[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[PhoenicianGold]

I know uniques aren't always the case of something a civ did first or unique to them.

I'm not arguing that the coffeehouse is necessarily a bad choice for Austria but I would put it on the same level of a Thanh for Vietnam, or Palgum for Babylon, as in not my first choice for a unique infrastructure.
Sure hockey might have not been invented in Canada but the sport of Ice Hockey certainly was.

I think they would make more sense for Austria in the case of VI, if we accept that a turtly Vietnam wanted a defensive UI as opposed to a cultural UI. Maybe not satisfying to play, but they would better align with the idea of how "Austria" should play.

Now, the palgum just makes me think that we definitely have more civs coming, one of which has a library replacement.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think they would make more sense for Austria in the case of VI, if we accept that a turtly Vietnam wanted a defensive UI as opposed to a cultural UI. Maybe not satisfying to play, but they would better align with the idea of how "Austria" should play.

To be fair it's an encampment that provides culture and tourism, so it's both. Even if I initially would have preferred a Water Puppet Theater I've at least come around to the idea of combining them as military and war have shaped the culture of Vietnam.

Now, the palgum just makes me think that we definitely have more civs coming, one of which has a library replacement.

I mean if that means Assyria is coming, sure.
I'm still surprised we haven't had a civ with a unique shrine either, not to mention Russia is the only one with a unique Holy Site.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Sure hockey might have not been invented in Canada but the sport of Ice Hockey certainly was.

Hmm the Dutch might argue on that

But I get your point and modern Ice Hockey as a sport was definitely invented in Canada and hockey is part of Canadian culture with Outdoor Hokey Rinks and all devotion for the game. Many people here were complaining about it claiming hokey rink as a Canadian UI is cliched. I think that was a good pick for Canada. Besides ice hockey rink in Civ VI is the only place where the Canadian team can win Stanley Cup

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I mean if that means Assyria is coming, sure.
I'm still surprised we haven't had a civ with a unique shrine either, not to mention Russia is the only one with a unique Holy Site.

Other reasons why I really hope we get more civs after NFP.

I personally am hoping for Bulgaria to have the unique library. The Navajo could have a unique shrine in the hogan (although Hawai'i could have the heiau and really many civs could probably find a unique shrine). And I think an Aran/Paya would be a great Burmese counterpoint to the lavra.

I definitely think there is enough steam left for at least a few more civs. Again, there are just a few too many "obvious choices" that were omitted in NFP like Vienna/Assur city-states, and a unique library for Babylon, that I get the impression the devs aren't done.

ALSO, also, if indeed the next pack begs to be called "Final Frontier," going to the moon or "beyond earth" seems like a natural way to expand the game further. So we still aren't really at a loss for design space yet for content.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Hmm the Dutch might argue on that

But I get your point and modern Ice Hockey as a sport was definitely invented in Canada and hockey is part of Canadian culture with Outdoor Hokey Rinks and all devotion for the game. Many people here were complaining about it claiming hokey rink as a Canadian UI is cliched. I think that was a good pick for Canada. Besides ice hockey rink in Civ VI is the only place where the Canadian team can win Stanley Cup

That's just a polder that has been frozen over. I can see the windmills in the back.

I personally am hoping for Bulgaria to have the unique library. The Navajo could have a unique shrine in the hogan (although Hawai'i could have the heiau and really many civs could probably find a unique shrine). And I think an Aran/Paya would be a great Burmese counterpoint to the lavra.

I had a feeling you would mention Bulgaria getting the unique library.
The hogan as a unique shrine is interesting and something I never thought of but it could work, considering they are also used for ceremonial purposes, not just dwellings.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

That's just a polder that has been frozen over. I can see the windmills in the back.
.

A polder! Now thats the good pick for UI for a Civ. Ehm Apart from the bulgarian library of course.

 

[AntSou]

So what might Civ 7 feature?

