[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[AaronTBD]

Considering Assyria was in Civ 5, and Sumeria wasn't, I would say it looks like it will be a replacement.

One thing that everyone seemed to forgot about was the fact that Sumeria was actually in Civ 4, along with Babylon

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

One thing that everyone seemed to forgot about was the fact that Sumeria was actually in Civ 4, along with Babylon

Yes it was.
It has seemed like they decided to bring several civs from Civ 4 back: Sumeria, Khmer, and Mali which were effectively replaced by another in Civ 5.

 

[sweetbrown89]

Repost, but modified from suggestions:

In order to discern the remaining Civs, we can start by looking how Civ V empires have been carried forward in one of 4 ways:

1: Direct Representation
- Vanilla: America, England, Egypt, Japan, China, Aztecs, France, Brazil, Germany, Spain, India, Greece, Arabia
- DLC: Poland, Persia, Indonesia
- Rise & Fall: Korea, Netherlands, Mongolia, Zulu
- Gathering Storm: Inca, Sweden, Ottomans
- New Frontier: Maya, Ethiopia, Byzantium, Babylon

2: Slant Representation (similar or historically close civilization substitutes)
- Vanilla: Scythia for Huns, Norway for Denmark, Sumeria for Assyria
- DLC: Khmer for Siam
- Gathering Storm: Hungary for Austria, Mäori for Polynesia, Mali for Songhai, Phoenicia for Carthage
- New Frontier: Gaul for Celts

3: City-State Representation: Fez for Morocco, Lisbon for Portugal, Venice...for Venice

4: Split Representation:
- Macedon from Greece
- Nubia from Egypt
- Scotland from England or Celts

So this comes to the last slant representations for North America: Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) and Shoshone, it could be a tossup as to who the Cree slant represent, giving hope to the final DLC being SW North America for the Shoshone. Or crushing all hope and making Portugal the last DLC and replacing Lisbon City-State with one representing either the Haudenosaunee or the Shoshone (depending on what Firaxis considers the slant representation of the Cree.)

The new Civs are from previously unaccounted for geographic “diasporas” (using the term loosely) and do not particularly follow a pattern other than being between 1-2.

- Vanilla: Kongo
- DLC: Australia
- Rise & Fall: Georgia, Mapuche
- Gathering Storm: Canada
- New Frontier: Gran Colombia, Vietnam

This leads me to assume that there will be no more new Civ regions as of Babylon leaks.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

So this comes to the last slant representations for North America: Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) and Shoshone, it could be a tossup as to who the Cree slant represent, giving hope to the final DLC being SW North America for the Shoshone. Or crushing all hope and making Portugal the last DLC and replacing Lisbon City-State with one representing either the Haudenosaunee or the Shoshone (depending on what Firaxis considers the slant representation of the Cree.)

Even if we do get Portugal, I don't see Lisbon being replaced by an Iroquois or Shoshone city-state.

 

[Vilvatiktan]

I don't think Portugal as the last dlc would be plausible, because of these reasons:

1. If there will ever be a Portugal, they might want to release the Portugal dlc first before they add the Pirates scenario. Thus, lacking Portugal in the scenario might be because they won't be in NFP. They might though, make a colonization scenario in the future after a Portugal dlc.
2. Northwestern America is always empty on a TSL game. The region always become the battleground between Monty and Teddy. Thus, the last dlc with Northwestern American civ might be more plausible.
3. It is weird though to not having Portugal in a Civ game. Perhaps that is intentional so there will be another pass or expansion before Civ7

 

[Xandinho]

The fact is that the March Civ will be a very marketable one, I mean, I don't think it will be a new name, see that they launched GC, Gaul and are going to launch Vietnam (presumably) together with another veteran civ or a leader. Portugal fits perfectly in an isolated DLC, but if it's not Portugal, I can only imagine Iroquois and perhaps Austria as marketable close. Among these options, I'd say that Portugal is the most likely.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The fact is that the March Civ will be a very marketable one, I mean, I don't think it will be a new name, see that they launched GC, Gaul and are going to launch Vietnam (presumably) together with another veteran civ or a leader. Portugal fits perfectly in an isolated DLC, but if it's not Portugal, I can only imagine Iroquois and perhaps Austria as marketable close. Among these options, I'd say that Portugal is the most likely.

I think something from North Africa would be more likely than Austria, though I wouldn't necessarily say Morocco would be the most marketable choice.

