[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Zaarin]

But don't you want Alexios I Komnemeos?

I feel so much conflict over Byzantium. It feels so wrong to leave it out...but we're already positively swimming in Hellenes.

I agree with the rest of your statement by the way. It would be nice to have an Ancient leader in the game who wasn't based off of a myth. To me Dido and Gilgamesh are understandable, though they should just give the name epic quest to Gilgamesh's ability and make the civ ability called "Cradle of Civilization."

I can live with Dido and Tomyris (even though I'm a little skeptical of the historicity of either, especially Tomyris). I wouldn't have minded Hiram II or Hannibal, but Dido's fine; as for the Scythians, Tomyris really is the best choice--real or not, she has a compelling story. Less thrilled with Gilgamesh (there are plenty of great big personalities among Sumer's better-attested leaders, especially the humble-bragging Gudea), but Gilgamesh is okay--if the rest of the civ had been based on Sumer and not on him, like you said. (I play with Sukritact's Sumer Rework, which helps, but we still have ultra-Assyrian Gilgabro at the reins--at least his visual design could have been Sumerian...)

 

[Thenewwwguy]

This is rude and unnecessary. Please stop.

I apologize if I offended you, but I’m genuinely confused as to what I said that did so. I was simply pointing out a contradiction in what you were saying—you said you agreed with him, but you also said that quota filling was a bad idea, and he was advocating for quota filling...

 

[SMcM]

The issue with the Mississippians is we only have records of them during their decline so they lack good leader options. Using one of the attested leaders would be roughly like choosing Romulus Augustulus--or at best, Majorian--for Rome.

Well it is, except for the the fact that like you say we don't have records of their leaders from the apex of their power. Tuskaloosa is still a good pick from a 'big personalities' point of view (which was something the devs were going on about when Civ VI first launched, justifying some of their more unexpected leader choices like Catherine de' Medici), would be easy to give his character a distinctive feel given the descriptions of his large imposing physique and how feared he was by neighboring tribes.

And I'd argue the issue you raise applies to most of the Native American leaders we know of from America and Canada. Of course Latin America is a different matter with more extensive recording of Aztecs, Mayans, Incas and etc. But besides legendary figures like Hiawatha, famous indigenous North American leaders are ones which made contact with colonists in the final years of their independence. Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Mangas Colorads, Geronimo, Manuelito, etc. We already have Poundmaker in the game, he died in prison after his men were attacked by Canadian troops who were putting down a rebellion. So I don't see how you can really insist we pick indigenous North American leaders from their heyday, because as far as I'm aware we don't really know of that many. So our options are either we go with leaders we know, we make up leaders entirely (which I don't think would be popular), or we just neglect these regions entirely which I don't think anyone here wants (I tend to get the impression people generally want more diverse civilizations covering more of the world).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I feel so much conflict over Byzantium. It feels so wrong to leave it out...but we're already positively swimming in Hellenes.

If they go with Justinian again problem solved.

I can live with Dido and Tomyris (even though I'm a little skeptical of the historicity of either, especially Tomyris). I wouldn't have minded Hiram II or Hannibal, but Dido's fine;

Not sure what Hiram II would do in the game except owe more money to other leaders and Hannibal to me wouldn't make sense with the civ being called Phoenicia, at least to me. Dido at least bridges the gap of it feeling like both Phoenicia and Carthage in her ability.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Well it is, except for the the fact that like you say we don't have records of their leaders from the apex of their power. Tuskaloosa is still a good pick from a 'big personalities' point of view (which was something the devs were going on about when Civ VI first launched, justifying some of their more unexpected leader choices like Catherine de' Medici), would be easy to give his character a distinctive feel given the descriptions of his large imposing physique and how feared he was by neighboring tribes.

And I'd argue the issue you raise applies to most of the Native American leaders we know of from America and Canada. Of course Latin America is a different matter with more extensive recording of Aztecs, Mayans, Incas and etc. But besides legendary figures like Hiawatha, famous indigenous North American leaders are ones which made contact with colonists in the final years of their independence. Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Mangas Colorads, Geronimo, Manuelito, etc. We already have Poundmaker in the game, he died in prison after his men were attacked by Canadian troops who were putting down a rebellion. So I don't see how you can really insist we pick indigenous North American leaders from their heyday, because as far as I'm aware we don't really know of that many. So our options are either we go with leaders we know, we make up leaders entirely (which I don't think would be popular), or we just neglect these regions entirely which I don't think anyone here wants (I tend to get the impression people generally want more diverse civilizations covering more of the world).

well, that’s not necessarily true. The Tlingit, for example, have a long oral historical record, which means we actually know about their older kings, pre-contact.