Verticality. That's my bet.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Strange, because If you would follow that logic hamburger is not a part of American culture because it was invented by Germans in Hamburg. The fact idea of coffeehouses started in Arabic World doesn't mean Austria did not create a unique culture around it and Koffeehaus is not a good pick for their UB/UI. As I said it is not all about a literal place where coffee is serving, but a place that was some sort of institution. Besides, it was not only a coffee that was served in Wiener Kaffeehaus. It was also a confectionery.

Well obviously there is precedent because they got it as a UB in Civ 5. But to me it wouldn't necessarily be my first choice considering when I think of Austria I think of it being the capital of Classical Music, first. Therefore, I think some sort of unique infrastructure related to that would be more interesting in my opinion. Though we can agree maybe not something to do with specifically Opera.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I don't sign on for two days and I miss so much good discussion. Sigh.

And personally, I'm rather excited about the possibility of Luisa de Guzman for Portugal that someone mentioned a while back. I'm not entirely certain what her LUA would be, but she was integral in reestablishing Portuguese independence from Spain.

I love the idea personally, but given that none of us heard of her before Genya name-dropped her, I think she may be too unanimous for the March Update. If we repeat her name often enough however, we can perhaps meme her into Civ 7. Someone page Andrew or Sarah or Kevin so they can take note, yw.

It didn't have the Illustrious Generation, though. Modern Portugal, while it may have been a substantive empire, it just doesn't compare with the Age of Discovery.

The Illustrious Generation, or a GP-based derivative leader ability is indeed what I want for Portugal, and is why I highkey want John I for Portugal, if they do get in. He was, incidentally, also a Hat God:

<3

I'd be more okay with Cleopatra as an interesting personality if Egypt also had another leader--ideally if Egypt first had another leader.

I totally agree with this. Cleo as an alt is perfectly fine, and would allow for the Ptolemaic aspect of her reign to be more pronounced. I also believe this makes her lowkey suitable for a Persona Pack as well.

As a sole leader, eh, I don't dislike it, I guess, and I certainly have more issues with her vapid, impressionable portrayal in Civ 6 than with her actual inclusion. Her abilities could have easily gone to Hatshepsut instead though.

I'm not arguing that the coffeehouse is necessarily a bad choice for Austria

Surely if any Civ should be getting a Coffee House UB, it should be The Netherlands.

Verticality. That's my bet.

What do you mean with this? Like, tiles at different altitudes as in Humankind and Alpha Centauri?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I totally agree with this. Cleo as an alt is perfectly fine, and would allow for the Ptolemaic aspect of her reign to be more pronounced. I also believe this makes her lowkey suitable for a Persona Pack as well.

As a sole leader, eh, I don't dislike it, I guess, and I certainly have more issues with her vapid, impressionable portrayal in Civ 6 than with her actual inclusion. Her abilities could have easily gone to Hatshepsut instead though.

That's surely what everyone wants. A separate persona for Cleo that shows off the Hellenistic side of her.

Surely if any Civ should be getting a Coffee House UB, it should be The Netherlands.

I'm waiting for a separate Cascadia civ to appear for that which should appear by Civilization XXX.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

The Illustrious Generation, or a GP-based derivative leader ability is indeed what I want for Portugal, and is why I highkey want John I for Portugal, if they do get in. He was, incidentally, also a Hat God:

<3

Aye, a fellow bastard in the game would be wonderful.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Verticality. That's my bet.

What do you mean with this? Like, tiles at different altitudes as in Humankind and Alpha Centauri?

I was honestly expecting something like this to eventually be added to VI. They added submarines and orbital layers to BE, which was just the V engine. So I think it's definitely possible for them to patch that in.

 

[Codeword Iroquois]

Or get both as a Trentino Southern Tirol Civ

Hey, My current EU4 game has Trent owning Tirol and a decent portion of the Po Valley... and they didn't even conquer it themselves. So, in my non-professional opinion, It's possible.

 

[AntSou]

I love the idea personally, but given that none of us heard of her before Genya name-dropped her, I think she may be too unanimous for the March Update. If we repeat her name often enough however, we can perhaps meme her into Civ 7.

