[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[PhoenicianGold]

That was by intent - Civ has always tried to follow Sid's mantra of trying to keep the complexity of the game comparable to earlier instalments, removing features from older games and adding new ones. Civ VI is already bloated because it's departed somewhat from that, but the basic game engine has no room to expand further. The sorts of games you're talking about are things that have more freedom to expand, or can add more meaningful content in small doses. New civs are always welcome, but functionally they aren't much in the way of new content and don't do anything to change the game experience.

Eh many MMOs don't exactly expand their game engine so much as continue to add new variations within the same engine. And, as observed, the game engine itself might not actually be as limited to expansion as you think, given the development of Red Death.

I agree that new civs don't add much by way of content, but that almost doesn't matter as far as marketability. They are generally the biggest draw for players to purchase DLCs and expansions. To me, that says that the surface appeal of having a familiar/desireable civ included in the game is--to some extent--more important to both players and developers than other features. I see a couple people here and there who say they don't really care about the roster on these forums, but for the most part people care disproportionately about the factions compared to the rest of the game.

To that extent, civs don't add complexity. They just add variety. And in principle if the developers think that the engine and mechanics are solid, they could continue just releasing civs for quite some time without expanding the engine. It's like adding new races or characters to an MMO. Superficial but highly attractive additions.

Most non-Paradox strategy games still follow a traditional model, and the Paradox games are just longer-lived versions of the typical marketing strategy. Consider Total War games, or the Endless series which have somewhat regular patch, DLC and expansion content, last three to five years, and are then supplanted by a new release - indeed these days Total War games other than Warhammer have very little post-release support: Britannia had none and I doubt Three Kingdoms is getting much more since Warhammer III is due this year. I'm not aware of a 'legacy' system for any major strategy game publisher.

No, there aren't in any other major strategy games, but those strategy games also aren't adopting a Disney aesthetic and releasing ports on all platforms. Firaxis is definitely making efforts to establish some kind of network effect with VI and there's little point to doing that if they are just going to drop it next year.

Civ VI was a relative commercial failure at release - that's not a case of a "divided" playerbase, it's a case of a broad consensus that the game wasn't very good. That's been fairly typical of Civ games in general - they're perceived to start out worse than their predecessor and in time come to equal or supplant it. We don't have Steam figures for Civ IV (at least that count the entire playerbase) but I'd expect Civ V had a similar trajectory relative to that game. If Civ VI were to reach a point where there was a more universal feeling it was better (or at least more accessible) than Civ V, people would switch. Civ IV diehards evidently didn't harm Civ V's popularity.

No Civ game is very good on release, that is why the playerbase is divided. They start with a fraction of the civs, and a fraction of the mechanics, and it's just not as complete an experience. And players don't buy the game, saying they are waiting for it to get better while dragging it in their reviews. And the point is that VII would be exactly the same, and would be another commercial failure.

Yes, VI managed to pull itself out of that by continuing to release quality content for three years straight, but it took a lot of hard, consistently polished work and PR to even get to "moderately successful." I'm not saying they won't end up doing the same thing in VII, but that absolutely sucks on their end to be frontloading years of work on the hope that it eventually brings recognition. And for VII it would be even worse because as duplicative as VI was of the work put into VI, VII would be even worse: retrodding art assets, music compositions, city-states.

Civ is different than most other franchises in that it based on the same wide snapshot of the same unchanging subject (the history of the world); every installment effectively covers the same ideas. Even other war games at least have the luxury of choosing different regions, different time periods, to make things feel fresh. Civ and its developers are doomed to keep repeating work every installment. This makes it hard for them to distinguish each new game enough for players to justify buying it (see again, divided player base). And it also makes it hard for the developers to look forward to doing it all over again. They have every incentive to try to escape that model, and so far VI seems structured to try to be a sort of "uber civ" they can keep adding to so the devs don't have to trouble themselves with the problems that VII will inevitably bring, at least for a few more years.

That's what a franchise is, when you boil it down. There's no sign that any 'diminishing returns' are setting in with Civ or with any other franchise based on a similar model - we still have unending streams of Assassin's Creed games with cosmetic makeovers, and Creative Assembly has only increased the rate at which it releases new Total War games. Civ V was likely the most successful Civ has ever been - Civ VI hasn't done as well as far as we can tell from the available metrics, but that's a single game rather than a trend and one often held to be inferior to its predecessor despite having more features. Even if Firaxis were concerned it might presage a broader trend, you don't create a legacy game from an already-finished product - if this experiment works with Civ VI possibly they'll actually take that approach with Civ VII, but as I recall you've been stridently arguing that the legacy model doesn't work anyway because there's less buy-in each time.

