[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[PhoenicianGold]

i feel like khmer is religious to achieve culture vics (i use suk’s rework so now they’re wonderbuilders too).

Burma would reasonably be religious for a sake of religion, and i can see them functioning like a tibet replacement mechanically, as an isolationist religion civ

I like Sukritact’s Burma, but I feel that it isn’t particularly focused in the religious side of the civ, which I think would be well represented via Anawrahata, the founder of the idea of Myanmar, the first Therveda king of Burma and famous for his religious reforms

Burma: Anawrahata

CA: Theravada sanctuary: can produce inquisitors in Burma’s holy city even if it is converted. Inquisitors may be used in countries which Burma has an alliance with.

UU: Ceylonese Elephants: Replaces Knight. can only be bought via gold, and is expensive, but +15 combat strength

UI: Paya: builder-unlocked improvement. provides +1 adjacency bonus to holy sites, but only one can be built per city. +2 faith.

LA: Revival of Ceylon: Can build weirs. Converting an ally’s city will not produce grievances. Converting a holy city provides +100 diplomatic favor, but -50 gold that turn.


LUI: Weir: Replaces dam. May be built on plains or floodplain tiles adjacent to a river tiles adjacent to a weir. cities 5 tiles away from a weir as well as the city the weir is built in get 3 housing and +4 food.

I like Sukritact's Burma, but I was hoping for something with an even more niche playstyle converting gold to faith.

UD: Paya: replaces the Holy Site. Must be built on grassland or plains. Has one relic slot for each building. +3 gold for each relic. +1 faith adjacency to farms and commercial hubs.

LA: Revival of Ceylon: Religious units can be purchased with gold. Converting an ally's city will not produce grievances. Converting a holy city provides + 100 diplomatic favor but -50 gold that turn.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I like Sukritact's Burma, but I was hoping for something with an even more niche playstyle converting gold to faith.

UD: Paya: replaces the Holy Site. Must be built on grassland or plains. Has one relic slot for each building. +3 gold for each relic. +1 faith adjacency to farms and commercial hubs.

LA: Revival of Ceylon: Religious units can be purchased with gold. Converting an ally's city will not produce grievances. Converting a holy city provides + 100 diplomatic favor but -50 gold that turn.

yeah I prefer both of those

ideally i’d want to stupa to be moved to Burma and replaced by something else for the belief buildings.

A Paya complex is a great idea for Burma, similar to how I’d say the Kovil should be a Holy Site Replacement for a theoretical Chola, since within Kovils they have shrines and temples and such.

 

[Zaarin]

yeah i agree we need more religion for religion’s sake civs, and i’ve fixed the paya bonus

I always play with RV turned off, as I find it tedious and turning it off seems to make the AI less aggressive religiously; I think it makes sense for religious bonuses to synergize with some other victory type or play style.

 

[Abaxial]

I think one should try and avoid as much as possible UAs that are highly situational. Getting a bonus for discovering a new continent could be something with very limited ability to trigger, likewise natural wonders. On the other hand, having iron revealed at the start of the game is always going to be useful.

For Portugal I would suggest something like having a bonus envoy at each CS when contacted.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I always play with RV turned off, as I find it tedious and turning it off seems to make the AI less aggressive religiously; I think it makes sense for religious bonuses to synergize with some other victory type or play style.

that’s true, but i feel that few religious civs actually are worth pursuing religious vics with. They’re so grindy and quite boring, so i feel a civ like my Burma which is solely based on grinding religion would be good to have

 

[PhoenicianGold]

that’s true, but i feel that few religious civs actually are worth pursuing religious vics with. They’re so grindy and quite boring, so i feel a civ like my Burma which is solely based on grinding religion would be good to have

Yeah if we can have civs like GC and Korea that grind out domination and scientific victories, I absolutely think we deserve at least one dedicated religious civ. I'd say Georgia comes closest to a pure religious civ, except it kind of sucks at it (I still love you though Tamar my bae). I want a religious machine, something that can just pump out missionaries and maybe have some additional religious pressure bonuses. I want religious Eleanor.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

We're actually pretty short on "religion for religion's sake" civs (which I think is preferable): Khmer and Russia are pretty heavily oriented towards CV, which is somewhat true of Poland; Spain is more DV-oriented; Arabia uses religion to boost Science; etc. Not that any of these can't also use their bonuses for RV; but virtually every religion-oriented civ in the game uses it as a synergy for something else (which, again, is as it should be).

Yeah if we can have civs like GC and Korea that grind out domination and scientific victories, I absolutely think we deserve at least one dedicated religious civ. I'd say Georgia comes closest to a pure religious civ, except it kind of sucks at it (I still love you though Tamar my bae). I want a religious machine, something that can just pump out missionaries and maybe have some additional religious pressure bonuses. I want religious Eleanor.

I could possibly see Ethiopia take that spot if they wanted too.
If Israel can't get in the game I could see Ethiopia becoming the "Religious Holy Civ" due to the fact that the Ark of the Covenant issupposedly located there and the whole Solomonic legacy.

 

[Zaarin]

General consensus seems to be that RV was a misfire that's tedious and unfun so I really don't see the devs designing a civ that can do nothing else well.

