[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[SMcM]

Regarding the discussion about "de-blobbing" a civ, I don't think devs are too keen on that. The fact that civs are named after demonyms, not after names of countries (for example Indian, not India) and your civ in the game is referred to as "demonym + Empire" (such as American Empire), no matter what type of government your civ has. Those factors are clearly very pro-blobbing, because the demonym lumps everyone living in a country plus the primary ethnicity of said group of people which it referrers to who can also live in other countries, as well as Empire suggesting the opposite of a homogenous nation.

I agree mostly- what I'm thinking would make sense maybe would be a selective de-blobbing. So we don't get rid of India, but we split off especially culturally distinct regions and states. So there is no reason Cholas shouldn't be their own civilization I would argue, for instance. I feel India should consist primarily of Hindi Belt states, so primarily Vedic, Nanda, Maurya, Guptas and Modern India. Foreign dynasty Islamic empires like Tughluqs and Mughals can be separated too arguably.

I think this is sort of what Firaxis already does- they selectively split civilizations off where there is something in particular interesting they want to represent. So instead of including Macedon in Greece they created a new civilization to represent Alexander's conquests.

People who want Han dynasty, Song dynasty, Maurya Empire, etc. have taken things too far I feel. They basically want every empire from the same land to be considered as completely separate.

 

[Guynemer]

You can tell me about awful things Roosevelt did if you want, and you're probably right, but doesn't change the fact that he isn't really very controversial.

Roosevelt may not appear controversial to those of us in America or Britain, but I'll think you'll find a rather different opinion in other parts of the world. Their opinion is no less valid.

 

[LMT]

There are plenty of controversial leaders in Civ. The issue with Ho Chi Minh is that he is controversial AND recent. For that reason, I seriously doubt Ho Chi Minh gets in the game.

Yes, TR may be controversial, but his presidency is not within the living memory of anyone. There are plenty of people living in the US and Vietnam that hold very negative memories of Ho Chi Minh. There's no way Firaxis wants to step into that. They want to expand their sales, not give a reason for people to not purchase their games.

 

[slavaskii]

There are plenty of controversial leaders in Civ. The issue with Ho Chi Minh is that he is controversial AND recent. For that reason, I seriously doubt Ho Chi Minh gets in the game.

Yes, TR may be controversial, but his presidency is not within the living memory of anyone. There are plenty of people living in the US and Vietnam that hold very negative memories of Ho Chi Minh. There's no way Firaxis wants to step into that. They want to expand their sales, not give a reason for people to not purchase their games.

Recency is the best explanation for why Ho Chi Minh shouldn't be in Civilization. Take Stalin, for example (in no way am I trying to compare the two, but just let it play out). The amount we've learned about Stalin since the fall of the Soviet Union has absolutely placed him on the dark side of history, and although we always knew he was controversial and his inclusion questionable, we knew very little about Stalin as compared to now. I speak from a Belarusian perspective; everyone in the BSSR knew what was going on, but massacres like Katyn were lied about by the government and now nobody in their right mind would ever want Stalin as representing them again.

Ho Chi Minh falls into a similar trap, in which his leadership was recent enough for there to still be controversies that further destabilize his image. Even if claims against Ho Chi Minh don't pan out, his inclusion will still be perceived as a political choice and alienate at least some amount of potential players. TR is indeed very recent (at least compared to other leaders), but his problem also stems from the fact that the American 'civilization' is so recent that you can't avoid these problems. Washington and Lincoln were therefore always safe picks, though both of them aren't necessarily immune to criticism, either. The history of Vietnam, in contrast, is long and diverse and should have no problem giving a leader who can make everyone happy and evoke only positive feelings of the country. If Civilization is still around in 50 years, Ho Chi Minh could be a leader then.

I'd also like to briefly say that every other militaristic civ in the game is essentially representing some time of violent conquest that would, undoubtedly, be controversial if such slaughter was to occur today. By including real-life leaders with a domination focus, you're going to run into these problems constantly.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I agree mostly- what I'm thinking would make sense maybe would be a selective de-blobbing. So we don't get rid of India, but we split off especially culturally distinct regions and states. So there is no reason Cholas shouldn't be their own civilization I would argue, for instance. I feel India should consist primarily of Hindi Belt states, so primarily Vedic, Nanda, Maurya, Guptas and Modern India. Foreign dynasty Islamic empires like Tughluqs and Mughals can be separated too arguably.