That being said, if it does turn out to be Portugal, Austria (veteran) can easily be paired with Italy (new) for a second season. Same goes for Iroquois and Navajo or Berbers plus Egyptian leader.

 

[bite]

Let's not torture @bite.

There's plenty of room if you zoom in close enough.

Why must thou torture me

 

[raen]

Even if we do get Portugal, I don't see Lisbon being replaced by an Iroquois or Shoshone city-state.

Macau maybe?

 

[almughavar]

That's a pain to me. this reflects Siam as a dying nation in contrast to the rising (or return) of Dai Viet.

What does the choices of civilizations in this game have to do with situations of their real life counterparts though? The countries of about 1/3 of the playable civilizations in this game have already ceased to exist, yet that fact does not stop devs from implementing those "dead" civs. Beside, Siamese is already in Civ 5 (a game which Civ 6 is often compared unfavorably with on this forums), could be that they thought implementing a brand new civ this time would make the game more interesting and diversified overall, idk.

Beside, I think you should blame Khmer for "stealing the spot of Siam", or something, instead.

 

[notNamed]

What does the choices of civilizations in this game have to do with situations of their real life counterparts though?

There is a pretty real contemporary element to the choice of Civs.
Why is Poland a staple but the Kingdom of Hungary seen as a pick out of sheer pity as discount Austria? Simple, there are 40 million Poles in Poland alone, and within 20 million folks with Polish heritage all around the world.
There's just short of 15 million Hungarians and the rest of the successor states (which would push the figure into some 30 million of folks being represented) don't get any representation in the civ's design.
It's the same why Korea is a series' staple (a tiny state with barely any world renown before their economic miracle after the Korean War) while Vietnam (not exactly big leagues but throughout all of its history a consistent, equal and influential player in its part of the world; which has however been dirt-poor during most of Civ franchise's existence) is seen as a mere pity pick because it happens to have an acceptable female leader and Civ 7 set out to feature more of those.

However, as it should be obvious from these two cases, the choice of Vietnam vs Siam really couldn't come down to the future prospects of the respective regions. Firaxis doesn't really view either as a more developed nation worth investing in (from this pragmatic, "represent folks and thus incite them to buy more of your game" standpoint), creating official translations for, marketing in that part of the world.

 

[AntSou]

Why is Poland a staple but the Kingdom of Hungary seen as a pick out of sheer pity as discount Austria? Simple, there are 40 million Poles in Poland alone, and within 20 million folks with Polish heritage all around the world.
There's just short of 15 million Hungarians and the rest of the successor states (which would push the figure into some 30 million of folks being represented) don't get any representation in the civ's design.
It's the same why Korea is a series' staple (a tiny state with barely any world renown before their economic miracle after the Korean War) while Vietnam (not exactly big leagues but throughout all of its history a consistent, equal and influential player in its part of the world; which has however been dirt-poor during most of Civ franchise's existence) is seen as a mere pity pick because it happens to have an acceptable female leader and Civ 7 set out to feature more of those.

Poland appeared for the first time in Civ V. It will become a staple once it appears again in CIV VII.

But saying the choice of Civs is related to marketability is just stating the plainly obvious. I agree Poland's large population is what's driving the marketability element in that Civ's case, but the reverse does not apply. The willingness of people to buy a Maori pack, or a Ethiopia pack, or a Babylon pack, is not at all related to population or the economic power of the people in that region, because marketability in that case is driven by other factors.

So your explanations for Hungary or Vietnam aren't great.

On a different note, we might get more DLC after NFP, just not a second Pass. I think two or maybe three DLC are feasible, to make up the space between Civ 6 and Civ 7.

We'll still need a few updates after NFP, mainly to tidy up the content released during NFP.

I'm hopeful of one more new Civ after NFP, plus a few more alt leaders or personas, but no additional rules to the game in the form of modes or scenarios.

 

[almughavar]

There is a pretty real contemporary element to the choice of Civs.
Why is Poland a staple but the Kingdom of Hungary seen as a pick out of sheer pity as discount Austria? Simple, there are 40 million Poles in Poland alone, and within 20 million folks with Polish heritage all around the world.
There's just short of 15 million Hungarians and the rest of the successor states (which would push the figure into some 30 million of folks being represented) don't get any representation in the civ's design.
It's the same why Korea is a series' staple (a tiny state with barely any world renown before their economic miracle after the Korean War) while Vietnam (not exactly big leagues but throughout all of its history a consistent, equal and influential player in its part of the world; which has however been dirt-poor during most of Civ franchise's existence) is seen as a mere pity pick because it happens to have an acceptable female leader and Civ 7 set out to feature more of those.

