[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[reddishrecue]

How about the Celts? Turning Cardiff city state as the capital of Celt and then having Brennus as the leader. (?)

 

[SMcM]

How about the Celts? Turning Cardiff city state as the capital of Celt and then having Brennus as the leader. (?)

No thanks, Cardiff has nothing to do with Brennus. I think the reason Scotland is in the game is Firaxis is moving away from the way they represented the Celts before. They could add Britons lead by Boadicea, Gauls under Vercingetorix, or other Celtic civs like Picts and Welsh and etc. with leaders relevant to their history. In the same way they included Maori in Civ VI as opposed to it being part of 'Polynesia' in Civilization V.

Regarding Chola- Indian subcontinent seems to be cursed in the Civilization series by the fact most of it is now united under one state (and unlike other big countries like America and Brazil it can't be easily sorted into pre-colonial and post-colonial history). It has only had one Civilization through all of the games, in spite of being such a large, populous and culturally jdiverse region. Merging the ancient Maurya empire into the Indian Civilization seems to mean they at least will include all Indian dynasties originating in northern India as 'Indian Civilization'. It's similar to how Indonesia is represented by the Majapahit Empire in the games. Thing is they slightly broke their merging related states thing by having Alexander lead a separate Macedon and not Greece, so maybe they might make exceptions. Obvious exceptions are perhaps the Mughals (as a Muslim dysnasty with foreign origins) and states like Chola which exist in southern India (which is more culturally distinct particularly because of it's Dravidian language as opposed to being Indo-European like in the north).

And also even today India isn't the only country in that region of course, since we've had the Maori and small native American cultures represented in these games it's not like Nepal or Sri Lanka are too small to be represented. Nepal under Prithvi Narayan Shah or Sri Lanka under Parakramabahu I would be good choices. Of course a large chunk of the historical region of Bengal is part of Bangladesh now anyway so having that as part of the merged Indian Civilization doesn't necessarily make sense either- Bengal with a leader like Jalaluddin Muhammad Shah is doable also. Afghanistan has plenty of history, could have it included with Ahmad Shah Durrani like in the Civilization V mod. And there's other important empires from that region as well, like the Ghurids.

Anyway point is, it just seems funny that in South-East Asia (a smaller region in landmass and population) we've had Indonesia, Khmer, Siam and now apparently Vietnam, but South Asia has only had India. For the size of it's population and the level of diversity within it, it's got to be one of the worse represented regions in the world in the series.

 

[reddishrecue]

No thanks, Cardiff has nothing to do with Brennus. I think the reason Scotland is in the game is Firaxis is moving away from the way they represented the Celts before. They could add Britons lead by Boadicea, Gauls under Vercingetorix, or other Celtic civs like Picts and Welsh and etc. with leaders relevant to their history. In the same way they included Maori in Civ VI as opposed to it being part of 'Polynesia' in Civilization V.

Yeah I've seen Scotland in there. I didn't know Brennus had nothing to do with Cardiff, never mind.

 

[Zaarin]

Anyway point is, it just seems funny that in South-East Asia (a smaller region in landmass and population) we've had Indonesia, Khmer, Siam and now apparently Vietnam, but South Asia has only had India. For the size of it's population and the level of diversity within it, it's got to be one of the worse represented regions in the world in the series.

Agreed. It's probably too late for Civ6, but in Civ7 I'd love to see India broken up.

 

[SMcM]

Yeah I've seen Scotland in there. I didn't know Brennus had nothing to do with Cardiff, never mind.

What do you mean? Also which Brennus are you talking about? The one in Civ IV was apparently the one involved in the Gallic invasion of the Balkans according to the civilopedia. There's also the Brennus that sacked Rome a century before that. There is a mythological Welsh king called Brân the Blessed though.

 

[reddishrecue]

What do you mean? Also which Brennus are you talking about? The one in Civ IV was apparently the one involved in the Gallic invasion of the Balkans according to the civilopedia. There's also the Brennus that sacked Rome a century before that. There is a mythological Welsh king called Brân the Blessed though.

I was talking about the Brennus in civ IV.

 

[Navelgazer]

Doubt they will repeat Maria, don't think she was that popular a choice for V and certainly not important enough to repeat 2 games in a row

Yeah, I recall Maria being really poorly-received in Civ5 and not just from the normal sexist corners of the internet. Because Civ6 has (generally) been a lot better about finding interesting and representative leaders, including a lot of women, and since I think we can expect a female leader for at least Vietnam, I would be shocked if they went with Maria again for Portugal.

 

[SMcM]

I was talking about the Brennus in civ IV.

Talking about Cardiff, Wales does have some good leader choices. There's Llewellyn the Great, Owain Glyndŵr or maybe even Gwenllian ferch Gruffydd if we're trying to find female leaders. They should do Ireland some day too, Brian Boru would be cool.

