[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Of these places, I'd say that North America and Maghreb are the ones that are most in need of civs. Three civs for North America is really few while Maghreb is empty.

For Eastern Europe, the Byzantines are priorities, but not because they're from this region, but because of their historical importance. After that, I don't know if another civ from this region is a priority, even though I'd like to see Romania or Bulgaria.

Is there a possible civ for Greenland other than the Inuit? I don't know if we have enough resources for an Inuit civilization.

Do Australian Aboringenes allow them to be represented in electronic games? I've seen somewhere that they don't allow representation in video games or media in general, I don't know enough about them, though. If I were to include another civ of Oceania, it'd be Hawaii led by Kamehameha, but this in another round of passes, I don’t think it’s a high priority.

I'd be fine if Southeast Asia stayed with Indonesia and Khmer although I like the idea of Vietnam in the game, I would cut this to include a Maghreb civ.

I agree that Africa should have more representation, but Maghreb is the African region that is at the highest priority at the moment. I think Africa may have a civ on its east coast too.

If I were to say the top priorities of the moment, these are:
Native North America
Ancient Mesopotamia
Maghreb
Medieval Eastern Europe (Byzantines)
Portugal (not because it covers any region, but because of its historical importance and lack of a civ focused on exploration and colonization)
East African coast (Madagascar would be my choice)
Caribbean (not as priority as the regions above, but still a region that lacks civ. My choice would be Taíno).

I mostly agree with everything you said. However I wouldn't necessarily sacrifice Vietnam for the Maghreb. Maybe Burma.
But not for Morocco personally but some pre-Islamic Berbers.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Maybe Burma.

Them's fightin' words.

I would accept Islam-ish Berbers if it would be enough to get them in the game at all. As it stands I fear a true Berber civ would feel very Scythian.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Tinfoil shower thought, I just figured out how the devs are going to fill all the map gaps: Pirates. ......They'll be the vampires of the sea.

The problem with pirate will be the same with nomadic people: Although historically both were never a united state with a list of core cities, they will be united as whole with a list of cities when implemented in the game. (I'm looking at you, in-game Scythia)

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

So, what I think they would do for the Berbers is this:

For the Ottomans, replace the Barbary Corsair with the Sipahi. The BC doesn't have any synergy with the other Ottoman bonuses anyway, and the Sipahi could.

Make the BC the Berber UU instead. If you have GS, it still comes with a new unit, just for the Ottomans. If you don't, the BC is new to you anyway.

For Dihya (or whomever) give them a desert warfare bonus and a Numidian Cavalry LUU. The desert warfare bonus could be anything from combat strength to movement to stealth to automatic retreat.

The unique infrastructure should be the Kasbah, but not as an improvement. They exist inside cities, come on. It should be a building or a district.

The UA should have some desert yield bonuses, different than Mali and Nubia. And also perhaps an immunity against sandstorms.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

So, what I think they would do for the Berbers is this:

For the Ottomans, replace the Barbary Corsair with the Sipahi. The BC doesn't have any synergy with the other Ottoman bonuses anyway, and the Sipahi could.

Make the BC the Berber UU instead. If you have GS, it still comes with a new unit, just for the Ottomans. If you don't, the BC is new to you anyway.

For Dihya (or whomever) give them a desert warfare bonus and a Numidian Cavalry LUU.

The unique infrastructure should be the Kasbah, but not as an improvement. They exist inside cities, come on. It should be a building or a district.

The UA should have some desert yield bonuses, different than Mali and Nubia. And also perhaps an immunity against sandstorms.

The Barbary coast piracy didn't start until after Islamic conversion of the Maghreb for the Ottoman and Arab slave trade so I don't think there's any need take take them off as an Ottoman UU and given to a Berber civ if it's supposed to represent the pre-Islamic era.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

We had enough to cobble together the Mapuche and the Maori, and the Inuit are insanely popular among the modding community.

We also know more about Mapuche and Maori history comparative to the Inuit, plus their settlements were also larger in general.

The Inuit’s modding popularity is irrelevant. They’d be a poor choice for a civ and would probably worse designed than the huns. People need to stop pushing for a civ that practically makes no sense.

They've been depicted in film media, I'm not sure how that would be much different. Also, the Noongar are relatively progressive, having successfully sued for and acquired native land title to about 75,000 square miles a little south of Perth.

