[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[iammaxhailme]

Considering I want the Berbers more, I see them as a civ that mainly wants to thrive and settle in the desert just how Inca needs mountains, and now Canada needs tundra.
I can see desert farms, full housing if city is within 3 tiles of an oasis as well as district adjacencies to oasis? This sort of makes them a generalist civ.

In regards to trading, there hasn't been a civ that gets bonuses for traders passing through your cities/trading posts to reach another civ so maybe they could receive bonuses for that?

I got this idea from a civ 5 mod, but the garamantes could be a more ancient-style desert civ (as opposed to medieval style like the ayyubid arabs/mali)

 

[sweetbrown89]

Of what you listed and based on overall state of Civ VI? In order of likelihood:

Returning civ slots:

* Renaissance Italy slot (Venice/Genoa/Tuscany/Papal States)
* Morocco slot (Berbers/Numidia/Maghrebi)
* Shoshone slot (Navajo/Apache)

Ascended civs (again, the Gaels and New Zealand are already satisfied by the Maori, and Switzerland is just too perfect as a city-state):

* Bulgaria
* Oman (Swahili/Zanzibar)
* Chola

Civ Colonization (Taino were passed over for city-state because of linguistic issues; Tupi would compete with Brazil for a rainforest niche and we would more likely see something on the Guarani side of the Tupi-Guarani spectrum):

* Apache (or Navajo, or even the Comanche as a literal slant from Shoshone)
* Cherokee

"Speculation":

* Burma (political problems but otherwise one of the last great imperial powers yet to be included)
* Yoruba/Igbo/Benin/Hausa/Ashanti (a highly requested region with the biggest issue being too many options and none of them being exceptionally better than the rest)

Possible civ federations (Scythia is kind of a broad placeholder for Tatars/Cumans, and Lithuania is already blobbed into Poland):

* Turan/Pashtun/Kushan/Timurids (probably the least likely on the list now that we have Samarkand as a very recently implemented city-state).

None of your temporal region civs (outside of Italy, which really would only get by on Venice precedent and sheer marketability).

* (South Africa) (much less likely than the others, because even though we could see a Dutch colonial civ balancing out Australia/Canada/Brazil/Colombia, the Zulu seem to presumptively hold the power in that region)

I do agree with you that they are filling in cultural dead zones. Which is why I think these options are far more likely than any other civs because they cover pretty broad cultural zones in a way that most of the other civs on the roster do (except Scotland. Dumb Scotland.)

Uh...you literally just repeated my list after telling me that everything I listed was unlikely

Also, I’m confused as to why you refer to the areas that I said were geographically untouched as “speculation”

Assuming we don't get anymore content I have feeling that the Mapuche might end up taking the Shoshone slot as another "horse raider" civ from the Americas, despite them being in South America this time around.
Would not be surprised at this point if Venice and Morocco were one-offs.


In comes Suriname as the Caribbean civ we never thought we'd get.


Well I said that before with Georgia, up until the reveal video, and look what happened.

The only other civ that could possibly get a Longbowmen UU besides England however is tempting, not to mention the city names.

Just *so far* slots are always directly neighboring areas and not based on how the Civ plays

 

[sweetbrown89]

Problem is that Mali is already a "desert" civ, and that is right next door. We would need some substantially different desert bonuses to make them feel different. Desert farms could work to a degree; I think some sort of oasis/lake bonus is a must. But I think they would want to move away from trade route bonuses and more toward...Gran Colombia?



*shakes fist at you*

People here were speculating about an Oasis Berber Civ back when everyone though the Pirates map meant Dihya

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

* Burma (political problems but otherwise one of the last great imperial powers yet to be included)

Note: My comment here is in my role as historian, not as development team.

When a present-day country is undergoing political problems, you have to ask if those are related to the depiction of history. Ethiopia's issues right now are - Menelik's name is invoked as an agent of domination and a villain. Burma's are not. I've been following Burmese events very closely (and was in the midst of taking Burmese language lessons in the morning before work when it all happened), but what this is about is a question primarily of the role of the military in politics and secondarily about the role of Burmese ethnic domination of the mountains.