In the cases of the Maya, Inca and Aztecs, you’re seeing the results pre-contact leaders right now. Pachacuti, Montezuma I and Lady Six Sky all existed before the colombian exchange. If they chose to use the Muisca, we’d likely have another pre-contact native leader. (and tbf, you mention this)

Yes, with popular Native figures like Chief Seattle, Manuelito and Tecumseh and such, they’re largely resistance figures. But there are a couple civ-worthy groups with histories we can pull from to find pre-colonial leaders, like the tlingit

 

[SMcM]

I feel so much conflict over Byzantium. It feels so wrong to leave it out...but we're already positively swimming in Hellenes.

Yes there is an issue there. I do think partly the situation would be improved if they go for a ruler from a different point in history (for instance Basil II) and not Justinian and Theodora again, so that we are at least covering a more distinct part of history. Overall I think no Byzantines would just seem odd because they have been in nearly every Civilization game.

well, that’s not necessarily true. The Tlingit, for example, have a long oral historical record, which means we actually know about their older kings, pre-contact.

In the cases of the Maya, Inca and Aztecs, you’re seeing the results pre-contact leaders right now. Pachacuti, Montezuma I and Lady Six Sky all existed before the colombian exchange. If they chose to use the Muisca, we’d likely have another pre-contact native leader. (and tbf, you mention this)

Yes, with popular Native figures like Chief Seattle, Manuelito and Tecumseh and such, they’re largely resistance figures. But there are a couple civ-worthy groups with histories we can pull from to find pre-colonial leaders, like the tlingit

With respect, you've given a single example from North America so I don't exactly feel disproved. I mentioned Aztecs, Incas and Mayans because I recognise it's a different situation in Latin America, and ofc Muisica is in the same situation. There is quite an abundance of pre-contact leader options in Latin America tbh, but that's not what I'm talking about.

 

[Zaarin]

Well it is, except for the the fact that like you say we don't have records of their leaders from the apex of their power. Tuskaloosa is still a good pick from a 'big personalities' point of view (which was something the devs were going on about when Civ VI first launched, justifying some of their more unexpected leader choices like Catherine de' Medici), would be easy to give his character a distinctive feel given the descriptions of his large imposing physique and how feared he was by neighboring tribes.

Not every Native American civilization was in decline at contact, or even after. The Haudenosaunee grew immensely in power after contact, and I think someone like Joseph Brandt, Cornplanter, or Red Jacket would make a fine leader for them. The Five Civilized Tribes likewise increased their power and influence in the context of contact (and coincidentally they were the Mississippians), and Pushmataha of the Choctaw is a prime leader choice there. Chief Powhatan of the Powhatan led his people at their very peak at the time of contact. I think the Mississippians are best represented in the manner they currently are: as a Cahokia city-state with a Cahokian Mound UI. It's unfortunate, but we don't really have the material to do better for them.

Yes there is an issue there. I do think partly the situation would be improved if they go for a ruler from a different point in history (for instance Basil II) and not Justinian and Theodora again, so that we are at least covering a more distinct part of history. Overall I think no Byzantines would just seem odd because they have been in nearly every Civilization game.

That's my feeling on the subject as well.

Not sure what Hiram II would do in the game except owe more money to other leaders

I assume owing money is a reference to the tribute he paid to Assyria, but that was normal for all Levantine kings. Considering Hiram II is best remembered for selling cedar of Lebanon and hiring out fine craftsmen for Solomon's Temple, I'd see Hiram II as being all about trading away luxuries--or, say, bonus gold and production from improved luxury resources.

Hannibal to me wouldn't make sense with the civ being called Phoenicia, at least to me. Dido at least bridges the gap of it feeling like both Phoenicia and Carthage in her ability.

Fair, but I don't see a difference between the two TBH. Carthage was a Phoenician colony, paid tribute to Tyre until they were conquered by Rome, and called themselves Canaanites until at least the sixth century.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

. I think the Mississippians are best represented in the manner they currently are: as a Cahokia city-state with a Cahokian Mound UI. It's unfortunate, but we don't really have the material to do better for them.

yeah unfortunately we don’t have a good language to work with either, right?

