[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[BD123]

I know it's just conjecture, but I never ever want Victoria retroactively made an alt leader for India... might as well make Wilhemina available to Indonesia at that point. Go hog wild and add Hirohito for Japan AND Korea too

• Cixi

Cixi would've definitely been a very big personality to have added. So is Qin Shi Huang but he's boring imo sort of like Napoleon is obviously a big personality but is so overdone and obvious...

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

What do you mean my suggestion 'is not true'? I presume what you are saying, is that what I'm asking for won't happen, or cannot happen?

The suggestion that Firaxis shouldn't bother with alt leaders, in the situation where there is more content in the future, just will not come true, full stop.

Also, again, I'm not saying there should be no alternative leaders necessarily.

Must have misinterpreted when you also said this before:

I don't think we need new alt leaders at all

And regarding this:

I'm simply explaining why I defended myself, given you suggested I was claiming to be censored

Apparently the following doesn't sound like someone who is complaining that he is stopped from expressing his opinions:

I know this particular thread is significantly about speculation, but I don't see why I can't talk about what I think they should do as well.

Please do me a favor and never quote me in anything if you are gonna backpedal this hard. This is a reductive back-and-forth, even by CivForum's already low standards.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

100% this. Kublai's (mechanical) design is interesting in the way he synergizes with both Mongolia and China, but Mongolia didn't need a second leader in the first place and China just has so many interesting options that Kublai probably wouldn't have even made my short list of Chinese alt leaders.

1. Taizong
2. Cao Cao
3. Sima Yi
4. Sun Jian
5. Liu Bei
6. Wu Zetian
7. Han Wudi
8. Cixi
9. And so much more

In fact, if I might add, I was low key against proposals for Kublai Khan on these boards precisely because the devs were paying attention. He was just low hanging fruit like Vietnam and Colombia, and I really wanted a female Chinese leader first before we got Kublai.

 

[Shibooyeah]

dumb ideas lol:

a civ with bonuses to/from great musicians. i feel like you earn these way faster than you're able to actually place their works. maybe each art museum gets a 4th slot for music idk, though because kristina is da bomb i wouldn't want to inadvertently nerf her building. maybe a unique building with music slot in addition to broadcast center, comes earlier.

a civ that is able to influence other civs world congress votes. civ ability that lets you spy on allies. spies have unique promotions

this would take something inspired but a domination civ that doesnt use military. similar to the one that can take over cities with just loyalty pressure. idk what other mechanics could be used to do this, but i feel there's so many civs where the object is just to destroy others. byzantine with the religious interplay maybe kind of is another example of this?

civ with penalty for having its cities close together. idk what reason this would be for, but yeah. encourages forward settling. civ that can work beyond the 3rd tile ring

civ that can not build/purchase/own settlers beyond the first city. but can absorb city states while keeping their bonuses in some way

civ with heavy snow bias. can traverse the ice tiles on top and bottom of map. penalties for settling off snow/tundra.

idk im running out of steam here

 

[PhoenicianGold]

dumb ideas lol:

a civ with bonuses to/from great musicians. i feel like you earn these way faster than you're able to actually place their works. maybe each art museum gets a 4th slot for music idk, though because kristina is da bomb i wouldn't want to inadvertently nerf her building. maybe a unique building with music slot in addition to broadcast center, comes earlier.

Italy or Austria, probably.

a civ that is able to influence other civs world congress votes.

Should probably be America, Russia, or China lol. Or Vatican City.

civ ability that lets you spy on allies. spies have unique promotions

Could also be Austria.

this would take something inspired but a domination civ that doesnt use military. similar to the one that can take over cities with just loyalty pressure. idk what other mechanics could be used to do this, but i feel there's so many civs where the object is just to destroy others. byzantine with the religious interplay maybe kind of is another example of this?

Yeah we have this with Eleanor, I think that's what you're talking about. I think having a strict religious conversion civ could work for something like Vatican City. Someone had also proposed a Burma example, but I'm not sure if it really fits Burma especially well. You could have also had some variation on the Byzantine model for Arabia if the devs had taken a different, more controversial angle to that civ.

