[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Xandinho]

Dumb half-baked hypothesis:

So far, many of the city-state additions seem somewhat selected to "pair" geographically with civs added in the same DLC/expack. I presume this is a matter of balancing, offering some reasonable assurance that as regions get filled and/or more dense there will be a proportionate amount of TSL city states nearby to keep politics interesting. Note that this doesn't apply to all of the CSs:

* Caguana (Maya)
* Fez/Ngazargamu (Mali)
* Hunza (Gran Colombia)
* Nazca (Inca)
* Rapa Nui (Maori)
* Cardiff (added after Scotland to put two British Isles CSs on the map to fight over)

This suggests two things to me.

One, there is a substantial chance that other city states added in the DLC packs are intended to be "neighbor's" with other NFP packs. Vatican might be pointing at something Italian, while Lahore might be pointing at the Timurids/Mughals or Kushans. Taruga might even be pointing toward Ashanti or Oyo.

Two, the absence of SE Asian city-states might be pointing at more than one new addition. The absence of Pagan, Hanoi, Bangkok (and Kuala Lumpur, Manila, Dhaka) might mean that multiple "civ-CS" pairings are planned.

I've noticed this pattern since the base game:
America -> Toronto
Brazil -> Buenos Aires
Aztec -> La Venta
India -> Kandy
In some similar cases:
Auckland immediately preceding the inclusion of Australia
Indonesia -> Bandar Bruinei which was a replacement of Jakarta.

I don't think this represents anything more than some kind of TSL balance.
But one thing I'm quite convinced of is that they use the city-state mechanism to represent civilizations that will not be present as playable civilizations in this edition or cultures that may never be playable, like La Venta/Olmec.

I've stated this before but I think there's a possibility that in Civ 7, if South America has the same number of Civs, that they might switch up Gran Colombia and the Mapuche for Argentina and the Muisca.
Both sets cover the same geographical areas and one is indigenous while the other is a Spanish speaking post-colonial nation.

I've noticed that the Latin reception for the inclusion of Simon Bolivar was extremely positive, so I wouldn't be surprised if Simon Bolivar became constant in future versions.
However, I see Mapuche being replaced by Muisca or others.

 

[Guandao]

At this point I am open to any new civs from a place not geographically or historically represented.

I would want a western United States American Indian civ. I would have loved the Pueblo but that option obviously doesn't work.

My other choice would be a Southeast Asian civ. I bracket the likelihoods into three tiers:

I (Most Likely)
-Pagan or Burmese kingdom variation
-Champa or Vietnam

II (Less Likely)
-Ayutthaya
-Srivijaya

III (Longshots)
-Pick your choice of any major Sultanate within Nusantara
-The Philippines

If anyone here has a bias toward a SEA civ I did not mention, let me know who it is and which bracket you would put them in

I don't find Champa very likely. It's a lesser known kingdom compared to Vietnam, Burma, or Siam/Thailand. Plus finding a Cham speaker might be harder than for the others.

 

[pokiehl]

Babylon was represented just fine in Civ 5 without any regard to rivers or ziggurats.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Ziggurats and river bonuses. Plus the cuneiform symbol kind of preempts any civ having a cuneiform bonus.

Babylon has never had ziggurats or river bonuses in there prior installments though. Looks like I was beat to it.

I've noticed that the Latin reception for the inclusion of Simon Bolivar was extremely positive, so I wouldn't be surprised if Simon Bolivar became constant in future versions.
However, I see Mapuche being replaced by Muisca or others.

I agree but if Simon Bolivar keeps on returning I don't know if they would make room for others like Argentina or Mexico.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Ziggurats and river bonuses. Plus the cuneiform symbol kind of preempts any civ having a cuneiform bonus.

Babylon has never had Ziggurats, River bonuses aren’t exclusive to Sumer and can be done differently, and they can give babylon a different symbol, lol. These aren’t good reasons

While I think the Mughals are pretty much not happening and the devs would pivot toward the Timurids, Agra would more appropriately be a definite reconfirmation of the Mughals. Lahore really only makes sense if we got Nur Jahan or maybe Akbar. I'm not completely dismissing them even if I find the Mughals extremely unlikely.