 

[Zaarin]

yeah unfortunately we don’t have a good language to work with either, right?

We do, actually. Most Mississippians west of the Appalachians spoke Muskogean languages; most of those east of the Appalachians spoke Siouan languages related to Catawban. (Some also spoke Iroquoian, Caddoan, and other languages, of course.)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I assume owing money is a reference to the tribute he paid to Assyria, but that was normal for all Levantine kings. Considering Hiram II is best remembered for selling cedar of Lebanon and hiring out fine craftsmen for Solomon's Temple, I'd see Hiram II as being all about trading away luxuries--or, say, bonus gold and production from improved luxury resources.

Maybe I'm confused because isn't that Hiram I?

Fair, but I don't see a difference between the two TBH. Carthage was a Phoenician colony, paid tribute to Tyre until they were conquered by Rome, and called themselves Canaanites until at least the sixth century.

I think by the time Hannibal was in power I definitely tend to see Carthage as a distinct empire who broke away from Phoenicia proper, even if they historically called themselves Phoenicians.
Like the Byzantines and Romans I guess.

 

[Zaarin]

Maybe I'm confused because isn't that Hiram I?

Hiram I was king of Sidon. Hiram II was king of Tyre. The record is a little confused as the Assyrians record Hiram II and his father Ittobaal II paying tribute the same year, perhaps a clerical error or perhaps they were coregnant.

I think by the time Hannibal was in power I definitely tend to see Carthage as a distinct empire who broke away from Phoenicia proper, even if they historically called themselves Phoenicians.
Like the Byzantines and Romans I guess.

...Touché. I still see the Carthaginians as far more Phoenician than Byzantium was Roman, though. England vs the US might be a better analogy: the Carthaginians were a natural outgrowth of Phoenician culture in another setting under other influences, whereas the Greeks in Byzantium neither changed location nor ever ceased to be Greek, even under Roman rule.

 

[SMcM]

Not every Native American civilization was in decline at contact, or even after. The Haudenosaunee grew immensely in power after contact, and I think someone like Joseph Brandt, Cornplanter, or Red Jacket would make a fine leader for them. The Five Civilized Tribes likewise increased their power and influence in the context of contact (and coincidentally they were the Mississippians), and Pushmataha of the Choctaw is a prime leader choice there. Chief Powhatan of the Powhatan led his people at their very peak at the time of contact. I think the Mississippians are best represented in the manner they currently are: as a Cahokia city-state with a Cahokian Mound UI. It's unfortunate, but we don't really have the material to do better for them.

This does feel a bit too arbitrary for me as reasoning- that we should only have Native American groups that hadn't declined by contact with the Europeans. I remember when Civ VI was upcoming I was reasonably regular here, and everyone piled on me for insisting we should only have leaders representing the apex of their various civilizations power (e.g. I liked having Victoria representing the apex of British Empire and not Elizabeth I again, I liked Phillip II instead of having Isabella again, and wanted Napoleon or Louis XIV not Catherine de' Medici, Ashoka or a ruler of an Indian empire instead of Gandhi, etc.). That's still my preference if I'm honest, but I can see there is other factors too. You give a couple of examples there of civilizations not in decline, but that certainly hasn't been the criteria Firaxis has used when you look at some of the Native American leaders we have had (Poundmaker, Pocatello, Hiawatha). Also ngl, I had to google 'Haudenosaunee', Iroquois would have meant more to me!

 

[Zaarin]

This does feel a bit too arbitrary for me as reasoning- that we should only have Native American groups that hadn't declined by contact with the Europeans.

I wasn't presenting it as a criterion, only countering the idea that all indigenous people declined after contact. But I'd also add that both the Shoshone (whom I've always seen as a stand-in for the Comanche) and the Cree thrived post contact. The Cree were a central player in the fur trade, and the Comanche had an empire in the Southwest that succeeded at forcing both Mexico and the US to pay tribute.

The Mississippians are still a different case, however. Mississippian society was on the verge of collapse when De Soto came through--collapse under its own weight, not through any outside influence, European or otherwise.