Again, Assassin's Creed has a lot more variety to work with. Different places, different times. The aesthetic changes enough to make the experience feel fresh. The hurdle to reinvent Civ every iteration is much higher when every single game has at least half the same cast doing variations on the what they've been doing for two decades. America, England, Spain, Germany, Russia, Arabia, China, Japan, India, Egypt, Rome. Each one of those civs/cultures has been enough to make a whole new Assassin's creed game (dumb as it is), and the franchise can keep going because the scope of Assassin's creed allows for each game to have a different historical feel. Same with Total War.

In most respects its the nature of the franchise itself that is responsible for the pressures it faces. Each installment wants to be a history of the entire world. And while each iteration has slightly expanded and refined that grand picture, it's still always been the same picture. And as each installment becomes more historically pedantic and fills in more and more gaps, the more work developers have to put in, and the less room they have to expand without reaching into increasingly obscure portions of history. VI may or may not represent the "limit" of how much the developers can do, but it is quite probable that at some point they might realize this trend and try to find a way to mitigate or optimize development costs. And it is also probable that, given how VI has been structured and marketed, VI actually was that point where they decided to make an "Ultimate" version of civ instead of leaving VI feeling inadequate and not reaching its potential, and moving on to make an equally incomplete VII.

I know it's a weird concept for some, given that it has never happened in the civ franchise before, but what if the entire point of VI from the beginning was for the devs to keep releasing civs and leaders developed on the cheap indefinitely? VI has a solid engine that still has plenty of mechanical variety to play with. The devs have seen how popular mods are, particularly with V, and could easily be doing the same work themselves and making money off of it. And they don't have to reinvent the wheel to do it.

Which is not possible with Civ VI as built, and Firaxis has given little sign that they either have an interest in frequent patching or that they're planning on using patches as a regular balance pass or a way to make substantial changes to gameplay. The latter is a necessary part of a legacy pass system to keep the games fresh.

Firaxis has engaged in patching roughly every three months (with an odd break this year), and I believe they did indicate that they were planning to continue interacting with the community and patching things in their most recent patch announcement.

You're taking a highly stereotyped view of game marketing - one size has never fit all. The legacy system is visible because it's a good model for the most popular genres of games - things like Destiny or Diablo for which minor content changes can promote continued play to obtain the latest loot, and which have a competitive multiplayer element that encourages people to access the new content ahead of the competition. The content is also, as I understand it, often time-limited, so that you have to play during that season to obtain those items before they're gone (at least I think Diablo 3 did it that way).

Strategy games by their nature are built on core systems that can't change that much over time, and minor content additions like a new civ don't have the appeal or ability to spur an extended period of new gameplay that a new gun or gameplay area in Destiny might.

Also, the concept of a "legacy" game with civ is...relative. For civ, anything legacy would be a game with more than two finite expansions. We can't really know yet if the devs' idea of "legacy" is a year, a couple years, or more into the future. It's unknown territory, but I do see VI as dabbling in the concept, and everything about the game's design and release screams that they wanna keep milking this thing if they can.

At a very much lower rate than the sorts of games you're describing, and patch changes have tended to be relatively minor for the most part. The timing of major Civ VI patches hasn't been any different from that of Civ V's. Firaxis tried departing from the expansion model with Civ V - the message they received loud and clear was that people did not want a DLC system instead of traditional expansions. DLC has become normalised since, but once again with Civ VI Firaxis tried a couple of early civ DLCs and abandoned that model once the main expansions came out, which suggests that they didn't find them to be a success this time either. There's good reason for treating Civ VI the same as Civ V: its development history so far has been exactly the same. That may or may not change with Civ VII, but it defies logic and empirical evidence to suggest that Civ VI has not been handled in the same way as Civ V, or to imagine that one experiment once the game's core development is over implies that Firaxis will take a game designed in a traditional framework and try and force it to become something else.

Except they must have found something successful about it to justify switching back to a DLC model, and have already gone past V's development ambitions. It's the new frontier. And, again, this time it's different because VI is appealing to a broader casual market and marginally succeeding at that. They have every incentive to keep pushing to see how much longer they can keep VI alive than they could V.

