[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Codeword Iroquois]

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.

Yeah, I don't have much time for research, so I appreciate seeing what people come up with. I can understand that making upwards of 200 unique traits for civs alone would take awhile, let alone pretty much anything else.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Yeah, I don't have much time for research, so I appreciate seeing what people come up with. I can understand that making upwards of 200 unique traits for civs alone would take awhile, let alone pretty much anything else.

i might go ahead and try this and see how it goes.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

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.

I feel exactly the opposite! As thenewwguy was saying, this is a complicated question. The word "khmer" means "Cambodian." They're synonyms. "Cambodia" itself is a Frenchified version of "Kambuja" or "Kambuja-desa", for the region. Thai nationalists and irredentists sometimes use the word "khom" to refer to the ancient Khmer, but this is in many texts a way to separate the present-day Cambodians from the builders of Angkor (when they are clearly one and the same). One can't say the same for "Indonesia" and "Majapahit."

To jump to Indonesia, Indonesia was used to refer to island Southeast Asians for a long time, and eventually came to refer to the Dutch possessions (as opposed to the French Indochina). The Indonesians, being an extremely diverse group, chose to adopt the neologism "Indonesia" instead of any of the ancient names for the region - those ancient names would imply Javanese power, and a name like Majapahit would, further, point to a pre-Muslim past (not a popular move for now-Muslim Indonesia). There were no, until independence, "Indonesian people" - there were Javanese, Bugis, Dayak, Balinese, etc., etc.

Are kingdoms the kingdoms of their people (e.g. "Louis is king of the French"), of the land over which they rule ("Louis is king of France"), or something else? In Southeast Asia, it was that "something else" - kingdoms were centers of charismatic power (Thongchai Winichakul has a great book on this) that drew in (and spat out) loyalties of people in the countryside. Minor cities might be "a part of" multiple kingdoms, making borders and ethnicities really alien to the whole way of thinking. So a title like "the Khmer Empire" is going to be a projection backward in time from present-day assumptions about nations and borders, and "Angkor" might be closer to what the subjects of that kingdom thought.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Firaxis has blessed us with their presence?!?!

Cambodia" itself is a Frenchified version of "Kambuja" or "Kambuja-desa", for the region.

Right, and for a while during the cold war, it was called Kampuchea, as a further Anglicization of national French Name. Then we simplified that to Cambodia in English.

To jump to Indonesia, Indonesia was used to refer to island Southeast Asians for a long time, and eventually came to refer to the Dutch possessions (as opposed to the French Indochina). The Indonesians, being an extremely diverse group, chose to adopt the neologism "Indonesia" instead of any of the ancient names for the region - those ancient names would imply Javanese power, and a name like Majapahit would, further, point to a pre-Muslim past (not a popular move for now-Muslim Indonesia). There were no, until independence, "Indonesian people" - there were Javanese, Bugis, Dayak, Balinese, etc., etc

Right, and I feel the same way about Indonesia as I do about India, in that its lack of general historical unity makes it a good fit for just having those constituent parts as separate civ’s, so as India should ideally be Chola, Mughals and Maurya, Indonesia (which, to be completely honest, I don’t know too much about) could be Majapahit and Srivijaya, for example.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I feel exactly the opposite! As thenewwguy was saying, this is a complicated question. The word "khmer" means "Cambodian." They're synonyms. "Cambodia" itself is a Frenchified version of "Kambuja" or "Kambuja-desa", for the region. Thai nationalists and irredentists sometimes use the word "khom" to refer to the ancient Khmer, but this is in many texts a way to separate the present-day Cambodians from the builders of Angkor (when they are clearly one and the same). One can't say the same for "Indonesia" and "Majapahit."

To jump to Indonesia, Indonesia was used to refer to island Southeast Asians for a long time, and eventually came to refer to the Dutch possessions (as opposed to the French Indochina). The Indonesians, being an extremely diverse group, chose to adopt the neologism "Indonesia" instead of any of the ancient names for the region - those ancient names would imply Javanese power, and a name like Majapahit would, further, point to a pre-Muslim past (not a popular move for now-Muslim Indonesia). There were no, until independence, "Indonesian people" - there were Javanese, Bugis, Dayak, Balinese, etc., etc.

I do know that the work Khmer means Cambodian. I guess this is coming from my knowledge of only speaking English but when I hear the Khmer Empire in a historical setting it usually refers to the Medieval Empire that built Angkor Wat and controlled much of Southeast Asia, as opposed to the modern day country of Cambodia, if that make's any sense.

