[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[AaronTBD]

There's a mod in the steam workshop for civ 6 that of a civ that Sacagawea, the civ is fortunately the Shoshone.

 

[Zaarin]

At least Maria Theresa had the possibility of marrying off one of her children to the Sultan.

Also at least Maria Theresa led something other than an expedition. (And in the case of that expedition, "led" is in the literal geographical sense. )

 

[SirMediocrity]

There's a mod in the steam workshop for civ 6 that of a civ that Sacagawea, the civ is fortunately the Shoshone.

Um, I'm not sure if you mean it's a good or bad thing for Sacagawea to lead the Shoshone. While I'd rather not have her lead any civ, it makes sense that she would lead the Shoshone out of any tribe, since she was actually a member of that tribe, and was allegedly related to a Shoshone chieftain.

EDIT: I misread your original comment. My bad.

 

[notNamed]

I feel like Sacagawea leading the Sioux is roughly the equivalent of Maria-Theresa leading the Ottomans.

That's not a truly fair comparison, though. Sacagawea was a Sioux (just not a part of the alliance, so she was not a Dakota) in her life, and merely Shoshone by birth.
The civ leaders at the time were not necessarily historical leaders, but historically renowned/well known 'people' (Ishtar, Hippolyta, Scheherezade, Gunnhild, Amaterasu). And this girl definitely is one.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Um, I'm not sure if you mean it's a good or bad thing for Sacagawea to lead the Shoshone. While I'd rather not have her lead any civ, it makes sense that she would lead the Shoshone out of any tribe, since she was actually a member of that tribe, and was allegedly related to a Shoshone chieftain.

In that case that opens up the door for Pocahontas leads the Powhatan in Civilization 6 (as a mod).

 

[Zaarin]

That's not a truly fair comparison, though. Sacagawea was a Sioux (just not a part of the alliance, so she was not a Dakota) in her life, and merely Shoshone by birth.

The Hidatsa are Siouan, not Sioux. At no point did Sacagawea have any affiliation with the Lakota or Dakota.

In that case that opens up the door for Pocahontas leads the Powhatan in Civilization 6 (as a mod).

*banhammer*

 

[notNamed]

The Hidatsa are Siouan, not Sioux. At no point did Sacagawea have any affiliation with the Lakota or Dakota.

Well, no. Sioux is both the entire group of people as well as the members of the specific alliance of tribes of Sioux people (Dakota/Lakota/Nakota i.e. "Allies").
I'm not sure how modern the whole renaming is (it used to be Sioux-Catabwan and still is in German or Japanese, marking the previous nondistinction of the two terms) and if the team simply followed that in the Civ2's production days, but it's basically the same as having Phoenicians or Celts in the game and nothing on the order of an Ottoman Maria Theresa, IMO.

 

[Zaarin]

Well, no. Sioux is both the entire group of people as well as the members of the specific alliance of tribes of Sioux people (Dakota/Lakota/Nakota i.e. "Allies").

No. Sioux is to Siouan as German is to Germanic. Not everyone who speaks a Siouan language is Sioux, just as not everyone who speaks a Germanic language is German. The Hidatsa are Siouan but they are not Sioux, just as the English are Germanic but they are not German. Hidatsa isn't even particularly closely related to Dakota/Lakhota; it is more closely related to Crow.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Not as bad as Shakala for the Zulu, who was an invention by the Civilization series itself.

But, people were talking about Shaka before Civilization as a game existed... Civilization didn't invent Shaka.

 

[Codeword Iroquois]

But, people were talking about Shaka before Civilization as a game existed... Civilization didn't invent Shaka.

It did, however, invent Shakala, a non-extant person.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

It did, however, invent Shakala, a non-extant person.

I still don't understand the context. If you could provide context, I would appreciate it.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

I still don't understand the context. If you could provide context, I would appreciate it.

Civ 2 had a male and female leader for each civ, for the Zulu's it had Shaka as male leader (real) and Shakala as female leader who was fictional.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Civ 2 had a male and female leader for each civ, for the Zulu's it had Shaka as male leader (real) and Shakala as female leader who was fictional.

