[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Thenewwwguy]

Wow, I've finished reading all 1893 posts. It was a long read...

Anyway, here are my thoughts about the last 95 pages:
If we are expecting two American, two European, one African and three Asian civs, then
1. we already know the American and African civs. (Gran Colombia, Maya, Ethiopia)
2. Europe - I wouldn't really like to see Italy and Byzantium. Italy is already represented by Rome, and the region around Byzantium is already the home of four leaders. Maybe Justinian could work as an alternate leader for Rome and/or Greece? If Italy has to get in, my idea is to have Garibaldi as the Italian leader. I agree with including Portugal, but for the other European civ, I would like to see something new. Lithuania would be a great choice, one of the largest European empires around 1400. The Ostrogoths could also work, but they are a bit close to Hungary and Rome, but would be quite a good replacement for Byzantium. Bulgaria could also work, but has similar problems to Byzantium.
3. Asia - I agree with the need for one more Mesopotamian civ, which could be Babylon/Assyria/Akkad. My guess for one of the Asian civs are the Philippines. However, I don't really feel that there is a need for a third Asian civ now, especially if we get the alternate leader in Europe. (If we don't, maybe Mongolia, but I think Genghis and Kublai would be too similar.)
4. If Asia only gets two new civs, that leaves one more. This could be a North American civ, I would prefer the Inuits (after digging really deep into Wikipedia, I found Eben Hopson as a potential leader), but a western native civ would probably be an objectively better choice.

no not garibaldi he never led italy. I’d rather see Vittorio Emmanuel II

I would advocate against a leader screem for city-states, only for a meta experience.

My personal lore of the Civ serie is that there was a certain number of Immortal Leaders that were revered by their original tribes as some sort of god or emperor, forming what are called the Civilizations. City-states are those settled tribes/peoples that didn't had the chance of having one of those Immortal Leaders, and thus having less chance to compete in the great geopolitical scheme. Having leaders for City-States and I don't understand anymore why are they city-states and what forbid them to settle more cities except an unexplainable arbitrary rule. I like to imagine my city-states with kings or senates of fleeting people living only a few decades, too little for us, Immortal Rulers, to really care about them.

i personally try to ignore the immortal leaders so i’d prefer that city states did get leaders, and that goody nuts and barbarians belonged to groups of more nomadic people.

 

[Thormodr]

These "inventions" are totally irrelevant from the perspective of this game. These are tools for a tribe that is living in arctic. It is impressive that they have been able to live in these harsh conditions, but has nothing to do with the themes of this game. First thing you do in the game is you settle a city. Inuits never settled a city or urban center that could be called city. Agriculture, written language, organised society etc. are what are usually seen as defining factors of a civilized society. I know we already have Civs that dont totally fit this criteria, but that is different discussion.

I dont understand why some people have idea that we should have the most primitive tribes (Inuit and Australian aboriginals) as civilizations in Civilization series. They simply have nothing to do with the themes of the game. Like I said it before this doesnt mean that they are "bad people" or that their way of life is "bad".

In reality tribes like twinteould be represented by the people we have in a game as "barbarians". We can agree that they should not be called that and they should represented in different way, but that is another discussion.

Irrelevant? Only due to the fact that harsh terrain does not punish you in Civ games. * In Europa Universalis, you do not want to be caught on the tundra/arctic in the winter.

*Excepting blizzards, I suppose.

Anyway, I don't expect the Inuit in the game. That would really require FX to put their thinking caps on. They'll do something easier.

They could however do a polar city state. That hasn't be done yet. Unique inukshuk improvements on tundra/snow? The return of seals as a resource?

Edit: posted before seeing mod warning. Remove if needed. Thanks .

 

[bbbt]

i personally try to ignore the immortal leaders so i’d prefer that city states did get leaders, and that goody nuts and barbarians belonged to groups of more nomadic people.

I've said this before, but my ideal would be essentially that goody huts, barbarians, city states and free cities were combined into one mechanic.

Like they all start as 'barbarians'. You could 'conquer' them for an immediate reward, trade with them for a immediate reward, do some basic diplomacy with them. After time they become a free city, which could be conquered, peacefully integrated, or left independent. The free city would become a city state with bonuses eventually, etc. Your interactions with it could in some fashion influence the type of city state it became and the bonuses it had.

 

[Hoppip22]

I'm curious if people think that they will include another 'meme civ' in this expansion.

I would argue that Georgia and Canada were memed into the game by the fandom, as neither is particularly historically relevant, but due to fan pressure were included. (plus Georgia as a unique opportunity to represent the Caucasus & female leader which I absolutely applaud)

If they follow the 'trend' of one meme civ per expansion, then might we not see another this time?

I have a dumb theory that the last DLC pack will have like some sort of mind-blowing final leader to close out the game with a bang, maybe some kind of super-unique civ like Venice or some kind of fan favorite civ that defies the odds or something... I dunno, I'm definitely overthinking this, but that's the point of the forum, right?

