[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Guynemer]

the Potlach (tl. Ku’Éex) could be used as the basis for a UA mechanic.

It could be a unique project, providing one extra amenity from each luxury for the next X turns.

 

[Unmitigated Gaul]

The western red cedar was more of a Unique Building material than a luxury - among other things, it allowed the construction of dug-out sea-going canoes that were almost as large as the Mediterranean Pentekonter or Phoenician Bireme and that, in turn, allowed groups like the Haida to trade up and down the western North American coast from central California to Alaska, and the Makah to go deep-ocean whale hunting.

I suggest that a Unique Luxury for the PNW cultures could be the Potlatch - the peculiar custom of showing off your wealth by giving it away extravagantly. The luxuries involved included elements of everything that's been mentioned: wood carving, weaving, fishing, shellfish, seal and whale products, pelts, etc.

You could reflect this superior fishing/whaling culture with a mechanic similar to the Inca where they could work deep water tiles/get a bonus to trading routes initiating from cities that posses deep water tiles?

I think the idea sounds like it would be a faction of coastal traders who could grow big cities and generate lots of wealth/turn wealth into amenities? Would that be on base?

 

[PhoenicianGold]

You could reflect this superior fishing/whaling culture with a mechanic similar to the Inca where they could work deep water tiles/get a bonus to trading routes initiating from cities that posses deep water tiles?

I think the idea sounds like it would be a faction of coastal traders who could grow big cities and generate lots of wealth/turn wealth into amenities? Would that be on base?

I would vastly prefer this over a unique luxury. For one, we need more maritime diversity in the roster, and deep water fishing is definitely a point of distinction for a new niche. And for two, I don't think PNW of all people need a unique luxury; if they get one, then most civs should probably have one (not to mention the luxury resource angle is already overdone/exoticized in the North American civs we already have).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I would vastly prefer this over a unique luxury. For one, we need more maritime diversity in the roster, and deep water fishing is definitely a point of distinction for a new niche. And for two, I don't think PNW of all people need a unique luxury; if they get one, then most civs should probably have one (not to mention the luxury resource angle is already overdone/exoticized in the North American civs we already have).

I agree. Not that it wouldn't be cool but if one civ had to get a unique luxury it would have made more sense for either Phoenicia, Japan, the Netherlands, or even the Cree, off the top of my head.

Then again if the Iroquois get in, I could see them getting wampum as a unique luxury. What would really be unique is if it somehow becomes a new type of unique currency for them like it was historically, though I'm wondering how to pull it off in game.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I agree. Not that it wouldn't be cool but if one civ had to get a unique luxury it would have made more sense for either Phoenicia, Japan, the Netherlands, or even the Cree, off the top of my head.

Then again if the Iroquois get in, I could see them getting wampum as a unique luxury. What would really be unique is if it somehow becomes a new type of unique currency for them like it was historically, though I'm wondering how to pull it off in game.

People have proposed different currencies. One part of me thinks it would overcomplicate things a bit, but the other part of me thinks it could work. We already have a trading system so that could just be given a little more depth. We already have a religion system that is roughly as deep. And if the military and infrastructure systems are so deep that each civ can be differentiated by unique units and buildings, so I feel like there has to be some potential to give each civ a unique resource as well.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

You could reflect this superior fishing/whaling culture with a mechanic similar to the Inca where they could work deep water tiles/get a bonus to trading routes initiating from cities that posses deep water tiles?

I think the idea sounds like it would be a faction of coastal traders who could grow big cities and generate lots of wealth/turn wealth into amenities? Would that be on base?

My understanding is that the 'Head canoes' of the Haida were capable of traveling long distances up and down the Pacific coast, and there are Haida stories about traveling to 'islands in the sea' which could be Hawaii. Before completely dismissing this as a Fable, that fact that other Haida and PNW stories also describe accurately the terrain and climate at the end of the last ice age in the area, implies accurate oral transmission of data for thousands of years. At the least, it indicates that the idea and concept of deep sea travel was not foreign to them.

The results of the trade and travel were exploitation of resources as different as abalone shell from California, seals from Alaska and whales from all over the PNW waters. A possible In-Game effect could be extra Food, Amenity, Production or Culture (possibly varying the specific bonus based on the type of Resource being exploited by the Fishing Boats) from Fishing Boats combined with extra range for sea Trade Routes.

As for a Iroquois/Haudenosenee Unique, "wampum" was not a unique to them, it was used as a symbolic transaction device by almost every tribe/group east of the Mississippi and possibly west of it (I'm not as familiar with the groups west of the river and east of the Great Plains). On the other hand, the Iroquois utilized forest area in ways the Europeans did not even recognize to extract more food from it, so perhaps a Bonus in Food from all Forest tiles would be more appropriate, and such bonuses could be tied to the Long House as a UB providing greater Production/Loyalty from the population.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

As for a Iroquois/Haudenosenee Unique, "wampum" was not a unique to them, it was used as a symbolic transaction device by almost every tribe/group east of the Mississippi and possibly west of it (I'm not as familiar with the groups west of the river and east of the Great Plains). On the other hand, the Iroquois utilized forest area in ways the Europeans did not even recognize to extract more food from it, so perhaps a Bonus in Food from all Forest tiles would be more appropriate, and such bonuses could be tied to the Long House as a UB providing greater Production/Loyalty from the population.

