[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[The Kingmaker]

the hittites are probably the most requested civ among the history nerd section of their audience, while the more casual section of the audience is the side which has massively asked for civs that Firaxis has actually listened to (i.e. Brazil, Siam, Indonesia, Colombia and now Vietnam, Italy, and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan). Notice how nearly all of the civ’s requested by the greater audience are modern countries?

Basically, the civs popular among the history buffs, like the Hittites, Timurids, even the Assyrians, aren’t really going to be heeded to cuz we’re a relatively small aspect of the audience

Part of it is just marketing to gamer audiences, hence Canada, Australia, Sweden, Brazil...

But I think most of those have been done by now. Hoping we get at least a few more ancient empires!

 

[Navelgazer]

We can see here what is likely the closest surviving accent to what 18th century Virginia might have sounded like, and it's not current-day Southern American English. But then, if CIv5's Washington had been recorded in a Tangier accent, it probably would have sounded "wrong" to us anyway.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yeah any 'City-State' ability would be ideally Italian, I'm just thinking of the Civ 6 city states as stand-in for 'NPC Minor Nations' in this context. As a lot of them were never actual 'city states' so to speak. Leaning more into 'confederacy of independent nations' more than 'assimilate conquered peoples'.

But I think my ideal would would be more something like perma-suzerainship than annexing. Say loyalty pressure essentially translates to envoys for nearby CSes, and once they become suzerain, they gain permanent suzerainship benefits and the ability to levy troops for free or something along those lines. Other civs could still send envoys to gain benefits from the CS as well but never be top dog. But that probably also works better for a theoretical Italian Civ!

I understand now. I like the idea of a perma-suzerainship but I agree it would still work better for an Italian civ than the Iroquois.
I think the main thing was wanting to differentiate them from the Cree and if we make them an aggressive/warfare Civ with a UU similar to the one they got in Humankind that would be different enough.

the hittites are probably the most requested civ among the history nerd section of their audience, while the more casual section of the audience is the side which has massively asked for civs that Firaxis has actually listened to (i.e. Brazil, Siam, Indonesia, Colombia and now Vietnam, Italy, and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan). Notice how nearly all of the civ’s requested by the greater audience are modern countries?

Basically, the civs popular among the history buffs, like the Hittites, Timurids, even the Assyrians, aren’t really going to be heeded to cuz we’re a relatively small aspect of the audience

Well there is also Babylon but that might be in part to it being traditionally in every iteration through Civ 5. Also the Byzantines are another civ not based off of a modern country, not counting the number of NA tribes requested either. There is still room for both though not all.

Also it's not if some of the modern countries requested also haven't had there own history such as the Portuguese Empire, Vietnam, or calling it Gran Colombia instead of basing it off of modern day Colombia.

 

[Zaarin]

Do they spawn horseman and horse archers in range of sheep and cattle too? I didn't know that.

Yes, and I can't confirm this but I think even Deer spawn Horsemen.

Mind you I haven't done any followup research to confirm this, but I recently learned from a linguist that the British accent has changed significantly over the last couple of centuries. Apparently, the modern American accent is closer to a historical British accent than is the modern British accent.

Yes, American accents are much more conservative, especially Southern accents as @Eagle Pursuit noted.

You would be able to discern Elizabethan English pronounciation pretty well. But the grammar and the meanings of various words were a bit different and it would likely take some time to get used to it. I've been following a "livetweeting" of Samuel Pepys's diary (circa 1660s) and it's mostly followable, but sometimes his sentence structures or the way he uses words can be confusing.

To be fair, intelligibility extends even further back as long as it's written in the right dialect (i.e., the Chancery Standard or London dialect). A Modern English speaker can more or less get the gist of Chaucer (I've read The Canterbury Tales in their original form without footnotes or formal training in Middle English; sometimes I had to look things up, but for the most part it was readable with concentration and context), but good luck with the near-contemporary Sir Gawain and the Green Knight or Pearl, written in the North West Midlands dialect.

I think the main thing was wanting to differentiate them from the Cree and if we make them an aggressive/warfare Civ with a UU similar to the one they got in Humankind that would be different enough.

Indeed. I don't think the Iroquois would look anything like the Cree just because it would go without saying they get a gunpowder UU. Firaxis, and pop culture in general, seems hesitant to portray any Native American civilization north of Mesoamerica as aggressive, but IMO it's absolutely the right way to depict the Iroquois. Every tribe east of the Appalachians (and some of them west of the Appalachians) feared them--the same kind of fear Medieval Western Europeans had of the Vikings or earlier Romans had of Attila. You can lean into their agricultural system or their political system, but IMO neither of those things made them unique. Three Sisters agriculture was practiced across North America, and there were similar confederacies all throughout the East (cf. fellow Iroquoians like the Huron, the Erie, and the Neutral, or in the South Muskogean confederacies like the Creek, Choctaw, and Chickasaw--or even Algonquian confederacies like the Powhatan, Tecumseh's confederacy, or, yes, even Poundmaker's Iron Confederacy). The only thing unique about the Haudenosaunee confederacy was its longevity and stability.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Well Firaxis if you’re reading this PLEASE give us Hittite

 

[AsH2]

Part of it is just marketing to gamer audiences, hence Canada, Australia, Sweden, Brazil...