I could possibly see Ethiopia take that spot if they wanted too.
If Israel can't get in the game I could see Ethiopia becoming the "Religious Holy Civ" due to the fact that the Ark of the Covenant issupposedly located there and the whole Solomonic legacy.

Both have been better at turtling than proselytizing though. Judaism doesn't actively seek converts, and there have been quite a few points in their history where they haven't even accepted converts. The Ethiopians, meanwhile, haven't exactly been at the forefront of evangelizing the world; they've simply been unusually successful at not being converted to Islam in a region dominated by Islam (+1 for Armenia and Georgia).

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I could possibly see Ethiopia take that spot if they wanted too.
If Israel can't get in the game I could see Ethiopia becoming the "Religious Holy Civ" due to the fact that the Ark of the Covenant issupposedly located there and the whole Solomonic legacy.

Mmmmmm I'd rather we get more religious civs that aren't Christo-centric. It gets a little repetitive and masturbatory for my tastes, especially given we have an entire hemisphere of Hindu offshoots that get comparatively very little attention. We still don't have a Buddhist civ really.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Mmmmmm I'd rather we get more religious civs that aren't Christo-centric. It gets a little repetitive and masturbatory for my tastes, especially given we have an entire hemisphere of Hindu offshoots that get comparatively very little attention. We still don't have a Buddhist civ really.

we have a buddhist khmer

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Both have been better at turtling than proselytizing though. Judaism doesn't actively seek converts, and there have been quite a few points in their history where they haven't even accepted converts. The Ethiopians, meanwhile, haven't exactly been at the forefront of evangelizing the world; they've simply been unusually successful at not being converted to Islam in a region dominated by Islam (+1 for Armenia and Georgia).

Yeah but Georgia is already the turtling religious civ in the game so I'm not sure.
I picture it not being an active thing like missionaries or apostles, but instead passively like the holy sites/relics giving out more religious pressure.
Then again those things could just amount to more tourism.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

we have a buddhist khmer

Whoops, forgot about that. Still, we only have India, Khmer, and Indonesia, and none of them are especially well-geared toward a religious victory.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Whoops, forgot about that. Still, we only have India, Khmer, and Indonesia, and none of them are especially well-geared toward a religious victory.

Japan with Hojo Tokimune is Buddhist too.

 

[Abaxial]

I really don't understand why people are so down on RV. I win more times with RV than anything else; it's definitely the easiest if you play it right, and much less of a grind than SV. It has the similarity with DV that you have to take things into enemy territory, but since religious units ignore international boundaries, that's quite easy.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I'd hope they'd consider re-removing RV and returning it more to being a "means to an end" in future takes.

And to take that the next step, that's what I think $$$ should remain as that too and hope there isn't an economic victory in the works.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Whoops, forgot about that. Still, we only have India, Khmer, and Indonesia, and none of them are especially well-geared toward a religious victory.

India is better than they look, with the extra trade route pressure. It's easy to convert Holy cities by focusing a bunch of Trade Routes on them.

 

[Zaarin]

Mmmmmm I'd rather we get more religious civs that aren't Christo-centric. It gets a little repetitive and masturbatory for my tastes, especially given we have an entire hemisphere of Hindu offshoots that get comparatively very little attention. We still don't have a Buddhist civ really.

Considering the devs are clearly in love with Buddhism, I have no worries about the game being Christian-centric.

Yeah but Georgia is already the turtling religious civ in the game so I'm not sure.
I picture it not being an active thing like missionaries or apostles, but instead passively like the holy sites/relics giving out more religious pressure.
Then again those things could just amount to more tourism.

I would see Ethiopia as more of a CV-through-religion like Khmer, yeah.

I really don't understand why people are so down on RV. I win more times with RV than anything else; it's definitely the easiest if you play it right, and much less of a grind than SV. It has the similarity with DV that you have to take things into enemy territory, but since religious units ignore international boundaries, that's quite easy.

No one said it wasn't easy. It's just boring.

I'd hope they'd consider re-removing RV and returning it more to being a "means to an end" in future takes.

And to take that the next step, that's what I think $$$ should remain as too and hope there isn't an economic victory in the works.

Agreed. Neither Civ5's nor Civ6's approach to religion has been ideal, but of the two Civ5's was much better. RV was a step entirely in the wrong direction.

 

[Jeppetto]

Also Medina Quarter is currently an economic policy card but I'm sure they both could exist because we have two different wonders at least, Angkor Wat and Chichen Itza, that are also names of cities.

There shoud also be Machu and we could've had Huey Teocalli (I think it was in Civ 5). Also, Mausoleum of Halicarnassus doesn't need to be in Halicarnassus. The Library and Lighthouse are saved by being simply Great.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Japan with Hojo Tokimune is Buddhist too.

Japan is more of a generalist civ, though. I don't think of them as a religious civ.

Generally sucks that we can't get Tibet as a mountain-faith civ; perhaps not as fun as a straight up faith civ but we could definitely use more mountain gimmicks. I hope Sukritact ends up making an animated leader for them.

 

[The Kingmaker]

On an entirely different note, I think the Clibanarii heavy cavalry might be nice as a UU for Zenobia/Palmyra. Either that or a bloke on a camel.

What about Kanishka/Kushans? Another elephant or yet another early cavalry?