However, as it should be obvious from these two cases, the choice of Vietnam vs Siam really couldn't come down to the future prospects of the respective regions. Firaxis doesn't really view either as a more developed nation worth investing in (from this pragmatic, "represent folks and thus incite them to buy more of your game" standpoint), creating official translations for, marketing in that part of the world.

I don't think Hungary is supposed to be pity pick or as a discount Austria, considering that Hungary is included in a major expansion (Gathering Storm), meanwhile Poland is included in a DLC.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Poland imo makes sense as a Staple. The country has been around since the 9th century AD and has always been a relevant regional power since.

Now bear in mind I don't think Poland were historically relevant enough to be in the base game. The western world should be repped by no more than 7 leaders in the vanilla game (roughly 1/3 of the total in a 20 leader game) and those slots should go to the English, French, Germans, Russians, Americans, Romans and Greeks.

Any other Euro civ should be DLC or Expansion exclusive imo but amongst those I think Poland is one of the more important ones to include (on the same level as Spain and the token Celtic and Viking civs).

As for Hungary replacing Austria, I don't think that's a fully convincing theory. Hungarian culture is quite distinct from the Austrian culture, even though the two formed an empire for several centuries. Hungary was added because of the novelty factor and because it faciliated a couple of mechanics no other civ specialized in (levied troops, spending gold to gain envoys and ofc the hammy Pearl of the Danube boost).

If anything, Barbarossa's Germany is the stand in for Austria since both represent the Holy Roman Empire. Had Germany been led by a Protestant Monarch like Frederick II or a post-unification leader such as Bismarck or Adenauer, then there would've been a niche for Imperial Austria, which, let's be honest, is the only role Austria could possibly take in Civ.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

There is a pretty real contemporary element to the choice of Civs.
Why is Poland a staple but the Kingdom of Hungary seen as a pick out of sheer pity as discount Austria? Simple, there are 40 million Poles in Poland alone, and within 20 million folks with Polish heritage all around the world.
There's just short of 15 million Hungarians and the rest of the successor states (which would push the figure into some 30 million of folks being represented) don't get any representation in the civ's design.
It's the same why Korea is a series' staple (a tiny state with barely any world renown before their economic miracle after the Korean War) while Vietnam (not exactly big leagues but throughout all of its history a consistent, equal and influential player in its part of the world; which has however been dirt-poor during most of Civ franchise's existence) is seen as a mere pity pick because it happens to have an acceptable female leader and Civ 7 set out to feature more of those.

However, as it should be obvious from these two cases, the choice of Vietnam vs Siam really couldn't come down to the future prospects of the respective regions. Firaxis doesn't really view either as a more developed nation worth investing in (from this pragmatic, "represent folks and thus incite them to buy more of your game" standpoint), creating official translations for, marketing in that part of the world.

^ There's a matter of National pride (And shame) here. My people. and the other were at wars several generations ago and have an uneasy relationships. Particularly when it comes to Cambodia (A direct successor to Old Khmer) and Laos (There's a debate whether did they worth a slot in Civ franchise or not. Myself have a strong Laotian heritage on paternal, and maternal side is more Burmese with some Laotian heritage as well (she came from a lil city of Nan, to the north and west is what's now Laotian domain), and today.... attractive white girls

Poland imo makes sense as a Staple. The country has been around since the 9th century AD and has always been a relevant regional power since.

Now bear in mind I don't think Poland were historically relevant enough to be in the base game. The western world should be repped by no more than 7 leaders in the vanilla game (roughly 1/3 of the total in a 20 leader game) and those slots should go to the English, French, Germans, Russians, Americans, Romans and Greeks.

Any other Euro civ should be DLC or Expansion exclusive imo but amongst those I think Poland is one of the more important ones to include (on the same level as Spain and the token Celtic and Viking civs).

As for Hungary replacing Austria, I don't think that's a fully convincing theory. Hungarian culture is quite distinct from the Austrian culture, even though the two formed an empire for several centuries. Hungary was added because of the novelty factor and because it faciliated a couple of mechanics no other civ specialized in (levied troops, spending gold to gain envoys and ofc the hammy Pearl of the Danube boost).

