[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I agree with this though it's also possible that the heroic mode isn't until pack 6.

I think if Pack 4 is a new civ like from North Africa then I would bet we would get more content after. I think the MoorTires name is too coincidental to not point to either North Africa or Portugal, meaning an Assyria/Babylonian pack wouldn't be until pack 6 with the heroes and epics because they have been themed for the most part.
Apocalypse went with Maya
Secret Society=Underground Church for Ethiopia
Dramatic Ages=Rise and Fall of Western Rome (conquering Gaul then fell as Byzantium rose).


I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of them becomes a city-state.
It's not that they aren't deserving it's just from a design perspective Vietnam is very marketable, not to mention it has been one of the most requested new civs by fans, not only on this forum. Plus Vietnam is able to differentiate itself from the rest of SE Asia by having closer ties to China and not be as similar as the Khmer.

So you say that Siam is a dying nation so they deserve no place in this nor any expansion? Nor Burma has any distinctiveness of being one o three Mekhong SEA original civs to Khmer? They have their landmarks presented in previous civ game (Shwe Dagang Grand Chetti, mid Rangoon, civ4) . how come this civ (My homeland) had made it to Civ5 Vanilla? something Sukrit eventually made a mod of this and its sworn enemy... Burma.
So is it fine that Bangkok being a vassal to Dai Viet? i'd say Chiangmai or Luang Prabang (Actually Laotian city and NEVER an actual Siamese city, it did appears in Civ5 as Siamese city if i remember correctly) fits this role more

 

[notNamed]

So you say that Siam is a dying nation so they deserve no place in this nor any expansion? Nor Burma has any distinctiveness of being one o three Mekhong SEA original civs to Khmer?

There's a Southeast Asia specialist working with Firaxis since early 2020 posting in this thread. One whose focus is the Tai-speaking regions of it (Laos, Thailand, plus all the historical inbetweens) So I wouldn't worry about some sort of civs (or at the very least city-states) from the area making it into the game before the expansion ends. And of course there was that old leak which explicitly mentioned Burma as one of the civs which were planned for inclusion in the 3rd DLC back around Gathering Storm's launch.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ Andrew Johnson ?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

So you say that Siam is a dying nation so they deserve no place in this nor any expansion? Nor Burma has any distinctiveness of being one o three Mekhong SEA original civs to Khmer? They have their landmarks presented in previous civ game (Shwe Dagang Grand Chetti, mid Rangoon, civ4) . how come this civ (My homeland) had made it to Civ5 Vanilla? something Sukrit eventually made a mod of this and its sworn enemy... Burma.
So is it fine that Bangkok being a vassal to Dai Viet? i'd say Chiangmai or Luang Prabang (Actually Laotian city and NEVER an actual Siamese city, it did appears in Civ5 as Siamese city if i remember correctly) fits this role more

I never said that Siam (Thailand) is a dying nation. I don't know how you came to that conclusion.
The reason they made it to Civ 5 is apparently they wanted to change it up and not go with the Khmer again. Now in Civ 6 they decided to bring back the Khmer.
The same thing happened with Mali and Songhai and it appears they are doing the same thing with adding Hungary over Austria this time around.

That being said if there is another round of passes I would love to see an Early Modern/Industrial Era Siam to differentiate it from the Medieval SE Asian civs.

There's a Southeast Asia specialist working with Firaxis since early 2020 posting in this thread. One whose focus is the Tai-speaking regions of it (Laos, Thailand, plus all the historical inbetweens) So I wouldn't worry about some sort of civs (or at the very least city-states) from the area making it into the game before the expansion ends. And of course there was that old leak which explicitly mentioned Burma as one of the civs which were planned for inclusion in the 3rd DLC back around Gathering Storm's launch.

Burma was included in a leak for GS that turned out to be false.

 

[notNamed]

Burma was included in a leak for GS that turned out to be false.

