[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Zaarin]

I mean civilization in game just means playable faction.

Perhaps, but the term becomes rather meaningless if we don't place some limits on it (on the opposite end of the spectrum this is also why I argue against the Inuit, the Aboriginal Australians, and so forth).

In the same vein maybe we shouldn't of always had America because America is just a branch of England?

I'm actually okay with America and Brazil because I feel like they've become something different from their mother country; Americans were, in fact, already very culturally different from the English in England by the time of the Revolution. While my personal preference would be to have few or no leaders/civs more recent than the 17th century, I think there are reasonable arguments for including America and Brazil that don't apply to Australia and only apply marginally at best to Canada. Of all the civs in Civ6 I think Australia is the hardest to justify (followed very closely by Scotland in its current design, albeit not Scotland ipso facto).

 

[Linklite]

Of all the civs in Civ6 I think Australia is the hardest to justify (followed very closely by Scotland in its current design, albeit not Scotland ipso facto).

I can't agree there. I mean, Australia is pretty low in the list for inclusion, but Scotland takes the prize. What really makes the English is the British Empire. Really, the English should be renamed the British and scrap Scotland. I mean, the English didn't have redcoats before it joined with Scotland for form the UK, and yet, the English civ is very much post union. I'd much rather have the British and the Australians than the English and the Scottish. Heck, I'd be down for pointing out that technically England merged into Scotland, so using that as an excuse for getting rid of the English and just having the Scottish

As you can tell, it's a bugbear of mine that we have the Scottish and the English...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm actually okay with America and Brazil because I feel like they've become something different from their mother country; Americans were, in fact, already very culturally different from the English in England by the time of the Revolution. While my personal preference would be to have few or no leaders/civs more recent than the 17th century, I think there are reasonable arguments for including America and Brazil that don't apply to Australia and only apply marginally at best to Canada. Of all the civs in Civ6 I think Australia is the hardest to justify (followed very closely by Scotland in its current design, albeit not Scotland ipso facto).

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then.
I see Australia as the same as Brazil. Both are respectfully the regional power of their region today (South America and Oceania). The only thing that Brazil does have over Australia is it is the only other Portuguese speaking nation, besides Portugal, to reasonably get in the game.

Plus Australia has at least hosted the Summer Olympics too which seems to mean automatic inclusion.

I can't agree there. I mean, Australia is pretty low in the list for inclusion, but Scotland takes the prize. What really makes the English is the British Empire. Really, the English should be renamed the British and scrap Scotland. I mean, the English didn't have redcoats before it joined with Scotland for form the UK, and yet, the English civ is very much post union. I'd much rather have the British and the Australians than the English and the Scottish. Heck, I'd be down for pointing out that technically England merged into Scotland, so using that as an excuse for getting rid of the English and just having the Scottish

I'd agree except at least GS made England less British with the introduction of Eleanor of Aquitaine. Though I guess it sort of made them more French.

I wouldn't mind Scotland if it was more Scottish and less British though at the same time.

 

[Linklite]

I'd agree except at least GS made England less British with the introduction of Eleanor of Aquitaine. Though I guess it sort of made them more French.

I wouldn't mind Scotland if it was more Scottish and less British though at the same time.

I mean you're right with Eleanor, but it's kind of the issue. They kind of go from French to what essentially becomes British in nature. The English aspect is pretty brief (mostly because it assumed the dominant role of the British, it largely becomes interchangeable, the results of which we see today where the English complain that they don't have a separate identity from Britain, unlike the other three home countries). I do think Eleanor is actually English (despite being French), but still, I think that civ is more British with a proto British leader more than English with a post-English leader, if that makes sense. Their civ ability only really makes sense in the context of the British Empire, not pre-union England.

Scotland...I don't even know how to fix them. Get rid of golf courses and replace it with something pre-union at least.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I mean you're right with Eleanor, but it's kind of the issue. They kind of go from French to what essentially becomes British in nature. The English aspect is pretty brief (mostly because it assumed the dominant role of the British, it largely becomes interchangeable, the results of which we see today where the English complain that they don't have a separate identity from Britain, unlike the other three home countries). I do think Eleanor is actually English (despite being French), but still, I think that civ is more British with a proto British leader more than English with a post-English leader, if that makes sense. Their civ ability only really makes sense in the context of the British Empire, not pre-union England.