Ohhh... Now I get it. Yeesh, people complain about feminism in Civ 6, when in Civ 2 they created a whole new person just for the sake of having a female leader.

 

[notNamed]

No. Sioux is to Siouan as German is to Germanic. Not everyone who speaks a Siouan language is Sioux, just as not everyone who speaks a Germanic language is German. The Hidatsa are Siouan but they are not Sioux, just as the English are Germanic but they are not German. Hidatsa isn't even particularly closely related to Dakota/Lakhota; it is more closely related to Crow.

No, that's exactly what I'm saying.
"Siouan languages" is really just another (and importantly more modern) term for the family of Sioux languages. Which were very likely called Sioux and not Siouan in whatever book the developers of Civ 2 used as a reference. And again, their only connection is language and general area. Which is, reiterating this, exactly the same as Celts and Phoenicians who are still in Civ.

 

[Zaarin]

No, that's exactly what I'm saying.
"Siouan languages" is really just another (and importantly more modern) term for the family of Sioux languages. Which were very likely called Sioux and not Siouan in whatever book the developers of Civ 2 used as a reference. And again, their only connection is language and general area. Which is, reiterating this, exactly the same as Celts and Phoenicians who are still in Civ.

Not that modern. Linguistic studies of indigenous peoples have been going on for a few hundred years now, and the Siouan peoples are some of the most studied. Siouan and Sioux were as distinct in 1996 as they are now. That's not to say that Civ has ever been overly scholarly or that Civ2 wasn't particularly egregious in that regard. (Also the Phoenicians thought of themselves as one people, just like the Hellenes did, even if they were politically divided. They also spoke a single language, not language family.) At any rate, Sacagawea was kidnapped by the Hidatsa and was ethnically Shoshone so she's still not a great choice here even if we relabel the civ "All the Siouan Peoples."

 

[Evie]

Really, anyone who would have done enough research (in 1996, without Wiki) to identify Sacagawea as part of a Siouan tribe would also know that Siouan is not Sioux.

She was included because the Sioux were being used (as usual even by that time - the Sioux have long been the number one Generic Western Native Tribe, and Sacagawea is (along with Pocahontas) the Generic Native Girl par excellence.

And really, Civ II wasn't a halmark of sensitive or sensible representation. It was a "whatever vaguely relevant name american gaming geeks might recognize, or whatever we can make up". They stapled...questionable twentieth centuy figures (Lenin (still an upgrade over Stalin getting the nod in I), Mao) to civs with far better (but less recognizable in the 90s due to receny) choices, drew on mythological figures left and right (Ishtar, Amaterasu, Hippolyta, Scheherazade), and worse than even Shakala (entirely fictional, and a lazy twist on Shaka, but at least based on a name that's actually relevant to the Zulu) named the Aztec female leader after the famous ruins of a completely different culture that lived on an entirely different continent: Nazca.

Even the male leaders didn't escape the farce unscathed: Atawallpa and Montezuma (and given Atawallpa, it's clear that's Moctezuma II, not I) readily stand out,as "we only picked the names we remembered from high school history", but Henry VIII for England is worth a blink too - one would think that there's a few candidates out there who aren't best remembered for their trails of divorces and beheading.

Given that, it's pretty clear Sacagawea got in on pure "eh, she's a famous native american woman, it's close enough" credentials.

And doubly clear when you remember that Sacagawea's counterpart, Sitting Bull, returned as the even more spectacularly generic (and offensive, but honest) "Sitting Bull of the Native Americans" in IV (yes, IV)

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

In all the Portugal vs. Native American civ for the last one, I think Portugal is going to win. Why? Because it's in the name of the controversy: Portugal vs. Native American.

Some people are advocating for a Native American, but a lot of people don't really know which one... Haudenosaunee, Comanche, Sioux... We hear a lot of name, but there is not a heavy, strong consensus toward one Native American civ to be implemented. It's not a focused demand, a focus fight, it's broad and kinda loose. Lots of civs are wanted, but in the same way lots of SEA civs are asked without truly pointing and pinning one and one only name.

