[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Zaarin]

As someone who is constantly around middle schoolers, it depends on the middle schooler.

You have my condolences.

 

[DivodAsa]

Ah so now we r getting empires as civs,I see.

 

[Lord Lakely]

just as a note, Madras didn’t exist when the Mughals existed (it was also far too south). Madurai and Trivandrum are also cities which the Mughals never conquered.
Thanjavur and Kanchipuram were never under Maurya rule either

Those are deliberate choices. I structure my list so that cities 2-6 are Core cities of the leader, cities 7-16 are Imperial cities important to the empire in question. City 17 and onwards are contemporary cities belonging to the civ in question. Thanjavur and Kanchipuram are Cholan cities, but they were already settled by the time the Mauryan empire existed. Hence why they exist, albeit lowly, on the Mauryan list.

Not that big of a deal considering the many gaffes Firaxis put on theirs ("Khorasan" on the Arabic, list, "Shangdong" on the Chinese list, "Tula" and "Tzintzuntzen" on the Aztec list, etc)

Ah so now we r getting empires as civs,I see.

We're already getting them. Byzantium is a Roman empire, the Ottomans are a Turkish empire. Persia in all it's incarnations has been the Achaemenid empire. Macedon? A Greek empire. Gaul and Scotland? Two Celtic ones. Inca? A Quechua empire.

It's not so much about replacing 'Civs' with 'Empires' - it's a side effect when you're aiming for historical accuracy.

 

[SMcM]

Maurya I can see remaining merged with modern India even if they do split. I feel like it can be seen as still part of core 'India', whereas states more likely to be split off would be foreign origin Islamic dynasties such as Mughals and Tughluqs, and regions more culturally distant from India's core like Tamil empires in the south such as the Cholas. I can see states like the Maurya and Gupta empires being seen as 'India', in the same way ancient and medieval Chinese dynasties are represented as part of China.

I think otherwise having India being just be Gandhi onward is a bit redundant, it's like China representing only Mao onward. That's a much more limited history, and I think generally completely modern civilizations aren't that interesting and should be avoided. Canada, Australia and Brazil have had quite a bit of complaint but at least those achieved some level of independence in the 19th century, whereas only post-colonial India doesn't have a century of history even.

I would think of it like Persia- not every empire that conquered Iran is regarded as Persian (for instance Turkic dynasties like the Seljuk and Khwarazmian empires), but in spite of being separated by centuries the Achaemenid and Sassanid Empire are often regarded as the 'first' and 'second' Persian empires, and I think if a Sassanid leader was ever added to a civ game they would be added to the same civilization that would as leaders such as Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes.

 

[SMcM]

Just like what I think for Mali and Songhai, if Greece, Macedon, and Byzantium can be in the same game so can the Mughals and India or Song, Qing, and Han China.

I really hope they don't split China like that, it is largely regarded as the history of one nation/civilization (though Qing is slightly different since it's a Manchu dynasty). The whole point of civilization is building up a civilization from ancient origins to the modern day, splitting every land up into every distinct dynasty doesn't make much sense. Splitting civs culturally and geographically would make a lot more sense imo, like having Eleanor lead independent Aquitaine instead of being a alt for France/England, or in the case of China regions and peoples of China which have been historical separate (Uighurs, Tibetans, Manchurians, Jurchens/Jin, Khitans/Liao, Dzungars).

I think people are wrong when they think that China's dynasties are somehow unique- even small European countries have gone through many territorial evolutions under different dynasties, for Britain you can have you can have Wessex (hegemon and then unifier of England before Norman invasion), North Sea Empire (England conquered by Sweyn and then Cnut), Anglo-Normans (After William I, ruling England and Normandy), Angevin Empire (ruled from France, acquiring further French territory), Kingdom of England (after the loss of most of England's french holdings), Commonwealth of England (under Cromwell), Anglo-Dutch Union (personal union under William III), The United Kingdom (after the acts of union). These are states with borders that varied hugely and had ruling classes from a wide variety of places. We might not usually split European states up into dynasties in the same way as we do for China - Holy Roman Empire is sort of regarded as one entity from Otto until it's collapse, but in fact the centre of power moved around quite a lot. It at various points was ruled from by Germany, Bohemia, and the multinational Habsburg Monarchy.

Yes China is indeed much larger than individual European countries, but I don't think several Chinese dynasties is really the best way for unused civilization slots to be used, as I said I'd rather see completely unrepresented groups like Tibetans (although I suppose that's probably off limits to avoid offending China and preventing sales there, since no company in the West has the backbone to do anything like that and risk losing Chinese sales).

 

[pokiehl]

I largely agree with @SMcM; getting so incredibly granular with breaking civs up into smaller and smaller pieces goes against the spirit of the game.

