[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Eagle Pursuit]

just saw your pfp and felt the need to emphasize how Basil might be the best looking leader in the game, graphically,

I really like him. The beard, the armor. He's a complete badass.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Here's a question:
If hypothetically the two remaining unknown civs end up being Portugal and either Assyria or Babylon, let's say Babylon, what are the chances for a Season 2 pass?

I know for a fact that me and others here would buy a Season 2 pass if the returning ones happened to be Austria, Siam, Iroquois, and Morocco but would Firaxis do that considering they wouldn't necessarily be selling the heavy-hitters, or returning favorites?

Think about Austria paired with Italy, Iroquois with the Navajo, Morocco with either Numidia or Benin or both.
Siam can even come with the Philippines or Burma.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Well Gran Colombia did.

Well in my design I made Trung Nhi a unique Great General that had charges towards unit production when using a charge on a encampment producing a unit. Plus she would be riding an Asian elephant instead of the standard horse.
I'm not sure if those are accurate enough but I found enough to make Trung Trac interesting to say the least.

Well GC's solution to great generals was to have them anachronistically appear at the beginning of every era (facepalm).

I feel that that was a matter of balance, where the devs likely discovered that:

1) GC couldn't wait until the industrial era to get some paltry great generals.

2) GC couldn't start with a great general because that is OP.

3) Giving GC a single great general in any era generally wasn't enough to justify the unique, a bonus that was too minimal and/or fleeting.

I suspect a lot of this would impact whether/how Vietnam could get a single great general at all. And at any rate, the concept's thunder has been completely stolen by GC.

You can put Gaul in the returning category. It's basically the Celts.

Except that's not how they would have been categorized in prior expacks. Scotland, Phoenicia, Hungary, and the Maori were all "new" civs as well.

Here's a question:
If hypothetically the two remaining unknown civs end up being Portugal and either Assyria or Babylon, let's say Babylon, what are the chances for a Season 2 pass?

I know for a fact that me and others here would buy a Season 2 pass if the returning ones happened to be Austria, Siam, Iroquois, and Morocco but would Firaxis do that considering they wouldn't necessarily be selling the heavy-hitters, or returning favorites?

Think about Austria paired with Italy, Iroquois with the Navajo, Morocco with either Numidia or Benin or both.
Siam can even come with the Philippines or Burma.

If it is Portugal and Babylon, the game is completely done. If it is Portugal and Assyria, the game is almost certainly completely done.

That said, if we did get Portugal and Assyria, and the devs did announce a second pass, I would be on the fence about buying it. On the one hand, all the good staples would be done and they would probably be dipping heavily into new content. So the chances of getting civs like the Navajo, the Cherokee, the Berbers'Morocco, Oman/Swahili, Gurkhani, Chola, Burma, etc. would theoretically be quite high.

But, then again, the chances were really high we would get more new civs this time around, and instead we got Byzantium and Gaul. At this point I feel pretty duped by the first two reveals, and would have every reason to believe that season two would be nothing but Austria, Denmark, Babylon, Hittites, Siam, Morocco, Iroquois, and Hawaii.

 

[ehecatzin]

I really like him. The beard, the armor. He's a complete badass.

My only gripe with it, It's I would have loved to see his scale armor be golden to go more with the Byzantine aesthetic.

but I agree, It's a very well designed character.

 

[pokiehl]

If a second pass had Hittites it'd be an insta-buy.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I suspect a lot of this would impact whether/how Vietnam could get a single great general at all. And at any rate, the concept's thunder has been completely stolen by GC.

I would honestly let them start with one from the beginning along with the initial warrior and settler. I'm talking about Vietnam of course and I don't think it even currently steals away any thunder from GC's design.

If it is Portugal and Babylon, the game is completely done. If it is Portugal and Assyria, the game is almost certainly completely done.

