[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

I imagine they only consume the best of the best: Soviet-made food baskets and Molotov cocktails. :mischief:

Soviet food is, actually, quite lovely. If you ever go to Russia, visit a stolovaya, and you will learn something new and delicious.

Which, speaking of: the USSR would be interesting to represent on its own in a future Civilisation game, though I doubt it ever will as Westerners tend to conflate it too eagerly with Russia.
 
I'm all for a more militant France on the condition that Napoleon Boringparte emphatically does not return. :p


Eh, I'd rather downplay portraying England as Britain. It makes sense in Civ6 with Victoria (disappointingly) as their leader, but in Civ7 I'd like to see England proper back. And while England was involved in her fair share of wars...honestly she wasn't too successful at them. Since I want Elizabeth back, I'd rather see England as a cultural/economic civ--which again is why I don't want France as the European culture civ in Civ7.

But by that logic we run into a big problem-before England became Great Britain, it didn't have the cultural power it is more or less known for today. Yeah you have Bill Shakespeare running around but that's peanuts compared to culture of the Italian city states, Austria, and yes, even France. Especially since England proper was a part of France/divided with French nobles running the show until almost the 1600s...and we can just see how the English language has been hugely influenced by France too. I just don't see how England by itself (Not including the Victorian Age/Pax Brittanica) could be that strong of a cultural civ. Economic I can see but on the cultural front, England by itself barely holds it own with the rest of Europe even in it's golden age.Now I'm sure you'll find some argument on why England alone was the most culturally significant civ in Europe...

I also do think that England works best as a part of GB-mostly from a gameplay perspective. Like it or not, we have to have a colonial/globetrotting civ and GB/England fits that bill. Plus as I've said before, it's a monumental part of their history so jumping back to Elizabeth's era exclusively is a bit restrictive. I think how Elizabeth worked in Civ V was fine as the naval bonuses and SotL's strength played to/assisted with the colonial GB history while still wrapping the whole thing with Lizzy's trade agreements. I would be fine with Elizabeth leading Great Britain as colonial bonuses would make sense for her just the same. The reason I'm gunning harder for GB over England is that it snufs out the possibility of us getting another Scotland which I thought was a big waste. I think GB itself (Being both England and Scotland) would satisfy the scots and allow them to make an Irish civ for VII. I don't really want an Irish civ personally, but a LOT of people do and we know how they cave to pressure...and if we get a collective 10 leaders for the anglo-french world I'm gonna be disappointed.

Honestly, any civ before ca. 1800 is a pretty good candidate for religious bonuses. Again, the French were the backbone of the Crusades; Louis IX was sainted (to say nothing of a good handful of non-governmental saints); France was the epicenter of the overwhelmingly religious Gothic architectural movement; and above all France was home to the Sorbonne, which was the chief center for determining theological orthodoxy and interpreting canon law in the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern era. There are good arguments for giving Medieval France religious bonuses, especially if one takes it in a militant direction. There was also the Babylonian Captivity of the Pope when one of the popes was at Avignon, though perhaps many would prefer we didn't talk about that. :p The reasons France was not as notable for its religiosity after the Reformation are 1) France had a sizable Protestant minority it had to learn to live with (at the outset of the Reformation the king's own sister was a Protestant sympathizer) and 2) the French Revolution was not just anti-clerical (a sentiment one can see to a small degree in the American Revolution) but downright anti-religious, which reshaped French thinking considerably in the aftermath.

Very true. I never said that France wasn't influenced by religion all that much at all...it's just that it's culture has persisted to this day much moreso than the idea of French catholicism being of such importance. I get the infrastructure like I mentioned (And it being mentioned it the Civ V and VI's abilities) but from a gameplay/regional perspective...there are just better options for religious civs. And on infrastructure...in Civ, wonders are often cultural...so yeah. And while I would like to say that the French crusading was super impactful (I guess it was linguistically), I mean most famous crusaders are English (Dicky the Banned-from-the-Zoo), Germans (Barbarossa who made it into VI), or Italians (Everyone's favorite Venetian). Yes I'm sure that some Henry or Louis had a good run of things and their troops were vital...but I can't see that being a strong enough character to make a more crusade-based/religious bonus.


