[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Duke William of Normandy]

This is a part of the problem with nomad Civs

What places of theirs do we consider to be Cities? That is the question we need to answer.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

This is a part of the problem with nomad Civs

Oh I just want a city-state. I've given up on having a Siberian civ, just too weird, especially with Mother Russia looming. But if we can have Hong Kong and Nalanda, I don't see why we can't have a Siberian city-state.

 

[onepurpose]

I can't understand why people seem to be more concerned about (supposed) represented or underrepresented areas or leader gender-quotas rather than civilization design in terms of gameplay..

CIV IV is over and have been the most disappointing installment of the saga (and I have played every Civ game since Civ II)..

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

CIV IV is over and have been the most disappointing installment of the saga (and I have played every Civ game since Civ II)..

A bold statement, my friend. Many would disagree with you.

I can't understand why people seem to be more concerned about (supposed) represented or underrepresented areas or leader gender-quotas rather than civilization design in terms of gameplay..

Some people, not all. I'm not really concerned about this. I agree, Civilization design should come first

Edit: Representation can be and probably should be discussed as well, but I like my Civs well-designed, thank you very much.

 

[The Civs 6]

What about a human civ? What would that look like?

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I can't understand why people seem to be more concerned about (supposed) represented or underrepresented areas or leader gender-quotas rather than civilization design in terms of gameplay..

CIV IV is over and have been the most disappointing installment of the saga (and I have played every Civ game since Civ II)..

For several reasons:

1) VI is a celebration of global culture, particularly in music and to a lesser degree the art design. We want the game to feature as much of the world as possible just because it's tasty and educational (see Kongo, Maori, Vietnam).
2) Reaching into unrepresented regions of the world de facto increases the flavorfulness of the game, where most cultural features of the civ won't be similar to and won't function the same as uniques of civs in other parts of the world, encouraging mechanical diversity, or at worst, flavorful diversity (see Mapuche, Georgia, Canada).
3) VI is also a terrain-based game where most civs have some sort of terrain bias, so in some cases just including a civ from a geographically unique region naturally facilitates gameplay diversity (see Mali, Inca, Ethiopia).

 

[Tigranes]

Shortest possible summary: Portugal -- good, zombies -- bad.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

For several reasons:

1) VI is a celebration of global culture, particularly in music and to a lesser degree the art design. We want the game to feature as much of the world as possible just because it's tasty and educational (see Kongo, Maori, Vietnam).
2) Reaching into unrepresented regions of the world de facto increases the flavorfulness of the game, where most cultural features of the civ won't be similar to and won't function the same as uniques of civs in other parts of the world, encouraging mechanical diversity, or at worst, flavorful diversity (see Mapuche, Georgia, Canada).
3) VI is also a terrain-based game where most civs have some sort of terrain bias, so in some cases just including a civ from a geographically unique region naturally facilitates gameplay diversity (see Mali, Inca, Ethiopia).

No, mate. Can't you see he is talking about Civ IV, not Civ VI?

What about a human civ? What would that look like?

A mess.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

I can't understand why people seem to be more concerned about (supposed) represented or underrepresented areas or leader gender-quotas rather than civilization design in terms of gameplay..
.

To be honest, as far I understand we need to explore new cultures and Civilizations and I like it I will never understand this geographical census. It only leads us to forcefully choose some civilization not because it's interesting or covers some game mechanics but because region A is "empty". Sometimes I think some people think too much from a TSL map perspective, some people just want to see specific Civs and find the others as a spot blocker, some people think it is a good way to archive a diversity, and some just can't find a good balance between new and old.
I think we first should ask ourselves do Civ has a good and unique story behind it. How much we want to play with them from a just pure Role Play perspective. Last but not least. You play always as one Civ so what Civs you want to play against (Is Mapuche really so fun without Spain to play against? etc.). Geography is secondary. And it is always 100% subjective so there is no legit pattern or rule that will justify what Civ should be in a game.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

To be honest, as far I understand we need to explore new cultures and Civilizations and I like it I will never understand this geographical census. It only leads us to forcefully choose some civilization not because it's interesting or covers some game mechanics but because region A is "empty". Sometimes I think some people think too much from a TSL map perspective, some people just want to see specific Civs and find the others as a spot blocker, some people think it is a good way to archive a diversity, and some just can't find a good balance between new and old.
I think we first should ask ourselves do Civ has a good and unique story behind it. How much we want to play with them from a just pure Role Play perspective. Last but not least. You play always as one Civ so what Civs you want to play against (Is Mapuche really so fun without Spain to play against? etc.). Geography is secondary. And it is always 100% subjective so there is no legit pattern or rule that will justify what Civ should be in a game.

