[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Now on America as relatively small as Mesoamerica is, it was the most populous region of the Americas representing around 1/3 of the whole continent by 4000 years of the 6000 years covered on game. It is also a region of proper urban kingdoms and republics from many different language families with the oldest recorded history on the whole western hemisphere. It is also know that the population density of South America was bigger than what is now USA and Canada (mainly because the central andean kingdoms and empires). So in terms of population and history the only region underrepresented on game is Mesoamerica. Even Oceania is better covered on the same terms.

That's all correct but in game terms Mesoamerica at least has two civilizations (Aztec and Maya) and two city-states (Olmec and Mitla) as opposed to only Cree and Cahokia for Native U.S. and Canada.

 

[BuchiTaton]

... and Canada.

Here is the problem, fill the game with redundant Anglo colonial countries like Canada, Australia or even Scotland.

 

[BD123]

Idk why but thinking about how empty Native North America in Civ 6 always reminds me of how Humankind, with 60(?) civs at base launch, left South American completely empty like what are they doing over there in Paris thinking that's alright...

Anyways, maybe the April surprise will be the long desired Iroquois or Navajo or Haida, etc. It could be like when they released the Aztecs as an additional free civ/DLC way back in 2016 (albeit as a pre-order bonus that later got unlocked for everyone else after 3 months). Of course a free civ in April is just hopeful if not unrealisitic dreaming.....

Here is the problem, fill the game with redundant Anglo colonial countries like Canada, Australia or even Scotland.

I think Scotland could've made for an alright civ if they hadn't blundered it on the first go by creating a meme-ish Scotland-but-really-British civ. Australia I'm only gonna give a pass to bc I think Aussies have the best accent and at least they entered as a fleshed-out civ unlike Canada that came with "uh farm the snow and ice hockey and we can't declare war/people can't war on us even though as a Commonwealth nation we were in both World Wars before the US"

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Here is the problem, fill the game with redundant Anglo colonial countries like Canada, Australia or even Scotland.

To be fair I think Canada is supposed to be a "francophone" nation. I think it wasn't a coincidence that they decided to give us their first francophone prime minister as leader. He's the only native French speaker in the game.

Idk why but thinking about how empty Native North America in Civ 6 always reminds me of how Humankind, with 60(?) civs at base launch, left South American completely empty like what are they doing over there in Paris thinking that's alright...

Apparently Brazil or Argentina might show up for the Contemporary Era. At least I think a South American culture is confirmed.
But yeah I've explained my displeasure for giving us the Teutons over the Inca for the base game.

I think Scotland could've made for an alright civ if they hadn't blundered it on the first go by creating a meme-ish Scotland-but-really-British civ. Australia I'm only gonna give a pass to bc I think Aussies have the best accent and at least they entered as a fleshed-out civ unlike Canada that came with "uh farm the snow and ice hockey and we can't declare war/people can't war on us even though as a Commonwealth nation we were in both World Wars before the US"

Australia gets a pass for me because it's one of my favorites.
I'm sure if Scotland wasn't designed so British like, we also wouldn't have gotten Gaul, and could have gone to North America. But it's not like Gaul didn't deserve to be in the game either and well Portugal and Byzantium for Europe was expected.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Idk why but thinking about how empty Native North America in Civ 6 always reminds me of how Humankind, with 60(?) civs at base launch, left South American completely empty like what are they doing over there in Paris thinking that's alright...

Anyways, maybe the April surprise will be the long desired Iroquois or Navajo or Haida, etc. It could be like when they released the Aztecs as an additional free civ/DLC way back in 2016 (albeit as a pre-order bonus that later got unlocked for everyone else after 3 months). Of course a free civ in April is just hopeful if not unrealisitic dreaming.....

Like I said here not long ago, Humankind is a complety new game where the chance to change culture is a key element of their game design so we need to put in context that Incas are not out from 60 civs, Incas are out of just 10 Medieval civs.

Also Humankind's devs already confirmed that Incas would be for sure on DLCs (likely the first). Also is to expect that the same DLC could have others Andine cultures like Caral, Mochica and Peru. Say me how likely is to have at least one of those on CIV before we have more and more anglo, greek, german or scandinavian civs?

 

[Unmitigated Gaul]

Idk why but thinking about how empty Native North America in Civ 6 always reminds me of how Humankind, with 60(?) civs at base launch, left South American completely empty like what are they doing over there in Paris thinking that's alright...