You are right that wampum was not unique to them, but considering we'd probably only get one Eastern Woodland tribe, I think it could be appropriate unless the Cree that lived in the eastern part of the continent used them as well.

 

[Zaarin]

You could reflect this superior fishing/whaling culture with a mechanic similar to the Inca where they could work deep water tiles/get a bonus to trading routes initiating from cities that posses deep water tiles?

I think the idea sounds like it would be a faction of coastal traders who could grow big cities and generate lots of wealth/turn wealth into amenities? Would that be on base?

PNW canoes were capable of travel in deep water, but for the most part they stuck to the coast. Their food supply overwhelmingly came from the shoreline, the rivers, and the forest.

 

[Navelgazer]

If one wanted to give the Iroquois wampum as a unique "currency," I think the easiest way to do that in-game would be as an accumulating unique strategic resource, which are already traded as such. There could be some interesting flavor to such a UA (basically accumulating more "money," but which can only be useful in trading with other civs, bribing barbarians, etc.) but if we get another NA civ this month, I doubt it'll come so close to stepping on the Cree design, which is already trade-focused.

 

[gsus72]

I really love all these new civs you have in civ6, however I am almost offended (It's just a game after all) that Portugal isn't included. You even have several leaders for the same civ. The response that Philip is king of Portugal is unacceptable, The Philippine dynasty lasted 60 years in a country that's is over 900 years old. Is there an ideology behind this choice that I'm not getting? I am honestly intrigued why this choice was made.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I really love all these new civs you have in civ6, however I am almost offended (It's just a game after all) that Portugal isn't included. You even have several leaders for the same civ. The response that Philip is king of Portugal is unacceptable, The Philippine dynasty lasted 60 years in a country that's is over 900 years old. Is there an ideology behind this choice that I'm not getting? I am honestly intrigued why this choice was made.

There’s another DLC coming in a few weeks. Many people are expecting it to be Portugal.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If one wanted to give the Iroquois wampum as a unique "currency," I think the easiest way to do that in-game would be as an accumulating unique strategic resource, which are already traded as such. There could be some interesting flavor to such a UA (basically accumulating more "money," but which can only be useful in trading with other civs, bribing barbarians, etc.) but if we get another NA civ this month, I doubt it'll come so close to stepping on the Cree design, which is already trade-focused.

I thought of an idea where the Iroquois could get automatically get strategic resources from their allies, while in return their allies get any luxuries from them, with the possibility of at least always getting a unique wampum luxury resource.

I really love all these new civs you have in civ6, however I am almost offended (It's just a game after all) that Portugal isn't included. You even have several leaders for the same civ. The response that Philip is king of Portugal is unacceptable, The Philippine dynasty lasted 60 years in a country that's is over 900 years old. Is there an ideology behind this choice that I'm not getting? I am honestly intrigued why this choice was made.

The only reason why it has been brought up is because leaders now have the ability to lead multiple civs. I don't think Phillip leading Portugal will happen though. I am pretty sure that Portugal will be the final civ this month though.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I really love all these new civs you have in civ6, however I am almost offended (It's just a game after all) that Portugal isn't included. You even have several leaders for the same civ. The response that Philip is king of Portugal is unacceptable, The Philippine dynasty lasted 60 years in a country that's is over 900 years old. Is there an ideology behind this choice that I'm not getting? I am honestly intrigued why this choice was made.

As a counterpoint, Portugal shares a lot of similarities with Spain and could very easily pass with Spain's uniques.

A lot of people demand X European power or Y leader be in the game, not really for the sake of gameplay variety but merely on principle of having all of their "greats" lined up like in their euro history textbook. I think that's a really short-sighted stance to take.

Granted, in the case of Portugal there is some wiggle room with design space for it to be different from Spain. It's just constantly frustrating to see people throw staple names around like Babylon and Byzantium and not really assert how they could actually add to a fun experience, which should be the primary reason to include any civ. And look at the Babylon we got for it.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

As a counterpoint, Portugal shares a lot of similarities with Spain and could very easily pass with Spain's uniques.

Another counterpoint is we don't have a civ with a unique caravel yet.

Granted, in the case of Portugal there is some wiggle room with design space for it to be different from Spain. It's just constantly frustrating to see people throw staple names around like Babylon and Byzantium and not really assert how they could actually add to a fun experience, which should be the primary reason to include any civ. And look at the Babylon we got for it.