But I think most of those have been done by now. Hoping we get at least a few more ancient empires!

Sweden? Are you sure you didn't mean Korea?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Indeed. I don't think the Iroquois would look anything like the Cree just because it would go without saying they get a gunpowder UU. Firaxis, and pop culture in general, seems hesitant to portray any Native American civilization north of Mesoamerica as aggressive, but IMO it's absolutely the right way to depict the Iroquois. Every tribe east of the Appalachians (and some of them west of the Appalachians) feared them--the same kind of fear Medieval Western Europeans had of the Vikings or earlier Romans had of Attila. You can lean into their agricultural system or their political system, but IMO neither of those things made them unique. Three Sisters agriculture was practiced across North America, and there were similar confederacies all throughout the East (cf. fellow Iroquoians like the Huron, the Erie, and the Neutral, or in the South Muskogean confederacies like the Creek, Choctaw, and Chickasaw--or even Algonquian confederacies like the Powhatan, Tecumseh's confederacy, or, yes, even Poundmaker's Iron Confederacy). The only thing unique about the Haudenosaunee confederacy was its longevity and stability.

Their agriculture bonuses can go into a Longhouse replacing the Granary providing even more food and obviously more housing. Maybe +5 housing to make it like
a mini neighborhood early game.
I'd at least let one of models of the UU carry a tomahawk for a finishing blow.

Sweden? Are you sure you didn't mean Korea?

That's a funny way to spell Poland.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Korea definitely deserves to be a civ outside of any marketing considerations.

Sweden likely so.

Poland is suspect but acceptable

 

[The Kingmaker]

Korea definitely deserves to be a civ outside of any marketing considerations.

Sweden likely so.

Poland is suspect but acceptable

I don’t mind having all the modern (and late medieval/early modern) nation-states, provided we get the ancient civilizations too. It’s been a little jarring getting all the more recent ones first this time, is all.

 

[Zaarin]

Their agriculture bonuses can go into a Longhouse replacing the Granary providing even more food and obviously more housing. Maybe +5 housing to make it like
a mini neighborhood early game.

While the longhouse is their obvious unique infrastructure, I wouldn't really relate it to agriculture. I'd make it so their farms can't be pillaged, get bonus food, but can't be built next to each other.

I'd at least let one of models of the UU carry a tomahawk for a finishing blow.

Sure, they can carry a tomahawk as a sidearm, but they should definitely have a musket as their main weapon.

Korea definitely deserves to be a civ outside of any marketing considerations.

Sweden likely so.

Poland is suspect but acceptable

I'd say all of them deserve to be a civ. Korea has repeatedly been a regional power throughout its history and has a rich, storied culture (on which note, culture/faith civ next time please ). Sweden had a brief but significant tenure as a superpower during the Renaissance and early Enlightenment (and that's honestly my biggest objection to Kristina: why would you choose a Catholic to lead a civ whose biggest historical contribution was as a Protestant superpower? ). Poland, meanwhile, was one of the biggest powers in Eastern Europe during the Late Middle Ages (though I'll happily exchange them for Bohemia in Civ7, which I think could make a very interesting civ; I don't think Firaxis would include two West Slavic nations in the same game).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Korea definitely deserves to be a civ outside of any marketing considerations.

Sweden likely so.

Poland is suspect but acceptable

It makes me wonder if the Hittites as a standalone civ would sell well from a marketing standpoint or would it be easier to pair it with Babylon/Assyria and make the single pack a European civ like Portugal or Italy?

Alternatively I think at least Assyria or Babylon would sell well as a standalone civ pack considering they have more name recognition, even with the non-history nerds being exposed to Civ 5.

I guess the same could be said for a single Native American tribe and if it would sell well, outside of the U.S. and Canada, unless maybe they have name recognition like the Navajo, Iroquois, Sioux or Cherokee maybe.

Then again they released Nubia as a standalone DLC.

While the longhouse is their obvious unique infrastructure, I wouldn't really relate it to agriculture. I'd make it so their farms can't be pillaged, get bonus food, but can't be built next to each other.

Well it can at least I can see it produce more food than a normal granary which would be seen as "more storage". That's assuming they wouldn't get any other food bonuses in their abilities.

