[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[SirMediocrity]

ngl I would pay $40 to play the Hittites led by Puduhepa in Civ 6, even with reused animations. I'm a really big Hittite fan-boy

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

What you just said regarding Semiramis is exactly the backlash that every single woman leader in civ has faced: "only famous for being a woman," "not a great ruler," followed by a list of "approved" male leaders. You conveniently forget that Semiramis has been the subject of art, plays, and operas, and has been for centuries. I also wouldn't doubt that the devs would lean on her being semi-mythical to portray her with a big personality.

For the record, this doesn't mean that I think she is very likely to be chosen for Assyria. I do think it she would provide a better contrast for Gilgamesh than the equally beefy Ashurbanipal and would help distinguish Assyria from Sumer, and it would make me happy if she was chosen.

We already got a semi-legendary Ancient Middle Eastern woman in Dido though.
The other female rulers, in my opinion, at least warrant inclusion more than Semiramis no matter if some of them are considered controversial.

At the same time all the other Ancient Era leaders have been semi-legendary and got their leader unique abilities ( as well as one civ ability )based off of written works. It would be nice if we had one Ancient leader that wasn't somewhat fictional.

At the end of the day, though, it's just a graphic. If they do something interesting with it I guess I'm okay . . .

The problem is her leader ability would be made up and fictional even more so than the game modes we just got.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

We already got a semi-legendary Ancient Middle Eastern woman in Dido though.
The other female rulers, in my opinion, at least warrant inclusion more than Semiramis no matter if some of them are considered controversial.

At the same time all the other Ancient Era leaders have been semi-legendary and got their leader unique abilities ( as well as one civ ability )based off of written works. It would be nice if we had one Ancient leader that wasn't somewhat fictional.


The problem is her leader ability would be made up and fictional even more so than the game modes we just got.

Not if it was just generic Assyria though.

Don't get me wrong I'd prefer someone "famous."

 

[Thenewwwguy]

ngl I would pay $40 to play the Hittites led by Puduhepa in Civ 6, even with reused animations. I'm a really big Hittite fan-boy

puduhepa would be an infinitely better bronze age woman leader option, and I would LOVE LOVE LOVE the hittites to return

 

[PhoenicianGold]

You missed Babylon, the Vikings, Polynesia, Carthage, Native Americans and the Holy Roman Empire.

I was reposting the list, and Babylon is on it. The original poster acknowledged that they had "split up" the blob civs like the Celts, Polynesia, Native Americans. Carthage is effectively Phoenicia this time around, and Germany is effectively HRE.

I have to disagree with these three. These countries all had an important empire at some point in history:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania#Territorial_expansion
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bulgarian_Empire
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Armenia_(antiquity)

Poland in this game is effectively Poland-Lithuania. In the same way I don't expect Austria when we have Hungary, I don't expect Lithuania.

What you just said regarding Semiramis is exactly the backlash that every single woman leader in civ has faced: "only famous for being a woman," "not a great ruler," followed by a list of "approved" male leaders. You conveniently forget that Semiramis has been the subject of art, plays, and operas, and has been for centuries. I also wouldn't doubt that the devs would lean on her being semi-mythical to portray her with a big personality.

For the record, this doesn't mean that I think she is very likely to be chosen for Assyria. I do think it she would provide a better contrast for Gilgamesh than the equally beefy Ashurbanipal and would help distinguish Assyria from Sumer, and it would make me happy if she was chosen.

This is my opinion on the matter. Most female leader options will not be as "great" as some male equivalent (and the few that are exceptional have been done to death and do a poor job of representing the broader effect of strong women in history).

Lady Six Sky is somewhat underwhelming historically, but she does make the Maya feel at least superficially more distinct from the Aztecs and Inca. That is one of the primary values of including female leaders: making the game feel less homogenous. If we do get Shammuramat, she would serve a similar function to make Assyria feel more distinct from Sumeria.

Given that I think celebritization and hero worship is the sort of thing which preoccupies small minds, I don't care much about who leads a particular civ, as long as they have a personality and the civ has a distinct flavor. If the devs can make Ashurbanipal feel distinct from Gilgabro I would be okay with it, but Shammuramat just starts from a more distinct design space and would make that job a lot easier.

The only competing question for me is to what extent Shammuramat might start to feel similar to Dido. I think mechanically the two civs would feel very different so that would help. And then if she used say Eleanor's or Seondeok's animations?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Not if it was just generic Assyria though.

