[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Xefjord]

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.

The Khmer can be problematic for China players since Southeast Asia is generally rather squashed on most TSL maps, and the only place they reasonably have to grow is up. Korea is much more of a mixed bag, It almost always settles Manchuria, but it rarely settles Coastal China unless you are too complacent about reaching the coast yourself. Having a second China however (Even if it is just a Beijing based Khanbaliq) would greatly eliminate that issue and allow both chinas to largely expand within its own territory without too many others encroaching on it.

Edit: Khmer (or potentially Vietnam if we get it) could still grow up the south, but that isn't unlike real history, where China slowly expanded south displacing many people groups along the way. Main thing is just that it is weird and sad to have China merely stuck in central China with no Northern or Coastal territories.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Again, the Phillippines would be a good use of space (Firaxis, if you’re seeing this, you know who I want in Civ)

 

[pokiehl]

I really don't think an arbitrary map type should dictate Civ selection. TSL is only barely supported by the game anyway.

 

[Zaarin]

Again, the Phillippines would be a good use of space (Firaxis, if you’re seeing this, you know who I want in Civ)

I don't think the Philippines would do TSL players much good. Again, I don't play TSL often, but when I do I've observed that Indonesia always languishes, despite her potent bonuses. Like Indonesia, the Philippines would be a glorified city-state on TSL.

I really don't think an arbitrary map type should dictate Civ selection. TSL is only barely supported by the game anyway.

This. TSL might be a consideration, but it should be a very small one IMO.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I really don't think an arbitrary map type should dictate Civ selection. TSL is only barely supported by the game anyway.

Good point, but where civs fit into the map has seemingly mattered before, with a few notable exceptions, as others have rightfully pointed out.

why does Alexander screw up everything for the patterns I notice

 

[DWilson]

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.

I would actually guess that Kublai does not have a military oriented ability, because he wasn't a particularly great or successful military leader. Instead, I would imagine him having bonuses around cultural assimilation of/merging with conquered territories.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

The Nabataeans are cool, but they lack leaders. Enter Zenobia of Palmyra. I'd love to see the Chola, but I wouldn't expect them in Civ6--maybe in Civ7? The Inuit are one of those groups people ask for a lot that make absolutely zero sense as a civilization. They have no cities. They have no leaders. Do you know why there are no tundra-focused civs*? Because you can't build a civilization in the tundra. The only thing that would make the Salish somewhat compelling is that they have a potential leader in Chief Seattle, but in every other way their northern neighbors--any of them: Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian, Nuu-Chah-Nuulth, Kwakwaka'wakw--would be better choices. In particular, the Tlingit and Haida are generally considered the most sophisticated and elaborate of the PNW culture zone. However, as much as they're near the top of my Civ6 Native American civ wishlist, I don't think we'll be seeing them. There are a number of good reasons to believe that the Cree were originally intended to be the Haida**. Perhaps the Haida requested not to be included. Perhaps Firaxis couldn't find the leader they were looking for. Perhaps Firaxis couldn't find a native speaker willing to perform the role. Whatever the reason, I don't expect they'll try again.

*What Civ calls Tundra is strictly speaking taiga. Most of what Civ calls Snow is actually tundra. You can build a civilization in the taiga--but not a very strong one. Even Russia's Tundra bonuses are kind of silly, given that all the major Russian cities are far from the tundra or even the taiga.
**The Cree's colors scream PNW. The Cree's civ icon is a Haida Raven. The Cree city art looks distinctly PNW. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, there are some files left over in the game referencing the Haida.

Tlingit would be great too—I want to see a PNW civ.

regarding the chola, I hope Civ 7 marks the death of a Monolithic India civ. I’d much rather see a Maurya and a Chola civ—maybe with a Mughal splashed in there. That would be much more entertaining.

 

[SirMediocrity]

Come to think of it, it would be kind of hilarious to have Kublai, since the Japanese leader (Hojo) is kind of known whooping Kublai, even if it was due to the helpful intervention of a certain "divine wind"

 

[DWilson]

Come to think of it, it would be kind of hilarious to have Kublai, since the Japanese leader (Hojo) is kind of known whooping Kublai, even if it was due to the helpful intervention of a certain "divine wind"

Imagine double that with an appropriate Vietnamese civ and leader

 

[Zaarin]

why does Alexander screw up everything for the patterns I notice

While the Balkans are extraordinarily crowded, Europe and the Middle East are always going to be crowded on TSL. Both regions have very long histories with lots of important civs--especially from the perspective of a Western developer. The Middle East isn't crowded enough IMO.

where civs fit into the map has seemingly mattered before

For me personally, I'd say an empty spot on the map is a good reason to consider a civ, a bad reason to include a civ (looking at you, Australia), and an egregious reason to exclude a civ. (Not for TSL reasons for myself, but an empty area on the map I'd like to see a civ in is Central Asia, which would benefit TSL players, too. Sogdia is a prime candidate.)

regarding the chola, I hope Civ 7 marks the death of a Monolithic India civ. I’d much rather see a Maurya and a Chola civ—maybe with a Mughal splashed in there.