If anything, Barbarossa's Germany is the stand in for Austria since both represent the Holy Roman Empire. Had Germany been led by a Protestant Monarch like Frederick II or a post-unification leader such as Bismarck or Adenauer, then there would've been a niche for Imperial Austria, which, let's be honest, is the only role Austria could possibly take in Civ.

Austria is... to be honest. hard to represent correctly in any Civ games. so often they have Hussars (which shared with Hungary, actually because Hungary was once part of Austria) as UU, their seat in Vienna and Habsburg leaderships (for good or ill), the Hapsburg HRE was so vast that once included Spain (and even Portugal, through Fillipe II usurped Portuguese Throne outright) and this put the Habsburg at odds with France as a whole (regardless of whoever leading it, be there Valois or Bourbons). Several times peoples of the Empire consisted of Germans (Ruling class), Italians, and various slavic people (And maybe 'Byzantine' medit peoples too!) with 'true' Austrians were no less distinct to Germans beyond that they're Latinized Germans. So often they entered 'German games' with Northern big rival. Prussia.

 

[notNamed]

As for Hungary replacing Austria, I don't think that's a fully convincing theory. Hungarian culture is quite distinct from the Austrian culture, even though the two formed an empire for several centuries. Hungary was added because of the novelty factor and because it faciliated a couple of mechanics no other civ specialized in (levied troops, spending gold to gain envoys and ofc the hammy Pearl of the Danube boost).

Kingdom of Hungary and Austria were generally not very similar (at least when dealing with the medieval history, which is Mátyás' ballpark), but if you compare Civ 5 Austria and Civ 6 Hungary, they are clearly designed with the same things in mind.
Both focus on additional mechanics with paying off city states, both get Huszár units, both get special buildings based on post-Ottoman invasion holdovers.
On the historical front, obviously Hungary and Poland were the two cultures most similar to each other with Hungary being the stronger of the two during the medieval period and Poland dominating once the Ottoman Empire conquered most of the former's kingdom.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

However, as it should be obvious from these two cases, the choice of Vietnam vs Siam really couldn't come down to the future prospects of the respective regions. Firaxis doesn't really view either as a more developed nation worth investing in (from this pragmatic, "represent folks and thus incite them to buy more of your game" standpoint), creating official translations for, marketing in that part of the world.

Uh? Didn't you took VietHype seriously? something that raised concerns to Thai officials and business sectors particularly on Tourism and Industry (and to some citizens as foreign mating options, except borderland merchants who are more or less happy with VietBoom and didn't think it will eventually subjugate Siam as part of Neo Dai Viet nor they didn't care if it happens or even their 'Siamese' heritage at all. I've even heard alot of my pals often recommended mating Vietgirls instead of white 'princesses' for some or no reasons which I don't take it). The Halong bay said its all.

But if anyone said Portugal is more 'marketable' . F'xis should study Naus profile through for how a handful Naus with Caravel escorts can evaporate larger local navy of Indian and other local dominions without a single Nau sunk by enemy. and thus earned Portuguese many port cities in continental Asia.

 

[sukritact]

2: Slant Representation (similar or historically close civilization substitutes)
- Vanilla: Scythia for Huns, Norway for Denmark, Sumeria for Assyria
- DLC: Khmer for Siam
- Gathering Storm: Hungary for Austria, Mäori for Polynesia, Mali for Songhai, Phoenicia for Carthage
- New Frontier: Gaul for Celts

I really dislike this take NGL, while Vietnam can represent Southeast Asia. It CANNOT function as a stand-in Siam. There IS a difference there; because with an added Vietnam you can say that Southeast Asia is reasonably well represented, but you cannot say Siam has been represented (unless they explicitly do something like the Danish-Norwegian Ski Infantry like they did in Civ 5, which doesn't make sense for Siam/Vietnam anyways). Same applies for Scythia/Huns, Khmer/Siam, Mali/Songhai, Hungary/Austria, Sumeria/Assyria, Norway/Denmark. Like, aside from Norway/Denmark, none of these culture pairings even speak languages from the same language family!

