[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think we use Brussels instead of Belgium because, in the game, they're truly city-States : States of One City. Of course, they often represent polities that were bigger than the city, or even not at all a city-State (Brussels, indeed, never was a city-State). But the thing you see on the map, the name of this minor faction, is the name of the city. Sure, you could have the faction of "Belgium", that is centered around the city of "Brussels", but it would be confusing. The core element of civ is the city, so if you have factions centered around only one city, then it makes sense and it's easier to give them the name of this city.

That's usually how I envision them. I don't look at Armagh and think I'm only dealing with them. They are in the game to represent the entirety of Ireland, not even just Northern Ireland, which wasn't really a thing until basically 100 years ago anyway.
As with Brussels I picture them as a minor nation of Belgium.

‘nomadic nations’ for pastoralist, semi-pastoralist or hunter-gatherer peoples such as the Inuit, Saami, Ainu, Khoisan, specific aboriginal australian groups, Andamanese, Huns, Scythians etc. who wouldn’t fit the concept of a civ but are historically and culturally important enough to be signified in some sense. Their relations with city states, minor empires, each other and playable civs would depend on their historic interactions with larger empires: warring, uncomfortable peace, isolationist, autonomous, semi-autonomous, incorporated with cultural independence, etc.

Wait so would it be hard to depict Pokrovka and Attila's Camp as city-states in the future?

I feel like somehow that would require an overhaul of the existing tribal villages and barbarian interaction in the past games, and separate tribes into either peaceful or more aggressive. I can see that for Civ 7 as an enhanced the Barbarians Clans game mode, but implemented into the base game.

 

[DWilson]

I can say personally I don't see cities as actual cities in the games, especially with wonders and districts spreading out over the map. Instead, it feels like a city in CiVI is a state/province/district, with the provincial capital being the city center and city name, while districts are other, generally smaller cities in the region. That's why they control so much land other than city centers, and explains how the map's urban development with districts can be so disjointed. The city may be Hartford, but the campus district is actually New Haven, just following the rule, laws, and directives set out in it's capital of Hartford.

 

[Xandinho]

I’m hoping that there will be more NPC civ types

‘minor civilizations’ for empires and nations which could be civs in-game but haven’t been picked for space (Mali/Ghana if Songhai is chosen, for example), or empires/peoples which are significant but don’t have a language to use (Mississippians, Olmecs).

‘city state’ for nations which are only significant for one city: Singapore, Bandar Seri Begawan or nations which can be represented through one city: Havana, Port au prince, etc.

‘nomadic nations’ for pastoralist, semi-pastoralist or hunter-gatherer peoples such as the Inuit, Saami, Ainu, Khoisan, specific aboriginal australian groups, Andamanese, Huns, Scythians etc. who wouldn’t fit the concept of a civ but are historically and culturally important enough to be signified in some sense. Their relations with city states, minor empires, each other and playable civs would depend on their historic interactions with larger empires: warring, uncomfortable peace, isolationist, autonomous, semi-autonomous, incorporated with cultural independence, etc.

I like these ideias.

Major civilization: main civilizations that are playable and can compete for a victory. Ex: China, France, England...

Minor civilization: civilizations that can build cities (limited number, maybe three cities?), build wonders, recruit great people, produce armies and build unique infrestuctures, but they can't compete for any type of victory and they aren't playable. Ex: Zapotec, Ashanti or Benin, Muisca or Mapuche, Nepal, Numidia...

City-States: as they are now, but improved, offering more ways of interaction. Ex: Cahokia, Vatican City, Singapore, Teotihuacan...

Nomadic nations: they don't build cities, they live in outposts and they can have different behavios. Some of them can be very isolationist (Ainus) or very aggressive (Huns).

 

[Abaxial]

This is what I've been trying to advocate. Other posters have been defending the current city state implementation as being adequate for purpose. Yes it is, but one could do so much more. For instance, a minor state might not actually be urban. They don't need to be nomadic, just live in villages rather than cities. This way you have a completely reasonable way to introduce all the Native American tribes people have been asking to see in the game, but really don't fit the profile of a player civ.

