[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Zaarin]

i think we need maybe 1 other besides the US and Brazil and Australia is better than Canada in my opinion given geographical diversity and more to separate it. If Firaxis really wants post-colonials in the future, I’d rather have Australia than Canada or even Brazil, tbh

Laurier is kind of charming and makes a good ally, plus Canada's music (minus the national anthem) is fantastic so I don't begrudge Canada as much as I might. I've just sort of resigned myself to the inevitability of Brazil, even if Pedro in-game is pure evil.

Colombia is one which i’m genuinely looking forward to.

I'm curious about them. What we've seen of them so far looks interesting.

Ah - I'm looking at my civ spreadsheet in another window and I'd already tagged Babylon and Byzantium as coming in these new DLCs. I was editing it last night before I hit the sack. My mistake.

I need more coffee : )

I hope your spreadsheet is right.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Can I be honest and say I hope Byzantium isn’t in?

Gran Colombia is ofc pretty historically irrelevant, but a outright Colombia civ (still led by bolivar) would be more interesting in future games. I hope it’s not a civ that they just throw away. I’d almost rather have it than Brazil because at this point Brazil is boring.

and while Canada in game seems interesting, they feel like a civ designed to be Switzerland. I’d rather see Australia over Canada in the future, as I said before

 

[SirMediocrity]

Can I be honest and say I hope Byzantium isn’t in?

Gran Colombia is ofc pretty historically irrelevant, but a outright Colombia civ (still led by bolivar) would be more interesting in future games. I hope it’s not a civ that they just throw away. I’d almost rather have it than Brazil because at this point Brazil is boring.

and while Canada in game seems interesting, they feel like a civ designed to be Switzerland. I’d rather see Australia over Canada in the future, as I said before

I think you're mischaracterizing what it means for a nation to be historically relevant. A nation (or an empire) can exist for a short period time and still be extremely relevant (i.e. Macedon and Mongolia, among others)

Also, my mother is from Brazil so I think what you just said constitutes a "your momma" joke.

 

[Zaarin]

Can I be honest and say I hope Byzantium isn’t in?

I'm torn because leaving out one of the most important civilizations in history and probably the most important civilization in Medieval Europe feels wrong--but we already have three Greek civs and five Greek leaders, plus one more if you consider that Rome was heavily Hellenized.

and while Canada in game seems interesting, they feel like a civ designed to be Switzerland. I’d rather see Australia over Canada in the future, as I said before

I don't feel the need for either of them. If we must have postcolonial nations, let's leave it at one Anglophone (USA), one Lusophone (Brazil), and one Hispanophone (be it Gran Colombia or Argentina or whatever).

 

[CivLuvah]

"The Years the Rice-Paddies were Watered with Blood," was the translated titled of a book I read in sociology class in college (which you'd NEVER know was needed course to be a SOCIAL worker ). I can't remember the author's name - I think the surname was Zhu (not very helpful, I know). It was not just based on Imperial Chinese records, but archaeological studies in sites of former villages utterly destroyed by Kublai Khan's invasion of the Southern Song, as well as the Mongols' own recorded boasts, and witness who were from (and returned to) Vietnam, Japan, Thailand, Burma, and such.
...

I'm sure you must be far better educated and learned on the issue that a Chinese professor and scholar of Chinese Medieval History who has devoted his life to the topic, and has read these old texts (and is fluent in the languages they're written in), and has personally gone to these archaeological sites. Forgive a petulant mortal for doubting the All-Knowing One on the Mountain.

I couldn't search for the source myself on Google. Granted, I can't read Chinese, but if it was translated it would have appeared on the first result. How can one trust a source if one can't find in with a simple Google search? Anyway, what you described was conquest, not genocide. He didn't target those civilians much less planned it because he was busy making war. If we extend that as a definition of genocide then that means all wars of conquests are genocidal, which is ludicrous.

Hitler and Stalin killed a much smaller percentage of the population of the nations they controlled and conquered, by far, than the Mongols did in the Southern Song. That point is ludicrous.

Yes, but the analogy is flawed because you're comparing an area of sparse population to areas of relatively dense population. Obviously Kublai Khan killed more people because there were less people back then.

Quibbling over terminology is why the Rwandan and Armenian Genocides are not universally recognized by all nations as such (including, ironically enough, Israel not recognizing the Armenian Genocide as a genocide). I'm not going to engage in such a distasteful distraction.

Defining things is important, it's not a distraction. It makes things clear cut. Or else you'll just end up making ludicrous points like the one you made about Kublai Khan. In fact, from what I read about genocide denial, not defining what genocide is a step that can lead to genocide denial because one can twist the definition to suit whatever power interests one has.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I think you're mischaracterizing what it means for a nation to be historically relevant. A nation (or an empire) can exist for a short period time and still be extremely relevant (i.e. Macedon and Mongolia, among others)

But Gran Colombia didn’t really do anything.