The Burmese military had sought to stage itself as the power behind a nominally democratic state (as Thailand is now), and when it looked like, no, they had signed up for an actual democratic state, they stepped in with catastrophic results. But I have not heard the names of Pagan, or Ava, or Toungoo invoked by the military, so for a historical game I don't see a conflict. Burmese warfare against ethnic minorities does indeed have a historical dimension, but, again, the focus of ire in this fight are 20th century military leaders and not historical rulers. While myself as an anthropologist and a specialist of Southeast Asia I am closely following the situation, I don't see flags coming up over a historical representation of a Burmese power in a game like Civ. Not yet, at least. The worst thing that we would want would be to be seen to endorse a particular reading of history (though, of course, there is no objective stance outside of history), especially one on the side of violence.

Again, this statement is entirely one made by Andrew Johnson, the scholar, and not Andrew Johnson, the writer for Firaxis.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Note: My comment here is in my role as historian, not as development team.

When a present-day country is undergoing political problems, you have to ask if those are related to the depiction of history. Ethiopia's issues right now are - Menelik's name is invoked as an agent of domination and a villain. Burma's are not. I've been following Burmese events very closely (and was in the midst of taking Burmese language lessons in the morning before work when it all happened), but what this is about is a question primarily of the role of the military in politics and secondarily about the role of Burmese ethnic domination of the mountains.

The Burmese military had sought to stage itself as the power behind a nominally democratic state (as Thailand is now), and when it looked like, no, they had signed up for an actual democratic state, they stepped in with catastrophic results. But I have not heard the names of Pagan, or Ava, or Toungoo invoked by the military, so for a historical game I don't see a conflict. Burmese warfare against ethnic minorities does indeed have a historical dimension, but, again, the focus of ire in this fight are 20th century military leaders and not historical rulers. While myself as an anthropologist and a specialist of Southeast Asia I am closely following the situation, I don't see flags coming up over a historical representation of a Burmese power in a game like Civ. Not yet, at least. The worst thing that we would want would be to be seen to endorse a particular reading of history (though, of course, there is no objective stance outside of history), especially one on the side of violence.

Again, this statement is entirely one made by Andrew Johnson, the scholar, and not Andrew Johnson, the writer for Firaxis.

These events happening in Burma are a good case against modern Leaders, in my opinion. Because we can't really hold up Ancient, Classical, Medieval, and Renaissance Leaders to the same standards we have in terms of morality, religion, etc., unlike Menelik II and other Modern Leaders. Less controversy as well.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

These events happening in Burma are a good case against modern Leaders, in my opinion. Because we can't really hold up Ancient, Classical, Medieval, and Renaissance Leaders to the same standards we have in terms of morality, religion, etc., unlike Menelik II and other Modern Leaders. Less controversy as well.

Aung San Su Kyi is a great example. She was loved for a time, but turned out (unsurprising for people closely following Burmese politics) to be a Burmese nationalist, then as someone who made (or was forced to make) concessions to her principles, and is now back to being a hero of the democratic movement. In short, she is complicated, as is anyone. There are no heroes, but the fog of time makes heroes out of historical figures by blurring or blunting their flaws.

It is almost as though people are products of their time and situation (pointed remark re: the Carlyle conversation earlier...)

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Uh...you literally just repeated my list after telling me that everything I listed was unlikely

Also, I’m confused as to why you refer to the areas that I said were geographically untouched as “speculation”

I didn't say that everything you listed was unlikely. Both times I parsed out which civs were likely, and which weren't.

And both times I used the term "speculation" to refer to that group because that was the term you coined for that group of civs.

Note: My comment here is in my role as historian, not as development team.

When a present-day country is undergoing political problems, you have to ask if those are related to the depiction of history. Ethiopia's issues right now are - Menelik's name is invoked as an agent of domination and a villain. Burma's are not. I've been following Burmese events very closely (and was in the midst of taking Burmese language lessons in the morning before work when it all happened), but what this is about is a question primarily of the role of the military in politics and secondarily about the role of Burmese ethnic domination of the mountains.

