IIRC we have discussed in this thread before, that a "dynasty" mechanism, if technically possible, would be a great addition to the game.
Edit: Also, what's the design choice behind the separation of leader ability and civ ability? Because as of now, besides Greece/England/France/India/Persona Packs, we don't really have a lot of civ/leader designs taking advantage of this mechanic.
IIRC we have discussed in this thread before, that a "dynasty" mechanism, if technically possible, would be a great addition to the game.
Edit: Also, what's the design choice behind the separation of leader ability and civ ability? Because as of now, besides Greece/England/France/India/Persona Packs, we don't really have a lot of civ/leader designs taking advantage of this mechanic.
They originally said they designed it this way to make it a tool for mainly modders who could easily insert other leaders for existing civs in the game or make different leaders for modded civs.
Byzantium is literally the continuity of the Roman Empire (they called themselves Romans, people at this time considered them the true continuity of Rome);
They literally shared the same capital city as the Ottomans, a civ already in the game;
They were of Greek culture, a civ already represented with two leaders, another civ and a Ptolemaic leader, adding another token in the Hellenistic rooster;
They'd be once again an expansionnist civ with nothing really new in term of mechanics in the game;
Every single point here except the second is debatable. The Sultanate of Rum, the Holy Roman Empire, Francia, and Russia also called themselves Roman and considered themselves the true continuity of Rome. From a historical perspective, the Roman Catholic Church probably has the best argument. "Rome" just meant "civilized empire" to most people. The Byzantines were indeed Greek, and I think that's the biggest argument against them--but at least they weren't Classical. I can't fathom designing them to be expansionist, though; if anything they spent the bulk of their existence on the defensive. They'd be a religious/commercial civ, surely; if anything Georgia and Mali infringe on them more than Rome or Greece from a design perspective.
I don't know about you, but I haven't seen a single person ask for Theodora--in fact, the overwhelming consensus seems to be for Alexios I Komnenos or Basil II. For my part the only reason I wouldn't want them is if they're being led by Theodora again.
Calling them broadly [having] same land and culture is a bit of a stretch and untrue though, most of them even have different seats of power, developing from different parts of the land, or the fact that they had different values. That kind of thought, is exactly why we are having the watered-down, vanilla and plain civs such as China, India, and Arabia.
It's not a stretch really. It's a simplification, sure. But those dynasties can easily be seen as continuity of the same 'nation' in the case of China (India is less clear). It isn't comparable to Europe at all- France and Britain have historically often been rival states that have existed for many centuries alongside each other, whilst (with periods that are exceptions), for the most part in China one dynasty replaced another ruling the same land. And by the 'same culture' thing I refer to their populations, not the culture of the ruling class.
India can certainly be split up, I wouldn't dispute that at all. But with China I'd rather they had a decent range of alternative leaders. It isn't equivalent to Roman and Byzantines, those ultimately ended up 2 detached empires, with the eastern part outlasting the original empire by many centuries.
to be fair, Indonesia isn’t too bad because it’s pretty clearly just a Majapahit civ (the way Persia is pretty obviously just an Achaemenid civ), it just takes up any future design space for a civ like Srivijaya, or Kingdom of Bali.
Civ6 portrayal of Indonesia is kinda a mess tbh. It's basically a Majapahit Civ with a Majapahit leader who speaks an early modern form of Javanese which would only come to reality centuries after her time, and the cherry on top is the capital city is called as Majapahit instead of Trowulan, which there was never existed a city called Majapahit. It's kinda trying so hard to be and not to be both ancient Majapahit and modern Indonesia.
It's not a stretch really. It's a simplification, sure. But those dynasties can easily be seen as continuity of the same 'nation' in the case of China (India is less clear). It isn't comparable to Europe at all- France and Britain have historically often been rival states that have existed for many centuries alongside each other, whilst (with periods that are exceptions), for the most part in China one dynasty replaced another ruling the same land. And by the 'same culture' thing I refer to their populations, not the culture of the ruling class.
India can certainly be split up, I wouldn't dispute that at all. But with China I'd rather they had a decent range of alternative leaders. It isn't equivalent to Roman and Byzantines, those ultimately ended up 2 detached empires, with the eastern part outlasting the original empire by many centuries.
Sure yeah, if only there was a Dynasty mechanics in Civ6 then it can almost accurately represents China and the concept of Mandate of Heaven which actually passed on from one dynasty to the next.