Mughals are unlikely bcs Agra is India’s city list and Lahore is a brand new CS.

Timurids had nothing to do with Lahore, you’re thinking of the Ghaznavids.

I've noticed this pattern since the base game:
America -> Toronto
Brazil -> Buenos Aires
Aztec -> La Venta
India -> Kandy
In some similar cases:
Auckland immediately preceding the inclusion of Australia
Indonesia -> Bandar Bruinei which was replaced by Jakarta

I don't think this represents anything more than some kind of TSL balance.
But one thing I'm quite convinced of is that they use the city-state mechanism to represent civilizations that will not be present as playable civilizations in this edition or cultures that may never be playable, like La Venta/Olmec.



I've noticed that the Latin reception for the inclusion of Simon Bolivar was extremely positive, so I wouldn't be surprised if Simon Bolivar became constant in future versions.
However, I see Mapuche being replaced by Muisca or others.

Agree that it was probably just TSL balance and not a matter or rule

I’d imagine Mapuche stay, bcs after researching them, they seem fairly influential and powerful even today, and have a big influence in Chile and Argentina.

I can see Muisca being added on w/ Guarani in future games, perhaps Argentina. I’d imagine Muisca to Colombia can be like the Cree for Canada. Simon Bolivar is a better leader choice than anything Argentina could get and has more popularity across the continent bcs of Pan-Latinamericanism, so more Argentinians would be satisfied w/ Bolivar than Colombians/Venezuelans/Ecuadorians with an Argentine leader, I would guess.

I don't find Champa very likely. It's a lesser known kingdom compared to Vietnam, Burma, or Siam/Thailand. Plus finding a Cham speaker might be harder than for the others.

Cham shouldn’t be too hard. I’m sure finding speakers of Ancient Egyptian, Akkadian or Aramaic is probably harder.

Babylon has never had ziggurats or river bonuses in there prior installments though. Looks like I was beat to it.



I agree but if Simon Bolivar keeps on returning I don't know if they would make room for others like Argentina or Mexico.

Since Civ by definition gets larger each game, if they add two more civs, Argentina would probably be up there with the Muisca and Guarani. Like I mentioned above, I’m sure more non-Colombian/Venezuelans/Ecuadorians are happy with Bolivar than non-Mexicans or Argentines would be with say, Zapata or Jose de San Martin.

Argentina also lacks non-controversial options. Jose de San Martin technically didn’t lead the country, Eva Peron and Juan Peron are controversial and recent, and everyone else is controversial, not well known, or both.

I’m also not a fan of a mexico civ since hre capital would overlap with the Aztecs, and generally it would cover the Maya and Aztecs, as well as a Purépecha civ, which I want to see. It would be like having a Papal States civ with Rome in the game—Mexico City and the Vatican are fine as city states, but don’t make the capitals overlap.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Babylon has never had Ziggurats, River bonuses aren’t exclusive to Sumer and can be done differently, and they can give babylon a different symbol, lol. These aren’t good reasons

I mean they already have their own icon anyway as a city-state. Plus the river bonus is exclusively towards the ziggurat which Babylon won't use anyway.

Argentina also lacks non-controversial options. Jose de San Martin technically didn’t lead the country, Eva Peron and Juan Peron are controversial and recent, and everyone else is controversial, not well known, or both.

I mean I wouldn't mind Madonna, I mean Eva Peron, at some point.
I'm not too keen on the political spectrum and how they are controversial, but she definitely is iconic to Argentina, even if she never officially lead.

I’m also not a fan of a mexico civ since hre capital would overlap with the Aztecs, and generally it would cover the Maya and Aztecs, as well as a Purépecha civ, which I want to see. It would be like having a Papal States civ with Rome in the game—Mexico City and the Vatican are fine as city states, but don’t make the capitals overlap.

From a marketing standpoint, Mexico makes sense as another post-colonial Spanish speaking one, other than Argentina. But I agree that at least the Aztecs and the Maya should take precedent and I'd rather Argentina or Gran Colombia to appear again over Mexico personally.