People did throw around ideas for Babylon and Byzantium, me included, but then again some people's definition of a "fun experience" is subjective.

 

[Zaarin]

People did throw around ideas for Babylon and Byzantium, me included, but then again some people's definition of a "fun experience" is subjective.

Indeed. The poor designs of Babylon and Byzantium certainly aren't a result of lack of material to work with.

 

[pineappledan]

Civ 6 has done substantially better than any previous installment for representation of cultures.

• It has more African and Southeast Asian representation than any previous civ game, at 6 and 3 respectively
• At 2 of each, it has both more colonial and pre-colonial South American civs than any civ game.
• At 2, It has more post-colonial North American cultures than any previous civ game.

The only area civ 6 lags in representation is in pre-colonial North American cultures. Civ 5 had the Shoshone and the Haudenosaunee, while Civ 6 only has the Cree. I know the point isn't just to play Bingo with a world map, but I would be much happier seeing a Eastern American culture like the Haudenosaunee or Wyandot, a PNW culture like the Tlingit or Haida, or maybe something really out there like the Mississipians or Beothuk (which would be much easier to get permissions and avoid criticism for, since they are all gone).

I know a lot of people would like to see Portugal, but with both an Iberian civ and a Portuguese-speaking civ already in the game... I think there's better choices.

 

[8housesofelixir]

The only area civ 6 lags in representation is in pre-colonial North American cultures.

Central Asia:

 

[pineappledan]

Central Asia:

isn’t that a tie?
Huns/mongols in civ 5
Scythia/mongols in civ 6
Guess it depends on how you count Scythia, and to a lesser extent Georgia.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Another counterpoint is we don't have a civ with a unique caravel yet.


People did throw around ideas for Babylon and Byzantium, me included, but then again some people's definition of a "fun experience" is subjective.

Indeed. The poor designs of Babylon and Byzantium certainly aren't a result of lack of material to work with.

True, but what tends to happen with crowd-sourced/committee-driven designs is that they often converge on the least innovative ideas, because those are the ones most likely to be agreed upon and propagated.

And oftentimes its worse in fan forums like this, because many specific ideas need to be ignored and/or arrived at independently to avoid copyright issues. So it frequently becomes this really uncomfortable balancing act between "archetypal" and "uninspired."

That said, I'm not terribly disappointed by the overall concept of most of the NFP civs; they each have a loose idea of what they want to be (except Babylon, which is awful). I just think they all could have been tightened up and polished a bit. Maya should have had some sort of aqueduct or cistern flavor. Gran Colombia wanted for a less esoteric/universal form of ejercito and GGs. Gauls shouldn't have had Latin terms for their uniques. Byzantium had too much free cavalry for no good reason. Vietnam didn't really need another elephant UU and Mong Dong would have been a flavor knockout. Minor things. Ethiopia is probably the best executed civ, even if it is a bit broken. So NFP isn't a failure for me, just a lot of tiny things that I think don't communicate the historical flavor or playstyle niche as well as previous civs.

THAT said, I would be curious for someone to do a new poll after the March update and see what the next four most desired civs are, now that we have some of our biggest requests in Colombia, Gaul, and Vietnam. Based off of this thread, I would speculate:

* Anything in North America. Between the Salish/Tlingit/Haida, the Navajo/Apache, and the Five Civilized tribes, even if we got one civ, players would still want a second or third.
* I see the Maghreb pop up pretty consistently, so Morocco/Numidia/Berbers/Tuareg would be well-received.
* Pashtunistan/Samarkand region is brought up a lot with the Kushans, Timurids, Sogdians, Afghani, Sikhs sometimes.
* Italy. Not sure how/whether it could/should work, but the people speak regularly.

And then I would put in a second tier frequently discussed regions like the Guinea coast, the Swahili coast, the Balkans, and Burma.

 

[Zaarin]

Mississipians or Beothuk (which would be much easier to get permissions and avoid criticism for, since they are all gone).

Beothuk language is virtually unattested. Maybe it was Algonquian; maybe it wasn't. Also do we know much about Beothuk leaders? As for Mississippians, we have leaders and languages...we just don't have good leaders. The city list would inevitably be blobby and eclectic, too. I wouldn't be a big fan of either. Much like the Olmecs/La Venta, I think city-state representation is a comfortable place for Cahokia and the Mississippians.

isn’t that a tie?
Huns/mongols in civ 5
Scythia/mongols in civ 6
Guess it depends on how you count Scythia, and to a lesser extent Georgia.

Mongols are North Asia. Georgia is in the Caucasus; we can have a debate about whether it's in Eastern Europe or the Near East and the best answer is probably "yes"--but we can all agree it's not in Central Asia. Scythia and Huns are both kind of broad and, being nomads, geographically nebulous. Scythia's capital is in Kyrgyzstan so I'll grant them. It would still be nice to have a settled Silk Road civ like Sogdia, Khwarazm, or Kushan, though.