[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[DWilson]

The question is if a leader of one civ that can also lead another would require the second civ to be available. For example, say France was a Rise and Fall civ, would someone still be able to use Eleanor from Gathering Storm for England, even if they didn't have access to Rise and Fall for France.

 

[Jeppetto]

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.

The new leader requires R&F to play.

-> ***New leader requires Rise and Fall expansion to play.

The way it's worded If it was the new civ leader, it would block you from playing even the civ you buy in the pack.
Apocalypse requires Gathering Storm to play, the new leader requires Rise and Fall to play. Not to play with bonus content. To play at all.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

What if it was one (new) leader leading both civs and a persona for that leader using RF mechanics

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

What if it was one (new) leader leading both civs and a persona for that leader using RF mechanics

I don't think they would announce another persona as two leaders.
Besides it would say requires R&F or GS because GS uses the same mechanics (loyalty, governors, golden/dark ages) that R&F has.
Anything other than there will be an alt leader for a Civ released in R&F is probably wrong.

 

[mo123567]

I am always hoping to see the most historically significant civs with their most historically significant leaders. I don't care about TSL or balancing out representation of different cultures.

I was at the history museum in in Victoria BC Canada when they had a Mayan exhibit. They also have an exhibit featuring the local Salish tribe. A lot of the stuff accomplished by the Salish tribe was interesting but there is just no comparison to the accomplishments and significance of a major civilization like the Mayans. I don't want to miss out on major civs like Assyria or the Hittites, just so we can fill every corner of the map for TSL players. This is just my opinion of course.

I hope CIV 7 gets back to focusing on the great (or terrible) empires and their most obviously significant leaders. Instead of using outside of the box choices for civs and leaders to freshen up the series, Firaxis should freshen up the game design as a whole. Otherwise, by the time we get to civ 10 we will have civs like Andorra and Bhutan in place of Rome and China. I'm exaggerating on that last bit... I hope.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I am always hoping to see the most historically significant civs with their most historically significant leaders. I don't care about TSL or balancing out representation of different cultures.

I was at the history museum in in Victoria BC Canada when they had a Mayan exhibit. They also have an exhibit featuring the local Salish tribe. A lot of the stuff accomplished by the Salish tribe was interesting but there is just no comparison to the accomplishments and significance of a major civilization like the Mayans. I don't want to miss out on major civs like Assyria or the Hittites, just so we can fill every corner of the map for TSL players. This is just my opinion of course.

I hope CIV 7 gets back to focusing on the great (or terrible) empires and their most obviously significant leaders. Instead of using outside of the box choices for civs and leaders to freshen up the series, Firaxis should freshen up the game design as a whole. Otherwise, by the time we get to civ 10 we will have civs like Andorra and Bhutan in place of Rome and China. I'm exaggerating on that last bit... I hope.

Which Civs introduced do you not see as historically significant, as say the Hittites, out of curiosity?
We've had a mixture of both and I've think they've done a find job so far of balancing everything out.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I am always hoping to see the most historically significant civs with their most historically significant leaders. I don't care about TSL or balancing out representation of different cultures.

I was at the history museum in in Victoria BC Canada when they had a Mayan exhibit. They also have an exhibit featuring the local Salish tribe. A lot of the stuff accomplished by the Salish tribe was interesting but there is just no comparison to the accomplishments and significance of a major civilization like the Mayans. I don't want to miss out on major civs like Assyria or the Hittites, just so we can fill every corner of the map for TSL players. This is just my opinion of course.

I hope CIV 7 gets back to focusing on the great (or terrible) empires and their most obviously significant leaders. Instead of using outside of the box choices for civs and leaders to freshen up the series, Firaxis should freshen up the game design as a whole. Otherwise, by the time we get to civ 10 we will have civs like Andorra and Bhutan in place of Rome and China. I'm exaggerating on that last bit... I hope.