Also I would have no problem with calling them the Majapahit either but I understand that Indonesia was used for clarity purposes. I never really knew of the Majapahit before Indonesia was revealed in Civilization.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I do know that the work Khmer means Cambodian. I guess this is coming from my knowledge of only speaking English but when I hear the Khmer Empire in a historical setting it usually refers to the Medieval Empire that built Angkor Wat and controlled much of Southeast Asia, as opposed to the modern day country of Cambodia, if that make's any sense.

Also I would have no problem with calling them the Majapahit either but I understand that Indonesia was used for clarity purposes. I never really knew of the Majapahit before Indonesia was revealed in Civilization.

can i just say how annoying it is that the romanization of Khmer is spelled Khmer instead of Khmay?

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

can i just say how annoying it is that the romanization of Khmer is spelled Khmer instead of Khmay?

I don't know offhand why the official pronunciation is like that! It's Northern Khmer as opposed to central, and is reflected in Thai and Lao: เขมร, "khmer", with a terminal R. I don't think the early Chinese travelers used any version of that name. It had to have been set down as "khmer" early in European exploration/colonization. The French would have been more familiar, later, with the Khmer (Khmay) living in the Delta.

 

[8housesofelixir]

I don't know offhand why the official pronunciation is like that! It's Northern Khmer as opposed to central, and is reflected in Thai and Lao: เขมร, "khmer", with a terminal R. I don't think the early Chinese travelers used any version of that name. It had to have been set down as "khmer" early in European exploration/colonization. The French would have been more familiar, later, with the Khmer (Khmay) living in the Delta.

Yeah, the Chinese word for Khmer is Gao Mian (or Ji Mie) since very early, which is based on the "Khmay" pronunciation. I was highly confused when I saw "Khmer" in English/French the first time, since it's usually the romanization that more closed to the original sound compare to Chinese transliteration.

Edit: In an unrelated note I would like to see the Khmer ability of baray to be actual barays.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Yeah, the Chinese word for Khmer is Gao Mian (or Ji Mie) since very early, which is based on the "Khmay" pronunciation. I was highly confused when I saw "Khmer" in English/French the first time, since it's usually the romanization that more closed to the original sound compare to Chinese transliteration.

Edit: In an unrelated note I would like to see the Khmer ability of baray to be actual barays.

sukritact khmer rework

 

[8housesofelixir]

sukritact khmer rework

I love his reworks. In general I don't really mind eurocentrism in game mechanics, but the fact that every civ can build aqueducts and amphitheaters sometimes bugs me. Oh it's not even eurocentrism, it's Greek-Roman-centrism.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I love his reworks. In general I don't really mind eurocentrism in game mechanics, but the fact that every civ can build aqueducts and amphitheaters sometimes bugs me. Oh it's not even eurocentrism, it's Greek-Roman-centrism.

to be fair, the aquaducts aren’t as greco-roman centric, it just looks more aesthetically appealing to be having a roman aqueduct as opposed to the boring ones that the rest of the world uses

 

[The Kingmaker]

You know what? On a completely unrelated note, I miss Carthage.

Don’t get me wrong, I like Phoenicia, it just feels like a very different civ personality-wise.

I wonder if having Hannibal as an alt leader would be sufficient? Keep the civ icon and uniques the same... except part of Hannibal’s ULA is that the civ is actually renamed Carthage.

I want neighboring Carthage to suddenly send swarms of mercenaries over my borders. And sure, why not let them train elephants too, as a leader UU? Just because they weren’t used as commonly as pop culture would have us believe doesn’t mean we shouldn’t EVER be able to train them.

 

[Navelgazer]

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.

Rome, as well, doesn't really represent any other eras of Italy (hence the call for a more representative civ by a lot of us) but generally I agree.

Catching up, I don't see Kiev Rus making it in this time around, but it's a cool idea, a Grace O'Malley Ireland would be awesome, but also super-unlikely (like my Florentine dream) and realistically, we'll get Byzantium and Portugal.

I want neighboring Carthage to suddenly send swarms of mercenaries over my borders. And sure, why not let them train elephants too, as a leader UU? Just because they weren’t used as commonly as pop culture would have us believe doesn’t mean we shouldn’t EVER be able to train them.

A Carthaginian "Mercenary" ability to gold-buy units at a super-reduced price, but for only, like, ten or twenty turns, would be very interesting.

[Edit] Or possibly buying them for "Free" but with a much higher gold maintenance cost.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

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.

