[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[PhoenicianGold]

I'd say Sumer's Civ6 design is so appallingly horrible it makes any other Mesopotamian civ extremely necessary. But we've had this discussion many times.

True but you are the Mesopotamian expert on these boards and I suspect no Sumerian design could live up to your standards.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

To be honest it needs a complete redesign from the ground up, as does Gilgamesh the Ridiculous, so...I'm not hopeful. Hopefully the next time Sumer appears in Civ it 1) gets called Sumer, 2) gets a better-attested leader like Gudea, and 3) actually gets some research put into it instead of just "Epic of Gilgamesh lol."

In the future I hope any mesopotamia is always

Babylon, Assyria and the Hittites, with any fourth civ they want

 

[Zaarin]

True but you are the Mesopotamian expert on these boards and I suspect no Sumerian design could live up to your standards.

I mean, the Sumerians did a lot of things, which gives a lot of directions to take them...Firaxis just chose the worst one.

In the future I hope any mesopotamia is always

Babylon, Assyria and the Hittites, with any fourth civ they want

The Hittites were in Anatolia, not Mesopotamia, but I'd love to see them, too. Elam is my top pick for "that civ no one was suspecting"; I wouldn't even mind if Elam replaced Achaemenid Persia in Civ7, allowing us to have a Sassanian Persia for once.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

They were added with Rise and Fall. Kongo was with base game.

I meant to say first game. As in Civ 1. But my point is if it weren't for them I don't think Africa, other than Egypt and Carthage, wouldn't be represented until Civ 4.

 

[AvianBritish]

Mayans don't need freshwater sources. Mayan fams support more housing XD
does it mean they don't use Aqueducts?

You just raised a good point. Specifically the ability says "Settling adjacent to Fresh Water and Coast do not provide extra housing," which to me suggests that they should still get the fresh water housing bonus from Aquaducts, Mohenjo-Daro, Dams and other sources that provide housing from water.

 

[Zaarin]

I meant to say first game. As in Civ 1. But my point is if it weren't for them I don't think Africa, other than Egypt and Carthage, wouldn't be represented until Civ 4.

Traditions can be broken. They served there purpose, and someone else can take their place now.

 

[Jkchart]

Completely agree. Sumer felt like a mesopotamian catch all, and the Sultanate of Oman and Muscat is something that I haven’t heard anyone besides me bring up lmao (I’d love to see them)

Actually I have also advocated for Oman! I think I came up with a design in the suggestions thread some time ago.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

The Hittites were in Anatolia, not Mesopotamia, but I'd love to see them, too. Elam is my top pick for "that civ no one was suspecting"; I wouldn't even mind if Elam replaced Achaemenid Persia in Civ7, allowing us to have a Sassanian Persia for once.

Oh I know that the Hittites weren’t truly mesopotamian but they often are considered so.

I don’t know. I’d like to see other persia’s, but Cyrus was very historically important and personally one of my favorite historical figures, so I personally would like to see Cyrus, and achaemenid persia in future civ games in some capacity.

It’s already a shame that in other civ games he’s been replaced by Xerxes and Darius who aren’t nearly as interesting.

In future games hopefully there’s no monolithic persia either, and we can see Achaemenid, Sassinid and perhaps other persia-adjacent empires like the Seljuks and Elam

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Traditions can be broken. They served there purpose, and someone else can take their place now.

Yes like the discussion of choosing Assyria or Babylon.

 

[Haig]

The Maya design showed to me that interesting, asymmetrical civs can be made with vanilla Civ mechanics!

P.S. Doesnt the Sumeria citylist have Babylonian cities, making Assyria more likely?

 

[Thenewwwguy]

P.S. Doesnt the Sumeria citylist have Babylonian cities, making Assyria more likely?

That’s what I figure

Ashurbanipal please come back

 

[Zaarin]

I don’t know. I’d like to see other persia’s, but Cyrus was very historically important and personally one of my favorite historical figures, so I personally would like to see Cyrus, and achaemenid persia in future civ games in some capacity.

I'm a bigger fan of Darius I, and I hate the way Civ6 portrayed Cyrus as a conniving backstabber just to create conflict with Tomyris (who may or may not have even existed). I love Achaemenid Persia, but I'd love to see other iterations of Persia. Plus the chances of seeing both Elam and Achaemenid Persia are slim, and as Firaxis starts to draw on surprising and lesser known civs (like the Mapuche and Georgia), I'd love to see them consider some of the lesser known civs of the Ancient Near East like Elam, Urartu, or Mitanni.