Eh I applaud the developers of VI for trying to dismantle eurocentric views of humanity. And bear in mind that VI isn't adding "unimportant" civs. They are simply turning the spotlight to unrepresented regions and peoples and showing off the dominant cultures of those regions that often get overlooked in history books. Gran Colombia and the Mapuche, for example, are extremely important and defining cultures in their respective regions; and we can't have a game that excludes them because "Spain was bigger and more historically significant," or else there's no real point in including the Aztecs, Maya, and Inca as well. And as far as most people are concerned in the Western Hemisphere, the Assyrians and Hittites are so spatially and temporally removed from them as to be virtually as consequential as Sumeria or Armenia or Turkey. There's just no actual historical legacy of them on this side of the world, let alone outside of the Middle East, outside of textbooks.

The fact is that a lot of textbook empires like Assyria and the Hittites are practically irrelevant to most people's cultural history. For both marketability and overall representation purposes, it is and has been a lot better to choose cultures and identities which people can more closely relate to, and show off a broader spectrum of humanity than the boring stuff we are already taught in high school.

 

[pokiehl]

There's just no actual historical legacy of them on this side of the world, let alone outside of the Middle East, outside of textbooks....The fact is that a lot of textbook empires like Assyria and the Hittites are practically irrelevant to most people's cultural history. For both marketability and overall representation purposes, it is and has been a lot better to choose cultures and identities which people can more closely relate to, and show off a broader spectrum of humanity than the boring stuff we are already taught in high school.

Oh, come on. Many of us, myself included, would love to see both Assyria and the Hittites introduced to Civ VI. I'd pay a lot of money for it even! You clearly have your pet preferences which you have tirelessly advocated for here in this thread and tried to portray as mainstream (such as the notion of representing Byzantium solely as an alternate leader of Rome), but to dismiss those ancient empires of the Near East as having "no actual historical legacy" on "this side of the world" is absolute folly, and it is arrogantly dismissive to relegate them to "boring stuff we are already taught in high school." Another poster could easily make similarly crude arguments against what you want in the game.

I find it quite funny that the core of your argument seems to be "relatability" but your wishlist includes polities like the Berbers, Burma, and Gurkhani, all of which I'm having a hard time reconciling as relatable to the casual, majority Western European/North American audience of these games. Relatibility has nothing to do with it (and it shouldn't - otherwise this game would be a homogenous snoozefest and we wouldn't all learn about different civilizations we may have overlooked)

It's fine to want what you want - the perfect Civ VI looks different for each of us- but just call it what it is--your preferences--rather than pretending your way is a beacon of marketability.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Oh, come on. Many of us, myself included, would love to see both Assyria and the Hittites introduced to Civ VI. I'd pay a lot of money for it even! You clearly have your pet preferences which you have tirelessly advocated for here in this thread and tried to portray as mainstream (such as the notion of representing Byzantium solely as an alternate leader of Rome), but to dismiss those ancient empires of the Near East as having "no actual historical legacy" on "this side of the world" is absolute folly, and it is arrogantly dismissive to relegate them to "boring stuff we are already taught in high school." Another poster could easily make similarly crude arguments against what you want in the game.

I think you're interpreting my statements a bit too strongly. I did not say that Assyria or the Hittites were not important. Merely that their absolute importance is often asserted as a sole justification for inclusion, even though they were only regional powers and most people in the world have no personal or associative relationship with them. Although, yes, I do find rotely repeating the same textbook stuff every civ installment is "boring;" we have already done the Hittites and Assyria before and it is what VI has to say that is new that interests me. Elsewise, I would just be playing IV or V. I'm not even that interested in Portugal or Byzantium, I wholly admit that, although I think they have much stronger justification for appearing in VI.

I also grow tired of this kind of traditionalist attitude generally, and that has nothing to do with whether I like VI's broad, gap-filling culturefest. It's tiring because, despite three years of VI not conforming to expectations, people are still beating their heads against it and trying to blame observant folk like me for why it doesn't have Assyria or the Hittites or Babylon. I am not designing the game; I am not responsible for your disappointment. I am merely observing what VI is deliberately doing differently and attempting to align my expectations with that. But no matter how much you complain into the void of civfanatics, the insurmountable fact remains VI has a huge cultural gap-filling fetish and so far has shown no signs of changing that. If you don't like it, either write the developers or stop playing, but whinging at me is a pretty impotent way of going about things.

I find it quite funny that the core of your argument seems to be "relatability" but your wishlist includes polities like the Berbers, Burma, and Gurkhani, all of which I'm having a hard time reconciling as relatable to the casual, majority Western European/North American audience of these games.