I think this is sort of what Firaxis already does- they selectively split civilizations off where there is something in particular interesting they want to represent. So instead of including Macedon in Greece they created a new civilization to represent Alexander's conquests.

People who want Han dynasty, Song dynasty, Maurya Empire, etc. have taken things too far I feel. They basically want every empire from the same land to be considered as completely separate.

I still am not sure if the Chola could arguably be split from a civ called India though I agree with the rest of your statements. Maybe if they would be combined with Sri Lanka it could work. At the same time I don't see it happening for Civ 6.

There are plenty of controversial leaders in Civ. The issue with Ho Chi Minh is that he is controversial AND recent. For that reason, I seriously doubt Ho Chi Minh gets in the game.

This^

 

[SMcM]

Roosevelt may not appear controversial to those of us in America or Britain, but I'll think you'll find a rather different opinion in other parts of the world. Their opinion is no less valid.

You're misrepresenting the point I made really. Also, specifically in the context of video game sales, it isn't true that the historical perspectives of all countries matter equally.

 

[SMcM]

I still am not sure if the Chola could arguably be split from a civ called India though I agree with the rest of your statements. Maybe if they would be combined with Sri Lanka it could work. At the same time I don't see it happening for Civ 6.

Well the Chola are Dravidian in contrast to the Indo-Europeans in the north, they are as distinct as they could possibly be. Them being blobbed into the same civilization at northern India is the pinnacle of unfair representation based on modern political borders. So I think it's weird you say you agree with me broadly, and yet are disagreeing with me on one of the most egregious examples. It's like saying Scotland can't be a civilization because it's now united with England (or worse, because at least Scotland and England share more in terms of language).

And combining Chola with Sri Lanka? This is ever worse, there is no rationale for that at all! You're just merging nearby cultures for no reason! There was a whole civil war in Sri Lanka over the difference between the Tamils and the Sinhalese (Sri Lanka's majority). Merging them is like merging the French and English due to proximity or something.

I think people need to be aware of what the cultural divides in the Indian subcontinent actually are when they are discussing how it can be split into different civilizations. South India and Northeast India stand out as regions which are very distinct from the rest of the country culturally, and they have distinct history too, so separate representation definitely makes sense.

 

[untitledjuan]

Regarding the discussion about "de-blobbing" a civ, I don't think devs are too keen on that. The fact that civs are named after demonyms, not after names of countries (for example Indian, not India) and your civ in the game is referred to as "demonym + Empire" (such as American Empire), no matter what type of government your civ has. Those factors are clearly very pro-blobbing, because the demonym lumps everyone living in a country plus the primary ethnicity of said group of people which it referrers to who can also live in other countries, as well as Empire suggesting the opposite of a homogenous nation.

The only exception would be Gran Colombia and Byzantium. It is really weird to see the name Gran Colombian Empire because no one ever called themselves Gran Colombian, they just referred to themselves during Bolívar's rule just as Colombians, even Bolívar himself refers to the citizens of it as just Colombians. (I do know that they used Gran Colombian to include people from Venezuela, Ecuador and Panama as well, but it seems weird to have a demonym which no one ever has used to refer to themselves). Though the term Byzantine Empire is indeed more used, they still didn't refer to themselves as Byzantines.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Well the Chola are Dravidian in contrast to the Indo-Europeans in the north, they are as distinct as they could possibly be. Them being blobbed into the same civilization at northern India is the pinnacle of unfair representation based on modern political borders. So I think it's weird you say you agree with me broadly, and yet are disagreeing with me on one of the most egregious examples. It's like saying Scotland can't be a civilization because it's now united with England (or worse, because at least Scotland and England share more in terms of language).

I guess that's the problem I see. I don't necessarily see India as purely a representing only "Northern" India but of the whole current country, at least under Gandhi, and I'm sure you will find others that do agree with my statement.

And combining Chola with Sri Lanka? This is ever worse, there is no rationale for that at all! You're just merging nearby cultures for no reason! There was a whole civil war in Sri Lanka over the difference between the Tamils and the Sinhalese (Sri Lanka's majority). Merging them is like merging the French and English due to proximity or something.