It’s already a shame that in other civ games he’s been replaced by Xerxes and Darius who aren’t nearly as interesting.

TBH both are more interesting than Cyrus. Darius mythologized Cyrus to legitimize his claim to the Achaemenid throne, given there's a pretty high probability that Darius was a usurper.

Yes like the discussion of choosing Assyria or Babylon.

I want Babylon and two leaders for Assyria, thank you very much.

P.S. Doesnt the Sumeria citylist have Babylonian cities, making Assyria more likely?

Most Sumerian cities continued to be important in Babylon, but there's not so much overlap as to make it impossible or unlikely. Assyria would overlap less. Overlap could be eliminated completely by renaming the Sumerian cities in, oh, I don't know, Sumerian.

 

[Stilgar08]

I don't know if it has been mentioned yet, but I've just seen a video where it was mentioned that the game mode in the Ethiopian pack will need R&F or GS. Just the game mode needs the expansions, not the rest of the dlc.
It has been mentioned as well that the additional content of pack3 in September will contain new WW and a new map, pack4 has new CS and quite a few new GP, pack5 will have a new district and 2 new city buildings, and you need R&F for the 2 new leaders of this pack, not for the game mode or the content...
Pack6 should contain new WWs again and a new map... Just in case you wonder if the pass is worth it...

 

[PhilBowles]

I've never minded the Zulu. If it weren't for them we wouldn't have gotten any Sub-Sahara Africa in the base game (not that I played it).
Still it at least keeps South Africa from appearing. I'm quite satisfied with the roster for Africa this time around. Here's hoping that Ethiopia is not mostly based around
modern times but has aspects throughout their history

Indeed, the reason the Zulu and Aztecs are in the game at all is that Sid wanted at least one civ from Africa (other than Egypt) and from Central/South America, and those were the best-known to his expected audience (and his generation) at the time despite being of relatively limited significance. The game's evolution and expansion to markets outside North America and Western Europe hasn't aged either very well - one thing I've learned from the Civ V discussions is that the Zulu are not well-known outside the Anglosphere, or indeed to younger generations who aren't aware that the Michael Caine film was relatively prominent in the popular culture of people Sid's age and a bit younger. As for the Americas, the Maya and Inca - both more significant and longer-lived societies than the Aztecs - are arguably better-known today than the Aztecs, who back in the '90s were seen as something of a generic catchall for the Aztec and Maya alike.

Yeah we actually don't need the Ishtar Gate as a wonder.... It's already kind of included in the Hanging Gardens model.

The reason I want the Ishtar Gate is pure historical pedantry (the same reason I want the Statue of Zeus even though it's basically always useless). The first 'official' list of the Seven Wonders of the World predated the construction of the Lighthouse of Alexandria, and the Ishtar Gate was the member of the original seven it kicked off the list (I think the original list also predated the Colossus, but I'm not sure what the entry that replaced was if so).

As far as I can tell, the choice to include Sumeria led by Gilgamesh was intentionally devised as a way to vicariously represent the entire Mesopotamian legacy.

I don't agree, simply because that's never been the case in the past. Every past appearance by Sumeria in Civ has been in a game that also contains Babylon (necessarily, since as one of the original 12 Babylon has been in every Civ game except Civ VI). Civ V had both Babylon and Assyria, the latter acting effectively as Sumeria's replacement. Stretching the definition of 'Mesopotamia' a little to encompass the Near East as a whole, Civ III had both Babylon and Sumeria alongside the Hittites. Nothing about Civ VI argues against having both in that game as well, since by this point it's a feature of the series to have at least three ancient Mesopotamian/Near Eastern civs in every entry, two of which are Babylon and Persia and the third of which has so far been either Sumeria or Assyria.

Point being is that Sumeria seems intentionally designed to half-incorporate elements from the other staple civs in a way that leaves the region feeling overall represented. But this also has the consequence of preemptively stepping on the toes of any new additions if, say, later down the line the devs want to add Babylon. To try to develop Babylon now (and especially after the Mayan tall/science design) would likely move design into the esoteric and unintuitive.

As I've noted there are many possible ways to represent Babylon, and neither tall nor being science-focused is a particularly obvious one. Babylon in Civ IV, the first entry to strongly differentiate civs by traits, was focused on growth (gardens), administration (cheap courthouses which lowered corruption) and militarism. It didn't have bonuses of any kind to science. Hammurabi's favoured civic was Bureaucracy - that's much closer to the cultural/loyalty/policy focused suggestion I made. Civ V is the only entry in which Babylon has had anything to do with science.

