[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Zaarin]

At one point their land claims extended to what is now Southern California and they were semi-autonomous for longer than either the Republic of Texas or Republic of California existed.

I think you could at least make the case to remove Salt Lake City from the American city list and make it a religious city-state.

Indeed, of all the semi-independent/breakaway American states, I think Deseret has the best case for being its own civ or city-state. Again, not saying I want that, but it would make more sense than Texas or California IMO.

 

[TeddyMain]

At one point their land claims extended to what is now Southern California and they were semi-autonomous for longer than either the Republic of Texas or Republic of California existed.

Not to sound rude but where did you hear this? From what I've seen the provisional state lasted for a little over 2 years, which is longer than California's 3 weeks, but far short of Texas's 9-10 years.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Indeed, of all the semi-independent/breakaway American states, I think Deseret has the best case for being its own civ or city-state. Again, not saying I want that, but it would make more sense than Texas or California IMO.

Being from Texas I have to disagree.

 

[Zaarin]

Being from Texas I have to disagree.

It's a nice state. I visited there many, many years ago, and I considered going to school there for my master's. But TBH I'm not just dying for any para-American civ. I kinda tolerate America in the game as it is.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It's a nice state. I visited there many, many years ago, and I considered going to school there for my master's. But TBH I'm not just dying for any para-American civ. I kinda tolerate America in the game as it is.

I know. I just personally wouldn't put Deseret or the Republic of California above it for inclusion as a civ, or city-state.

If we need more city states in America though I would rather they go with Native American ones like Cahokia for the tribes that we won't get in the game.
I don't see any reason why a Pueblo city-state couldn't get in as long as there are no leaders or language speaking right?

 

[WillowBrook]

any civ with cities which can’t be conquered is too OP. literally makes dom victories impossible (also means that you can’t game over if you’re playing the civ). I thought of a design like that for switzerland, but it’s just too powerful.

You'd have to have some mechanism that would count as a capital capture for domination purposes. I just haven't thought of what it could be. And maybe culture flipping becomes easier for civs with negative diplo or at war with them.

 

[Zaarin]

If we need more city states in America though I would rather they go with Native American ones like Cahokia for the tribes that we won't get in the game.

100% agree.

I don't see any reason why a Pueblo city-state couldn't get in as long as there are no leaders or language speaking right?

I would suspect a Mesa Verde or Chaco Canyon city-state should be fine.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Not to sound rude but where did you hear this? From what I've seen the provisional state lasted for a little over 2 years, which is longer than California's 3 weeks, but far short of Texas's 9-10 years.

Even while they were a US territory, the LDS operated a kind of shadow government that held more authority there than the federal government far away in Washington. Young and his church elders were de facto rulers of the land until 1870.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

You'd have to have some mechanism that would count as a capital capture for domination purposes. I just haven't thought of what it could be. And maybe culture flipping becomes easier for civs with negative diplo or at war with them.

Religious conversion maybe? Similar to how Calvinism greatly influenced Switzerland, especially John Calvin gaining control of Geneva making it a republic, eventually breaking off from the Holy Roman Empire.

 

[Haig]

If the NFP follows expansion structure, there will be four old and four new civs (plus alt leader) and three of the leaders are female.

Old civs:
Maya
Ethiopia
???
???

New civs:
Gran Colombia
Vietnam(?)
???
???

My prediction for old civs would be Portugal and Byzantium, and from the new civs one is a native American one.

And if we get Vietnam with Trung Troc, I predict the third female to be..
Zenobia leading Palmyra!

DLC3 would be Byzantium plus Palmyra with a middle-eastern map. Been reading about Zenobia and she would be a big personality and a cool leader screen. No idea what Palmyrean uniques could be..

 

[PhoenicianGold]

If the NFP follows expansion structure, there will be four old and four new civs (plus alt leader) and three of the leaders are female.

Old civs:
Maya
Ethiopia
???
???

New civs:
Gran Colombia
Vietnam(?)
???
???

My prediction for old civs would be Portugal and Byzantium, and from the new civs one is a native American one.

And if we get Vietnam with Trung Troc, I predict the third female to be..
Zenobia leading Palmyra!