Yeah, I recall Maria being really poorly-received in Civ5 and not just from the normal sexist corners of the internet. Because Civ6 has (generally) been a lot better about finding interesting and representative leaders, including a lot of women, and since I think we can expect a female leader for at least Vietnam, I would be shocked if they went with Maria again for Portugal.

They don't always do expected female leaders though, I remember when Kongo was being talked about, before Civ VI leaders were revealed, a lot of people wanted Ana Nzinga as leader. I'm glad they didn't go for her though, she never ruled Kongo, she was ruler of a vassal state.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Considering I'd like an exploration focused Portugal I think either Joao II or Manuel I would do fine with the latter being new to the series. Lisbon is the only city-state left that I think will be definitely replaced.

I also know it's somewhat controversial but I'd prefer Assyria slightly over Babylon, though I'd be fine with either one. I'm not realistically going to expect both. What's puzzling is the fact that they put in Babylon as a replacement for an existing city-state, Seoul. Either way we don't have a civ with a unique library replacement and my guess is it would go to either one of them.

As for Native America my preference is the Navajo but I wouldn't mind the Iroquois returning again, or the Tlingit to represent the PNW. Those would be my top 3 choices for North America.

I still think Italy has a good shot at least if they are looking for another European newcomer but I have a feeling they will go with the Byzantines over them for obvious reasons. Plus they put Bologna as a city-state late in GS. I don't have an idea for any other stronger newcomer for Europe anyway.

 

[Zaarin]

My predictions at this point, aside from the three that have been released and the two that have been soft confirmed (i.e., Vietnam and Kublai Khan): either Babylon or Assyria; a Native American civilization; and Portugal and Byzantium.

Regarding Babylon versus Assyria, I think the fact that Babylon was already a replacement city-state and that Assyria overlaps less with Sumer are good arguments in favor of Assyria, but on the other hand Babylon has tradition on its side. Babylon's city-state bonus could easily be transferred to Ebla or Mari. Assyria also has a number of big personality leaders in essentially the entire Sargonid dynasty, whereas Babylon basically has Hammurabi and Nebuchadrezzar II.

The Native American civilization could be the quasi-staple Haudenosaunee, who have in their favor being a regional superpower with a number of highly qualified and interesting leaders; it could see the return of the Sioux, but I find that doubtful; but overall I think of the remaining unknown packs it is far and away the likeliest to have a previously unseen civ like one of the Five Civilized Tribes (the Cherokee, Choctaw, or Creek, for instance), the Powhatan, the Navajo, the Apache, and so forth. If we're going to get a dark horse, this is also the likeliest place--someone we aren't expecting like the Nez Perce, the Chinook, the Natchez, the Pawnee, the Blackfoot, or the Massachusetts, for instance.

Except that having Brazil without Portugal feels strange, I don't feel a strong need for Portugal; nevertheless, I'm confident we're going to get them. Despite having mixed feelings about yet another Greek kingdom, I also am quite positive we'll get Byzantium. And unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever ditch everyone's least favorite power couple; Theodora's just a given at this point. I'd love to be surprised, though, even if it's only the nominal replacement of Theodora with Irene of Athens. (It's not like her Great Merchant ability couldn't be given to literally anyone anyway. Toss it as a bone to Theodora, maybe. )

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Sebastian. He'd fit nicely with all the other leaders with messianic/king under the mountain myths attached to them, like Frederick Barbarossa and Tamar.

whats a messianic king?

How about the Celts? Turning Cardiff city state as the capital of Celt and then having Brennus as the leader. (?)

Cardiff is Welsh, Brennus is Gaulish and Celtic culture is not monolithic.

Regarding Chola- Indian subcontinent seems to be cursed in the Civilization series by the fact most of it is now united under one state (and unlike other big countries like America and Brazil it can't be easily sorted into pre-colonial and post-colonial history). It has only had one Civilization through all of the games, in spite of being such a large, populous and culturally jdiverse region. Merging the ancient Maurya empire into the Indian Civilization seems to mean they at least will include all Indian dynasties originating in northern India as 'Indian Civilization'. It's similar to how Indonesia is represented by the Majapahit Empire in the games. Thing is they slightly broke their merging related states thing by having Alexander lead a separate Macedon and not Greece, so maybe they might make exceptions. Obvious exceptions are perhaps the Mughals (as a Muslim dysnasty with foreign origins) and states like Chola which exist in southern India (which is more culturally distinct particularly because of it's Dravidian language as opposed to being Indo-European like in the north).

I really hope India gets split up. The Maurya, Mughals and Chola all should be civs in their own right.
I would personally love to see the Mughals led by Nur Jahan or Akbar, the Maurya led by Chandragupta or Ashoka, and the Chola led by Rajaraja or Rajendra Chola.