Now, I'm not saying Babylon (or Assyria) won't happen. It is a fan favorite and would be easy money for Firaxis. However, by the game's self-obvious design, Babylon isn't really necessary to complete the whole picture. Whereas something like the Timurids, Morocco, or Oman/Swahili might be more highly prioritized for the aforementioned reason of representing large, culturally distinct regions. Babylon falls more into the "Austria" category, where Germany and Hungary do just fine showing off that part of the world, but just the name Maria Theresa is still a massive draw. They are extraneous, but would still make excellent bonus content and are almost certainly being considered and/or developed.

I think you're neglecting the relevance of the game's tradition - certain things have become expectations for the series as a whole. I'd also doubt that any of the suggestions you make save perhaps the Timurids are plausible based on what we know about the geographic breakdown of the announced civs and those of past expansions - I can't imagine we're getting two African civs, and Civ has never particularly distinguished between North and Sub-Saharan Africa. Europe seems most satisfactorily represented by Portugal, which is commonly requested and has more often been in past games, or Italy - which is hugely popular with modders and the community. We've seen with additions like Georgia and Gran Colombia that Firaxis is now making questionable (in terms of overall relevance as civs) additions not just as a sop to large markets (such as Brazil, Canada and Australia) but also desires expressed either through this forum or as popular mods (I believe they credited the addition of Kongo - while worthy in its own right - to popularity with modders). I'm not sure I've ever previously seen requests for Oman, so I doubt it's even on their radar although the Swahili are a relatively common request (and one I've made myself) - but, again, ruled out by being essentially African (not to mention that with Ethiopia, Nubia, Egypt and the Zulu, adding a new civ in Kenya or Tanzania would be heavily crowding eastern Africa on TSL maps while most of the rest of the continent is largely empty).

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I'm a bigger fan of Darius I, and I hate the way Civ6 portrayed Cyrus as a conniving backstabber just to create conflict with Tomyris (who may or may not have even existed). I love Achaemenid Persia, but I'd love to see other iterations of Persia. Plus the chances of seeing both Elam and Achaemenid Persia are slim, and as Firaxis starts to draw on surprising and lesser known civs (like the Mapuche and Georgia), I'd love to see them consider some of the lesser known civs of the Ancient Near East like Elam, Urartu, or Mitanni.


TBH both are more interesting than Cyrus. Darius mythologized Cyrus to legitimize his claim to the Achaemenid throne, given there's a pretty high probability that Darius was a usurper.


I want Babylon and two leaders for Assyria, thank you very much.


Most Sumerian cities continued to be important in Babylon, but there's not so much overlap as to make it impossible or unlikely. Assyria would overlap less. Overlap could be eliminated completely by renaming the Sumerian cities in, oh, I don't know, Sumerian.

wdym civ 6 portrayed cyrus as such? I don’t think any of his abilities even reference the Tomyris thing.

I think Cyrus is way more interesting and a better fit for civ than Darius or Xerxes, not least because he turned the dynasty into the largest empire at the time, not to mention spread one of the most interesting religions to grace the world. He also revolutionized government administration with the development of Satrapies and generally opposed slavery and favored religious freedoms, making him an all-around benevolent leader.

 

[Poczwar]

How to buy this pass ?

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Indeed, the reason the Zulu and Aztecs are in the game at all is that Sid wanted at least one civ from Africa (other than Egypt) and from Central/South America, and those were the best-known to his expected audience (and his generation) at the time despite being of relatively limited significance. The game's evolution and expansion to markets outside North America and Western Europe hasn't aged either very well - one thing I've learned from the Civ V discussions is that the Zulu are not well-known outside the Anglosphere, or indeed to younger generations who aren't aware that the Michael Caine film was relatively prominent in the popular culture of people Sid's age and a bit younger. As for the Americas, the Maya and Inca - both more significant and longer-lived societies than the Aztecs - are arguably better-known today than the Aztecs, who back in the '90s were seen as something of a generic catchall for the Aztec and Maya alike.



The reason I want the Ishtar Gate is pure historical pedantry (the same reason I want the Statue of Zeus even though it's basically always useless). The first 'official' list of the Seven Wonders of the World predated the construction of the Lighthouse of Alexandria, and the Ishtar Gate was the member of the original seven it kicked off the list (I think the original list also predated the Colossus, but I'm not sure what the entry that replaced was if so).