Anyways, maybe the April surprise will be the long desired Iroquois or Navajo or Haida, etc. It could be like when they released the Aztecs as an additional free civ/DLC way back in 2016 (albeit as a pre-order bonus that later got unlocked for everyone else after 3 months). Of course a free civ in April is just hopeful if not unrealisitic dreaming.....

I don’t know that a lot of currently existing Native American tribes want to be the game.

Their way of life and how they see their people probably won’t mesh well in a genre named for exploiting and exterminating.

There would be a lot of fun factions you could create and theme around Native Americans, but I think it’s a big (and unappreciated) reason why the game is so Eurocentric

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don’t know that a lot of currently existing Native American tribes want to be the game.

Their way of life and how they see their people probably won’t mesh well in a genre named for exploiting and exterminating.

There would be a lot of fun factions you could create and theme around Native Americans, but I think it’s a big (and unappreciated) reason why the game is so Eurocentric

Well the Iroquois are constantly picked to be in 4X historical games usually depicted as the "token" Native American civ, which seems to be the case in Humankind as well.
So of course they are always a safe choice. And if you want a "horse raider" faction you can always use the Sioux/Lakota.

 

[BD123]

I'm sure if Scotland wasn't designed so British like, we also wouldn't have gotten Gaul, and could have gone to North America. But it's not like Gaul didn't deserve to be in the game either and well Portugal and Byzantium for Europe was expected.

I think we still could've gotten Gaul if Scotland was made to be well Scottish. I think there's enough distinction between Ancient Gaul and Medieval Scotland, even if both are Celtic related, to warrant two different civs. I also find it weird to call Scotland an Anglophone British colonial civ (thus saying it shouldn't be in the game) in the same vein as the US, Canada, and Australia as others have done on here since Scotland was its own kingdom and had a distinct identity and language. Idk it feels to me like saying Ireland shouldn't be included bc it would be a British spin-off civ even though Ireland was (is) historically colonized and oppressed by the British.

 

[Zaarin]

I don’t know that a lot of currently existing Native American tribes want to be the game.

Their way of life and how they see their people probably won’t mesh well in a genre named for exploiting and exterminating.

Yes, because the Native Americans never exploited or exterminated other groups of people.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Yes, because the Native Americans never exploited or exterminated other groups of people.

They certainly never enslaved their own people as well...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think we still could've gotten Gaul if Scotland was made to be well Scottish. I think there's enough distinction between Ancient Gaul and Medieval Scotland, even if both are Celtic related, to warrant two different civs. I also find it weird to call Scotland an Anglophone British colonial civ (thus saying it shouldn't be in the game) in the same vein as the US, Canada, and Australia as others have done on here since Scotland was its own kingdom and had a distinct identity and language. Idk it feels to me like saying Ireland shouldn't be included bc it would be a British spin-off civ even though Ireland was (is) historically colonized and oppressed by the British.

Speaking of Ireland I do think that can be a happy medium between Scotland and Gaul as the Celtic representation for Civ 7.

 

[BD123]

I don’t know that a lot of currently existing Native American tribes want to be the game.

Their way of life and how they see their people probably won’t mesh well in a genre named for exploiting and exterminating.

There would be a lot of fun factions you could create and theme around Native Americans, but I think it’s a big (and unappreciated) reason why the game is so Eurocentric

But Civ and now Humankind aren't solely about exploiting and exterminating. Both games have their own ways of showcasing the different ways in which humanity have adapted and succeeded in respective histories. Civ tries to do this with having different victory conditions like science, conquest, religion, diplomacy, and culture, and from there trying to implement a very broad and open definition of a "civilization" to fit into one of those victory paths. Humankind has the singular score fame that is acquired through different ways of playing. Both are of course rooted in a more Eurocentric view of linear progressive history and come with their own problems but I wouldn't say it's impossible to include Native American peoples nor a reason to omit them. I mean we have the Moari and Mapuche, who don't fit the standard definition of a settled civilization/exploit and exterminate and yet they're more or less successfully implemented in civ (ok the Mapuche are kind of messy but that's a problem with their CUA and LUAs tbh).

 

[SirMediocrity]

Speaking of Ireland I do think that can be a happy medium between Scotland and Gaul as the Celtic representation for Civ 7.

Yeah, I'd rather they keep out Scotland/Gaul and put in Ireland. Give the open slot to a Native American civ or something.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yeah, I'd rather they keep out Scotland/Gaul and put in Ireland. Give the open slot to a Native American civ or something.