Civ6 portrayal of Indonesia is kinda a mess tbh. It's basically a Majapahit Civ with a Majapahit leader who speaks an early modern form of Javanese which would only come to reality centuries after her time, and the cherry on top is the capital city is called as Majapahit instead of Trowulan, which there was never existed a city called Majapahit. It's kinda trying so hard to be and not to be both ancient Majapahit and modern Indonesia.
I'm a mainland SE Asia expert, not island, but if I've got it right:
Trowulan is the modern name for the place.
Majapahit was the name for the area surrounding the place, a word also used to refer to the capital.
Wilwatikta, the name of the urban center there.
I'm a mainland SE Asia expert, not island, but if I've got it right:
Trowulan is the modern name for the place.
Majapahit was the name for the area surrounding the place, a word also used to refer to the capital.
Wilwatikta, the name of the urban center there.
Sure yeah, if only there was a Dynasty mechanics in Civ6 then it can almost accurately represents China and the concept of Mandate of Heaven which actually passed on from one dynasty to the next.
If it is under the current mechanism, we can have civ-specific golden age bonuses instead. For instance Spain will have a military dedication if having a Medieval GA, replaced by exploration, culture, and religious dedications if having a Renaissance GA/HA.
If Eastern Rome has bonuses towards building massive cities then I will definitely want to play them. Another religious civilization would be god awful, as they rarely are intuitive whatsoever with few exceptions like the Khmer. If the Eastern Romans have an alternate leader, it would be cool to see them lead greece as well and see how that plays out.
The only way I would be okay with Theodora returning would be as a governor for Justinian. I did not like her portrayal in Civ 5 and I doubt I would like her in 6. ‘Byzantium’ in 5 is one of the most glaring issues with the game in terms of portrayal - watered down, meek, and boring.
I object to the notion that the order of inclusion denotes any kind of prioritization.
No matter if you examine the base game, the original set of DLC or either expansion, they're all a mixture of classic historical empires and smaller cultures, fan favorites and new surprises.
If some obscure kingdom is introduced before some mega empire, it doesn't mean Firaxis's priorities are out of whack. It's a reflection of trying to get a good mix of new things, diverse things, things with high market appeal, and things that work well with the mechanics. They save some for later, to sell in the next content push. It's probably that way with NFP.
I object to the notion that the order of inclusion denotes any kind of prioritization.
No matter if you examine the base game, the original set of DLC or either expansion, they're all a mixture of classic historical empires and smaller cultures, fan favorites and new surprises.
If some obscure kingdom is introduced before some mega empire, it doesn't mean Firaxis's priorities are out of whack. It's a reflection of trying to get a good mix of new things, diverse things, things with high market appeal, and things that work well with the mechanics. They save some for later, to sell in the next content push. It's probably that way with NFP.
that’s not necessarily what i was suggesting but rather the fact that both say, a more unnecessary european civ like Scotland and a world power like Byzantines were added while asian powerhouses like the Chola, Mughals and Timurids are still absent denotes a poor sense of prioritization.
If Firaxis really wanted to add Scotland, it would feel apt to include empires of relatively more importance, especially in other regions of the world.
Therefore my use of terminology like before and after isn’t meant to be chronological but more in terms of denoting relative priority: Scotland, Poland, Hungary, Sweden all deserve to be in civ, but shouldn’t be in a civ game which lacks a number of empires both within and without Europe which were relatively more important.
that’s not necessarily what i was suggesting but rather the fact that both say, a more unnecessary european civ like Scotland and a world power like Byzantines were added while asian powerhouses like the Chola, Mughals and Timurids are still absent denotes a poor sense of prioritization.
If Firaxis really wanted to add Scotland, it would feel apt to include empires of relatively more importance, especially in other regions of the world.
Therefore my use of terminology like before and after isn’t meant to be chronological but more in terms of denoting relative priority: Scotland, Poland, Hungary, Sweden all deserve to be in civ, but shouldn’t be in a civ game which lacks a number of empires both within and without Europe which were relatively more important.
Scotland might not be as important in the grand scheme of things bug if it’s supposed to represent the Celts, who have been in the game since Civ 2, I don’t see the need to at least downplay its inclusion.
Now the debate of whether Scotland should have been over Ireland or Gaul is different and one of them could easily have came in R&F. But would we be having the same discussion if Gaul got in over the Chola or the Timurids?
Scotland might not be as important in the grand scheme of things bug if it’s supposed to represent the Celts, who have been in the game since Civ 2, I don’t see the need to at least downplay its inclusion.
