[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Birch617]

The Yupik could fill the Inuit civ slot

 

[Zaarin]

Everything below the LUA wasn't half-bad and could be useful.

I mean, I deliberately designed them to be so woefully underpowered that the only reason they'd survive to the endgame is because absolutely no one wants their land. Which is truth in fiction.

But a polar bear as a leader, while would be funny, wouldn't make sence...

Nanuq was an Inuit god. Since they didn't have leaders, rarely gathering in higher population densities than about twenty people and making decisions by consensus, you kinda have to go with a deity. Besides, the Inuit, if included, would be a novelty civ. Might as well lean into it. Hard.

The Yupik could fill the Inuit civ slot

The only thing the Inuit have going for them, which isn't much, is stretching from Alaska to Greenland. Even the Aleuts would be a better choice than the Yupik; at least they had sedentary villages and their impressively innovative ulas. Personally, while I think tundra civs don't make sense, I think something like the Evenks would make more sense than the Inuit. Their population is smaller, but they at least practiced a lifestyle more readily adaptable to the Civ model. (And they were distant cousins of the Manchus and Jurchens.)

 

[AaronTBD]

Is the date of the revealing the update official yet?

 

[8housesofelixir]

IMHO we can simply have an Inuit city-state which suzerain bonus is to provide an UI that can help your snow city survive, like a snow version of Nazca Lines. @Zaarin's +1 food +1 housing Igloo is an adequate example of snow-surviving UI.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Is the date of the revealing the update official yet?

No, but it’ll almost surely be next week, my guess is on tuesday.

I’m not sure whether we’ll have first looks that same week or if they’ll be the following week with the release the week of the 28th, but given the last three release dates, i think it’ll be the former

 

[SolInvictus]

IMHO we can simply have an Inuit city-state which suzerain bonus is to provide an UI that can help your snow city survive, like a snow version of Nazca Lines. @Zaarin's +1 food +1 housing Igloo is an adequate example of snow-surviving UI.

Nuuk is probably the best candidate since it is the capital of Greenland as well as the seat of the Inuit Circumpolar Council.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

The discussion in here by the way mostly revolves around that topic of historicity: This civ deserves to be in! If we have this many from here, we need this many from there as a counter-balance! we don't need this civ, because this other civ represents that culture or region!. See, how silly that sounds if I take away the names.

So true Let's look at this geographical balance issue. Considering it as a standalone factor is a blind alley. Geography is not fair. It rewards mild climate, access to fresh water etc. 1. we have different cultures and empires in the same region (Byzantines. Ottomans) 2. Only geographical census means Brazil is an equally good pick as the Inca Switzerland is en equally good as Germany etc. 3. Equal geographical census means we should get Siberian Civ ahead of second European one...
The good point mitsho made is there are a lot of factors deciding which Civilization appears in the game. Focusing on just one is useless. Regardless if it is geography, importance, time etc. And on top of that, we are skipping all design perspective.

 

[WillowBrook]

Is the date of the revealing the update official yet?

We know nothing official about timing. As said above, we'll likely see something the week of the 14th.

There is a hotfix related to cross-platform play coming in a few hours, but no one should confuse that with info about the next DLC.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

So true Let's look at this geographical balance issue. Considering it as a standalone factor is a blind alley. Geography is not fair. It rewards mild climate, access to fresh water etc. 1. we have different cultures and empires in the same region (Byzantines. Ottomans) 2. Only geographical census means Brazil is an equally good pick as the Inca Switzerland is en equally good as Germany etc. 3. Equal geographical census means we should get Siberian Civ ahead of second European one...
The good point mitsho made is there are a lot of factors deciding which Civilization appears in the game. Focusing on just one is useless. Regardless if it is geography, importance, time etc. And on top of that, we are skipping all design perspective.

I also think we shouldn’t just outright look over geographical locations. One reason why they might have prioritized Gran Colombia over Mexico or Argentina is because there were no civs in the game with that close of a proximity compared to the Aztecs and the Mapuche.

Now for certain regions such as Europe and the Middle East I don’t think geography at this point is obviously a factor at all anymore.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Nuuk is probably the best candidate since it is the capital of Greenland as well as the seat of the Inuit Circumpolar Council.

Iqaluit would also be appropriate

 

[AaronTBD]

Iqaluit would also be appropriate

Same with Qilakitsoq

 

[8housesofelixir]

To be honest: If a civilization/city/community/group of people has some really distinguishing features but still too meme to be a full civ, an interesting city-state can be a better choice. The suzerain bonuses of many current CS are kind of lackluster.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

To be honest: If a civilization/city/community/group of people has some really distinguishing features but still too meme to be a full civ, an interesting city-state can be a better choice. The suzerain bonuses of many current CS are kind of lackluster.

agree, and i think that’s especially appropriate for the inuit, who just wouldn’t make a good civ design

 

[AaronTBD]

What would a PNW civ like the Salish be?

