[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

A Zenobia-led Palmyria could also include Antioch. Pretty unlikely, especially with Trung Trac almost certainly coming in the 'memed into dev consciousness' spot, but it's a slim possibility.

Palmyra to me is in a weird spot considering I don't know what direction it would take. It also has too many cities from different civilizations already that could make up it's city list, not to mention Palmyra being Roman and any other Syrian cities such as Homs, Damascus are part of Arabia already.

 

[Potworny]

I wonder if the devs ever tell us about all those things that went on behind the scenes that we don't quite know about. I wish that whenever the development cycle for Civ VI ends and they feel comfortable enough they'll comment on all theories, leaks and unused content and concepts over the years. But I'm okay with it not happening just yet.

On the other hand, they did respond to me in the twitch chat regarding some potential hints in the future, at least on the logo front:

Spoiler :

I really do want to know whose clothes kiran_test_pete_clothing are though...

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

Andrew Johnson & writers thanks for all the work,
I love to read the small texts you get when having an Eureka like "Your knowledge of the heavens is helping you to navigate and form a global empire" and the stories when you encounter
a secret society. All the details let me immerse to the game's world.

Thanks. There's a long line of writers, and a lot of sharing, revision, editing; I'm pretty new, so most of that credit should go to others. The "heavens" line, for instance, isn't mine, but the Secret Society text (e.g. "dream of the sea") is.

 

[Zaarin]

not to mention Palmyra being Roman

I'm not sure I'd call it Roman culturally. The eastern part of the empire was never really assimilated the way Western/Northern Europe and North Africa were.

other Syrian cities such as Homs, Damascus are part of Arabia already.

I think that's pretty irrelevant, too; just name them in Aramaic--Ḥamath-ṣawba and Darmsūq respectively, to use your examples (and might as well add Ḥalpa--Aleppo--while we're at it).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm not sure I'd call it Roman culturally. The eastern part of the empire was never really assimilated the way Western/Northern Europe and North Africa were.

I mean Palmyra is already a Roman city in the game, though near the bottom of the list.

I think that's pretty irrelevant, too; just name them in Aramaic--Ḥamath-ṣawba and Darmsūq respectively, to use your examples (and might as well add Ḥalpa--Aleppo--while we're at it).

Considering both are Arabian cities as well I think trying to do Palmyra, in my opinion, would be a mess that Firaxis might go with something simpler such as Assyria or Babylon.

 

[Zaarin]

I mean Palmyra is already a Roman city in the game, though near the bottom of the list.

Again, though, that's easily solved by giving the city it's native name, Tadmor.

Considering both are Arabian cities as well I think trying to do Palmyra, in my opinion, would be a mess

I think a Palmyra civ is very unlikely, but I still think, as I've said on numerous occasions, it would be a great way to represent the Aramaic kingdoms that were always major power brokers between the Levant and Mesopotamia. I think we can all agree that Zenobia is a more appealing leader choice than, say, the charismatic and widely-known King Hadadezer of Aram Damascus.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Again, though, that's easily solved by giving the city it's native name, Tadmor.


I think a Palmyra civ is very unlikely, but I still think, as I've said on numerous occasions, it would be a great way to represent the Aramaic kingdoms that were always major power brokers between the Levant and Mesopotamia. I think we can all agree that Zenobia is a more appealing leader choice than, say, the charismatic and widely-known King Hadadezer of Aram Damascus.

Yeah, many a time I've caught myself saying, "That Hadadezer is an interesting Leader, but not half as good a choice as Jason of Thessaly or Aethelfleda of Mercia . . .

More seriously, I think at the moment the Trade mechanics of Civ VI make it very difficult to give adequate importance to any of the early Trade Civilizations: Palmyra, Sogdiana, or even Phoenicia. There just isn't enough income from Trade early on (mostly because there are so few Trade Routes possible until mid-way through the game) so the advantages of Trade - lots of Gold with which to build your Civ and influence other Civs - has to be obtained by other means, like the 'Gold Factors' built into Mali/Musa which don't rely much on Trade for their effects.