True. The Sea Dog also helps balance it out with it being from Tudor England, even though it's not the greatest UU in the game. It still is definitely half and half with Eleanor, but basically a British civ with Victoria.

Scotland...I don't even know how to fix them. Get rid of golf courses and replace it with something pre-union at least.

My main problem with Scotland is actually the pre-union ability of Robert the Bruce not being good enough. They could also have given him a man at arms or pikemen UU.

The golf course is fine. Now that we have unique improvements that can be built in other civs territories, the Feitoria, I would like Scotland to be able to that with their golf course. In addition golf courses in your territory gain +1 culture for every foreign civ that has a golf course, with the culture granting tourism at flight.

I'd also redesign the Highlander by making them look less like the British regiments and let them be unlocked earlier.

 

[Leucarum]

Civilizations and nation-states aren't the same thing, though, and most nation-states that have been included are already part of a civilization that's in the game.

Well at some point a nation state would become distinctive enough to be considered its own civilization (or mixture of civilizations) so presumably it's a personal judgement call as for where the line becomes drawn...

This is the clinching point. Australia wasn't included because it's a civilization; Australia was included because Australian dollars.

And yeah, this is ultimately why we'll see them. People do enjoy playing their 'home' civ. So, maybe best to hope that civ finds good gameplay niches for them. In the case of post colonial civs I'd say they succeeded for Canada more so than Australia. The USA's design space is all over the place from iteration to iteration, but it usually makes sense. Brazil and Gran Colombia both got some relatively interesting design space. Though given current levels of deforestation Brazil's ability is pretty ironic.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And yeah, this is ultimately why we'll see them. People do enjoy playing their 'home' civ. So, maybe best to hope that civ finds good gameplay niches for them. In the case of post colonial civs I'd say they succeeded for Canada more so than Australia. The USA's design space is all over the place from iteration to iteration, but it usually makes sense. Brazil and Gran Colombia both got some relatively interesting design space. Though given current levels of deforestation Brazil's ability is pretty ironic.

I feel the opposite. I feel that Australia overall is better designed than Canada. Sure Canada does have the tundra farming niche but that isn't really an accurate portrayal of them, unlike Australia who wants to mainly settle on the coast instead of inland until you are able to get Outback Stations and then survive in the harsh desert.

 

[Zaarin]

What really makes the English is the British Empire. Really, the English should be renamed the British and scrap Scotland.

I take the opposite stance: the English need to be made more English and less British. Bring back Lizzie, make England a culture-and-mercantile turtle civ. The problem in Civ6 is that the English are very British and the Scottish are very British and the Australians are very British and the Canadians are somewhat British and...

I think an interesting Scottish civ could be designed, but 1) it's not what we got and 2) IMO it should have been a lower priority than Ireland or even Wales. The problem with Scotland is that it's always been a hodgepodge of Gaelic, English, Norse, and Norman culture that doesn't really have a clear niche to fill.

Well at some point a nation state would become distinctive enough to be considered its own civilization (or mixture of civilizations) so presumably it's a personal judgement call as for where the line becomes drawn...

Sure--Well, maybe. Nation-states are such a novel concept that I wouldn't be too quick to make sweeping statements about them. They can develop into their own civilizations, let's say. By my judgment, Australia isn't there by a longshot, and Canada's an edge case.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Sure--Well, maybe. Nation-states are such a novel concept that I wouldn't be too quick to make sweeping statements about them. They can develop into their own civilizations, let's say. By my judgment, Australia isn't there by a longshot, and Canada's an edge case.

Well it could have been New Zealand with an Aboriginal civ for Oceania.
Instead we got Australia and the Maori. In that case I'm glad it was at least the latter.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

My guess is 58 civs in Civ7:
Europe (2 more than Civ6)
North America (2 more than Civ6)
South America (1 more than Civ6)
Mesoamerica/Caribbean/Central America (the same number of civs as Civ6)
East Asian (1 more than Civ6 )
Middle east (1 more than Civ6)
Africa (1 more than Civ6)
Oceania (the same number of civs as Civ6)

Those guesses can be different if they decide to split India, though.

