[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[onepurpose]

In fact, when you check the Spanish colonial laws they were 2 categories of "people" (so to speak);

one for Europeans.

one for Americans (whole continent).
to carry o

sorry for the off-topic, but natives were officially considered subjects of the Spanish Monarchy from the very beginning .. Cristopher Columbus himself pretend the natives to be enslaved , what was rejected by the monarchy .. From the very beginning of America's colonization there were issued laws to protect natives.. (so called "leyes de indias" or "indian laws - see wikipedia for detail) .. well , I say "officially" , I mean that not always these laws were respected (in fact, there was a formalism "se acata pero no se cumple" ≈ "heed, but not accomplished" , meaning the respect to royal authority and the impossibility to carry on the mandate... ), but the fact is that form the very beginning were attempt to protect natives

(being the indians subjects and not susceptible of enslavement , there was a necessity to "import" workforce from Africa.. first by the Portuguese and the Dutch.. later by the English.. the Spanish marginally and in a much lesser level)

Until mid.S.XVIII, America colonization was "reserved" to the Kingdom of Castile , so was uncommon subjects from the other territories (Aragon, Low Countries, Naples, etc.) Anyway , there were not "two categories".. and mixed marriages were common.. despite black legend stuff, the fact is that today , in Latin America (or Hispanoamerica) -unlike anlgo-saxon america- you can find natives and mixed race in every country ...

 

[Zaarin]

Not going to lie Maria the Mad would fit Victoria's animations pretty well.

Especially the tantrum-throwing denounce animation.

sorry for the off-topic, but natives were officially considered subjects of the Spanish Monarchy from the very beginning .. Cristopher Columbus himself pretend the natives to be enslaved , what was rejected by the monarchy .. From the very beginning of America's colonization there were issued laws to protect natives.. (so called "leyes de indias" or "indian laws - see wikipedia for detail) .. well , I say "officially" , I mean that not always these laws were respected (in fact, there was a formalism "se acata pero no se cumple" ≈ "heed, but not accomplished" , meaning the respect to royal authority and the impossibility to carry on the mandate... ), but the fact is that form the very beginning were attempt to protect natives

Yes. The laws were frequently ignored, but the Spanish monarchs repeatedly put out edicts ordering their colonial representatives to stop mistreating the Natives, "our subjects."

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Especially the tantrum-throwing denounce animation.

That's literally the one I'm talking about.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Yes. The laws were frequently ignored, but the Spanish monarchs repeatedly put out edicts ordering their colonial representatives to stop mistreating the Natives, "our subjects."

Sadly, yes. Because the Spanish monarchs were so far away, the encomienda laws were still in place well into the 16th century.

 

[Inawordyes]

The fact that Portugal is a glaring omission is why I'm not discounting it just yet.

Not going to lie Maria the Mad would fit Victoria's animations pretty well.

If it really is the end of Civ6 development after this then it’s one thing, but in general, if you’re going to offer a season pass of DLC, you generally frontload your DLC to put the headliners at the start to draw people in, and then you follow that up with more requested features in the middle. Portugal is the biggest staple civ omission now, but tacking them onto the end of a pass that’s already drawn people in with the Maya and Ethiopia at the start and Byzantium and Babylon in the middle? 85%-90% of all people who were going to buy NFP have likely already done so by now, so from a business perspective, saving Portugal for the literal end does nothing draw in new sales since the vast majority who would have bought it for them have likely already bought it for the other vet civs.

But if you save Portugal, you can make them the headliner of the next pass, and suddenly a lot of people are buying it just because of Portugal alone, just like most brought NFP initially because of the Maya and Ethiopia.

It doesn’t necessarily have to be as big of a pass as NFP was (cut it down to half the size, so 4 new civs and 1 single-civ alt, and maybe one new gameplay feature), but you throw Portugal in at the end of NFP and it’d be a waste, whereas you throw them at the beginning of a ‘NNFP’ or just sell them individually/separately and it will sell like hotcakes comparatively

 

[Jeppetto]

Yeah, outside of Europe, Americas are split into:
North America
Mesoamerica
South America

That's a matter of what word you also use. In my country we use continent for America and then more specific term ("world-piece") for things like North and South America. In schools North, Middle and South America split is used.

Regardless of what the last Civ is, I think you can wrap a fluffy pink bow around Civilization 6 once this patch has fully unlocked. The devs consider it "finished" and I doubt they'll keep adding more content a la EU4 and AoE2.

The devs considered it finished after GS, too and yet here we are. They consider it finished in core, with all this being bonus topping to enhance it in little ways based on what each player might want (thus the ability to choose modes). So no reason to think there couldn't be a set of more toppings.

So I did it. And it’s messy (like super messy and I’m sorry). But I did my best to parse out areas of City-States (and a marginally OK job at it) that Firaxis is looking at in terms of “cultural importance” (I use the term loosely) of which areas of the world they consider...“worthy” enough of an inclusion into the games.

