[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Lord Lakely]

Washukanni to replace Hattusa plz.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Just want to point out as for now Samarkand does exist in the game - only in the form of a special city-state in a scenario (Path to Nirvana) of a DLC.
Basically a "well yes but actually no" situation.

im honestly surprised samarqand isn’t a city state. It’s probably one of the most historically importnat cities which isn’t a city in any capacity, alongside (off the top of my head) Vienna, Kiev, Dublin, (maybe) Thanjavur, Jaffna, Kilwa, Hanoi (for now), Bangkok, Pegu, and Aden

To be honest every city-state/oasis state/small territorial state between Persia, Ethiopia, India, and China deserves the "most historically important cities which isn’t a city in any capacity" title: without them you don't have Silk Road, you don't have anything to connect East and West before researching the navigation techs and goes deep into Indian Ocean.

It always fascinates me that one of the most important channel of communication of human history was being maintained by less than 30 city-states and nomadic tribes for over a thousand years.

 

[SMcM]

Tigranes the Great would be one good option, but since he's pre-Christian and Christianity is so central to Armenian identity I'd favor Tiridates III.

Those seem to be the two main popular choices, I know those were the ones added in Civilization V mods.

My point is that if we can’t even get Assyria to appear in the game on a consistent basis, what chance has Armenia had thus far?

I don't think that's a good point, there is no reason Armenia can't essentially occupy the same slot Georgia does in the next civilization game. And Assyria not appearing in these games on a consistent basis isn't that surprising- there is several significant civilizations and empires who haven't ever been in the series, and except for places like Europe with tons of famous modern nations which they always include (partly because the large player bases in those countries) they tend to try and avoid too many civilizations from one grouping (in this case Mesopotamia). Babylon is the more iconic civilization, and it's in every game in the series so far.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Having to swap civs is something that I see as a bit annoying as well, especially because it seems to happen to civs that the devs see as either unimportant (at least to gamers overall as opposed to importance in history) or similar enough to another civ that it doesn't matter. We know that there will NEVER be a concern about future games where France might need to be swapped with England, Rome with Greece, or China with Japan just to name some examples yet important civs like Mali, Khmer, Iroquois, can have a shred of doubt about whether or not they can be on the chopping block. It's especially annoying when some places struggle to get consistent beyond a core 3 or so mainstays such as Africa (Egypt, Ethiopia, Zulu) and the native Americas (Aztec, Inca, Maya). It still sucks that Austria might've been swapped in order for Hungary to appear but at least by that time it's after 10 to 12 other favorites have appeared. Similarly, I'd also hope for both Georgia and Armenia without having to swap one for the other.

One of the things I like about Civ 6 is the fact that the Khmer and Mali at least returned. Not that Siam and Songhai are bad choices but to me it felt wrong replacing the original empires that defined the regions with the ones that took over after. That being said I think Khmer and Siam definitely have the potential to not overlap considering Siam can always focus more on the Early Modern and Industrial Era aspects of Thailand. Songhai and Mali seem to be harder to coexist though.

I'd been wishing for Austria to actually return over Poland, Sweden and Hungary but oh well. As long as Maria Theresa appears somehow I wouldn't mind them not returning considering she's the main reason I would want Austria anyway.

With Kublai Khan and Vietnam seemingly confirmed, I'm also guessing that the rest of the lineup will be:

- Assyria or Babylonia (with a slight edge to Assyria)
- Portugal
- Byzantine
- A Native American civ (hopefully one of Iroquois/Haudenosaunee, Tlingit, Hopi/Navajo, Choctaw/Natchez, or Powhatan)

If that above example is the case, it definitely appears that they're going with more of the returning favorites rather than doing the 4 Returning and 4 New split. It's quite a long shot that I won't hold my breath for but perhaps if one of the big mainstays doesn't show up here in the New Frontier it could hopefully indicate and a Final Frontier expansion.