I guess you could argue that Gran Colombia is a meme civ, but I dunno maybe I'm biased, but I was one of the very few who actually wanted them in on the grounds that South America is under-represented and Gran Colombia was one of the few (short-lived) "empires" in the region. So under the assumption that Gran Colombia is NOT a 'meme civ', what other options are there? I don't even know how they would implement a radically unique Venice-style civ with Civ 6's emphasis on wide empires...

 

[Xandinho]

I am thinking, now that we know that Gran Colombia is receiving a unique type of great people, the "comandante general", I think there is a relatively high possibility that Portugal will receive "great explorer" or "great navigator" as a unique great people as well.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm curious if people think that they will include another 'meme civ' in this expansion.

I would argue that Georgia and Canada were memed into the game by the fandom, as neither is particularly historically relevant, but due to fan pressure were included. (plus Georgia as a unique opportunity to represent the Caucasus & female leader which I absolutely applaud)

I've seen Vietnam with the Trung Sisters talked about the most. I think they are the most probable especially since we didn't get anything from East Asia in GS.

I don't know if Canada was necessarily a meme, but just a popular mod back in Civ 5 like Kongo.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I am thinking, now that we know that Gran Colombia is receiving a unique type of great people, the "comandante general", I think there is a relatively high possibility that Portugal will receive "great explorer" or "great navigator" as a unique great people as well.

And Italy could get Great "Renaissance Men." They are good at everything (Scientist, Engineer, Writer, Artist, Musician etc).

 

[blackcatatonic]

https://civilization.com/new-frontier-pass/civilization-vi-maya-gran-columbia-pack/

At the bottom of this page:

Also includes six new City-States, two new Resources and three new Natural Wonders.

Six new City-States! I know the DLC packs can be played independently of one another, but I would find it very odd for them to add City-States that they intend to replace with full Civs in the later packs. So this could provide us with some big clues (and crush a few dreams )

 

[Txomin]

Yes clues.... for DLC Expansion Pass #2

 

[Morningcalm]

Eh, there's definitely good reason to believe Arthur existed, even if the romantic figure of Arthurian romance eclipsed the real man.

At any rate, Tomyris' historicity is dubious; I'm reasonably convinced Dido was a goddess, a female counterpart or consort of El (Elissa is a feminine form of El, and Dido simply means "beloved"--ergo Elissa Dido, "the beloved goddess"); and Gilgamesh was a historical leader whose significance was eclipsed by his legend, much like Arthur.

While scholarly debate on Arthur continues, most have found the sources that are the basis for his historical existence to have come from unreliable sources (including sources that originated centuries after Arthur was supposed to have existed). It's possible "Arthur" was based on a historical figure, but it is difficult to determine which such historical figure that is meant to be (with Gilgamesh, it is far clearer who it's based on - a king of the same name). To quote the Wikipedia entry on Arthur:

Non-specialists continue to propose a variety of theories for a possible historical identity of Arthur: Artúr mac Áedáin, a son of the 6th-century Dál Riata king Áedán mac Gabráin; Ambrosius Aurelianus, who led a Romano-British resistance against the Saxons; Lucius Artorius Castus, a 2nd-century Roman commander of Sarmatian cavalry; the British king Riothamus, who fought alongside the last Gallo-Roman commanders against the Visigoths in an expedition to Gaul in the 5th century; or a composite of any of these people as well as other figures and myths. Academic historians have not supported these hypotheses in the 21st century.

So I don't agree that there is "definitely good reason" to believe Arthur (whoever "Arthur" is) existed. Dido is IMO more likely to have existed than Arthur, as she appears in Menander of Ephesus's list of the kings of Tyre and other members of her family (Pygmalion, for example) are mentioned in several other sources that attest to their existence. (That said, I wouldn't mind Hannibal replacing her as Carthage's leader in future.)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

https://civilization.com/new-frontier-pass/civilization-vi-maya-gran-columbia-pack/

At the bottom of this page:



Six new City-States! I know the DLC packs can be played independently of one another, but I would find it very odd for them to add City-States that they intend to replace with full Civs in the later packs. So this could provide us with some big clues (and crush a few dreams )

If I'm reading this correctly then Pack 4 has to probably be European focused or Babylon? Either way it's only one Civ in that pack.

So appeasing the Gods is by sending units to get killed by Volcanoes apparently?

 

[blackcatatonic]

If I'm reading this correctly then Pack 4 has to probably be European focused or Babylon? Either way it's only one Civ in that pack.

Sorry, not sure I follow. Can you explain it like I'm 5?

 

[Zaarin]

I would argue that Georgia and Canada were memed into the game by the fandom, as neither is particularly historically relevant

You might want to brush up on your history of the Caucasus if you think Georgia's not historically relevant.

While scholarly debate on Arthur continues, most have found the sources that are the basis for his historical existence to have come from unreliable sources (including sources that originated centuries after Arthur was supposed to have existed). It's possible "Arthur" was based on a historical figure, but it is difficult to determine which such historical figure that is meant to be

I didn't say he was someone important. I said he was less important than his legend.

Dido is IMO more likely to have existed than Arthur

Like I said, her name is literally "the beloved goddess"; I'm reasonably convinced that she was Tannit or Astart/Asherah. That doesn't entirely rule out that it was a theophoric name, but it sounds a lot more like the epithet of a god.

