[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Zaarin]

So...I’m still holding out hope for a Shoshone replacement.

Well, Russia straight up has their civ ability, the Cree have their one UU, and Scythia fills their niche so in a manner of speaking they have been replaced...piecemeal. If you mean culturally, I'd say you could point to the Cree (who in game are Plains Cree). At which point it's the Iroquois who need a replacement or return...

 

[sweetbrown89]

Well, Russia straight up has their civ ability, the Cree have their one UU, and Scythia fills their niche so in a manner of speaking they have been replaced...piecemeal. If you mean culturally, I'd say you could point to the Cree (who in game are Plains Cree). At which point it's the Iroquois who need a replacement or return...

Well, my point was that the Shoshone could get slant representation such as the Navajo / Apache that is well received. The Cree and Haudenosaunee have locational overlap, so I was counting the Cree as Haudenosaunee replacement.

All slant representations being:
Scythia for Huns
Norway for Denmark
Cree for Haudenosaunee (“Iroquois”)
Hungary for Austria
Mäori for Polynesia
Mali for Songhai
Phoenicia for Carthage
Gaul for Celts
Vietnam (leak) for Siam

This leaves no replacement for Shoshone, and Venice, Portugal, and Morocco with City-State representation.

 

[Zaarin]

denosaunee have locational overlap, so I was counting the Cree as Haudenosaunee replacement.

Right, but my point was that the Cree as represented in-game are the Plains Cree, which makes them much closer to the Shoshone, culturally and geographically, than to the Haudenosaunee. There is no representation of the Innu, Atimekw, or East Cree in the civ's design.

 

[Patine]

I also like the idea of Babylon been the One City civ, maybe the Campus gets a +2 science for every level of wall when adjecent to the city and Hammurabi could get an unique Goverment plaza building that replaces the Ancestral Hall, also i like the idea of the Culture bomb kudurru

This is the problem with Hammurabi as a Babylonian leader rather than Nebuchadnezzar II, in that these sort of annoying play clichés becoming tempting. Although I've never played Civ4 or Civ5, (played Civ1, Civ2, and Civ3, and then jumped right to here, still also play Civ2, and still own a copy of Civ3), I've never actually played this Venice civ or the Civ4 or Civ5 "tall and wide," dichotomies in the more extreme choice they seem to present. But a "one-city, ultra-tall," civ as a mandatory playstyle doesn't sound at all appealing to me. Also, my lack of playing Civ4 and Civ5 means I'm, personally, not at all concerned with certain leaders (like Nebuchadnezzar II) appearing in recent iterations and "needing a break." A wee little bit of frustration on my part, I admit.

 

[Zaarin]

This is the problem with Hammurabi as a Babylonian leader rather than Nebuchadnezzar II, in that these sort of annoying play clichés becoming tempting. Although I've never played Civ4 or Civ5, (played Civ1, Civ2, and Civ3, and then jumped right to here, still also play Civ2, and still own a copy of Civ3), I've never actually played this Venice civ or the Civ4 or Civ5 "tall and wide," dichotomies in the more extreme choice they seem to present. But a "one-city, ultra-tall," civ as a mandatory playstyle doesn't sound at all appealing to me. Also, my lack of playing Civ4 and Civ5 means I'm, personally, not at all concerned with certain leaders (like Nebuchadnezzar II) appearing in recent iterations and "needing a break." A wee little bit of frustration on my part, I admit.

TBH I'm a little disappointed at some of the "change for change's sake" leader choices they've made. Some have been fine, but is Victoria really a step up from Elizabeth I, even if Lizzy has been in all five previous games? And then they haven't changed leaders in some cases where it might have been interesting to do so--for example, Montezuma, Gandhi, and Pachacuti.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Well, my point was that the Shoshone could get slant representation such as the Navajo / Apache that is well received. The Cree and Haudenosaunee have locational overlap, so I was counting the Cree as Haudenosaunee replacement.

All slant representations being:
Scythia for Huns
Norway for Denmark
Cree for Haudenosaunee (“Iroquois”)
Hungary for Austria
Mäori for Polynesia
Mali for Songhai
Phoenicia for Carthage
Gaul for Celts
Vietnam (leak) for Siam

This leaves no replacement for Shoshone, and Venice, Portugal, and Morocco with City-State representation.

Yes, I was hoping for the Navajo or at least the Cherokee to fill the Shoshone slot.