 

[SMcM]

I wasn't presenting it as a criterion, only countering the idea that all indigenous people declined after contact. But I'd also add that both the Shoshone (whom I've always seen as a stand-in for the Comanche) and the Cree thrived post contact. The Cree were a central player in the fur trade, and the Comanche had an empire in the Southwest that succeeded at forcing both Mexico and the US to pay tribute.

The Mississippians are still a different case, however. Mississippian society was on the verge of collapse when De Soto came through--collapse under its own weight, not through any outside influence, European or otherwise.

I'm no expert on the Cree, but the tribes-people under Poundmaker's leadership clearly weren't thriving so much at the point of his death. The only distinction I can see from Tuskaloosa is that, like you say, the decline of these other groups was directly caused by foreign influence, whereas Mississippi had already declined on contact. But I don't think that's an especially important distinction.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm no expert on the Cree, but the tribes-people under Poundmaker's leadership clearly weren't thriving so much at the point of his death. The only distinction I can see from Tuskaloosa is that, like you say, the decline of these other groups was directly caused by foreign influence, whereas Mississippi had already declined on contact. But I don't think that's an especially important distinction.

Yeah, you have to move back a century or two from Poundmaker; Poundmaker was clearly chosen for his charisma and appealing story. I do see a valid distinction between a civilization that's declining on its own and a powerful civilization that is cut off at a high-point in its power, however--i.e., the leaders of the Mississippians that we know about were complicit in the decline of their own civilization, whereas, say, Cleopatra or Sitting Bull did their utmost to put off the inevitable. (Not saying I'm thrilled with Cleopatra or particularly want Sitting Bull, but I do see them as occupying a different position from Tuskaloosa, the Lady of Cofitachequi, or Tuskaloosa.) In any case, I'd rather see one of the successor confederacies that replaced the Mississippians than the Mississippians proper; they're better attested and their successes are historical rather than archaeological. For a charismatic, powerful para-Mississippian paramount chief who was at the height of his power at the time of contact, I'd recommend Wahunsenacawh ("Chief Powhatan") of the Powhatan, a man every bit as charismatic as Tuskaloosa but with far more real power.

 

[krmarci]

Russia, I think Alexander II or Catherine the Great would be good alternatives to Peter, but i’d be interested in Lenin as well, who i’d presume would get bonuses to production and science instead of religion and culture

I'm just not the biggest fan of having two tsars where Soviet Russia would at least be different.

As to making Soviet Russia fit Civ VI, I could imagine a cool leader which converts the Lavra's faith and great prophet output (probably only the district, rather than buildings inside) to some other yeild, like culture, science, or production. It might need to be at less than cost to balance it, e.g. all of the faith is converted to 50% or 75% as much culture.

Takes that non-religious aspect, largely ignores the religious victory, and converts the Lavra into something more fitting, without nerfing or eliminating the cultural GP power that makes it potent. As an added aside, it avoids making the relatively weak Peter useless, as the new leader is only valuable in reframing the Lavra, and thus can be not particularly strong themself. This is good, as I believe some leaders are deliberately weak (Peter, Wilhelmina, etc.)

Lenin would be really controversial in the Eastern European market. It would be like having Hitler as a leader.

 

[SMcM]

Yeah, you have to move back a century or two from Poundmaker; Poundmaker was clearly chosen for his charisma and appealing story. I do see a valid distinction between a civilization that's declining on its own and a powerful civilization that is cut off at a high-point in its power, however--i.e., the leaders of the Mississippians that we know about were complicit in the decline of their own civilization, whereas, say, Cleopatra or Sitting Bull did their utmost to put off the inevitable. (Not saying I'm thrilled with Cleopatra or particularly want Sitting Bull, but I do see them as occupying a different position from Tuskaloosa, the Lady of Cofitachequi, or Tuskaloosa.) In any case, I'd rather see one of the successor confederacies that replaced the Mississippians than the Mississippians proper; they're better attested and their successes are historical rather than archaeological. For a charismatic, powerful para-Mississippian paramount chief who was at the height of his power at the time of contact, I'd recommend Wahunsenacawh ("Chief Powhatan") of the Powhatan, a man every bit as charismatic as Tuskaloosa but with far more real power.