 

[Narcisse]

a lot of ideas could be explored around city states and even barbarians for civ 7. Barbarian is honestly a meaningless word for a game with this context and they take some slots for your ideas of having more minor civ (to simply have more representations). A lot of civ were "raiders" and could have a similar behaviour and role than current barbarians (but I hope improved). For exemple Huns, Illyrians, Petchenegs, ... etc

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Hmmmmmm...based on the April update:

* No city-state representation for Austria, Assyria, or Denmark (or Burma). No city-states at all, in fact.
* New Mediterranean and Huge Earth map, but still no America or Africa maps.
* "New content" is just a few new units and nothing that would feel like a mechanical "wrap-up" like ideologies, economic victory, massive bug fixes or AI overauls, etc.

This to me screams that:

a) They were just trying to bring some core elements like the civ balance and units tree into a sort of baseline/equilibrium that they could then leave as-is while they tack on more unrelated mechanics.
b) They are quite likely holding back new mechanics, as even the final "update" still felt like a measured, "what small things can we work on this month?" as opposed to "let's cram everything we have left in!"
c) They still have content planned for North America and Africa.

All aboard the Berber hype caravan!

 

[giut]

The phrase 'final update of the season' brings me hope for another season.
If we get another season, and we get the same number of civs that the first season I would like to see:
* America DLC: a NA native civ (Lakota, Cherokee, Haudenossaune) and a SA civ (Argentina or Tupi)
* Oceania DLC: Don't know exactly, but Oceania should get another civ
* Europe DLC: Austria and Bulgaria
* Asia DLC: Siam, Burma or the Philipines
* Africa DLC: Songhai or Oman, and a new leader for Egipt (Ramses II).
* Europe II DLC: Italy

New mechanics I want:
* Immigration (could be aded with Argentina)
* Public health and pandemics
* Vassals and puppet cities (with Italy?)

Just pulling random ideas.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

The phrase 'final update of the season' brings me hope for another season.
If we get another season, and we get the same number of civs that the first season I would like to see:
* America DLC: a NA native civ (Lakota, Cherokee, Haudenossaune) and a SA civ (Argentina or Tupi)
* Oceania DLC: Don't know exactly, but Oceania should get another civ
* Europe DLC: Austria and Bulgaria
* Asia DLC: Siam, Burma or the Philipines
* Africa DLC: Songhai or Oman, and a new leader for Egipt (Ramses II).
* Europe II DLC: Italy

New mechanics I want:
* Immigration (could be aded with Argentina)
* Public health and pandemics
* Vassals and puppet cities (with Italy?)

Just pulling random ideas.

I'm thinking both American civs will be from North America and come from tribes with very high populations and land spread. So something from the subset of Navajo, Cherokee, Sioux, and Inuit (with the Sioux being an extreme long shot because the Cree already work as the "plains" civ. With one of those probably being replaced with the Iroquois because they are a fan favorite and far less controversial. I would hope for Navajo and the Inuit for maximal map-gap filling, but more likely I think we are looking at Navajo and Iroquois.

I don't think Oceania needs another civ. Now that we have the Maori I think Tonga's everyman function is kinda spoiled, and while the logical counterpart to the Maori is Hawaii I don't think they are a particularly strong candidate. I would rather the Oceania slot go toward a second African civ, since I think on top of Oman we could really use a Berber/Numidia civ (instead of Songhai).

Other than that, I think your spread is quite likely. We might see Denmark instead of Austria or Hatshepsut instead of Rameses, but if I were to bet, I think we will see something like:

* America: Navajo and Inuit/Iroquois
* Middle East: Oman/Assyria
* Europe: Austria/Denmark and Bulgaria
* Asia: Burma/Tibet
* Africa: Numidia and Hatshepsut
* Europe II: Italy

I definitely think Civ VI would end on Italy if it could. Extremely highly requested, and would bring everything full-circle back to the main theme.

I also agree on your prospective new mechanics. I think all three are quite likely.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

* America: Navajo and Inuit/Iroquois
* Middle East: Oman/Assyria
* Europe: Austria/Denmark and Bulgaria
* Asia: Burma/Tibet
* Africa: Numidia and Hatshepsut
* Europe II: Italy

I think this would be likely if we were to get 8 more, with the possibility of Haiti showing up over a second NA tribe. Of course my real preference would be Iroquois and the Navajo and I'd be fine with saving Haiti for Civ 7 over Canada.

I would argue Italy could easily be paired with Austria in a pack with a theme of making Great Musicians great again.