Algeria has the highest mainland HDI rating in Africa and Morocco, Tunisia, and Libya are also fairely well developed. The Berbers would indeed be a marketing decision if the aim was to target large demographics with potential gaming markets.

The Timurids and Mughals are frequently in the highest requested newcomers. That would be marketable just to please many of the historical pedants, at least the ones who are advocating for new civs.

Burma is really just one of several strong equivalents in Southeast Asia, and has a reasonable following on these boards. While I personally want it in, I have no pretensions about the fact that Vietnam also exists, not to mention Siam and the Chola. But there are also many reasonable people who see the dearth of Southeast Asian representation as a negative and having anything to accompany Khmer, even Burma, would add far more to the game than another ancient middle eastern civ.

Really, I don't know how you can find it "quite funny" when these are all very large, long-lasting cultures that are absolutely likely to be under consideration. If anything, if I had a more morbid sense of humor I would find it amusing that you still just don't get VI. At all.

 

[Morningcalm]

Let's all applaud Palmyra as they enter the game, led by Zenobia! (Wishful thinking on my part, but I would love to see her in the game.)

 

[Xandinho]

I am always hoping to see the most historically significant civs with their most historically significant leaders. I don't care about TSL or balancing out representation of different cultures.

I was at the history museum in in Victoria BC Canada when they had a Mayan exhibit. They also have an exhibit featuring the local Salish tribe. A lot of the stuff accomplished by the Salish tribe was interesting but there is just no comparison to the accomplishments and significance of a major civilization like the Mayans. I don't want to miss out on major civs like Assyria or the Hittites, just so we can fill every corner of the map for TSL players. This is just my opinion of course.

I hope CIV 7 gets back to focusing on the great (or terrible) empires and their most obviously significant leaders. Instead of using outside of the box choices for civs and leaders to freshen up the series, Firaxis should freshen up the game design as a whole. Otherwise, by the time we get to civ 10 we will have civs like Andorra and Bhutan in place of Rome and China. I'm exaggerating on that last bit... I hope.

Doesn't make sense what you said. Larger civs like Rome, China, France... have never been cut to add smaller ones instead. You can say that their additions have been delayed, as Ottomans only entered the game in a second expansion pack, but none of the large civs has been excluded. Many said that the Mayans would be out and look where we are. And almost 100% sure that Portugal, Byzantines and either Babylon or Assyria will be in the game as well.

It turns out that in each edition of civ game they add more civs than in the previous edition. And what happens when you extend the number of civs is to enable the inclusion of smaller or lesser known civs, but that doesn't mean that they are less interesting because of that. Civ5 had 43 civs and Civ6 will have 50 civs when this round of passes is completed.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Let's all applaud Palmyra as they enter the game, led by Zenobia! (Wishful thinking on my part, but I would love to see her in the game.)

I wouldn't mind Palmyra, assuming they could do something interesting with it mechanically. It's definitely a bit of a stretch given how short it was, but against a roster that includes nationalist figures with brief territorial conquests like Bolivar, Corvinus, and Alexander, I think she's the best female equivalent and would represent the so far unrepresented Syrian people.

 

[pokiehl]

I also grow tired of this kind of traditionalist attitude generally, and that has nothing to do with whether I like VI's broad, gap-filling culturefest. It's tiring because, despite three years of VI not conforming to expectations, people are still beating their heads against it and trying to blame observant folk like me for why it doesn't have Assyria or the Hittites or Babylon. I am not designing the game; I am not responsible for your disappointment. I am merely observing what VI is deliberately doing differently and attempting to align my expectations with that. But no matter how much you complain into the void of civfanatics, the insurmountable fact remains VI has a huge cultural gap-filling fetish and so far has shown no signs of changing that. If you don't like it, either write the developers or stop playing, but whinging at me is a pretty impotent way of going about things.

what none of that has anything to do with what I've said and I'm not complaining about what civs make it in I'm not disappointed in the game's choices - I've enjoyed newcomers like Mapuche and Maori and Kongo. I'm merely responding to your tendency to brush aside the opinions of others.

The Timurids and Mughals are frequently in the highest requested newcomers. That would be marketable just to please many of the historical pedants, at least the ones who are advocating for new civs.

