[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Zaarin]

How would you deal with Ottomans and the Byzantines sharing the same capital on a TSL map?

The same way they always have? (Don't ask me what that is. I never played TSL before Civ6, and very, very rarely with Civ6. ) Presumably the Ottomans would start in Asia Minor and Byzantium in Greece. I mean, starting in the Balkans would already look pretty ugly on Firaxis' TSL map: Macedon, Athens, and Sparta must start right on top of each other, with Hungary, Poland, Russia, Germany, and Phoenicia all breathing down their necks.

A small political party in Post-Soviet Georgia literally evokes David the Builder as the "party ideological inspiration," (like many political parties around greatly admired, but dead people - Chavez and Maduro even famously did such).

I make it a policy to ignore what the Party claims.

Vlad Tepes of Wallachia or Charles IV of Bohemia for my reaches

I find them unlikely for Civ6, but I'd love to see Bohemia in Civ7.

 

[GenyaArikado]

Given the general hesitancy for firaxis to make overlaps, both in general geographic regions but also specific cities in this game compared to past ones, i wouldn’t think byzantium is as sure as it has been in the past, especially given that there’s 2 greeces (sparta and athens) and macedon as well as the Ottomans in the direct region, i don’t see it as likely as it has been before

I see portugal as near certain compared to the byzantines

How can you say Firaxis is hesitant to make geographical overlaps AND mention the 2 greeces and macedon on the same post? If anything it shows they clearly don't give a damn about it when it comes to adding a favorite

Zagreb is a city of Hungary ingame. It's not farfetched that it's part of Hungary, but I doubt it will become a proper civ. Changing the city names won't be hard though.

How would you deal with Ottomans and the Byzantines sharing the same capital on a TSL map? put the Ottomans in Thrace or in Ankara? Also Hattusa's next to where Ankara is...

To add on to the capital-sharing what about Vatican City and Rome? TSL Maps are going to be even more cramped... We already have Mexico City and Tenochtitlan in the same place though.

they probably put the settlers next to each other.

 

[riddleofsteel]

I want both.


Semiramis didn't exist, and Shammuramat was hardly noteworthy. If Firaxis wants a female ruler from the region, Zenobia is just begging to be included. As far as a female ruler of one of the Big Three Mesopotamian civs, though, Kuĝbau of Sumer is the only one that really makes much sense to me--or perhaps Enheduanna, who wasn't ruler in her own right but was extremely influential. The hymns she wrote were still being sung in Babylon a thousand years later.

Thank you! Finally someone else agrees that Semiramis was a myth.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

The same way they always have? (Don't ask me what that is. I never played TSL before Civ6, and very, very rarely with Civ6. ) Presumably the Ottomans would start in Asia Minor and Byzantium in Greece. I mean, starting in the Balkans would already look pretty ugly on Firaxis' TSL map: Macedon, Athens, and Sparta must start right on top of each other, with Hungary, Poland, Russia, Germany, and Phoenicia all breathing down their necks.


I make it a policy to ignore what the Party claims.

I find them unlikely for Civ6, but I'd love to see Bohemia in Civ7.

In regards to byzantium and ottomans, both have had non-constantinople/istanbul capitals and they could change the capitals to make sure they don’t overlap

 

[Equilin]

The man who committed the biggest deliberate genocide of civilians in recorded history - dwarfing Stalin or Hitler in numbers - makes waves in history, for sure.

1. The population of the latter two's time is much larger than that of the Mongol times, hard to believe it "dwarf" them.
2. The mongols didn't commit "deliberate genocide of civilians". They did "mass murder", but that's definitely not a genocide, especially when they tend to keep useful personnels such as doctors and scientists for their own use, as well as keeping others to use as bait army, as well as letting some survive to spread fear. On top of that, the treatment many cities got were not the same, depend on what the Mongols currently wanted out of them at that time (unless they resist the Mongols, in which case destruction is quite certain).
And I haven't even talked about the fact that Kublai Khan was more Chinese than he was Mongols.

"The Years the Rice-Paddies were Watered with Blood," was the translated titled of a book I read in sociology class in college (which you'd NEVER know was needed course to be a SOCIAL worker ). I can't remember the author's name - I think the surname was Zhu (not very helpful, I know). It was not just based on Imperial Chinese records, but archaeological studies in sites of former villages utterly destroyed by Kublai Khan's invasion of the Southern Song, as well as the Mongols' own recorded boasts, and witness who were from (and returned to) Vietnam, Japan, Thailand, Burma, and such.