Now the debate of whether Scotland should have been over Ireland or Gaul is different and one of them could easily have came in R&F. But would we be having the same discussion if Gaul got in over the Chola or the Timurids?
gauls are an interesting case cuz they had a lot of importance in early european development
I criticize scotland bcs regardless of its intent, it’s ultimately a poor stand in for celtic culture. If Gauls or Ireland were the rep and they were done fairly well, I would criticize them less, although I might still think that there are a number of non-European civs that are relatively more essential to civ.
Yeah, Comanche and Navajo would best fit this criteria--with the additional criterion that Firaxis are most likely avoiding the Puebloan peoples, otherwise I'd also suggest the Zuni and Hopi might work, and assuming "western or southern" means "southwestern." Read more literally as "western OR southern," I'd also add any of the Creek/Cherokee/Choctaw/Chickasaw would fit the criteria well, as would the Nez Perce (city list might or might not be a problem for them--but they did have permanent encampments, I believe). My other favorite, the Powhatan, might be a challenge on flavorful uniques, but it would fit all the other criteria well.
Yeah, Comanche and Navajo would best fit this criteria--with the additional criterion that Firaxis are most likely avoiding the Puebloan peoples, otherwise I'd also suggest the Zuni and Hopi might work, and assuming "western or southern" means "southwestern." Read more literally as "western OR southern," I'd also add any of the Creek/Cherokee/Choctaw/Chickasaw would fit the criteria well, as would the Nez Perce (city list might or might not be a problem for them--but they did have permanent encampments, I believe). My other favorite, the Powhatan, might be a challenge on flavorful uniques, but it would fit all the other criteria well.
Yeah, Comanche and Navajo would best fit this criteria--with the additional criterion that Firaxis are most likely avoiding the Puebloan peoples, otherwise I'd also suggest the Zuni and Hopi might work, and assuming "western or southern" means "southwestern." Read more literally as "western OR southern," I'd also add any of the Creek/Cherokee/Choctaw/Chickasaw would fit the criteria well, as would the Nez Perce (city list might or might not be a problem for them--but they did have permanent encampments, I believe). My other favorite, the Powhatan, might be a challenge on flavorful uniques, but it would fit all the other criteria well.
Speaking of Cherokee, IIRC they created a semi-independent constitutional republic with well-established institutions by their own even before the removal. The Hawaiians had accomplished similar achievements - they were still largely a tribal alliance under Kamehameha I, but by the time of Kamehameha III, less than half a century later, they became a constitutional monarchy which went though a massive land reform.
I was always fascinated by these "speedy" modernization process conducted by the indigenous people as they are really, really uncommon, and wonder if accomplishments like these can be represented as an in-game civ ability - for instance, the ability to rush though the civic tree when behind the world era.
Speaking of Cherokee, IIRC they created a semi-independent constitutional republic with well-established institutions by their own even before the removal. The Hawaiians had accomplished similar achievements - they were still largely a tribal alliance under Kamehameha I, but by the time of Kamehameha III, less than half a century later, they became a constitutional monarchy which went though a massive land reform.
I was always fascinated by these "speedy" modernization process conducted by the indigenous people as they are really, really uncommon, and wonder if accomplishments like these can be represented as an in-game civ ability - for instance, the ability to rush though the civic tree when behind the world era.
My problem with the Comanche would be that they would be another Plains horse raider that’s already been do e, no matter how influential or powerful they were.
Others have mentioned the Navajo or PNW tribes that built toyem poles which would be cultures not really yet explored.
Speaking of Cherokee, IIRC they created a semi-independent constitutional republic with well-established institutions by their own even before the removal. The Hawaiians had accomplished similar achievements - they were still largely a tribal alliance under Kamehameha I, but by the time of Kamehameha III, less than half a century later, they became a constitutional monarchy which went though a massive land reform.
I was always fascinated by these "speedy" modernization process conducted by the indigenous people as they are really, really uncommon, and wonder if accomplishments like these can be represented as an in-game civ ability - for instance, the ability to rush though the civic tree when behind the world era.
The Hawaiians aren’t considered Native Americans though. They are part of the wider Polynesian culture as Hawaii isn’t considered part of North America yet it being a current state in the US.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
![Andrew Johnson [FXS]](https://civfanatics-data.community.forum/avatars/m/326/326908.jpg?1589646534){kind=avatar}