Again, consider the potential benefit. What if they didn't have to deal with players complaining that Hungary is in VI but Austria is not, and Austria is in VII but Hungary is not? That we have Scotland but no Celtic civ, or a Celtic civ but no more Scotland? Assyria and Sumeria but no Babylon? That we missed Morocco/Berbers because we were too busy filling out South America? That we got Vietnam but not Burma? That we are missing Denmark and the Iroquois? What if all of that could be avoided if, three years from now, they were all in the same game? It's a lot to hope for I know (and we will likely still fall well short of that), but at least in theory some game (and maybe that game is VI) could accommodate being expanded out to a much larger roster than we are used to.

EDIT: Sorry mod, I just saw your new post after I posted this.

Back on topic:

I still think there is a good chance we won't get Byzantium or Portugal in NFP. If we get those two and some other indicators of finality like Babylon, Austria, Iroquois, Siam...then I agree that this is probably all we are getting. But Ethiopia and Maya aren't enough to tell right now and I think the developers have enough to work with to fill out at least two seasons.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

We were asked to go back on topic...

Anyway,

what do ppl think are the things that suggest Assyria, the things that suggest Babylon, and the things that suggest neither, as possible civs in NF?

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

Since we're asked to go back on topic:

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.

I really like the idea, but since we would be encouraged to settle lots of small one-issue-focused cities, the current model is not tailored for that... But do not fear! Additionally for all you said, I'll add:
Cities founded outside of the Capital can only work in a two-tile radius around the City-Center, but those cities can be found two tiles afar from each other.
This way you'll have a densily packed network of small cities each being its own "big district" on its own.

 

[Patine]

Since we're asked to go back on topic:



I really like the idea, but since we would be encouraged to settle lots of small one-issue-focused cities, the current model is not tailored for that... But do not fear! Additionally for all you said, I'll add:
Cities founded outside of the Capital can only work in a two-tile radius around the City-Center, but those cities can be found two tiles afar from each other.
This way you'll have a densily packed network of small cities each being its own "big district" on its own.

I'm really not sure where people got the idea that the Most Serene Republic of Venice built no urban centres outside the Venetian Lagoon, and never conquered/suborned, and then developed others further. Look at this map:

It actually settlements on Cyprus and in the suburbs of Constantinople prior to this map's viewpoint that the Ottomans had already taken by then, but had been held earlier on. Where did this ridiculous "one-city-wonder," Venice idea from Civ5 so many want to reprise even come from, if I may ask?

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

I'm really not sure where people got the idea that the Most Serene Republic of Venice built no urban centres outside the Venetian Lagoon, and never conquered/suborned, and then developed others further. Look at this map:

View attachment 560407

It actually settlements on Cyprus and in the suburbs of Constantinople prior to this map's viewpoint that the Ottomans had already taken by then, but had been held earlier on. Where did this ridiculous "one-city-wonder," Venice idea from Civ5 so many want to reprise even come from, if I may ask?

The idea is that Venice was most at the beginning a city-State. All the political, economic, cultural powers were focused on the city of Venice. The rest were like colonies, trade hubs they just popped on the coast to secure their trade routes and expand their mercantile empires. Most of empires through History gain power from their land, but Venice gain its power from the sea and from trade most and foremost. For them (in a veeeery simplified way, simplified enough to be in a Civ game), cities other than their capital were just here to serve the capital but not be part really of the Republic. In the same way that British or French colonies were here to serve the metropole but not be truly part of the Empire. That's why Venice in Civ 5 was mostly focused on their capital and all other cities were puppets. And that's why we think about an Italian-type civ that would play on the same ground.


Also, I just had an Idea:

In July, we will have Ethiopia and two new personas for Teddy Roosevelt and Catherine de Medici.

For Catherine de Medici, her new ability would apparently turn around luxury resources and tourism. It would be nice, sure, as I for the moment don't use Catherine's ability.

But something bugged me: Catherine is, for now, the only leader to have abilities turned towards espionage and spies.

I mean, every feature of the game is somehow played with LUA or CUA: great works, religion, loyalty, military, science, districts, city-States, governments... But if Catherine is changed, that would mean if you choose Magnificent Catherine, there would be no other civ that play with the spy system...

... Unless...

Unless Ethiopia is linked to it! We all think Ethiopia will have something to do with religion (and it's obvious), but with the addition of Secret Societies and the replacement of our only espionage-focused Leader, I feel that Ethiopia is a good contender to have something to do with Espionage. We can be sure is done.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

But Catherine is not changed. It is just her alternative version only for those who wave pre-ordered a pass.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

But Catherine is not changed. It is just her alternative version only for those who wave pre-ordered a pass.