I don't remember who said that, but I recall someone saying that governors - and most especially Ibrahim, because Suleiman basically has no intrinsic ability, all is done through his governor - might be a test for Civ VII, where you don't have just one LUA and CUA but several that unlock along the game. That would be interesting and could be linked to dynasties (except that for countries that didn't had dynasties - Denmark and Dutch would have solely the Oldenburg and Oranje respectively, and Japan has apparently the same since two thousands years) and make your civ evolve and adapt to new challenges appearing in the game.

LUA could represent only one leader, but one might imagine having to change a leader on a regular basis to gain new abilities, and thus allowing FXS to truly stock all the leaders we want and make us discover new ones. Of course, each leader shall no be linked to each era (after all, if we did that, having Babylonian after the Classical Era would be difficult and having the Dutch before Medieval would be preposterous) but a bunch of leader you can choose without taking into account chronology.

 

[Navelgazer]

I don't remember who said that, but I recall someone saying that governors - and most especially Ibrahim, because Suleiman basically has no intrinsic ability, all is done through his governor - might be a test for Civ VII, where you don't have just one LUA and CUA but several that unlock along the game. That would be interesting and could be linked to dynasties (except that for countries that didn't had dynasties - Denmark and Dutch would have solely the Oldenburg and Oranje respectively, and Japan has apparently the same since two thousands years) and make your civ evolve and adapt to new challenges appearing in the game.

Secret Societies could be a test-run for this sort of concept as well.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Edit: In an unrelated note I would like to see the Khmer ability of baray to be actual barays.

I keep on saying that the Baray would have made a good replacement for the Dam. The least they could do is make that ability also grant faith to dams.

You know what? On a completely unrelated note, I miss Carthage.

Don’t get me wrong, I like Phoenicia, it just feels like a very different civ personality-wise.

I wonder if having Hannibal as an alt leader would be sufficient? Keep the civ icon and uniques the same... except part of Hannibal’s ULA is that the civ is actually renamed Carthage.

I want neighboring Carthage to suddenly send swarms of mercenaries over my borders. And sure, why not let them train elephants too, as a leader UU? Just because they weren’t used as commonly as pop culture would have us believe doesn’t mean we shouldn’t EVER be able to train them.

I am sort of glad we got Phoenicia proper over Carthage this time. I've gone back and forth on whether it would be weird if Phoenicia could be lead by Hannibal, but since I'm okay with the possibility of even Justinian leading Rome, Hannibal leading Phoenicia with Carthage as his capital and a War Elephant LUU would work without changing the Civ name.
As @Zaarin said they still referred to themselves as Punic or Phoenician, not Carthaginian.

Rome, as well, doesn't really represent any other eras of Italy (hence the call for a more representative civ by a lot of us) but generally I agree.

Catching up, I don't see Kiev Rus making it in this time around, but it's a cool idea, a Grace O'Malley Ireland would be awesome, but also super-unlikely (like my Florentine dream) and realistically, we'll get Byzantium and Portugal.

I think Italy still has the best shot at being a dark-horse European civ since the past two expansions they've gone for a new European civ. Also Venice was popular in Civ 5 so I expect we could get something Italian related.
A Medici leader from Florence leading Italy has been my number one dream as well.

 

[untitledjuan]

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.

The same happens with Gran Colombia, whose real name was Republic of Colombia, the same one that still exists today. By calling it Gran Colombia they are focusing it only in Simón Bolívar and the time he was president. That would be like calling the US Revolutionary America if centred around George Washington

 

[Birch617]

The Humankind game has both Carthage and Phoenicia as separated Civs (cultures); besides i think having Carthage as its own Civ would be nice idk

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The Humankind game has both Carthage and Phoenicia as separated Civs (cultures); besides i think having Carthage as its own Civ would be nice idk

That makes sense that they are separate in Humankind though as the whole point is you are supposed to transcend to a different culture once you reach a new Era. Carthage isn't available until the Classical in that game while Phoenicia is one of the 10 cultures you start out with.
Plus Phoenicia has the Cothon and Dido's ability is Mother of Carthage. It doesn't make sense to make Carthage it's own separate civ now.

 

[Hunyadi]

I find it kind of sad that Civ hasn't had an official Romanian/Vlach civ yet with Vlad Dracula as leader. Would be an insanely fun civ/leader combination. If you read about his history he was a strict ruler but a very brave and adventurous warrior. Caught between the massive Ottoman Empire and the powerful Hungarian kingdom, Vlad had to be brave, creative, calculating and often cruel (hence the name Vlad the "impaler") to survive. I can see it being strong in diplomacy, resistant to religious conversion, and maybe even something like having 2 defacto capitals which means beating them in domination isn't that easy.