[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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

The naming of civs based off of current countries doesn't bother me personally. Indonesia is basically the Majapahit anyway by design. Also Korea is always going to be influenced by Joseon or Silla etc. just not in name.

The only exceptions obviously are the Ottomans, because of Turkey's disassociation with them, and the Khmer, because I can't see "insert leader here" leads Cambodia in Civ, as well as the naming of most of the African civs.
Nubia and Zulu sound better than well the name Sudan and South Africa. On that note I would take the name Aksum over Ethiopia in the future.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

The naming of civs based off of current countries doesn't bother me personally. Indonesia is basically the Majapahit anyway by design. Also Korea is always going to be influenced by Joseon or Silla etc. just not in name.

The only exceptions obviously are the Ottomans, because of Turkey's disassociation with them, and the Khmer, because I can't see "insert leader here" leads Cambodia in Civ, as well as the naming of most of the African civs.
Nubia and Zulu sound better than well the name Sudan and South Africa. On that note I would take the name Aksum over Ethiopia in the future.

tbf, Khmer is used to refer to Cambodia in Khmer itself

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

tbf, Khmer is used to refer to Cambodia in Khmer itself

True but to me it would be weird if it was called the Cambodian Empire in the game, more so than the Majapahit being called the Indonesian Empire for some reason.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

I definitely would like a dynasty system introduced in the next iteration of civ, making it possible for implementing parts of civs/cultures that currently cannot be represented.

My suggestion would then be that the dynasty is a choice in the game, not in the game-setup.

...
The only exceptions obviously are the Ottomans, because of Turkey's disassociation with them...

This is not true. Turkey doesn't disassociate from the Ottomans. In fact Turkey is seen as a continuation of the Ottoman empire, which is seen as the succesor state of Rum Sultanate (Anatolian Seljuqs). If the a dynasty system would be introduced it could be done in different ways involving the Ottoman Turks:

• Narrowest approach - Anatolian Turks: Rum Sultanate - Ottoman Empire - Turkey
• Broader approach - Oghuz (Turks) : Oghuz Yabgu State - Seljuq Empire - Ottoman Empire - Turkey
• Broadest approach - Turkic Dynasties: First Turkic Khaganate - Uyghur Khaganate - Seljuq Empire - Ottoman Empire - Turkey

Of course some of the dynasties in the latter two approaches can be changed/supplemented.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I definitely would like a dynasty system introduced in the next iteration of civ, making it possible for implementing parts of civs/cultures that currently cannot be represented.

My suggestion would then be that the dynasty is a choice in the game, not in the game-setup.


This is not true. Turkey doesn't disassociate from the Ottomans. In fact Turkey is seen as a continuation of the Ottoman empire, which is seen as the succesor state of Rum Sultanate (Anatolian Seljuqs). If the a dynasty system would be introduced it could be done in different ways involving the Ottoman Turks:

• Narrowest approach - Anatolian Turks: Rum Sultanate - Ottoman Empire - Turkey
• Broader approach - Oghuz (Turks) : Oghuz Yabgu State - Seljuq Empire - Ottoman Empire - Turkey
• Broadest approach - Turkic Dynasties: First Turkic Khaganate - Uyghur Khaganate - Seljuq Empire - Ottoman Empire - Turkey

Of course some of the dynasties in the latter two approaches can be changed/supplemented.

im guessing a uyigher khagan won’t be done for obvious reasons

but again, i would want dynasty or sub-civ abilities to be limited to only civs with semi-continuous history for thousands of years, so India, China, Persia, Japan, China, Korea, Arabia, Russia, Egypt, France, Greece, Germany, England, Spain.

 

[Lord Lakely]

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)

I tried this when i designed my Civ 7 vision and it works fine (I called it the "empire ability" though). It's a LOT of work though. I've designed 65 civs and finding three fitting, unique abilities (plus UUs and UIs) for each of them is... a challenge I'm sure you'll agree.