Says who? The same few people in this thread have brought up the Timurids over and over, but I've not perceived them as a massively popular choice and there's no evidence either way.

Burma is really just one of several strong equivalents in Southeast Asia, and has a reasonable following on these boards. While I personally want it in, I have no pretensions about the fact that Vietnam also exists, not to mention Siam and the Chola. But there are also many reasonable people who see the dearth of Southeast Asian representation as a negative and having anything to accompany Khmer, even Burma, would add far more to the game than another ancient middle eastern civ.

Again, this has nothing to do with what I said or claimed so uh... Why can't we have both another SE Asian civ and another ancient Near Eastern civ anyway?

Really, I don't know how you can find it "quite funny" when these are all very large, long-lasting cultures that are absolutely likely to be under consideration. If anything, if I had a more morbid sense of humor I would find it amusing that you still just don't get VI. At all.

Again, completely unrelated to my point I didn't say they aren't important or long-lasting cultures. I was addressing the crux of "relatability" for your point, which is a silly thing to base the inclusion of civs on anyway. I don't want a game full of civs I can personally relate to - I want a mix of series mainstays and new cultures I can learn about.

 

[AntSou]

It's tiring because, despite three years of VI not conforming to expectations, people are still beating their heads against it and trying to blame observant folk like me for why it doesn't have Assyria or the Hittites or Babylon. I am not designing the game; I am not responsible for your disappointment. I am merely observing what VI is deliberately doing differently and attempting to align my expectations with that. But no matter how much you complain into the void of civfanatics the insurmountable fact remains VI has a huge cultural gap-filling fetish

There's 5 Anglophone Civs in the game yet only one NA Civ. Not so sure about the cultural gap-filling fetish. It's true they seem to be avoiding territorial overlap to some extent, but Mesopotamia isn't terribly well represented.

They are trying to have greater reach within their most lucrative markets, that's for sure.

 

[BuchiTaton]

and either Babylon or Assyria will be in the game as well.

You forget this.

I don't want to miss out on major civs like Assyria or the Hittites, just so we can fill every corner of the map for TSL players.

The problem still is the idea that Assyrians, Sumerians, Babylonians and Hittites are interchangeables, like people think that Khmers and Siamese or Malinese and Songhai are interchangeables. These civilizations could be as different between them on game as could be Portuguese from Spaniards or Dutchs.

What if I want to play on the same CIV with all Assyrians, Sumerians, Babylonians and Hittites, like I can play with French, English, Spaniards, Portuguese, etc?

English, French, Germans, Swedish, Polish, etc. Are not civilizations that developed mainly isolated or at least far away each other, they all are part of the same cluster of nations that share common elements like religion, dynasties, region, ideas, technology, etc. The only real difference is that european nations and euro offshoot still are the more atractive market to sell the game.

Even the "different" civs like Cree, Maori or Zulu are mainly to appeal to the territorial history of european offshoots.

 

[Zaarin]

And as far as most people are concerned in the Western Hemisphere, the Assyrians and Hittites are so spatially and temporally removed from them as to be virtually as consequential as Sumeria or Armenia or Turkey.

I'd like to point out that there are still a great many people who identify as Assyrian, and that a sizable population of them live in the Western Hemisphere. I'd also point out that Turkish nationalists created a craze for the Hittites in Turkey. To complete the trio, Saddam Hussein invoked Babylon as a symbol of Iraqi greatness. So Assyria, Hittites, and Babylon still carry an enormous cultural legacy in the region--and immigrants from those regions have come to the Western Hemisphere in large numbers in the past half century (and especially the last few decades), carrying that legacy with them.

I wouldn't mind Palmyra, assuming they could do something interesting with it mechanically. It's definitely a bit of a stretch given how short it was, but...I think she's the best female equivalent and would represent the so far unrepresented Syrian people.

This is where I think Zenobia has appeal. The land between Canaan and Mesopotamia was a pretty big deal from the earliest point in history (when it was inhabited by Eblaites and Amorites), but the various Eblaite, Amorite, Aramaic, and Syro-Hittite kingdoms that inhabited it weren't exactly flush with interesting leaders--in the best cases, we have lists of kings with maybe some notes about what they did. Enter Zenobia. Her empire was short-lived, but she'd be a stand-in for a much longer history--like Bolivar, except more so. It'd help to call her civilization Aram (or Syria, if we must) instead of Palmyra.