 

[Guandao]

Cham shouldn’t be too hard. I’m sure finding speakers of Ancient Egyptian, Akkadian or Aramaic is probably harder.

Of course, those languages are either extinct or dying out. I meant in comparison to other Southeast Asian languages like Vietnamese, Burmese, Thai/Siamese, etc. One would have to search hard for a scholar who specializes in the Cham languages, and find a capable voice actor for that language in Cambodia/or Vietnam. I would even expect them to take a shortcut and use a Malay/Indonesian speaker instead, since Cham is part of the same language family.

I just see Vietnam, Burma, Siam, and even the Philippines as having more priority than Champa.

 

[Xandinho]

I agree but if Simon Bolivar keeps on returning I don't know if they would make room for others like Argentina or Mexico.

Well, I think Civ7 will have at least 1 additional civ on each continent, at least that's what I hope will happen .

Agree that it was probably just TSL balance and not a matter or rule

I’d imagine Mapuche stay, bcs after researching them, they seem fairly influential and powerful even today, and have a big influence in Chile and Argentina.

I can see Muisca being added on w/ Guarani in future games, perhaps Argentina. I’d imagine Muisca to Colombia can be like the Cree for Canada. Simon Bolivar is a better leader choice than anything Argentina could get and has more popularity across the continent bcs of Pan-Latinamericanism, so more Argentinians would be satisfied w/ Bolivar than Colombians/Venezuelans/Ecuadorians with an Argentine leader, I would guess.

That's what I think. I'm particularly a fan of Argentina, but I understand why they chose Gran Colombia instead, it just makes more sense through all points of view. Given the good reception it had, I think there is a high chance that Gran Colombia will become permanent in the franchise. Perhaps many Latin (not only Colombian) have known Civilization through the inclusion of Gran Colombia and makes sense to keep this audience loyal to the franchise.
Argentina is still likely for Civ7, but I don't see Mexico happening someday, it's a lot of overlap with the Aztecs and Maya.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Of course, those languages are either extinct or dying out. I meant in comparison to other Southeast Asian languages like Vietnamese, Burmese, Thai/Siamese, etc. One would have to search hard for a scholar who specializes in the Cham languages, and find a capable voice actor for that language in Cambodia/or Vietnam. I would even expect them to take a shortcut and use a Malay/Indonesian speaker instead, since Cham is part of the same language family.

I just see Vietnam, Burma, Siam, and even the Philippines as having more priority than Champa.

The thing is, all three of those languages can have speakers found for them bcs they have—Akkadian in civ 5 Ashurbanipal and Neubchadnezzar as well as Civ 6 Gilgamesh (although he makes 1 mistake there), Ancient Egyptian in Civ 6 Cleopatra, etc.

Cham is still somewhat widely spoken, and most of the voice actors don’t necessarily speak the language if it’s rarer.

They probably wouldn’t be so low as to just use Malay instead, this isn’t Civ 5 ramses

 

[Thenewwwguy]

At this point I am open to any new civs from a place not geographically or historically represented.

I would want a western United States American Indian civ. I would have loved the Pueblo but that option obviously doesn't work.

My other choice would be a Southeast Asian civ. I bracket the likelihoods into three tiers:

I (Most Likely)
-Pagan or Burmese kingdom variation
-Champa or Vietnam

II (Less Likely)
-Ayutthaya
-Srivijaya

III (Longshots)
-Pick your choice of any major Sultanate within Nusantara
-The Philippines

If anyone here has a bias toward a SEA civ I did not mention, let me know who it is and which bracket you would put them in

Put the Chola in long shots lmao

i think philippines is less likely but not impossible, and srivijaya is impossible since it’s implicitly blobbed into Indonesia

In order of likelihood, it goes

Vietnam
Burma
Champa
Philippines
Thailand
Malacca
Brunei
Chola

 

[The Kingmaker]

I’m a bit more cynical re: the amount love SE Asia will get.

From most to least likely, I’d say:
1.Vietnam
2. Burma
3. Thailand (lowest because of the hiccup with Civ5)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I’m a bit more cynical re: the amount love SE Asia will get.

