[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Haig]

I wrote this in some other thread, but I think two big clues are that two of the packs include a new map.
We already have Far east, Europe and World maps so that leaves Americas, Africa and middle-east.

Middle east could be Pack #3 with Byzantine/Assyria/Babylon

Pack #6 could be North America with a native American civ, but my bet is it's Portugal, with a Africa map that just includes true start locations for Portugal and Spain in the north.
The pack also includes new District, so it could be some feitoria type thing for colonialism.

I think there will be no native Americans on New Frontier, so get mentally prepared for that.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It's unfortunate, but I have to agree. Civ6's Scotland is transparently Anglo-Norman, but it nevertheless seems to be intended to be "the Celtic civ." I would have preferred Ireland, but I don't think having both Ireland and Scotland makes sense. I'm still crossing my fingers for the Gauls, but with so few civ slots left I'm skeptical.

If anything I would want Wales so we could get Longbowmen.
Armagh I think also makes it unlikely due to it having a unique improvement suzerain bonus. But I guess many religious city-states could get some kind of monastery improvement.

Pack #6 could be North America with a native American civ, but my bet is it's Portugal, with a Africa map that just includes true start locations for Portugal and Spain in the north.
The pack also includes new District, so it could be some feitoria type thing for colonialism.

If we were to get an African Map I'm sure it would have been with Ethiopia, not Portugal. My bet is an Americas map for pack 6. Also it is Pack 5 that includes the new district.

 

[Haig]

If we were to get an African Map I'm sure it would have been with Ethiopia, not Portugal. My bet is an Americas map for pack 6. Also it is Pack 5 that includes the new district.

Good point.

My prediction:
Pack #3 Middle-east map with Byzantine and Babylon
Pack #4 Italy
Pack #5 Portugal and alt-leader for Netherlands, new district is East India Trading co type
Pack #6 Native america

No Vietnam this time

 

[Lord Lakely]

I feel strongly that Assyria's UI should be a tile improvement, actually :3 They had a close-knit network of trading posts called "karums", centered around the city of Kanesh. Assyria was foremost an administrative powerhouse, so a design that provides a bonus to internal trade routes (bolstered by their UI) + a CUA that allows them to expand (maybe a discount for support units? a draft system?) and a UU that facilitates said expansion (a unique Siege Tower or Catapult, or a cheaper Spearman) lays the foundation for a strong empire. That leaves room for a leader who can be builder-oriented (Sammurammat, Tilgath-Pileser), war-oriented (Sennecharib) or science-oriented (Ashurbanipal).

There. I rest my case for Assyria.(Now if someone could do the same for Babylon that would be neat too) Hire me Firaxis.

No Vietnam this time

FOUR European civs tho? Not bloody likely.

 

[Haig]

I'd like to see someone make their predictions for the packs note not wishes, but what they think we're getting

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Assyria was foremost an administrative powerhouse, so a design that provides a bonus to internal trade routes (bolstered by their UI) + a CUA that allows them to expand (maybe a discount for support units? a draft system?) and a UU that facilitates said expansion (a unique Siege Tower or Catapult, or a cheaper Spearman) lays the foundation for a strong empire.

In my design I gave them the ability for a free settler to appear every time you conquer a city. That settler would then spawn a builder unit when settling that city. I thought that was appropriate.
Also a melee Catapult replacement unlocked at Masonry feels appropriate as well. I could never find an exact term for it in Akkadian so I went with the name Siege Engine.

I'd like to see someone make their predictions for the packs note not wishes, but what they think we're getting

Mine is in my signature.

 

[blackcatatonic]

I'd like to see someone make their predictions for the packs note not wishes, but what they think we're getting

Mine's in my sig too - I even included a link to the post where I try to explain my reasoning! I'm still sure I'll be at least partly wrong though

I've revised my original prediction of another NA Civ because I actually think Maya has that covered (Central America could be considered North America for bloc geographical purposes). And 3 Euro Civs is the max we'll get.