That's my feeling as well.

What do you mean with this? Like, tiles at different altitudes as in Humankind and Alpha Centauri?

Yep.

edit: Alpha Centauri also had tile slopes though, didn't it? Or was it just visual? So more like Humankind.

 

[Lord Lakely]

edit: Alpha Centauri also had tile slopes though, didn't it? Or was it just visual? So more like Humankind.

It did. The slopes themselves were separate squares, but they still counted as 'high ground' for the purposes of yields. One of many things from AC that Civ 7 should just shamelessly adopt (also includes: its diplomatic victory system and tech tree)

 

[SMcM]

Literally no one is trying to stop you from stating what you want, you have a keyboard, a pc and internet connection, it is a free world, you do whatever you want with it.

Well I'm hardly claiming I'm being censored or anything, but you seem to be in fairly strong terms telling me that I'm contributing absolutely nothing to discussion.

The thing is you're not the first person to state that alt leaders are generally more unfavorably received compared to brand new civs, and I am trying to suggest a leeway to compensate both sides of the argument: having a new civ/new leader while at the same making that leader an alt leader of an existing civ. Simply saying "I don't want an alt leader thus they shouldn't bother with it," one, adds nothing new to the conversation, we all dislike alt leaders, you're not the unique one here, just simply read the comments on Kublai Khan's thread, and two, instead of coming up with an idea that may make people on both sides of the argument a bit happier, you suggested an impossibility as if Firaxis would admit they waste the potential of a new feature and abandon it altogether. We all have things we want and things we don't want, making extreme suggestions like "I want to get rid of things I don't want" just simply doesn't cut it, especially when that decision affects more than just one person.

I'm "making extreme suggestions"? Uncompromising maybe, but you make it sound like I'm advocating terrorism lol. I have my opinion, you have yours. This logic of telling me not to complain about things I don't like makes zero sense to me. You seem to be saying I should 'moderate' my position, like this is some kind of important political matter. I don't need to accommodate for the views of others in formulating my own views, if I'm not persuaded by them. I never said this involves only one person, others are just as free to express their opinions.

My 'extreme' position is just that I have no interest in seeing more leaders ruling two civilizations, I think it is a gimmick and I don't care for it. The point about them going out of their way is that, in many instances, a good potential leader choice (and yes, that is obviously subjective) may not be a ruler that can be used for two civs. There are plenty of kings that ruled multiple kingdoms, but that doesn't necessarily make them the best choice for any of the kingdoms they ruled. This is like with the gender debate- some degree of quota might make sense, but in general I'd rather they chose female leaders for civilizations where there are good choices. As opposed to having situations like with Gorgo, which to me isn't an interesting choice at all.

Also in general, the whole multiple-civilization thing opens up many problems for consistency. Queen Victoria's United Kingdom included Scotland, so surely she could be a leader for them as well as England? Neither Scotland or England were distinct political entities in her time. You could argue England, the seat of the capital, was the primary realm, but I would say that typically all rulers would have had a primary base of power. You could argue Alexander could also be a leader for Greece, and even Persia and Egypt potentially. He separately held titles for these even, being crowned the pharaoh for instance.

Admittedly Kublai is complicated because even though he moved his power center to China, he was a Mongol. Eleanor I would say is slightly confusing, because I'm not sure if her being a leader of France in the game is to reflect that she was in her own right duchess of Aquitaine, or because she was also queen of France, in which position she didn't have as much influence as she would as queen of England. But I think overall it isn't really clear which leaders do or do not fit this multiple civilisation option.

 

[Jeppetto]

Maybe it could be the first unique building that doesn't replace another one.

Sad Bibliotheke noises

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Also in general, the whole multiple-civilization thing opens up many problems for consistency. Queen Victoria's United Kingdom included Scotland, so surely she could be a leader for them as well as England? Neither Scotland or England were distinct political entities in her time. You could argue England, the seat of the capital, was the primary realm, but I would say that typically all rulers would have had a primary base of power. You could argue Alexander could also be a leader for Greece, and even Persia and Egypt potentially. He separately held titles for these even, being crowned the pharaoh for instance.

