[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

I have thought the NFP civs quite fun and unique to play, especially Maya, Gaul and Babylon. Ethiopia, while not so unique, is a lot of fun to play as well. GC and Byzantines don't make my playstyle because I don't usually play domination, but I think they can be interesting interesting for those who like this playstyle, though.
I enjoyed the Maya, which out of all the NFP civs is probably the most flavorful and unique. I also liked Gaul and Ethiopia well enough. Babylon's design is just bizarre. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I really think there is no one at Firaxis who likes ancient history the way ancient civs consistently get shivved in Civ6 (with the exception of Phoenicia, which is perfect).

I've been a big fan of Civ6 from day one, but NFP has sapped a lot of my enthusiasm for the game. I don't hate it. I still play it. But I definitely liked the game a lot more six months ago than I do now.
 
I enjoyed the Maya, which out of all the NFP civs is probably the most flavorful and unique. I also liked Gaul and Ethiopia well enough. Babylon's design is just bizarre. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I really think there is no one at Firaxis who likes ancient history the way ancient civs consistently get shivved in Civ6 (with the exception of Phoenicia, which is perfect).

I've been a big fan of Civ6 from day one, but NFP has sapped a lot of my enthusiasm for the game. I don't hate it. I still play it. But I definitely liked the game a lot more six months ago than I do now.
Yeah, Sumeria really does need a buff. Gilgamesh needs another purpose other than being the shield of his allies. :( On that note, Akkad and Assyria are Civilizations that I'd love to see. :)
 
I enjoyed the Maya, which out of all the NFP civs is probably the most flavorful and unique. I also liked Gaul and Ethiopia well enough. Babylon's design is just bizarre. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I really think there is no one at Firaxis who likes ancient history the way ancient civs consistently get shivved in Civ6 (with the exception of Phoenicia, which is perfect).

I've been a big fan of Civ6 from day one, but NFP has sapped a lot of my enthusiasm for the game. I don't hate it. I still play it. But I definitely liked the game a lot more six months ago than I do now.

I see your point, it's still frustrating that Egypt does not have an ancient Pharaoh. I hope that Civ7 will give more love to ancient civilizations. Babylon will certainly be there because it is a staple, I hope Assyria and Hittites too, Sumer would be the icing on the cake.
 
I see your point, it's still frustrating that Egypt does not have an ancient Pharaoh. I hope that Civ7 will give more love to ancient civilizations. Babylon will certainly be there because it is a staple, I hope Assyria and Hittites too, Sumer would be the icing on the cake.
<Chime> Indus River Valley Civilization!! Even though we have no known leaders!! Julius Caesar for Rome or Epaminondas for Greece! More love for my boi, Epaminondas!
 
Last edited:
Well I guess everyone is forgetting about the ancient civilization called Nubia. :p
I mean sure they have a leader from the Classical Era, but still.
 
I'm 90% certain that the final civ is, unfortunately, Portugal; the remaining 10% chance is that it's a Native American civilization. At this stage in development, I'm having a hard time getting excited about whatever remains. Power creep and lack of flavor has made many of the NFP civs not particularly fun to play, and the reused animations spoil them as AI opponents. :(

It seems that the Civ choices of NFP is basically "Bring the Series Regular Back with a Twist", with the exception of Gran Colombia (Edit: And possibly Vietnam).
 
Last edited:
It seems that the Civ choices of NFP is basically "Bring the Series Regular Back with a Twist", with the exception of Gran Colombia.
What about Gaul?
 
Eh, true. If Vietnam DOES appear in Civ 6, though, there's another new Civ to the Civ franchise.

Yeah, I think it is the major expectation we (I mean the people hoping for a new and unique civ) will have in the coming months. Hope Vietnam gets cleverly and flavorly designed.
 
It seems that the Civ choices of NFP is basically "Bring the Series Regular Back with a Twist", with the exception of Gran Colombia (Edit: And possibly Vietnam).
It's basically old staples plus a few civs a lot of people have asked for--Gran Colombia, Gaul, Vietnam. Plus Gaul is basically a more specific iteration of the Celts, as you said. I honestly never expected NFP to be anything other than that; it's more the lack of flavor to many of the designs that I've found disappointing. Babylon hit me especially hard because I hoped for a really interesting Mesopotamian civ to offset Gilgabro. At least Hammurabi speaks beautiful Akkadian. :p
 
I honestly never expected NFP to be anything other than that; it's more the lack of flavor to many of the designs that I've found disappointing. Babylon hit me especially hard because I hoped for a really interesting Mesopotamian civ to offset Gilgabro. At least Hammurabi speaks beautiful Akkadian. :p

Personally I feel like Babylon's Ability is more of a fit of some science-based faction in the Beyond Earth II or Alpha Centauri II, instead of regular Civ. "Full Eureka" Feels very SF to me.

Maybe we can get a Cyberpunk Mode in the future, which is something I won't reject.
 
With regard to Babylon, I actually have come to really like thematics on the handling of science (if not being particularly Babylonian). Though it will never happen, I would love if much of the game research was basically handled the way Babylon does, by acting in such a way as to promote innovation. Then, in a later era, more formal scientific methods develop allowing controlled and directed research advancement at a faster rate, if the civs invest in it appropriately.