Don't get me wrong I'd prefer someone "famous."

That's the point of the Civ bonus though to be the generic Assyria, right?

Ashurbanipal could be the great works collector with them granting science and culture.
Sennacherib could be the infrastructure/builder leader.
Tiglath-Pileser III can be the professional army/military engineer leader.
I'm not sure what Semiramis could do that another leader + an Assyria civ ability couldn't do?

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Lady Six Sky is somewhat underwhelming historically, but she does make the Maya feel at least superficially more distinct from the Aztecs and Inca. That is one of the primary values of including female leaders: making the game feel less homogenous. If we do get Shammuramat, she would serve a similar function to make Assyria feel more distinct from Sumeria.

imo this is a dangerous line of reasoning. It starts tokenizing women leaders throughout history as simply tools to make the game feel less homogenous.

Lady Six Sky was absolutely not an underwhelming historical figure. Her lower noteriety is more a symptom of a lack of understanding regarding the maya in common historical consciousness than a function of her validity as a leader.

If we start getting into the path of ‘female leaders are/should only be in this because they’re tokens of women leading nations and don’t have any merit in being good leaders in themselves, that’s a fairly sexist and misogynistic line of reasoning to be going down.

The maya would have, and have felt, distinct from the Aztecs and Inca in their own right regardless of who the leader was.

In fact, I’d argue that Semiramis, as a semi fictional leader only really known to the modern world because the greeks were obsessed with the fact that she was a queen of assyria, would overlap thematically with Gilgamesh more than a well-attested historical figure with many notable real accomplishments like Sennercherib or Ashurbanipal

 

[Zaarin]

What you just said regarding Semiramis is exactly the backlash that every single woman leader in civ has faced

Some of Firaxis' female leader choices have provoked controversy, but every single female leader they've chosen, with the exception of Kristina, has had significant accomplishments to her name--and Kristina was an accomplished scholar with a big personality, if not actually an accomplished leader. Shammuramat led Assyria at one of the lowest points of its existence, and beyond that she existed we know very little about her. The myth of Semiramis was sparked only because the Greeks were titillated by the idea of a woman leading an empire. NB there are no Mesopotamian myths about Semiramis. If you want a female leader from Mesopotamia, Kung-bau/Kubaba is really the only choice, but that ship has sailed as the Sumerian civ is Gilgabro all day, every day.

There are good female leader choices available in the Middle East--Zenobia of Palmyra, Puduhepa of the Hittites, a good handful of female Arabian queens, Salome Alexandra of Judea, and a plethora of options from Egypt, to name a few--but not in Mesopotamia, again other than Kung-bau. However, Esarhaddon was quite notorious for the extent he relied on his female relatives for counsel, including his mother Naqi'a and his daughter Serua-eterat. He could have one of them as a unique governor. He also probably suffered from pathological paranoia, which would certainly give him a big personality...Though I think Tamar already, strangely, has that niche covered.

imo this is a dangerous line of reasoning. It starts tokenizing women leaders throughout history as simply tools to make the game feel less homogenous.

If we start getting into the path of ‘female leaders are/should only be in this because they’re tokens of women leading nations and don’t have any merit in being good leaders in themselves, that’s a fairly sexist and misogynistic line of reasoning to be going down.

This, 100% this. There are more than ample good female leader choices without dredging up bad ones just to meet token quotas.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Some of Firaxis' female leader choices have provoked controversy, but every single female leader they've chosen, with the exception of Kristina, has had significant accomplishments to her name--and Kristina was an accomplished scholar with a big personality, if not actually an accomplished leader.

i’ve had more problems with dude leader choices like Gandhi, Kupe and the portrayal of Cyrus than i have with any of the women leaders they’ve picked.

Edit: and gilgamesh.

 

[SirMediocrity]

i’ve had more problems with dude leader choices like Gandhi, Kupe and the portrayal of Cyrus than i have with any of the women leaders they’ve picked.

Honestly, I feel like the Maori were kind of type-casted and lazily designed as a whole.

 

[Zaarin]

i’ve had more problems with dude leader choices like Gandhi, Kupe and the portrayal of Cyrus than i have with any of the women leaders they’ve picked.

Agreed. (Though in Kupe's case, I understand what they were trying to do, but if they wanted a civ that looked more like Civ5 Polynesia they should have chosen Hawai'i or Tonga; if they were going to pick the Maori, they should have focused on them as, I dunno, Maori.)

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Honestly, I feel like the Maori were kind of type-casted and lazily designed as a whole.