That would leave room for something else, maybe not even in Europe. Either way I guess Bulgaria could there, if not Romania.

As far as Asia goes (not counting the Middle East) I'm on the fence if they would go for something like Burma/Tibet or Timurids/Mughals? I guess the former would make sense based off of the city-states they just released.

 

[Xandinho]

As much as I want that, I don't think we'd get more 8 civs in a second round of passes. I expect more 4 or 5 civs + an alt leader (hopeful Egyptian) and Notre Dame back .

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I think this would be likely if we were to get 8 more, with the possibility of Haiti showing up over a second NA tribe. Though I would argue Italy could easily be paired with Austria in a pack with a theme of making Great Musicians great again.

That would leave room for something else, maybe not even in Europe. Either way I guess Bulgaria could there, if not Romania.

As far as Asia goes (not counting the Middle East) I'm on the fence if they would go for something like Burma/Tibet or Timurids/Mughals? I guess the former would make sense based off of the city-states they just released.

Yeah something like that.

I do see Haiti as a dark horse, although I don't think it is as likely as the Navajo or Inuit. For one, because it wasn't very "expansionist" and was only nominally an "empire" (making it a dubious mechanical fit for the civ mold). For two, because there is a lot of North America that wants to be filled and I don't think one civ will be enough. And for three, I think if we were ever going to get a Caribbean civ, it would have been the Taino or Nassau Republic (something which realistically wanted to settle every island), and between Caguana and the Pirates! scenario, I think we just won't get a Caribbean civ this time around.

With regards to Austra/Italy/Bulgaria, I think the devs will try to do what they did with NFP as far as grouping civs by marketability. Both Austria and Italy are marketable alone, so they won't be grouped together. Of the two, Italy is far more popular and requested, so Italy is more likely to be sold solo (and, indeed, I think the only new addition that could have been sold solo; GC, Gaul, and Vietnam were still paired with other civs/leaders to sell their respective DLC packs). So I think Austria/Denmark will end up being paired with a "lesser" newcomer, and I think Bulgaria is the only significant empire we are missing on the European continent.

(Note, my predictions do directly contradict this soft rule, in that we probably won't get Oman as a single DLC, nor Burma or Tibet. Maybe Oman and Burma could be sold together under a different distribution model, but more likely I would bet that we would just get Assyria and Morocco, with Hatshepsut being paired with the Swahili or something like that).

Normally I would have considered Burma and the Timurids roughly equal competitors for the Asia slot, but now that we have Samarkand and no Pagan, I think Burma is just more likely at this point. Ideally we could get both if development continued long enough, but if we're only looking ahead at the next year I think Burma has the clear edge.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

If there is a second season, I would anticipate it being stripped down compared to NFP. No modes. Just civs, leaders, units, city-states, maps, wonders, etc.

 

[Xandinho]

If there is a second season, I would anticipate it being stripped down compared to NFP. No modes. Just civs, leaders, units, city-states, maps, wonders, etc.

I'd be perfectly fine with that, since I don't particularly play most of the game modes . They could spend efforts on more wonders, leaders and alternative buildings.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I do see Haiti as a dark horse, although I don't think it is as likely as the Navajo or Inuit. For one, because it wasn't very "expansionist" and was only nominally an "empire" (making it a dubious mechanical fit for the civ mold). For two, because there is a lot of North America that wants to be filled and I don't think one civ will be enough. And for three, I think if we were ever going to get a Caribbean civ, it would have been the Taino or Nassau Republic (something which realistically wanted to settle every island), and between Caguana and the Pirates! scenario, I think we just won't get a Caribbean civ this time around.

Haiti definitely would be the dark horse, but it's the only other post colonial civ I would expect. That being said if they gave us two native civs, no matter if both in continental NA, or one in the Caribbean, I'd be fine with it.

With regards to Austra/Italy/Bulgaria, I think the devs will try to do what they did with NFP as far as grouping civs by marketability. Both Austria and Italy are marketable alone, so they won't be grouped together. Of the two, Italy is far more popular and requested, so Italy is more likely to be sold solo (and, indeed, I think the only new addition that could have been sold solo; GC, Gaul, and Vietnam were still paired with other civs/leaders to sell their respective DLC packs). So I think Austria/Denmark will end up being paired with a "lesser" newcomer, and I think Bulgaria is the only significant empire we are missing on the European continent.