This is a shame, really, because some very unlikely Civs made a good thing out of having Gold as an influencer. Diplomatic correspondence gleaned out of papyrus and other sources show that ancient Egypt, which had access to Gold Mines in southern Egypt/Sudan, was able to extract all kinds of diplomatic concessions out of other Middle Eastern powers (Hittites, Assyrians, Mitanni, etc) by, basically, bribing them. Famously, the most deadly Persian 'archers' were said to be the archer imprinted on the gold 'Daric' Persian coin, with which the Empire bribed Greek politicians - most famously, Demosthenes, who produced his anti-Macedonian 'Phillippics' propaganda essays to earn his pay.
And, of course, Trade revenue allowed Carthage to buy its armies from mercenaries and stand up to the much larger population of Rome for 1.5 of the 3 'Punic Wars'.

It's unlikely we'll see such a major revision in Civ VI, but it would be nice for the next Civ iteration to pay more attention to, say, an Economic Victory and Gold Generation from Trade (which, at least early in the game, also requires an emphasis on Exploration, as in the Phoenician explorations of the Atlantic coasts of Europe and North Africa) which would allow a better representation of the Impact of the great Trading Civs.

 

[GenyaArikado]

I wonder if the devs ever tell us about all those things that went on behind the scenes that we don't quite know about. I wish that whenever the development cycle for Civ VI ends and they feel comfortable enough they'll comment on all theories, leaks and unused content and concepts over the years. But I'm okay with it not happening just yet.

On the other hand, they did respond to me in the twitch chat regarding some potential hints in the future, at least on the logo front:

Spoiler :

View attachment 567652

I really do want to know whose clothes kiran_test_pete_clothing are though...

They won't, Firaxis management in that regard sucks. They might on their personal twitters after they leave the company, maybe. When i wanted to interview Taylor Fischer, an artist from CivBE she had to ask permission to Firaxis

Then somehow she got confused (probably because i said i was an user here) and CivFans ended up stealing the interview. And making crap questions...

Anyway Firaxis PR deparment is stuck in the late 90s.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Yeah, many a time I've caught myself saying, "That Hadadezer is an interesting Leader, but not half as good a choice as Jason of Thessaly or Aethelfleda of Mercia . . .

More seriously, I think at the moment the Trade mechanics of Civ VI make it very difficult to give adequate importance to any of the early Trade Civilizations: Palmyra, Sogdiana, or even Phoenicia. There just isn't enough income from Trade early on (mostly because there are so few Trade Routes possible until mid-way through the game) so the advantages of Trade - lots of Gold with which to build your Civ and influence other Civs - has to be obtained by other means, like the 'Gold Factors' built into Mali/Musa which don't rely much on Trade for their effects.

This is a shame, really, because some very unlikely Civs made a good thing out of having Gold as an influencer. Diplomatic correspondence gleaned out of papyrus and other sources show that ancient Egypt, which had access to Gold Mines in southern Egypt/Sudan, was able to extract all kinds of diplomatic concessions out of other Middle Eastern powers (Hittites, Assyrians, Mitanni, etc) by, basically, bribing them. Famously, the most deadly Persian 'archers' were said to be the archer imprinted on the gold 'Daric' Persian coin, with which the Empire bribed Greek politicians - most famously, Demosthenes, who produced his anti-Macedonian 'Phillippics' propaganda essays to earn his pay.
And, of course, Trade revenue allowed Carthage to buy its armies from mercenaries and stand up to the much larger population of Rome for 1.5 of the 3 'Punic Wars'.

It's unlikely we'll see such a major revision in Civ VI, but it would be nice for the next Civ iteration to pay more attention to, say, an Economic Victory and Gold Generation from Trade (which, at least early in the game, also requires an emphasis on Exploration, as in the Phoenician explorations of the Atlantic coasts of Europe and North Africa) which would allow a better representation of the Impact of the great Trading Civs.

Besides Sogdia is more of a medieval trade civilization - the peak of Sogdian influence was around 4-8th century - I fully agree with your points.

The current trade-gold civs can/do have a massive spike of gold, but that power spike usually kicks in around Renaissance - thanks to naval and CH infrastructure, reform the coinage golden age, colonization and colonial builds, Mercantile Republic, etc - which is fairly accurate in terms of representing the Age of Discovery and the inflation of gold in Europe, but, as you pointed out, there are still many early trade civilizations.

And in the game, while there are civs that can have a science/culture/faith lead very early, there isn't any civ can have a gold lead in the early game (Mali's power spike kicks in around Medieval).