That said, if we did get Portugal and Assyria, and the devs did announce a second pass, I would be on the fence about buying it. On the one hand, all the good ideas would be done and they would probably be dipping heavily into new content. So the chances of getting civs like the Navajo, the Cherokee, the Berbers'Morocco, Oman/Swahili, Gurkhani, Chola, Burma, etc. would theoretically be quite high.

But, then again, the chances were really high we would get more new civs this time around, and instead we got Byzantium and Gaul. At this point I feel pretty duped by the first two reveals, and would have every reason to believe that season two would be nothing but Austria, Denmark, Babylon, Hittites, Siam, Morocco, Iroquois, and Hawaii.

I agree that if it is Portugal and Babylon, or even Assyria, that means they will probably stop. At the same time I would love a Season 2 if it still did get some of those that you mentioned plus Italy and 4 more of the returning ones.

I'm not sure how well Morocco was received overall in Civ 5 and maybe the whole controversy over the Cree, and previously the Pueblo, might make it to where North Africa and any more North America would be something they might decide to avoid, unfortunately.

 

[SirMediocrity]

If a second pass had Hittites it'd be an insta-buy.

You and me both.

 

[Lord Lakely]

You can put Gaul in the returning category. It's basically the Celts.

but it isn't It counts as a new civ, just like how Phoenicia counted as "new"

 

[Xandinho]

I would honestly let them start with one from the beginning along with the initial warrior and settler. I'm talking about Vietnam of course and I don't think it even currently steals away any thunder from GC's design.


I agree that if it is Portugal and Babylon, or even Assyria, that means they will probably stop. At the same time I would love a Season 2 if it still did get some of those that you mentioned plus Italy and 4 more of the returning ones.

I'm not sure how well Morocco was received overall in Civ 5 and maybe the whole controversy over the Cree, and previously the Pueblo, might make it to where North Africa and any more North America would be something they might decide to avoid, unfortunately.

If I remember correctly, all Brave New world civs, including Morocco, were well received by the community. Also, Morocco was one of the most fun civs to play on Civ5 .

On the other hand, I have thought at times that the problem that involved Cree may have caused devs to be a little bit away from adding more Native Americans. I don't know, but maybe Cree was the Canadian representation that they had in mind earlier, while they would add another North American native nation in GS, but the debate over Cree may have made them step back and add Canada instead.
Anyway, I still think Iroquois is a safe choice if they are running away from controversy.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

but it isn't It counts as a new civ, just like how Phoenicia counted as "new"

Especially if it's presumably based off the Belgae, or well the leader.

 

[Zaarin]

On the other hand, I have thought at times that the problem that involved Cree may have caused devs to be a little bit away from adding more Native Americans. I don't know, but maybe Cree was the Canadian representation that they had in mind earlier, while they would add another North American native nation in GS, but the debate over Cree may have made them step back and add Canada instead.

I still think the "Cree controversy" gets overstated by people here. Most Civ players never heard about it, and for those that did media exposure is ultimately a net positive--for both Tootoosis' cause and for Firaxis.

Anyway, I still think Iroquois is a safe choice if they are running away from controversy.

However, I agree that they may be inclined to favor the Iroquois as a unanimously safe pick: a tribe used to media attention that has been featured in numerous media of all kinds and has a history of being cooperative when consulted (see Assassin's Creed 3 or the revisions made to Age of Empires 3: Definitive Edition, for a few instances specific to video games).

 

[Lord Lakely]

Especially if it's presumably based off the Belgae, or well the leader.

Not presumably. It is, as shown by the capital. That doesn't mean their abilities will be modelled after Belgium's historic achievements of lucrative trading, state reformation and fine art pioneering - Excessive mining is something Belgium and Gaul have in common but Culture Bombing isn't a specifically Belgian thing, neither is the defensive IZ.

