[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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.

He would be interesting indeed but we basically got him with the Sanguine Pact in the Secret Societies game mode as the vampire unit.

 

[Killer Rabbit]

Given the leak, here are my revised predictions for the rest of NFP.

Byzantium (returning fave)
Portugal (returning fave)
Vietnam (in leak; been requested for a long time)
Italy (been requested for a long time)
A Native American civ

I continue to think that Babylon will not return as a playable Civ in NF. But I'm also an Italy stan so...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Given the leak, here are my revised predictions for the rest of NFP.

Byzantium (returning fave)
Portugal (returning fave)
Vietnam (in leak; been requested for a long time)
Italy (been requested for a long time)
A Native American civ

I continue to think that Babylon will not return as a playable Civ in NF. But I'm also an Italy stan so...

I think if Italy gets in it will be in place of either Byzantium or Portugal because I don't think we'd get 3 European civs. Portugal to me seems the most likely to get in out of the two considering it exists today and it's colonial counterpart, Brazil, is already in the game, where as the Byzantines could just be seen as an extension of Rome/Greece.
Ideally I'd want all 3 though.

I'd be surprised if we didn't get another civ from Mesopotamia but I agree it might not be Babylon but Assyria.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I think if Italy gets in it will be in place of either Byzantium or Portugal because I don't think we'd get 3 European civs. Portugal to me seems the most likely to get in out of the two considering it exists today and it's colonial counterpart, Brazil, is already in the game, where as the Byzantines could just be seen as an extension of Rome/Greece.
Ideally I'd want all 3 though.

I'd be surprised if we didn't get another civ from Mesopotamia but I agree it might not be Babylon but Assyria.

i’d rather have multiple bronze age civ’s than 3 european civs. The existing eurocentrism in this game is already headache-inducing

 

[SirMediocrity]

I just hope that New Frontier is profitable enough for Firaxis to consider making a Final Frontier or something like that.

 

[Birch617]

yeah thats true; it would have been nice that they had done something like different with at least the unique infrastructure of Phoenicia to give a chance of Carthage as its own civ; but either way i think its fine that they dont make the cut as their own civ

 

[Thenewwwguy]

carthage functions well both ways imo

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

i’d rather have multiple bronze age civ’s than 3 european civs. The existing eurocentrism in this game is already headache-inducing

Ideally I'd want those 3 European, at least 2 more Bronze Age civs: Assyria and Babylon considering Hittites are unlikely, and at least 2 Native American civs (3 if I want to be greedy). I'll throw in Classical Era Berbers/Numidia as well.
This is also assuming the leak with Vietnam is correct too.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I vastly prefer the thelassocratic trade empire Phoenicia design over the usual "Hannibal-the-civ" design that they inevitably do for Carthage. The elephants crossing the Alps is memorable but hardly emblematic of Carthage as a whole.

 

[Zaarin]

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

To me, as someone with a minor obsession Carthage and Phoenicia, I don't miss Carthage because Firaxis can't resist making them warmonger expansionists because of the Punic Wars. That really wasn't their legacy, though. The Phoenicians and the Carthaginians were explorers, traders, and one of the most sophisticated cultures in the Mediterranean (for instance, Carthage was one of only two civilizations, alongside Rome, to have a native tradition of Greek theater--i.e., they performed Greek plays and original plays in Punic; for another example, Augustine says that anyone learned should learn Punic for the wealth of literature written in the language). I don't want to see them turned into "conquest and war elephants" again.

i’d rather have multiple bronze age civ’s than 3 european civs. The existing eurocentrism in this game is already headache-inducing

I want more Ancient civs, too, especially from the Near East and Central Asia, but I wouldn't say there's a single European civ that shouldn't be there except Scotland (but I wouldn't have complained had it either been designed less British or else been replaced with Ireland). Eleanor is a little gratuitous, but...

Ideally I'd want those 3 European, at least 2 more Bronze Age civs: Assyria and Babylon considering Hittites are unlikely, and at least 2 Native American civs (3 if I want to be greedy). I'll throw in Classical Era Berbers/Numidia as well.
This is also assuming the leak with Vietnam is correct too.

Well, good news: Hittites are Iron Age.

I vastly prefer the thelassocratic trade empire Phoenicia design over the usual "Hannibal-the-civ" design that they inevitably do for Carthage. The elephants crossing the Alps is memorable but hardly emblematic of Carthage as a whole.

100% this. Hannibal is a wonderful historical personality, but he really doesn't represent Carthaginian or Phoenician culture at all.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I want more Ancient civs, too, especially from the Near East and Central Asia, but I wouldn't say there's a single European civ that shouldn't be there except Scotland (but I wouldn't have complained had it either been designed less British or else been replaced with Ireland). Eleanor is a little gratuitous, but...

I mean, even with scotland it’s not like it doesn’t deserve to be in civ, I’d argue pretty much every civ in the game deserves to be in civ. I would argue a number of european civ’s, namely Scotland, Poland, Hungary and to a lesser extent, Sweden, are less necessary than a number of unincluded civs, like the Hittites, Babylon, Assyria, Benin, Ashanti, the Swahili, Oman, the Chola, Austria, Timurids, Mughals, Portugal, Byzantium, the Champa, Burma, the Muisca, Purépecha, Iroquois, any of the ‘Five Civilized Tribes’ (and this isn’t even mentioning overlap civ’s like the Songhai)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I want more Ancient civs, too, especially from the Near East and Central Asia, but I wouldn't say there's a single European civ that shouldn't be there except Scotland (but I wouldn't have complained had it either been designed less British or else been replaced with Ireland). Eleanor is a little gratuitous, but...