From what i know, there are no reliable records of the Mongol killings outside of war in those non-China countries you mentioned. I highly doubt that source of yours in this regard.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

How can you say Firaxis is hesitant to make geographical overlaps AND mention the 2 greeces and macedon on the same post? If anything it shows they clearly don't give a damn about it when it comes to adding a favorite



they probably put the settlers next to each other.

not that type of geographical overlap, but with exception to macedon, in general, they’ve tried to spread out new civs to include areas which aren’t necessarily occupied: hungary to fill in central europe, canada to fill in Northeastern North America, etc

 

[sonicmyst]

I think I am one of the minorities who believe Korea will get an alt-leader. I feel Genghis and Kublai have similar gameplay themes revolving around military.

Korea's current leader drew mixed reactions iirc similar to France's Catherine. India's alt leader in Chandragupta made gameplay for India fresh.

I don't feel there will be something new or refreshing if we have Kublai as alt leader.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I think I am one of the minorities who believe Korea will get an alt-leader. I feel Genghis and Kublai have similar gameplay themes revolving around military.

Korea's current leader drew mixed reactions iirc similar to France's Catherine. India's alt leader in Chandragupta made gameplay for India fresh.

I don't feel there will be something new or refreshing if we have Kublai as alt leader.

Just my thoughts.

i could see kublai being more culture or science focused but still benefiting from either of China or Mongolia’s abilities. A mid ground between genghis’s military heavy mix of military and religion and econ and Qin’s all-around abilities with focus in culture


I still believe that the alt leader will be Kublai because Firaxis so far has made the alts leaders for base game civs and Kublai would be the most logical solution considering the R&F requirement and the status as China as a base game civ

 

[Zaarin]

I feel Genghis and Kublai have similar gameplay themes revolving around military.

Kublai certainly had military ventures, but I think he's more remembered for presiding over a cultural renaissance and intercultural exchange (not just Marco Polo, but that too).

Korea's current leader drew mixed reactions

Mostly from people who either had no clue about Seondeok's accomplishments or believed the disinformation that the Joseon wrote about her (she was very highly regarded by contemporary chroniclers). I'd love to see Korea get a second leader, like Gwanggaeto the Great or Taejo of Joseon (or Sejong the Great if they could find a way to make him meaningfully distinct from Seondeok in gameplay niche), but not if it's simply to appease the Seondeok-haters.

 

[GenyaArikado]

I think I am one of the minorities who believe Korea will get an alt-leader. I feel Genghis and Kublai have similar gameplay themes revolving around military.

Korea's current leader drew mixed reactions iirc similar to France's Catherine. India's alt leader in Chandragupta made gameplay for India fresh.

I don't feel there will be something new or refreshing if we have Kublai as alt leader.

Just my thoughts.

I truly hope that Korea doesn't. Not here for sexism winning.

 

[Patine]

1. The population of the latter two's time is much larger than that of the Mongol times, hard to believe it "dwarf" them.

Hitler and Stalin killed a much smaller percentage of the population of the nations they controlled and conquered, by far, than the Mongols did in the Southern Song. That point is ludicrous.

2. The mongols didn't commit "deliberate genocide of civilians". They did "mass murder", but that's definitely not a genocide, especially when they tend to keep useful personnels such as doctors and scientists for their own use, as well as keeping others to use as bait army, as well as letting some survive to spread fear. On top of that, the treatment many cities got were not the same, depend on what the Mongols currently wanted out of them at that time (unless they resist the Mongols, in which case destruction is quite certain).
And I haven't even talked about the fact that Kublai Khan was more Chinese than he was Mongols.

Quibbling over terminology is why the Rwandan and Armenian Genocides are not universally recognized by all nations as such (including, ironically enough, Israel not recognizing the Armenian Genocide as a genocide). I'm not going to engage in such a distasteful distraction.

From what i know, there are no reliable records of the Mongol killings outside of war in those non-China countries you mentioned. I highly doubt that source of yours in this regard.

I'm sure you must be far better educated and learned on the issue that a Chinese professor and scholar of Chinese Medieval History who has devoted his life to the topic, and has read these old texts (and is fluent in the languages they're written in), and has personally gone to these archaeological sites. Forgive a petulant mortal for doubting the All-Knowing One on the Mountain.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Kublai certainly had military ventures, but I think he's more remembered for presiding over a cultural renaissance and intercultural exchange (not just Marco Polo, but that too).


Mostly from people who either had no clue about Seondeok's accomplishments or believed the disinformation that the Joseon wrote about her (she was very highly regarded by contemporary chroniclers). I'd love to see Korea get a second leader, like Gwanggaeto the Great or Taejo of Joseon (or Sejong the Great if they could find a way to make him meaningfully distinct from Seondeok in gameplay niche), but not if it's simply to appease the Seondeok-haters.