Yes, I know, but the fact that they will allow players to completely remove from their games all the leaders dealing with Espionnage is maybe a hint towards what ability Ethiopia would have? Even if it's defensive like:

Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion - enemy spies operate at -2 levels in all your cities in which you have a Holy Site (or a Relic).

This could represent how Menelik I apparently get back the Ark of the Covenant and it's still kept secret in the Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion, and nobody ever managed to confirmed or infirmed if it was true or not. This way, you would be less prone to enemy attacks through spies and one might even want to build neighborhood without the fear of partisans being recruited every turn.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

what do ppl think are the things that suggest Assyria, the things that suggest Babylon, and the things that suggest neither, as possible civs in NF?

Things that suggest Assyria:
Both Babylon and Akkad are currently city-states, with Babylon already being a replacement of Seoul and Akkad just being released in GS.
Assyria is geographically, not by much, further away from Sumer.
They just released a tall science civ in the Maya which is what Babylon has been. (Though they can be different)

Things that suggest Babylon:
It's been in every previous game since Civ 1.
Venice was popular as a playable city-state. Babylon could be that playable city-state and to gain more cities you need to conquer them, just like how Babylonian kingdom came about. (This is at least my theory and why you wouldn't need to replace Akkad either)

Things that suggest neither:
Nothing comes to mind.

Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion - enemy spies operate at -2 levels in all your cities in which you have a Holy Site (or a Relic).

I could see that as part of an ability called the Solomonic Dynasty, but I'd like other religious features of it as well.

Then again regular Catherine with her ladies in waiting isn't removed from the game, you just have a chance of either one showing up as random AI opponent.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

I could see that as part of an ability called the Solomonic Dynasty, but I'd like other religious features of it as well.

Then again regular Catherine with her ladies in waiting isn't removed from the game, you just have a chance of either one showing up as random AI opponent.

It was a proposal. If it was only that it would be rather weak. And for Catherine, I know you'll still be able to have your flying squadron, but having 50% chance of not having her is disminishing again a leader that deal with Espionnage. Thus my analysis.


Also, a simple remark: when we see the status of Africa, we have Egypt (bonus to trade routes), Nubia & Mali (bonus to mine and gold), Kongo (bonus to great merchants and some great works produce additional gold) and Zulu (military). For 5 civilizations, we have 4 that have a main focus on trade and gold. At least, Ethiopia will bring a neat and welcome change by having a civ which will not be focused on that. And I find it great.

 

[PhilBowles]

We were asked to go back on topic...

Anyway,

what do ppl think are the things that suggest Assyria, the things that suggest Babylon, and the things that suggest neither, as possible civs in NF?

In part, the lack of anything that suggests Assyria - combined with the fact that it's a civ we've seen only once before, when it played out very much like Sumeria does in Civ VI - adds further support for Babylon: I just don't think they can be considered equivalently plausible options. Being a series staple does count for something, even if Firaxis may no longer be treating the original 12 civs as sacrosanct, and Babylon will be expected by a lot of the playerbase.

Babylon is also a city state in Civ VI, and that has often presaged a full civ treatment (although it's a less reliable hint than it was in Civ V, as numerous new civs have been added without corresponding city states). EDIT: Ignore this, as Alexander's Hetaroi has pointed out that Akkad is also a city state.

They just released a tall science civ in the Maya which is what Babylon has been. (Though they can be different)

Babylon has been different - Civ IV Babylon had nothing to do with science, it was a culture/legal civ. I wouldn't call Civ V's Babylon a necessarily 'tall' civ either.

Overlap with the ability suite of an existing civ is a better argument against Assyria - which has only been in Civ as an aggressive science civ similar to Sumeria in Civ VI - than it is against Babylon.

It was a proposal. If it was only that it would be rather weak. And for Catherine, I know you'll still be able to have your flying squadron, but having 50% chance of not having her is disminishing again a leader that deal with Espionnage. Thus my analysis.

In any random game you already have a low chance of getting Catherine, and it gets lower with every new civ that's released. If Firaxis wants to focus Ethiopia or anyone else on espionage, it won't have anything to do with Catherine's scarcity in random games - as it is anyone who wants to play with espionage can select Catherine as a leader if they want to, and the different Catherines will presumably show as separate leaders just as the two Eleanors do.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Also, a simple remark: when we see the status of Africa, we have Egypt (bonus to trade routes), Nubia & Mali (bonus to mine and gold), Kongo (bonus to great merchants and some great works produce additional gold) and Zulu (military). For 5 civilizations, we have 4 that have a main focus on trade and gold. At least, Ethiopia will bring a neat and welcome change by having a civ which will not be focused on that. And I find it great.