Can we already start to speculate?

i’m praying that after the amount of attention we’ve drawn to india on this discussion board, if not CivFanatics as a whole, they’ll at least consider it...

@firaxis Chola pls

 

[Zaarin]

Well it could have been New Zealand with an Aboriginal civ for Oceania.
Instead we got Australia and the Maori. In that case I'm glad it was at least the latter.

Or, you know, we could have left it at the Maori.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Or, you know, we could have left it at the Maori.

Well some of us like Australia.
At least now you can disable him if you want, and still have Uluru show up.

 

[Zaarin]

Well some of us like Australia.

On paper it looks like a nice civ ability; I wouldn't know in practice because didgeridoos. I just wish they'd given the design to someone else. Actually it might work pretty well for a PNW civ--earlier I suggested, in this thread I think, having a PNW civ's districts restricted to Coast-adjacent, and Australia's civ ability would add a nice incentive for doing so.

 

[Xandinho]

Seems like we have.
Here is my conspiracy theories:
American Staples: America, Aztec, Brazil, Inca, Maya. Returnees from previous game: Iroquois as geographically close to Canada's start. New: Argentina, Haiti, Muisca, (replaces Canada, Gran Colombia, and Mapuche), and another western "horse raider" such as Navajo/Apache or Comanche.

Central/South/East Asia Staples: China, Japan, Korea, Mongolia, India, Indonesia. Returnees: Vietnam, and either Siam or Khmer or both if Burma doesn't make it. New: Mughals (separate from India centered more around Afghanistan/Pakistan), Burma/Tibet?

Middle East: Arabia, Babylon, Carthage/Phoenicia, Persia, Ottomans. Returnees: Assyria/Sumer or both. New: Parthia and Armenia (as Scythia and Georgia replacements)?

Europe Staples: at least England, France, Germany, Greece, Russia, Rome in base game. Duh. Dutch, Byzantium, Poland, Portugal and Sweden in DLC/expansions. Maybe Spain if not in Vanilla. Returnees: Norway/Denmark for Vikings. New: Ireland (Celts), Some form of Italy, Goths (Classical Era), Franks (if Alexander can have his own civ why not Charlemagne?), Romania if Austria/Hungary don't make it.

Africa Staples: Egypt, Ethiopia (maybe Classical Era inspired over Nubia), Zulu. Returnees: Mali or Songhai, possibly Morocco. New: Berbers if no Morocco, Angola (over Kongo), something more modern instead of Ethiopia like Nigeria or South Africa?

Oceania: Australia, Maori, Hawaii/Tonga/Samoa (as the seafaring Polynesians)

I think I maybe got to about 57 so add in another wildcard somewhere for 58.

My speculations:

Europe (2 more than Civ6)
Returned ones from Civ6: Byzantine, Dutch, English, French, Gaul, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Macedon, Poland, Portugal, Rome, Russia, Spain and Sweden.
Replacements: Denmark (in the place of Norway) and Ireland (in the place of Scotland).
New ones: Austria (I think they will be back in Civ7, but I don't think they will replace Hungary) and Venice (or other form of Italian representation).

North America (2 more than Civ6)
Returned ones from Civ6: America and Canada (yeah, I think there is a high possibility that Canada will be back in Civ6, it's a typical diplomatic passifist civ and tundra meme).
Replacements: Iroquois (in the place of Cree).
New ones: Navajo and Cherokee.

South America (1 more than Civ6)
Returned ones from Civ6: Brazil, Gran Colombia (GC was a very demanded civ and it has presented the game to many Latin players, I don't see them abandoning Simon Bolivar in Civ7) and Inca.
Replacements: Argentina (in the place of Mapuche).
New one: Muisca (although Guarani is likely as well, either as a replacement for Mapuche or a new one).

Mesoamerica/Caribbean/Central America (same as Civ6)
Returned ones from Civ6: Aztec and Maya.
There is a chance for Haiti, but I personally don't think that is very likely.

