[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Yudhisthira]

Regarding celt civ,Isn't it like having a single Iranian civ to represent all Iranic cultures from middle-east to Steppe,Baluchistan to Sogdiana.That's like Cyrus leading Scythians

 

[Zaarin]

Catalonian/Spanish

Catalan's actually most closely related to Occitan and Aragonese, which in turn are more closely related to French than Spanish despite the superficial resemblance.

Indeed , in CIV IV... Germany and HRE were separated Civs..

Enough for me ...

By that logic, bring back "the Native Americans."

He might struggle to make himself understood, but then again I don’t speak Middle English or Old High German either...

Chaucer's dialect is more or less intelligible, but the further you get from London...Even the Gawain-poet's dialect is pretty opaque.

Regarding celt civ,Isn't it like having a single Iranian civ to represent all Iranic cultures from middle-east to Steppe,Baluchistan to Sogdiana.That's like Cyrus leading Scythians

Yes, exactly.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Regarding celt civ,Isn't it like having a single Iranian civ to represent all Iranic cultures from middle-east to Steppe,Baluchistan to Sogdiana.That's like Cyrus leading Scythians

That is indeed a good representation of what a Celtic Civ is like.

Edit: Ninja'd.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Aachen did exist in 1st, 2st and 3rd Reich and exists nowadays.. so what?

You like F. Barbarossa as german leader ? good for you But HRE is not Germany ...

Indeed , in CIV IV... Germany and HRE were separated Civs..

Enough for me ...

You were pointing at the city list as an indicator that the modern nation was intended. My point is that this inference cannot be made because those cities have existed since the Middle Ages.

The HRE =/= the modern republic of Germany, but it was certainly a medieval German state. “The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation” is the medieval analogue to modern Germany. The medieval kingdom of France is not the same polity as the modern republic of France either, but they’re still the same civ.

Yes, the HRE was broken off in Civ4 as a vehicle for a Charlemagne leaderhead. I was actually a tester on that expansion. That interpretation was also widely criticized by the fan base for its poor implementation. (“Holy Rome” is not a thing.) If Charlemagne were implemented today, he’d probably lead France AND Germany just like Kublai leads Mongolia and China.

 

[onepurpose]

Catalan's actually most closely related to Occitan and Aragonese, which in turn are more closely related to French than Spanish despite the superficial resemblance.

Indeed, spanish being a romance tongue , only has five vowel sounds ..

By that logic, bring back "the Native Americans."

I can't see that logic.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

I'm aware there are a number of language spoken in Italy, nor am I advocating for an Italian civ, in which I have no interest. I'm simply pointing out that if you dropped an Irishman in second century B.C. Bibracte he would be completely unable to communicate and suffer severe culture shock--and if you dropped a Gaul in a contemporary city among the Britons or Celtiberians he still wouldn't be able to communicate.

It is disputable (modern genetic research) if British "Celts" were actually ethnically Celts Nevertheless, my point is if we are not ok with The Celt's blob, we should not be ok with Renaissance Italy as a Civ. If we want to have Italy as a Civ it should refer to the Risorgimento period and later. I think we are ok with this?

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

It is disputable (modern genetic research) if British "Celts" were actually ethnically Celts Nevertheless, my point is if we are not ok with The Celt's blob, we should not be ok with Renaissance Italy as a Civ. If we want to have Italy as a Civ it should refer to the Risorgimento period and later. I think we are ok with this?

I can entertain that idea. Use a City list from Modern-day Italy, but use an Ability referencing its Renaissance Period. However, as @The Kingmaker pointed out, we are okay with Leader from Greece and Gauls when they weren't united, we should keep an open mind for Italian Leaders.

 

[The Kingmaker]

It is disputable (modern genetic research) if British "Celts" were actually ethnically Celts Nevertheless, my point is if we are not ok with The Celt's blob, we should not be ok with Renaissance Italy as a Civ. If we want to have Italy as a Civ it should refer to the Risorgimento period and later. I think we are ok with this?

We’re more or less okay with the Gaulish and Greek blobs though. So we should be okay for multiple leaders from different Italian city-states.

 

[Zaarin]

Indeed, spanish being a romance tongue , only has five vowel sounds ..

Well, French has 13+ (depending on dialect) so number of vowels is not a reliable indicator of being Romance. Though an absurd number of vowels is rather diagnostic of Germanic languages.

I can't see that logic.

You cited Civ4--which made some bizarre decisions, such as lumping every single indigenous group in the entire New World as one civ--as justification for splitting the HRE.

It is disputable (modern genetic research) if British "Celts" were actually ethnically Celts

Genetics isn't really relevant here; we know the Britons spoke a Celtic language and were culturally Celtic.

 

[onepurpose]

The HRE =/= the modern republic of Germany, but it was certainly a medieval German state. “The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation” is the medieval analogue to modern Germany. The medieval kingdom of France is not the same polity as the modern republic of France either, but they’re still the same civ.

I wouldn't say HRE is "medieval analogy" of modern Germany.. Indeed , HRE has a lifespan of 1000 years (aprox) .. and it's rules were time-changing and pretty complex.. there was some kind of unique entity... more or less like modern EU (less than state but more than a international organization)

HRE had a German Core ... and you do consider than "Germany Civ" compounds Germanic people from middle ages to now... just like Spain , France & England.. well .. I think there are pretty obvious differences

I am not to discuss it anymore

Yes, the HRE was broken off in Civ4 as a vehicle for a Charlemagne leaderhead. I was actually a tester on that expansion. That interpretation was also widely criticized by the fan base for its poor implementation. (“Holy Rome” is not a thing.) If Charlemagne were implemented today, he’d probably lead France AND Germany just like Kublai leads Mongolia and China.