On the other hand, you have Portugal. Everyone is talking about Portugal, and Portugal itself. Portugal, as a civ, is alone in the fight. Every contender for Portugal knows which civ they wants to defend: Portugal. Portugal-defenders are talking about leaders, abilities and stuff like that. We know basically what we want: exploration, maritime trade, colonization... But for a Native American civ? All propositions we hear here (except for some people) are vague, unprecise.

If Firaxis people choose Portugal as the last civ, they already know which direction they're going to take, and the name recognition is far better and way more people would want to buy it.

If Firaxis people choose a Native American civ, they will have to face yet another hard choice: which Native American civ? And after that, thinking about the leaders, the abilities.

Just for this, just because the all controversy and discussions are around Portugal vs Native American and not Portugal vs Comanche or Portugal vs Sioux or Portugal vs Haudenosaunee make me think that Portugal already won.

Which, for me, is good, because I love Portugal, even if I would have wanted more extra representation outside of Europe; but for this, it would have needed work way prior (seeing Scotland as totally unecessary representation, having two Catherine de Medici, Alexander on top of Greece, Byzantium as a redundant hellenic civ, too many post-colonial english civ (one is good (America), two maybe, but three... Canada or Australia are too many, and even both... It's worse if you consider Gandhi as the fourth one)... one post-colonial civ for each imperialist sphere of influence -UK, France, Portugal, Spain & Netherlands- should be enough and even maybe too many). But, for now, knowing what we have left (and considering that we might not have a FFP), I think Portugal has way better chances to be revealed, especially as the very last civ.


And for all the people wondering: "What could they possibly do with Portugal? Aren't we stuffed enough with trade maritime powers with Phoenicia, the Dutch and Spain?" and I'd say: look what they gave us with Babylon. Babylon was always the turtle science civ, and lots of people would have guessed they would be a third Korea/Maya... And they gave us one of the most intelligent and fun design possible. So I guess that if Portugal is present, they would find a way to make it unique and fun too.

Edit: as for a possible Feitoria similar to the one they gave us in Civ V (which was one of my favourite UI), they showed us with the Vampire Castles that it was perfectly feasible to have an improvment built outside your territory and still giving the yields to the capital. So I suppose, if we have Portugal, to have a similar design for their UI: a feitoria that can be built only outisde their territory (by a Nau or a builder, in neutral territory or in a city-State territory or a territory of another civ in which you have an open borders treaty), doubling the yields in the six tiles around it and shipping them to the capital... Which would be beneficial to have feitoria in your empire even if you're not Portugal because you'll be beneficing from the doubled yields around the building, making other civs less inclined to destroy it. A beneficial system could appear in which the host empire improve the six cases around the Feitoria (by building mines, farms or even districts) and the Feitoria doubling them (and them copy-pasting them to Lisbon).

 

[almughavar]

But I'm afraid that what uniqueness Portugal is supposed to possess if they are playable has already been covered by Spain.

 

[Hoppip22]

I agree that Portugal is incredibly likely, being the last transcontinental colonial empire yet to be represented in Civ VI.

As for choosing Native American civs, I've always been curious if they would ever include both the Haudenosaunee and the Huron, and let us play out the French and Indian War, while simultaneously avoiding any dubious questions about what is a "civ", as both were pretty well-organized and civ-like... Kind of a pipe dream, but I would be so hype to play as Native civs that interacted directly and were actually rivals, as opposed to just one token plains civ and one token east coast civ...

As for a second DLC pass, I also find it very unlikely, but if for some reason fate wills it to be, I would love to see (assuming Portugal is the last slot)
Tibet, Haudenosaunee, Navajo, Venice, Morocco or Amazigh, Siam, Somalia, and Austria.

 

[Stringer1313]

If they include more African civs I'm hoping it's not based on modern countries most of which (all of which?) were created / carved up by white colonizers.