[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

If you have to name just three Civilizations you want in a game, who would it be?
My list: Venice, Berber/Morocco, Siam

In addition to what we already have?

Definitely Bulgaria (wayyyy better than Macedon). If the Gauls and Byzantium were justifiable on top of what we already had, we definitely have space for Bulgaria.

Also Burma (hits a nice sweet spot between Tibet and Chola, both of which seem unlikely this time around). Also Southeast Asia is horribly represented.

And then something from Arabic Africa. Either Morocco/Berbers or Oman/Swahili.

Though at this point it seems quite likely that we'll just get Assyria, Babylon, and the Hittites, because that's all anyone wants. :P
 
Well at the moment Anatolia has Greek, Persian, Macedonian, Ottoman, and presumable Byzantine cities ... it is full

You're saying this because mapping Anatolia is already hell for you, isn't it?
 
Well at the moment Anatolia has Greek, Persian, Macedonian, Ottoman, and presumable Byzantine cities ... it is full
That's probably why we didn't get Galatia.
 
Well at the moment Anatolia has Greek, Persian, Macedonian, Ottoman, and presumable Byzantine cities ... it is full

If we can have a dynamic city name system in the future then that will be less a problem.

But as for now, I think we are going to see a city named Istanbul and another city named Constantinople sitting next to each other in a game. Which is quite amusing.
 
But as for now, I think we are going to see a city named Istanbul and another city named Constantinople sitting next to each other in a game. Which is quite amusing.
That's nobody's business but the Turks'. :mischief:
 
Oh, and it also kind of explains that why the Ottoman capital is currently named "Istanbul", when IRL they still called it as "Constantinople" for a long time.
 
I noticed that as well. But the unit appears to use the Spearman as a base for the models. I think it's either an anti-cav warrior replacement or a Spearman, but Gaul starts with them instead of Warriors.

Hetairoi replaces Horseman, the light cavalry, but is heavy cavalry itself.
So we have precedent for possible class conversion UU.
 
Oh, and it also kind of explains that why the Ottoman capital is currently named "Istanbul", when IRL they still called it as "Constantinople" for a long time.

I believe it only became Istanbul after the Empire ended and Ataturk took the reins, but I am not 100% certain.
 
While we all know that the first first look comes later today (it's thursday here), I'll just report that there is a privated video in NFR playlist.
 
I'd rather not have Fidel in Civilization. The people in the first world who haven't experienced a military dictatorship seems confused enough about his awfulness as it is, no need to glorify him.

Anyway. It seems that none of the Civs in Sept update have a female leader, that leaves the two solo civs (assuming Vietnam is coming)

I'm placing my bets they're either Cherokee under Nanyehi or the Assyrians under Semiramis.
 
Last edited:
I'd rather not have Fidel in Civilization. The people in the first world who hasn't experienced a military dictatorship seems confused enough about his awfulness as it is, no need to glorify him.

Anyway. It seems that none of the Civs in Sept update have a female leader, that leaves the two solo civs (assuming Vietnam is coming)

I'm placing my bets they're either Cherokee under Nanyehi or the Assyrians under Semiramis.

This is the first I have heard about Nanyehi and I wholly support this. Excellent choice.

Too bad I don't think she's been circulating the civ boards much, so I'm doubtful if the devs would be considering her.

But hot damn, good find. Fingers crossed.
 
I'd rather not have Fidel in Civilization. The people in the first world who hasn't experienced a military dictatorship seems confused enough about his awfulness as it is, no need to glorify him.

Anyway. It seems that none of the Civs in Sept update have a female leader, that leaves the two solo civs (assuming Vietnam is coming)

I'm placing my bets they're either Cherokee under Nanyehi or the Assyrians under Semiramis.

Didn't the Haudenosaunee had a matriarchal system? Like, the faces of politics and war might have been men but the true power came from the women? If so, wouldn't it be wonderful to have them led by a woman, and get rid of the "steppe warrior" cliché we have from them and maybe having something more politic/diplomatic/builder? But I have few to none knowledge about Native Americans so I'm probably utterly wrong here.
 
Definitely Bulgaria (wayyyy better than Macedon). If the Gauls and Byzantium were justifiable on top of what we already had, we definitely have space for Bulgaria.

It blows my mind we haven't got a single South Slavic civ in the entire history of the franchise. Somebody should give Firaxis an up-to-date map of the Balkans, I think the one they have is from before the 6th century, so they might not know there are Slavs there to begin with. :lol:
 
Didn't the Haudenosaunee had a matriarchal system? Like, the faces of politics and war might have been men but the true power came from the women? If so, wouldn't it be wonderful to have them led by a woman, and get rid of the "steppe warrior" cliché we have from them and maybe having something more politic/diplomatic/builder? But I have few to none knowledge about Native Americans so I'm probably utterly wrong here.
Native americans societies being matriarchal is generally just another cliché. It has its roots in greek "ethnology". Making barbarians matriarchal was a way to make them more alien and inferior. That trope endured the centuries, especially in the minds of the jesuites who were filled with classical latin culture. The Jesuites had the monopoly on documenting so many cultures, which is both a sad thing since they were obviously biased, and a nice thing because so many other american cultures weren't documented at all, and at least the Jesuites were lovers of languages and systems, so they made grammars and lexica.