It's definitely something I would love to see in Civ 7, though bear in mind it will directly lead to more jack-of-all-trades civilizations such as Poland.

 

[8housesofelixir]

• Broadest approach - Turkic Dynasties: First Turkic Khaganate - Uyghur Khaganate - Seljuq Empire - Ottoman Empire - Turkey

Beside the "obvious reasons" as Thenewwwguy mentioned, this set up easily encompasses a time span over 1500 years. That's like saying the Romans are a former dynasty of modern Italy.

How to include dynasty can be tricky sometimes as it's a more "fluid" concept compare to the "civilization" in the game.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

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.

100% agreed. Khmer and Mali are among my favorites that should be unconditional mainstays and we'll see if the Iroquois/Haudenosaunee can be as lucky. I'm sure you could give Songhai more conquest related bonuses for a gameplay but it would be a huge struggle for me to come up with a city list that would be different enough from Mali's. Perhaps the Songhai language has dramatically different spellings from how the cities are spelled in Maninka? Surely there's a way for them to coexost and have separate and satisfactory city lists?

Even so, I can only imagine a similar scenario in an alternate universe where players had to choose between France and Germany for the 'Rhine River civilization' of the game!

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

While I'd probably prefer to have her lead a separate Austrian Empire, I'll also admit that she's pretty much the reason why I'd even want to have Austria in the first place. As long as she's a German alt leader to an earlier Holy Roman Emperor, Bismarck, Wilhelm I, etc. then I imagine most people wouldn't mind. I have no clue what the reaction would be to her as the sole leader of Germany? Hopefully it wouldn't be similar to Seondeok's.

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.

If they don't show up as a Roman alt leader then I imagine that the Byzantines will appear. If it was a mandatory choice between them and Portugal though, who knows though I'd tentatively be more for Portugal. I'd certainly be caught off guard if it were Portugal and Italy instead of Portugal and the Byzantines even to fit the 4 new 4 returning trend.

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.

But yes, India is entirely different in terms of political unity, and at least deserves multiple-leaders treatment.

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 agree that it would be the most optimal way to do it right considering how the alternatives like splitting don't seem likely to happen. An India with a civ ability and 3 leaders with both a leader and a dynastic ability would be fantastic. If the 3 Indian leaders were a Maurya, Chola, and a Maratha leader then I'd be so thrilled!

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.

Hopefully a separate Gurkani civ would be in game to so that the Timurids and Mughals can have their own spotlight.

More of the longer lasting civs like China and Persia would hopefully follow that example too. I'm still not sure where I stand on the Macedonia was/wasn't Greek discussion but if it was then I'd argue for a 3 leader Greece with the leaders being from Pella (for Alexander of course), Athens, and Sparta.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I tried this when i designed my Civ 7 vision and it works fine (I called it the "empire ability" though). It's a LOT of work though. I've designed 65 civs and finding three fitting, unique abilities (plus UUs and UIs) for each of them is... a challenge I'm sure you'll agree.

It's definitely something I would love to see in Civ 7, though bear in mind it will directly lead to more jack-of-all-trades civilizations such as Poland.

my issue with this is for a large number of civs, they’re very situational in time. My original vision of sub-civ abilities is to allow civs which should theoretically be split up, like India, Persia, China to accurately represent periods in their history.

Civs like the Aztecs, Poland, Mali, Khmer, Inca, Maya don’t necessarily have distinct periods in their history that would justify having a sub-civ.

 

[Lord Lakely]

my issue with this is for a large number of civs, they’re very situational in time. My original vision of sub-civ abilities is to allow civs which should theoretically be split up, like India, Persia, China to accurately represent periods in their history.

Civs like the Aztecs, Poland, Mali, Khmer, Inca, Maya don’t necessarily have distinct periods in their history that would justify having a sub-civ.

That's true and perfectly fine lol. You shouldn't force new Civs to spawn where there aren't any.