I disagree with Zaarin regarding the Cree not being an Iroquois replacement. They both occupy pretty close niches (and if not the Cree, then Canada is poaching on the Iroquois TSL area). The Mekewap is quite similar to a longhouse, and overall the Cree occupy a trading niche that people would typically expect from the Iroquois (granted, with less of a warmongering slant). The Cree feel like they were designed to fill the Iroquois role, but with a more peaceful approach to diplomacy, no doubt a consequence of wanted to diversify playstyles a bit as well as make the indigenous civs a bit more dimensional and less stereotypical.

I think the cultural distinction doesn't really matter that much: the Cree are VI's "Iroquois", perhaps mechanically Frankensteined a bit with the Shoshone to add more facets to the Cree and encourage a completely new playstyle to be developed for whatever western American civ we might get.

That said, although the design approach points toward the Cree replacing the Iroquois and trying to keep design options open for a Navajo/Apache/Cherokee/PNW civ, Babylon throws all this out the window. I don't think cultural or regional representation is governing the devs' design decisions anymore. If the fans want the Iroquois, it probably doesn't matter if they would be underwhelming and superfluous compared to any other candidate on the continent; they will probably be prioritized because VI is now officially a crowd-sourced hackjob.

TBH I'm a little disappointed at some of the "change for change's sake" leader choices they've made. Some have been fine, but is Victoria really a step up from Elizabeth I, even if Lizzy has been in all five previous games? And then they haven't changed leaders in some cases where it might have been interesting to do so--for example, Montezuma, Gandhi, and Pachacuti.

Victoria is still one of the best candidates to represent England. In fact I would argue that as a matter of global impact, the British empire was largest under her reign, and the agricultural/industrial revolution was far more influential to the course of history than the Elizabethan arts. And like it or not, it's called the Victorian era for a reason lol.

 

[Zaarin]

Victoria is still one of the best candidates to represent England. In fact I would argue that as a matter of global impact, the British empire was largest under her reign, and the agricultural/industrial revolution was far more influential to the course of history than the Elizabethan arts. And like it or not, it's called the Victorian era for a reason lol.

Except I don't want England to be Britain. I want England to be England. As I said in another thread, I'd prefer to never see a leader of England who didn't carry the title "King/Queen of England" (every monarch starting with Anne has been "King/Queen of the United Kingdom"). Also Vicky is boooooring; she has the personality of a dormouse. One of her PMs like Disraeli or William Gladstone would be more interesting than she is--but if we're finally getting a male leader of England, I'd still rather have Henry V or Henry II or Edward I or Edward III or...As far as England's female leader options go, I'd rank Victoria last: Elizabeth I > Empress Matilda > Mary I > Queen Maud (queen-consort of Henry I) > Queen Eleanor > Lady Jane Grey ~ Anne > Victoria. As far as serious consideration goes, though, I'd stop at Mary.

I disagree with Zaarin regarding the Cree not being an Iroquois replacement. They both occupy pretty close niches (and if not the Cree, then Canada is poaching on the Iroquois TSL area). The Mekewap is quite similar to a longhouse, and overall the Cree occupy a trading niche that people would typically expect from the Iroquois (granted, with less of a warmongering slant). The Cree feel like they were designed to fill the Iroquois role, but with a more peaceful approach to diplomacy, no doubt a consequence of wanted to diversify playstyles a bit as well as make the indigenous civs a bit more dimensional and less stereotypical.

I mean, any attempt to portray any Native American civilization as peaceful is already wandering into stereotype territory (sorry, Milton Tootoosis). They fought wars for different reasons than the wars fought by Europeans, but virtually every tribe was in a state of perpetual warfare with its traditional enemies, with occasional truces serving as little more than breathing room to prepare for the next war.

If the fans want the Iroquois, it probably doesn't matter if they would be underwhelming and superfluous compared to any other candidate on the continent; they will probably be prioritized because VI is now officially a crowd-sourced hackjob.

If I were designing a Haudenosaunee civ, it would look nothing like the Cree. If I were designing a Haudenosaunee civ and the Cree were not in the game, it would still look nothing like the Cree. A Haudenosaunee civ should be about being in a perpetual state of warfare with side bonuses to farming and population from razing cities. Toss in some minor bonuses from being allied to civilizations that are at war with each other to reflect the manner in which they played the French, English, Dutch, and Americans off each other while ravaging the indigenous people of the St. Lawrence Valley, Ohio Valley, and even as far south as the Carolinas. Their agenda is they like civs that are at war with their friends and allies. Yes, the longhouse is going to be similar to the mekewap, but I'd see it as replacing the Granary, not as a unique improvement.