 

[Hoppip22]

I'm curious why so many people think that Assyria is more likely than Babylon. Babylon is the only Civ that has been in every previous iteration and has not yet been implemented in Civ 6. Imo it makes the series seem more contiguous and on-brand to continue to have all of the original civilizations than to randomly have Assyria instead of Babylon because?? Also I don't think that the presence of a city-state matters at all, after all, Palenque was a city state but that didn't matter.

Also, do we know if Tibet is politically possible to include?

 

[Thormodr]

How about Paraguay? They could be fun. They are loosely a hybrid Civ with an interesting history.

Unlikely, I know, but they've always been an underdog.

I'm curious why so many people think that Assyria is more likely than Babylon. Babylon is the only Civ that has been in every previous iteration and has not yet been implemented in Civ 6. Imo it makes the series seem more contiguous and on-brand to continue to have all of the original civilizations than to randomly have Assyria instead of Babylon because?? Also I don't think that the presence of a city-state matters at all, after all, Palenque was a city state but that didn't matter.

Also, do we know if Tibet is politically possible to include?

Tibet (while awesome and I am 100% I'm favour) would never be included as the CPC would throw a hysterical hissy fit. Shame.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm curious why so many people think that Assyria is more likely than Babylon. Babylon is the only Civ that has been in every previous iteration and has not yet been implemented in Civ 6. Imo it makes the series seem more contiguous and on-brand to continue to have all of the original civilizations than to randomly have Assyria instead of Babylon because?? Also I don't think that the presence of a city-state matters at all, after all, Palenque was a city state but that didn't matter.

Also, do we know if Tibet is politically possible to include?

Several possible reasons:
Maya are the new tall science Civ.
Akkad also as a city-state is interesting because it is usually on the Babylon city list.

Personally to me I feel like Assyria would be more interesting than even a well designed Babylon. But that's just my opinion. But I wouldn't say that Assyria would be a random choice over Babylon.
Ideally we could still get both, but I'm not so sure that will happen. The only thing Babylon does have going for is it has been in every game.

 

[Haig]

How about Paraguay? They could be fun. They are loosely a hybrid Civ with an interesting history.

Unlikely, I know, but they've always been an underdog.

Leader: Solano Lopez with ability to draft, city population would go down and a new musketman unit would appear. Paraguyan War was true total war (sadly)

 

[Thormodr]

Tibet is represented in Paradox games, of which Tencent has a stake. Never say never.

That's a good point. Here's hoping.

 

[Ferocitus]

We are yet to see a civ as unique as Civ 5's Venice.
I'd like to see a leaderless civ, e.g. the Ashkenazi.

 

[Thormodr]

Leader: Solano Lopez with ability to draft, city population would go down and a new musketman unit would appear. Paraguyan War was true total war (sadly)

Yeah, the War of the Triple Alliance was truly disastrous. The previous leader, also named Lopez was an able leader. Francia, the first leader was an isolationist but did a credible job. I'd pick them over Solano Lopez. Mind you, Solano Lopez definitely had a big personality.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I wrote this in some other thread, but I think two big clues are that two of the packs include a new map.
We already have Far east, Europe and World maps so that leaves Americas, Africa and middle-east.

Middle east could be Pack #3 with Byzantine/Assyria/Babylon

Pack #6 could be North America with a native American civ, but my bet is it's Portugal, with a Africa map that just includes true start locations for Portugal and Spain in the north.
The pack also includes new District, so it could be some feitoria type thing for colonialism.

I think there will be no native Americans on New Frontier, so get mentally prepared for that.

i’m still hoping that there’s no byzantines oop

I'm curious why so many people think that Assyria is more likely than Babylon. Babylon is the only Civ that has been in every previous iteration and has not yet been implemented in Civ 6. Imo it makes the series seem more contiguous and on-brand to continue to have all of the original civilizations than to randomly have Assyria instead of Babylon because?? Also I don't think that the presence of a city-state matters at all, after all, Palenque was a city state but that didn't matter.

Also, do we know if Tibet is politically possible to include?