From most to least likely, I’d say:
1.Vietnam
2. Burma
3. Thailand (lowest because of the hiccup with Civ5)

That's not cynical, but probably realistic. It's what I believe as well.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Babylon has never had Ziggurats, River bonuses aren’t exclusive to Sumer and can be done differently, and they can give babylon a different symbol, lol. These aren’t good reasons

VI is the first game to make terrain a more central feature, and I don't think there isn't a single civ (outside of USA, Poland, and China off the top of my head, which each have terrain-ish abilities) without some sort of terrain-based restriction or bonus, or otherwise something involving continents. Ergo, a Babylon in VI would likely have/require some sort of terrain bonus/malus/restriction as well, and the only one which makes sense is a river bonus.

Mughals are unlikely bcs Agra is India’s city list and Lahore is a brand new CS.

Timurids had nothing to do with Lahore, you’re thinking of the Ghaznavids.

Ah forgot Agra was in India's list. Then yeah no Mughals. Also Timurids have nothing to do with Lahore, but they would be considered in tandem with the Mughals and one would likely be vicariously representing the other.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

VI is the first game to make terrain a more central feature, and I don't think there isn't a single civ (outside of USA, Poland, and China off the top of my head, which each have terrain-ish abilities) without some sort of terrain-based restriction or bonus, or otherwise something involving continents. Ergo, a Babylon in VI would likely have/require some sort of terrain bonus/malus/restriction as well, and the only one which makes sense is a river bonus.

The Aztecs didn't get any terrain bonuses in their ability, unless you count needing luxury resources, yet the wonder that was released with them requires a lake.
It could be similar in the fact that Babylon wouldn't need any rivers, yet the Hanging Gardens get the river bonus.

My idea is that Babylon could be a playable city-state. It's restriction would be that it couldn't settle cities, but instead having to conquer them and it has nothing to do with rivers at all.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

The Aztecs didn't get any terrain bonuses in their ability, unless you count needing luxury resources, yet the wonder that was released with them requires a lake.
It could be similar in the fact that Babylon wouldn't need any rivers, yet the Hanging Gardens get the river bonus.

My idea is that Babylon could be a playable city-state. It's restriction would be that it couldn't settle cities, but instead having to conquer them and it has nothing to do with rivers at all.

So yeah the Aztecs and I also remembered Germany, the Zulu, and I think Mongolia don't seem to have anything terrain/continent-based either. That still seems to be an exception, although I won't rule out a riverless Babylon.

Still, the fact that it was added as an expansion CS makes it about as likely as Morocco in my eyes. I think the devs are looking elsewhere for other ME civs.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

So yeah the Aztecs and I also remembered Germany, the Zulu, and I think Mongolia don't seem to have anything terrain/continent-based either. That still seems to be an exception, although I won't rule out a riverless Babylon.

Ottomans, Mapuche, maybe China, India and Scythia

You have a problem of finding patterns that don’t exist in places where there isn’t one to find.

Babylon is not less likely because Sumer got a river bonus.

Here is a mock-up:

Babylon:

UA: Gates of Ishtar: Walls provide +3 culture. Cannot build settlers. Cities have ancient walls when founded. Capital can work tiles 4 tiles away instead of 3, cannot lose loyalty, and has +15 city strength

UI: Kudurru: Can be built by builders. 1 per city. Culture bombs adjacent tiles. Cities with a Kudurru get +4 loyalty, +1 culture, +1 science

UU: Bowman: Replaces Archer. Can attack melee. +10 combat strength when garrisoned on a city with walls.

Hammurabi:

Hammurabi’s Code of Laws: Code of Laws is already researched. Policy Card changes can be made at any time for free. Changing to a new tier of government grants an inspiration.

Nebuchadnezzar:

Conquerer of Judah: +10 combat strength against civilizations who have researched less civics than Babylon. Cities captured from other civilizations do not lose loyalty if they have walls.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Still, the fact that it was added as an expansion CS makes it about as likely as Morocco in my eyes. I think the devs are looking elsewhere for other ME civs.