Yup, correct on both counts. Seondeok got a lot of hate simply bcs she was a woman and ppl wanted a more famous leader, much like Kristina

 

[Xefjord]

Yup, correct on both counts. Seondeok got a lot of hate simply bcs she was a woman and ppl wanted a more famous leader, much like Kristina

To my knowledge Kristina of Sweden had some very serious bad rep from actions she did that aren't excused by sexist historians.

 

[Zaarin]

To my knowledge Kristina of Sweden had some very serious bad rep from actions she did that aren't excused by sexist historians.

More to the point, she didn't really do anything while on the throne before abdicating. By all accounts she was an extremely intelligent, accomplished woman--just not as queen of Sweden. (She also doesn't particularly represent Sweden as it was at its height, e.g. the Protestant superpower.)

 

[sonicmyst]

I agree, sexism should not be the reason why a civ will be given alt-leader. I believe civs were given alt leaders to change the gameplay style for that civ.

If Kublai's implementation as alt civ has a cultural flavor or maybe trade bonus than pure warmongering then I would certainly welcome it.

As for Korea, it will be the first science-focused civ that might have an alt leader and that excites me.

 

[Xefjord]

Ngl, I mostly just want to see more East Asian civs in general (Vietnam included) as this is my whole sphere of study, so I would be very happy if we recieved an alternate leader for Korea as well. My first choice would very much be an alternate civ for China though. Mongolia is kind of meh, but Kublai Khan still technically can fit the bill of an alternate China leader too so I was going to be fine with it. When I play TSL on Gedemons bigger maps I often get the feeling that China is more empty and uneventful than it should be. A second China could help fill things in further alongside Vietnam which could fill in some of the southern portion of China. A second Korea could increase activity in the Manchuria/Northern China region, but this place doesn't really *need* more activity. Southern China feels like the more barren region. I will be happy with any Sinospheric leader though and Vietnam is practically required for me.

 

[Zaarin]

When I play TSL on Gedemons bigger maps I often get the feeling that China is more empty and uneventful than it should be.

I don't play TSL very often, but last time I did China never stood a chance: Korea exploded across Manchuria and coastal China, Khmer crowded China out of Southeast Asia, and India, Persia, and Scythia blocked China from expanding into the Tibetan Plateau. China had a rather sad, small territory in central and western China.

 

[bengalryan9]

I think I am one of the minorities who believe Korea will get an alt-leader. I feel Genghis and Kublai have similar gameplay themes revolving around military.

Korea's current leader drew mixed reactions iirc similar to France's Catherine. India's alt leader in Chandragupta made gameplay for India fresh.

I don't feel there will be something new or refreshing if we have Kublai as alt leader.

Just my thoughts.

Korea's already pretty OP on the back of the Seowon alone... if the new leader has any ability that isn't mediocre or worse they'd be too strong IMO. You don't play Korea for the LA, and if they had a leader that had one worth using they'd be even more OP.

I think of all the R&F civs Mongolia and Netherlands make the most sense for a second leader. I'm not a historian or anything but a trade or faith focused Mongol leader would be interesting to play, as would a Dutch leader with a naval focus (capture coastal cities to give more opportunities to build polders).

It might be easier to predict once we see what new district we are getting over the next few months, too. Might be an easy connection between that and one of these civs.

 

[tedhebert]

Vlad Tepes of Wallachia or Charles IV of Bohemia for my reaches

Man, would Vlad make inspiration for an interesting game mode

 

[SirMediocrity]

Yup, correct on both counts. Seondeok got a lot of hate simply bcs she was a woman and ppl wanted a more famous leader, much like Kristina

Kristina got hate because some people consider her traitorous/incompetent (she converted to Catholicism and abdicated the throne, among other things). Don't get me wrong: Kristina is a fascinating person (I wrote an essay on her once) and I even have a bit of a crush on her in real life (despite the fact that she's dead)

Still, it makes sense that some people did not want her included, and blaming it on the fact that some people are supposedly "sexist" is neither helpful nor constructive. You need to deal with people's actual objections instead of using a straw man.

I'm not saying that sexists/misogynists don't exist. I am saying that you are stifling discussion by implying that most of (if not all) of Kristina's haters were sexist/misogynistic and that they do not have valid objections to her inclusion. We can argue whether or not those other objections are valid, but you did not mention that in your post. Nuff said.

EDIT: Fixed spelling errors to avoid confusion.