It’s existence is more defined by Bolivar’s freedom fighting than any decisions the nation made on its own accords. It lasted 12 years and split into 3 countries immediately (4 eventually) and ceded land to what would become parts of 3 others nations. It never made any impact as a nation on its own accords, let alone deserve to be called its own civilization. Even the other post-colonial nations made more of a name for themselves.

If it was just Colombia being represented at its Gran Colombia timeframe, perhaps I’d consider it more relevant, given Colombia’s importance in political affairs in both the region and an international level since then.

 

[Zaarin]

But Gran Colombia didn’t really do anything.

It’s existence is more defined by Bolivar’s freedom fighting than any decisions the nation made on its own accords. It lasted 12 years and split into 3 countries immediately (4 eventually) and ceded land to what would become parts of 3 others nations. It never made any impact as a nation on its own accords, let alone deserve to be called its own civilization. Even the other post-colonial nations made more of a name for themselves.

If it was just Colombia being represented at its Gran Colombia timeframe, perhaps I’d consider it more relevant, given Colombia’s importance in political affairs in both the region and an international level since then.

Civilizations transcend national borders, though. TBH that Gran Colombia left a legacy across a swath of South America makes me much more open-minded about its inclusion than I would be otherwise.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: We're getting away from the New Frontier Pass subject and into current events and history. Back to topic please.

 

[Patine]

I couldn't search for the source myself on Google. Granted, I can't read Chinese, but if it was translated it would have appeared on the first result. How can one trust a source if one can't find in with a simple Google search? Anyway, what you described was conquest, not genocide. He didn't target those civilians much less planned it because he was busy making war. If we extend that as a definition of genocide then that means all wars of conquests are genocidal, which is ludicrous.



Yes, but the analogy is flawed because you're comparing an area of sparse population to areas of relatively dense population. Obviously Kublai Khan killed more people because there were less people back then.



Defining things is important, it's not a distraction. It makes things clear cut. Or else you'll just end up making ludicrous points like the one you made about Kublai Khan. In fact, from what I read about genocide denial, not defining what genocide is a step that can lead to genocide denial because one can twist the definition to suit whatever power interests one has.

However, I will, in deference to forum rules, have to defer to this particular debate as being in the wrong thread and the wrong sub-forum. I've already been a party to a heated debate on a Civ6 thread that shut down for being derailed on this kind of topic.

Edit: Uncanny timing, Leif!

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I'm torn because leaving out one of the most important civilizations in history and probably the most important civilization in Medieval Europe feels wrong--but we already have three Greek civs and five Greek leaders, plus one more if you consider that Rome was heavily Hellenized.


I don't feel the need for either of them. If we must have postcolonial nations, let's leave it at one Anglophone (USA), one Lusophone (Brazil), and one Hispanophone (be it Gran Colombia or Argentina or whatever).

5 greek leaders + Trajan?

Pericles, Gorgo, Alexander, Cleopatra, sure, but who’s the 5th? Cyrus, Tomyris and Chandragupta were the (somewhat) contemporary leaders and none are greek.

I agree though. I think Byzantium would be overkill. As much as I recognize their importance, Firaxis should’ve considered that before introducing so many greeks. Also, they could’ve prepared by giving the Ottomans a different capital just to prevent the same city being founded in different places in a game.

I’d much rather see Portugal and perhaps Ireland, Switzerland, Croatia, etc.

In regards to post colonial nations, your idea is exactly where I was going. In future iterations of the game if they limit themselves to Brazil, the USA and either Argentina or Colombia, that would be enough for me. I’d rather see an aboriginal nation in Australia, any number of American first nations and the continued presence of the Maori (hopefully in a more historically accurate and relevant form, i.e. land combat and less influence on the sea: leave that to a Tonga civ)

i’ll still stand by my belief that gran colombia as a nation exclusively in its own right isn’t a civ, while colombia itself would be, but that’s very pedantic at that point

 

[Zaarin]

5 greek leaders + Trajan?

Pericles, Gorgo, Alexander, Cleopatra, sure, but who’s the 5th?

Ah, miscounted. Four it is.

I agree though. I think Byzantium would be overkill. As much as I recognize their importance, Firaxis should’ve considered that before introducing so many greeks.

Agreed. I realize they wanted to make Alexander a personality cult, just like they did to Gilgamesh (ugh, poor Sumer), but it was unnecessary.

Also, they could’ve prepared by giving the Ottomans a different capital just to prevent the same city being founded in different places in a game.

TBF that's been the case in every iteration of Civ that has included the Ottomans and the Byzantines, because Istanbul is Constantinople. (Why'd Constantinople get the works? That's nobody's business but the Turks'.)

Ireland

I would have rather have had Ireland than Scotland, but as things stand I'd rather have Gaul. I'd love to see Medieval Ireland in Civ7, though. There are so many interesting things they could do with it.