I think it’ll be Assyria because Assyria is less blobbed into Sumer than Babylon is and Babylon would also play less distinctly imo.

Also given that the game is lacking in science civ’s i’d rather see Assyria

 

[Grand-Admiral Thrawn]

No Chinese company has a significant stake in Take Two Interactive (parent of 2K, parent of Firaxis)

We are yet to see a civ as unique as Civ 5's Venice.
I'd like to see a leaderless civ, e.g. the Ashkenazi.

A unique civ like Venice would be fun to have, but the leader is a central part of a civ’s identity; a venice-like civ would probably be better made by distorting gameplay mechanics beyond a ‘normal’ civ

 

[Kwami]

You're missing my point and you're oversimplifying the issue with emotional hyperbole.

I guess I'm missing your point, too, then. Paradox gets away with selling games in China because Tencent owns 5% of the company. No Chinese company owns any significant part of 2K Games. Therefore, they would not get away with selling a game that featured an independent Tibet. What's so hard to understand about this?

I suppose that 2K could sell a stake in the company in order to avoid the censorship, but why bother? Is it worth selling 5% of your company just to include Tibet in a Civ game? Doubtful.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

It's unfortunate, but I have to agree. Civ6's Scotland is transparently Anglo-Norman, but it nevertheless seems to be intended to be "the Celtic civ." I would have preferred Ireland, but I don't think having both Ireland and Scotland makes sense. I'm still crossing my fingers for the Gauls, but with so few civ slots left I'm skeptical.

I agree, aesthetically Ireland would hit a lot more Celtic flavor. And it was actually the odd choice of Scotland over Ireland that made me realize the devs still had some imperialist standard in place for what constitutes an "empire" that could ludohistorically fit in as a civ, versus merely a kingdom which would only be a city-state. If it were merely about hitting Celtic flavor, or even about having a stronger history of independence, Ireland would probably have beaten Scotland out for the "Celtic" slot.

That said, if development goes on long enough, hypothetically Ireland might make it. If Scotland's global legacy is golf, the Ireland's is definitely St. Patrick's day, and I don't think there are any other civs that can claim to be the focus of a national holiday in many first and second world countries. In that respect I would place Ireland on the same global relevance as the Vatican's decentralized religious empire or Switzerland's decentralized economic empire. I highly doubt the devs will reach a point where they are considering such civs, but I do see Ireland as more likely than less globally influential kingdoms like Bohemia, Finland, or Romania.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I agree, aesthetically Ireland would hit a lot more Celtic flavor. And it was actually the odd choice of Scotland over Ireland that made me realize the devs still had some imperialist standard in place for what constitutes an "empire" that could ludohistorically fit in as a civ, versus merely a kingdom which would only be a city-state. If it were merely about hitting Celtic flavor, or even about having a stronger history of independence, Ireland would probably have beaten Scotland out for the "Celtic" slot.

That said, if development goes on long enough, hypothetically Ireland might make it. If Scotland's global legacy is golf, the Ireland's is definitely St. Patrick's day, and I don't think there are any other civs that can claim to be the focus of a national holiday in many first and second world countries. In that respect I would place Ireland on the same global relevance as the Vatican's decentralized religious empire or Switzerland's decentralized economic empire. I highly doubt the devs will reach a point where they are considering such civs, but I do see Ireland as more likely than less globally influential kingdoms like Bohemia, Finland, or Romania.

brian boru has got to be somewhat likely

 

[PhoenicianGold]

What on earth are you talking about? 2K selling a stake? Who brought that up?

My point is that logically, one may assume a game studio owned in part by a Chinese corporation would theoretically be less likely to mention or include Tibet in their games. And yet Tibet is included in Paradox games. Therefore, Tibet may not be as verboten a subject as it seems.

What Kwami is saying is that apparently the 5 percent of profits to Tencent outweighs the negative PR a Tibet makes in the game. Whereas there is no countervailing interest for 2K versus China.

Also, I think Tibet in an overall larger and less exclusive roster like EU or HoI reads less as validation than in a small roster of GOATs like Civ.