[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[raen]

Just to "spice" things up
Feitorias were simply like a fort to ensure the trading route in foreign terrain, it means that no other could use that trade route or in other words others could not trade a luxury from that city-state. But it was a "duo" work, Naus took the cargo and also defended the position, for the start they ensured the first position, putting the city-state into a hard choice: "or you accept that we control the trade route and install feitoria, or naus will fire". With all that Portugal had the many coastal trade routes for themselves and other European powers did not like that at all, Portugal was only defeated by Dutch and English, when they came later with bigger naval power.

 

[Jeppetto]

Something along the lines of: Cities can buy a tile four hexes out at a very high gold cost (how high exactly I don't know), and work such hexes. (I also considered the possibility of letting cities culturally claim such tiles, but I ruled it out, so it's just gold now).

They already can culturally claim such tiles as cultural expansion may reach up to 5 tiles from a city

Why? Because, don't you ever have those times where you have some juicy resources four hexes away from one of your cities, and it is either impossible, too awkward, or not worth it to settle another city just to grab that resource? Happens to me all the time, especially with water resources. So this is just something I've been considering.

If it's not working the yields but just the resource you want (Luxury/Strategic), you can already do that. As I said above, city may claim culturally tiles up to 5 hexes away. Even when not worked, Luxuries and Strategic Resources will be "added into your inventory" when improved, even when out of range of workability of any of your cities.

 

[AntSou]

all that Portugal had the many coastal trade routes for themselves and other European powers did not like that at all,

What European powers? The cape route broke the Ottoman/Mamluk controlled monopoly. European monarchs were plenty happy with that. Even relationships with Spain were positive at the time, considering. The only real European antagonist to Portuguese influence in the East was Venice.

Other than Venice, it was the Ottomans, Mamluks and a handful of Indian rulers (can't remember which) which were the main losers of the opening of a new route. Although the Ottomans were the ones who gained the most from Mamluk decadence, so things turned alright for them as well.

 

[raen]

What European powers? The cape route broke the Ottoman/Mamluk controlled monopoly. European monarchs were plenty happy with that. Even relationships with Spain were positive at the time, considering. The only real European antagonist to Portuguese influence in the East was Venice.

Other than Venice, it was the Ottomans, Mamluks and a handful of Indian rulers (can't remember which) which were the main losers of the opening of a new route. Although the Ottomans were the ones who gained the most from Mamluk decadence, so things turned alright for them as well.

At start Venice yes. Mainly Dutch and English, but many years later, when the Portuguese King was Spain´s king, and Dutch and English were enemies of Spain.

Yes, forgot about the other powers as well, that many were already installed, I was focused more on naval power.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Thank god they didn’t pick Atahualpa, although Arpad and Roxelana would’ve been really cool, and imo, Honga Hika would’ve been an even better choice

I agree with everything except Roxelana.

I'm glad they didn't go with her. After she was basically disconfirmed as a leader due to the other leak, many people thought she would be Suleiman's unique governor, which to me was just as bad.

Also I found the info. The Maori leader was supposedly Tawhiao in that leak, not Honga Hika. Also in there was Colombia with Simon Bolivar and Mansa Musa for Mali, who we already have, along with Anawrahta for Burma and Midgegooroo for the Noongar.
Phoenicia, Canada and Sweden weren't in the first one.

 

[SMcM]

I agree with everything except Roxelana.

I'm glad they didn't go with her. After she was basically disconfirmed as a leader due to the other leak, many people thought she would be Suleiman's unique governor, which to me was just as bad.

Also I found the info. The Maori leader was supposedly Tawhiao in that leak, not Honga Hika. Also in there was Colombia with Simon Bolivar and Mansa Musa for Mali, who we already have, along with Anawrahta for Burma and Midgegooroo for the Noongar.
Phoenicia, Canada and Sweden weren't in the first one.

This is from a leak for Gathering Storm? I suppose that's got to mean some aboriginal civ is a real possibility in the future then if Noongar was under consideration. And regarding Roxelana- might Kösem Sultan who actually ruled as regent might be a better choice if they were going in that direction?

 

[bite]

This is from a leak for Gathering Storm? I suppose that's got to mean some aboriginal civ is a real possibility in the future then if Noongar was under consideration. And regarding Roxelana- might Kösem Sultan who actually ruled as regent might be a better choice if they were going in that direction?