The game also lacks "gold ores" as a resource (besides the Australian scenario), which is weird. Gold impacted and even decided the fate of the early civilizations from the beginning.

 

[Weraptor]

Bohemia/Czechoslovakia/Great Moravia would be dope to have. There are so many design options Firaxis could draw from... but I doubt their inclusion, as they've already featured Hungary in VI and Barbarossa's LUA is literally called Holy Roman Emperor.

 

[8housesofelixir]

On a second thought, maybe the problem is that the in-game Ancient Era is too short, and one would spend Classical Era to build up infrastructure/conquer others, so in general power spikes won't kick in that early (besides Montezuma, Amanitore, and Gilgamesh, and all of their power spikes are based on super early conquest in Ancient Era).

 

[Zaarin]

Besides Sogdia is more of a medieval trade civilization - the peak of Sogdian influence was around 4-8th century - I fully agree with your points.

They had an earlier peak in the pre-Achaemenid period, but it's not as well documented because, of course, fewer documents in that period.

Bohemia/Czechoslovakia/Great Moravia would be dope to have. There are so many design options Firaxis could draw from... but I doubt their inclusion, as they've already featured Hungary in VI and Barbarossa's LUA is literally called Holy Roman Emperor.

I'd love to see a Late Medieval/Early Modern Bohemia included in the game at some point.

 

[Haig]

China has boost to ancient and classical wonders, they could have a civ with trade units boosted on the early eras.

 

[8housesofelixir]

China has boost to ancient and classical wonders, they could have a civ with trade units boosted on the early eras.

Historically speaking, China's international trade in ancient and medieval era was almost entirely dependent on Sogdian merchants and other steppe traders who acted as middle men - that's why Sogdia was an important civ. They could have this early boost, for example a much earlier trade route capacity and gold output.

Edit: In my personal design of a Sogdian civ, their city center can increase trade route capacity by 1 and instantly create a trading post in the city, capped at 9.
(The Sogdians have 9 major cities/city-states when at its peak in Medieval Era, called "Nine Clans/Tribes of Zhaowu" by the Chinese.)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Besides Sogdia is more of a medieval trade civilization - the peak of Sogdian influence was around 4-8th century - I fully agree with your points.

The current trade-gold civs can/do have a massive spike of gold, but that power spike usually kicks in around Renaissance - thanks to naval and CH infrastructure, reform the coinage golden age, colonization and colonial builds, Mercantile Republic, etc - which is fairly accurate in terms of representing the Age of Discovery and the inflation of gold in Europe, but, as you pointed out, there are still many early trade civilizations.

And in the game, while there are civs that can have a science/culture/faith lead very early, there isn't any civ can have a gold lead in the early game (Mali's power spike kicks in around Medieval).

The game also lacks "gold ores" as a resource (besides the Australian scenario), which is weird. Gold impacted and even decided the fate of the early civilizations from the beginning.

As you point out, Sogdia/Sogdiana's influence was Late Classical - Early Medieval, which is still within the period I consider 'Early Game' - sorry I didn't make that clear.

I never play any more without Sukritect's Resources Mod, which adds, among others, Gold as an Amenity Resource to the game: leaving it out of Civ VI Base Game was simply silly.

Of course, even better would be if the game showed the connection between Coinage/Currency, Gold and Silver. Those two metals were the basis for virtually everybody's coins throughout the Classical and Medieval Eras until bank drafts, paper money and the other 'symbolic' currencies came into play in the early Renaissance. Not having early access to Silver and/or Gold was a major problem for many states, while having ready access to them (Persian. Egyptian examples I gave earlier) provided all sorts of economic and diplomatic beenfits.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

As you point out, Sogdia/Sogdiana's influence was Late Classical - Early Medieval, which is still within the period I consider 'Early Game' - sorry I didn't make that clear.

I never play any more without Sukritect's Resources Mod, which adds, among others, Gold as an Amenity Resource to the game: leaving it out of Civ VI Base Game was simply silly.

Of course, even better would be if the game showed the connection between Coinage/Currency, Gold and Silver. Those two metals were the basis for virtually everybody's coins throughout the Classical and Medieval Eras until bank drafts, paper money and the other 'symbolic' currencies came into play in the early Renaissance. Not having early access to Silver and/or Gold was a major problem for many states, while having ready access to them (Persian. Egyptian examples I gave earlier) provided all sorts of economic and diplomatic beenfits.