 

[Lord Lakely]

It's easy enough to come with a worthy leader for every Staple Civ who hasn't been repped in the franchise yet. Some examples from the top of my head:

Americans: Thomas Jefferson
Arabia: Arwa al Sulyahi
Austria: Franz Joseph
Aztecs: Axayacatl
China: Gaozu, Yongle
Egypt: Thutmose III
England: Aethelflaed, Walpole
France: Cardinal Richelieu, Henri IV, Philippe II
Germany: Otto III, Empress Matilda, Konrad Adenauer
Greece: Alcibiades, Leonidas, Solon, Themosticles
Haudenosaunee: the Brants, Jigonsahsee
Inca: Topa Inca Yupanqui
India: Nur Jahan, Rajendra Chola
Japan: Hojo Masako, Meiji
Mongols: Mandukhai, Ogodei, Tamerlane
Netherlands: Johan de Witt, Michiel de Ruyter
Ottomans: Roxelana
Persia: Abbas, Khosrow, Mithridates
Poland: Boleslaw I, Jan Sobienski III
Phoenicia: Hanno the Great, Hamilcar Barca, Hasdrubal Barca, Hiram of Tyre
Rome: Livia, Gaius Marius, Marcus Aurelius
Russia: Aleksandr Nevski, Olga of Kyiv
Spain: Pelagius
Vikings: Cnut, Margarethe
Zulu: Chestwayo

I would advocate a Civ 7 with a completely new set of never-before-seen leaders. (but especially without Gandhi and Alex)

 

[Zaarin]

Americans: Thomas Jefferson
Arabia: Arwa al Sulyahi
Austria: Franz Joseph
Aztecs: Axayacatl
China: Gaozu, Yongle
Egypt: Thutmose III
England: Aethelflaed, Walpole
France: Cardinal Richelieu, Henri IV, Philippe II
Germany: Otto III, Empress Matilda, Konrad Adenauer
Greece: Alcibiades, Leonidas, Themosticles
Haudenosaunee: the Brants, Jigonsahsee
Inca: Topa Inca Yupanqui
India: Nur Jahan, Rajendra Chola
Japan: Hojo Masako, Meiji
Mongols: Mandukhai, Ogodei, Tamerlane
Ottomans: Roxelana
Persia: Abbas, Khosrow, Mithridates
Poland: Boleslaw I, Jan Sobienski III
Rome: Livia, Gaius Marius
Russia: Aleksandr Nevski, Olga of Kyiv
Spain: Pelagius
Vikings: Cnut, Margarethe
Zulu: Chestwayo

Not fond of Roxelana leading the Ottomans and Matilda makes more sense for England than Germany IMO, but I'd be on board with most of these changes. (Except I want Maria Theresa back for Austria please and thank you. )

 

[8housesofelixir]

Alcibiades

Alcibiades is probably THE most interesting Classical Greek figure that the popular culture would go crazy for him, but in fact he is sincerely underrepresented in the modern media. (Besides showing up in Assassin's Creed Odyssey as a supporting character)

Hojo Masako

Another Queen Mother (well, Shogun-Mother) figure, which is very common in East Asia. If Japan needs a female leader I would suggest those female Emperors who were not only de facto rulers but also de jure rulers (Masako wasn't the latter).

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Except I don't want England to be Britain. I want England to be England. As I said in another thread, I'd prefer to never see a leader of England who didn't carry the title "King/Queen of England" (every monarch starting with Anne has been "King/Queen of the United Kingdom"). Also Vicky is boooooring; she has the personality of a dormouse. One of her PMs like Disraeli or William Gladstone would be more interesting than she is--but if we're finally getting a male leader of England, I'd still rather have Henry V or Henry II or Edward I or Edward III or...As far as England's female leader options go, I'd rank Victoria last: Elizabeth I > Empress Matilda > Mary I > Queen Maud (queen-consort of Henry I) > Queen Eleanor > Lady Jane Grey ~ Anne > Victoria. As far as serious consideration goes, though, I'd stop at Mary.

Dormice are cute?

I agree that there are more fascinating female rulers for England, but I don't really care much about that in a game that uses leaders as talking heads. What kind of "England" are we trying to represent? Victorian England is fine, and imo a refreshing change-up from Elizabethan England.

