[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[SammyKhalifa]

To some extent fair, though it's also fairly unlikely. I'm not sure how you'd arrive at business suits from Aztec Renaissance-era fashion. But either way, Civ6's citizen name changes are only less horrible by being less visible; conceptually they're much worse. Why would the Aztec switch from Nahuatl to Spanish or the Sumerians from Sumerian to Arabic without the real-life historical context? In a game where leaders are immortal, civilian names should be static IMO.


Agreed. I'm already mildly annoyed that it's an R&F civ that's getting an alt leader when I think there are a good handful of vanilla and DLC civs who are better candidates for one.

Do we know it's a rise and fall civ, or only that the new leader requires rise and fall?

 

[Jeppetto]

Do we know it's a rise and fall civ, or only that the new leader requires rise and fall?

It requires Rise and Fall which means it's related to something exclusively part of Rise and Fall not brought in Gathering Storm and not included in Base Game.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

What if the civ that comes out in that pack is Ireland and the alt leader is an irish leader who was king when the Irish controlled Scotland?

 

[Zaarin]

Iroquis, Shoshone or Navajo

I'd be surprised if we saw the Shoshone again. They were kind of a last minute replacement when the Pueblo didn't pan out.

What if the civ that comes out in that pack is Ireland and the alt leader is an irish leader who was king when the Irish controlled Scotland?

That'd be kind of weird to me. Scotland, in the civ sense, didn't exist yet when the Irish colonized northern Britannia, nor did the Irish ever rule all of Scotland; by that argument Harald Hardrada has about as much claim to be an alt leader for Scotland since the Hebrides and the Northern Isles were Norwegian.

 

[AntSou]

right after Eleanor.

Not quite so right. GS came out in February 2019 and pack #5 is coming out in January 2021, so basically two years

What if the civ that comes out in that pack is Ireland and the alt leader is an irish leader who was king when the Irish controlled Scotland?

I don't know the history of Irish rulers in Scotland, but I don't think the idea of alt leaders is to include subject nations. E.g. Scotland and England were separate entities under James VI as well as England and the Netherlands under William III.

Was that the case in the example you gave?

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Not quite so right. GS came out in February 2019 and pack #5 is coming out in January 2021, so basically two years



I don't know the history of Irish rulers in Scotland, but I don't think the idea of alt leaders is to include subject nations. E.g. Scotland and England were separate entities under James VI as well as England and the Netherlands under William III.

Was that the case in the example you gave?

i’d suppose the idea of ‘scotland’ didn’t exactly exist yet at that point, but it was the basis for the evolution of the scottish gaelic language and set up the foundation of scotland as a polity

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Not quite so right. GS came out in February 2019 and pack #5 is coming out in January 2021, so basically two years

In terms of alt. leaders it goes Gorgo, Chandragupta, Eleanor so yes she would be right before the next one.

 

[Zaarin]

i’d suppose the idea of ‘scotland’ didn’t exactly exist yet at that point, but it was the basis for the evolution of the scottish gaelic language and set up the foundation of scotland as a polity

The Gaels in Scotland were pretty heavily marginalized, though; the aristocracy in Scotland was essentially Anglo-Norman--like Robert the Bruce--ruling over what was mostly an Anglo-Saxon/Danish substrate in the Lowlands.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

What if the civ that comes out in that pack is Ireland and the alt leader is an irish leader who was king when the Irish controlled Scotland?

Having an alt-leader from a time where one country dominated the other would be the same justification for having Barbarossa as an alt for the Netherlands, Gengis as an alt for Hungary, Saladin as an alt for Egypt, Alexander as an alt for Persia and, worse of all, Victoria as an alt for India, Canada, Australia and Scotland.
As you can see, those choices would be completely insensitive and kind of akward, so it would be the same for Ireland leading Scotland as a subjugated nation.

 

[Jeppetto]

I'd be surprised if we saw the Shoshone again. They were kind of a last minute replacement when the Pueblo didn't pan out.

Yeah I put them on the list only because of the bonus they had and how cool would be to make parallel to it in Civ 6.

