[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

There are already two city states in Italy today. Bologna is a technology type. Valletta is a military type.
Valletta is the capital of present-day Malta.
 
There are already two city states in Italy today. Bologna is a technology type. Valletta is a military type.

valletta isn’t italian, it’s maltese
 
I've got the Kushans on the brain today. Anybody else interested in contemplating a possible civ design? Here's some really basic thoughts that need fleshing out.
Well since you asked here's my take on Vietnam currently:

Leader: Trung Trac
Agenda: Huyen- Likes to fill her city with improvements and fewer districts. Dislikes Civs who build many districts in their cities.

Leader Ability: Linh Nam- Gain the unique unit Trung Nhi at the beginning of the game when Trung Trac is the leader. Gain an extra 15% of current culture and faith yields in any recaptured city or city that you occupy from another civ.

Civ UA: Kinh: Fishing Boats provide additional food, +1 housing and +1 culture. All improvements provide +1 production when adjacent to a river.

LUU: Trung Nhi- Unique Great General when Trung Trac is the leader. Grants +5 combat strength and +2 movement to all units within 2 tiles of every era. May spend charges in an Encampment to speed up production of units in that city.

UU: Mong Dong (Replaces caravel at Naval tradition?) Stronger when fighting in coastal water.

UI: Water Puppet Theater at Drama and Poetry- Can only be built on floodplains or flooded tiles (GS). Grants culture. Gains an additional culture for every adjacent farm and tourism at flight. Will not get damaged when flooded (GS) and cannot be built adjacent to another Water Puppet Theater.
 
Yes, you should be careful saying stuff like that. That's how you make a Maltese Cross.

...I'll see myself out.
buh bum tss
 
It's the only empire on the roster (aside from arguably Gran Colombia now) which really amounted more to a massive, narcissistic cult of personality more than a lasting polity.
Though the legacy of both Alexander's empire and Bolívar's definitely influenced history, even if their territories didn't stay together.
 
I had a very convincing dream that I read a release on the civilization website announcing Belgium and Eritrea. The rest of my dream was spent trying to post it here, especially as no one else had, but having technical difficulties attaching my source.
 
I had a very convincing dream that I read a release on the civilization website announcing Belgium and Eritrea. The rest of my dream was spent trying to post it here, especially as no one else had, but having technical difficulties attaching my source.
I mean I wouldn't mind an Africa map but this might not be the way to go. :shifty:
 
I had a very convincing dream that I read a release on the civilization website announcing Belgium and Eritrea. The rest of my dream was spent trying to post it here, especially as no one else had, but having technical difficulties attaching my source.
I had a dream that one of the features of Ethiopia's abilities was that they only worked before 5 AM
 
Though the legacy of both Alexander's empire and Bolívar's definitely influenced history, even if their territories didn't stay together.

As massive territorial conquests tend to do.

But when you're talking about defining features of a particular region or people, the Macedonian Empire didn't really have much of a polity or culture to speak of. The polity fell into factionalism almost immediately and it doesn't sound like developed much of a culture at all as compared to what already existed in Persia. You could make a stronger case for Macedonia having a stronger culture and political influence in the Hellenic League prior to the conquest of Persia, but then we get back to the question of why Alexander isn't just a third Greece leader alongside the Delian and Pelopponnesian Leagues.

Even the former Gran Colombian states had a history going back of being lumped together as the former colony of New Granada, and a history going forward of sharing a common culture of winning independence from the Spanish Empire. Although the polity itself didn't last long, it represents centuries of culture and political history common to all of the states it encompassed.

I don't mind the inclusion of a separate Macedonia civ in a game--despite shifting toward a cultural focus--that is partly still obsessed with historical figures. If any historical leader deserved to be included for their own sake, regardless of how relatively fleeting their empire was, it is probably Alexander. Maybe Attila, which is why I'm not completely ruling out the Huns yet.

I had a very convincing dream that I read a release on the civilization website announcing Belgium and Eritrea. The rest of my dream was spent trying to post it here, especially as no one else had, but having technical difficulties attaching my source.

I've had dreams about technical difficulties before. I'd say that qualifies as a nightmare.
 
Maybe we'll get to play as Leopold II and commit crimes against humanity toward Mvemba ;)
As long as Leopold II founds a religion I'm sure Mvemba would be grateful towards him in game. :rolleyes:

But when you're talking about defining features of a particular region or people, the Macedonian Empire didn't really have much of a polity or culture to speak of. The polity fell into factionalism almost immediately and it doesn't sound like developed much of a culture at all as compared to what already existed in Persia. You could make a stronger case for Macedonia having a stronger culture and political influence in the Hellenic League prior to the conquest of Persia, but then we get back to the question of why Alexander isn't just a third Greece leader alongside the Delian and Pelopponnesian Leagues.
I could see maybe early on when they were discussing alt. leaders Alexander might have been mentioned as being the militaristic leader of Greece.

Though I can also see how they thought his bonuses might have not synergized well with the rest of Greece's abilities such as the Acropolis. So instead they gave us Gorgo for a military leader for Greece, and at the same time they reasonably gave us a separate Macedon civ with Alexander later because they wanted him in the game.
 
Moderator Action: this discussing is heading in a very unpleasant direction that we should avoid
 
I could see maybe early on when they were discussing alt. leaders Alexander might have been mentioned as being the militaristic leader of Greece.

Though I can also see how they thought his bonuses might have not synergized well with the rest of Greece's abilities such as the Acropolis. So instead they gave us Gorgo for a military leader for Greece, and at the same time they reasonably gave us a separate Macedon civ with Alexander later because they wanted him in the game.

Possibly, although I think it may even be simpler than that. They wanted the elegant duality offered by Athens and Sparta, and Alexander didn't fit into that.

(And then I guess they didn't like the idea of giving any civ three leaders at the time, and Persia was a must-include, and then someone had the idea of making Alexander a pseudo-Persian foil to Cyrus...)

I suspect that if the devs had put Alexander off long enough, he might have just been included as a bonus Greek leader. But for some reason they really wanted him in the game sooner.
 
Back
Top Bottom