[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[qadams]

Just as an aside, I'm continually amazed — and impressed — at the level of scholarship shown by so many Civ fanatics in these threads. It's like a college-level course in history, for FREE!

 

[cain3456]

If this has already been answered, sorry but I'm not wading thru 72 pages.

Will we still have the option to use old Teddy & Catherine if we get the exclusive persona packs? Spymistress Catherine is cool enough, no need to turn her into Eleanor, who should never have been added anyway

 

[Thenewwwguy]

If this has already been answered, sorry but I'm not wading thru 72 pages.

Will we still have the option to use old Teddy & Catherine if we get the exclusive persona packs? Spymistress Catherine is cool enough, no need to turn her into Eleanor, who should never have been added anyway

yes, the new versions are like alt leaders

i wonder if we’ll get first looks at them?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Precisely - they do so because there is a need to differentiate the two: they are distinct entities. This is the point I was making in response to a suggestion that Gran Colombia represented Colombian achievements, not just those of the short-lived entity itself.

I agree but my point was I don't see a need to call it Venezuela when both Venezuela and Colombia will be represented by Gran Colombia.

Irrespective of the separation in geography, time, ruling dynasties and polities in India, there has been a continuum of culture and civilisation all across India. Also there are always going to be limited spots for playable civs in any Civilization game. Consequently, as an Indian and contrary to the prevailing sentiments repeatedly expressed on this forum, I believe the best way to depict India is as Civ6 has done it. A 'blob' civ with multiple leaders representing different time periods and different regions within Indian history. If Greece and France can have three leaders each (counting Alexander and the new persona of Catherine respectively), then India can easily have a third leader from any of the aforementioned empires ( I would also add the Marathas and Vijayangara to this list.) Some 'blobs' are desirable 'blobs', India and China are such.

I agree. Even if in Civ VII they broke up the 'blob' Civ I'm sure we would still have Gandhi leading a Civ called India even if a separate Ashoka lead the Maurya and Akbar lead the Mughals.

 

[Zaarin]

This among other things makes me think Georgia is treading on a lot of Byzantium's design space. I mean yeah we can zhuzh it up with a bunch of dangly pearls but would Theodora or Irene end up feeling that different aesthetically and personality-wise from Tamar? (and yes I do still think that Byzantium is one of those civs that Firaxis will choose a female leader for, if only for the dearth of equivalents in many other civ's histories).

TBH I don't think Byzantium would necessarily have a female leader, and Alexios I Komnenos would look very different from Tamar.

I don't think Georgia has a unique building set.

Which is a crime, because it should.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

TBH I don't think Byzantium would necessarily have a female leader, and Alexios I Komnenos would look very different from Tamar.

Everyone will be so disappointed when Justinian appears, except me.
At least the recent tweets make him seem likely.

 

[Zaarin]

Everyone will be so disappointed when Justinian appears, except me.

Justinian and Theodora are welcome to show up again in Civ12 and not an iteration sooner.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I agree but my point was I don't see a need to call it Venezuela when both Venezuela and Colombia will be represented by Gran Colombia.


I agree. Even if in Civ VII they broke up the 'blob' Civ I'm sure we would still have Gandhi leading a Civ called India even if a separate Ashoka lead the Maurya and Akbar lead the Mughals.

to be fair, it would be hard to find a india civ cities if the maurya, mughals and chola were all in it.

90% of modern indian cities are either ancient cities from the maurya, medieval cities from the chola, renaissance cities from the mughals or modern cities from the english

only the english cities would be available if you put in a republic of india civ after those three

and even if you didn’t include the chola, then the city list would only be representative of south india

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

to be fair, it would be hard to find a india civ cities if the maurya, mughals and chola were all in it.

90% of modern indian cities are either ancient cities from the maurya, medieval cities from the chola, renaissance cities from the mughals or modern cities from the english

That's why I've never expected the Mughals to appear as a separate Civ. The city list is the big problem. The difference with Macedon and Greece is well there are a lot of cities that Alexander named after himself and it worked. I guess they could always use different names like Mumbai and Bombay, but I'm not that knowledgeable to know how many different variations of the cities they could come up with.

Then again who would want to play an India with bonuses from 1945 onward as Gandhi? Because we know he's here to stay along with Alexander, Shaka and Genghis.

 

[PhilBowles]

TBH I don't think Byzantium would necessarily have a female leader, and Alexios I Komnenos would look very different from Tamar.


Which is a crime, because it should.

I really wish they made more building sets (and ideally with unique city models for each capital and city-state containing characteristic architecture for that city), as well as better-characterising the units - I haven't played for a while, but if I recall correctly it was only in the last major update that non-European civs got ethnically appropriate models for some units. We don't need the borderline-racism of Civ IV portraying Asian units with literally yellow skin, but a comparable level of diversity in unit models would be appreciated.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

If this has already been answered, sorry but I'm not wading thru 72 pages.