 

[mo123567]

Despite the

Eh I applaud the developers of VI for trying to dismantle eurocentric views of humanity. And bear in mind that VI isn't adding "unimportant" civs. They are simply turning the spotlight to unrepresented regions and peoples and showing off the dominant cultures of those regions that often get overlooked in history books. Gran Colombia and the Mapuche, for example, are extremely important and defining cultures in their respective regions; and we can't have a game that excludes them because "Spain was bigger and more historically significant," or else there's no real point in including the Aztecs, Maya, and Inca as well. And as far as most people are concerned in the Western Hemisphere, the Assyrians and Hittites are so spatially and temporally removed from them as to be virtually as consequential as Sumeria or Armenia or Turkey. There's just no actual historical legacy of them on this side of the world, let alone outside of the Middle East, outside of textbooks.

The fact is that a lot of textbook empires like Assyria and the Hittites are practically irrelevant to most people's cultural history. For both marketability and overall representation purposes, it is and has been a lot better to choose cultures and identities which people can more closely relate to, and show off a broader spectrum of humanity than the boring stuff we are already taught in high school.

Were you responding to me? I see you quoted me but went on to talk about "eurocentric views" when the two civs I requested were not from Europe. I also did not use the term unimportant.

The historical significance of a civ can be determined by many factors and it is debatable which factors hold the most weight. I personally find the reach of a civ's culture to influence other contemporary and future civs and/or the amount of "firsts" they accomplished to be the most important. I believe these two are different because civs like the Maya may not have influenced as many due to the fact that they were more isolated than middle eastern civs but they still accomplished a lot that had not been done before them.

I think a lot of people in this thread are trying to pass their opinions as facts to prove they should get what they want. I don't pretend to know what is marketable or presume to tell other people what they should find boring. My requests are simply my opinion on what I want to see which is not more valid than anyone else's opinion.

Doesn't make sense what you said. Larger civs like Rome, China, France... have never been cut to add smaller ones instead. You can say that their additions have been delayed, as Ottomans only entered the game in a second expansion pack, but none of the large civs has been excluded. Many said that the Mayans would be out and look where we are. And almost 100% sure that Portugal, Byzantines and either Babylon or Assyria will be in the game as well.

It turns out that in each edition of civ game they add more civs than in the previous edition. And what happens when you extend the number of civs is to enable the inclusion of smaller or lesser known civs, but that doesn't mean that they are less interesting because of that. Civ5 had 43 civs and Civ6 will have 50 civs when this round of passes is completed.

I did say I was exaggerating...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The Timurids and Mughals are frequently in the highest requested newcomers. That would be marketable just to please many of the historical pedants, at least the ones who are advocating for new civs.

Burma is really just one of several strong equivalents in Southeast Asia, and has a reasonable following on these boards. While I personally want it in, I have no pretensions about the fact that Vietnam also exists, not to mention Siam and the Chola. But there are also many reasonable people who see the dearth of Southeast Asian representation as a negative and having anything to accompany Khmer, even Burma, would add far more to the game than another ancient middle eastern civ.

It's all opinions really. Some of your requests are really different than others.
I honestly could care less if we get another Central Asian civ and would rather that spot given to another ancient middle eastern civ, because to me "Scythia" is a fine representative of Central Asia.
If we must have a "Silk Road" ability I think that role would be good for a Kublai Khan alt.

I also kind of feel that way about North Africa, but then again I can't say no to Africa getting more Civs. If we do get another one I hope it's a Berber Kingdom instead of Morocco.

As for Burma, I wouldn't rule them out but Vietnam does seem to have the more vocal fanbase from what I've seen. Also thanks to these forums if the devs haven't heard of the Trung sisters before, I think they know who they are now.

 

[Codeword Iroquois]

Something from Siberia would be nice (Just tossing out ideas here), Maybe the Chukchi?

 

[Zaarin]

Something from Siberia would be nice (Just tossing out ideas here), Maybe the Chukchi?

Same problem as the Inuit: most of them were nomadic hunter-gatherers. The best candidate for a near-Siberian civ would probably be the Manchu or Jurchens.