 

[TeddyMain]

agree, and i think that’s especially appropriate for the inuit, who just wouldn’t make a good civ design

I keep hearing you say this but I've never seen you elaborate as to why they wouldn't make a good civ design (to my knowledge). Could you explain as to why?

(Not trying to be rude or condescending or anything like that, I'm just curious).

 

[utahbutmakeitatheist]

Since they didn't have leaders

To get around this, when I made my design for an Inuit civ I made them more modern, putting them under Uyaquq. To go with this, I made them focused around culture, especially great works of literature, and added in some more religious stuff too since that was such an important part of their society.

why they wouldn't make a good civ design (to my knowledge). Could you explain as to why?

I don't think it's so much that it would never be able to work, but that it's kinda a stretch to make them make sense. If cards were played correctly they could definitely work but there just isn't much to go off of to make them cohesive and actually match with the real Inuit civilization that would be strong.

 

[gunnergoz]

Would a culture like the Lapps or Sami as they are also called, be interesting to anyone? I would love to see a "nomadic herder" culture kind of like we saw in Civ V IIRC.

 

[Zaarin]

I keep hearing you say this but I've never seen you elaborate as to why they wouldn't make a good civ design (to my knowledge). Could you explain as to why?

They didn't have cities. They rarely gathered in bands larger than 20 or so. They made decisions by consensus without leaders. Technologically they were among the most primitive people on Earth: no agriculture, no domestication beyond dogs, not even bows and arrows until they were introduced by the Athabaskans. They simply don't fit the Civilization model of "build cities, advance technologically, etc." It's not a value judgment or slight against the Inuit: they just don't fit the model. That's why I said that if they were included they'd be a novelty civ, because any design is going to be highly fanciful at best.

To get around this, when I made my design for an Inuit civ I made them more modern, putting them under Uyaquq. To go with this, I made them focused around culture, especially great works of literature, and added in some more religious stuff too since that was such an important part of their society.

I don't think leaders have to be official heads of state, but I do think they ought to be people who had some form of power. Even Gandhi and Victoria satisfy this basic litmus test, even if both civs have better options. That's why I'm skeptical when people propose Sequoya for the Cherokee or (what is probably the worst proposal I've seen for the game) Pocahontas for the Powhatan. Of course, unlike the Inuit, both the Cherokee and the Powhatan have better options--like Attakullakulla and Powhatan, respectively.

Would a culture like the Lapps or Sami as they are also called, be interesting to anyone? I would love to see a "nomadic herder" culture kind of like we saw in Civ V IIRC.

Civ just isn't the game to adequately portray pastoral transhumanists or hunter-gatherers. That's why even Scythia comes across as kitschy.

 

[utahbutmakeitatheist]

I don't think leaders have to be official heads of state, but I do think they ought to be people who had some form of power

Very true. I just wanted to force it to work and he is someone who massively helped to make the Inuit well known in the rest of North America and helped teach us the language which led to much more knowledge about the Inuit & Arctic Native groups (albeit not being a straight-up Inuit himself)
P.S. please take the entire idea of Pocahontas leading the Powhatan as far away from this game as possible

 

[gunnergoz]

They didn't have cities. They rarely gathered in bands larger than 20 or so. They made decisions by consensus without leaders. Technologically they were among the most primitive people on Earth: no agriculture, no domestication beyond dogs, not even bows and arrows until they were introduced by the Athabaskans. They simply don't fit the Civilization model of "build cities, advance technologically, etc." It's not a value judgment or slight against the Inuit: they just don't fit the model. That's why I said that if they were included they'd be a novelty civ, because any design is going to be highly fanciful at best.


I don't think leaders have to be official heads of state, but I do think they ought to be people who had some form of power. Even Gandhi and Victoria satisfy this basic litmus test, even if both civs have better options. That's why I'm skeptical when people propose Sequoya for the Cherokee or (what is probably the worst proposal I've seen for the game) Pocahontas for the Powhatan. Of course, unlike the Inuit, both the Cherokee and the Powhatan have better options--like Attakullakulla and Powhatan, respectively.


Civ just isn't the game to adequately portray pastoral transhumanists or hunter-gatherers. That's why even Scythia comes across as kitschy.

I disagree. I think that a land equivalent to the Maori would work if it was allowed to wander and prosper until it found the right spot to settle and create a capital.