I do not think it was a poor implementation. Indeed, I don't understand why split factions perks & skills in leader and country... nor the obsession with leaders (3d models consuming developing resources on design and CPU / GPU capacity.. ) ... but I think this battle is lost...

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

I can entertain that idea. Use a City list from Modern-day Italy, but use an Ability referencing its Renaissance Period.

I don't like this direction of modern-day perspective and modern Nations because it flattens history into one linear story with a modern nation Civs at the end. Aztecs are not the same as modern Mexicans, Celts (generalizing) are not the same as modern Irish, Pagan Slavic Tribe of Polans are not the same as modern Poles, Babylonians are not the same as modern Iraqis, Medieval/Renaissance Venetians are not the same as modern Italians same as the Romans. If we follow this path we can lose many interesting cultures or blur them in a "time-blob Mexicans" for example. This is why I wish we can refer not to modern nations, but to specific Civs set in their times with its historical context.

 

[Zaarin]

Indeed, I don't understand why split factions skills in leader and country... nor the obsession with leaders (3d models consuming developing resources on design and CPU / GPU capacity.. )

Because it makes the civilizations more personal by giving them a face. You're not fighting a faceless, nameless opponent; you're fighting Dom Satan of Brazil. Leaders are an important part of the Civ brand, and with other brands moving away from them (Humankind, Old World) the smart move from Firaxis would be to double down on them. Civ7 should particularly focus on richer diplomacy and leader interaction to that end.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I don't like this direction of modern-day perspective and modern Nations because it flattens history into one linear story with a modern nation Civs at the end. Aztecs are not the same as modern Mexicans, Celts (generalizing) are not the same as modern Irish, Pagan Slavic Tribe of Polans are not the same as modern Poles, Babylonians are not the same as modern Iraqis, Medieval/Renaissance Venetians are not the same as modern Italians same as the Romans. If we follow this path we can lose many interesting cultures or blur them in a "time-blob Mexicans" for example. This is why I wish we can refer not to modern nations, but to specific Civs set in their times with its historical context.

I agree to an extent. However, don't agree with the Italy point. Shall we agree to disagree and put to an end our debate?

 

[onepurpose]

I don't like this direction of modern-day perspective and modern Nations because it flattens history into one linear story with a modern nation Civs at the end. Aztecs are not the same as modern Mexicans, Celts (generalizing) are not the same as modern Irish, Pagan Slavic Tribe of Polans are not the same as modern Poles, Babylonians are not the same as modern Iraqis, Medieval/Renaissance Venetians are not the same as modern Italians same as the Romans. If we follow this path we can lose many interesting cultures or blur them in a "time-blob Mexicans" for example. This is why I wish we can refer not to modern nations, but to specificivs set in their times with its historical context.

The entire game is a "time blob".. it has to be...

see civ's designs . coetaneous electronic factories and samurais ?

 

[The Kingmaker]

I wouldn't say HRE is "medieval analogy" of modern Germany.. Indeed , HRE has a lifespan of 1000 years (aprox) .. and it's rules were time-changing and pretty complex.. there was some kind of unique entity... more or less like modern EU (less than state but more than a international organization)

Not “analogy.” “Analogue.” Something corresponding or connected to something else. For example, if I went back to say, the 1500s to visit my German ancestors, they’d be living in the HRE. We’re both a part of the same civilization even though there have been multiple changes of government between their day and mine.

 

[Leucarum]

I suppose firaxis could do Italy similarly to Greece and have 2 leaders, For example 1have one for Milan and one for Florence ... Though one from Venice and one from Genoa would give a fun historical rivalry...

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Because it makes the civilizations more personal by giving them a face. You're not fighting a faceless, nameless opponent; you're fighting Dom Satan of Brazil. Leaders are an important part of the Civ brand, and with other brands moving away from them (Humankind, Old World) the smart move from Firaxis would be to double down on them. Civ7 should particularly focus on richer diplomacy and leader interaction to that end.

This!
We are skipping this aspect sometimes. To have a good story that refers to a specific culture with historical context, a leader with a personality all these role-playing aspects making this game more than an excell. And @Zaarin nailed it here. This is what makes this brand different from Humankind!

 

[onepurpose]

Because it makes the civilizations more personal by giving them a face. You're not fighting a faceless, nameless opponent; you're fighting Dom Satan of Brazil. Leaders are an important part of the Civ brand, and with other brands moving away from them (Humankind, Old World) the smart move from Firaxis would be to double down on them. Civ7 should particularly focus on richer diplomacy and leader interaction to that end.

???

In previous civs you also challenged NAMED oponentes... I just say I needn't a full 3D model wasting developing time & resources meanwhile core mechanics, AI , overall design, etc.. is neglected

Well,.. I do not imagine Sid Meier painting his face and saying stupid things in cheesy vids... but if people like it... well .. is not for me

If this is the way Civ is addressing ... I probably give it up ..

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It is disputable (modern genetic research) if British "Celts" were actually ethnically Celts Nevertheless, my point is if we are not ok with The Celt's blob, we should not be ok with Renaissance Italy as a Civ. If we want to have Italy as a Civ it should refer to the Risorgimento period and later. I think we are ok with this?

As much as I want Italy, if it only deals with 19th century and beyond no thanks.

I think there isn’t that much of a distinction between Renaissance Italians and the modern day nation, as opposed to the Aztecs and Mexico like you mentioned, in terms of people and culture.
I mean Ethiopia’s ability is based off of the Axum Empire with Menelik II as leader.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

I suppose firaxis could do Italy similarly to Greece and have 2 leaders, For example 1have one for Milan and one for Florence ... Though one from Venice and one from Genoa would give a fun historical rivalry...

Please no. This would be like an alcohol-free beer. Pointless