The Burmese military had sought to stage itself as the power behind a nominally democratic state (as Thailand is now), and when it looked like, no, they had signed up for an actual democratic state, they stepped in with catastrophic results. But I have not heard the names of Pagan, or Ava, or Toungoo invoked by the military, so for a historical game I don't see a conflict. Burmese warfare against ethnic minorities does indeed have a historical dimension, but, again, the focus of ire in this fight are 20th century military leaders and not historical rulers. While myself as an anthropologist and a specialist of Southeast Asia I am closely following the situation, I don't see flags coming up over a historical representation of a Burmese power in a game like Civ. Not yet, at least. The worst thing that we would want would be to be seen to endorse a particular reading of history (though, of course, there is no objective stance outside of history), especially one on the side of violence.

Again, this statement is entirely one made by Andrew Johnson, the scholar, and not Andrew Johnson, the writer for Firaxis.

Thank you for your insight! I do recognize that there is quite a difference between a Pagan or Toungoo empire versus the modern Burmese state. I was still unsure as to what effect including Burma at all would feel like a tacit endorsement of the current regime. Like, for example, if a historical Burma civ had a religious (+ militaristic?) playstyle, would that translate to glorifying militant Buddhism generally? Or would it not really matter much because Burma isn't a huge market and up until a couple years ago didn't even have access to Civ VI? I just don't know to what extent Firaxis would have to tightrope walk and if it would be worth the effort; and this is despite really wanting Burma in the game.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Thank you for your insight! I do recognize that there is quite a difference between a Pagan or Toungoo empire versus the modern Burmese state. I was still unsure as to what effect including Burma at all would feel like a tacit endorsement of the current regime. Like, for example, if a historical Burma civ had a religious (+ militaristic?) playstyle, would that translate to glorifying militant Buddhism generally? Or would it not really matter much because Burma isn't a huge market and up until a couple years ago didn't even have access to Civ VI? I just don't know to what extent Firaxis would have to tightrope walk and if it would be worth the effort; and this is despite really wanting Burma in the game.

i think you’re over thinking it. As @Andrew Johnson [FXS] noted, Firaxis released Menelik just as protests regarding Oromo oppression were ongoing in Ethiopia, which were in turn started by a murder of a artist who spoke about Menelik’s status as an oppressor of the Oromo. If that’s fair ground, as long as the leader or nation isn’t near-universally hated in the west (whether that be justified or not), they’re probably fair game.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

i think you’re over thinking it. As @Andrew Johnson [FXS] noted, Firaxis released Menelik just as protests regarding Oromo oppression were ongoing in Ethiopia, which were in turn started by a murder of a artist who spoke about Menelik’s status as an oppressor of the Oromo. If that’s fair ground, as long as the leader or nation isn’t near-universally hated in the west (whether that be justified or not), they’re probably fair game.

I think you've got to ask how is X historical symbol being used today? Take the Teutonic Knights, for instance. While they were no more awful than many other military orders around the place, I might balk at them (speaking for myself here) given how much Teutonic imagery is used in A Time Period About 80 Years Ago in Central Europe, and amongst people who Like That Time and Place Too Much. While looking at the expansionist Toungoo empire would lend itself to a military-focused Burma, would that be necessarily connected with the Tatmadaw (Burmese military today)? I haven't seen much evidence to that effect.

We have some leaders who skirt that issue. Menelik, as you mention (though that happened just as we released it, and little could have been done), required some looking into. Even Qin Shi Huang has been used by more autocratic Chinese leaders in the past to justify silencing academic dissent. Ramkhamhaeng was used as a justification for Siamese absolute monarchy in the 19th century and is still used by royalists there. Shaka, while loved by the Zulu, is an object of concern amongst some non-Zulu South Africans. So there are few choices without controversy, but we just have to weigh the historical contribution, the appeal of the leader versus the amount of controversy. Genghis Khan and Napoleon, for instance, are infamous in certain parts of the world, but there are few people using their names to justify present-day nastiness (that I know of). I think a Toungoo civ would pass, even a militaristic one, but it would definitely be something that I'd take a day and dig deeply into, both looking at Burmese local politics as well as international ones - we try to think of our players as a global audience, and try to take into account what a Burmese player, a Kachin player, as well as an American or European player might think. Just looking at this forum, we have many members here who are not based in the West, and we want them to feel seen and included.

TLDR: If someone flies the flag of a dead empire and uses it to justify violence in the present day, that empire is going to get a long, hard look by us before we might include it.

 

[sweetbrown89]

I didn't say that everything you listed was unlikely. Both times I parsed out which civs were likely, and which weren't.

