[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Zaarin]

Might as well also make it to where Tomyris can automatically kill Persia's units too.

It's her fault we got backstabby Cyrus in the first place.

 

[Patine]

It's her fault we got backstabby Cyrus in the first place.

But Xerxes was a LOT meaner - at least if the movie "300," is taken at face value.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I'm not seeing any reference to Burma on that page - there is a list on a related page however that seems to suggest that Kathmandu (and Lalitpur) have several Mahaviharas.

If they were going to go with a Burmese temple, I would have expected them to use a name along the lines of Paya/Bhura/ဘုရား (as in Sukritact's mod) or Zedi/Ceti/စေတီ

I agree with this. Burma/Pagan would get a paya. Mahaviharas feel like Kathmandu. Long shot for Dhaka or a Bengali CS, but I would safely rule out Burma and Sri Lanka.

Trade domes also seem pretty clearly Uzbeki. While I think everyone was expecting Samarkand, Bukhara does feel like a better fit. Which, if that be the case, I am left wondering why no Samarkand CS. Is it because it appeared in Path to Nirvana and they can't duplicate entries for CS coding reasons? Or is it because they still are floating the idea of officially releasing or unofficially endorsing a Timurid civ?

 

[Zaarin]

Trade domes also seem pretty clearly Uzbeki. While I think everyone was expecting Samarkand, Bukhara does feel like a better fit. Which, if that be the case, I am left wondering why no Samarkand CS. Is it because it appeared in Path to Nirvana and they can't duplicate entries for CS coding reasons? Or is it because they still are floating the idea of officially releasing or unofficially endorsing a Timurid civ?

Samarqand has been at the center of a lot of civilizations, including the Sogdians as well as the Gurkhani. Its absence feels glaring, but at this point I would be astonished to see a settled Central Asian civ, as much as I want one.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Samarqand has been at the center of a lot of civilizations, including the Sogdians as well as the Gurkhani. Its absence feels glaring, but at this point I would be astonished to see a settled Central Asian civ, as much as I want one.

That's just it. I would have expected, if not getting a Gurkhani or Sogdian civ, at least a Samarkand city-state like in V.

But then again, VI is a pretty disappointing geographical patchwork, as I've observed many times. Why did we need a Welsh or Belgian CS or three Mexican or Italian CSs? And why do we still have no city states between India, China, and Khmer? If indeed as the signs seem to be indicating that NFP is wrapping up development, then I would have to consider VI as an unfinished project that squandered its resources on splitting hairs in some regions while never getting around to fleshing out some very important parts of the world.

I'm sorry Zaarin, I know you love Babylon, but it really does feel like a slap in the face to the entire continent of Asia.

 

[reddishrecue]

I knew Babylon could've been a civ in the future. I saw this one coming I didn't like to tell anyone though, lol.

 

[Jeppetto]

I'm hoping for a unique library replacement. I'm not sure how an Ancient Walls UB would work in this game considering they would eventually be replaced by regular Medieval Walls.

Technically, the Ancient Walls are still there even while you have Renaissance Walls, otherwise with Conservation you'd get 3 Tour from Walls, not 6. It's only a matter of visuals, and even then they could simply have Babylon be special in that they have all three walls have unique visuals, even If only Ancient are replaced. The benefit of AW would linger. More problematic is their expiration with Steel.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm sorry Zaarin, I know you love Babylon, but it really does feel like a slap in the face to the entire continent of Asia.

TBH the game would have felt incomplete without another Mesopotamian civilization, but on the other hand it wouldn't have been as necessary if they hadn't botched Sumer so badly.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I'm not seeing any reference to Burma on that page - there is a list on a related page however that seems to suggest that Kathmandu (and Lalitpur) have several Mahaviharas.

If they were going to go with a Burmese temple, I would have expected them to use a name along the lines of Paya/Bhura/ဘုရား (as in Sukritact's mod) or Zedi/Ceti/စေတီ

the reason why i brought up burma is bcs the page listed it as a pali term in addition to a sanskrit one, but i did a little more research and there doesn’t appear to be one in Burma. I’d go with Somapura as my pick then, since I can’t find anything about mahavihara in Nepal, and Somapura would be in Bangladesh

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That's just it. I would have expected, if not getting a Gurkhani or Sogdian civ, at least a Samarkand city-state like in V.

But then again, VI is a pretty disappointing geographical patchwork, as I've observed many times. Why did we need a Welsh or Belgian CS or three Mexican or Italian CSs? And why do we still have no city states between India, China, and Khmer? If indeed as the signs seem to be indicating that NFP is wrapping up development, then I would have to consider VI as an unfinished project that squandered its resources on splitting hairs in some regions while never getting around to fleshing out some very important parts of the world.

I'm sorry Zaarin, I know you love Babylon, but it really does feel like a slap in the face to the entire continent of Asia.

I don't understand the complaint?
We have at least two known city-states coming from from Asia, with most likely Babylon being replaced by one. Chances are there could be others so I don't see why Asia isn't getting any love?
Plus we only have one Mexican city state. The others are Olmec and Zapotec.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

TBH the game would have felt incomplete without another Mesopotamian civilization, but on the other hand it wouldn't have been as necessary if they hadn't botched Sumer so badly.

I had made peace with Assyria at least being different enough culturally/temporally/geographically from Sumeria that it could work and was probably happening.