Going off the pairing new and old was the reason why I said Italy and Austria together. I consider Vietnam to be as marketable as a "new" Italy, unless they just give us Venice again.
I also think Denmark is very unlikely. At least I'm not expecting a third civ from Scandinavia.

(Note, my predictions do directly contradict this soft rule, in that we probably won't get Oman as a single DLC, nor Burma or Tibet. Maybe Oman and Burma could be sold together under a different distribution model, but more likely I would bet that we would just get Assyria and Morocco, with Hatshepsut being paired with the Swahili or something like that).

To be fair I agreed with the possibility of Numidia (Berbers) with the other Egyptian leader. In that case I could see Assyria/Hittites making a return.

Normally I would have considered Burma and the Timurids roughly equal competitors for the Asia slot, but now that we have Samarkand and no Pagan, I think Burma is just more likely at this point. Ideally we could get both if development continued long enough, but if we're only looking ahead at the next year I think Burma has the clear edge.

My only question is would they give us another SEA civ on top of the 3 we already have? And another one that might get faith bonuses with unique holy site district/building similar to the Khmer?
At this point, considering we got Kublai Khan for China and no Lhasa city-state yet, I'm tempted to say maybe Tibet has a chance?

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Going off the pairing new and old was the reason why I said Italy and Austria together. I consider Vietnam to be as marketable as a "new" Italy, unless they just give us Venice again.
I also think Denmark is very unlikely. At least I'm not expecting a third civ from Scandinavia.

Given that we have Canada and the Cree, England and Scotland, Gaul on top of three French leaders, and are reasonably expecting Assyria on top of Sumeria and Babylon, I don't think the difference between Austria (on top of Germany and Hungary) and Denmark (on top of Norway and Sweden) is substantial. The only real advantages Austria has are:

1) Precedent of having been in the game already (which Denmark was as well)
2) Maria Teresa being a powerhouse persona (in which case Margaret I comes very close to the same level of fame)
3) Classical music and diplomacy being a slightly clearer angle to work with mechanically (although Denmark could easily find a science/industry/trade niche)

I think Austria is more likely because it's low-hanging fanservice fruit. But Denmark really isn't that far behind Austria in terms of implementability, and if we are seriously considering the Saami or Finland as a third Scandinavian civ, I think an actual empire is more likely based on VI's design tendencies.

My only question is would they give us another SEA civ on top of the 3 we already have? And another one that might get faith bonuses with unique holy site district/building similar to the Khmer?
At this point, considering we got Kublai Khan for China and no Lhasa city-state yet, I'm tempted to say maybe Tibet has a chance?

I think Burma could distinguish itself enough by being more militaristic and maybe have a gold-to-faith exchange system. I agree their niche is a little more narrow wedged between Khmer and India. But is it all that different from the Timurids being wedged between Persia, Scythia, and Chandragupta?

I am not ruling out Tibet. I always think its chances are slim, and I think if we are going to have Samarkand and Pagan city-states it makes more sense than either Timurids or Burma. It's just extremely difficult to gauge how it would be received in China. In theory any leader prior to Songsten Gampo would be acceptable (or maybe even Songsten Gampo if portrayed in the right, pro-Chinese light). In practice, I have no idea if it would fuel Tibetan independence sentiment to a point that China would retaliate. It's a huge mystery.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Given that we have Canada and the Cree, England and Scotland, Gaul on top of three French leaders, and are reasonably expecting Assyria on top of Sumeria and Babylon, I don't think the difference between Austria (on top of Germany and Hungary) and Denmark (on top of Norway and Sweden) is substantial. The only real advantages Austria has are:

1) Precedent of having been in the game already (which Denmark was as well)
2) Maria Teresa being a powerhouse persona (in which case Margaret I comes very close to the same level of fame)
3) Classical music and diplomacy being a slightly clearer angle to work with mechanically (although Denmark could easily find a science/industry/trade niche)

I think Austria is more likely because it's low-hanging fanservice fruit. But Denmark really isn't that far behind Austria in terms of implementability, and if we are seriously considering the Saami or Finland as a third Scandinavian civ, I think an actual empire is more likely based on VI's design tendencies.

I agree that Denmark isn't as far behind as Austria, but as you said a separate niche is harder to fill considering we have Vikings (Norway) and the Early Modern Swedish Empire, while Denmark under Margaret would probably be designed as another Medieval, but non-Viking civ. To compensate they could let her lead all three.
Currently Peter is also the only European leader who lived in the 1700s, so it wouldn't hurt to have another though.