Pretty sure the /v/ threads named all the GS civs correctly and said there were also plans for a 3rd expansion which would add at least the Byzantines and Burma. Seeing that 3rd expansion did indeed happen, I wouldn't call that false, but spot on.
Though of course it was meant to be an expansion at the time which turned into a season pass, so the plans may have changed drastically since then. But you know, being up for consideration at some point in time is better than nothing.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Pretty sure the /v/ threads named all the GS civs correctly and said there were also plans for a 3rd expansion which would add at least the Byzantines and Burma. Seeing that 3rd expansion did indeed happen, I wouldn't call that false, but spot on.
Though of course it was meant to be an expansion at the time which turned into a season pass, so the plans may have changed drastically since then. But you know, being up for consideration at some point in time is better than nothing.

No there were two separate leaks which Burma was in the false one. The one that correctly predicted everything in GS said that if there was a third expansion it would probably consist of Maya, Ethiopia, Byzantium, Portugal, Babylon/Assyria, and another NA civ would be likely.
We have no proof that Burma was ever considered.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I never said that Siam (Thailand) is a dying nation. I don't know how you came to that conclusion.
The reason they made it to Civ 5 is apparently they wanted to change it up and not go with the Khmer again. Now in Civ 6 they decided to bring back the Khmer.
The same thing happened with Mali and Songhai and it appears they are doing the same thing with adding Hungary over Austria this time around.

That being said if there is another round of passes I would love to see an Early Modern/Industrial Era Siam to differentiate it from the Medieval SE Asian civs.

Oh sorry but I did watch news over the sharp decline of nation in contrast to Vietnam (its main rivals in the region) and the other rivals. indeed China never has been viewed as rival in the same token. such decline eventually manifested in what happened here. student protests and large gathering of mobs in Bangkok. Particularly to comemorate 19th September 2006 Coup d'Etat which many believed it is a turning point that overturned national prosperity and a sparking flash to the rise of Neo Dai Viet.
So the reasons is the same as Austria and Hungary? (Because both UU is Hussars)

If Siam is to be playable civ. Who should lead them?
1. King Ramkhamhaeng (Civ5)
2. King Naret (Renaissance Era, has a strong tie with Portugal and almost conquered the entire Burma (To avenge his own humiliated childhood as a collateral offered by late king of Ayutthaya) only to be stopped somewhere at a siege where Burmese had superior Dutch cannons. This coincides with Dutch VS Portuguese trade wars of the late 16th Century @raen might explain more on this)
3. King Narai. (Courting with Bourbon France under King Louis XIV, originally to buy better French guns to fulfill their dreamed project.. Subdue the other sides of Tennaserim Range, what Ayutthaya got was a conversion attempts by French Missions and invoked wraths with Buddhist monastic order and maybe Persian muslims and Qing Empire so he got a Coup d'Etat few years after he sent a diplomatic mission to France)
4. King of Thonburi
5. King Rama I
6. King Chulalongkorn (Rama V, definitely industrial era King)
7. Pridi Banomyong (1932 Revolution, Modern or Atomic Era)
8. Plaek Phibulsongkram (More militaristic members of 1932 Revolutionary of the same era)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

So the reasons is the same as Austria and Hungary? (Because both UU is Hussars)

Well considering both of them made up the Austro-Hungarian Empire which was a powerful state in Europe before WWI they share some similarities.
The Huszar is technically Hungarian in origin so Austria in Civ 5 basically had a Hungarian UU anyway.
That being said just like Siam there's no reason we couldn't have Austria too if we get a second pass, because right now space is limited.

If Siam is to be playable civ. Who should lead them?
1. King Ramkhamhaeng (Civ5)
2. King Naret (Renaissance Era, has a strong tie with Portugal and almost conquered the entire Burma (To avenge his own humiliated childhood as a collateral offered by late king of Ayutthaya) only to be stopped somewhere at a siege where Burmese had superior Dutch cannons. This coincides with Dutch VS Portuguese trade wars of the late 16th Century @raen might explain more on this)
3. King Narai. (Courting with Bourbon France under King Louis XIV, originally to buy better French guns to fulfill their dreamed project.. Subdue the other sides of Tennaserim Range, what Ayutthaya got was a conversion attempts by French Missions and invoked wraths with Buddhist monastic order and maybe Persian muslims and Qing Empire so he got a Coup d'Etat few years after he sent a diplomatic mission to France)
4. King of Thonburi
5. King Rama I
6. King Chulalongkorn (Rama V, definitely industrial era King)
7. Pridi Banomyong (1932 Revolution, Modern or Atomic Era)
8. Plaek Phibulsongkram (More militaristic members of 1932 Revolutionary of the same era)

I don't know too much about their history but I would prefer probably either Rama I or Rama V. An Industrial Era leader would have a different feel than Medieval Khmer and Indonesia in game.
One of the reasons why they they also may have decided not to go with Siam again is wasn't the leader's depiction in Civ 5 controversial?