Admittedly Kublai is complicated because even though he moved his power center to China, he was a Mongol. Eleanor I would say is slightly confusing, because I'm not sure if her being a leader of France in the game is to reflect that she was in her own right duchess of Aquitaine, or because she was also queen of France, in which position she didn't have as much influence as she would as queen of England. But I think overall it isn't really clear which leaders do or do not fit this multiple civilisation option.

I would say that for a leader to possible lead "two" civs they would have had to establish some sort of capital, or seat of power, in those respective civilizations. That's probably why Eleanor and Kublai were chosen. Even if Eleanor only really wielded some "power "as queen of England, she was still queen of France. Victoria only ruled from London and Alexander's capital was only Pella, in Macedon. At least that's what I think the developers were going for.

Sad Bibliotheke noises

To be fair it excludes three others.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Sad Bibliotheke noises

The Grammar corrector in me is dying at the misspelling of Bibliotheque.

To be fair it excludes three others.

But it doesn't exclude the possibility of building them.

I would say that for a leader to possible lead "two" civs they would have had to establish some sort of capital, or seat of power, in those respective civilizations. That's probably why Eleanor and Kublai were chosen. Even if Eleanor only really wielded some "power "as queen of England, she was still queen of France. Victoria only ruled from London and Alexander's capital was only Pella, in Macedon. At least that's what I think the developers were going for.

Constantine for Rome and Byzantium could be a good choice.

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

Also in general, the whole multiple-civilization thing opens up many problems for consistency. Queen Victoria's United Kingdom included Scotland, so surely she could be a leader for them as well as England? Neither Scotland or England were distinct political entities in her time. You could argue England, the seat of the capital, was the primary realm, but I would say that typically all rulers would have had a primary base of power. You could argue Alexander could also be a leader for Greece, and even Persia and Egypt potentially. He separately held titles for these even, being crowned the pharaoh for instance.

So if one day they want to code Victoria to be an alt leader for Scotland or India, go for it. It's literally free content. Forgoing the fact that the leader ability doesn't go with the rest of the civ's kit, literally who cares? Everybody likes free contents. Maybe there will be arguments in the beginning, like whether or not Victoria should lead India in game, but with time, everything will die down, and people will be content with what is given to them. After all, if all these leaders become alt leaders for another civ, it is just free new content to shake up the game.

There are plenty of kings that ruled multiple kingdoms, but that doesn't necessarily make them the best choice for any of the kingdoms they ruled. This is like with the gender debate- some degree of quota might make sense, but in general I'd rather they chose female leaders for civilizations where there are good choices. As opposed to having situations like with Gorgo, which to me isn't an interesting choice at all.

It is never Firaxis' agenda to pick a "good" leader, as they have made themselves very clear on that. Even if the alt leaders can only lead 1 civ, forced inclusion of certain leaders will still be a thing. Firaxis will pick whatever they think would be an interesting choice, so if they want to go outside the box with a decision, it almost has nothing to do with whether or not a leader should be allowed to lead 2 civs.

but you seem to be in fairly strong terms telling me that I'm contributing absolutely nothing to discussion.

So my suggestion was an alt leader should lead 1 new civ, 1 old civ, which is new, comprising idea to prevent the lack of hype when it comes to alt leaders. Your suggestion was that no one liked alt leaders, so the devs should just get rid of that. The fact no one likes alt leaders has been pointed out many times on literally every thread talking about alt leaders, because as I said people like as much content as possible, and an alt leader is just objectively less than a full civ, and Kublai Khan is priced similarly to a full civ, from an economic point of view, everyone knows this, even the devs. And the suggestion to get rid of alt leaders if there is more content to come just simply will not come true. What I said was your suggestion "added nothing new to the conversation." If you're upset by that statement, I sincerely apologize. While I should have phrased it better, I still think nothing in your previous comment (when all you said can be boiled down to "let's get rid of alt leaders") has not been beaten to death before.