I think it's one thing to say "We shouldn't add Portugal because Iberia is already represented" and another to say "We shouldn't add add Portugal because it's already sorta represented by Spain".

he favors Floating Market while I consider Boxing Ring as a national identity

1. Please don't @ me unless you actually have something you'd like me to see.
2. I picked the Floating Market because Siam as a whole (from the Ayutthayan to Mid-Rattanakosin period) has long been strongly characterized by trade (if I had to sum up Siamese history in less than 3 words I'd say "Trade and Diplomacy"). Also the Entertainment Complex and its buildings largely boring are seldom built; so gameplaywise the Floating Market does a better job of giving the civ a distinct gameplay character. It's fun spamming markets.
   
3. Unique elements do not have to be present in the entire culture it represent. The Hanseatic League/Hansa was only in the coastal German states for instance.

I strongly disagree because Cabaret as *snip* and *snip*

I don't think you meant it as such, but that excluded word is an offensive slur and I strongly urge you to stop using it.

 

[Birch617]

I agree with the thing of this Civ cannot enter cuz this other civ already fills that role and is representative of this area; idk but i feel the devs are taking note from the Civ V modders, who wanted to make playable Civs that were more similar among each other, so yeah idk why gate keep like some areas just because theres already a civ there, like yeah Gran Colombia was important for spanish speaking south america but doesn't mean that there shouldn't be other latino civs like Argetina or Mexico

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I really dislike this take NGL, while Vietnam can represent Southeast Asia. It CANNOT function as a stand-in Siam. There IS a difference there; because with an added Vietnam you can say that Southeast Asia is reasonably well represented, but you cannot say Siam has been represented (unless they explicitly do something like the Danish-Norwegian Ski Infantry like they did in Civ 5, which doesn't make sense for Siam/Vietnam anyways). Same applies for Scythia/Huns, Khmer/Siam, Mali/Songhai, Hungary/Austria, Sumeria/Assyria, Norway/Denmark. Like, aside from Norway/Denmark, none of these culture pairings even speak languages from the same language family!

Especially Siamese Chang Suek (A type of war elephants UU you chose for Siamese) and Khmer Domrey (with ballista platform on its back) are wholly different, Siamese War mastodons are hardcore heavycavs with battering ram effect on city walls (actually city gates, this is Asian ways to assault enemy city, break open the gates not walls, and implemented by everyone from Irrawaddy valley to Kanto planes until rifled artillery along with European military doctrines were seriously introduced in Mid 19th Century) while Khmer Domreys are basically strong mobile siege weapons before gunpowder came in use (Still inclining on Asian siege tactics to kill enemy occupants and open gates without breaking open walls).

I think it's one thing to say "We shouldn't add Portugal because Iberia is already represented" and another to say "We shouldn't add add Portugal because it's already sorta represented by Spain".

I don't think @raen will be pleased with this. Actually I learned many things from him, the most important thing to my modding project is how to add or modify existing tech and civics, very useful to me who doesn't content to what Firaxis has or uses

1. Please don't @ me unless you actually have something you'd like me to see.

1. 
   Apology sir
   

   [*]I picked the Floating Market because Siam as a whole (from the Ayutthayan to Mid-Rattanakosin period) has long been strongly characterized by trade (if I had to sum up Siamese history in less than 3 words I'd say "Trade and Diplomacy"). Also the Entertainment Complex and its buildings largely boring are seldom built; so gameplaywise the Floating Market does a better job of giving the civ a distinct gameplay character. It's fun spamming markets.
   
   [*]Unique elements do not have to be present in the entire culture it represent. The Hanseatic League/Hansa was only in the coastal German states for instance.

Actually I don't build Entertainment complex often (I'm more inclined on either Military (Encampment or Harbor), Science (Campus), Religion (very early), Commerce (the hub) and Industry (As the game progresses, Industrial Zone becomes more more and more importants and requires serious plannings to reap most benefits out of it), but still Boxing ring represents national fondness of Muay Thais, along with other มวยs. And IRL I observed many white (what we called 'Farangs') tourists visiting boxing rings, and a telltale of romances and hookups induced by the ringside in many different mating options. Wither with White man mating Asian woman, or attractive white girl goes after local male boxers. One such guide for Thais to mate Farangs often cited boxing ring as a mating side, or for a thai man to mate white woman, he has to be MT boxer).

I don't think you meant it as such, but that excluded word is an offensive slur and I strongly urge you to stop using it.

Understood but if someone poke fun on that stuffs citing Siamese civ designing concepts. Because I saw a jokes regarding to Brazil citing that their Unique District should be Favelas (A kinda slum) instead of Carnival Square.

Moderator Action: Poking fun using slurs is not funny. Please be sensitive to others on this forum. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889