I think Burma could distinguish itself enough by being more militaristic and maybe have a gold-to-faith exchange system. I agree their niche is a little more narrow wedged between Khmer and India. But is it all that different from the Timurids being wedged between Persia, Scythia, and Chandragupta?

The only reason why I said Timurids is because it is closer to Central Asia, but considering we also just got Lahore and Samarkand, probably not.
I guess Tibet/Burma are the most likely candidates for East Asia/Central Asia.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I agree that Denmark isn't as far behind as Austria, but as you said a separate niche is harder to fill considering we have Vikings (Norway) and the Early Modern Swedish Empire, while Denmark under Margaret would probably be designed as another Medieval, but non-Viking civ. To compensate they could let her lead all three.
Currently Peter is also the only European leader who lived in the 1700s, so it wouldn't hurt to have another though.

Yeah, it is rather hard conceiving of how a medieval Denmark would be designed. Again, maybe trade and production. I don't have much particular fondness for the idea, but neither do I care much about Austria and Maria Teresa when we already have Hungary.

Ideally, a second season would only give us Bulgaria and Italy, and skip on any other European civs. Devote those resources to filling out other continents. But alas, I do think that Austria may be an inevitability if there is a second season pass. They need the clout of returning civs/leaders to sell the thing, and Austria is the last great stronghold in Europe. There is no way the devs aren't looking at it as a frontrunner.

The only reason why I said Timurids is because it is closer to Central Asia, but considering we also just got Lahore and Samarkand, probably not.
I guess Tibet/Burma are the most likely candidates for East Asia/Central Asia.

Yeah that's just where the wind seems to be blowing. That said, I would not be unhappy with a Timurids civ, especially if we got a Zamburak and some token representation of the Mughals with a Mughal fort.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yeah, it is rather hard conceiving of how a medieval Denmark would be designed. Again, maybe trade and production. I don't have much particular fondness for the idea, but neither do I care much about Austria and Maria Teresa when we already have Hungary.

Ideally, a second season would only give us Bulgaria and Italy, and skip on any other European civs. Devote those resources to filling out other continents. But alas, I do think that Austria may be an inevitability if there is a second season pass. They need the clout of returning civs/leaders to sell the thing, and Austria is the last great stronghold in Europe. There is no way the devs aren't looking at it as a frontrunner.

To be fair I could care less about Austria if we just happened to get Maria Theresa as an alt leader to lead Germany and/or Hungary.
I'd really only want Maria Theresa in the game so if they pull off a pack with Italy and Maria Theresa as an alt leader with culture and diplomatic abilities, I'd be fine with that too.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

To be fair I could care less about Austria if we just happened to get Maria Theresa as an alt leader to lead Germany and/or Hungary.
I'd really only want Maria Theresa in the game so if they pull off a pack with Italy and Maria Theresa as an alt leader with culture and diplomatic abilities, I'd be fine with that too.

It would be such a stretch to make her lead Germany, and on a completely different axis, make her lead Hungary but not Austria. I don't think the devs will reach that far for a leader. But I personally would allow it if it meant not having an Austrian civ in the game. And frankly, I would accept the same thing with Margaret leading Norway and Sweden, because the analogues are roughly the same between Germany/Sweden and Hungary/Norway.

And, while we are at it, if we are including token representation of "middle-man" civs by dual leaders with no real civ of their own, throw in Charlemagne too.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It would be such a stretch to make her lead Germany, and on a completely different axis, make her lead Hungary but not Austria. I don't think the devs will reach that far for a leader. But I personally would allow it if it meant not having an Austrian civ in the game. And frankly, I would accept the same thing with Margaret leading Norway and Sweden, because the analogues are roughly the same between Germany/Sweden and Hungary/Norway.

Good point. I guess Margaret would work in that regard too. But considering Germany is primarily designed around HRE, which Austria has historically been a part of and became a de facto leader for them, it feels like less of a stretch than it would leading a more modern designed German civ.

And, while we are at it, if we are including token representation of "middle-man" civs by dual leaders with no real civ of their own, throw in Charlemagne too.

And have "4 leaders" for France that's not either Louis XIV or Napoleon?