It was from a "leak" than mostly panned out to be incorrect, so I would not give it much weight, though that being said I would like the Noongar in the game

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

This is from a leak for Gathering Storm? I suppose that's got to mean some aboriginal civ is a real possibility in the future then if Noongar was under consideration. And regarding Roxelana- might Kösem Sultan who actually ruled as regent might be a better choice if they were going in that direction?

I don't think the Noongar were under consideration at all considering Burma also didn't, doesn't appear, to be happening either.

The only correct thing they got right 100% was Mansa Musa for Mali and Eleanor, though they mentioned she was for either England or France, and not both.

The second leak was 100% correct though.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Let us please stay away from the Gathering Storm "leaks". We do not need to stir up that hornet's nest again.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Anawrahta leading Burma would be pretty great, but I do think that Bayinnaung makes more sense to distinguish Burma from Khmer and India. Burma could still have a faith/gold paya basis in its civ uniques separate from Bayinnaung's domination bias.

So far, of the "big" modern nations, we only have Canada and Mexico being represented by multiple civs (Canada/Cree, Aztec/Maya). Historically, America has also been divided among native tribes. Elsewhere in the world, we have Brazil, Russia, China, Australia, and debateably India being very large, multicultural territories represented by a single civ. Perhaps that is VI's default plan, although the cramming of the Cree up in Canada makes every other modern power feel painted with too broad a brush.

If we had to have the Cree (or Canada), I would have preferred if the game's long term planning would have accommodated other equivalents. Tupi/Guarani in Brazil, Tibetans in China, Sakha in Russia, Chola in India, and, yes the Noongar in Australia. That is really where my desire to have the Noongar stems, not directly because the Australian continent needed a second civ but that it feels wrong to make an exception for Canada. (and, in a quite related way, that we have two civs crammed up in the British Isles, and Macedon separate from Greece or Persia). Even if we did fill all the map-gaps (Maghreb, Swahili Coast, Burma, etc.), I would still be slightly put out that the devs couldn't finish what they started in representing very large ethnic minorities.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

So far, of the "big" modern nations, we only have Canada and Mexico being represented by multiple civs (Canada/Cree, Aztec/Maya). Historically, America has also been divided among native tribes. Elsewhere in the world, we have Brazil, Russia, China, Australia, and debateably India being very large, multicultural territories represented by a single civ. Perhaps that is VI's default plan, although the cramming of the Cree up in Canada makes every other modern power feel painted with too broad a brush.

If we had to have the Cree (or Canada), I would have preferred if the game's long term planning would have accommodated other equivalents. Tupi/Guarani in Brazil, Tibetans in China, Sakha in Russia, Chola in India, and, yes the Noongar in Australia. That is really where my desire to have the Noongar stems, not directly because the Australian continent needed a second civ but that it feels wrong to make an exception for Canada. (and, in a quite related way, that we have two civs crammed up in the British Isles, and Macedon separate from Greece or Persia). Even if we did fill all the map-gaps (Maghreb, Swahili Coast, Burma, etc.), I would still be slightly put out that the devs couldn't finish what they started in representing very large ethnic minorities.

I know they don't encompass the same land area but I feel like they purposefully did the Maori and the Mapuche to represent another indigenous people in the respective areas, Oceania and South America, without the need to overlap geographically with Australia or Brazil, and I'm fine with that.

Some of those that you mentioned can't be implemented anyway including the Noongar, Tibet, and realistically I don't see the Chola happening as long as we have a civ called India.

The Americas, especially North America, really just easier to put in native tribes alongside the modern nations, or exclusively. At least the main center of the Cree homeland is in central/western Canada and away from Ottawa.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I’ve been reading into the aboriginal taboo of the dead to find out about how inappropriate, if at all, a civ for an aboriginal tribe would be to the peoples that they chose.

Now, I’ve been busy so as of yet I haven’t gotten past wikipedia and other collective sources which aren’t academic in nature, but it seems to me that the aboriginal taboo on the deadis two-fold: a) the dead’s names have a “cool down period” where they’re mentioned through euphemisms like “Whats his name”. You don’t specifically mention the dead’s name, and based on the fame and prestige of the person, the cool-down time differs and b) you’re never supposed to directly touch the dead

I can’t find anything about depicting the dead, at least for the aboriginal australians as a collective, although I’d assume that the specific misconception regarding depicting the dead stemmed from probably some specific aboriginal group being opposed to depicting the dead.

Being against depicting the dead could also be a cover for simply not wanting to be in the game.