Babylon is just dumb when we already had Sumeria. It's like making a Dutch AND a Belgian civ. Or including Alexander-the-Civ on top of four other Hellenic leaders. Or giving us an Italian leader for France and then giving her to us a second time. There is so much design space in VI that is wasted on adding things which were already somewhat represented in the game. I honestly do not understand the appeal of this sort of design philosophy, it's so safe and unambitious.

I don't understand the complaint?
We have at least two known city-states coming from from Asia, with most likely Babylon being replaced by one. Chances are there could be others so I don't see why Asia isn't getting any love?
Plus we only have one Mexican city state. The others are Olmec and Zapotec.

One of those city-states is just further crowding out the region we have packed with Lahore, Kabul, and Mohenjo Daro. Expected perhaps, but we really only have one CS confirmed to be east of India.

And frankly, Kathmandu is still not addressing the issue of why we have no representation of Burma or Siam, or even CSs like Kuala Lumpur or Tondo. There is still nothing going on anywhere near Khmer despite so many strong options for civs and city-states.

Moderator Action: Post edited to remove inappropriate language. Please post in a responsible and measured way even when you are disappointed. --NZ
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[The Kingmaker]

I really hope Babylon has a truly iconic soundtrack like some of the others we’ve been given recently.

In the meantime, here’s a nice Babylonian theme to celebrate the news!

 

[Patine]

Babylon is just dumb when we already had Sumeria. It's like making a Dutch AND a Belgian civ. Or including Alexander-the-Civ on top of four other Hellenic leaders. Or giving us an Italian leader for France and then giving her to us a second time. There is so much design space in VI that is wasted on adding things which were already somewhat represented in the game. I honestly do not understand the appeal of this sort of design philosophy, it's so safe and unambitious as to be masturbatory.

If Sumer weren't the most cartoonish and poorly done civ in the game, and just absolutely cringeworthy with a non-historical leader, completely inaccurate esthetics, and bizarre leader features, I might actually agree. But not as it stands.

 

[pokiehl]

Oh and because I haven't said it yet - I'm incredibly excited for Babylon and Hammurabi!

I'm just sad we aren't getting them AND Hittites/Assyria. Oh well.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And frankly, Kathmandu is still not addressing the issue of why we have no representation of Burma or Siam, or even CSs like Kuala Lumpur or Tondo. There is still nothing going on anywhere near Khmer despite so many strong options for civs and city-states.

We still have five other city states that we don't know where they might be.
Siam could get easily be represented by a scientific or cultural city-state, with two of them coming in DLC 4 because of Babylon.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

We still have five other city states that we don't know where they might be.
Siam could get easily be represented by a scientific or cultural city-state, with two of them coming in DLC 4 because of Babylon.

Would five more be enough? And even if, say, the entire pack was devoted to Asian city-states, are we seriously okay with that? Limiting the entire expansion of Asia to what could fit in a single DLC pack? That we would only ever get one new civ and a handful of city-states because they couldn't be bothered to add any new civs or east Asian city-states in the first round of DLC, or R&F, or GS? They could have been steadily working on that continent for three years now...and a paltry single DLC pack is now supposed to make up for everything?

You're giving it the benefit of the doubt, I know, but this is far too little too late man.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Would five more be enough? And even if, say, the entire pack was devoted to Asian city-states, are we seriously okay with that? Limiting the entire expansion of Asia to what could fit in a single DLC pack? That we would only ever get one new civ and a handful of city-states because they couldn't be bothered to add any new civs or east Asian city-states in the first round of DLC, or R&F, or GS? They could have been steadily working on that continent for three years now...and a paltry single DLC pack is now supposed to make up for everything?

You're giving it the benefit of the doubt, I know, but this is far too little too late man.

I just don't think it's that big of a deal and I've never seen no city-state representations bother anyone else, especially to this extent.

Considering the last round of DLC before the expansions was SE Asia, and then we got Korea and Mongolia right after, I'm not surprised they decided to avoid anything from East Asia in GS though.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Oh and because I haven't said it yet - I'm incredibly excited for Babylon and Hammurabi!

I'm just sad we aren't getting them AND Hittites/Assyria. Oh well.

this spot would’ve been perfect to give us puduhepa and spare us the trung sisters, but alas

 

[The Kingmaker]

this spot would’ve been perfect to give us puduhepa and spare us the trung sisters, but alas

Hoping for a Final Frontier pass.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I just don't think it's that big of a deal and I've never seen no city-state representations bother anyone else, especially to this extent.

Considering the last round of DLC before the expansions was SE Asia, and then we got Korea and Mongolia right after, I'm not surprised they decided to avoid anything from East Asia in GS though.

It's not just the city-states. It's any sort of representation. Between India and China we only have one civ, one wonder (from that same civ), one natural wonder (from the only other civ we are getting), and no city-states. Parsing specifics doesn't seem to overcome the fact that they have been outright ignoring the Indochine spectrum altogether for years.

And again this would be understandable if their approach to the map generally was comparable. But we have had this pedantic hairsplitting of civs like Scotland, Gaul, Macedon, Babylon, and of C-list CSs like the Zapotec and Wales and the Nok...and absolutely none of that obsessiveness has been applied to a region that begs to have more than just Khmer and Vietnam.