I'm trying to think of other ways they could do this. Perhaps a civ that exerts loyalty pressure with foreign trade routes (although this could apply to many maritime civs by default, I do think Oman or the Chola might be a decent fit for it). Also, if we had been given a more complete alternate economy mode, I could see a civ exerting pressure with monopolies, although the mechanics still seem messy in my mind.

civ with penalty for having its cities close together. idk what reason this would be for, but yeah. encourages forward settling. civ that can work beyond the 3rd tile ring

We kind of have soft penalties here in Russia and Gaul, and to a lesser extent England, Spain, and Phoenicia. There are many ways this could be implemented, but as far as specifically wanting cities isolated from each other, maybe the Berbers? Or if you wanted an island variant, Tonga/Hawai'i?

civ that can not build/purchase/own settlers beyond the first city. but can absorb city states while keeping their bonuses in some way

Any "city-state" civ like Venice would work for this. Vatican City would work here again if you want a religious angle to acquisition. Maybe Zanzibar if you took a trade angle. Maybe Switzerland?

civ with heavy snow bias. can traverse the ice tiles on top and bottom of map. penalties for settling off snow/tundra.

Inuit seem the clear frontrunner here as far as popularity and iconicity go. The Saami would be fun too, and I personally think Yakut/Sakha is the best option for a civ to fill out northern Asia/eastern Russia. Personally I would pay an insane amount of money for an Ice Age pack that introduced all three to fill out the map and expand gameplay niches.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

In fact, if I might add, I was low key against proposals for Kublai Khan on these boards precisely because the devs were paying attention. He was just low hanging fruit like Vietnam and Colombia, and I really wanted a female Chinese leader first before we got Kublai.

If Vietnam was low hanging fruit, then it was some delicious ones.

civ with penalty for having its cities close together. idk what reason this would be for, but yeah. encourages forward settling. civ that can work beyond the 3rd tile ring

I've been speculating that Portugal could go that route, kind of like a reverse Maya, if they want to emphasize both exploration and colonization in their playstyle. Also their unique infrastructure could go outside of their borders and bring in yields from surrounding tiles, like the Vampire Castle already does. Not quite the same as working a 4th ring tile, but in the general area.

 

[Birch617]

Personally I would pay an insane amount of money for an Ice Age pack that introduced all three to fill out the map and expand gameplay niches.

In my mind i always had an idea of a pack or bundel of 4 snowy/tundra civs that could thrive in different way in those biomes; Inuit (religious and exploration, depend on Snow to grow/north american), Saami (Cultural and trading, good on snow and tundra/ Europe), Nenets (Domination and Religion, Snow and Tundra bonuses/Siberia) and Tehuelche (Diplomatic; Only bonuses to Tundra/ Southamerica; Tierra del Fuego)

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

dumb ideas lol:

a civ with bonuses to/from great musicians. i feel like you earn these way faster than you're able to actually place their works. maybe each art museum gets a 4th slot for music idk, though because kristina is da bomb i wouldn't want to inadvertently nerf her building. maybe a unique building with music slot in addition to broadcast center, comes earlier.

a civ that is able to influence other civs world congress votes. civ ability that lets you spy on allies. spies have unique promotions

this would take something inspired but a domination civ that doesnt use military. similar to the one that can take over cities with just loyalty pressure. idk what other mechanics could be used to do this, but i feel there's so many civs where the object is just to destroy others. byzantine with the religious interplay maybe kind of is another example of this?

civ with penalty for having its cities close together. idk what reason this would be for, but yeah. encourages forward settling. civ that can work beyond the 3rd tile ring

civ that can not build/purchase/own settlers beyond the first city. but can absorb city states while keeping their bonuses in some way

civ with heavy snow bias. can traverse the ice tiles on top and bottom of map. penalties for settling off snow/tundra.

idk im running out of steam here

3/6 sounds like Venice

 

[BD123]

Is it bad that I don't particularly want Venice as a civ? I think for renaissance Italy (and by extension Venice) they should do the Greece treatment: a generic CUA, UU, and UI with alt leaders to represent the different city-states. Venice in CiV was pretty gimmicky imo so that introduction has left a bad aftertaste in me... and I might be also be bitter that Humankind has the Venetians but no Inca for their early modern cultures.

Idk I always thought having the Italian city-states as city-states was fine, but I'm not opposed to a renaissance-centered Italy-blob-frankenstein civ if it's done neatly. The average person is more likely able to differentiate Sparta and Athens and yet those two are blobbed into a Greece civ so idk why Florence, Milan, and Venice should be separated into like three separate civ slots that take up space for other civs as far as resources and development budget goes.