But provided the leader chosen has been dead for an extended period of time (past the taboo cool down period) my guess is if the devs wanted to, and the Anangu or Noongar agreed, we could do an Aboriginal Australian civ.

 

[Zaarin]

Thank god they didn’t pick Atahualpa

He was an absolutely horrible ruler, but I'm not going to lie he'd be entertaining--except drinking from his brother's gilt skull would probably up the ratings.

So I've been thinking about this and in this vein, here's a possible civ ability/leader ability I've been thinking of, but I can't think of which civ it could apply to. I just like the idea in general.

Something along the lines of: Cities can buy a tile four hexes out at a very high gold cost (how high exactly I don't know), and work such hexes. (I also considered the possibility of letting cities culturally claim such tiles, but I ruled it out, so it's just gold now).

Why? Because, don't you ever have those times where you have some juicy resources four hexes away from one of your cities, and it is either impossible, too awkward, or not worth it to settle another city just to grab that resource? Happens to me all the time, especially with water resources. So this is just something I've been considering.

Large tracts of land for Portugal doesn't make sense. They were more interested in trade than colonization, and their trade posts never penetrated into the interior anywhere except Brazil--and even in Brazil it took them a very long time to do so. The only other place they even tried was Angola, and in Angola they were resoundingly rebuffed.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Large tracts of land for Portugal doesn't make sense. They were more interested in trade than colonization, and their trade posts never penetrated into the interior anywhere except Brazil--and even in Brazil it took them a very long time to do so. The only other place they even tried was Angola, and in Angola they were resoundingly rebuffed.

Which is why I was thinking they should get bonuses for acquiring water tiles and make those tiles more useful for them, like yielding science because of there achievements in nautical science. Portugal's whole idea was controlling the world's ocean/maritime trade routes anyway.

That would also be a good agenda for them unless you want to make it the exploration one. It would also differentiate it from Dido.
"We are the masters of the ocean."

 

[Zaarin]

Which is why I was thinking they should get bonuses for acquiring water tiles and make those tiles more useful for them, like yielding science because of there achievements in nautical science. Portugal's whole idea was controlling the world's ocean/maritime trade routes anyway.

I'm not sure about science bonuses--since the Portuguese derived most of their nautical technology from the Arabs and Genoans--or about Coast bonuses--since what the Portuguese wanted (slaves, gold, spices, dyes, sugar) came from the land. I'd give them bonuses to maritime trade routes and Plantations (as un-PC as that is), personally. Though, given their propensity to settle on islands (given that islands are easier to control than mainland coastline), I suppose it could be a somewhat game-y incentive to colonize small islands...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm not sure about science bonuses--since the Portuguese derived most of their nautical technology from the Arabs and Genoans--or about Coast bonuses--since what the Portuguese wanted (slaves, gold, spices, dyes, sugar) came from the land. I'd give them bonuses to maritime trade routes and Plantations (as un-PC as that is), personally. Though, given their propensity to settle on islands (given that islands are easier to control than mainland coastline), I suppose it could be a somewhat game-y incentive to colonize small islands...

I agree about the maritime trade routes and exploration being the main focus. The science from water tiles is something a little extra considering they are most likely going to settle along the coast anyway.

I was just thinking of something to differentiate them from the many other civs that already do that like Phoenicia and Indonesia which already has the wanting to settle islands agenda.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I know they don't encompass the same land area but I feel like they purposefully did the Maori and the Mapuche to represent another indigenous people in the respective areas, Oceania and South America, without the need to overlap geographically with Australia or Brazil, and I'm fine with that.

I would too be fine with this, but-for the Cree/Canada thing we have going on.

Some of those that you mentioned can't be implemented anyway including the Noongar, Tibet, and realistically I don't see the Chola happening as long as we have a civ called India.

Well, I was thinking about it more semantically after an earlier conversation with @Thenewwwguy, and I think the Chola could actually squeeze by as separate from India. Maybe.

Let's take another example: Spain. The name Hispania is far older than the distinctions of a unified Spain or separate Portugal, and refers to the entire Iberian peninsula. Indeed, under Philip II, Portugal was under the Spanish crown in what was called the Iberian Union for about sixty years. If it came down to it, Spain as it is represented in VI could vicariously incorporate and represent Portugal, but it seems very likely that Portugal will be split off like it always has. Portugal is "Hispanic," but still has a long enough history of being independent that it could justify being split off from Spain in the same way Macedon is separate from Greece and Nubia is separate from Egypt.

