[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[mitsho]

wouldn't it make more sense to retain it in the city itself? I like it a lot, it's something fresh and changes your playstyle. Needs a rebalancement of course and a higher spawn rate of city states around Italy. Maybe they add some more Italian city states which then requires them not being on their city list. Which is strange, but gameplay trumps realism. Also in regard to the fact that Italy would need a loyalty bonus which would be strange for a country with 3 governments per year usually.

 

[zhugejingqi]

In our community, when someone looked at Ethiopian documents, they found a folder called Napoleon conquest module and cold war module. It is not clear whether this is two of the three real historical models.

 

[Cerilis]

In our community, when someone looked at Ethiopian documents, they found a folder called Napoleon conquest module and cold war module. It is not clear whether this is two of the three real historical models.

Those are and always have been multiplayer scenarios, and have been "discovered" so often already.

 

[AntSou]

In our community, when someone looked at Ethiopian documents, they found a folder called Napoleon conquest module and cold war module. It is not clear whether this is two of the three real historical models.

So, Napoleon is in reference to the Cavalry and Cannonades scenario and Cold War is the Global Thermonuclear War scenario.

 

[zhugejingqi]

So, Napoleon is in reference to the Cavalry and Cannonades scenario and Cold War is the Global Thermonuclear War scenario.

Well, I had that guess at the beginning.

It is said that the new model may be the economic model. Is it possible to reverse the current situation that commercial city states are too useless?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

In our community, when someone looked at Ethiopian documents, they found a folder called Napoleon conquest module and cold war module. It is not clear whether this is two of the three real historical models.

I'm sure whatever historical game modes they will give us gameplay will last through all the eras anyway as those kinds would come late game.

 

[SMcM]

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.

I doubt they would be bunched into Russia, since Kievan Rus is as much Ukraine's history as Russia's. Would be like making Charlemagne an alt leader for Germany I feel like.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I doubt they would be bunched into Russia, since Kievan Rus is as much Ukraine's history as Russia's. Would be like making Charlemagne an alt leader for Germany I feel like.

which wouldn’t be wrong, it would be equally weird to make Charlemagne a leader of france too, in my opinion.

In the case of the Kievan Rus, it’s existence led to the developments of both modern Russia and Ukraine, so I think them being their own civ OR an alt for Russia are both acceptable

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

In our community, when someone looked at Ethiopian documents, they found a folder called Napoleon conquest module and cold war module. It is not clear whether this is two of the three real historical models.

Those are parts of scenarios that were never implemented. They've been in the files since the game was launched.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Those are parts of scenarios that were never implemented. They've been in the files since the game was launched.

i miss the time of good scenarios. The civ 3 world war 2 scenario, the civ 4 silk road scenario and the civ 3 colonization scenario were my thing

 

[Lord Lakely]

In the case of the Kievan Rus, it’s existence led to the developments of both modern Russia and Ukraine, so I think them being their own civ OR an alt for Russia are both acceptable

Russia already has Cossacks and the Lavra. Kievan Rus' are out of the question, sadly.


I'd love to see them in Civ 7 though ^__^

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Russia already has Cossacks and the Lavra. Kievan Rus' are out of the question, sadly.


I'd love to see them in Civ 7 though ^__^

Russia being like the India idea (Chola, Maurya and Mughals as dynasties within an India civ) with dynasty bonuses for Kievan Rus/Muscovy, the Empire and the USSR would be interesting


China for dynasty bonuses for the Qin, Tang and Han (or others)

Korea for Joseon, Silla and Guryeo

Arabia as Umayyad, Ayyubid and Abassid

Persia as Achaemenid, Sassanid and Parthians/Arsacids (or Safavids if they want to go with a Muslim dynasty too)

Japan could go with Meiji, Tokugawa Shogunate and another time period

England could go with an Anglo Saxon, an Angevin and a later leader, like the Tudor

France could go similarly, with a Louis XIV, Napoleon and Clovis, or something

and so on. It would be interesting to say the least.

 

[Zaarin]

China for dynasty bonuses for the Qin, Tang and Han (or others)

Considering the Han were the direct successors to the Qin and the Tang weren't too long after, I wouldn't mind seeing it spread out a little more: Qin OR Han, Tang, and Ming, for instance.

Persia as Achaemenid, Sassanid and Parthians/Arsacids (or Safavids if they want to go with a Muslim dynasty too)

Again, to spread things out, I think Achaemenid, Sassanid, and Safavid. TBH I wouldn't mind seeing the Parthians as their own civ filling the Eurasian Steppe Rider niche in place of the Huns or Scythians.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

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

tbf, if you requested the majapahit specifically you probsbly are a history buff. The main reason why indonesia got in (namely named as indonesia) is because ppl requested indonesia (and it was a good marketing opportunity, considering it’s the 5th largest country by population)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

tbf, if you requested the majapahit specifically you probsbly are a history buff. The main reason why indonesia got in (namely named as indonesia) is because ppl requested indonesia (and it was a good marketing opportunity, considering it’s the 5th largest country by population)

I remember watching in an interview that they were originally going to go for the name Majapahit in Civ 5. Of course some of the devs had no idea who that was so they went with the more familiar term Indonesia.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I remember watching in an interview that they were originally going to go for the name Majapahit in Civ 5. Of course some of the devs had no idea who that was so they went with the more familiar term Indonesia.

right, not just the devs but most fans wouldn’t know who the Majapahit were either, so liek I said, the requests of the history buff fanbase are going to vary greatly

 

[ElectRonin]

Russia being like the India idea (Chola, Maurya and Mughals as dynasties within an India civ) with dynasty bonuses for Kievan Rus/Muscovy, the Empire and the USSR would be interesting

That's a dope idea, first time hearing of it, but it would bring so much more flavor and immersion to each civ. Old Great Bulgaria>First Tsardom>Second>Third, pff basically writes itself. Would be cool if Hungary started as the Huns too.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

That's a dope idea, first time hearing of it, but it would bring so much more flavor and immersion to each civ. Old Great Bulgaria>First Tsardom>Second>Third, pff basically writes itself. Would be cool if Hungary started as the Huns too.

hungary wasn’t hunnic but rather magyar steppe in origin.

Im not opposed to dynastic developments for all civs, but i find that it might lead to a lot of controversy regarding national origins, especially with civs which aren’t still around.

Honestly, i think the dynastic sub-civ traits should be reserved for civs with long semi-contiguous to contiguous historíes which can’t fully be represented through just 1 civ ability or 1 leader

 

[ElectRonin]

hungary wasn’t hunnic but rather magyar steppe in origin.

I know, it was more about the supposed link between the Magyars and the Huns, but that's a pretty iffy topic. As you said, it would be a nightmare (especially for step tribes) to accurately portray origins.

 

[SirMediocrity]

hungary wasn’t hunnic but rather magyar steppe in origin.

Im not opposed to dynastic developments for all civs, but i find that it might lead to a lot of controversy regarding national origins, especially with civs which aren’t still around.

Honestly, i think the dynastic sub-civ traits should be reserved for civs with long semi-contiguous to contiguous historíes which can’t fully be represented through just 1 civ ability or 1 leader

Agreed. It would be cool if every civ had three abilities: a regular civilization ability, a leader ability, and a dynastic ability (which different leaders could share)

(I suppose this may be easier with some civs than others)