 

[Xefjord]

In a perfect world, I am fine with any number of colonial civs, so long it is not robbing representation from more indigenous ones. The problem is that working with indigenous folks to bring a civilization to to the game isn't always possible. I run a charity where I make language resources for indigenous languages all around the world, and especially in the America's it can be incredibly difficult to get anyone to cooperate. I imagine it would be even harder to convince them to get involved in a game where their culture could potentially be simplified and commodified.

 

[CivLuvah]

In a perfect world, I am fine with any number of colonial civs, so long it is not robbing representation from more indigenous ones. The problem is that working with indigenous folks to bring a civilization to to the game isn't always possible. I run a charity where I make language resources for indigenous languages all around the world, and especially in the America's it can be incredibly difficult to get anyone to cooperate. I imagine it would be even harder to convince them to get involved in a game where their culture could potentially be simplified and commodified.

Firaxis definitely learned that with their experience with some of Poundmaker's descendants.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Ah, miscounted. Four it is.


Agreed. I realize they wanted to make Alexander a personality cult, just like they did to Gilgamesh (ugh, poor Sumer), but it was unnecessary.


TBF that's been the case in every iteration of Civ that has included the Ottomans and the Byzantines, because Istanbul is Constantinople. (Why'd Constantinople get the works? That's nobody's business but the Turks'.)


I would have rather have had Ireland than Scotland, but as things stand I'd rather have Gaul. I'd love to see Medieval Ireland in Civ7, though. There are so many interesting things they could do with it.

Agree on all counts. Sumer could’ve gotten someone way more historically important, Gaul could be interesting, Brian Boru would be a fun leader for Ireland in Civ.

Disagree on the Byzantines/Ottomans question. They’ve done it in the past and every time it elevates my blood pressure immensely. Why tf would the same city exist in two different places at the same time. At least Ra Kedet was a suburb of Alexandria and Mexico City was a different city than Tenochtitlan, just built in the same place.

Istanbul/Byzantines has no excuse.

the Byzantines at least didn’t have a different capital at any point when they were strong, but the Ottomans had capital at Basra at a point right? or their pre-conquest capital in Anatolia would make a lot of sense too. Either would prevent the same exact city being built in two different places

 

[Zaarin]

In a perfect world, I am fine with any number of colonial civs, so long it is not robbing representation from more indigenous ones.

My issue is that "civilization" and "nation-state" mean very different things to me.

Firaxis definitely learned that with their experience with some of Poundmaker's descendants.

It was one chief with a political agenda, though. I really don't think it affected Firaxis except insofar as it may have drawn some publicity for Rise & Fall as well as for the Cree chief's case.

Disagree on the Byzantines/Ottomans question. They’ve done it in the past and every time it elevates my blood pressure immensely. Why tf would the same city exist in two different places at the same time.

I'm honestly more annoyed that "Aleppo" and "Halab" are both on Arabia's city list. Otherwise, it's an alternate history game; why not have the Turks found a city and give it a Turkicized Greek name because reasons? (In previous games just changing the name of the capital would have made sense enough, but in Civ6, where the capital is specifically tied to the leader, Suleiman ruled from Istanbul so...)

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Firaxis definitely learned that with their experience with some of Poundmaker's descendants.

Definitely agree. I can understand why native groups and first nations might be reticent to give their seal of approval on this (didn’t the Haida and Pueblo both say no?). But in my mind, them being in the game could at least bring awareness to buyers and push them to learn about their culture and history, which civ has done many times when introducing civs i’m not familiar with. The more familiar and/or beloved a culture or first nation becomes in any capacity, the more they could do to save those dying cultures and languages.

We also should try to get some non-american indigenous people in future iterations, knowing that firaxis does listen to what the fans want. The Ainu as well as any Aboriginal Australian group would be wonderful additions in the future.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Kublai certainly had military ventures, but I think he's more remembered for presiding over a cultural renaissance and intercultural exchange (not just Marco Polo, but that too).

Seeing that had me thinking. Marco Polo was from Venice. What are the chances that Pack 5 could be Kublai Khan +Venice (Italy) instead of Kublai Khan +Vietnam?

 

[VermelhoRed]

Seeing that had me thinking. Marco Polo was from Venice. What are the chances that Pack 5 could be Kublai Khan +Venice (Italy) instead of Kublai Khan +Vietnam?

Some.

 

[bene_legionary]

why not have the Turks found a city and give it a Turkicized Greek name because reasons?

The Ottomans have Romanian and Bosnian cities as part of their name list. Strange decision, I think. They all have Turkish names. I was mistaken before for saying Belgrade was on the city list, would have made more than one person mad.

 

[Equilin]

I really don't think an arbitrary map type should dictate Civ selection. TSL is only barely supported by the game anyway.

What I thought is that TSL does not refer to actual TSL map, but to a dev statement somewhere back that they try to spread the civs to be from different places in the world