My point about combining aspects of the Chola with Sri Lanka was due to the fact that the Chola Dynasty when in power did also occupy Sri Lanka. I'm assuming a Chola city list would have Sri Lankan cities on it anyways. I'm not an expert on the history of the Indian subcontinent anyway so maybe I'm just over my head on this matter.

I mean technically speaking Eleanor is kind of a way they did merge the French and the English.

Though the term Byzantine Empire is indeed more used, they still didn't refer to themselves as Byzantines.

It's less confusing when there aren't two different Roman Empire factions with completely different abilities, considering they didn't even refer to themselves as the Eastern Roman Empire either.

 

[SMcM]

I guess that's the problem I see. I don't necessarily see India as purely a representing only "Northern" India but of the whole current country, at least under Gandhi, and I'm sure you will find others that do agree with my statement.

You're basically saying 'India's current borders mean we can only have one Indian civilization'. I just don't get this at all- it's like saying Native Americans are covered by America and Canada. When there exists historically and culturally distinct groups within modern borders, why shouldn't they have their own civilizations?

Are you going to tell me that China represents Tibetans and Manchus and Uighurs? Han Chinese and Tibetans are at least both members of the Sino-Tibetan language family! Would having the Champa not be allowed because it is now a part of Vietnam? Are Berbers not an option because they inhabit what are now Arab majority countries?

What I'm saying is modern borders shouldn't be the sole determination of what counts as a civilization, otherwise minority groups and stateless nations and etc. will get no representation at all. South India (and regions like it) deserve some sort of representation in my opinion. Simply using alternate leaders is an option, but given how culturally distinct it is there is no reason there cannot be separate civilizations.

I've seen some people suggest a 'Mesopotamia' civilization before- in my opinion asking the whole of Indian history to be seen as one entity is little different to that. I think you can go too far suggesting every dynasty in Indian history is it's own civilization, but I think it can be divided by cultural groups to some extent.

 

[8housesofelixir]

IMHO there is a higher change that Humankind will have a Chola (or Dravidian) culture than Civ VII will have a Chola civ in the next few years.

 

[SMcM]

IMHO there is a higher change that Humankind will have a Chola (or Dravidian) culture than Civ VII will have a Chola civ in the next few years.

Well Humankind is completely different because there is civs for each era. So individual dynasties are represented as playable cultures, like Zhou and Ming in China.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

So individual dynasties are represented as playable cultures, like Zhou and Ming in China.

Han, Qing, Wei, Xia, Shang, Sui, Tang, Song, Yuan, and Communist.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

You're basically saying 'India's current borders mean we can only have one Indian civilization'. I just don't get this at all- it's like saying Native Americans are covered by America and Canada. When there exists historically and culturally distinct groups within modern borders, why shouldn't they have their own civilizations?

As long as the game has India being represented in some form by Gandhi, representing the modern republic, yes I do feel it would be strange for them to split it up personally considering the majority are a part of the Republic of India today whereas many Native American tribes have separate tribal lands and government today.

I know people feel the same way about the split of Greece and Macedon into separate civs and that's how I feel about India, at least the way it's designed in Civ 6.

Unless we get a separate Maurya or Mughal civ etc. civ I don't see it happening which is all I am trying to say but would be a welcome change.

 

[ButtBillionaire]

In addition to Zhou and Ming, I believe the PRC has more or less been confirmed for Humankind's Contemporary Era, though its card has not yet been shown.

I don't really believe that it's Civilization's "job" to differentiate in such a manner. The dynasties, the republic and the people's republic are all considered part of Chinese civilisation. I don't know if the term "Indian civilisation" is as encompassing, though.

 

[AaronTBD]

I feel if there would be another Chinese civ it could be the Qing Dynasty due to the rulers being Manchu, thus being both another China civ and a unique one at the same time, same goes for the Chola and Mughals for India and Qajar for Persia.

 

[almughavar]

I find it bizarre I keep seeing people predict Ho Chi Minh! We had this debate here ages ago, I would say they are very unlikely to go for someone who is still so politically controversial. I'm pretty sure Civilization has left the days where it would casually throw in Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. into the game.

Le Loi I think it most likely also probably. Tran Thanh Tong, Quang Trung and Gia Long are other options that could make sense.

Gia Long is very controversial and unpopular in Vietnam though. Most Vietnamese prefer his rival - Quang Trung.

I myself have witnessed and even taken part in several fierce Gia Long vs Quang Trung debates.