"Peaceful" is not how I would describe East Asian history. Or any history. :shifty: Put another way: ask the Koreans if East Asian history has been peaceful. :mischief:

Lol that was cherry picked...I meant peaceful when I should have said "scientific", "cultural", or "diplomatic". Basically I was just trying to illustrate how if all the civs in a certain region have the same bonuses, the lines between them start to blur and the non OP ones fall off fast or just end up being boring. Its more dynamic to see different civs specialize in different attributes of their civs history. My middle east example is still the best option regardless of your thoughts on the historical accuracy.


I was talking about the real Sumer, not Gilgabro. :p

Yeah in Civ VII I hope we ditch Sumaria and but Assyria back in. Babylon is just a bigger deal with less "fictionalized" leaders and it really didn't make sense to have both since they'd play so similarly from a gameplay perspective.


That would be wonderful--but also resource intensive.

That's anecdotalism which, on the Internet, means it's the absolute truth, so for now I'll consider Filipino cuisine is just banana ketchup (please don't hit me)

Well it's banana ketchup on top of pasta. That actually might be different from something called "Filipino spaghetti" which I've tried but being Italian, it is regardless a personal offense XD
 
OK guys we had a nice chat here about Venice and Italy. Now it's time for the beef. Enjoy.
Bloody hell, when did you start this? It's amazing, don't get me wrong, but I cannot see how you could get this done in one week. Then again I exist. :lol:
 
OK guys we had a nice chat here about Venice and Italy. Now it's time for the beef. Enjoy.
All of that and no unique canal district? :p ;)

My bad, I added the wrong numeral. Nevertheless I don't see Maria II as a good option either, that is Portuguese leader from far beyond Portugal's heyday. I also think she is not nearly the most interesting Portuguese leader.
It's okay we got Joao III who is a better pick then either of them. :)
 
Actually, Sestiereis a kinda canal district,or a district with many many canals ;)
How about making it ridiculous and moving them to land and adding the canal funcionality to it? :p
I think somebody came up with an idea for another installment, or a mod or something that would give each civilization a unique district, and each of these districts would combine the function of 2 other districts, e.g. Hansa would be a Commercial Hub mixed with an Industrial Zone, Lavra would be a Holy Site mixed with a Theater Square or something and so on. Venice could have a Neighborhood combined with a Canal and it could be one of the most unique ideas in this vein, I guess. I'd love to see this happen. And if Luigi did unique icons for all of them... :mischief:
 
But by that logic we run into a big problem-before England became Great Britain, it didn't have the cultural power it is more or less known for today. Yeah you have Bill Shakespeare running around but that's peanuts compared to culture of the Italian city states, Austria, and yes, even France. Especially since England proper was a part of France/divided with French nobles running the show until almost the 1600s...and we can just see how the English language has been hugely influenced by France too. I just don't see how England by itself (Not including the Victorian Age/Pax Brittanica) could be that strong of a cultural civ. Economic I can see but on the cultural front, England by itself barely holds it own with the rest of Europe even in it's golden age.Now I'm sure you'll find some argument on why England alone was the most culturally significant civ in Europe...
"Most culturally significant" is extremely subjective and not something I care to argue, but yes, I do have a good reason why England should be cultural for one iteration: the Elizabethan Renaissance, which was much more than just Shakespeare. The chief problem here is that, assuming Ireland is likely for Civ7, it, too, will be cultural--but since Ireland is more likely to be culture-via-faith I think they'd still be very different. Did Elizabethan culture dominate the world? Well, no, it did not. But I don't think any cultures can be said to have even dominated a significant portion of the world except Rome, America, and Arabia--maybe China depending on how liberally you interpret the Sinosphere.

I also do think that England works best as a part of GB-mostly from a gameplay perspective.
As someone who thinks history gets decreasingly interesting from about 1700 onward, I disagree quite strongly. In fact, I don't think Great Britain fits the civilization model well at all because it was more of a polity than a civilization. There was never a "British culture" but many British-influenced or British-spawned cultures that interacted with each other. I'd like to say that I'd accept Great Britain if it excluded its colonies, yet here we are with Canada and Australia and British Scotland and British England so...

Like it or not, we have to have a colonial/globetrotting civ and GB/England fits that bill.
Spain. Also Phoenicia (who I very much want to see continue to be portrayed as they are in Civ6; their design is as close to perfect as any in the game).

Yeah in Civ VII I hope we ditch Sumaria and but Assyria back in. Babylon is just a bigger deal with less "fictionalized" leaders and it really didn't make sense to have both since they'd play so similarly from a gameplay perspective.
Sumer has some great leader options who are completely historical (Gudea would be great), but I agree that I'd rather see Babylon and Assyria--or Assyria and Hittites--or Assyria and Elam. (Long story short, I really think Assyria not Babylon should be the staple.)
 
Actually, Sestiereis a kinda canal district,or a district with many many canals ;)
Hypothetically if I designed a Venice civ that's kind of what I would do, just the opposite of what you did.
I'd make it a Canal District that acts as a neighborhood with housing, while still keeping all of the bonuses you had, considering Venice is known as the "City of Canals". :)


How about making it ridiculous and moving them to land and adding the canal funcionality to it? :p
I think somebody came up with an idea for another installment, or a mod or something that would give each civilization a unique district, and each of these districts would combine the function of 2 other districts, e.g. Hansa would be a Commercial Hub mixed with an Industrial Zone, Lavra would be a Holy Site mixed with a Theater Square or something and so on. Venice could have a Neighborhood combined with a Canal and it could be one of the most unique ideas in this vein, I guess. I'd love to see this happen. And if Luigi did unique icons for all of them... :mischief:
They've already kind of started this by making Vietnam's Thanh generate culture.
I've mentioned the possibility of doing the same to the Seowon. Instead of producing +4 science, the Seowon can produce +4 culture, though the buildings can still yield science.
 
How about making it ridiculous and moving them to land and adding the canal funcionality to it? :p
I think somebody came up with an idea for another installment, or a mod or something that would give each civilization a unique district, and each of these districts would combine the function of 2 other districts, e.g. Hansa would be a Commercial Hub mixed with an Industrial Zone, Lavra would be a Holy Site mixed with a Theater Square or something and so on. Venice could have a Neighborhood combined with a Canal and it could be one of the most unique ideas in this vein, I guess. I'd love to see this happen. And if Luigi did unique icons for all of them... :mischief:
You will be limited to the coast, so one of the principal things to address was to make a coast title stronger. In coastal cities, they are an average 50% of your city titles. (it is explained in a "blueprint") The canal is a land district, so here is the problem. If you will make Sestere both coastal and land district it could be a little bit overpowered in my opinion.

EDIT: hmm unless on land Sestere would have the same building restrictions as the Canal "must be built on flat land with a Coast or Lake tile on one side, and either a City Center or another body of water on the other. A single canal passage may go either straight, or bend 60 degrees; three-way canals are not allowed" on top so it would be both canal district and neighborhood district on coast, but I don't know if the game would allow such design.
 
Last edited:
OK guys we had a nice chat here about Venice and Italy. Now it's time for the beef. Enjoy.


Looks great overall! Just wondering if there was a reason that settlers are needed to build the unique neighborhood...I understand the appeal but it just seems awkward to have settlers building city-like improvements...within cities. I also think it would be too tough to implement properly for the devs too. Why can't it just be built outright by the city again? And if you take that out of the UA then you can throw in some more cool bonuses. I dunno it just seems weird right there. But apart from that-this looks just about how I'd want Venice to play! Intrigue, trade, and coastal-centric settling!
 
Looks great overall! Just wondering if there was a reason that settlers are needed to build the unique neighborhood...I understand the appeal but it just seems awkward to have settlers building city-like improvements...within cities. I also think it would be too tough to implement properly for the devs too. Why can't it just be built outright by the city again? And if you take that out of the UA then you can throw in some more cool bonuses. I dunno it just seems weird right there. But apart from that-this looks just about how I'd want Venice to play! Intrigue, trade, and coastal-centric settling!
I will explain. First of all, the neighborhood is cheaper, and I didn't want to let you spam them and get out of control. Second of all, I think this is cool micromanaging for players to choose either you want to spend two settler charges for the special district which is beneficial in a short term, or use one charge for the district, and then build a proper city which is beneficial in a long term. It gives you an option when you will struggle with map RNG too. I agree it sounds weird, but in the end, I think this would be a very unique and fun to try mechanic. And you can buy settlers. To buy a district you need a governor, Reyna. And if you give a Civ a gold give them a chance to spend it too ;)
 
Top Bottom