But hey, it beats adding Belgium as a separate Civ to the game (which I'm not opposed to in itself but... not before Portugal, Bulgaria, Austria, Italy, just to stick to European Civs that haven't been added yet)

 

[Zaarin]

Not presumably. It is, as shown by the capital.

I'll hold off on railing against Firaxis' poor decision-making skills until Ambiorix is officially announced as leader. Until then I'll reserve judgment that they just chose a strange capital or felt that Bibracte was too close to Paris.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I'll hold off on railing against Firaxis' poor decision-making skills until Ambiorix is officially announced as leader. Until then I'll reserve judgment that they just chose a strange capital or felt that Bibracte was too close to Paris.

Given how accurate Firaxis has been with their choice for Capitals, i find that highly doubtful. Bibracte would've been the slam dunk choice for an Aedui chief (Vercingetorix, Divitiacus, Dumnorix) and isn't the capital. That makes it clear enough for me.

 

[Zaarin]

Given how accurate Firaxis has been with their choice for Capitals, i find that highly doubtful. Bibracte would've been the slam dunk choice for an Aedui chief (Vercingetorix, Divitiacus, Dumnorix) and isn't the capital. That makes it clear enough for me.

You're not helping me stave off my natural cynicism here. However, a few leaders do have questionable capitals so I'm holding out hope, however unreasonable, that this is one of them.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Given how accurate Firaxis has been with their choice for Capitals, i find that highly doubtful. Bibracte would've been the slam dunk choice for an Aedui chief (Vercingetorix, Divitiacus, Dumnorix) and isn't the capital. That makes it clear enough for me.

Shaka's capital is Ulundi though which he should lead from Bulawayo.

I do agree that it probably is Ambiorix as an appeal to Belgians as he is seen as a national hero. Well more than a certain other leader.

 

[SirMediocrity]

I've lost all hope at this point for Attila appearing in civ 6

His similarities to Scythia make it extremely unlikely.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

However, I agree that they may be inclined to favor the Iroquois as a unanimously safe pick: a tribe used to media attention that has been featured in numerous media of all kinds and has a history of being cooperative when consulted (see Assassin's Creed 3 or the revisions made to Age of Empires 3: Definitive Edition, for a few instances specific to video games).

I am coming to the realization that even though VI would be better having more diverse representation with, say, a Navajo and Cherokee double pack, grabbing both Southwest and Southeast representation...

If we got more than one tribe in America and the Iroquois were skipped over, people would probably rage as hard as they will when Babylon is skipped, or would have if Byzantium had been looked over. Civ is in some respects a terrifyingly traditionalist culture, and although we have almost always gotten (in many cases, amazing) substitutes for missing civs, there are many on these boards that still don't think that Canada and the Cree are enough to make up for a lack of Iroquois. Same as how Gaul was basically Scotland damage control, and how I suspect we may end up seeing Babylon and Austria simply due to all the whinging.

Would be cool if we didn't have to play Sophie's choice with Native American civs, though. Sucks that we probably can't get two new tribes in America because one of them would have to be the Iroquois; I personally think the Cherokee would be a more than adequate substitute and still leave room for something SW or PNW.

And yes, I do suspect that if we get any more Native American civs, it will be a pair of them together so the tribes can have plausible deniability as to how much they are buying into consumerism vs. cultural education.

 

[Guynemer]

or the revisions made to Age of Empires 3: Definitive Edition,

haven't heard about this; what are they changing?

 

[Patine]

I've lost all hope at this point for Attila appearing in civ 6

His similarities to Scythia make it extremely unlikely.

Attila and his Hunnic Empire who founded no cities, created no meaningful political institutions, built no infrastructure, has very murky cultural and religious views, a nearly unattested language, and an economy based, outside animal husbandry, weaponsmithing, and leatherworking, entirely on loot, pillage, plunder, and tribute? The Huns are classical antithesis of the common notion of "civilization," and when Civ2 put "Atilla," as the default name of the "Barbarian Leader," it was well deserved, I'm afraid.