I don’t think I can pull out any guarantees, but they seem to be focusing on areas where fans are drawing more cultural significance — like the Italian city-states, “Southern (and Central) Asia” (India & the ‘stans), or West Africa

NOTE: I forgot to add on Bohemia to Prague / Czech Republic

I said it already, but I'd hope If by some miracle Slovakia made it as City-State, they'd choose Martin over Bratislava and go for Great Writer and/or Loayalty based bonus. Bratislava maybe If they wanted generic representation and slapped Fresh Water bonus on it, like your cities can get Fresh Water from adjacent Moutain.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

If it really is the end of Civ6 development after this then it’s one thing, but in general, if you’re going to offer a season pass of DLC, you generally frontload your DLC to put the headliners at the start to draw people in, and then you follow that up with more requested features in the middle. Portugal is the biggest staple civ omission now, but tacking them onto the end of a pass that’s already drawn people in with the Maya and Ethiopia at the start and Byzantium and Babylon in the middle? 85%-90% of all people who were going to buy NFP have likely already done so by now, so from a business perspective, saving Portugal for the literal end does nothing draw in new sales since the vast majority who would have bought it for them have likely already bought it for the other vet civs.

But if you save Portugal, you can make them the headliner of the next pass, and suddenly a lot of people are buying it just because of Portugal alone, just like most brought NFP initially because of the Maya and Ethiopia.

It doesn’t necessarily have to be as big of a pass as NFP was (cut it down to half the size, so 4 new civs and 1 single-civ alt, and maybe one new gameplay feature), but you throw Portugal in at the end of NFP and it’d be a waste, whereas you throw them at the beginning of a ‘NNFP’ or just sell them individually/separately and it will sell like hotcakes comparatively

I do think Portugal, if anything, could sell a DLC pass by itself.

But, for sake of argument, what would the second frontliner for a second season pass have to be? The Iroquois? Morocco? Denmark?

Also, so far we haven't had a single DLC pack this pass with a new civ. Both of the prior two were anchored with a returning civ (Ethiopia, Babylon). So the strongest argument for a returning civ like Portugal is that the devs are still looking at selling the DLC packs individually as well.

(I really don't want the sixth DLC pack to be Portugal, because the game would still feel incomplete without at least token representation of Austria, Denmark, the western US, Burma, etc. etc. There's still a lot of gaps on the map, even as far as city-states go.)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The devs considered it finished after GS, too and yet here we are. They consider it finished in core, with all this being bonus topping to enhance it in little ways based on what each player might want (thus the ability to choose modes). So no reason to think there couldn't be a set of more toppings.

Is it greedy to want more toppings?

I do think Portugal, if anything, could sell a DLC pass by itself.

But, for sake of argument, what would the second frontliner for a second season pass have to be? The Iroquois? Morocco? Denmark?

Also, so far we haven't had a single DLC pack this pass with a new civ. Both of the prior two were anchored with a returning civ (Ethiopia, Babylon). So the strongest argument for a returning civ like Portugal is that the devs are still looking at selling the DLC packs individually as well.

(I really don't want the sixth DLC pack to be Portugal, because the game would still feel incomplete without at least token representation of Austria, Denmark, the western US, Burma, etc. etc. There's still a lot of gaps on the map, even as far as city-states go.)

I think something North African could at least be paired with another leader for Egypt, which is what the majority of people want.

Of course you could also throw in Italy with Portugal to start off a second pass.

 

[Jeppetto]

I think something North African could at least be paired with another leader for Egypt, which is what the majority of people want.

Especially since alt leaders are good opportunity to represent different time period and style and Ancient Egyptian ruler is obvious opportunity there.

 

[SirMediocrity]

Especially the tantrum-throwing denounce animation.

Personally, I feel like Victoria's little fan waving thing is too distinct to be used with another leader. I think Jadwiga's model might work a little bit better as she also has a bit of a silly denouncing animation, and carries a royal scepter (Maria also carried one in Civ 5).

Of course you could also throw in Italy with Portugal to start off a second pass.

Ngl I half-expect them to release a pack with Italy led by Victor-Emmanuel II using Pedro II's idle animations for the third time

 

[AntSou]

sorry for the off-topic, but natives were officially considered subjects of the Spanish Monarchy from the very beginning .. Cristopher Columbus himself pretend the natives to be enslaved , what was rejected by the monarchy .. From the very beginning of America's colonization there were issued laws to protect natives.. (so called "leyes de indias" or "indian laws - see wikipedia for detail) .. well , I say "officially" , I mean that not always these laws were respected (in fact, there was a formalism "se acata pero no se cumple" ≈ "heed, but not accomplished" , meaning the respect to royal authority and the impossibility to carry on the mandate... ), but the fact is that form the very beginning were attempt to protect natives

(being the indians subjects and not susceptible of enslavement , there was a necessity to "import" workforce from Africa.. first by the Portuguese and the Dutch.. later by the English.. the Spanish marginally and in a much lesser level)

Until mid.S.XVIII, America colonization was "reserved" to the Kingdom of Castile , so was uncommon subjects from the other territories (Aragon, Low Countries, Naples, etc.) Anyway , there were not "two categories".. and mixed marriages were common.. despite black legend stuff, the fact is that today , in Latin America (or Hispanoamerica) -unlike anlgo-saxon america- you can find natives and mixed race in every country ...