East and South Asian (1 more than Civ6 )
Returned ones from Civ6: China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Khmer, Korea and Vietnam.
New one: Siam (I'm betting on industrial or renascentist Siam. I don't think a Mughal civ will happen in Civ7, but they can add multiplus Indian leaders).

Middle east and Central Asian (1 more than Civ6)
Returned ones from Civ6: Arabia, Babylon, Carthage/Phoenicia, Persia, Ottomans.
Replacements: Parthia (in the place of Scythia) and Assyria (in the place of Sumer).
New one: Hittites.

Africa (1 more than Civ6)
Returned ones from Civ6: Egypt, Ethiopia, Mali and Zulu.
Replacements: Morocco or Berber (in the place of Nubia) and Ngola (in the place of Kongo).
New one: Ashanti (Madagascar is also likely).

Oceania (same as Civ6)
Returned ones from Civ6: Australia.
Replacements: Hawaii (in the place of Maori).
There is a chance they can add one more in Oceania, so the set would be: Australia (mainly for TSL reasons and marketing), Hawaii (a new flavor) and Maori (a fan favorite in Civ6).

Overall, my set of civs for Civ7 is very similar to Civ6.

I'm actually okay with America and Brazil because I feel like they've become something different from their mother country; Americans were, in fact, already very culturally different from the English in England by the time of the Revolution. While my personal preference would be to have few or no leaders/civs more recent than the 17th century, I think there are reasonable arguments for including America and Brazil that don't apply to Australia and only apply marginally at best to Canada. Of all the civs in Civ6 I think Australia is the hardest to justify (followed very closely by Scotland in its current design, albeit not Scotland ipso facto).

Can we consider (Gran) Colombia culturally distinct enough from Spain? I think so.

 

[Zaarin]

Can we consider (Gran) Colombia culturally distinct enough from Spain? I think so.

I didn't mention it because I'm not familiar enough to say.

 

[Birch617]

Can we consider (Gran) Colombia culturally distinct enough from Spain? I think so.

From my personal experience of been Colombian :V, i do think we are very distinct from Spain, of course the influence is there as any latino country, but we were also influence alot by both our indigenous ancestor and the black slaves that arrived in the territory, of course the indigenous ancestry varies for every region, if we were to talk about the Cundiboyacense area, where the capital is, the Muisca were the most influential, as we even to this day use some muisca words like Cuca and Cucho in our normal vocabulary and a lot of towns from the area have native name (Gachanzipa, Tocanzipa, Funza, Ibague; even Bogota its like a spanification of Bacata).
Besides the Spaniard influence, Germans also had a lot of influence in areas like Cundinamarca, Santander and Valle del Cauca, introducing things like the accordion, which is very typical in Vallenato music (which also uses african percussion and native instruments), also while reading for my classes (i'm a student of Art History) there records of the influence of Moriscos (Moorish people that converted to Catholicism) and Sephardic Jews that were kick out to the Nueva Granada (Colombia).

I cannot talk that much about Venezuela and Ecuador, the most i can tell you is that Venezuela had more Italian and Portuguese influence

 

[Zaarin]

Sephardic Jews that were kick out to the Nueva Granada

I just finished writing a paper on Jews in the American colonies, most of whom were Sephardic refugees from Dutch Brazil (in contrast to the modern United States where most of our Jews are Ashkenazim). It was an interesting topic.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I just finished writing a paper on Jews in the American colonies, most of whom were Sephardic refugees from Dutch Brazil (in contrast to the modern United States where most of our Jews are Ashkenazim). It was an interesting topic.

Incidentally, I was watching about Sephardic Jews in the Americas from Extra History. While they have some... odd hot takes when it comes to gaming, their history series is something I can enjoy for the most part.

 

[Yudhisthira]

Since we r talking about Jews, Is there any chance of them getting representation in Civ 7 or should we wait I guess forever.

 

[Jeppetto]

I mean there's Jerusalem, that's at least some representation, there are such that don't even get that. And I think it will return in Civ 7 too, given that it's hard not to represent one of most important Holy Cities. Then again, it took them some time to bring Vatican City. I don't know where Mekka would stand in this.