I feel like you slightly ignore the distinction between leaders and Civilizations. This isn't Civilization V, so a leader has unique abilities and traits separate from the Civilization given that (even if most won't get them) second leaders are an option. The design of the civilization can focus on it's strengths at the time it flourished, even if the leader is from a later period, which their ability/traits can reflect. Also, was Tuskaloosa especially complicit in the decline of Mississippi? Wasn't it more a matter of his civilization already having declined before his time? And besides even if they had been as powerful as the Aztecs they wouldn't have been able to stop the inevitable victory of the Europeans in the long run. And Poundmaker definitely wasn't "cut off at a high-point in its power", he clearly wasn't very powerful at all at that point if it was so easy for the Canadian government to arrest him as though he was just a bandit or a common criminal, the balance of power was clearly so far in favor of the colonists- it's not like he was the sovereign leader of a prosperous free people.

But anyway yes it would be nice to see Powhatan in the game. Navajo, Apache, Comanche, Sioux, etc. would all be welcome additions to the game to me as well. I think Shoshone returning doesn't seem necessary since they aren't so significant it would make sense to not give another group a turn instead. Tlingit were mentioned earlier, certainly it would be nice to see them. Alternatively the Haida would be nice too. Thing is there is so many options that there is too many. North America is such a large region, so distinct pre-colonial cultures are very abundant and it would be very possible to have several Native American civs and for them to all have a unique feel. But I have a feeling Firaxis is only likely to ever include a couple in each Civilization entry. Perhaps if they continue making content along the lines of New Frontier for a few years then we will see Civilization VI gain slightly more considerable indigenous North American representation.

People have also mentioned Noongar, certainly Aboriginal representation for the first time in the series would be nice too (don't particularly have enough knowledge to have any preference which indigenous group would be picked). Having added the modern nation of Australia and the Maori already they have certainly started to pay more attention to that region of the world, so it's not impossible at some point.

 

[Zaarin]

Also, was Tuskaloosa especially complicit in the decline of Mississippi? Wasn't it more a matter of his civilization already having declined before his time?

Perhaps. It's hard to say as what we know about him comes only from the limited knowledge we can glean from the journals of the De Soto expedition. At any rate, he certainly didn't stop the decline, as the Mississippians had vanished "without a trace" (not really; their descendants were still there--Tuskaloosa himself was probably the antecedent of the Choctaw and the Creek) by the next time Europeans came into the region.

And Poundmaker definitely wasn't "cut off at a high-point in its power", he clearly wasn't very powerful at all at that point if it was so easy for the Canadian government to arrest him as though he was just a bandit or a common criminal, the balance of power was clearly so far in favor of the colonists- it's not like he was the sovereign leader of a prosperous free people.

Which is as I said.

People have also mentioned Noongar, certainly Aboriginal representation for the first time in the series would be nice too (don't particularly have enough knowledge to have any preference which indigenous group would be picked). Having added the modern nation of Australia and the Maori already they have certainly started to pay more attention to that region of the world, so it's not impossible at some point.

I don't think it will happen. The Aboriginal Australians have a taboo against depicting the dead. Plus the Aboriginal Australians, like the Inuit, were among the most technologically primitive culture groups on the planet. I'd love to see a game about hunter-gatherers, but I don't think Civilization is really set up to accurately portray that kind of lifestyle.

 

[krmarci]

Perhaps. It's hard to say as what we know about him comes only from the limited knowledge we can glean from the journals of the De Soto expedition. At any rate, he certainly didn't stop the decline, as the Mississippians had vanished "without a trace" (not really; their descendants were still there--Tuskaloosa himself was probably the antecedent of the Choctaw and the Creek) by the next time Europeans came into the region.


Which is as I said.


I don't think it will happen. The Aboriginal Australians have a taboo against depicting the dead. Plus the Aboriginal Australians, like the Inuit, were among the most technologically primitive culture groups on the planet. I'd love to see a game about hunter-gatherers, but I don't think Civilization is really set up to accurately portray that kind of lifestyle.

Civ6 is not set up to portray hunter-gatherers. I'd love to see a Prehistoric Era in Civ7 (or maybe a new game mode for Civ6 like in NFP?).

 

[Zaarin]

Civ6 is not set up to portray hunter-gatherers. I'd love to see a Prehistoric Era in Civ7 (or maybe a new game mode for Civ6 like in NFP?).

Agreed. Humankind has done it so maybe Firaxis will take note.