Although I do agree that, if we had to have Scotland, I would have much preferred something like an Aethelflad/Robert split, where neither of them were very British. But Civ VI was only a half-step toward cultural differentiation of civs, and is still mired in the notion that it needs to represent "empires" or kingdoms/people's which approximate them. Until we get a civ game that transcends rote imperialism, I think England is always going to be Britain first, and only maybe something like Wessex second.

I mean, any attempt to portray any Native American civilization as peaceful is already wandering into stereotype territory (sorry, Milton Tootoosis). They fought wars for different reasons than the wars fought by Europeans, but virtually every tribe was in a state of perpetual warfare with its traditional enemies, with occasional truces serving as little more than breathing room to prepare for the next war.

It's a bit of a catch-22. I would argue that the savage native stereotype is older, more prevalent, and absolutely more harmful. I think civ, and especially VI, would rather err toward positive stereotypes.

 

[Patine]

It's easy enough to come with a worthy leader for every Staple Civ who hasn't been repped in the franchise yet. Some examples from the top of my head:

Americans: Thomas Jefferson
Arabia: Arwa al Sulyahi
Austria: Franz Joseph
Aztecs: Axayacatl
China: Gaozu, Yongle
Egypt: Thutmose III
England: Aethelflaed, Walpole
France: Cardinal Richelieu, Henri IV, Philippe II
Germany: Otto III, Empress Matilda, Konrad Adenauer
Greece: Alcibiades, Leonidas, Solon, Themosticles
Haudenosaunee: the Brants, Jigonsahsee
Inca: Topa Inca Yupanqui
India: Nur Jahan, Rajendra Chola
Japan: Hojo Masako, Meiji
Mongols: Mandukhai, Ogodei, Tamerlane
Netherlands: Johan de Witt, Michiel de Ruyter
Ottomans: Roxelana
Persia: Abbas, Khosrow, Mithridates
Poland: Boleslaw I, Jan Sobienski III
Phoenicia: Hanno the Great, Hamilcar Barca, Hasdrubal Barca, Hiram of Tyre
Rome: Livia, Gaius Marius, Marcus Aurelius
Russia: Aleksandr Nevski, Olga of Kyiv
Spain: Pelagius
Vikings: Cnut, Margarethe
Zulu: Chestwayo

I would advocate a Civ 7 with a completely new set of never-before-seen leaders. (but especially without Gandhi and Alex)

Perhaps an English-speaking Canadian leader, for the, you know, over 70% of Anglophone Canadians.

Another Queen Mother (well, Shogun-Mother) figure, which is very common in East Asia. If Japan needs a female leader I would suggest those female Emperors who were not only de facto rulers but also de jure rulers (Masako wasn't the latter).

There were five, if I recall, and along with Wu Zetian and two, I think, Queens Regnant of Silla, I had to make a correction on the Wikipedia contributors board when I saw that Park Geun-hye and Tsai Ing-wen were stated in a mention as, not the first two female national Presidents or female heads of a Republic, but the first two female heads-of-state in East Asia, period, full stop. :S

 

[Zaarin]

It's a bit of a catch-22. I would argue that the savage native stereotype is older, more prevalent, and absolutely more harmful. I think civ, and especially VI, would rather err toward positive stereotypes.

Eh, I'm currently slogging through Star Trek: Voyager for heaven knows what reason, and I die a little inside every time Chakotay opens his mouth (and so does Robert Beltran: it's written all over his face ). Positive stereotypes aren't any less harmful than the negative ones.

 

[Patine]

Eh, I'm currently slogging through Star Trek: Voyager for heaven knows what reason, and I die a little inside every time Chakotay opens his mouth (and so does Robert Beltran: it's written all over his face ). Positive stereotypes aren't any less harmful than the negative ones.

And, of course, no civilization who has succeeded and flourished in history has ever done so by being truly "peaceful," in the cliched sense, except maybe outliers like the Norte Chico civilization, who show no signs of violent conflict or endeavour in their archaeological site (or artistic expression, either, curiously), but they lived in an isolated cove along the Peruvian Coast, and likely rarely met anyone one else.

 

[8housesofelixir]

There were five, if I recall, and along with Wu Zetian and two, I think, Queens Regnant of Silla.