I'm still on the fence about the Byzantines showing up or not. Theoretically I could also see a new European civ like Italy take the spot and that would follow the pattern of 4 new and 4 old with 1 new European and 1 returning European.

I think between Byzantines and Portugal, I'm going to say Portugal has the better chance of returning considering, as you mentioned, the Byzantines could feel just like an extension of Rome.

 

[8housesofelixir]

One of the things I like about Civ 6 is the fact that the Khmer and Mali at least returned. Not that Siam and Songhai are bad choices but to me it felt wrong replacing the original empires that defined the regions with the ones that took over after.

Technically having China or India as a unitary civ suffers the same problem. That being said, as TahamiTsunami pointed out, Firaxis will have a really hard time ditching a civ called India/China considering the player base etc. That's also the reason why I would like to see Kublai Khan as a co-leader.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Technically having China or India as a unitary civ suffers the same problem. That being said, as TahamiTsunami pointed out, Firaxis will have a really hard time ditching a civ called India/China considering the player base etc. That's also the reason why I would like to see Kublai Khan as a co-leader.

china is more acceptable bcs at least the emperors and people of china viewed themselves as chinese

India wasn’t a united polity until the 1800s under british rule, and ppl in india didn’t even see themselves as indian.

Dynasty-based countries like China, Japan, Korea (and Persia and Arabia) to an extent can be unified bcs of how the people viewed themselves once the people went unified. But in the case of India, there was never any opportunity for political unity to develop and form

not saying that firaxis will split India up, but they should. More so than China, Persia or Arabia, in my mind.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I think the optimal solution is multiple leaders, and maybe a sub-civ trait for the different dynasties/polities/governments being represented.

I don’t care if that means India and China each get three leaders, provided it’s done right.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I think the optimal solution is multiple leaders, and maybe a sub-civ trait for the different dynasties/polities/governments being represented.

I don’t care if that means India and China each get three leaders, provided it’s done right.

sub-civ traits are something ive thought about a lot, and would allow firaxis to represent periods of history within a civ a lot better. It would rightfully make long-lasting ones more powerful as well.

So If India got 3 weaker abilities as Dynasty abilities plus 1 weak civ ability, and then 3 leaders for the chola, maurya and mughals, I would think that’s a really good way of doing it

 

[Zaarin]

Actually a little over 20 years going by those dates. No worries though, I've certainly been guilty of mistaking dates and times more often than I care to admit!

Oops. Yeah, I saw months and just glossed over the year numbers.

I hate to sound like a broken record but, just to counter the 'All the Mississippian kingdoms were in decline by the time of European arrival' thought or that Tuskaloosa is the only Mississippian leader worth mentioning, the Natchez were actually in their ascendancy at the time of the de Soto expedition and Quigualtum would be a good leader choice. Getting this mound builder civ in game is at least a possibility.

Yes, the Natchez alone continued the Mississippian lifestyle into historical times.

 

[The Kingmaker]

sub-civ traits are something ive thought about a lot, and would allow firaxis to represent periods of history within a civ a lot better. It would rightfully make long-lasting ones more powerful as well.

So If India got 3 weaker abilities as Dynasty abilities plus 1 weak civ ability, and then 3 leaders for the chola, maurya and mughals, I would think that’s a really good way of doing it

Absolutely. Because in all seriousness, there’s no way they’re ever going to break up India.

Can anybody picture “new Sid Meier’s Civ VII, now with Chola?”

If we want the smaller polities represented, the above quoted stuff is the best suggestion I’ve got.

 

[Zaarin]

Can anybody picture “new Sid Meier’s Civ VII, now with Chola?”

Yes.