This only came to mind after reading what someone else pointed out in a Babylon comment- that for much of human history research wasn't formally structured and targeted effectively.
 
Funny how the Greeks aren't the ones to be the eureka specialists, but Babylon is fun anyway!
To be fair, the Greeks stole all their eurekas from Babylon and the Egyptians anyway. :p
 
Funny how the Greeks aren't the ones to be the eureka specialists, but Babylon is fun anyway!
To be fair, the Greeks stole all their eurekas from Babylon and the Egyptians anyway. :p

The "cultural Greeks" might be the best idea - although Greeks stole a lot of Eurekas from Babylon and Egypt, they did invent sophisticated political philosophy by themselves.
 
To be fair, the Greeks stole all their eurekas from Babylon and the Egyptians anyway. :p

Not all. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that the Greeks built on any Eurekas they got from Babylon and the Egyptians. Cases in Point:

The Greeks built large stone temples and monumental buildings like the two earlier Civs, but the Greeks were the first ones to reinforce stone structures with metal (in the Propylaea on the Acropolis in Athens, 440 - 430 BCE)

In those same monumental stone structures, the Greeks were the first to use cranes with mechanical advantage pulleys to lift and move stones (515 BCE, Corinth) - probably because the Greek city states didn't have access to the massive amounts of manpower available to the Egyptian and Babylonian builders.

And there was nothing anywhere else in the world like the Greek Hoplon shield, built of a combination of steamed formed wood, bronze/brass and leather, that defined the Hoplite from 600 BCE on.

And when the Greek and Mesopotamian/Egyptian science really got fused - in Hellenistic Alexandria around the Mouseion or Library there - it produced an explosion of scientific advances in numerous fields, like:
Euclid's Elements was published under Ptolemy I in Egypt around 300 BCE - probably the single most influential book on mathematics ever written.
The horizontal-axis waterwheel was invented in Alexandria around 240 BCE
Hipparchus discovered and described a Supernova and created the first star catalogue calculating positions of the stars by Precession, in 135 BCE - essentially the start of modern astronomy, building on both Greek and Middle Eastern predecessors.
In the first century CE Democritus wrote the first known 'textbook' on Alchemy, the Four Books, basing his study on a combination of Egyptian metallurgical knowledge and Greek natural philosophy
In that same century, by 70 CE Dioscorides wrote Peri hules latrikes (better known by its Latin title: De Materia Medica), a 5 volume compendium of herbal and medicinal plants, the basis for virtually all natural pharmacopeas written since.
About 100 years later Klaudios Ptolemaios wrote the treatise on astronomy later known as the Almagest, the standard work on the subject for the next 1500 or so years, and a Geography of the classical world in which he accurately measured the circumference of the earth.
And finally, at the beginning of the 2nd century CE Claudius Galenus (Galen) wrote up his new research on anatomy, pharmacology, medical diagnosis - even covering mental illness: another set of works that influenced the field of medicine for the next 1000 years.

No question that the Greeks owed a lot to the earlier work done in Egypt, Babylon, Assyria - but they added to it a distinctly Non Religious outlook they called Natural Philosophy which, especially when turned lose in the concentration of knowledge and information represented by Alexandria's Museum/Library, took the original work far beyond anything that the Egyptians or Babylonians ever achieved. All Science, in the memorable phrase, "stands on the shoulders of Giants" - but Greek science produced some Giants of its own.
 
Some of my thoughts regarding the past few days' discussions.

Re: Deblobbing India, I absolutely would support Chola or Vijayanagara or another Dravidian empire being added as a separate civ.

Funnily enough, if I'm not mistaken there was another Indian guy some pages back who was opposed to deblobbing India. I can't understand why? Other than nationalism? It's not a blow against India to have two Indian civs, quite the opposite. I mean, I personally wouldn't mind if Tondo and Cebu were two different civs (or two different city-states, which is indeed kind of what they were). I just don't get it.

Having said that, I'm a bit surprised at Thenewwwguy's assertion that modern India has little to do with the Dravidians and vice-versa. While I'm not Indian or of Indian descent myself (one of my racist countrymen I was having a political argument with tried to insult me by saying I looked Indian once, does that count?), I was under the impression that South Indians, while taking pride in their Dravidian identity, are as proud to be Indian as North Indians are. I mean, South India is turning into the economic engine of India; Kerala, a South Indian state, has the highest HDI in India; Bengaluru, a South Indian city, is a tech hub, and South Indian states are starting to surpass North Indian states in per capita GDP.

And yes, I must agree with Zaarin that while Castro wasn't as bad as Mao or Stalin, that's a pretty low bar to clear, and I do not think he should be in Civ. I strongly suspect however that one's opinion on Castro is likely to be determined by where on the political spectrum one sits. I too also find it objectionable to insinuate that the Cuban exiles deserved what they got. Might as well say too that the boat people that left Vietnam after the war were mostly Vietnam's middle and upper classes and deserved to become refugees from their own country.
 
To be fair, the Greeks stole all their eurekas from Babylon and the Egyptians anyway. :p

So your point is they should have early acces to Scientific Alliance? :D
 
Maybe we should de-blob Brittania further, and include the Welsh and Irish in the game. :D
 
Back
Top Bottom