 

[WillowBrook]

So reasons why no Burma nor Siam to appear? Aren't the two countries deserve the place in NFP? (Possibly the LAST expansion pack) and can only exists in fan mod (Like Sukrit's)
If The two is to appear in civ6 how do you like to see them?
1. City States (Bangkok/Thonburi and Bagan/Pegu/Taung U/ Inwa) so Dai Viet deserves its place here
2. Full civ

It looks like Firaxis is going with Vietnam as the full civ for south east Asia in NFP; it's popularity as a mod for civ V was probably a big factor in that decision. But city state representation is quite possible.

Also, if there's another season pass, I think Siam or Burma as a major civ is quite likely.

 

[Xandinho]

I really hope that they add Siam in a second round of passes, a non-medieval representation of SE would be very welcome.
It is possible that Khmer is the replacement for Siam but they should not be self-excluding. I mean, they are mechanically different and don't even share the same list of cities like Mali and Songhai.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

The two countries did. but not much.
1. Lavodayapura (Louvo or Lawo for short) in Civ6 is Lap Buri (Lopburi) in Civ5
2. Vimayapura becomes a district of modern day (Nakorn) Ratchasima Province. (Actually burned either during Thonburi Era or Earliest days of Bangkok as Seat of Siam, particularly due to the city harbored the heir to the Last King of Ayutthaya. Both King of Thonburi and a person who later became King Rama I despised many tenets of Ban Plu Luang Dynasty. particularly the very conservative (compared to policies of the two) policy. Corrupt practices, and more importantly the lackluster of the said Last King of Ayutthaya to let Kaungbong Army lay siege to the City while the two favors more offensive tactics--counteroffensives. With this, the last overlord of Pimai (modern name of Vimayapura) had to be killed along with every family members if possible. This displeased Qing Emperor (Kang Xi or Yong Le i'm not sure) very much to the point that he did not recognize King of Thonburi for 15 years (but Tribunary trade was still available to them as normal)!!
3. Muang Tam (No old Khmer name was found) becomes part of Surin province.

In Civ5 I don't know who designed Siam. many cities seemed to be 'Out of Place' to me. Pegu, Tawai (Dawei) and Vientianne are listed as 'Siamese City' while actually Pegu (Hanthawaddy) was founded by one of King Ram's former servant (Magadu to be precise, his story did appear in Thai Language educational material for Grade 3 or 4), Tawai/Tavoy belonged to Mon people whom were at times founded another Kingdom somewhere in or near Menam basin but their domain is primarily at another side of Tennaserim Range. Vientianne only a vassal to Ayutthaya but not a part of it. (CS Potential I think). In Civ6 How did Khmer found Chaiya city somewhere inside northern half of Malayu Peninsular? Isn't it actually Sri Vijaya city (Strongly associated to Indonesia) ??

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I really hope that they add Siam in a second round of passes, a non-medieval representation of SE would be very welcome.
It is possible that Khmer is the replacement for Siam but they should not be self-excluding. I mean, they are mechanically different and don't even share the same list of cities like Mali and Songhai.

I agree however it's interesting that they made Khmer's UB the Prasat which is found in Siam as well. It seems to me like they chose it to show their influence over mainland SE Asia which they could have easily gone with a Baray instead.

I'm pretty sure we will get a non-medieval representation through Vietnam though in some form.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

So you say that Siam is a dying nation so they deserve no place in this nor any expansion? Nor Burma has any distinctiveness of being one o three Mekhong SEA original civs to Khmer? They have their landmarks presented in previous civ game (Shwe Dagang Grand Chetti, mid Rangoon, civ4) . how come this civ (My homeland) had made it to Civ5 Vanilla? something Sukrit eventually made a mod of this and its sworn enemy... Burma.
So is it fine that Bangkok being a vassal to Dai Viet? i'd say Chiangmai or Luang Prabang (Actually Laotian city and NEVER an actual Siamese city, it did appears in Civ5 as Siamese city if i remember correctly) fits this role more

I’m guessing you’re Thai?

