[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[8housesofelixir]

Some of them might even turn out to be history buffs and come help us design Koreanic civs in the future.

For Korea I support any unique design as long as it is not Scientific Seowon again. Traditional Confucian educational institutions just don't teach science.

 

[Zaarin]

For Korea I support any unique design as long as it is not Scientific Seowon again. Traditional Confucian educational institutions just don't teach science.

We've seen a few civs break out of their traditional boxes--cultural Greece and China instead of all-war, all-day; hyper-aggressive Byzantium with a side of religion instead of hyper-religion; naval merchant Phoenicia instead of "lol elephants crossing the Alps" Carthage--but it would be nice if a few more civs could get out of their pigeonholes, and scientific Korea and scientific Babylon are at the top of that list for me. (Or Babylon can stay science if I can get cultural Assyria in Civ7.)

 

[Lord Lakely]

scientific Korea

Great Person Specialist / Navy-oriented Joseon plz.

scientific Babylon

Expansionistic Akkadian Empire plz.

get cultural Assyria in Civ7

Yes. Yes. YES.

 

[UWHabs]

We've seen a few civs break out of their traditional boxes--cultural Greece and China instead of all-war, all-day; hyper-aggressive Byzantium with a side of religion instead of hyper-religion; naval merchant Phoenicia instead of "lol elephants crossing the Alps" Carthage--but it would be nice if a few more civs could get out of their pigeonholes, and scientific Korea and scientific Babylon are at the top of that list for me. (Or Babylon can stay science if I can get cultural Assyria in Civ7.)

Yeah, some civs like the Zulu are pretty much always going to be warriors in every iteration, but even within this iteration you've seen changes to a civ like England, being at one point cultural, but now being more industrial. I like the slightly different takes on civs over time, to give you a few more options to play them. And alt leaders help too - Gandhi and Chandragupta obviously play differently for the same civ.

 

[Zaarin]

Expansionistic Akkadian Empire plz.

That definitely works, though that's more a replacement for Sumer than Babylon.

 

[AaronTBD]

I’m just wondering cause I don’t know much about Assyria, but how would a cultural Assyria work?

 

[Zaarin]

I’m just wondering cause I don’t know much about Assyria, but how would a cultural Assyria work?

The better part of the wonders that the Greeks attributed to Babylon, including the Hanging Gardens, were actually in Nineveh. Ashurbanipal was something of a litterateur. Virtually all the great Assyrian kings built monuments and sponsored public works. tl;dr: Assyria is primed to be the builder/wondermonger/great work hoarder civ.

 

[AaronTBD]

The better part of the wonders that the Greeks attributed to Babylon, including the Hanging Gardens, were actually in Nineveh. Ashurbanipal was something of a litterateur. Virtually all the great Assyrian kings built monuments and sponsored public works. tl;dr: Assyria is primed to be the builder/wondermonger/great work hoarder civ.

So they could be like China or France in civ 6, very wonder based?

 

[Zaarin]

So they could be like China or France in civ 6, very wonder based?

Yes, I think that's a fair comparison.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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.

I think it's a combination of both why Austria was passed over. Like you said since Barbarossa Germany is represented by the Holy Roman Empire it made more sense to do something new like Hungary, who is more distinct.

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.

Austria isn't really hard to represent as a distinctive civ honestly. It's just that not all of the UUs and UBs in Civ 5 were the most amazing picks and both of Austria's picks were not the best choices especially the Coffee house.
A Grenzer UU and a Viennese School as a Theater Square replacement would be great and distinctly Austrian.

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".

Wat are you saying?
In all seriousness I don't think it was meant to be that Siam is directly represented by Khmer, however the general consensus is that the Khmer were going to be the primary Southeast Asian mainland civ, considering Siam was chosen over them in Civ 5.

Vietnam most likely incoming is new and would represent another part of Southeast Asia, more influenced by China than what Burma or Siam would.

 

[sweetbrown89]

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".

1: I specifically stated that I’m talking about geographical “diasporas” meaning “as many representatives of important and different cultural spheres within a location. I said nothing about them being equivalent to each other. Huns and Scythia representing the Central Asia location, Norway and Denmark representing a Viking Civ, Hungary and Austria representing the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Mäori and Polynesia representing Pacific Islanders, etc...not “exact equivalents in terms of mechanics.” I’m talking about location, location, location. The pattern is there: no representation of any slanted Civs as City-States. Blank on the world map in terms of representation. No Copenhagen, Vienna, Assur, etc. Phoenicia — Carthage being the exception for obvious reasons. I’m using game developer logic, not cultural historian logic.