Yeah I've seen Scotland in there. I didn't know Brennus had nothing to do with Cardiff, never mind.

yeah, brennus is gaulish. If I wanted a celtic civ in civ, I would fight tooth and nail for Ireland. Would be so fun to play.

though, I remember when Kongo was being talked about, before Civ VI leaders were revealed, a lot of people wanted Ana Nzinga as leader. I'm glad they didn't go for her though, she never ruled Kongo, she was ruler of a vassal state.

A lot of ppl don’t know a lot about Kongo/Angolan history. The Kingdom of Kongo was really a Kingdom in present-day Angola. The Kingdom of Angola was a client state until Ana Nzinga ruled. A lot of ppl think Ana was related to Mvemba, but she wasn’t. The Dynastic name is a coincidence. Ana would make a fine ruler of Angola if they decide to rotate between Angola and Kongo going forward.

They should do Ireland some day too, Brian Boru would be cool.

Indeed

As for Native America my preference is the Navajo but I wouldn't mind the Iroquois returning again, or the Tlingit to represent the PNW. Those would be my top 3 choices for North America.

For me, Tlingit, Salish, Navajo, Shawnee and Chinook are the ones i’d like to see the most.

Regarding Babylon versus Assyria, I think the fact that Babylon was already a replacement city-state and that Assyria overlaps less with Sumer are good arguments in favor of Assyria, but on the other hand Babylon has tradition on its side. Babylon's city-state bonus could easily be transferred to Ebla or Mari. Assyria also has a number of big personality leaders in essentially the entire Sargonid dynasty, whereas Babylon basically has Hammurabi and Nebuchadrezzar II.

Ideally, I’d like both and Hittites, but i don’t think that’s going to happen unfortunately

Except that having Brazil without Portugal feels strange, I don't feel a strong need for Portugal; nevertheless, I'm confident we're going to get them. Despite having mixed feelings about yet another Greek kingdom, I also am quite positive we'll get Byzantium. And unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever ditch everyone's least favorite power couple; Theodora's just a given at this point. I'd love to be surprised, though, even if it's only the nominal replacement of Theodora with Irene of Athens. (It's not like her Great Merchant ability couldn't be given to literally anyone anyway. Toss it as a bone to Theodora, maybe.

I don’t know much about Irene, but any fresh face would be nice if we had to have the Byz (although I think we have enough hellenic leaders and kingdoms, so it’s not necessary in my mind). Alexios would be my personal choice if we had to have the Byz

 

[Zaarin]

whats a messianic king?

I mean leaders who have messianic myths or myths related to the "king asleep in the mountain" folk story attached to them--e.g., kings (or more rarely queens) who some believe will return again to usher in a golden age, like King Arthur, Frederick Barbarossa, Tamar of Georgia, and Sebastian of Portugal.

Ideally, I’d like both and Hittites, but i don’t think that’s going to happen unfortunately

Same.

I don’t know much about Irene, but any fresh face would be nice if we had to have the Byz (although I think we have enough hellenic leaders and kingdoms, so it’s not necessary in my mind). Alexios would be my personal choice if we had to have the Byz

I'd prefer Alexios I Komnenos as well, but it seems pretty probable that Firaxis just can't resist Theodora--at which point I'll take Irene as an alternative. Irene might not be my first choice for Byzantium, but she was an effective ruler who ended the iconoclasty strife and was very nearly sainted for it so I certainly wouldn't complain about having her, either.

 

[krmarci]

I would prefer a new civ like Lithuania or Bulgaria over Byzantium. We have two Greek, and a Macedonian leader (as well as Cleopatra), and the predecessor state Rome. Byzantium was an important Civ in history, for sure, but I have a feeling Greek culture would just really be overrepresented with the inclusion of Byzantium (sorry, Greeks). However, if there will be one more batch of civs, I'd love to see Byzantium in it.
For Mesopotamia, I think Hammurabi would be the most well-known leader, and thus, probably the best choice for marketing. I would also like to mention that ancient Armenia might also be a viable choice for a Mesopotamian civ.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I would prefer a new civ like Lithuania or Bulgaria over Byzantium. We have two Greek, and a Macedonian leader (as well as Cleopatra), and the predecessor state Rome. Byzantium was an important Civ in history, for sure, but I have a feeling Greek culture would just really be overrepresented with the inclusion of Byzantium (sorry, Greeks). However, if there will be one more batch of civs, I'd love to see Byzantium in it.
For Mesopotamia, I think Hammurabi would be the most well-known leader, and thus, probably the best choice for marketing. I would also like to mention that ancient Armenia might also be a viable choice for a Mesopotamian civ.