At any rate, I’m not opposed to Thailand getting added to Civ, it’s just not going to happen in this expansion.

 

[8housesofelixir]

This. Southeast Asia is a geographic territory, but Vietnam is an expansionist Chinese state (just like its contemporaries, Wu, Min, Wuyue, Jingnan, Former Shu, Later Liang and Dai Viet...modern Southern Han) the dynasty of which was the only one successful at not being rolled over by the emerging Song state which would end up establishing Song dynasty. And so you get a southern Chinese state taking on some hints of their neighbors, but still being very Sinitic. Ho Chi Minh is my favorite example. He got his education because he was the son of a mandarin. While he went on to become a revolutionary, his brother became a feng shui geomancer. The stripes on the flag of South Vietnam are a Daoist trigram just like the ones found on the flag of modern South Korea.
All of their literature, records and everyday signs are in Classical Chinese, rest of SE Asia uses Sanskrit or some derivatives thereof.
They built pagodas, rest of SE Asia built stupas.
They were staunchly Confucian, the rest of SE Asia operated on Indic philosophical traditions.
Religiously they were Zen Buddhists, rest of SE Asia was either Hinduist, Theravada Buddhist, or even Muslim.
They operated with clear borders guarded with walls and soldiers, rest of SE Asia used the Mandala system.
They used the Han-Barbarian distinction in governance and thus actively resettled and assimilated the barbarians under their rule (most famously Champas), rest of SE Asia did not require homogenosity of its empires (it's also the reason Myanmar/Burma has active ethnic cleansing running to this day, Thailand has to continually battle separatist movements on most of its modern territory).
To get a government position you had to pass the Imperial Examination, in SE Asia it was always? (help me here, folks) the aristocracy selecting people for positions.
Of course, the syncretisms are there, but they are on top of two fairly different and distinct cultural bases.
For instance, Sinitic weapons and the Lunisolar Zodiac calendar (+ Chinese New Year celebrations) are used even in Thailand and Cambodia.
On the other hand, Vietnam did incorporate stuff from both their neighbors and conquered subjects, like the strong elephant-status symbolism.

I wanted to make a similar point in many of my previous posts as well: Vietnam was both very Chinese (to be precise, very Sinitic) and very SAE. Not many civilizations presented in the game have such a strong dual characteristic like this.*
Therefore I sincerely looking forward to how Vietnam will be portrayed in the game.

*Japan and Korea, although clearly East Asian, are very much not Chinese and didn't consider themselves as a Sinitic Empire at all. Russia is a close one - a vast state facing both east and west - but the game chooses Peter the Great who was a westernizer and claimed himself as Imperator rather than Tzar.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

There's a Southeast Asia specialist working with Firaxis since early 2020 posting in this thread. One whose focus is the Tai-speaking regions of it (Laos, Thailand, plus all the historical inbetweens)

I wouldn't make too much of it. Academics specialize, game companies seek generalists. Whoever they hired would have a specialty of one sort or another. I could just as easily be a Europeanist. And all of my work at Firaxis involves looking up and reading about things that I have not written about nor studied in grad school. Academia isn't about knowing things; it's about knowing how to find out about things.

About Vietnam being a "Chinese" state - that is in a sense a political argument. Vietnam and Korea were at one point vassals of China or Chinese generals, but have been independent for (nearly) a thousand years. If we're going to say that Vietnam is a Chinese state, we'd better be ready to say that England is an Italian state (b/c Romans), or a French one (b/c Normans), and nobody would be happy with that characterization. The two countries have moved on since then and, in fact, been in a near-constant state of (at least cold) war since. Any claim that Vietnam "is Chinese" is going to be an extremely politically provocative and unfounded one - Ho Chi Minh would have disagreed, as well as nearly every Vietnamese emperor, and on back to the famous sisters that everyone is talking about here. Unlike the dynasties that are considered a part of Chinese history, Vietnamese emperors never made a claim upon the Chinese throne (as far as I know; in this I acknowledge I might miss an ambitious emperor or two).