Is it warranted in some cases? Of course, but it threatens to become as silly as the more out-there suggestions for dual leaders.

Also with the current approach civ has with regards to putting a ton of production value into leader representation, splitting up civs so much just can't be feasible.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think otherwise having India being just be Gandhi onward is a bit redundant, it's like China representing only Mao onward. That's a much more limited history, and I think generally completely modern civilizations aren't that interesting and should be avoided. Canada, Australia and Brazil have had quite a bit of complaint but at least those achieved some level of independence in the 19th century, whereas only post-colonial India doesn't have a century of history even.

From a leader standpoint obviously it's mostly been just Gandhi. But according to their abilities and uniques they've drawn across much of their history such as the use of elephants in warfare and the Stepwell and Mughal Forts infrastructures.

At least in my view it seems like the representation of India is getting better and better with each installment.
Civ 4 had fast worker and mausoleum as uniques but also had Ashoka as another leader.
Civ 5 only had Gandhi but now acquired better uniques: elephant UU and Mughal Fort.
Civ 6 has Chandragupta and good uniques.

 

[SMcM]

From a leader standpoint obviously it's mostly been just Gandhi. But according to their abilities and uniques they've drawn across much of their history such as the use of elephants in warfare and the Stepwell and Mughal Forts infrastructures.

At least in my view it seems like the representation of India is getting better and better with each installment.
Civ 4 had fast worker and mausoleum as uniques but also had Ashoka as another leader.
Civ 5 only had Gandhi but now acquired better uniques: elephant UU and Mughal Fort.
Civ 6 has Chandragupta and good uniques.

Yes, this is all true. My point is basically that India should largely be continued to be implemented in this way, with the exception perhaps of breaking off Muslim, Sikh and Dravidian empires, among others possibly. Bengal could perhaps be a separate civilization also since half of that is now modern Bangladesh.

I think if civ is going back to additional leaders being a normal thing, they should always add an additional leader besides Gandhi if they continue to insist on always having him (which I don't necessarily think they need, but I think they view him as an irreplaceable fan favourite- in my opinion repeating him every time has got a bit tired). India is definitely a big enough place it can justify having multiple leaders.

I largely agree with @SMcM; getting so incredibly granular with breaking civs up into smaller and smaller pieces goes against the spirit of the game.

Yes, that sums up my feeling on it well.

 

[mitsho]

It is true, you can't really deblob China or India if you want to have unchanging civs for gameplay reasons. That would only result in having 4-5 Chinas or Indias all peaking in different eras of the game, defeating the whole point of having them. People would quickly ask: Why can't I combine them and have a unique unit all the time? That can work if you only split them into, but isnt' that boring?

I like the idea of civs growing and changing through the eras. As it is now, I lose interest if all my unique are in the rearview mirror - or I do a late start to get to use the unique at all.

However, as not every civ has some unique or subculture to fill out all the ages, the question then becomes "what do you do with the rest?" Say Rome in the Industrial or America in the medieval era? And what do you do with the Mapuche or the Zulu? There are two answers: One - do Fantasy and invent stuff for them. Alternate History can be really fun and interesting and they do seem to want to go there with Vampires and King Arthur and so on. Or Two - give these civs a different kind of gameplay, be it challenging ("nothing new for you anymore"), be it "can only start as an independence movement" in a late start, be it ... I don't know.

I'm not saying those are the only options. But it's the only options if you want to deblob the big civs. And I would want them to do that. It does feel wrong that we get France, Germany, England, Dutch, Spain, Portugal, Scandinavia, Russia, Poland, ..... and one India. Sorry, it just doesn't feel up to modern standards.

 

[DWilson]

While I don't know that I would add Scotland, two Nordic countries, and Macedon (I would rather replace Gorgo with Alexander), I actually don't agree with your concluding sentiment. The big thing for me is that European cultures peaked in the right time and are currently distinct enough that it would feel weird to not include each of them. Even now people are protesting the lack of Portugal.

While I would be pleased with the Mughals joining, as is I think India is represented acceptably (though I would also be open to replacing Gandhi with innumerable alternatives) with two leaders. I don't, however, think there are many civs I would want to exclude to add broken up aspects of the actively unified China and other aspects of Indian history. Currently, it feels like we are missing too many distinct cultures that are desirable to spend resources on three aspects of China or India (or France or Germany).

I don't think I'm articulating this well, sorry.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

While I would be pleased with the Mughals joining, as is I think India is represented acceptably (though I would also be open to replacing Gandhi with innumerable alternatives) with two leaders. I don't, however, think there are many civs I would want to exclude to add broken up aspects of the actively unified China and other aspects of Indian history. Currently, it feels like we are missing too many distinct cultures that are desirable to spend resources on three aspects of China or India (or France or Germany).