Sure, they can carry a tomahawk as a sidearm, but they should definitely have a musket as their main weapon.

I agree.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

You can have mixed models in the units. Some can carry muskets while others carry clubs/tomahawks.

 

[Zaarin]

It makes me wonder if the Hittites as a standalone civ would sell well from a marketing standpoint or would it be easier to pair it with Babylon/Assyria and make the single pack a European civ like Portugal or Italy?

It would sell well in Turkey, which is important since they're apparently such a vital market that we can't have Armenia. No, I don't believe Turkey has anything to do with whether we get an Armenian civ or not; to be honest I don't think Firaxis even considered the Caucasus until we memed Tamar into the game.

 

[SirMediocrity]

You can have mixed models in the units. Some can carry muskets while others carry clubs/tomahawks.

Pike and shots are probably the prime example of this.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

It’s too bad that a lot of civs they’ve picked this game have been profit movitvated.

Babylon, Assyria, Hittites feel like Core civs to me, like all 3 were so key in the development of society that they should be in civ, and unlike other civs as such like the Harappans, we know enough about them to make them into civs.

Obviously you can’t have them all, and if we got these 3 in addition to Sumer, I wouldn’t feel like we need to have Akkad or Mittani, for example. In SE Asia, Burma, Champa and Lan Xang/Laos probably don’t have much of a profit opportunity the way Siam (Big local audience), Cambodia (big diaspora) or Vietnam (both) do. Oman, Yemen and the Swahili don’t provide much of a profit opportunity either and haven’t been seen yet either, same is true of the Timurids.

Ireland offers a profit motive, so I’d hope that if they choose to support Civ 6 for an extended period of time, Ireland gets selected. The same is true of the Phillippines, which I’d hope to see.

 

[Navelgazer]

It makes me wonder if the Hittites as a standalone civ would sell well from a marketing standpoint or would it be easier to pair it with Babylon/Assyria and make the single pack a European civ like Portugal or Italy?

Alternatively I think at least Assyria or Babylon would sell well as a standalone civ pack considering they have more name recognition, even with the non-history nerds being exposed to Civ 5.

I guess the same could be said for a single Native American tribe and if it would sell well, outside of the U.S. and Canada, unless maybe they have name recognition like the Navajo, Iroquois, Sioux or Cherokee maybe.

Then again they released Nubia as a standalone DLC.

I think it probably helped that they made Nubia very strong and beginner-friendly as well, so that the history nerds and folks who were likely to buy every DLC regardless were able to give it good word of mouth. Khmer, on the other hand, is a civ I really like myself but which probably had to be paired with Indonesia in order to sell.

With NFP, I don't know what their numbers look like as to people who bought the whole pass vs. people buying packs piecemeal, but I'd bet that if the Hittites make it in, they'll come paired with Assyria or Babylon.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It would sell well in Turkey, which is important since they're apparently such a vital market that we can't have Armenia. No, I don't believe Turkey has anything to do with whether we get an Armenian civ or not; to be honest I don't think Firaxis even considered the Caucasus until we memed Tamar into the game.

I think we've reached our quota on religious civs that are Orthodox with hill bonuses though.

I think it probably helped that they made Nubia very strong and beginner-friendly as well, so that the history nerds and folks who were likely to buy every DLC regardless were able to give it good word of mouth. Khmer, on the other hand, is a civ I really like myself but which probably had to be paired with Indonesia in order to sell.

That's true but as a history nerd the Khmer was my number one choice for a SE Asia civ. In my opinion they are the civ that should be the mainstay in every game at least to represent the region. Indonesia was just a bonus.

With NFP, I don't know what their numbers look like as to people who bought the whole pass vs. people buying packs piecemeal, but I'd bet that if the Hittites make it in, they'll come paired with Assyria or Babylon.

I agree and we'll know come September. I think it's most likely going to be either a Middle East or Europe pack considering it's the last one that comes with two civs.

 

[Zaarin]

I think we've reached our quota on religious civs with hill bonuses though.

No, no, I don't think Armenia would work at this point (Civ7, hopefully). I was suggesting that, since some people have blamed the Turks for our lack of Armenia (an argument I don't buy), they're clearly such a massive market as to justify the Hittites, with whom the Turks have something of an obsession.

 

[Navelgazer]

No, no, I don't think Armenia would work at this point (Civ7, hopefully). I was suggesting that, since some people have blamed the Turks for our lack of Armenia (an argument I don't buy), they're clearly such a massive market as to justify the Hittites, with whom the Turks have something of an obsession.

Which means they would also make sense paired with Byzantium.

 

[AsH2]

..
I don't think Firaxis would include two West Slavic nations in the same game).

Would they add health mechanics to housing, I think Serbs would fit well..