With regards to alts, you shouldn't go overboard with it. Of the 65 empires that I chose, 13 were alts:

- Britain/England,
- France/Francia,
- Germany/Prussia,
- Rome/Byzantium,
- Han/Ming,
- Castile/Aragon,
- Maurya/Mughals,
- Athens/Sparta,
- Ptolemies/Egypt,
- Russia/Kievan Rus,
- Safavid Iran/Parthia,
- Denmark/Sweden
- Gaul/Ireland

Even then it felt like a LOT of alts, never mind that I converted several other options into City States (Chola, Yamato, Asturias, Burgundy, Saxony, Scotland, Iceland, Brittany, Mycenae) and scrapped several (Soviet Union, Tang, Achaemenids, Turkey) along the way.

And that's without taking into account you still have to add all the Civ staples and *new civs* on top of that.

Going down that route will make for a better, more diverse game, I'm sure, but it would be an organisational quagmire. Once you go down that rabbit hole, it's very hard to climb out again.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

This is not true. Turkey doesn't disassociate from the Ottomans. In fact Turkey is seen as a continuation of the Ottoman empire, which is seen as the succesor state of Rum Sultanate (Anatolian Seljuqs). If the a dynasty system would be introduced it could be done in different ways involving the Ottoman Turks:

• Narrowest approach - Anatolian Turks: Rum Sultanate - Ottoman Empire - Turkey
• Broader approach - Oghuz (Turks) : Oghuz Yabgu State - Seljuq Empire - Ottoman Empire - Turkey
• Broadest approach - Turkic Dynasties: First Turkic Khaganate - Uyghur Khaganate - Seljuq Empire - Ottoman Empire - Turkey

Of course some of the dynasties in the latter two approaches can be changed/supplemented.

I was speaking mainly of Ataturk trying to distance themselves from the Ottomans. Particularly I thought that was the main reason why they continue to use the name Ottomans over the name Turkey.

If they don't show up as a Roman alt leader then I imagine that the Byzantines will appear. If it was a mandatory choice between them and Portugal though, who knows though I'd tentatively be more for Portugal. I'd certainly be caught off guard if it were Portugal and Italy instead of Portugal and the Byzantines even to fit the 4 new 4 returning trend.

I would be caught off guard too but I also wouldn't mind it considering I've wanted Italy, and not just Venice or a single Italian city-state, since Civ 6 was announced.
At the same time I think it would be safer to substitute the Byzantines because the Portuguese still exist.

More of the longer lasting civs like China and Persia would hopefully follow that example too. I'm still not sure where I stand on the Macedonia was/wasn't Greek discussion but if it was then I'd argue for a 3 leader Greece with the leaders being from Pella (for Alexander of course), Athens, and Sparta.

I like the inclusion of Macedon obviously separately just for the fact that Alexander can get his own civ and spawn as many cities named after himself as he likes. At the same time I also wouldn't mind if in Civ 7 they give us city-state diplomacy of Pericles' Athens and make Alexander the militaristic leader of Greece instead of Sparta.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

My suggestion would then be that the dynasty is a choice in the game, not in the game-setup.

What everybody's talking about dynasties system only make me think about Humakind. I know it's a different ggame, but let's be honest... It's their first iteration in the Historical 4X genre, but we see that they learnt where Civ VI seems to have troubles to adapt. The fact that you have a civ, not for the entire game, but for a time period (retaining bonuses) make me think about the dynastic system you're talking. They separated China as the Han already, they would probably separate the English and British, Franks and Frenchs, Teutons and Germans... There is an incredible granularity and for all I see here, it's that kind of granularity that we're lacking. Because, at the end of a Humankind game, you would have played with the equivalent of 6 civs. Civilizations in the Civ franchise are too monolithic but it's part of the franchise. Changing it would imply big, structural changes, and might look like a plagiarism of Humankind system... But we'll see how it will evolve. All we can say is that Humankind will bring welcome competition, forcing Civilization to really try new things, and that's always good !