About Vietnam being a "Sinitic" state - that's clearly the case. Look at a map of Southeast Asia - look at those mountains that make up the eastern spur of the Himalayan massif. Those are a huge barrier, meaning that Vietnam adopted a lot of what you say - Confucianism (and the notion of imperial exams), Mahayana (East Asian) Buddhism, etc. While Vietnamese used classical Chinese, in the 1400s they developed their own, Chinese-derived script, nom. So, again the parallels with Korea or Japan, where Chinese-influenced (but not Chinese) people improvised upon a classical Chinese basis. And also like those two places, the language is in its roots unrelated to a Chinese dialect (Vietnamese is closer to Khmer, although it is highly tonal whereas Khmer is not).

About Siam and Burma. Clearly Vietnam, Siam, Burma, Navajo/Dine, Salish, Assyria, Babylon, Cherokee, Iroqouis/Haudenosaunee, Ashanti, Austria, (catches breath), and so many other speculative civs here deserve to be in the game. But we've only got so much time and resources - and there's no way in narok that I'm going to drop any hints, or even allow my own area of expertise to be a hint. It's not.

If Bangkok ends up a city-state and in your game becomes a vassal of Dai Viet (!) or Burma (!!) or France (!!!) (or, similarly, if Saigon is a city-state and falls under the suzerainty of China [!!!!]), please don't assume that we here at Firaxis think that this is an accurate or desirable representation of history, or a ranking of the civs that deserve inclusion (or do not). One simply cannot rank history in that way - was Sukhothai "greater" than Ayutthaya because its borders - according to a retrospective, nationalist Thai nation-state - were bigger? Certainly not; times were different - borders as a concept were nonexistent. And to some phrai in Lanna, it might not matter very much if your suzerain was Mon (800ish-1292), Yuan [meaning the Tai group, not the popular word for Vietnamese] (1292-1456), Laotian (various times), Siamese (1456-1558), Burmese (1558-1775), Siamese (1775-present). You paid your taxes regardless. My point is that if you want history, the Civilopedia has more or less what did happen, whereas your game is your own. And I want to apologise to all the ghosts of those dead kings, queens, emperors, and revolutionaries that we didn't put in the game.

Right this very instant, if you'd like to play as Siam, I think Khmer are your nearest analogue for a Southeast Asian mainland mahaanajak. (Or one of the great mods out there). Will there be anything more? You're gonna have to wait and see what's in the next three episodes.

Personally, I'm really excited for <ALSO REDACTED>.

 

[8housesofelixir]

About Vietnam being a "Sinitic" state - that's clearly the case.

Thank you for clearing this up. In a lot of cases I used "Chinese" when I was trying to say "Sinitic" or "Sino-"; the latter is the more precise expression. I blame my native language here because these two concepts are often written as the same word in Chinese.

 

[GenyaArikado]

Queen Arwa for Final Frontier Pass btw

 

[Zaarin]

Russia is a close one - a vast state facing both east and west - but the game chooses Peter the Great who was a westernizer and claimed himself as Imperator rather than Tzar.

Just out of curiosity, as I'm only passingly familiar with Russian history, who would you recommend for an east-facing Russian leader? Obviously not Peter or Catherine.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Just out of curiosity, as I'm only passingly familiar with Russian history, who would you recommend for an east-facing Russian leader? Obviously not Peter or Catherine.

has russia really had that many? they didn’t particularly interact with the east until the soviet union period when central asia and the caucuses were annexed, they played foreign intervention games in Afghanistan, Iran and East Asia, etc.

 

[Zaarin]

has russia really had that many? they didn’t particularly interact with the east until the soviet union period when central asia and the caucuses were annexed, they played foreign intervention games in Afghanistan, Iran and East Asia, etc.

I'm wondering that as well, but again Russian history isn't my strong suit--pre-Soviet Russia doesn't come up much in Western history other than Peter and Catherine and then the ill-starred sequence of Nicholas I, Alexander II, Alexander III, Nicholas II, Bolshevik Revolution.