Would also give England and France/Netherlands more room to expand on a TSL map. Not by much though.

 

[BD123]

Yeah, I'd rather they keep out Scotland/Gaul and put in Ireland. Give the open slot to a Native American civ or something.

Well if Civ 7 continues the trend of adding more civs than the previous, we could easily have all 4 in with no problems

 

[SirMediocrity]

Well if Civ 7 continues the trend of adding more civs than the previous, we could easily have all 4 in with no problems

I'd rather not let the British Isles have more than 2 civs, unless we get around 60-70 civs in Civ 7. There are many areas that deserve much more respresentation.

 

[Abaxial]

Here is the problem, fill the game with redundant Anglo colonial countries like Canada, Australia or even Scotland.

Well, this is actually quite appropriate, because the game forces every civ to develop along a path determined by the tech/culture trees which represent European development paths. For instance, IIRC, the Inca invented the wheel - but they didn't use it for carts or chariots, they used it for TOYS (correct me if it was the Aztecs). To force the Tlingit or Cherokee to go through classical-renaissance-industrial etc is to misunderstand the sort of people they were. With Canada, Australia and Scotland you are on safe ground.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'd rather not let the British Isles have more than 2 civs, unless we get around 60-70 civs in Civ 7. There are many areas that deserve much more respresentation.

Yeah if we do get England, Scotland and Ireland you might as well add Wales, so they don't feel left out.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Australia gets a pass for me because it's one of my favorites.
I'm sure if Scotland wasn't designed so British like, we also wouldn't have gotten Gaul, and could have gone to North America. But it's not like Gaul didn't deserve to be in the game either and well Portugal and Byzantium for Europe was expected.

This have many interestingh points like civ gameplay design related to merit and representation.

(This next text is not really directed to you Alexander's Hetaroi, I think you know these points, is just that I used your replay as starting point to shown my thinking on the theme).

There are many regions with millennia of history and numerous urban civ options with different religions, languages, institutions, etc. That despite all these are reduced to one or a couple of representatives that even rotate like if they were just a name for a "same thing" group of cultures. Regions like Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Caucasus, Central Asia, India, China, South East Asia, Mesoamerica, Central Andes, Horn of Africa or the Sahel.
The justification to have just a reduced number is that devs choose the main powers of those regions. So, what with Europe? On the same logic Europe just need the BIG 7 (Greeks, Romans, Spanish, French, English, Germans and Russians) that were not just the big colonial powers but also the regional powers. Of course there was the Norse, Poland, etc. but they are on the shadow of the names of other bigger european powers, like Assyrians are on the shadow of Babylonians name of Purepechas are on the shadow of Aztecs name.

Now we all know that devs need to sell the game, that is by far the main reasons why we have so many european nations, the money is on the western and mainly modern history. Despite all these would be great to remember that when somebody said " X civilization" is usually used on history and archeology to refer to long lasting and broad group (mainly) independent states who shared unique ways of life, institutions, religion, language, etc. Now the game is full of european and their offshoots who are normally referred as countries not civilizations. We can found by far more formal works that talk about the European or Western civilization not the Canadian or Scottish civilization. The Medieval and Modern Europe nations share more between them on terms of culture, religion, language, institutions, economy and dynasties that many others regions that are represented as "the same thing" on game.

That brings us to the on game design problem. There are many forms to represent a civ on game, the design could be good or bad not because how "unique" or "important" is historically that civ, still CIV series have other problem on how symmetrical is the design between any two random civs. We could end with close related protestant european modern nations that ends with a design more unique between them that two totally unrelated civs from any part of worlds history.

Precisely these priority of markets, the lack of regional and temporal context and historicall unrelated design of the symmetric civs is what make people ask for Denmak, Austria and Hawaii, but see as redundant Assyria, Burma, Mixtecapan or Songhai.

Yes Denmak or Austria are different from Norway and Germany, of course are relevant to european history, BUT they are part of the european civilization's history, and have these closely related nations like Norway and Germany already on game. Meanwhile regions like Mesopotamia or Mesoamerica that were for millennia the equivalent of modern Europe of their half of the world are OK with a couple of civs "because they are all the same".

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Siberia is bigger than Europe still dont have any representative while Europe is filled with civs and city states.
.

Perhaps because all Siberia population is 31 million people which is less than Poland alone and there aren't many cultures that developed there and are well described? Besides, mercator projection is really tricky:

Spoiler map :