I don't think I'm articulating this well, sorry.

The Sikhs and Burgundy would also like to join.

 

[mitsho]

While I don't know that I would add Scotland, two Nordic countries, and Macedon (I would rather replace Gorgo with Alexander), I actually don't agree with your concluding sentiment. The big thing for me is that European cultures peaked in the right time and are currently distinct enough that it would feel weird to not include each of them. Even now people are protesting the lack of Portugal.

While I would be pleased with the Mughals joining, as is I think India is represented acceptably (though I would also be open to replacing Gandhi with innumerable alternatives) with two leaders. I don't, however, think there are many civs I would want to exclude to add broken up aspects of the actively unified China and other aspects of Indian history. Currently, it feels like we are missing too many distinct cultures that are desirable to spend resources on three aspects of China or India (or France or Germany).

I don't think I'm articulating this well, sorry.

That's the question though, is there a bigger cultural difference between Portugal and Finnland than between Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh? Would a Civilization made in China have "the European Union" as a civ? They could.

There's no right answer here and if there were one, it would heavily depend on the gameplay present. I get a feeling from your post that you think there is an optimal distribution there somewhere. that's a very human thing to do: trying to classify everything into categories - worthy and not worthy in this case. However, history is chaos, and a game about history has to make choices. And I just don't feel that it will be right for the next game in this series to have "the Arabs" as an entity next to "Portugal". It's a political question for sure and a conscious decision to take. You can go the other way as it has been done before: it's the easy route as it's very easy for us to define characteristics and uniques for all the European Nations.

 

[DWilson]

I will say I support efforts to better define and represent- e.g., instead of the Arabs, the Umayyads (and in the version after, a different similar entity like the Abbasids (maybe joined with the Almohad or Al Andalus)). Perhaps there is a way to properly reflect the various Caliphates better than just saying the Arabs, but still include the series of caliphates.

So, my intent is not to say we shouldn't seek better representation.

And for better or worse, Europe has been disunified for long enough that it's pieces feel distinct now, and many peaked similarly and recently while being distinct, whereas China (as an example) has insistently worked to unify their culture (often to the point of trying to erase or limit the real distinctions that might otherwise exist).

What I would say is that yes, there is a consideration of worthy or unworthy, and it has to be balanced with a consideration of representation (such that less worthy civs in the eyes of the audience get boosted if they're located in under represented areas).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I will say I support efforts to better define and represent- e.g., instead of the Arabs, the Umayyads (and in the version after, a different similar entity like the Abbasids (maybe joined with the Almohad or Al Andalus)). Perhaps there is a way to properly reflect the various Caliphates better than just saying the Arabs, but still include the series of caliphates.

In my view, as I've said previously, the best solution would be for Arabia to have alternate leaders as well representing the various caliphates.

I know for Civ 6 they wanted different leaders for civs to primarily be for modding, but hopefully they can bring back alternate leaders for Civ 7 and have a lot more for especially for Arabia, China, England, France Germany, India, Persia, Russia etc.

That being said Morocco has already existed outside of Arabia and Al Andalus/Emirate of Granada is represented by a city-state so there is some differentiation already.

 

[SMcM]

In my view, as I've said previously, the best solution would be for Arabia to have alternate leaders as well representing the various caliphates.

Yep, the caliphates I think should be treated the same as the Chinese dynasties, as one civilization.

That being said Morocco has already existed outside of Arabia and Al Andalus/Emirate of Granada is represented by a city-state so there is some differentiation already.

Morocco is undoubtedly a different matter to 'Arabia', it is far removed and is a fusion of Arab and Berber culture. 'Arabia' should only be for certain medieval Arab caliphates and sultanates centered on the Middle East (mostly in the Arabian peninsula, Iraq, Egypt, the Levant).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Morocco is undoubtedly a different matter to 'Arabia', it is far removed and is a fusion of Arab and Berber culture. 'Arabia' should only be for certain medieval Arab caliphates and sultanates centered on the Middle East (mostly in the Arabian peninsula, Iraq, Egypt, the Levant).

I agree and there's also case for Morocco to be distinguished from the other medieval caliphates like the Almoravid and Almohad who were centered around North Africa, but were also Medieval.
I do wish that the Berber culture was more represented first than having Morocco again which as you said was fusion of Arab and Berber culture personally.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

Switzerland honestly feels like it should always stay as a neutral city-state for some reason.