Well gold is already represented in the game as currency rather than as a resource. Although the game could abandon gold and have civs rely purely on a barter system, I think it's a fair concession to just presume every civ has access to a sort of metal currency called "gold." It's still a board game and some things just need to be simplified for the sake of preventing players from getting too bogged down with unfun hair-splitting and micromanagement.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Of course, even better would be if the game showed the connection between Coinage/Currency, Gold and Silver. Those two metals were the basis for virtually everybody's coins throughout the Classical and Medieval Eras until bank drafts, paper money and the other 'symbolic' currencies came into play in the early Renaissance. Not having early access to Silver and/or Gold was a major problem for many states, while having ready access to them (Persian. Egyptian examples I gave earlier) provided all sorts of economic and diplomatic beenfits.

Besides the Persian and Egyptian examples - not to say how rich silver deposits around Athens helped it to become a major power - there is also a Chinese example of the importance of gold in the monetary economy:

East Asia don't have any large gold deposits, so China before 4th century in general relied on imported gold from Inner Asia (via Sogdians) for long-distance/bulk trading.
Then, the steppe people lived close to China proper revolted in 4th century, and the subsequent turmoil blocked the Inner Asian trade routes for about 2 centuries. As a result, gold completely dropped out from usage in China, the commercial activities nearly vanished, to the point which both steppe and Chinese people began to turn to bartering - rolls of silk and cloth became a common currency in this period.
The Sogdian traders eventually made a comeback to China in 5-6th century, and the dynasty that follows, Tang, began to flourish in commerce once again. (That's also why I kept arguing that Sogdia is an important civilization that deserves more representations.)

Well gold is already represented in the game as currency rather than as a resource. Although the game could abandon gold and have civs rely purely on a barter system, I think it's a fair concession to just presume every civ has access to a sort of metal currency called "gold." It's still a board game and some things just need to be simplified for the sake of preventing players from getting too bogged down with unfun hair-splitting and micromanagement.

Improved resources, both luxuries and bonus resources, can have a gold yield, which will be your major income of gold in the early game. In reality, improved gold and sliver deposits - gold and silver mines - were early civilizations' major income of coins/currencies. Therefore I would say the current source of gold in the game (at least in the early game) is already very close to reality, the only difference is the gold-yielding resources are not limited to actual gold ores.

If in the future civs games we can have Gold and Sliver as special strategic resources like iron or niter, which are the only source of gold (unless you begin to trade with others) - that can be interesting. It can be also tied to the "Economic Victory": without gold/sliver you cannot develop coinage, just like without iron or niter you cannot win an early/mid-game Domination Victory.

 

[Jeppetto]

Well gold is already represented in the game as currency rather than as a resource. Although the game could abandon gold and have civs rely purely on a barter system, I think it's a fair concession to just presume every civ has access to a sort of metal currency called "gold." It's still a board game and some things just need to be simplified for the sake of preventing players from getting too bogged down with unfun hair-splitting and micromanagement.

Or they could just rename it Economy If the yield's name should be abstract concept (like Production/Science/Culture) or Trade or Finance or Capital (though two of these could be confusing with existing mechanics and the other two are meh), so that the yield could remain as local development aspect (joining Food and Production) and would represent the financial situation unbound to specific metal.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Besides the Persian and Egyptian examples - not to say how rich silver deposits around Athens helped it to become a major power - there is also a Chinese example of the importance of gold in the monetary economy:

East Asia don't have any large gold deposits, so China before 4th century in general relied on imported gold from Inner Asia (via Sogdians) for long-distance/bulk trading.
Then, the steppe people lived close to China proper revolted in 4th century, and the subsequent turmoil blocked the Inner Asian trade routes for about 2 centuries. As a result, gold completely dropped out from usage in China, the commercial activities nearly vanished, to the point which both steppe and Chinese people began to turn to bartering - rolls of silk and cloth became a common currency in this period.
The Sogdian traders eventually made a comeback to China in 5-6th century, and the dynasty that follows, Tang, began to flourish in commerce once again. (That's also why I kept arguing that Sogdia is an important civilization that deserves more representations.)