And both times I used the term "speculation" to refer to that group because that was the term you coined for that group of civs.



Thank you for your insight! I do recognize that there is quite a difference between a Pagan or Toungoo empire versus the modern Burmese state. I was still unsure as to what effect including Burma at all would feel like a tacit endorsement of the current regime. Like, for example, if a historical Burma civ had a religious (+ militaristic?) playstyle, would that translate to glorifying militant Buddhism generally? Or would it not really matter much because Burma isn't a huge market and up until a couple years ago didn't even have access to Civ VI? I just don't know to what extent Firaxis would have to tightrope walk and if it would be worth the effort; and this is despite really wanting Burma in the game.

“Speculation” was used in reference to the original question pertaining to areas. So the word is literally only being used to “speculate *possible uncovered areas in terms of a dominant power in said region*”.

 

[GenyaArikado]

I want Ireland. Mostly so we cant get Liz I as dual leader

 

[Marquese Weltschmerz]

Sorry, I finally decided to register to this Forum after lurking over it for 5 years or so, now.
What moved me to this decision was that I still see lots of people asking for Italy, while it is clearly not feasible because basically Italy as a unitary state is too young and has not enough solid leaders to be picked. Can anyone suggest me a place where I could open a thread with my personal idea of how to solve the "Italy case" so that I can have feedbacks from you?
Thanks in advance for answering!

If anyone could give his/her feedbacks to this, you would be very welcome!
https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...-two-italian-based-civs.669325/#post-16075238

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I want Ireland. Mostly so we cant get Liz I as dual leader

You would have an English monarch be a dual Leader for Ireland??!! Good luck convincing any Irish people that Elizabeth I could be a Leader for them.

 

[GenyaArikado]

She is Queen of England and Ireland according to Wikipedia and idgaff about Ireland, i just want Liz

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I want Ireland. Mostly so we cant get Liz I as dual leader

There's no need for them to introduce Ireland just to get Elizabeth back.
If you want Ireland Victoria would make the most sense as a dual leader, but honestly I could care less if she did.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

There's no need for them to introduce Ireland just to get Elizabeth back.

Exactly. I'm totally fine if Elizabeth gets into Civ 7 or into Civ 6, just don't make her Leader of Ireland. She and some of her successors introduced and enforced the Plantations of Ireland, which nearly destroyed the Gaelic Culture of Ireland, so it's not going to sit well with Irish players(maybe) and History buffs including myself.

So, @GenyaArikado, how about we reach a compromise and say that Grace O'Malley can lead Ireland instead?

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Exactly. I'm totally fine if Elizabeth gets into Civ 7 or into Civ 6, just don't make her Leader of Ireland. She and some of her successors introduced and enforced the Plantations of Ireland, which nearly destroyed the Gaelic Culture of Ireland, so it's not going to sit well with Irish players(maybe) and History buffs including myself.

So, @GenyaArikado, how about we reach a compromise and say that Grace O'Malley can lead Ireland instead?

Brian Boru!

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Brian Boru!

Double Leaders for Ireland? Jokes aside, Brian Boru is also a good choice.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

For the Berbers question, some said that having them as a desert civ while already having the Mali would just be redundant, but I disagree. We already had Russia as the tundra civ, and they managed to make another tundra civ as Canada. Sure, it's gimmicky and not truly historical, but in term of gameplays they're truly fun, especially now that they are strong on tundra with the April update.

Of course, new gameplays should be founded. Russia is a "more territory, faith and trade route", civ, Canada is a "national parks, tourism and diplomacy" civ, so it was easy to make them different. Mali is the "trade/religious" desert civ, so making the Berbers another trade desert civ would truly be redundant in this case. "Building farms on desert" would just seems like a rip-off of Canada's "farms on tundra". If Berbers are a desert civ, they would need to find a truly unique gameplay so that they won't be a simple "Mali bis"

 

[Futumch]

I want Ireland. Mostly so we cant get Liz I as dual leader

Spike Milligan has a documentary up on YouTube of the old abandoned Irish moon rocket launch.

If you search on youtube for "Irish Moon Rocket" it is the first match (yes, it's black and white). That picture might give some inspiration for a special Irish version of the Spaceport.