I agree with this statement more than Sumeria replacing it with ziggurats and river bonuses. Of course it was early on in the game and only replaced Seoul from the base game.
Actually it's more along the lines of Akkad being released in GS as well, considering Akkad has always been a one of the first on the Babylonian city list.

That's why I think either Babylon gets in as a possible playable city-state or we get Assyria. Either way I'm pretty sure we will get one of them. Since Civ 3 there has always been two from Mesopotamia and I don't think they would change it now.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Ottomans, Mapuche, maybe China, India and Scythia

You have a problem of finding patterns that don’t exist in places where there isn’t one to find.

Babylon is not less likely because Sumer got a river bonus.

Here is a mock-up:

Babylon:

UA: Gates of Ishtar: Walls provide +3 culture. Cannot build settlers. Cities have ancient walls when founded. Capital can work tiles 4 tiles away instead of 3, cannot lose loyalty, and has +15 city strength

UI: Kudurru: Can be built by builders. 1 per city. Culture bombs adjacent tiles. Cities with a Kudurru get +4 loyalty, +1 culture, +1 science

UU: Bowman: Replaces Archer. Can attack melee. +10 combat strength when garrisoned on a city with walls.

Hammurabi:

Hammurabi’s Code of Laws: Code of Laws is already researched. Policy Card changes can be made at any time for free. Changing to a new tier of government grants an inspiration.

Nebuchadnezzar:

Conquerer of Judah: +10 combat strength against civilizations who have researched less civics than Babylon. Cities captured from other civilizations do not lose loyalty if they have walls.

This is a pretty good proposal. I do expect they’re going to have a science bonus in there somewhere, and I’m hoping for a more creative UU than the old bowman. Qurubuti perhaps?

I also somehow doubt that FXS would make another one-city civ. I don’t think VI would lend itself as well to that play style.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Ottomans, Mapuche, maybe China, India and Scythia

I listed China as a kind-of terrain-ish ability.

Mapuche can only build chemamul on breathtaking tiles.
Scythian kurgans can't be built on hills.
Indian stepwells can't be built on hills or floodplains.

Ottomans are on the fence because they do have strategic resource tile bonuses. Classify them how you will.

Point being, there still aren't many civs that don't incorporate terrain-based bonuses or limitations. It's subtle, but definitely something that sets VI apart from V. Definitely seems like the devs want to cram at least some sort of terrain limitation on most civs to give them clearer settling niches and make them slightly more flavorfully distinct.

You have a problem of finding patterns that don’t exist in places where there isn’t one to find.

There definitely are design guidelines. We can try to glean what they are and argue as to how strictly the developers are adhering to them. But pretending that they don't exist at all just leads to disappointment when we get Georgia or Canada and not Babylon. At the very least considering these theories prepares you for the possibility that the developers design a different game than the one you imagined. I don't find the attempts at shutting down such discourse particularly fruitful, when VI is already quite brazenly doing whatever it wants.

Also, a Kudurru is not "infrastructure."

I agree with this statement more than Sumeria replacing it with ziggurats and river bonuses. Of course it was early on in the game and only replaced Seoul from the base game.
Actually it's more along the lines of Akkad being released in GS as well, considering Akkad has always been a one of the first on the Babylonian city list.

That's why I think either Babylon gets in as a possible playable city-state or we get Assyria. Either way I'm pretty sure we will get one of them. Since Civ 3 there has always been two from Mesopotamia and I don't think they would change it now.

I think if we get anything it will be the Neo-Assyrians. Something that actually feels different enough from Sumeria. Though frankly I would prefer something even more culturally removed from Sumeria like Palmyra or Armenia. I could live with Assyria, even though I really have no use for another ancient Mesopotamian civ when there are entire regions and eras that have more potential to diversify the roster.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

I also somehow doubt that FXS would make another one-city civ. I don’t think VI would lend itself as well to that play style.

They already tried a "city-State" civ with the Mayans, and people are already complaining about the fact that you're punished for going wide while you can have 7 cities quite comfortably. But for a lot of players 7 isn't enough and with the Mayans they made it clear. So a one-city civ would be out of question.