2. I said absolutely nothing about language.

While I agree with you, I think their take on it makes more sense if you look at it from a perspective of trying to represent as many diverse cultures globally as possible in a limited civ count, rather than looking at it as whether one civ of a pairing can 'represent' the other. For example, if devs can only fit, say, 50 civilizations into a game, they're probably not going to choose both Mali and Songhai, because that reduces the amount of slots available for civs elsewhere in the globe, including civs that may stand out more from others in terms of lifestyle, territory, etc.

That doesn't mean that Mali can represent / be a stand-in for Songhai, or vice versa. It just means that the devs want to cover as much of the globe as possible, and probably think that there are enough similarities between Mali or Songhai - or at least that there are other civs more distinct from one another than Mali and Songhai are - for it to make sense to only include one of them per game. Whether territory or general geographical location should be among the main criteria for choosing a civ is debatable, and whether the civs in each of these pairings should be considered mutually exclusive in a given game is VERY debatable, but I definitely think the devs are going that way with the civ choice and design: In V we had Songhai, in VI we have Mali. In V we had the Huns as the sort of steppe nomad civ, in VI we have Scythia as the steppe nomads. In V we had Denmark as the Viking-esque civ, in VI we have Norway as the Viking civ. If the devs included a much greater number of civs in the game, maybe such choices wouldn't need to be made, and there wouldn't need to be any implication of things as dubious as "Khmer and Vietnamese culture represent Siamese culture" if Khmer and Vietnam are in VI but Siam is not.

Of course, the person who brought it up presumably meant to imply that these cultures can somewhat represent each other, in which case what I just said doesn't apply and it becomes a complicated issue that I don't have the knowledge or expertise to make any comment on like you have. We've had many pages of such discussion in this thread already, as well as in other threads.

3. This. My analysis is talking about their pattern of SELECTING civilizations to *not* have the overlaps like Babylon & Sumeria (no, not in play style, necessarily) but to try and represent the broadest selection of cultures while keeping it fresh.

 

[sukritact]

2: Slant Representation (similar or historically close civilization substitutes)

1: I specifically stated that I’m talking about geographical “diasporas” meaning “as many representatives of important and different cultural spheres within a location. I said nothing about them being equivalent to each other. Huns and Scythia representing the Central Asia location, Norway and Denmark representing a Viking Civ, Hungary and Austria representing the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Mäori and Polynesia representing Pacific Islanders, etc...not “exact equivalents in terms of mechanics.” I’m talking about location, location, location.

I'm simply taking issue with the framing, because Siam is no more a "substitute" for Vietnam than France would be acceptable as a "substitute" for Germany. They're from the same geographic region and little more. I don't disagree that geographic region must be taken into account when considering how likely a civ is to be included however.

The pattern is there: no representation of any slanted Civs as City-States.

That's just not true. Mitla isn't banned by the Mayans or Aztecs, the Maori don't prevent Rapa Nui (to use a very clear example for your Maori/Polynesia example) Hong Kong isn't even banned by China. There's nothing in the precedent that prevents them from possibly including Ayutthaya/Vienna/Hanoi/Tiwanaku/Reykjavik as a city state. They've only ever taken out/replaced City-States when the city appears as an actual city on someone's city-list (and I'd like to point out that even then, we somehow have both the Aztec's Tenochtitlan and Mexico City as a CS), not just because the two cultures are sorta close to each other.

This. My analysis is talking about their pattern of SELECTING civilizations to *not* have the overlaps like Babylon & Sumeria (no, not in play style, necessarily) but to try and represent the broadest selection of cultures while keeping it fresh.

You'll note that I agreed wholeheartedly to this particular post because there's a distinction in what you two said, and it's a distinction that IMHO matters.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Vietnam most likely incoming is new and would represent another part of Southeast Asia, more influenced by China than what Burma or Siam would.

And unrelated to Viet hype we experience today?

 

[LoneRebel]

And unrelated to Viet hype we experience today?

What do you mean by "Viet hype" anyways?