Improved resources, both luxuries and bonus resources, can have a gold yield, which will be your major income of gold in the early game. In reality, improved gold and sliver deposits - gold and silver mines - were early civilizations' major income of coins/currencies. Therefore I would say the current source of gold in the game (at least in the early game) is already very close to reality, the only difference is the gold-yielding resources are not limited to actual gold ores.

If in the future civs games we can have Gold and Sliver as special strategic resources like iron or niter, which are the only source of gold (unless you begin to trade with others) - that can be interesting. It can be also tied to the "Economic Victory": without gold/sliver you cannot develop coinage, just like without iron or niter you cannot win an early/mid-game Domination Victory.

I see where you're going with this, where gold would remain a currency but gold improvements would better assist specifically in economic victories.

And while I can see having a dominant currency as a fair basis for an economic victory, at first blush I'm not sure if that's the best economic victory definition. Given that IV established victory through corporate dominance, and we are already seeing dilution of gold and silver standards by crypto currency, I just feel like merely holding gold improvements isn't quite enough. But it does come close?

Also, as an addendum to my previous observation, gold works great as a base mechanic currency in the same way as faith does. If I wanted to be more pedantic, I would insist on faith being given more nuance by distinguishing between religious faith, political faith, and consumer faith. But that only overcomplicates the game and deprives it of a basic unit of currency on which to build all of its other mechanics. As a matter of streamlining the entirety of human culture into basic components, the gold/faith/science/culture/food/production/energy/carbon/favor breakdown is in many aspects quite elegant. I don't see a compelling reason to mess with the basic components of the game without a much stronger upside.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I see where you're going with this, where gold would remain a currency but gold improvements would better assist specifically in economic victories.

And while I can see having a dominant currency as a fair basis for an economic victory, at first blush I'm not sure if that's the best economic victory definition. Given that IV established victory through corporate dominance, and we are already seeing dilution of gold and silver standards by crypto currency, I just feel like merely holding gold improvements isn't quite enough. But it does come close?

Also, as an addendum to my previous observation, gold works great as a base mechanic currency in the same way as faith does. If I wanted to be more pedantic, I would insist on faith being given more nuance by distinguishing between religious faith, political faith, and consumer faith. But that only overcomplicates the game and deprives it of a basic unit of currency on which to build all of its other mechanics. As a matter of streamlining the entirety of human culture into basic components, the gold/faith/science/culture/food/production/energy/carbon/favor breakdown is in many aspects quite elegant. I don't see a compelling reason to mess with the basic components of the game without a much stronger upside.

Most of the world's currency went off any metallic standard before World War Two, in the first third of the twentieth century. By the same token, horses became militarily unimportant by the end of World War Two (Fun Trivia Fact: in 1943 the Soviet cavalry force, at 230,000 mounted men, was the second largest cavalry force in history, after Genghis Khan's forces that invaded Kwarizhm) - but that doesn't mean that Horses as a resource are not important in the game - just that they are only important during certain (early) parts of the game - as is Gold and Silver as Enablers/Enhancers of Trade and Commerce in the form of Coinage.

This is even more important when the specific lack or abundance of these resources makes such a difference in game situations: lack of Horses in Classical/Medieval Eras requires the gamer (or AI) to compensate in some way. Lack of, or easy access to, Silver or Gold in the same Eras (and until the end of the Industrial Era, IRL) should also make a difference in the way you play the game, as it did to the 'Civs' in history.

No question, merely adding Gold as a Resource, and even making a direct connection between Gold and Silver Resources and Trade/Internal Revenue isn't enough to implement a 'real' Economic Victory mechanic. But, I think trying to have even a semi-realistic Economic Victory without Government and Non-Government Corporations and Trade Institutions (enter the VOC and 'John Company', US Steel, Fugger Bank and WMF) to be manipulated for Economic Advantage, and metallic coinage/currency to be manipulated as well, will result in a horribly bad model for any Economic Victory.

I've always looked upon 'Faith' as a shorthand for all kinds of religious, political, and cultural Belief and Expectation. There's no other way to justify using it to 'buy' or acquire all kinds of Great People (including some Extremely Un-Faith-Based Scientists and Generals!) - and various Non-Religious structures. In the same way, 'Gold' should be a shorthand for Economic Activity of all kinds, leading as Faith does to an Economic Victory Condition.