 

[SMcM]

I know people feel the same way about the split of Greece and Macedon into separate civs and that's how I feel about India, at least the way it's designed in Civ 6.

Thing is different parts of India are actually far more distinct from eachother than Athens is from Macedon even. You aren't really appreciating the cultural diversity of India, you're forgetting we're talking about a massive country which has as much history and diversity as the whole of Europe on it's own.

Unless we get a separate Maurya or Mughal civ etc. civ I don't see it happening which is all I am trying to say but would be a welcome change.

See this just doesn't make sense, why can there be a Maurya civ but no Chola? I don't want a Maurya civ tbh, that fits just fine as India I'd say, if you know about the BJP and Modi and Hindu nationalism you will know that it's that part of India in the north that is to the day the country's core. Your way of splitting up civilizations is just arbitrary, I'm advocating a consistent approach based on giving distinct cultures representation. Maurya is essentially a dynasty of the core Indo-Aryan Indian civilization, as is the Gupta empire. India and Maurya being the same civilization isn't really that hard to justify, there is continuity there. When we are talking about Tamils, it is different, that's a region that has had a distinct history for most of it's existence.

You didn't answer my questions about Tibetans and etc., because that is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Tibet being within the modern borders of China doesn't mean that it shouldn't be represented (even if it won't be anyway for political reasons). Likewise the Tamils are a distinct people, and Tamil nationalism is a real thing, many of them consider themselves a distinct nation. They might be regarded as the largest stateless nation in the world. You haven't really refuted this, you've just stated that 'Modern India represents all Indians' or something. Well the UK is a country currently where Scotland is not an independent state- that's still in the game.

I am sure you have no problem with historical states and cultures which no longer exist at all being in Civ games (e.g. Babylon, Sumeria, Carthage). So why can't Tamils have their own civilization when they once had their own independent states? Would their culture need to be extinct for it to be ok for them to be represented?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Civ cannot be consistent in what it includes, since it is trying to make every included 'Civ' playable from 4000 BCE to 2020 CE and most of them, however you define them as polities or cultures, didn't last a fraction of that time.

So the criteria for inclusion becomes very 'flexible'. The United States has only existed as a political entity for about 250 years and as a 'culture' for maybe a little over 300 years, but it's full of people who buy games, so it will always be included.
At the other extreme, Egypt has had as continuous a political/cultural existence as any group/state in the game period, so it gets included in every iteration of the game, sooner or later. China, Britain/England, and many of the other European States are also full of gamers, so one way or the other we get a bunch of them in each version of the game.

IF we had to come up with a Basic Criteria for inclusion, I think the fact that a given group had both an identifiably separate culture or set of cultural attributes and an independent political entity for X amount of time would be basic. That means that the sub-continent of India would warrant several different 'Civs', because it has been home to several identifiably distinct cultural/linguistic groups and several separate States or collections of states throughout its history. 'Unification' in India is strictly a modern phenomena covering a small fraction of the game's time scale, and it demonstrably has not 'unified' the various cultures and languages that comprise the modern state.

Of course, as these Threads show, exactly which states/cultures should be included even when narrowing the discussion to 'just' India, and more basically what defines a 'State' or a 'culture' in any case can be debated to death.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

See this just doesn't make sense, why can there be a Maurya civ but no Chola?

I never said that the Chola can't exist as a civ ever. I'm talking about the possibility of a separate Maurya or Mughal civ alongside a Chola civ in Civ 7 or future games which I honestly wouldn't mind.
I don't see the Chola being a separate civ in the same game with a civ called India which is all I am saying.
That's all I have to say about this topic.

You didn't answer my questions about Tibetans and etc., because that is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Tibet being within the modern borders of China doesn't mean that it shouldn't be represented (even if it won't be anyway for political reasons). Likewise the Tamils are a distinct people, and Tamil nationalism is a real thing, many of them consider themselves a distinct nation. They might be regarded as the largest stateless nation in the world. You haven't really refuted this, you've just stated that 'Modern India represents all Indians' or something. Well the UK is a country currently where Scotland is not an independent state- that's still in the game.

Well I don't expect Tibet either but we agree why it wouldn't be included. The United Kingdom isn't a civ either which is why there's a differentiation between England and Scotland.
I don't think they would have kept on naming the Civ India recurrently lead by Gandhi if they decided to split it.