pls don’t say mesopotamian civ. That wasn’t a thing and shouldn’t be a thing. And Armenia wasn’t in mesopotamia. Mesopotamia should not be pigeonholed into being represented only by one civ. Mesopotamian Civs would be like Akkadia, Sumer, Assyria, Babylon, Mittani. Nearby non-Mesopotamian bronze age civ’s would be namely Elam, Phoenicia, Early Judea, Canaan settlements, the Hittites, Egypt, Harappan City States and others

honestly, a civ/paradox game just of bronze age mesopotamia, egypt and the indus valley would be pretty cool

 

[Lord Lakely]

Yeah, I recall Maria being really poorly-received in Civ5 and not just from the normal sexist corners of the internet. Because Civ6 has (generally) been a lot better about finding interesting and representative leaders, including a lot of women, and since I think we can expect a female leader for at least Vietnam, I would be shocked if they went with Maria again for Portugal.

The third female leader will either be Byzantium or Iroquois, bank on it. Certainly not Portugal again at least, lol.

Filling in the staple slots seems like the way to go; it just leaves me a bit worried that the designs might be uninspired. (pre-emptive cries at Byzantium's abilities)

 

[Futumch]

Considering I'd like an exploration focused Portugal I think either Joao II or Manuel I would do fine with the latter being new to the series. Lisbon is the only city-state left that I think will be definitely replaced.

Manuel : "Mister Fawlty, I speaka English fine. I learn it fromma book."
Ugh. I'm old.
I'd love to see Portugal though, all Fawlty Towers references aside. (Manuel in Fawlty Towers was from Barcelona anyway).

I'd read that one of the later DLC was for a new civ with 2 different leaders, could that be Portugal ?

 

[SMcM]

A lot of ppl don’t know a lot about Kongo/Angolan history. The Kingdom of Kongo was really a Kingdom in present-day Angola. The Kingdom of Angola was a client state until Ana Nzinga ruled. A lot of ppl think Ana was related to Mvemba, but she wasn’t. The Dynastic name is a coincidence. Ana would make a fine ruler of Angola if they decide to rotate between Angola and Kongo going forward.

Speaking of not knowing the history, have you seen the civilopedia page? Maybe they have changed it since, but it previously claimed that the current Democratic Republic of Congo was a successor state to the Kingdom of Kongo, when in fact they are not. The Kongo people, the ethnic group that inhabited the kingdom, are now spread between the DRC, Congo-Brazzaville and Angola.

 

[krmarci]

pls don’t say mesopotamian civ. That wasn’t a thing and shouldn’t be a thing. And Armenia wasn’t in mesopotamia. Mesopotamia should not be pigeonholed into being represented only by one civ.

That's not what I meant. If they want to make a civ from Mesopotamia, Hammurabi as the leader of Babylon would be a good choice.
Armenia: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Maps_of_the_Armenian_Empire_of_Tigranes.gif It is not explicitly a Mesopotamian civ, but a really close replacement.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Manuel : "Mister Fawlty, I speaka English fine. I learn it fromma book."
Ugh. I'm old.
I'd love to see Portugal though, all Fawlty Towers references aside. (Manuel in Fawlty Towers was from Barcelona anyway).

I'd read that one of the later DLC was for a new civ with 2 different leaders, could that be Portugal ?

There is one pack with 2 leaders but that leader requires R&F. We've seen a leak for that pack and it's not Portugal but Kublai Khan and Vietnam apparently.

Anyway I think whatever will be in the contents of pack 3 might make it easier to narrow down the others by geographical regions if Pack 5 is certainly focused around East Asia.

The ones that I'm looking at for Pack 3 is either Europe or Middle East. They could very well add 2 civs from Europe like Portugal and Italy to get them out of the way or focus on the Middle East including a civ from North Africa.
I can also see geographically the Byzantines getting lumped together in a pack with either Assyria/Babylon or the Hittites if they wanted.

I think we can maybe deduce that whichever region they pick only one civ from the other will come in either pack 4 or 6. That leaves another which I still think will be North America. I'm not expecting North America to get 2 civs honestly, as much as I'd like for it to happen.

 

[SMcM]

That's not what I meant. If they want to make a civ from Mesopotamia, Hammurabi as the leader of Babylon would be a good choice.
Armenia: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Maps_of_the_Armenian_Empire_of_Tigranes.gif It is not explicitly a Mesopotamian civ, but a really close replacement.

'Replacement' is a bit of a dubious thing to suggest, geographically they aren't that close even (the ruins of Babylon are 1300 km from Yerevan) and culturally it's very distinct. You could pick any two civilizations from around the same part of the world and claim they were interchangeable according to your logic, it doesn't make a lot of sense. And we already have Georgia (which actually is close) so I think Armenia is unlikely.