Agreed. (Though in Kupe's case, I understand what they were trying to do, but if they wanted a civ that looked more like Civ5 Polynesia they should have chosen Hawai'i or Tonga; if they were going to pick the Maori, they should have focused on them as, I dunno, Maori.)

yeah if they wanted to go ‘starts in the ocean, goes really far‘, hawaii for sure would’ve made more sense.

If they wanted to go ‘seafaring focused, culture powerhouses which can settle anywhere, including tiny islands, tonga would’ve been the move.

I still want to see a tonga civ.

 

[pokiehl]

Maori is my favorite civ in the game. I think it has the most fun and compelling design of them all. I wish all civs were so thoughtfully designed.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

imo this is a dangerous line of reasoning. It starts tokenizing women leaders throughout history as simply tools to make the game feel less homogenous.

If we start getting into the path of ‘female leaders are/should only be in this because they’re tokens of women leading nations and don’t have any merit in being good leaders in themselves, that’s a fairly sexist and misogynistic line of reasoning to be going down.

Meh, this is straying quite close to the reverse-discrimination arguments I see among conservatives, particularly with respect to affirmative action. The whole point of affirmative action is to normalize egalitarianism; meritocracy will always receive less priority if the point is just to increase opportunity and public exposure of the non-dominant class. It's to raise up women as a whole; precisely who are the faces of that doesn't matter much. I agree that using legendary figures doesn't accomplish as much, but historical exceptionalism is a secondary goal and fudging that here and there doesn't defeat the primary aim of simply normalizing female characters in history.

And, again, I don't care about cults of personality. I don't care about the few individuals who society has chosen to raise up and worship. I realize it is and always has been a selling point for the masses to buy into a particular paradigm, but I personally care more about representing peoples as a whole than masturbating to the aristocrats who ordered them around. So if the developers do include tokens...token women, token ethnicities, token sexualities (in the case of Kristina)...I really don't care, and if anything am just happy we aren't getting more generic general-kings reinforcing the WASPy, patriarchal value systems.

The maya would have, and have felt, distinct from the Aztecs and Inca in their own right regardless of who the leader was.

Point is, not as distinct if they had been led by Pacal.

In fact, I’d argue that Semiramis, as a semi fictional leader only really known to the modern world because the greeks were obsessed with the fact that she was a queen of assyria, would overlap thematically with Gilgamesh more than a well-attested historical figure with many notable real accomplishments like Sennercherib or Ashurbanipal

Either that or she complements Gilgamesh. Several of the leaders in the game have been included more for the legacy that succeeded them more than their actual accomplishments. I don't see any signs the developers will stop, or any evidence that it is biased for or against any particular gender. We were always aware after Gilgamesh that Semiramis and Makeda were probably being thrown around too. I don't quite consider the inclusion of mythicized figures "tokenizing" where actual tokenizing would produce female leaders with no accomplishments or legacy to speak of.

This, 100% this. There are more than ample good female leader choices without dredging up bad ones just to meet token quotas.

Yeah but none of them led Assyria, and outside of maybe Zenobia none of them had as much of a legacy in the west.

Again, I don't have too much investment in this because (a) I don't obsess over historical figures and (b) I would be totally fine if we got no more Mesopotamian civs. I do have a small hope that Assyria isn't led by "lesser Gilgabro", but more importantly I think people are somewhat deluding themselves if they think Firaxis isn't considering Shammalama. The leaders comprise barely a few lines and animations; it almost doesn't matter how deep their personal history was as long as they can make for a unique looking caraciture to stand around and look pretty. Shammuramat is very recognizable; that's all any leader really needs to be up for consideration.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

yeah if they wanted to go ‘starts in the ocean, goes really far‘, hawaii for sure would’ve made more sense.

If they wanted to go ‘seafaring focused, culture powerhouses which can settle anywhere, including tiny islands, tonga would’ve been the move.

I still want to see a tonga civ.

What about Samoa?

I think the Maori made the most sense from a marketing standpoint. Of course they didn't want to have a Polynesian civ without acting like Polynesia either and the legendary Kupe with the wayfinding ability made it work.
I think if they wanted to make them more realistic is after you move onto land for the first time maybe your units couldn't go back into ocean tiles until later. The problem is gameplay wise it wouldn't have made sense at all.