Sorry but this is just a typical Spanish soundbite of the "actually other colonisers were much worse!" type, which is frequently used by the Spanish for the sake of emotional comfort. It lets people feel pride in the accomplishments of their ancestors without having to really question the atrocities committed.

There's similar variants in Portugal and the UK, and I'd guess other countries as well. These were common beliefs during Salazar's and Franco's dictatorship and they persist to this day.

Here's a few other examples:

- "Barbary Pirates did slavery too!" - I've often heard Anglo-Americans using this one with the intent of dismissing African slavery, since Africans enslaved Europeans as well (the logic goes).

- "The Wermacht were honest soldiers! It's the SS who committed the atrocities." - This one used extensively by Germans after the war.

- "The Civil War was about state rights and actually blacks were treated fairly in the South!" - A common American trope.

 

[Zaarin]

Personally, I feel like Victoria's little fan waving thing is too distinct to be used with another leader. I think Jadwiga's model might work a little bit better as she also has a bit of a silly denouncing animation, and carries a royal scepter (Maria also carried one in Civ 5).

I feel the opposite: Jadwiga's girlish animations would feel strange to me on another leader. I suppose the praying motion she makes when denouncing would suit the devout Maria I, though.

- "The Civil War was about state rights and actually blacks were treated fairly in the South!" - A common American trope.

I mean, it is extremely simplistic to say that the Civil War was about slavery (it definitely wasn't the foremost issue until Lincoln used it to cash in some political credit for moral superiority), and states' rights were certainly one of the issues at stake (and also the first casualty of the war). The war was about slavery, too, and economics and politics and a host of other issues. The latter half of the statement is, of course, absurd.

 

[SirMediocrity]

I feel the opposite: Jadwiga's girlish animations would feel strange to me on another leader. I suppose the praying motion she makes when denouncing would suit the devout Maria I, though.

I completely agree about the girlish animations thing. That's the biggest thing going against a theoretical Maria using Jadwiga's idle animations in my opinion.

 

[AntSou]

Maria II has a decent chance.

 

[anonxanemone]

I mean, it is extremely simplistic to say that the Civil War was about slavery (it definitely wasn't the foremost issue until Lincoln used it to cash in some political credit for moral superiority), and states' rights were certainly one of the issues at stake (and also the first casualty of the war). The war was about slavery, too, and economics and politics and a host of other issues. The latter half of the statement is, of course, absurd.

In a society where slavery IS economics and by extension politics, states' right was indistinguishable in all practical purposes.

 

[SirMediocrity]

Maria II has a decent chance.

It would be cool to see Maria II go to war against her brother Pedro II.

 

[onepurpose]

Sorry but this is just a typical Spanish soundbite of the "actually other colonisers were much worse!" type, which is frequently used by the Spanish for the sake of emotional comfort. It lets people feel pride in the accomplishments of their ancestors without having to really question the atrocities committed.

There's similar variants in Portugal and the UK, and I'd guess other countries as well. These were common beliefs during Salazar's and Franco's dictatorship and they persist to this day.

Here's a few other examples:

- "Barbary Pirates did slavery too!" - I've often heard Anglo-Americans using this one with the intent of dismissing African slavery, since Africans enslaved Europeans as well (the logic goes).

- "The Wermacht were honest soldiers! It's the SS who committed the atrocities." - This one used extensively by Germans after the war.

- "The Civil War was about state rights and actually blacks were treated fairly in the South!" - A common American trope.

I'm merely exposing facts... like you or not

and - making abstraction of what slavery means in terms of horror and shame for Humankind - indeed, slaves were treated fairly ... for practical issues mainly ... the same way you don't damage a car or a horse on purpose (and please do not pretend I am defending slavery with this statement) .. even in ancient Roma (where slaves were "cheaper" to obtain) mistreating slaves just because were considered "uncool"

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Maria II has a decent chance.

It would be cool to see Maria II go to war against her brother Pedro II.

But now we need Maria I to lead both Portugal and Brazil.

 

[SirMediocrity]

But now we need Maria I to lead both Portugal and Brazil.

Would that be like having Victoria also lead Scotland or India?

 

[Zaarin]

In a society where slavery IS economics and by extension politics, states' right was indistinguishable in all practical purposes.

My general point was that pointing to any one issue as the reason for the Civil War is simplistic. It was a complicated conflict that had many sources. (In case anyone is wondering, I'm not Southern, and I'm not defending the Confederacy. I'm simply pointing out that trying to pin a very complicated war on any one issue is doomed to oversimplification.)