Honestly, I'm in the middle of this discussion.

While I would like some areas of the world to be represented because they are long overdue representations, gameplay mechanics should be considered as a major factor as well.

 

[The Civs 6]

I can't understand why people seem to be more concerned about (supposed) represented or underrepresented areas or leader gender-quotas rather than civilization design in terms of gameplay..

CIV IV is over and have been the most disappointing installment of the saga (and I have played every Civ game since Civ II)..

Also, mandatory Civ IS OVER

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Now Asia have some nice options like Tagalog/Phillipines, Burmese, Siamese, Afghans, Sogdians, etc. But there are others really good options that are unlikely because the blobs of China and India, like Tamils, Tibetans, Manchus, Hmong, etc.

Tibet's problem isn't the China civ in the game, more like the China in real life. That's all I have to say about that. And the Siamese have appeared before and most likely will appear again, though maybe not in Civ 6.

Eh, if we really wanted to represent Africa in its entirety, we would have:

* Berbers/Numidia, or at least Morocco
* Ashanti/Benin/Oyo
* Kanem-Bornu
* Swahili/Zanzibar
* Madagascar

And then maybe the Boers too because South Africa is a very interesting place. So I don't think it's just North Africa that is underrepresented; just by comparison to 5 and where the biggest kingdoms/peoples are. But if I had my way, I wouldn't stop at North Africa (and the same goes for North America, which could comfortably fit about five more civs).

Sure it could be represented more but at it's current state, this is the most civilizations I think that Africa has gotten. Though I agree something from North Africa is warranted, anything else to me would be a bonus.

What places of theirs do we consider to be Cities? That is the question we need to answer.

If they do it like Scythia, they're cities were mainly archaeological sites found throughout Central Asia/Eurasian Steppe.

Honestly, I'm in the middle of this discussion.

While I would like some areas of the world to be represented because they are long overdue representations, gameplay mechanics should be considered as a major factor as well.

Do I want a Berber civ because they represent a region of the world not in the game yet? Yes.

Do they have some sort of interesting mechanic that they could bring to the game. Yes like the possibility of desert farms, oasis gameplay etc.

That doesn't mean I necessarily want the Inuit though.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Do I want a Berber civ because they represent a region of the world not in the game yet? Yes.

Do they have some sort of interesting mechanic that they could bring to the game. Yes like the possibility of desert farms, oasis gameplay etc.

Never said otherwise. I like that idea, and would like to see it implemented.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Do I want a Berber civ because they represent a region of the world not in the game yet? Yes.
Do they have some sort of interesting mechanic that they could bring to the game. Yes like the possibility of desert farms, oasis gameplay etc.
That doesn't mean I necessarily want the Inuit though.

Eh... we may not agree on Venice and Italy, but as for a Berber civ I am 100% with you

Yes like the possibility of desert farms, oasis gameplay.

This!

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Never said otherwise. I like that idea, and would like to see it implemented.

Basically agreeing with your point about me being in the middle as well.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Basically agreeing with your point about me being in the middle as well.

Oh. Didn't know because it wasn't too clear, but I see your point.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Sure it could be represented more but at it's current state, this is the most civilizations I think that Africa has gotten. Though I agree something from North Africa is warranted, anything else to me would be a bonus.

Actually, I think we have exactly the same number, since we got Kongo and Nubia but cut Morocco and Carthage...

But what I'm pointing out is that even if we were trying to cover very large empires or peoples just to show off some of the diversity on the continent, Africa still has a lot of untapped potential (and sorry, but Nubia and Kongo aren't particularly ambitious additions...I would like at least one odd choice in the mix if we can get things like Georgia and the Mapuche on other continents...).

 

[Xandinho]

I doubt that Berbers would happen, Chinguetti is one of the last city-states added. Morocco does stand a chance, however.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

I doubt that Berbers would happen, Chinguetti is one of the last city-states added. Morocco does stand a chance, however.

I don't agree with the argument "I doubt x will happen, because y". In fact, everything is possible as long Firaxis devs will decide it's a good idea and none CS included in the game doesn't mean that this Civ cannot appear later. Babylon was added as CS in R&F expansion and later appear in NFP as a Civ.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I don't agree with the argument "I doubt x will happen, because y". In fact, everything is possible as long Firaxis devs will decide it's a good idea and none CS included in the game doesn't mean that this Civ cannot appear later. Babylon was added as CS in R&F expansion and later appear in NFP as a Civ.

I agree somewhat, however, Chinguetti was introduced only 4 months ago. It wouldn't be very efficient to just replace a City-State you just introduced.