I'd think of an Italy civ as a historical grab all but not as messy as Germany - which, like Italy, also doesn't exist for real until the late 1800s. So I guess an Italy civ that's more like Indonesia or Vietnam, both of whom reference their modern iteration but in-game heavily emphasize the medieval era. Germany on the other hand has 3 medieval uniques and then a U-Boat slapped on as an afterthought.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Is it bad that I don't particularly want Venice as a civ? I think for renaissance Italy (and by extension Venice) they should do the Greece treatment: a generic CUA, UU, and UI with alt leaders to represent the different city-states. Venice in CiV was pretty gimmicky imo so that introduction has left a bad aftertaste in me... and I might be also be bitter that Humankind has the Venetians but no Inca for their early modern cultures.

Idk I always thought having the Italian city-states as city-states was fine, but I'm not opposed to a renaissance-centered Italy-blob-frankenstein civ if it's done neatly. The average person is more likely able to differentiate Sparta and Athens and yet those two are blobbed into a Greece civ so idk why Florence, Milan, and Venice should be separated into like three separate civ slots that take up space for other civs as far as resources and development budget goes.

I'd think of an Italy civ as a historical grab all but not as messy as Germany - which, like Italy, also doesn't exist for real until the late 1800s. So I guess an Italy civ that's more like Indonesia or Vietnam, both of whom reference their modern iteration but in-game heavily emphasize the medieval era. Germany on the other hand has 3 medieval uniques and then a U-Boat slapped on as an afterthought.

Nope. Very understandable.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Is it bad that I don't particularly want Venice as a civ? I think for renaissance Italy (and by extension Venice) they should do the Greece treatment: a generic CUA, UU, and UI with alt leaders to represent the different city-states. Venice in CiV was pretty gimmicky imo so that introduction has left a bad aftertaste in me... and I might be also be bitter that Humankind has the Venetians but no Inca for their early modern cultures.

Idk I always thought having the Italian city-states as city-states was fine, but I'm not opposed to a renaissance-centered Italy-blob-frankenstein civ if it's done neatly. The average person is more likely able to differentiate Sparta and Athens and yet those two are blobbed into a Greece civ so idk why Florence, Milan, and Venice should be separated into like three separate civ slots that take up space for other civs as far as resources and development budget goes.

I'd think of an Italy civ as a historical grab all but not as messy as Germany - which, like Italy, also doesn't exist for real until the late 1800s. So I guess an Italy civ that's more like Indonesia or Vietnam, both of whom reference their modern iteration but in-game heavily emphasize the medieval era. Germany on the other hand has 3 medieval uniques and then a U-Boat slapped on as an afterthought.

Nope. I've been waiting for this kind of Italy since Civ 6 was announced.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

In fact, if I might add, I was low key against proposals for Kublai Khan on these boards precisely because the devs were paying attention. He was just low hanging fruit like Vietnam and Colombia, and I really wanted a female Chinese leader first before we got Kublai.

i don’t think anyone actively wanted him, most people just thought we’d get him

 

[PhoenicianGold]

If Vietnam was low hanging fruit, then it was some delicious ones.

It turned out a lot better than I imagined it would be. Although I still think if they were going for a "turtley" civ, the Mong Dong would have been much better than another elephant.

Is it bad that I don't particularly want Venice as a civ? I think for renaissance Italy (and by extension Venice) they should do the Greece treatment: a generic CUA, UU, and UI with alt leaders to represent the different city-states. Venice in CiV was pretty gimmicky imo so that introduction has left a bad aftertaste in me... and I might be also be bitter that Humankind has the Venetians but no Inca for their early modern cultures.

Idk I always thought having the Italian city-states as city-states was fine, but I'm not opposed to a renaissance-centered Italy-blob-frankenstein civ if it's done neatly. The average person is more likely able to differentiate Sparta and Athens and yet those two are blobbed into a Greece civ so idk why Florence, Milan, and Venice should be separated into like three separate civ slots that take up space for other civs as far as resources and development budget goes.

I'd think of an Italy civ as a historical grab all but not as messy as Germany - which, like Italy, also doesn't exist for real until the late 1800s. So I guess an Italy civ that's more like Indonesia or Vietnam, both of whom reference their modern iteration but in-game heavily emphasize the medieval era. Germany on the other hand has 3 medieval uniques and then a U-Boat slapped on as an afterthought.

I mean, the concept of "Germany" and "Italy" existed for centuries before they were unified under a single polity. It just happened that the concept was often exonymic.

