul, Robespierre. among others. And they look almost indistinguishable from Firaxis’s leaders

They look nice for mods. "Indistinguishable from Firaxis's leaders" is a stretch, though. Also the audio quality on the voice overs is quite bad, and the voice acting is amateurish (because, of course, they were done by amateur voice actors). They're very good for mods, but they still have "mod" written all over them to me. (Not that some of the professional voice acting isn't quite bad. I'm looking at you, wooden Robert the Bruce.) I also don't feel a pressing need for the overseer of the Terror in my game at any point.

 

[Bast]

Let's not forget that Mao Zedong being removed from non-NA versions of the Civ board game and allegedly being replaced by Taizong in the Chinese version of Civ IV due to the event of Mao losing the game being considered an unacceptable "depiction in a demeaning form". I think EUIV only gets away with it because you can literally play as any region and essentially do whatever you want around the world (if you know what you're doing); no one is arguing that Tibet as a geographical region/province doesn't exist, and by the EUIV mechanics that also means you can play as them. Despite being culturally distinct and regionally important, Tibet doesn't have any achievements or awards for playing as them in EUIV, which is a bit odd considering how most other important polities have some sort of encouragement to actively select them to play. Civ has a conscious choice on the developer's part in selecting civs to represent, which is a whole 'nother ballpark. I want Tibet represented as a full-fledged civ as much as the next person, but I find it hard to see a game where you're actively encouraged to play as an independent Tibet into the modern era making it through Chinese regulations. That said, I would love to be proven wrong--just the current landscape and personal experience with the topic matter make me extremely skeptical.

It's not just a region. It's a political state in all Paradox games. Even in Victoria II where it starts as a vassal state, it can become independent. The point here is all the civilizations represent aspects of civilizations at different points in time. There is no denying that an independent Tibetan Empire existed at a point in time. It doesn't exist any more than the Aztec Empire exists now. So why should there be a problem. Should also an American company care about what an authoritarian state like China thinks?

 

[Thenewwwguy]

It's not just a region. It's a political state in all Paradox games. Even in Victoria II where it starts as a vassal state, it can become independent. The point here is all the civilizations represent aspects of civilizations at different points in time. There is no denying that an independent Tibetan Empire existed at a point in time. It doesn't exist any more than the Aztec Empire exists now. So why should there be a problem. Should also an American company care about what an authoritarian state like China thinks?

civ has big sales in china, and modern chinese thought is that tibet is a part of china. so having it at the same level of china, let alone the ability to beat or conquer china is going to be a big problem to keep them around.

 

[Bast]

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.

I agree that Burma is more poorly known but that shouldn't be a reason to not include. Civ IV included Shwedagon Pagoda as a wonder and that was a bold move at that time for a relatively unknown wonder. They can do it again here rather than waiting for Civ VII. Phillippines was just an example, I don't agree either. I would rather see Vietnam.

 

[ButtBillionaire]

Should also an American company care about what an authoritarian state like China thinks?

If they (or any other corporation, video game-related or otherwise) want continued access to the frankly enormous Chinese market, then yes, they should. It's cynical, but that's sadly just how it is.

 

[Bast]

civ has big sales in china, and modern chinese thought is that tibet is a part of china. so having it at the same level of china, let alone the ability to beat or conquer china is going to be a big problem to keep them around.

The whole point of Civilization is on what-ifs. It's a game. It's a game where what-if possibilities can mean the Sumerian civilization not only interacts with America but can beat America using jet fighters and nukes. I don't understand what is the problem.

If this is a problem, that's a problem with China. Not us. But then again, it's a country that lies and creates propaganda is extremely touchy and edge so I can see why this might be a problem. But should it be?