Well the Kingdom of Axum was also heavily a trading empire as well as religious.

Babylon has been different - Civ IV Babylon had nothing to do with science, it was a culture/legal civ. I wouldn't call Civ V's Babylon a necessarily 'tall' civ either.

Overlap with the ability suite of an existing civ is a better argument against Assyria - which has only been in Civ as an aggressive science civ similar to Sumeria in Civ VI - than it is against Babylon.

Babylon is a scientific city-state though so I would be surprised if it wouldn't have some science focus if announced.
Though I agree that culture/government aspects should be in there as well.

There's also no reason why Assyria couldn't be a culture/expansionist Civ either by collecting great works.

 

[Zaarin]

Overlap with the ability suite of an existing civ is a better argument against Assyria - which has only been in Civ as an aggressive science civ similar to Sumeria in Civ VI - than it is against Babylon.

Assyria got shoehorned into being the militaristic civ in Civ5 because of Babylon--something that happens to it a lot in strategy games. With Babylon absent, I think this is a great opportunity to make Assyria a cultural/builder civ under a less militaristic leader like Sennacherib or Tiglath-Pileser III. Especially since, as you point out, Sumer already fills the stereotypical Assyria niche.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

Well the Kingdom of Axum was also heavily a trading empire as well as religious.

Darnit, you Africans and your amazing trade abilities! Why all of you had to be rich!

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Assyria got shoehorned into being the militaristic civ in Civ5 because of Babylon--something that happens to it a lot in strategy games. With Babylon absent, I think this is a great opportunity to make Assyria a cultural/builder civ under a less militaristic leader like Sennacherib or Tiglath-Pileser III. Especially since, as you point out, Sumer already fills the stereotypical Assyria niche.

plus tablet house can be a science/culture library replacement with great writing slots

also, assyria has the added benefit of still being around, both as a proposed nation and a ethnic group, while babylon is kinda gone.

another interesting mesopotamian option is the lesser-known Mitanni, which seems to have had a ruling class who were practitioners of ancient Hinduism and spoke Sanskrit, and bridge the gap between the Hittites and Assyria and Babylon.

 

[PhilBowles]

Assyria got shoehorned into being the militaristic civ in Civ5 because of Babylon--something that happens to it a lot in strategy games. With Babylon absent, I think this is a great opportunity to make Assyria a cultural/builder civ under a less militaristic leader like Sennacherib or Tiglath-Pileser III. Especially since, as you point out, Sumer already fills the stereotypical Assyria niche.

But Babylon works equally well as a cultural civ, has precedent, and is expected to a degree Assyria isn't. Also, by the same logic that people are expecting a scientific Babylon because of Civ V and the Civ VI city state being a science CS, they'd expect military Assyria because of past precedent and Akkad being a military CS - especially if, indeed, they're used to Assyria being treated this way in other games.

What it seems to come down to is this: either civ is equally likely based on the CS argument, and either civ treads on the toes of an existing civ given past precedent - that's either neutral in what it implies or argues more in favour of Babtylon than Assyria since there's Civ precedent for Babylon as a cultural civ. In fact, the Civ VI Babylon suzerain bonus would work well as a civ UA and would basically result in a culture-focused civ that gets rewarded with extra science for focusing on culture/tourism, so even in its current form Babylon has a cultural focus. Akkad's bonus is just a siege tower, which exists as a generic unit anyway.

So the only argument left that argues in favour of either is Civ staple status, which obviously goes to Babylon.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

But Babylon works equally well as a cultural civ, has precedent, and is expected to a degree Assyria isn't. Also, by the same logic that people are expecting a scientific Babylon because of Civ V and the Civ VI city state being a science CS, they'd expect military Assyria because of past precedent and Akkad being a military CS - especially if, indeed, they're used to Assyria being treated this way in other games.

What it seems to come down to is this: either civ is equally likely based on the CS argument, and either civ treads on the toes of an existing civ given past precedent - that's either neutral in what it implies or argues more in favour of Babtylon than Assyria since there's Civ precedent for Babylon as a cultural civ. In fact, the Civ VI Babylon suzerain bonus would work well as a civ UA and would basically result in a culture-focused civ that gets rewarded with extra science for focusing on culture/tourism. Akkad's bonus is just a siege tower, which exists as a generic unit anyway.

So the only argument left that argues in favour of either is Civ staple status, which obviously goes to Babylon.