I don’t see how suing for a native land title makes them any more likely to accept being in a game, esp since depicting the dead is taboo according to dreamtime

Assyria to a similar extent (why ancient Mesopotamia specifically when we already have an ancient Mesopotamian civ?).

Because Assyria is a very different civ than Sumer, as is Babylon, as are the Hittites, Mittanni and Elam?

Civ distinction is a lot more than geographical distinction.

 

[8housesofelixir]

IMHO for a city-centered game with fixed territories like civ, if we/the game mechanic cannot think outside of the city-centered box, the nomadic civs will always be your usual aggressive civs but with a horse focus.
(Disclaimer: I'm not that familiar with how nomadic people as a playable power was presented in other strategic games. I would also say Huns of civ5 is more interesting in terms of design - still, not very good though)

On the other hand, IMHO Pirates are probably more easier to be implemented under the existing game mechanic, since IRL they did need cities to operate. Norway after the buff of pillage is a very close one.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I don't know, though. Pirate civ? Maybe for a game mode. And def for Civ Meier's Pirates III.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't know, though. Pirate civ? Maybe for a game mode. And def for Civ Meier's Pirates III.

As cool as it does sound I would be fine with one just being a Pirate city-state from the Caribbean.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

IMHO for a city-centered game with fixed territories like civ, if we/the game mechanic cannot think outside of the city-centered box, the nomadic civs will always be your usual aggressive civs but with a horse focus.
(Disclaimer: I'm not that familiar with how nomadic people as a playable power was presented in other strategic games. I would also say Huns of civ5 is more interesting in terms of design - still, not very good though)

On the other hand, IMHO Pirates are probably more easier to be implemented under the existing game mechanic, since IRL they did need cities to operate. Norway after the buff of pillage is a very close one.

my thing with the huns is they could’ve been designed well, but instead they were essentially playable barbs, and that ended up not representing the huns well at all. The same issue would ultimately exist with the inuit, but even worse because the inuit could be pigeonholed to an even worse stereotype, or a generally poor civ design.

I think non-playable civ actors could benefit a lot from being expanded beyond city states and barbs, much like the independent civs from humankind. That would be the expansion beyond simply city-based fixed-territory civs. Unfortunately the idea of a civ and what it means to be one, i think, generally, makes it difficult for nomadic civs—like the huns—to be represented well, but it’s still achievable, and very much possible. With civs which were neither fully nomadic nor urbanized (specifically the inuit), with no major leaders, no good leader choices, or any clear motifs for a victory type or specialization (it’s kinda hard to specialize in anything when your living conditions necessitate your whole culture to be focused on surviving in hostile conditions).

Non-playable civ actors are a great option—especially because of what you’ve said. It’s not like every important group of peoples in history have been urbanized or city based—the magyars, romani, inuit, for example.

Others still would be great civ choices if we knew more about them—the mississippians, harappans, etc.

But the city state/barbarian binary doesn’t work to represent all historically important peoples that wouldn’t be appropriate as civs. I think an expanded concept of non-civ actors would be wise.

 

[8housesofelixir]

But the city state/barbarian binary doesn’t work to represent all historically important peoples that wouldn’t be appropriate as civs. I think an expanded concept of non-civ actors would be wise.

That will be a great (and also ambitious, in a positive away) expansion of civ (or 4x game in general).

My thought about the matter is simply an improvement-based civ, with it's UI act as a city/base of operation, which is still based on the current game mechanism.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

As cool as it does sound I would be fine with one just being a Pirate city-state from the Caribbean.

Oh yeah. You could give them a Letter of Marque, buying some cool ships.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Non-playable civ actors are a great option—especially because of what you’ve said. It’s not like every important group of peoples in history have been urbanized or city based—the magyars, romani, inuit, for example.

Well the Magyars became urbanized and eventually became Hungary.

But the city state/barbarian binary doesn’t work to represent all historically important peoples that wouldn’t be appropriate as civs. I think an expanded concept of non-civ actors would be wise.

I think it would be interesting if there was an in between type of faction between urbanized city-state and barbarians called nomadic or migratory tribes that you could interact with and have names based off of historical tribes such as Huns, Xiongu, Sioux etc. Unlike city-states they can actively try to attack you without allying to another major civ or you can pay them off with gold or give them a favor.
Groups of them can show up maybe when you go from a golden age into a dark age.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

The unique infrastructure should be the Kasbah, but not as an improvement. They exist inside cities, come on. It should be a building or a district.

maybe unique Encampment giving food and gold for adjacent desert titles + defensive bonus.