 

[Codeword Iroquois]

I tried this when i designed my Civ 7 vision and it works fine (I called it the "empire ability" though). It's a LOT of work though. I've designed 65 civs and finding three fitting, unique abilities (plus UUs and UIs) for each of them is... a challenge I'm sure you'll agree.

Is there a link for this? I would love to see these.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

im guessing a uyigher khagan won’t be done for obvious reasons

but again, i would want dynasty or sub-civ abilities to be limited to only civs with semi-continuous history for thousands of years, so India, China, Persia, Japan, China, Korea, Arabia, Russia, Egypt, France, Greece, Germany, England, Spain.

Yes, I was expecting that response about the Uyghur Khaganate. About the semi-continuous history aspect. It is a bit of ambiguous word you are using here. If you are trying to say that there should be timegaps between the different dynasties of a certain empire like in your Persia example (Achaemenids - Sassanids - Safavids). But what to do then with some of your examples, like Korea each of the dynasties was direct sucessor of each other: Silla - Goryeo - Joseon. So what do you think about that? In the case of the Arabs the Abbasids were a direct sucessor of the Umayyads and if you consider Umayyads of Cordoba they even coexisted at the same timeframe. Same can be said about the Ayyubids and the Abbasids whch coexisted at the same time. So are these then not semi-continuous examples? So what do you mean with semi-continous? And as for the timespan for the Arabs it is around 600 years Umayyad (start 661) - Abbasids (end 1258) or Ayyubid (end 1260) not quite thousands of years.

So I don't understand why it cannot be done with Ottomans/Turks?

As for the timespan of the Turks in my examples 1st approach ~950 years, 2nd approach ~1270 years and 3rd 1470 years.

Beside the "obvious reasons" as Thenewwwguy mentioned, this set up easily encompasses a time span over 1500 years. That's like saying the Romans are a former dynasty of modern Italy.

How to include dynasty can be tricky sometimes as it's a more "fluid" concept compare to the "civilization" in the game.

If you have checked the other proposed dynasties for example of India or Persia, that would span a time of ~ 2200 years. Also if you didn't know the Romans only lasted ~1200 years and in case of considering the Byzantines (East Roman Empire) too then it is around 2200 years.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Yes, I was expecting that response about the Uyghur Khaganate. About the semi-continuous history aspect. It is a bit of ambiguous word you are using here. If you are trying to say that there should be timegaps between the different dynasties of a certain empire like in your Persia example (Achaemenids - Sassanids - Safavids). But what to do then with some of your examples, like Korea each of the dynasties was direct sucessor of each other: Silla - Goryeo - Joseon. So what do you think about that? In the case of the Arabs the Abbasids were a direct sucessor of the Umayyads and if you consider Umayyads of Cordoba they even coexisted at the same timeframe. Same can be said about the Ayyubids and the Abbasids whch coexisted at the same time. So are these then not semi-continuous examples? So what do you mean with semi-continous? And as for the timespan for the Arabs it is around 600 years Umayyad (start 661) - Abbasids (end 1258) or Ayyubid (end 1260) not quite thousands of years.

So I don't understand why it cannot be done with Ottomans/Turks?

As for the timespan of the Turks in my examples 1st approach ~950 years, 2nd approach ~1270 years and 3rd 1470 years.



If you have checked the other proposed dynasties for example of India or Persia, that would span a time of ~ 2200 years. Also if you didn't know the Romans only lasted ~1200 years and in case of considering the Byzantines (East Roman Empire) too then it is around 2200 years.

well specifically in regards to the uyighers, i doubt they’d be allowed to be in civ bcs of China.

In regards to my semi-autonomous idea, the goal wasn’t as much time spacing as it was to just represent different aspects of a culture or civ which is too big to be represented via just one civ ability. Empires like Rome especially, stayed fairly monolithic (not counting Byzantium as Rome, that is), and even thought they lasted a long period of time, their dynasties and time periods didn’t differ enough to justify sub-civs, imo.