Akkad doesn’t represent Assyria though...

 

[Zaarin]

another interesting mesopotamian option is the lesser-known Mitanni, which seems to have had a ruling class who were practitioners of ancient Hinduism and spoke Sanskrit, and bridge the gap between the Hittites and Assyria and Babylon.

Small correction: their elite spoke an Indo-Aryan language and worshiped Indo-Aryan gods. The language they spoke wasn't Sanskrit, and at this period Hinduism was still pretty unorganized. TBH I'd be disappointed by Mitanni in place of Urartu or Huri because Hurrian is a really cool language.

But Babylon works equally well as a cultural civ, has precedent, and is expected to a degree Assyria isn't. Also, by the same logic that people are expecting a scientific Babylon because of Civ V and the Civ VI city state being a science CS, they'd expect military Assyria because of past precedent and Akkad being a military CS - especially if, indeed, they're used to Assyria being treated this way in other games.

What does Akkad have to do with Assyria? One of the arguments in favor of Assyria is that Akkad and Babylon could be left as city-states. I'd argue people don't expect a cultural Babylon, no matter how appropriate is, because Civ5 made them expect Korea-tier science civ (which would be disappointing to me frankly). Like virtually any civ that made enough of a name for itself to be included in Civ, Assyria did indeed have a militant history, but I'd argue its history as a builder is equally important: Ashur and Nineveh were among the finest cities in the Ancient Near East--in fact, many of the "wonders" of Babylon were actually in Nineveh, including very likely the Hanging Gardens. So I'd say Assyria's representation as something other than a hyper-aggressive civ is overdue.

Do I expect Assyria over Babylon? No, not really. The only real arguments in its favor are that it would start further north of Sumer (which I doubt is that much of an argument) and it would leave two city-states intact. Still, given the choice and only able to choose one I'd choose a cultural Assyria over Babylon.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Small correction: their elite spoke an Indo-Aryan language and worshiped Indo-Aryan gods. The language they spoke wasn't Sanskrit, and at this period Hinduism was still pretty unorganized. TBH I'd be disappointed by Mitanni in place of Urartu or Huri because Hurrian is a really cool language.


What does Akkad have to do with Assyria? One of the arguments in favor of Assyria is that Akkad and Babylon could be left as city-states. I'd argue people don't expect a cultural Babylon, no matter how appropriate is, because Civ5 made them expect Korea-tier science civ (which would be disappointing to me frankly). Like virtually any civ that made enough of a name for itself to be included in Civ, Assyria did indeed have a militant history, but I'd argue its history as a builder is equally important: Ashur and Nineveh were among the finest cities in the Ancient Near East--in fact, many of the "wonders" of Babylon were actually in Nineveh, including very likely the Hanging Gardens. So I'd say Assyria's representation as something other than a hyper-aggressive civ is overdue.

Do I expect Assyria over Babylon? No, not really. The only real arguments in its favor are that it would start further north of Sumer (which I doubt is that much of an argument) and it would leave two city-states intact. Still, given the choice and only able to choose one I'd choose a cultural Assyria over Babylon.

Assyria fits science better too, and could be the first wonder-focused dlc civ, since the only other two were Egypt and China

They also wouldn’t need ziggurats as bad as Babylon, since, as I understand it, that was less of emphasis for Assyria as opposed to Sumer/Babylon both being more tied to it, at least in popular culture.

 

[Zaarin]

Assyria fits science better too, and could be the first wonder-focused dlc civ, since the only other two were Egypt and China

They also wouldn’t need ziggurats as bad as Babylon, since, as I understand it, that was less of emphasis for Assyria as opposed to Sumer/Babylon both being more tied to it, at least in popular culture.

Yeah, I think there are more ziggurats in southern Mesopotamia than in Assyria (though the Assyrians were Sumerophiles just as much as the Babylonians; most of our knowledge of Sumerian comes from Assyrian libraries).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

But Babylon works equally well as a cultural civ, has precedent, and is expected to a degree Assyria isn't. Also, by the same logic that people are expecting a scientific Babylon because of Civ V and the Civ VI city state being a science CS, they'd expect military Assyria because of past precedent and Akkad being a military CS - especially if, indeed, they're used to Assyria being treated this way in other games.

If anything Akkad has always been a Babylonian city in every game.

Assyria fits science better too, and could be the first wonder-focused dlc civ, since the only other two were Egypt and China

I could definitely see both Babylon or Assyria as a "Librarian" civ with both science and culture bonuses. We could use more science civs anyway.