Will we still have the option to use old Teddy & Catherine if we get the exclusive persona packs? Spymistress Catherine is cool enough, no need to turn her into Eleanor, who should never have been added anyway

Eleanor is a good addition to the game. Having a way to win a domination victory without declaring war once is really a fun gameplay. But you have to like originality to find Eleanor interesting.

For me, I had (and still have) troubles to appreciate Catherine. I mean, yes, she meddled in some intrigue, but to be fair, everybody does at that point. CdM was better known for her religious views than her intrigues. Every queen did that at this time. No, if you wanted a French leader with a spies and gossip affinity and ability, you should have gone to Louis XI (the universal spider that had truly a wonderful spy system) or Richelieu (big red hat and a much better intrigue than CdM).

But to answer your question: I think the new persona will be optional. And if you don't want them: don't buy the season pass, buy just each pack as they come, it will only costs you 2$ more than buyiung the pass.

 

[Zaarin]

Then again who would want to play an India with bonuses from 1945 onward as Gandhi? Because we know he's here to stay along with Alexander, Shaka and Genghis.

You forgot Monty (and let's be honest: that time Firaxis included the second of his name was probably an accident or lazy research). I'd love to see Gandhi retired, but the others can stay (though I'd love to see the Maya in the base game and the Aztec as an expansion civ for a change).

I really wish they made more building sets, as well as better-characterising the units - I haven't played for a while, but if I recall correctly it was only in the last major update that non-European civs got ethnically appropriate models for some units. We don't need the borderline-racism of Civ IV portraying Asian units with literally yellow skin, but a comparable level of diversity in unit models would be appreciated.

100% agree. GS made some good steps forward in that regard, but they could go further.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

That's why I've never expected the Mughals to appear as a separate Civ. The city list is the big problem. The difference with Macedon and Greece is well there are a lot of cities that Alexander named after himself and it worked. I guess they could always use different names like Mumbai and Bombay, but I'm not that knowledgeable to know how many different variations of the cities they could come up with.

Then again who would want to play an India with bonuses from 1945 onward as Gandhi? Because we know he's here to stay along with Alexander, Shaka and Genghis.

my preference is that india is replaced by mughals, maurya and chola.

knowing that the maurya are alt leaders rn and the mughals are impractical, the only civ that you could add to the subcontinent in civ 6 realistically is the chola, cuz you’d only have to remove Thanjavur i think.

 

[Morningcalm]

Just as an aside, I'm continually amazed — and impressed — at the level of scholarship shown by so many Civ fanatics in these threads. It's like a college-level course in history, for FREE!

Google Books is a big help, as is the Google search engine! Just gotta remove the bad sources and stick to the good ones and one can find a lot, like a cool Korean, Maya or Palmyran ruler worthy of suggesting to Firaxis.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

You forgot Monty (and let's be honest: that time Firaxis included the second of his name was probably an accident or lazy research).

Well that's the only reason I didn't say Montezuma. Because, accident or not, they were different.

But to answer your question: I think the new persona will be optional. And if you don't want them: don't buy the season pass, buy just each pack as they come, it will only costs you 2$ more than buyiung the pass.

I still don't know how I feel about this but I want to see "Rough Rider" Teddy in my game and Catherine "the Magnificence" sounds like the France playstyle I've wanted since Vanilla version, even though it's not Louis XIV.

 

[PhilBowles]

Eleanor is a good addition to the game. Having a way to win a domination victory without declaring war once is really a fun gameplay. But you have to like originality to find Eleanor interesting.

For me, I had (and still have) troubles to appreciate Catherine. I mean, yes, she meddled in some intrigue, but to be fair, everybody does at that point. CdM was better known for her religious views than her intrigues. Every queen did that at this time. No, if you wanted a French leader with a spies and gossip affinity and ability, you should have gone to Louis XI (the universal spider that had truly a wonderful spy system) or Richelieu (big red hat and a much better intrigue than CdM).

Catherine just wasn't a good choice. If they wanted to take that route with the French, Richelieu would indeed have been a better option.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Catherine just wasn't a good choice. If they wanted to take that route with the French, Richelieu would indeed have been a better option.

catherine is boring. charlemagne, robespierre or clovis would’ve been more interesting

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: This thread is about the New Frontier Pass. It is not about reviewing Civ6 leader choices that already exist and are not going to change. If you wish to have this discussion, please start another thread. If it is to be a historical discussion, please take it to the History forum. Return to the thread topic. Thanks.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

ok so firaxis if you read this thread please add the chola as one of the new frontier civs

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

ok so firaxis if you read this thread please add the chola as one of the new frontier civs

Even though the last ones are 10 months out, I'm pretty sure they've already picked which civs they're selling.