Regarding the choice of civs, keeping in mind that civilization slots are subject to scarcity - no doubt it's a mixture of both, historical relevance AND present-day purchasing power. Vietnam already has the former and, as one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, increasingly has the latter. If I'm not mistaken Vietnam even has a growing e-sports scene somewhat similar to Korea's, although oddly enough their game of choice is AoE2, IIRC (and no, this predates the Vietnamese being added as a civ in that game)

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ I Only knew this that they're AoEII fans and not SC
while Thais had changed preferences, our E-Sport choices today are based on MOBA, which the earliest MOBA "DotA" itself based on Warcraft III (Particularly pirated). Before then Half Life - Counterstrike is a preferred choice.

What do you mean by "Viet hype" anyways?

Regarding the choice of civs, keeping in mind that civilization slots are subject to scarcity - no doubt it's a mixture of both, historical relevance AND present-day purchasing power. Vietnam already has the former and, as one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, increasingly has the latter.

^You guessed it right. look at highlighted praise.

And can you say about Siamese place in the world or this world as 'lacking' or 'lackeys' in the world stage?

 

[LoneRebel]

It's the same here. When I was in high school, it was Counterstrike and DotA, and now it's League of Legends, CSGO, and DotA 2.

And can you say about Siamese place in the world or this world as 'lacking' or 'lackeys' in the world stage?

Dude, from a fellow Southeast Asian...I don't think there's any reason for you to worry. Thailand is the second largest economy in Southeast Asia after the giant Indonesia. (The less said about the politics, the better, but my country isn't any better at that.)

My sig only says "Vietnam and Burma" because they haven't appeared in a Civ game yet. But I wouldn't mind seeing Siam again.

If I may ask, why do you seem to think Vietnam being added is a statement against Siam anyway? Siamese-Vietnamese rivalry only really got going in the 1700s. Prior to that, Siam's archenemy was Burma. If anything, I'd think Burma being added would be more of an issue for Thai.

 

[Vilvatiktan]

My sig only says "Vietnam and Burma" because they haven't appeared in a Civ game yet. But I wouldn't mind seeing Siam again.

If I may ask, why do you seem to think Vietnam being added is a statement against Siam anyway? Siamese-Vietnamese rivalry only really got going in the 1700s. Prior to that, Siam's archenemy was Burma. If anything, I'd think Burma being added would be more of an issue for Thai.

Agree to that, the one who actually blocked Siam being represented would probably be Khmer instead of Vietnam too anyway. It was quite surprising to have both Indonesia and Khmer so early back then in 2016/2017 tho. Perhaps Siam or Burma would be in Civ7 imo, cuz honestly Sukitract's mods are so amazing and it's kinda lame that FXS took Ethiopia and Gaul lmao, pls dont take Siam and Burma too </3

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And unrelated to Viet hype we experience today?

I mean that could also be a factor. As someone who lives in the U.S. Vietnam is probably the most well known out of all the SEA nations by the general public. The Vietnam war and the massive influx of Vietnamese immigrants helped with that of course.

^You guessed it right. look at highlighted praise.

And can you say about Siamese place in the world or this world as 'lacking' or 'lackeys' in the world stage?

I don't think it has anything to do with what you are saying.
Siam was already in Civ 5 while Khmer was in Civ 4. For some reason they have decided to alternate them and that's all.

That being said it looks like the Siamese will get into the base game of Humankind. Siam was the only SE Asian nation, similar to Ethiopia, who resisted colonization and had rapid industrialization which are definite reasons for inclusion. I don't think it has anything to do with today.

 

[AaronTBD]

Since we're talking about Vietnam, what do you think Vietnam will be based on?

Spoiler What I think it might be :

I personally think they could be a Cultural/Defensive based civ do to their history. Defensive part, UA and maybe UU, Cultural part UB (Water Puppet Theater) and maybe UA or LUA

it's kinda lame that FXS took Ethiopia and Gaul lmao

To be fair they let Sukritact design the Palaces of Byzantium and Gaul

 

[Zaarin]

honestly Sukitract's mods are so amazing and it's kinda lame that FXS took Ethiopia and Gaul lmao, pls dont take Siam and Burma too

With absolutely no disrespect intended to Sukritact, whose Gaul design was honestly better than Firaxis's, I don't think it's incumbent upon Firaxis to take mods into account in their civ selection.

Since we're talking about Vietnam, what do you think Vietnam will be based on?

Spoiler What I think it might be :

I personally think they could be a Cultural/Defensive based civ do to their history. Defensive part, UA and maybe UU, Cultural part UB (Water Puppet Theater) and maybe UA or LUA

I agree. We haven't had a culture civ yet in NFP, and Vietnam is a prime choice for that.