Heartily agreed, and Nuclear Gandhi can go out the door with blob India.

 

[SirMediocrity]

Imagine double that with an appropriate Vietnamese civ and leader

We need a DLC pack for all the leaders who beat the Mongols

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Come to think of it, it would be kind of hilarious to have Kublai, since the Japanese leader (Hojo) is kind of known whooping Kublai, even if it was due to the helpful intervention of a certain "divine wind"

would be a nice thematic conflict element, like Cyrus and Tomyris

 

[Zaarin]

We need a DLC pack for all the leaders who beat the Mongols

But why include Austria without Maria Theresa?

 

[Patine]

Man, would Vlad make inspiration for an interesting game mode

Even though he couldn't kill Great Generals, he could keep "occupied," on his spikes (the highest ones, in deference to their rank and position), writhing for a few turns...

 

[Zaarin]

would be a nice thematic conflict element, like Cyrus and Tomyris

That awkward moment when you realize they villainized Cyrus the Great just so he wouldn't get along with Tomyris. (I hope in Civ7 they keep the idea of an Iranian tribe for the obligatory Eurasian Steppe horse-lord civ...but go with the Parthians this time.)

 

[Thenewwwguy]

For me personally, I'd say an empty spot on the map is a good reason to consider a civ, a bad reason to include a civ (looking at you, Australia), and an egregious reason to exclude a civ. (Not for TSL reasons for myself, but an empty area on the map I'd like to see a civ in is Central Asia, which would benefit TSL players, too. Sogdia is a prime candidate.)

As historically irrelevant compared to excluded civs like Assyria and Babylon as Australia is, I quite enjoy their presence in Civ 6. But, their map occupancy isn’t necessary for future iterations.

gaping holes like East and South-Central Africa, the Pacific Northwest and Central Asia intensify

 

[Zaarin]

As historically irrelevant compared to excluded civs like Assyria and Babylon as Australia is, I quite enjoy their presence in Civ 6.

I don't. I don't like any of the postcolonial nations, but of all of them Australia's my least favorite. I appreciate that it's on its own DLC, though; that means I can keep it disabled and all I lose is Uluru.

gaping holes like East and South-Central Africa, the Pacific Northwest and Central Asia intensify

East Africa is about to get a lot fuller with the addition of Ethiopia. I foresee conflict with Nubia: Nubia tends to expand south on TSL in my observation (after gobbling up Egypt, if present).

 

[Futumch]

The January DLC with 2 leaders but only one civ - do we know if it's leaders for two distinct civs, or two leaders for one civ (a la India / Grease / England / France) ?
I would have assumed two separate civs (kind of hoping for Portugal civ with an additional leader for Spain).
If it's the second choice, I can't think of any major civs that haven't already been introduced with enough scope for two leaders that are significantly different.

Does anyone think there would be an Israelite (led by Dave or Solomon) civ released? Or would that be too politically charged? A leader named Dave would pair up nicely with Phil, Pete and Ted.

 

[Zaarin]

The January DLC with 2 leaders but only one civ - do we know if it's leaders for two distinct civs, or two leaders for one civ (a la India / Grease / England / France) ?

It requires R&F specifically, which means it must be an alt leader for an R&F civ. Kublai Khan for Mongolia is the most common guess; a few others are speculating about Korea or the Netherlands.

I can't think of any major civs that haven't already been introduced with enough scope for two leaders that are significantly different.

Babylon? Assyria? Byzantium?

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I don't. I don't like any of the postcolonial nations, but of all of them Australia's my least favorite. I appreciate that it's on its own DLC, though; that means I can keep it disabled and all I lose is Uluru.


East Africa is about to get a lot fuller with the addition of Ethiopia. I foresee conflict with Nubia: Nubia tends to expand south on TSL in my observation (after gobbling up Egypt, if present).

I’d agree with the post colonial nations assessment, but i think we need maybe 1 other besides the US and Brazil and Australia is better than Canada in my opinion given geographical diversity and more to separate it. If Firaxis really wants post-colonials in the future, I’d rather have Australia than Canada or even Brazil, tbh

Colombia is one which i’m genuinely looking forward to. I hope that this isn’t the last we see of them.