 

[PhilBowles]

Do we know it's a rise and fall civ, or only that the new leader requires rise and fall?

We know that the new leader requires Rise & Fall. It's an assumption that this means the civ is a Rise & Fall civ, since all the mechanics introduced in Rise & Fall are also available in Gathering Storm. That's led to the expectation that if the requirement was for a mechanic rather than a civ, it would have specified "requires Rise & Fall or Gathering Storm", which is the wording in New Frontier for the new game modes which require expansion content. It's not hard and fast confirmation that the leader is for a R&F civ, but it's the most plausible scenario.

 

[DWilson]

I would say it's highly unlikely an Irish leader could lead Scotland from Firaxis, when the very Great Britain design of Scotland isn't leadable by Victoria (though that's also a mod I am thinking of making).

 

[Zaarin]

Yeah I put them on the list only because of the bonus they had and how cool would be to make parallel to it in Civ 6.

Russia already has that ability though...

 

[Jeppetto]

Russia already has that ability though...

Yikes, sorry for confusion, I mostly play them for the Pathfinder Ability so I forgot it's Pathfinder's ability, not Shoshone. I meant the choosing of bonus from Ruins or generally some Tribal Village interaction.

 

[PhilBowles]

I would say it's highly unlikely an Irish leader could lead Scotland from Firaxis, when the very Great Britain design of Scotland isn't leadable by Victoria (though that's also a mod I am thinking of making).

It's an interesting idea that perhaps future patch content could make Victoria a dual leader for England and Scotland - either she'd need to work with Harbors rather than just Royal Navy Dockyards or have part of her ability work only when she leads England (which would be strange), but I see no real reason not to do it other than the fact that it would leave England without a 'unique' leader.

 

[Zaarin]

Yikes, sorry for confusion, I mostly play them for the Pathfinder Ability so I forgot it's Pathfinder's ability, not Shoshone. I meant the choosing of bonus from Ruins or generally some Tribal Village interaction.

Ah, right. I suspect the Okihtcitaw is as close as we'll see to the Shoshone Pathfinder.

 

[Jeppetto]

By the way, for good measure, I tried game with R&F disabled and GS rules and it seems only features missing are civs, leaders, natural wonders and world wonders. Even units and resources were there. So If it's not alt for R&F civ, then it's something like "Get +4 Gold on Delicate Arch" or "Gain additional Envoy from Kilwa Kisiwani" which I find rather improbable.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

What if the civ that comes out in that pack is Ireland and the alt leader is an irish leader who was king when the Irish controlled Scotland?

Actually, I guess it is possible that the alternate leader isn't the one that requires R&F. It's possible they add a new civ with a dual leader for a R&F civ. Though aside from this Irish stretching I can't imagine any new civs which could share a leader with any of the R&F civs. So PhilBowles is right that it's most likely the alternate leader is the one they are referring to.

 

[Patine]

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.

Yes, in Age of Empires 1, Assyria has more "aggressive and chariot based," bonuses, compared to Babylon's "building," bonuses (they don't have Civ6 and, though I haven't played either other iteration after Civ3, it sounds like Civ4 and Civ5's "civ roles and focuses"), but even the bonuses given in AoE1 reflect the bias you're speaking of.

 

[AntSou]

Actually, I guess it is possible that the alternate leader isn't the one that requires R&F. It's possible they add a new civ with a dual leader for a R&F civ.

I think that's what people meant with Timur leading Timurids and Mongolia.


However, I have somehow overlooked this possibility:

Pack #5 - "Adds one new civilization and two new leaders (new leader requires rise and fall expansion to play)"

- New leader leading both new Civ and a R&F Civ;
- New leader for a Vanilla Civ.

Ok, that actually sounds pretty plausible.

If this is starting to sound confusing, most theories so far regarding pack #5 have been of the type:

- New leader for a new Civ;
- Alt leader for R&F.
________________

When @Thenewwwguy mentioned a leader for Ireland (a new Civ) and Scotland (R&F Civ), I didn't even consider the obvious that the remaining leader would have to be for an existing vanilla Civ.