 

[Morningcalm]

I didn't say he was someone important. I said he was less important than his legend.

Like I said, her name is literally "the beloved goddess"; I'm reasonably convinced that she was Tannit or Astart/Asherah. That doesn't entirely rule out that it was a theophoric name, but it sounds a lot more like the epithet of a god.

And I didn't say Arthur was important or unimportant, so I'm puzzled as to why you used the word "important" to characterize my opinions on Arthur's historicity. I said we don't know which individual "Arthur" is meant to be. With Gilgamesh and Dido it's pretty clear, even without the Epic of Gilgamesh and Aeneid.

Many rulers had names related to the gods, so I see that as neither here nor there, especially without evidence that Dido actually was intended to reference a god more than an individual queen who fled her brother Pygmalion to found a colony.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Sorry, not sure I follow. Can you explain it like I'm 5?

I might be reading it wrong. Pack 4 is the only other one with coming with new city-states. If we are getting 6 city-states in Pack 1 it will be Palenque's replacement plus another set of 5.
So I would assume we would only get one more Civ in the pass that would need a city state replaced. The most likely candidate is either Babylon or Portugal/Byzantines if they use Antioch, Italy etc.

 

[Zaarin]

Many rulers had names related to the gods, so I see that as neither here nor there, especially without evidence that Dido actually was intended to reference a god more than an individual queen who fled her brother Pygmalion to found a colony.

It doesn't look like other Canaanite theophoric names. I don't know of any Canaanite or Jewish name that means anything like "beloved of [Divine Name]"; that's a very Indo-European thing. "[Divine Name], favor me" is a pretty common one (see: Ḥannibaʿal, "Baal, favor me"), but the only direct analogy I can think of is Dāwīd, the implication of which is "beloved of his people" not "beloved of a god." A hypothetical ʾilissot Dīdot looks much more like an epithet of a goddess than a theophoric name; take it from someone who's stared at a lot of Canaanite names.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

It doesn't look like other Canaanite theophoric names. I don't know of any Canaanite or Jewish name that means anything like "beloved of [Divine Name]"; that's a very Indo-European thing. "[Divine Name], favor me" is a pretty common one (see: Ḥannibaʿal, "Baal, favor me"), but the only direct analogy I can think of is Dāwīd, the implication of which is "beloved of his people" not "beloved of a god." A hypothetical ʾilissot Dīdot looks much more like an epithet of a goddess than a theophoric name; take it from someone who's stared at a lot of Canaanite names.

With most ancient western civilizations it wasn’t uncommon for real figures to become deified, so I wouldn’t be surprised if Dido did exist and then her myth preceded her

 

[Morningcalm]

It doesn't look like other Canaanite theophoric names. I don't know of any Canaanite or Jewish name that means anything like "beloved of [Divine Name]"; that's a very Indo-European thing. "[Divine Name], favor me" is a pretty common one (see: Ḥannibaʿal, "Baal, favor me"), the only direct analogy I can think of is Dāwīd, the implication of which is "beloved of his people" not "beloved of a god." A hypothetical ʾilissot Dīdot looks much more like an epithet of a goddess than a theophoric name; take it from someone who's stared at a lot of Canaanite names.

Even if her name specifically refers to a god, the name in and of itself isn't sufficient evidence that she wasn't a real person. As pointed out by M.E. Aubert, "there are too many coincidences between the eastern and the classical sources to allow us to think that the story of Elissa [Dido] had no historical basis". As to the godly name itself, Wikipedia's entry on her provides "It was a common ancient practice of using the hypocoristicon or shortened form of the name that included only the divine element...." Per Ancient History Encyclopedia's entry on Dido, "Some Roman writers suggest that Dido was deified, but there is no archaeological evidence from the Carthaginians themselves that this was so."

 

[DJ_Tanner]

I'm curious if people think that they will include another 'meme civ' in this expansion.

I would argue that Georgia and Canada were memed into the game by the fandom, as neither is particularly historically relevant, but due to fan pressure were included. (plus Georgia as a unique opportunity to represent the Caucasus & female leader which I absolutely applaud)

If they follow the 'trend' of one meme civ per expansion, then might we not see another this time?

I have a dumb theory that the last DLC pack will have like some sort of mind-blowing final leader to close out the game with a bang, maybe some kind of super-unique civ like Venice or some kind of fan favorite civ that defies the odds or something... I dunno, I'm definitely overthinking this, but that's the point of the forum, right?

I guess you could argue that Gran Colombia is a meme civ, but I dunno maybe I'm biased, but I was one of the very few who actually wanted them in on the grounds that South America is under-represented and Gran Colombia was one of the few (short-lived) "empires" in the region. So under the assumption that Gran Colombia is NOT a 'meme civ', what other options are there? I don't even know how they would implement a radically unique Venice-style civ with Civ 6's emphasis on wide empires...

What are you talking about both are historically relevant. And I don't get this idea of "fan pressure", like it is somehow a bad thing that the devs made something the players wanted. HOW DARE THEY!!!

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Fan pressure is what got very worthy civs like Indonesia and Kongo in the game, not to mention regional powerhouses like Georgia, and interesting civs like GC