[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[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.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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.

Technically Catherine did look east when they decided to send colonists and establish permanent settlements into Alaska.

But as mentioned above other than that it would be the Soviet Union when they interacted with China, Korea etc.

 

[Zaarin]

Technically Catherine did look east when they decided to send colonists and establish permanent settlements into Alaska.

Catherine the Great as a bonus leader for Russia and Katlian of the Tlingit double pack when? (Technically Alexander I was tzar at the time, but... )

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Catherine the Great as a bonus leader for Russia and Katlian of the Tlingit double pack when? (Technically Alexander I was tzar at the time, but... )

He would look cool with his raven mask in game. Of course I mean Katlian.

 

[Zaarin]

He would look cool with his raven mask in game. Of course I mean Katlian.

Even though it's not how Katlian is depicted, I'd want a Tlingit chief to have a Chilkat blanket and a big beard--in part because it's not how people are used to thinking of Native Americans.

Spoiler :

As awesome as the carved masks are, though, I'd kind of prefer to see a cedar potlatch hat.

 

[Starina]

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.

There is no such leader before the Soviet period. And if we talk about the Soviet period, then the USSR was directed to the whole world, and not only to the east or only to the west.

I would very much like a new leader for Russia: Ivan the Terrible. Moreover, it is quite logical to be included in today's bonuses of Russia Civ 6. In our historiography, he remains one of the most influential rulers. Moreover, earlier in the series of games Civilization for Russia were the leaders of either the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union. The medieval leader of the Russian kingdom is something new.

 

[8housesofelixir]

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.

Russian rulers after Peter the Great generally used the title of Imperator, but it was Nicholas II that picked up the title of Tzar again.

He was very east-facing, espeically his interaction with Central Asia, his development into Far East/Manchuria (I can expand this point a lot from a Chinese perspective), as well as his image of "Little Father," a very un-westernizer image; although for obvious reasons he is very unlikely to be a in-game leader.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Even though it's not how Katlian is depicted, I'd want a Tlingit chief to have a Chilkat blanket and a big beard--in part because it's not how people are used to thinking of Native Americans.

If we want blankets and facial hair Manuelito for the Navajo can work.

Spoiler :

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Even though it's not how Katlian is depicted, I'd want a Tlingit chief to have a Chilkat blanket and a big beard--in part because it's not how people are used to thinking of Native Americans.

Spoiler :

As awesome as the carved masks are, though, I'd kind of prefer to see a cedar potlatch hat.

tlingit will be awesome if they can get around the leader problem, although like Alexander noted, the Navajo would be great too

 

[Zaarin]

If we want blankets and facial hair Manuelito for the Navajo can work.

Yes, but I want Chilkat blankets specifically. Fun fact: the Chilkat weave is the most complex weave pattern known to exist. Plus Manuelito has a moustache; the Tlingit chiefs I posted have beards that would be the envy of a Calvinist.

tlingit will be awesome if they can get around the leader problem, although like Alexander noted, the Navajo would be great too

Sheiyksh I and Katlian are both good options. Sheiyksh I isn't historically attested, of course, but chiefly names were passed down from successor to successor, which means he's ultimately more historical than Dido, Kupe, or even Gilgamesh as he's presented in game.

 

[Arianrhod]

So reasons why no Burma nor Siam to appear?

Because there are only around 50-odd Civilizations in the game and a fairly long list of 'staple' Civilizations that people have grown to expect to see in Historical games over the last few decades; a list that has only increased in size as these audiences have been exposed to more history.

Pretty much every continent gets a little screwed. There are lots of very interesting and very compelling Civilization options from pretty much everywhere on the map, aside from maybe Australia; even Europe has a few decent options left (and I don't just mean Portugal and Austria), and you could easily name a pretty good handful from the Americas, the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. But there are only three ways you're ever going to get a reasonably "complete" civ.

• A Civilization game with an incredibly long period of active development (VI could be this, but it remains to be seen)
• A Civilization game with less emphasis on making individual Civilizations feel unique (neither V nor VI is this)
  
• A Civilization game that either allows for very intricate modding, or is such that even someone with no skill whatsoever could make an official-seeming Civ; alongside an acceptance of mods as "part of the game". (VI might or might not be this, depending on perspective.)

Even then, it's unlikely you'll ever get "controversial" Civs (e.g. Israel, Tibet) from the first two. They'll likely be popular in any approach to scenario 3, though, alongside certain controversial leaders.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

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.

Not so obvious: Peter established the first Governorship in Siberia in 1708, the first official Russian government presence in Siberia, or "the East".

The problem is that Russia's move to the East, into Siberia took place largely in the 16th and 17th centuries under a bunch of Czarist mediocrities who were mostly concerned with more domestic problems like the Time of Troubles and the Old Believers religious schism. The physical 'conquest' of Siberia was actually undertaken mostly by private means: the Stroganov family, Yermak and his adventurers, and cossacks. Neither the government nor any Czar had much to do with it. Peter's move in 1708 was simply acknowledging moves that had already taken place long before.

IF there was a Czar that started Russian presence in the east it might be Ivan IV Groznyi (the "Mighty" or "Terrifying", not, strictly speaking, "Terrible") who conquered Novgorod, and therefore also 'picked up' all the Novgorodian territories to the east to the Ural Mountains. Mind you, that territory was a little like picking up French Canada - mostly filled with natives and fur trappers, with very little "on the ground" presence from Novgorod, or Moscow, until much later.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I’m guessing you’re Thai?

Yes I am. And so does @sukritact