That being said, according to the jesuites (but keep in mind what I just wrote about them), the Haudenosaunee had a matrilineal society, meaning that land was owned (and worked) by the women, and the men had to move when they got married. The men were hunters, traders, warriors and leaders (though elected by the women, and though certain sources talk about a power alternance between men and women). The Jesuites justify the situation by saying that the men were often absent, so the women took their place (which is a rather patriarchal way to explain matrilineal societies).

Overall it's a complex topic, because while matrilineal societies seemed barbarians to the Jesuites, during the 20th century it became a proof of social modernity. For example, hippie culture started to claim that native americans had equal societies and sexual freedom. The issue there is not whether that's true or not - it's that it says much more about hippie culture and non-native americans in general than about people like the Haudenosaunee themselves.

Scientifically it can be quite hard to determine how their society was like exactly. The sources we have certainly tell that women had the right to speak and give their opinions, and that it's possible that the matrilineal society described by the Jesuites was a reality. But let's keep in mind that the situation in matrilineal societies is more complex than pure patriarchy/matriarchy. Even if women did own the lands and gave their opinions about who should be leader, the leaders we know of were still all men. If that means there was some kind of gender balance in society, we don't know. But we must be careful not to look at poorly documented societies of the past with tainted glasses that make us want them to be superior in certain ways. The sad truth is that european colonists just shattered their society and identity and it's really hard to know what it used to be like.
The trope of the "steppe warrior" is more easily beaten that the trope of the "wise indian" and it can be very tempting even for scientists today to make old native american societies much more "advanced' in their own eyes than documented evidence allows us to say.

It blows my mind we haven't got a single South Slavic civ in the entire history of the franchise. Somebody should give Firaxis an up-to-date map of the Balkans, I think the one they have is from before the 6th century, so they might not know there are Slavs there to begin with. :lol:
The funny thing is that this kind of map tends to be very speculative. Just because it's on a map doesn't mean it's very accurate. Especially when it comes to people who didn't write much and were still largely nomadic.
Sometimes maps depicting the 6th century have slavic people all over the place and it looks like they are dominating europe with their big homogeneic slavic blobs.
Even 9th century Bulgaria wasn't a south slavic ethnostate.
 
The funny thing is that this kind of map tends to be very speculative. Just because it's on a map doesn't mean it's very accurate. Especially when it comes to people who didn't write much and were still largely nomadic.
Sometimes maps depicting the 6th century have slavic people all over the place and it looks like they are dominating europe with their big homogeneic slavic blobs.
Even 9th century Bulgaria wasn't a south slavic ethnostate.

It was a joke. I'm not claiming that the early "Slavic" states were 100% Slavic (especially the First Danubian Bulgaria). It's just odd that we have a bunch of civs in that region and not one of them represents one of the groups of people that have been there for 1400+ years and shaped much of the history of the region. Even excluding Bulgaria, there's so much history there. Albania with Skenderbeg, Serbia with Dusan, Croatia with Svyatoslav, Wallachia with Vlad, Thracians/Illirians/Dacians etc etc. Not all are South Slavic of course, but you get my point.
 
Last edited:
It blows my mind we haven't got a single South Slavic civ in the entire history of the franchise. Somebody should give Firaxis an up-to-date map of the Balkans, I think the one they have is from before the 6th century, so they might not know there are Slavs there to begin with. :lol:
Fun fact is the Bulgars are not ethnic Slaves at all. They adopted Slavic langue and culture. ;) We don't have any representation of the region because it is divided, not well known, complicated to understand, and has not big enough fanbase to demand it.
I don't like the blob term because it ignores a time factor. At some point in history, there was a distinct Slavic culture, that could even possibly become a Civ (which sounds like heresy to our forum "Knights who say Blob"). At the same time, it has nothing to do with modern Slavic nations.
 
Fun fact is the Bulgars are not ethnic Slaves at all. They adopted Slavic langue and culture. ;) We don't have any representation of the region because it is divided, not well known, complicated to understand, and has not big enough fanbase to demand it.

Nobody said they were, but they were a very small group and were assimilated within 2-3 generations into the larger Slavic population. If we want to be pedantic there's a strong possibility that Kubrat (the patriarch of the Dulo clan that founded Bulgaria) had a Slavic mother as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom