[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[AntSou]

This is not true
https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/KeithBurgun/20151001/255058/Asymmetry_in_Games.php
Quickly, a definition - "asymmetry", in this context, refers to the player or players having different abilities from the start of a match. A Street Fighter II character, a StarCraft race, or a Magic: The Gathering deck all would qualify (for the purpose of this article, I will just use "character" to refer to any of these, as a shorthand).

I understand this but we're clearly talking about different things. Asymmetry in video games does not mean the same thing as "Asymmetry within this Civ design". We take for granted all Civs will be different and therefore asymmetric in the first sense of the word because that's how Civ has always worked. This is not Settlers of Catan, where every player is the same (iirc). Therefore the word would be useless in discussion since all Civs are always asymmetric.

Asymmetry within a Civ design means something else entirely, and that's usually what we imply by it when discussing asymmetry here.

This is made evident by the fact your start your argument by correcting Zaarin's use of the word Asymmetry. But the mistake here is your assumption we're incorrectly attempting to use that word to mean the definition you then provide.

I don't have to break the base game rule. It just needs to provide different set of rules

I don't understand the practical difference. Why are Rome's Autoroads considered a different set of rules, but Gaul's are considered rule breaking?

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Asymmetry in video games does not mean the same thing as "Asymmetry within this Civ design".

yes, they do
This is literally a definition of asymmetry in any kind of game I don't know why Civ should be an exception here.

 

[AntSou]

Because all you're doing by conflating the two meanings is creating the necessity for a new word. I'll call it "Shabanga", then?

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Because all you're doing by conflating the two meanings is creating the necessity for a new word. I'll call it "Shabanga", then?

Shabanga: When a person says the same thing twice but using different words in each instance.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

I would say that you are trying to add a different meaning to a clear definition because you understand this in a different way. And as a result, you face the shabanga dilemma
Once again.
Asymmetry has a strict definition in game design, and according to this definition both Rome, and Maya Civs are asymmetrical because both provide a different set of rules to the game.
You said you don't understand the practical difference.
The practical difference here is:
We have two asymmetrical features in a game, but simultaneously this asymmetry is archived in two different ways.
One: just adding some set of the rules on top of general game rules
Second: changing a general game rules
So the practical difference here is to describe not the state (The Goal): asymmetry, but the way to archive it (The mean), and not to mix goals and means.
So responding to your shabanga dilemma we are talking here about means to archive asymmetry, not asymmetry itself
Saying one Civ is asymmetrical, and the other not is entirely not true.

 

[DWilson]

The disconnect seems to be that the conversation has noted that the traditional definition of asymmetry does not apply to this discussion, because if it were too, it would mean that all civs are by their nature of having totally different bonuses asymmetric. And that's not helpful for this conversation, or really any conversation in this forum, except perhaps as contrast to other games. So, most users on this forum have interpreted the word asymmetry different, specifically in the context of Civilization VI, because it makes a meaningful discussion more feasible. Because you are insistent that this is not proper, he is proposing using a different word to make the point, and allow the conversation to go back to where it was. He doesn't really care about the word or consider the need for it without your protest.

Perhaps it is easier to bring you to the context by saying that there are different levels of asymmetry. There is a level of asymmetry in goals (this civ needs to do something different to achieve a win state- this does not truly exist in VI, though Kongo hints at it), a level of asymmetry in advantages (all civs), and another of asymmetry in disadvantages (Kongo, Mali, Gaul, Vietnam, shabanga, etc.).

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

The disconnect seems to be that the conversation has noted that the traditional definition of asymmetry does not apply to this discussion,

It is something like: General mathematical rule not to divide by zero does not apply to this equation
The fact, most users on this forum have interpreted the word asymmetry differently does not mean it is correct. It is not, we are using the concept of "assymetry" in an incorrect way.

 

[AntSou]

I would say that you are trying to add a different meaning to a clear definition because you understand this in a different way. And as a result, you face the shabanga dilemma

Let me put the question to you in a different way. What language do you suggest we use to discuss and distinguish between Civs which only use bonuses, and Civs which use bonuses and maluses? We need such a term because it's something that comes up frequently and it's a concept we like to discuss. Perhaps there is such a term for this concept in game design, in which case I wouldn't mind using it.

Asymmetry has a strict definition in game design, and according to this definition both Rome, and Maya Civs are asymmetrical because both provide a different set of rules to the game.

Exactly! You're trying to apply that strict definition into our everyday language. Imagine this:

Artist: "Artists are being hit hard by Covid. I think government shouldn't forget to support Culture during these times."
Sociologist: "Actually, culture is all around you! The way you eat, the way you speak. Government doesn't need to support anything! Look at the way you're dressed today. That's culture!"

The fact, most users on this forum have interpreted the word asymmetry differently does not mean it is correct. It is not, we are using the concept of "assymetry" in an incorrect way.

Artist: "No, that's not what I mean though..."
Sociologist: "Well, tough luck."

You're reframing what we're talking about to fit a concept within your discipline.
---

You said you don't understand the practical difference.
The practical difference here is we have two asymmetrical things in a game, but simultaneously this asymmetry is archived in two different ways.
One: just adding some set of the rules on top of general game rules
Second: changing a general game rules

Sorry, but I still don't understand the difference. Why are Rome's "Autoroads" considered a "design on top of existing rules", when it very clearly bypasses the rule, but Gaul's "No-Inner-Districts" is a break of the rules?

This question is different from what we're arguing above. I'd like to understand the reason. I think the two concepts you gave don't actually fit the examples you provided.

 

[DWilson]

You do understand that language is a fluid thing? People constantly adapt existing words to fit the context of their need for an effective discussion, or just because they think it sounds cool. Meaning and definition changes literally all the time. Did you thinking in the 90s when everything was "the bomb" it meant everything was an explosive device? What matters when communicating by speaking (or writing, in this case) is that most involved can understand the intended topic.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Let me put the question to you in a different way. What language do you suggest we use to discuss and distinguish between Civs which only use bonuses, and Civs which use bonuses and maluses? We need such a term because it's something that comes up frequently and it's a concept we like to discuss. Perhaps there is such a term for this concept in game design, in which case I wouldn't mind using it.

Not everything can be described in an everyday language, and I understand your problem. Perhaps I am overreacting here, but I just think we should be as precise as we can and not use terms that might be misleading. I don't think there is one good term for those kinds of Civs, but I am sure the term "asymmetrical" is bad in this particular case. That's all.
If you want me to suggest something I would say
a) high asymmetry civ, low asymmetry civs, and medium asymmetry Civs.
b) high-specialized low-specialized
c) game-changing or game-breaking Civs
There is no one good word. I would just avoid term asymmetry in this particular case.

You do understand that language is a fluid thing?

I fully understand language is a fluid thing, but when we are using specialized terms, let's use them in a proper way. Specialized language is not fluid and has strict rules and definitions. That's all

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

Asymmetry isn't a black and white thing. In fact, every Civ is asymmetric because it has a unique set of rules.

I don't think so. When we speak of asymmetry we usually mean it to imply a design which has both a bonus and a malus in regards to the core rules. Otherwise the use of the word would be unnecessary.

Quickly, a definition - "asymmetry", in this context, refers to the player or players having different abilities from the start of a match.

yes, they do
This is literally a definition of asymmetry in any kind of game I don't know why Civ should be an exception here.

I didn't quoted everything because it would have been too long, but I wanted to add my grain of salt.

I wrote something about Asymetry in Civilization VI two months ago where I anaylized what we, on CivFanatics, talk about when we use the term asymetry. I don't use the general definition of asymetry used in game design, but I spent a whole paragraph defining what, in this essay, I would consider asymetry.

Once again, the problem isn't the definition but what we decide to do with it.

(On this note I should update my asymatry analysis with Portugal once it will get out).

 

[AntSou]

I had forgotten about that post!

I would also like to point out, just as curiosity, that we just so happen to use language this way. We could have just as well gone in the opposite direction, that is:

Rome is asymmetrical because it differentiates itself from the "blank Civ" by using bonuses only, that is, the changes go in a single, positive, direction.

Mali is symmetrical because the changes from a "blank Civ" go in both directions. They're both positive and negative.
---

I don't know why we started using language this way. I suspect it might be because it's easier to associate Symmetry with Positive and Good. Therefore a Civ with maluses would be "asymmetric". Maybe?

I'll just refer to them as Malus Civs from now on. Since all Civs have bonuses, a Malus Civ is one with bonuses and maluses. Problem solved.
__________

Anyway, I spent waaaaay too much time on this and now I have a ton of accumulated work to do, which means I won't be able to play the new update as early as I hoped

 

[Lord Lakely]

I personally just hope that in Civ 7, every Civilization will be capable of doing something that no other Civ can. It can be something small, like Canada's Surprise War immunity or Ottomans's extra governor, or something significant like the entire Maori set of bonuses.

I also would like to see these things incorporated in the base game civs. Have a civ with a completely different Amenity system, or who has different rules w/r/t religion. Have a civ who has different promotion trees, Civs with different rules to what cities they may settle and conquer. Look at the game mechanics you are going to incorporate, and think of an alternative, lateral way to reprogram it for one specific Civ.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I personally just hope that in Civ 7, every Civilization will be capable of doing something that no other Civ can. I can be something small, like Canada's Surprise War immunity or Ottomans's extra governor, or something significant like the entire Maori set of bonuses.

I also would like to see these things incorporated in the base game civ. Have a civ with a completely different Amenity system, or who has different rules w/r/t religion. Have a civ who has different promotion trees, Civs with different rules to what cities they may settle and conquer. Look at the game mechanics you are going to incorporate, and think of an alternative, lateral way to reprogram it for one specific Civ.

I advocate for this.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I personally just hope that in Civ 7, every Civilization will be capable of doing something that no other Civ can. I can be something small, like Canada's Surprise War immunity or Ottomans's extra governor, or something significant like the entire Maori set of bonuses.

I also would like to see these things incorporated in the base game civ. Have a civ with a completely different Amenity system, or who has different rules w/r/t religion. Have a civ who has different promotion trees, Civs with different rules to what cities they may settle and conquer. Look at the game mechanics you are going to incorporate, and think of an alternative, lateral way to reprogram it for one specific Civ.

having unique tech trees would be really interesting

 

[Abaxial]

It's less a "we must have at least 2 Papua New Guinea" mentality than a "Africa, a continent much more large and populous than Europe, with a deep and marvelous and tremendous History, has only 6 civilizations (8 if you stretch to include Arabia and Phoenicia), with one leader being clearly Hellenistic and the other being known for adopting European customs, while Europe, less populous and smaller, is already represented by 17 civs (+4 alternate leaders), while the European culture, history and heritage are also represented by 4 post-colonial civs instead of local, as interesting native cultures" mentality.

Africa has a deep and marvelous and tremendous and HIGHLY OBSCURE history. There is very little information on what happened in medieval Africa compared to what we know about European history; we have very few sources. Really, though, I'd love to see more Africans, like, oh, for instance the Sao. No idea who would lead them and what their unique features would be.

The problem really is this - is Civ a game about civilisations (which may be post-colonial) or about tribes that might be kicking around in 3000 BC and might or might not develop into powerful nations? Every time a native culture is added, it would be sensible to delete a post-colonial one. If two more N American tribes are added, then really Canada and the USA should be deleted. Also, as for "adopting European customs", remember that the game FORCES every native culture to adopt European customs. That's implicit in the tech tree and civic tree which are based on European history, and not at all fair to non-European cultures.

 

[Lord Lakely]

having unique tech trees would be really interesting

A unique tech tree would be interesting for a Native American or Nomadic Civ. Maybe not exclusive to one Civilization, but a set of them.

Logistically, you could have an expansion of 8 non-urbanized civs from all around the globe (examples: Scythia, Mongols, Navajo, Taino, Zulu, Goths, idk, just some examples), and all eight of them share a separate tech (simplified) tree compared to the "urbanized" civilizations forgoing advanced sciences but gaining techs that improve their combat and yields. Making them less about settling and building, but more about making the most of the map, bargaining with neutral players such as Barbs and City States, and driving out the more "Civilized" entities from their lands.

I think that would be... quite fun, actually?

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

A unique tech tree would be interesting for a Native American or Nomadic Civ. Maybe not exclusive to one Civilization, but a set of them.

Logistically, you could have an expansion of 8 non-urbanized civs from all around the globe (examples: Scythia, Mongols, Navajo, Taino, Zulu, Goths, idk, just some examples), and all eight of them share a separate tech (simplified) tree compared to the "urbanized" civilizations, but they gain techs that improve their combat and yields. Making them less about settling and building, but more about making the most of the map, bargaining with neutral players such as Barbs and City States, and driving out the more "Civilized" entities from their lands.

I think that would be... quite fun, actually?

Like CK III's Cultural Innovations.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I would love to have a CIV7 with regional groups of civs with different techs, eras, districs, units, etc. But is very unlikely to change on CIV series (like I dislike the leader focus). Maybe on a similar game.

This idea of different regional groups could even help to justify less eurocentrism, since most of the current on game "civs" are not true civilizations but very expecific nations/states/governments. Europe is basicaly one or two civilizations (west and east) in the make since late classical to medieval time, yes descentralized and with regional flavor, but is absurd to have on game two germanic protestant colonial nations that could be on design more different between them than any of them to a native american tribal civ or to a far east empire.

Make a group of Central Asia nomad civs with therir own eras, mechanics, units, etc. And then you could justify more civs that would use variations of that gameplay (Scythians, Huns, Turks, Mongols, etc.)

 

[ManoftheHour333]

I don't think many people here know of the horror of playing multiplayer in a public group when you couldn't quit out of decency and randomed Iroquois. I remember I used to play in the No Quitter (NQ) group (that group had a lot of streamers back then, including FilthyRobot, the one with the famous 4 hour long tier list video), you were allowed to ask for a reroll if you rolled Venice, but not allowed for the same thing if you rolled Iroquois. I guess from now on, in order to remind myself, I would probably just "well, at least it is not at the tier of the longhouse" whenever I see a bad bonus.

Oh yeah I used to play on the exact same NQ group back in the glory days of Civ V! Lmao I was actually one of those poor sods that rolled Venice and had to play entire MP game as them (My teammates refused to yield to a reroll...got unlucky as they all got some great civs XD). I did ok early on due to some luck but we all lost to an Arabian domination victory. But I behind the whole game and there was literally nothing I could because Venice. Iroquois were the same way with the longhouse that was an automatic loss considering how insanely crucial production (And getting workshops online) was in the Civ V meta.

LOL RIP FilthyRobot's civ videos. I wish he'd continue with Civ VI but alas...it's not his game. Him and many of my friends left after Civ VI dropped and it always frustrated me. I think that Civ VI doesnt have the robust MP scene that Civ V had by a long shot which is a damn shame...most people and streamers just play on diety as SP which...is meh IMO. But Civ VI works better as a SP game due to the lack of streamlining the more robust and complex systems. Pros and cons...