Am I the only one that doesn't hate Scotland's inclusion? Maybe it's only because I picture them as the Celts representation in this game, just how Norway are just the Vikings.
Being part Scottish also might have something to do with it.

Well, good news: Hittites are Iron Age.

They still existed before the Iron Age.

 

[Zaarin]

I mean, even with scotland it’s not like it doesn’t deserve to be in civ, I’d argue pretty much every civ in the game deserves to be in civ. I would argue a number of european civ’s, namely Scotland, Poland, Hungary and to a lesser extent, Sweden, are less necessary than a number of unincluded civs, like the Hittites, Babylon, Assyria, Benin, Ashanti, the Swahili, Oman, the Chola, Portugal, Byzantium, the Champa, Burma, the Muisca, Purépecha, Iroquois, any of the ‘Five Civilized Tribes’ (and this isn’t even mentioning overlap civ’s like the Songhai)

I agree with you. What makes Scotland superfluous to me is that it's not so much Scottish as British...while England is also not so much English as British...Had both civs been less British, I'd be fine with Scotland. I do agree there are some very deserving civs that aren't in the game yet and even many that never have been before. I just don't see that as Eurocentric per se. (Also I disagree that Poland and Sweden are less necessary than some of the other civs you listed. I think both of them have every right to be a staple, or at least a rotating staple--I could see arguments for Denmark as the post-Viking Scandinavian civilization, for instance.)

Am I the only one that doesn't hate Scotland's inclusion?

I don't hate it, just the design.

Being part Scottish also might have something to do with it.

I'm half Scottish myself, my most prominent ancestry.

They still existed before the Iron Age.

They didn't matter before the Iron Age, though. The Hittites only rose to prominence after everyone else was reeling from the Late Bronze Age Collapse.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

(Also I disagree that Poland and Sweden are less necessary than some of the other civs you listed. I think both of them have every right to be a staple, or at least a rotating staple--I could see arguments for Denmark as the post-Viking Scandinavian civilization, for instance.)

ultimately, I’d like poland and sweden to be in the game, but i just would say that these other civ’s, especially the non-European ones, both represent important stages in their regional histories and would go a long way to make the game less euro-centric

 

[Zaarin]

ultimately, I’d like poland and sweden to be in the game, but i just would say that these other civ’s, especially the non-European ones, both represent important stages in their regional histories and would go a long way to make the game less euro-centric

Without Poland, in particular, though, Eastern Europe is left to nothing but Russia. I'd argue that, at least in the Medieval period, Poland was actually more important than Russia. Sweden is one that I think is best added late in development, though. It's good to represent Scandinavia's post-Viking history, but it can wait until after other regions are better represented.

 

[SirMediocrity]

They didn't matter before the Iron Age, though. The Hittites only rose to prominence after everyone else was reeling from the Late Bronze Age Collapse.

I thought the late Bronze Age collapse was the period when the Hittite empire fell... (unless you're referring to the Neo-Hittites in southeastern Anatolia).

 

[Zaarin]

I thought the late Bronze Age collapse was the period when the Hittite empire fell... (unless you're referring to the Neo-Hittites in southeastern Anatolia).

Hmm, you seem to be correct, and now I can't figure out whom I was thinking of--certainly not the Syro-Hittite kingdoms, which are...pretty low on my wishlist for inclusion.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I thought the late Bronze Age collapse was the period when the Hittite empire fell... (unless you're referring to the Neo-Hittites in southeastern Anatolia).

this was my impression as well.

Without Poland, in particular, though, Eastern Europe is left to nothing but Russia. I'd argue that, at least in the Medieval period, Poland was actually more important than Russia. Sweden is one that I think is best added late in development, though. It's good to represent Scandinavia's post-Viking history, but it can wait until after other regions are better represented.

i think that’s fair, but a scandinavian ‘grand tour’ civ with both the viking part (through a civ ability and a UU) and a non-viking part (leader and LU, perhaps UI) would be the best imo. We don’t have separate civs to represent periods of time in Asia, China and India are grand tour civ’s for example, so I don’t think it’s fair to extend that to European civs if you don’t do the same for Civs across the world.

With Poland, I’m inclined to agree, especially under Casimir and Jadwiga, it was quite powerful. But I can’t help but feel it’s initial inclusion was inflated by some amount of eurocentrism, since there are numerous world civs with similar amounts of importance elsewhere.

 

[Xandinho]

Sweden is my style of play and I would like to have this in every edition, while Scotland I only played with it once and I found it quite boring. I don't know much about Scottish history, but I think they could have made this more interesting, right?

 

[SirMediocrity]

Hmm, you seem to be correct, and now I can't figure out whom I was thinking of--certainly not the Syro-Hittite kingdoms, which are...pretty low on my wishlist for inclusion.

You may have been thinking of Lydia or Phrygia. They weren't really Hittite but I suppose they were Hittite iron-age successors.