Or, on the contrary, seeing the last trends of having deeply asymetrical civs, Switzerland would be the perfect contender for it. If it wasn't for Canada immune to Surprise Wars or Eleanor and her loyalty snatching ability, I would have proposed something akin of this for Switzerland:
Cannot declare any war (but can be declared war upon). When at war with a civ, your loyalty against ths civ is tripled (works also on free cities since you're at war with them). You don't exert loyalty pressure on city-States, but city-States you're the suzerain of exert loyalty pressure of your civilization around them (and is tripled during a war too).
It would bring a unique gameplay of reactive domination, where you do not control wars but you have to do what Switzerland did during all of its history: always be prepared for the worse.

While Portugal definitely sticks out as a glaring omission, I will feel somewhat disappointed if the final pack is dedicated to Europe again instead of a region or continent not represented in the pass thus far. North America especially opens for a sorely needed second Native American civ (or perhaps even Haiti as a purely ex-French colonial rep, though I'd rather have another Native American civ first)

Haiti would be the only post-colonial civ I'd accept in the game for now. A black, slaved independent republic is a tale one must know. And they could have incredible abilities tied to loyalty, governors, more advanced civs... Basically, the Mapuche. But with outwardly franchouillard names.
Nota Bene: did you know that Louis Boisrond Tonnerre (the writer of the act of independence of the Republic of Haiti) was nicknamed Tonnerre (thunder) by his father because, when he was a toddler, lighting struck his cradle, but he stayed unarmed... Isn't it metal as coït? Wouldn't it be awesome to have such a leader in a civ game, a game where they chose leaders based on if they had a "big personality"? Also, I recon that if ever they do Haiti, Toussaint-Louverture or Jean-Jacques Dessalines would probably be their choice. But having a leader named Thunder would still be awesome.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Haiti would be the only post-colonial civ I'd accept in the game for now. A black, slaved independent republic is a tale one must know. And they could have incredible abilities tied to loyalty, governors, more advanced civs... Basically, the Mapuche. But with outwardly franchouillard names.
Nota Bene: did you know that Louis Boisrond Tonnerre (the writer of the act of independence of the Republic of Haiti) was nicknamed Tonnerre (thunder) by his father because, when he was a toddler, lighting struck his cradle, but he stayed unarmed... Isn't it metal as coït? Wouldn't it be awesome to have such a leader in a civ game, a game where they chose leaders based on if they had a "big personality"? Also, I recon that if ever they do Haiti, Toussaint-Louverture or Jean-Jacques Dessalines would probably be their choice. But having a leader named Thunder would still be awesome.

What about Cuba? They have a tumultuous history as well, although we probably would want to avoid leaders like Castro and Bautista. Too controversial.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Or, on the contrary, seeing the last trends of having deeply asymetrical civs, Switzerland would be the perfect contender for it. If it wasn't for Canada immune to Surprise Wars or Eleanor and her loyalty snatching ability, I would have proposed something akin of this for Switzerland:
Cannot declare any war (but can be declared war upon). When at war with a civ, your loyalty against ths civ is tripled (works also on free cities since you're at war with them). You don't exert loyalty pressure on city-States, but city-States you're the suzerain of exert loyalty pressure of your civilization around them (and is tripled during a war too).
It would bring a unique gameplay of reactive domination, where you do not control wars but you have to do what Switzerland did during all of its history: always be prepared for the worse.

Yeah it could have unique gameplay mechanics but then again things like Swiss mercenaries UU, Swiss banks, neutrality etc. feels very city-state like to me personally.
I'd put other European possibilities like Austria returning or Italy, Bulgaria, Romania maybe even Finland as more interesting than Switzerland, well maybe not Finland.

What about Cuba? They have a tumultuous history as well, although we probably would want to avoid leaders like Castro and Bautista. Too controversial.

I agree that Haiti would be by far the best option if they went for another.
I'd argue Argentina though before Cuba if we have to have another Spanish speaking one though.

 

[untitledjuan]

Yeah it could have unique gameplay mechanics but then again things like Swiss mercenaries UU, Swiss banks, neutrality etc. feels very city-state like to me personally.
I'd put other European possibilities like Austria returning or Italy, Bulgaria, Romania maybe even Finland as more interesting than Switzerland, well maybe not Finland.


I agree that Haiti would be by far the best option if they went for another.
I'd argue Argentina though before Cuba if we have to have another Spanish speaking one though.

I think that the three most interesting Spanish speaking "civs" that could be chosen from if they wanted to have at least one of them, which I think is enough, are Argentina, (Gran) Colombia and Mexico. They have been the ones who have been independent the longest, more than 200 years, as opposed to Cuba, which has barely been independent for 100 years, and where the major cultural centers of Spanish America are located. The independence of all the other Spanish American countries was influenced by the first independentist actions that this three regions made and it can be argued that, even to this day, the three major countries, in terms of population, economy and area, of Spanish America are Mexico, Argentina and Colombia as well