Queen Mother or Queen Dowager is different from a Queen Regnant, at least in East Asia, since the former is more of a Regent than a Regnant.

Wu Zetian was, technically, an Emperor (cf. Irene of Athens, who used the male monarch title basileus instead of the female title basilissa), so she can be labeled as a Queen Regnant. The same goes for the Silla Queens and the female Emperors of Japan.

Figures such as Empress Lü, Hōjō Masako, and Empress Dowager Cixi are the Queen Mothers I referred to; they all worked as a Regent or behind the scenes, rather than taken the throne themselves.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I could see Hammurabi starting with Code of Laws and maybe having an extra policy slot of some sort.

I could also see the UA being something like a production discount to city center buildings.

I anticipate the unique infrastructure will be a unique Library. We're overdue for a unique building.

These are exactly what I was thinking they could get as well. However I was thinking the UA might focus specifically on walls more though but generic city center buildings makes sense too.

Victoria is still one of the best candidates to represent England. In fact I would argue that as a matter of global impact, the British empire was largest under her reign, and the agricultural/industrial revolution was far more influential to the course of history than the Elizabethan arts. And like it or not, it's called the Victorian era for a reason lol.

I like the British side to England but as long as there is an actual non-British side as well. I would be happy with both Victoria and Elizabeth.

I disagree with Zaarin regarding the Cree not being an Iroquois replacement. They both occupy pretty close niches (and if not the Cree, then Canada is poaching on the Iroquois TSL area). The Mekewap is quite similar to a longhouse, and overall the Cree occupy a trading niche that people would typically expect from the Iroquois (granted, with less of a warmongering slant). The Cree feel like they were designed to fill the Iroquois role, but with a more peaceful approach to diplomacy, no doubt a consequence of wanted to diversify playstyles a bit as well as make the indigenous civs a bit more dimensional and less stereotypical.

At this point I'm kind of afraid that it was the introduction of peaceful Canada that might have made it an Iroquois replacement, or over any other tribe from North America.

Though on the flipside we got an extra tribe from South America in the Mapuche.

 

[Lord Lakely]

lol @ thinking Canada will become a Civ staple. I don't bloody think so.

 

[Patine]

lol @ thinking Canada will become a Civ staple. I don't bloody think so.

If Mohandas Gandhi has to appear in every damned iteration to the point of having long-running gags attached to him in game, why not? The choice of civ's that appear seems to retain an arbitrary element to it, even if it's gotten somewhat more methodical. Maybe they should get rid of nations like, not only Canada, but America, Mexico, Brazil, Gran Colombia, Australia, etc. starting in 4000 BC (always kind of weird, as is) and just have a "independence revolution or devolution," mechanic of some sort for far-flung settled areas of overreaching nations far from home in later iterations of the game.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Figures such as Empress Lü, Hōjō Masako, and Empress Dowager Cixi are the Queen Mothers I referred to; they all worked as a Regent or behind the scenes, rather than taken the throne themselves.

They're all perfectly viable choices As long as the person in question held power and/or influence and did something productive with that influence, they are eligible for Civ leadership (in addition to anyone who actually *was* a king, regent, commander, chieftain, prime-minister, etc). Queen-Consorts were often as vital to their husband's successes as their husbands themselves. (Taytu Betul of Ethiopia was a skilled diplomat, much moreso than her husband Menelik II, Livia arranged the domestic affairs and games that would cement her husband's popularity and reputation, etc). I'm perfectly okay with CdM and Eleanor being leaders.

Likewise, symbolic leader choices like a Kupe, Shaka, Hiawatha, Dido or Victoria are also viable because they are, fact or fictional, the *face* of that culture.

 

[Patine]

They're all perfectly viable choices As long as the person in question held power and/or influence and did something productive with that influence, they are eligible for Civ leadership (in addition to anyone who actually *was* a king, regent, commander, chieftain, prime-minister, etc). Queen-Consorts were often as vital to their husband's successes as their husbands themselves. (Taytu Betul of Ethiopia was a skilled diplomat, much moreso than her husband Menelik II, Livia arranged the domestic affairs and games that would cement her husband's popularity and reputation, etc). I'm perfectly okay with CdM and Eleanor being leaders.

Likewise, symbolic leader choices like a Kupe, Shaka, Hiawatha, Dido or Victoria are also viable because they are, fact or fictional, the *face* of that culture.

Except that Dido didn't verifiably exist - a problem I have also have with Gilgamesh.