If Germany can be a weird combination of Teutons, Prussia, Hanseatic League, HRE, and modern Germany, I don't see why we can't do the same for Italy. We would just need a substantially "Italian" monarch from a formative period in Italian history. I think Matilda would work pretty well in that respect. CdM never held all of the territory we know today as "France," so I don't think we necessarily need a leader of a fully unified peninsula leading Italy.

I don't like the alt-leader route because none are satisfying. At minimum, I feel Venice, Florence, and Genoa all deserve representation, but very good cases can also be made for Milan and Naples. Since two leaders is not enough and three leaders is too much, I would prefer we just get one. It's not as elegant as the Athens/Sparta dichotomy.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

It turned out a lot better than I imagined it would be. Although I still think if they were going for a "turtley" civ, the Mong Dong would have been much better than another elephant.



I mean, the concept of "Germany" and "Italy" existed for centuries before they were unified under a single polity. It just happened that the concept was often exonymic.

If Germany can be a weird combination of Teutons, Prussia, Hanseatic League, HRE, and modern Germany, I don't see why we can't do the same for Italy. We would just need a substantially "Italian" monarch from a formative period in Italian history. I think Matilda would work pretty well in that respect. CdM never held all of the territory we know today as "France," so I don't think we necessarily need a leader of a fully unified peninsula leading Italy.

I don't like the alt-leader route because none are satisfying. At minimum, I feel Venice, Florence, and Genoa all deserve representation, but very good cases can also be made for Milan and Naples. Since two leaders is not enough and three leaders is too much, I would prefer we just get one. It's not as elegant as the Athens/Sparta dichotomy.

if we get an italian leader, Vittorio Emmanuel II, Matilda of Tuscany, Lorenzo the Magnificent and Robert of Apulia would all be interesting picks in my opinion

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Is it bad that I don't particularly want Venice as a civ?

It is neither bad, nor good. Its just a subjective opinion and personal preference. Some people want Venice, some dont. Simple like that

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

i don’t think anyone actively wanted him, most people just thought we’d get him

To me it seemed pretty obvious when R&F was required for the new leader.

It turned out a lot better than I imagined it would be. Although I still think if they were going for a "turtley" civ, the Mong Dong would have been much better than another elephant.

Considering I proposed it and advocated for it, I can't disagree with that.

I mean, the concept of "Germany" and "Italy" existed for centuries before they were unified under a single polity. It just happened that the concept was often exonymic.

If Germany can be a weird combination of Teutons, Prussia, Hanseatic League, HRE, and modern Germany, I don't see why we can't do the same for Italy. We would just need a substantially "Italian" monarch from a formative period in Italian history. I think Matilda would work pretty well in that respect. CdM never held all of the territory we know today as "France," so I don't think we necessarily need a leader of a fully unified peninsula leading Italy.

I don't like the alt-leader route because none are satisfying. At minimum, I feel Venice, Florence, and Genoa all deserve representation, but very good cases can also be made for Milan and Naples. Since two leaders is not enough and three leaders is too much, I would prefer we just get one. It's not as elegant as the Athens/Sparta dichotomy.

Victor Immanuel II would be the only real good leader for a united modern Italian civ if they wanted to go that route, unless they go with Garibaldi, which wouldn't be the first time we got a leader who never officially ruled a civ.

He wouldn't be my first pick but I could live with it as long as all the other attributes revolve around Medieval/Renaissance Era. Plus he could still have a playstyle of collecting city-state and absorbing them into his empire.

I'd still personally like a Florentine lead Italian civ, highlighting the birthplace of the Renaissance with either Cosimo or Lorenzo de Medici as leader though.

 

[Zaarin]

I'd still personally like a Florentine lead Italian civ, highlighting the birthplace of the Renaissance with either Cosimo or Lorenzo de Medici as leader though.

Eleanor of Aquitaine would like a word.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

To me it seemed pretty obvious when R&F was required for the new leader.

same. No other civ in RF was relavent enough for an alt-leader.

 

[Zaarin]

same. No other civ in RF was relavent enough for an alt-leader.

Had we not gotten Eleanor, I think James VI and I might have stood a chance, but England wasn't going to get a third leader and a second dual leader.

 

[Abaxial]

I know it's just conjecture, but I never ever want Victoria retroactively made an alt leader for India

I don't think anyone does. Victoria leading India was just held up as an illustrative example of something that would be crass and insensitive.