They’d be a poor choice for a civ and would probably worse designed than the huns.

It is not a design problem, but storytelling behind it you are talking about. They have the potential of a very good and fun game design. Don't mix game design issues with Cive lore.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

The Barbary coast piracy didn't start until after Islamic conversion of the Maghreb for the Ottoman and Arab slave trade so I don't think there's any need take take them off as an Ottoman UU and given to a Berber civ if it's supposed to represent the pre-Islamic era.

I don't think Firaxis's civ designs operate exclusively within a specific time period. Consider England, France, and Scotland where the UU (or UI and UA for Scotland) are from completely different time periods than the leader.

 

[LoneRebel]

Continental Southeast Asia is woefully underrepresented. We still do not even have city-state representation for Burma, Bangkok, Malaysia, Bangladesh, or the Philippines. At the very least we need more city-state, but there are many, including myself, who think that Burma is at least as deserving, if not more deserving, than Vietnam.

Fully agreed that Southeast Asia is underrepresented. At least add a city-state or two if not a full civ - which is why more city-states is also a good thing, not just more civs.

Maybe Burma.

Fighting words indeed. Seriously, Burma has got to be a civ at some point (and Vietnam, but Vietnam at least is a fan favorite while Burma isn't). Burma has one of the longest histories of any extant Southeast Asian nation, from the Pyu city-states in BCE to the Pagan Kingdom, and then the Toungoo Empire was the largest empire ever in Southeast Asia in terms of land area.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't think Firaxis's civ designs operate exclusively within a specific time period. Consider England, France, and Scotland where the UU (or UI and UA for Scotland) are from completely different time periods than the leader.

Well I'm not quite sure Dihya would have Numidian Cavalry as a LUU either. I still see no reason to take off the Barbary corsairs for the Ottomans sense they were most known for their use for the Ottoman Empire and just give the Berbers a cavalry unit.

Fully agreed that Southeast Asia is underrepresented. At least add a city-state or two if not a full civ - which is why more city-states is also a good thing, not just more civs.

Fighting words indeed. Seriously, Burma has got to be a civ at some point (and Vietnam, but Vietnam at least is a fan favorite while Burma isn't). Burma has about the longest history of any extant of Southeast Asian nation, from the Pyu city-states in BCE to the Pagan Kingdom, and then the Toungoo Empire was the largest empire ever in Southeast Asia in terms of land area.

I just prefer Vietnam a little bit more, but yes I am aware of the large empires that they had. I feel their gameplay though in Civ 6 would feel a little too similar to the Khmer and Vietnam can differentiate themselves a little more.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Burma has one of the longest histories of any extant Southeast Asian nation, from the Pyu city-states in BCE to the Pagan Kingdom

isn’t this true of Vietnam, the Champa people and Cambodia/Khmer though as well?

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Fully agreed that Southeast Asia is underrepresented. At least add a city-state or two if not a full civ - which is why more city-states is also a good thing, not just more civs.



Fighting words indeed. Seriously, Burma has got to be a civ at some point (and Vietnam, but Vietnam at least is a fan favorite while Burma isn't). Burma has one of the longest histories of any extant Southeast Asian nation, from the Pyu city-states in BCE to the Pagan Kingdom, and then the Toungoo Empire was the largest empire ever in Southeast Asia in terms of land area.

I am 100% with you as it comes to South-East Asia. No problem for me to see both Vietnam and Burma.

 

[Arianrhod]

Agreed.
Continental Southeast Asia is woefully underrepresented. We still do not even have city-state representation for Burma, Bangkok, Malaysia, Bangladesh, or the Philippines. At the very least we need more city-state, but there are many, including myself, who think that Burma is at least as deserving, if not more deserving, than Vietnam.

Burma's one of my most-wanted new Civs, but I can live with Vietnam. At least it'd bring that region up to two for the first time, and realistically it's probably the best known candidate in that area in the US.

Considering that most Americans probably only learn about SEA from video games in the first place, any step forward is progress. Pretty much anything other than Mesopotamia or Europe gets completely overlooked unless they happened to interact with America. Anything south of the Equator or east of the Black Sea might as well be dragons, especially if it's not currently visible on the map. At least people remember the Inca for some reason?