In the case of Korea, guryeo, silla and joseon did follow each other back to back, but had great differences in their focuses as empires.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

What everybody's talking about dynasties system only make me think about Humakind. I know it's a different ggame, but let's be honest... It's their first iteration in the Historical 4X genre, but we see that they learnt where Civ VI seems to have troubles to adapt. The fact that you have a civ, not for the entire game, but for a time period (retaining bonuses) make me think about the dynastic system you're talking. They separated China as the Han already, they would probably separate the English and British, Franks and Frenchs, Teutons and Germans... There is an incredible granularity and for all I see here, it's that kind of granularity that we're lacking. Because, at the end of a Humankind game, you would have played with the equivalent of 6 civs. Civilizations in the Civ franchise are too monolithic but it's part of the franchise. Changing it would imply big, structural changes, and might look like a plagiarism of Humankind system... But we'll see how it will evolve. All we can say is that Humankind will bring welcome competition, forcing Civilization to really try new things, and that's always good !

Technically they have the Zhou and skipped over the Han but you are correct on the English, Franks, and Teutons.

I think the way you pick a culture every era works for the gameplay of Humankind but I think it would be hard to translate it into a game of Civ considering you pick one leader and civilization at the start of the game.
Alternatively in Civ Rev every civ got some sort of free bonus or ability every era so that could be a possibility. Even America in the early games got like a free great person probably based off of one of the founding fathers.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

I was speaking mainly of Ataturk trying to distance themselves from the Ottomans. Particularly I thought that was the main reason why they continue to use the name Ottomans over the name Turkey.

It is true that Ataturk did that and his successor too. But that was a form of state politics to establish the power of the republic and make reforms. But in the end he was self an Ottoman General before he initiated the Turkish war of indepence against occupying forces. As for the name, the names used for the Ottoman empire by its own inhabitants was Devlet-i ʿAliyye-yi ʿOsmâniyye ( The Supreme Ottoman State) or Osmanlı Devleti ("The Ottoman State"). The name Turkey was sort of imported from Italy for the Republic for distinguishing it from the Ottoman Empire.

 

[8housesofelixir]

If you have checked the other proposed dynasties for example of India or Persia, that would span a time of ~ 2200 years. Also if you didn't know the Romans only lasted ~1200 years and in case of considering the Byzantines (East Roman Empire) too then it is around 2200 years.

The "Romans as a dynasty" is just a rough analogy. It has nothing to do with my knowledge with the Romans and I don't really care if it's exactly lasted 1500 years or not. Historically speaking the recorded history of Romans only begins with the Gaul sack of Rome (the credibility of early history of Rome written by the Romans several centuries later is questionable, it was only the Gaelic sack that had been confirmed in the non-Roman sources at the same time), which means the "dynasty" of Romans without considering the Byzantines is less than 1000 years. But that's not the point; the point is if you take the time span too long it can be absurd.

For the Turks the question/absurdness is that their dynasties are more fluid, especially with territories. I have no problem to view Rum Sultanate - Ottoman Empire as the predecessors of modern Turkey and I agree with your narrowest approach. But I do have a problem to view the Turkic Khaganate, an empire that never controlled Anatolia, as a former dynasty of modern Turkey. I would say that's an entirely separate civ.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Is there a link for this? I would love to see these.

Not yet. I'm currently making a google doc that I can share, which I'll do once I've finished. (I have plenty of time, with this unfortunate bout of lockdown unemployment). There's still plenty to be done besides the Civs tho, so that may take another 2-3 months.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I mean, in a perfect world, India and similar civs would be split up, while the dynasty concept is used only for civ’s with dynastic concepts, like Arabia,China, Korea, Japan, Persia, and only if one ability couldn’t adequately represent those civs to begin with. But if India gets lumped in to a dynasty mechanic, I won’t complain