I don't agree, simply because that's never been the case in the past. Every past appearance by Sumeria in Civ has been in a game that also contains Babylon (necessarily, since as one of the original 12 Babylon has been in every Civ game except Civ VI). Civ V had both Babylon and Assyria, the latter acting effectively as Sumeria's replacement. Stretching the definition of 'Mesopotamia' a little to encompass the Near East as a whole, Civ III had both Babylon and Sumeria alongside the Hittites. Nothing about Civ VI argues against having both in that game as well, since by this point it's a feature of the series to have at least three ancient Mesopotamian/Near Eastern civs in every entry, two of which are Babylon and Persia and the third of which has so far been either Sumeria or Assyria.



As I've noted there are many possible ways to represent Babylon, and neither tall nor being science-focused is a particularly obvious one. Babylon in Civ IV, the first entry to strongly differentiate civs by traits, was focused on growth (gardens), administration (cheap courthouses which lowered corruption) and militarism. It didn't have bonuses of any kind to science. Hammurabi's favoured civic was Bureaucracy - that's much closer to the cultural/loyalty/policy focused suggestion I made. Civ V is the only entry in which Babylon has had anything to do with science.



I think you're neglecting the relevance of the game's tradition - certain things have become expectations for the series as a whole. I'd also doubt that any of the suggestions you make save perhaps the Timurids are plausible based on what we know about the geographic breakdown of the announced civs and those of past expansions - I can't imagine we're getting two African civs, and Civ has never particularly distinguished between North and Sub-Saharan Africa. Europe seems most satisfactorily represented by Portugal, which is commonly requested and has more often been in past games, or Italy - which is hugely popular with modders and the community. We've seen with additions like Georgia and Gran Colombia that Firaxis is now making questionable (in terms of overall relevance as civs) additions not just as a sop to large markets (such as Brazil, Canada and Australia) but also desires expressed either through this forum or as popular mods (I believe they credited the addition of Kongo - while worthy in its own right - to popularity with modders).

I agree with most of this, but honestly, I’m glad georgia and colombia are in.

Colombia will probably serve as a conduit for Bolivar’s cult-of-personality, which is fine given Colombia is relatively historically influential beyond simply Gran Colombia (see: panama canal)

Georgia, while perhaps not the best choice, under Tamar, was a caucasus powerhouse, and while that may have been better represented by Armenia, Georgia isn’t a bad choice.

 

[Zaarin]

wdym civ 6 portrayed cyrus as such? I don’t think any of his abilities even reference the Tomyris thing.

He gets a bonus to surprise wars, his agenda is to like people who declare surprise wars (which obviously puts him at odds with Tomyris, who hates people who declare surprise wars), and his general personality is portrayed as villainous.

not to mention spread one of the most interesting religions to grace the world.

The jury's still out on whether the Achaemenids were Zoroastrian, but the evidence is inclined towards they were not. The first indisputable evidence of Zoroastrianism in Persia comes from the Arsacid (Parthian) period. There are references to Ahura Mazda, but not in any explicitly Zoroastrian context.

generally opposed slavery and favored religious freedoms, making him an all-around benevolent leader.

This is why I have a problem with Civ6 portraying him as a devious, backstabbing villain.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

He gets a bonus to surprise wars, his agenda is to like people who declare surprise wars (which obviously puts him at odds with Tomyris, who hates people who declare surprise wars), and his general personality is portrayed as villainous.


The jury's still out on whether the Achaemenids were Zoroastrian, but the evidence is inclined towards they were not. The first indisputable evidence of Zoroastrianism in Persia comes from the Arsacid (Parthian) period. There are references to Ahura Mazda, but not in any explicitly Zoroastrian context.


This is why I have a problem with Civ6 portraying him as a devious, backstabbing villain.

that’s a good point. I hope civ 7 will represent Cyrus for who he was then, but I really like cyrus and I want him to stay in the series, not make a comeback after another 7 years.

what evidence for and against the achaemenids, at least Cyrus, being zoroastrian is there? My impression was that there was enough references to Ahura Mazda that they either practiced zoroastrianism or some archaic version of it

also, page 69: nice.

 

[Zaarin]

that’s a good point. I hope civ 7 will represent Cyrus for who he was then, but I really like cyrus and I want him to stay in the series, not make a comeback after another 7 years.

Fair. We all have our favorite historical figures. I still hope Achaemenid Persia takes a break for Civ7 and we get Shahpur II or Khosrow II, and if we get a second leader to represent the Achaemenids I hope it's Darius I.