 

[8housesofelixir]

china is more acceptable bcs at least the emperors and people of china viewed themselves as chinese
India wasn’t a united polity until the 1800s under british rule, and ppl in india didn’t even see themselves as indian.
Dynasty-based countries like China, Japan, Korea (and Persia and Arabia) to an extent can be unified bcs of how the people viewed themselves once the people went unified. But in the case of India, there was never any opportunity for political unity to develop and form
not saying that firaxis will split India up, but they should. More so than China, Persia or Arabia, in my mind.

Just want to mention that the emperors of conquest dynasties of China didn't view themselves as Chinese, and Japan isn't really dynasty-based as they only have that one dynasty since recorded history. But yes, India is entirely different in terms of political unity, and at least deserves multiple-leaders treatment.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Just want to mention that the emperors of conquest dynasties of China didn't view themselves as Chinese, and Japan isn't really dynasty-based as they only have that one dynasty since recorded history. But yes, India is entirely different in terms of political unity, and at least deserves multiple-leaders treatment.

I still think China considering falls into the same category considering they mostly were united throughout all the different dynasties.
The fact is Kublai Khan, despite being Mongolian, is still viewed ruling over China just the same as Catherine, an Italian, can rule over France.

India is obviously somewhat different though I don't necessarily feel the need to split up India either, especially since Gandhi is bound to always show up under the banner of a "united India" and at least they gave us Chandragupta who was able to conquer "almost all" of India.

Either way I agree that the best way to do India and China is at least always consider multiple leaders for them every game.

I would argue that maybe even Mughals could possibly be a separate civ if they base the capital around Lahore, but I don't expect that for Civ 6.

 

[WillowBrook]

Currently on the steam there is an achievement related directly to Hattusa with a reference to the Hittite storm god; it is the only city-state specific steam achievement among all the city-states. I feel like the devs invested a little bit than usual to the Hattusa, but as a CS. Also, if FXS introduced Hittites eventually, they need to re-design that achievement as well.

The achievement for Hattusa makes the Hittites quite unlikely IMO.

I can't help but point it that there's a second city state achievement - capturing Jerusalem as Freddy. But we already know that Firaxis will stay away from anything that makes Jerusalem more than a city state.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The achievement for Hattusa makes the Hittites quite unlikely IMO.

I can't help but point it that there's a second city state achievement - capturing Jerusalem as Freddy. But we already know that Firaxis will stay away from anything that makes Jerusalem more than a city state.

Now I'm on the wiki looking up the achievements and there's also one for becoming the suzerain of Zanzibar while winning a religious victory with Zoroastrianism (We are the Champions as a Queen Reference).

Also in the Vikings Scenario there's achievements for building monasteries next to the Giant's Causeway and alcazars next to the Alhambra.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Can anybody picture “new Sid Meier’s Civ VII, now with Chola?”

God I wish.

Honestly, the Chola are up there for most significant world empires of all history, especially so if classical and medieval history.

 

[SnowKomodo]

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

I requested Majapahit for their history, so I would say it's a bit reductionist to split the Civ base into history buffs and casual fans

 

[KyivanRusCivPlease]

This NFP is the last chance for Ukraine or, as my nickname suggests, Kyivan Rus to be included in civ 6. C'mon Firaxis!

 

[ElectRonin]

Kyivan Rus to be included in civ 6.

The Rus have a number of pretty cool leaders to pick from (Olga, Syvatoslav or even Rurik), but I'd expect them to be bunched up into the Russian civ, rather than as a separate Ukrainian/Kievan civ.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

As much as I'd like it to be focused solely on Renaissance Italy I guess I could live with Vittorio Emmanuel II as a leader if only his focus would be on the Italian unification. He could collect city states to add to his empire and would still fit the Italy theme with a "Birthplace of the Renaissance" civ ability.

I think an Italian civ has more of a chance at a peacefully capturing city states.

CUA : Risorgimento - Whenever a city-State rejoin your civ peacefully (through loyalty OR by taking it from another civ), you maintain the Suzerainety Bonus of this city-State in your capital (e.g. if you have Babylon, every artifact, GWW and relic in your capital produce science).