DLC3 would be Byzantium plus Palmyra with a middle-eastern map. Been reading about Zenobia and she would be a big personality and a cool leader screen. No idea what Palmyrean uniques could be..

I don't believe the devs have to subscribe to a 4 new, 4 old split. The first year of DLC had five old (Aztec, Persia, Poland, Indonesia, Khmer) and three new (Nubia, Australia, Macedon). Although civs like Khmer and Mali occupy an interesting middle space where they are bringing an even older civ back to replace a civ in V. But if you adopt that stance, then GS had five "new" civs (Canada, Phoenicia, Hungary, Maori, Mali) and only three old civs (Sweden, Ottomans, Inca). Point being, this isn't an expansion pack so we can't exactly expect NFP to follow the expansion pack split. We could very easily see five or six returning civs if this is the last expansion planned, five or six new civs if there are further seasons planned, or more than three female leaders in either case.

 

[Jeppetto]

I don't believe the devs have to subscribe to a 4 new, 4 old split. The first year of DLC had five old (Aztec, Persia, Poland, Indonesia, Khmer) and three new (Nubia, Australia, Macedon). Although civs like Khmer and Mali occupy an interesting middle space where they are bringing an even older civ back to replace a civ in V. But if you adopt that stance, then GS had five "new" civs (Canada, Phoenicia, Hungary, Maori, Mali) and only three old civs (Sweden, Ottomans, Inca). Point being, this isn't an expansion pack so we can't exactly expect NFP to follow the expansion pack split. We could very easily see five or six returning civs if this is the last expansion planned, five or six new civs if there are further seasons planned, or more than three female leaders in either case.

Not to mentoin that considering Macedon as new civ is already debatable as it is questionable to what degree it was actual desire to bring in new civ and to what degree it was a way to give Greece third alt leader without it seeming weird, where Alexander that way is very old and repeated leader even If not above Macedon.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Not to mentoin that considering Macedon as new civ is already debatable as it is questionable to what degree it was actual desire to bring in new civ and to what degree it was a way to give Greece third alt leader without it seeming weird, where Alexander that way is very old and repeated leader even If not above Macedon.

I would still say it's as new as Phoenicia, which is basically a renamed Carthage.

 

[Zaarin]

I would still say it's as new as Phoenicia, which is basically a renamed Carthage.

Well, yes, but actually no--insofar as Carthage has always unfortunately been portrayed as a warmongery civ because of the Punic Wars, while calling it Phoenicia allowed them to focus on trade and thalassocracy for once.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Well, yes, but actually no--insofar as Carthage has always unfortunately been portrayed as a warmongery civ because of the Punic Wars, while calling it Phoenicia allowed them to focus on trade and thalassocracy for once.

In that case Greece is new because it's less warmongery now, well at least with Pericles.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

In that case Greece is new because it's less warmongery now, well at least with Pericles.

i mean, but greece represents the same culture while phoenicia is referring to the overarching culture rather than a specific city state now.

 

[8housesofelixir]

In that case Greece is new because it's less warmongery now, well at least with Pericles.

I would say Greece is still the same Greece, until we see a Pericles with a thalassocracy focus rather than hoplite or phalanx every single time.

 

[Zaarin]

I would say Greece is still the same Greece, until we see a Pericles with a thalassocracy focus rather than hoplite or phalanx every single time.

To some degree, though I'm very grateful to finally see a culture-focused Greece instead of the perpetual Alexander the Warmonger civ, which is very unrepresentative of Greek history...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

i mean, but greece represents the same culture while phoenicia is referring to the overarching culture rather than a specific city state now.

I would say Greece is still the same Greece, until we see a Pericles with a thalassocracy focus rather than hoplite or phalanx every single time.

I was actually joking.
But I was basically saying what Zaarin said above that it's a different playstyle without Alexander leading them for the first time.

 

[Jkchart]

To some degree, though I'm very grateful to finally see a culture-focused Greece instead of the perpetual Alexander the Warmonger civ, which is very unrepresentative of Greek history...

I will take Macedon so we can have an actually Greek Greece.