Now, look at India. The term India specifically refers to people of the Indus valley, geographically centering the idea of Indian nationalism in northern and central India. So, too, does the term "Hindi" (the most spoken language) derive from "India," linguistically referring to the same Indo-Aryan region. Of the major empires which ruled India prior to British rule, the Maurya, the Kushans, the Guptas, the Harshas, the Delhi Sultanate, the Mughals, the Marathas, only a brief period under Tughlaq dynasty ever seemed to conquer any significant portion of Dravidian India, and quickly lost it. The Tamil kingdoms generally went uninterrupted from 600 BCE through 1700. It was only around the turn of the 18th century that they were conquered and incorporated into the British Empire, so they have only been part of "unified India" for barely two centuries, and only part of a unified independent India for about as long as the Iberian Union. But Tamilakam was never really associated with the majority of the Indian subcontinent, the "Indus valley" civilizations, until conquest by the British; but for colonization they probably would never have been incorporated into "India" by native Indian empires. As a matter of distinguishing the two, I don't think it's quite wrong to say that including a Tamil empire against a "British Raj" India stands up semantically about as well as including Portugal juxtaposed against "Spain" represented by the Iberian Union (or, to a lesser extent, Scotland juxtaposed against the British Empire or Nubia against Ptolemaic Egypt).

 

[Jeppetto]

Not sure If I've already mentoined this, or If someone else mentoined this (my "wonderful" memory), or whether it would fit Portugal, but an ability where you may only settle your own cities on your Continent whereas cities founded on foerign Continent turn into City-State, would be nice addition. One of those questionably balanceable stuff but unique playstyle non-the-less and it would be non-corporation way of introducing newly spawned CS in later game. Alternatively it could be special faction (alongside Barbarians and Separatists from Free Cities). So basically Civ that gets huge benefits from International Trade, gives huge benefits to others when trading with them and in order to snowball (you get the benefits but not the other major civs), you basically create cities for the sake of the international tarde routes without actually trading with competition.

 

[Zaarin]

Not sure If I've already mentoined this, or If someone else mentoined this (my "wonderful" memory), or whether it would fit Portugal, but an ability where you may only settle your own cities on your Continent whereas cities founded on foerign Continent turn into City-State, would be nice addition. One of those questionably balanceable stuff but unique playstyle non-the-less and it would be non-corporation way of introducing newly spawned CS in later game. Alternatively it could be special faction (alongside Barbarians and Separatists from Free Cities). So basically Civ that gets huge benefits from International Trade, gives huge benefits to others when trading with them and in order to snowball (you get the benefits but not the other major civs), you basically create cities for the sake of the international tarde routes without actually trading with competition.

This does a pretty good job of representing the puppet kingdoms that Portugal fostered in Africa, but those had a tendency to backfire on them--after a few generations in Kongo and almost immediately in Angola, for example. I also wonder about the balance of this...I think the previous suggestion of treating a Feitoria like a luxury-leaching Vampire Castle while simultaneously counting as a Trading Post for maritime trade routes might work better in the long run.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

But Tamilakam was never really associated with the majority of the Indian subcontinent, the "Indus valley" civilizations, until conquest by the British; but for colonization they probably would never have been incorporated into "India" by native Indian empires. As a matter of distinguishing the two, I don't think it's quite wrong to say that including a Tamil empire against a "British Raj" India stands up semantically about as well as including Portugal juxtaposed against "Spain" represented by the Iberian Union (or, to a lesser extent, Scotland juxtaposed against the British Empire or Nubia against Ptolemaic Egypt).

Or even Macedon/Greece for that matter, with Greece acting as the overarching cultural entity and Macedon as a politically unique, mechanically differentiated civ with enough to justify it as a separate civilizations. The Chola would be in line with those differentiations, and would only cost India Thanjavur on their city list, since most cities on India’s city list are either north indian, founded by the british, or both.

Not sure If I've already mentoined this, or If someone else mentoined this (my "wonderful" memory), or whether it would fit Portugal, but an ability where you may only settle your own cities on your Continent whereas cities founded on foerign Continent turn into City-State, would be nice addition.

I imagined that a personal ability for Rajendra Chola would go something like this, as he conquered Pala Bengal, Kalinga and Srivijaya, but left them as independent vassal states. Perhaps you have the option to turn a conquered city into a commercial city state with you as suzerain?