 

[SirMediocrity]

Meh, this is straying quite close to the reverse-discrimination arguments I see among conservatives, particularly with respect to affirmative action. The whole point of affirmative action is to normalize egalitarianism; meritocracy will always receive less priority if the point is just to increase opportunity and public exposure of the non-dominant class. It's to raise up women as a whole; precisely who are the faces of that doesn't matter much. I agree that using legendary figures doesn't accomplish as much, but historical exceptionalism is a secondary goal and fudging that here and there doesn't defeat the primary aim of simply normalizing female characters in history.

Did you just compare affirmative action to incorporating women into civ?

EDIT: Did you just edit your message? hmmm

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Meh, this is straying quite close to the reverse-discrimination arguments I see among conservatives, particularly with respect to affirmative action. The whole point of affirmative action is to normalize egalitarianism; meritocracy will always receive less priority if the point is just to increase opportunity and public exposure of the non-dominant class.

what? first of all, you’re deluding yourself iff you think affirmative action is applicable to a video game.

Normalizing egalitarianism does not mean claiming that perfectly valid and important women leaders are simply in the game for being token women. It means that you’re picking a great leader of a civ, and there many, many, MANY good historical women who would make amazing leaders of civs for the sake of them being a good leader. Assuming there is even a cause like you seem to be implying that there is, how does simply putting up female leaders for the sake of them being women help? Assuming that what you’re saying is true and that firaxis is trying to show how women have been important in history, how would putting a leader who ruled assyria during its dark age with little to no known accomplishments help? your argument makes no sense.

Maori is my favorite civ in the game. I think it has the most fun and compelling design of them all. I wish all civs were so thoughtfully designed.

i agree that it’s design was really well done and made fun, and i’ll note that kupe is also incredibly well designed and fun to watch.

Unfortunately, I don’t think Kupe was the best choice to lead the maori, nor do I think the maori in civ 6 actually represent the maori very well at all.

If we replaced Kupe with Momo, and called it Tonga, it would make ‘work’. If we replaced him with Kamehameha. It would ‘work’.

That’s the shame with the design because the maori are such an interesting civ with an interesting culture but yet the design they picked just feels like the civ 5 polynesia applied to certain polynesian people.

 

[Zaarin]

Yeah but none of them led Assyria

Yes, that's kind of the point I was making.

Shammuramat is very recognizable

Like I said before, I'm skeptical your average Westerner can pronounce Shammuramat, never mind tell you who she was--especially since a professional Assyriologist would be pretty hard pressed to tell you who she was.

outside of maybe Zenobia none of them had as much of a legacy in the west.

That seems to be an argument in favor of Ashurbanipal or Sennacherib, who have had a significant legacy in the West--not to mention are culture heroes for the Assyrians. But I wasn't speaking specifically of the Middle East; I mean there are good options for female leaders, in general, without resorting to using ones who were insignificant or lacked accomplishments or hamfisting a female leader onto a civ that never had significant female leaders. Why pick a woman who is very subject to legitimate accusations of tokenism when you could pick Hatshepsut, Elizabeth I, Catherine the Great, Isabela, Wu Zetian, or any of the other female leaders who were without question among the greatest leaders of their civilization without reference to sex?

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Did you just compare affirmative action to incorporating women into civ?

Given how little opportunity and exposure women have historically, how often I see proposed leader lists that are completely comprised of men, how the female leaders already in the game have been frequently undermined as "token" for years...

The decision to include more female leaders has already been condemned by many on these boards as being effectively affirmative action. And I am acknowledging that, yes, it is, and yes, that is in fact a good thing.

While I don't think thenewguy (or anyone here) is misogynist, this sort of strict meritocratic thinking is what often excludes women and minorities from getting any exposure and recognition at all. It's the sort of stuff I've heard several times from my boss, who was THE guy who tried to dismantle affirmative action in my state. And all because he lived a fairly sheltered life and can't see that his idea of "meritocracy" is just promoting similarly privileged conservative white guys who are constantly handing each other advantages. So, again, if abandoning meritocracy is how we get more ethnicities, more women, more diversity and cultural consciousness in the game, then I don't care if they are mythical or not.

 

[SirMediocrity]

Given how little opportunity and exposure women have historically, how often I see proposed leader lists that are completely comprised of men, how the female leaders already in the game have been frequently undermined as "token" for years...

The decision to include more female leaders has already been condemned by many on these boards as being effectively affirmative action. And I am acknowledging that, yes, it is, and yes, that is in fact a good thing.

Let me get this straight: do you think including women in civ regardless of their accomplishments is equatable to affirmative action? Yes or no?