[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Grand-Admiral Thrawn]

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.

This.

in Paradox games they have all of the nations on the given map and most of those nations have no special things about them. However, a civ is picked because of their cultural uniqueness or impact on history, and they’re given unique attention, highlighting their strength. As far as Beijing is concerned, Tibet has no strengths or reasons for inclusionfit to be seen by the public.

 

[SirMediocrity]

I can't find pokiehl's posts on Tibet. Are you guys just replying to super old messages or something?

 

[Thenewwwguy]

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.

any of those choices would be way cooler than a possible babylon or the current sumer

if the trading post improvements somehow affect loyalty pressure that would be really cool too

 

[Onii-chan]

So what time of day does civ dlc usually come out? Been so long I’ve forgotten

This somewhat awkwardly comes out the exact same day as the new TW:WH2 dlc so I was thinking how to best plan my upcoming schedule lol

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm not sure about the inclusion of Tibet but earlier I suggested making Lhasa a religious city-state who's unique suzerain bonus could be allowing religious units to travel through mountains as if mountain tunnels were there.
There's no reason why that this shouldn't work since I believe it was a city-state in Civ 5.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

So what time of day does civ dlc usually come out? Been so long I’ve forgotten

This somewhat awkwardly comes out the exact same day as the new TW:WH2 dlc so I was thinking how to best plan my upcoming schedule lol

I think it’s midnight eastern time since they’re based in maryland

 

[DWilson]

Back in December 2018 my preferences for another round of civs was:

• Maya (Confirmed)
• Argentina/Colombia (Confirmed)
• Byzantium
• Portugal
• Ethiopia (Confirmed)
• Vietnam
• Morocco/Moors
• Babylon
• Ramsesses/Hapshepsut/Kublai(of China and Mongolia)

I would still say this is possible, and would truly leave me satisfied!

 

[pokiehl]

So what time of day does civ dlc usually come out? Been so long I’ve forgotten

This somewhat awkwardly comes out the exact same day as the new TW:WH2 dlc so I was thinking how to best plan my upcoming schedule lol

Gathering Storm was released in the afternoon (12:00 PM EST). I think Rise and Fall was as well but I can't remember past that. So, I expect an early afternoon release time (EST of course).

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Back in December 2018 my preferences for another round of civs was:

• Maya (Confirmed)
• Argentina/Colombia (Confirmed)
• Byzantium
• Portugal
• Ethiopia (Confirmed)
• Vietnam
• Morocco/Moors
• Babylon
• Ramsesses/Hapshepsut/Kublai(of China and Mongolia)

I would still say this is possible, and would truly leave me satisfied!

regarding the moors, I know Granada is a city state, but are other moorish cities already on the spain city list, like córdoba?

also, byzantium, portugal and the moors would make 3 european civs, and two of them would both be in the Iberian peninsula

you can see my wishlist in my signature, and i’ve linked my predictions post on r/civ in this chat room before, but what we’ve seen so far is currently consistent with general patterns (albeit patterns that we’ve seen broken in the original DLC wave and Gathering Storm): 1 NA civ, 1 SA civ, 1 African civ, 3 Asian/Oceanic Civs, 2 European civs.

We already know the NA is Maya, SA is Colombia and Africa is Ethiopia. So that leaves, in my mind, the civs which I believe will be the 2 european civs, 3 asian civs, and the altérnate leader.

For me, the european civs will probably be Portugal and a wild card we haven’t seen before

For Asian civs, we’ll see Vietnam or the Philippines (or both) with either Babylon or Assyria and a third wildcard, which I’m hoping will be either the Timurids, the Chola or the Sultanate of Oman and Muscat (but probably won’t be the Chola).

I’m hoping we will only see Portugal in terms of europe and we get an additional native american civ, but i don’t think it’s likely in the present moment.

i’m also 75-80% sure that the alternate leader will be Kublai Khan, representing both Mongolia and China

 

[Lord Lakely]

This might be a bit air-brained on my behalf, but what if the the 1 Civ/2 Leaders DLC is actually Vietnam with both Trung Sisters as leaders? With a LUA that is centered around Free Cities (or another R&F mechanic), which could explain why the DLC requires Rise and Fall?

Like, I am crazy, I know, and I change my mind all the time (you know), but look at it this way.

The first XPac introduced an alt leader (Chandragupta)
The second XPac introduced an alt leader for two countries at once (Eleanor)
The third XPac (which is what NFP is in all but name) introduces the first time one Civ is led by *two* leaders at ONCE. In case of Vietname each sister has a unique set of abilities and which sister leads the country depends on whether you are at peace or at war.

It doesn't necessarily have to be Vietnam either. A similar mechanic could work for Byzantium and Justinian/Theodora.

That would be pretty sick so I totally need someone to debunk this crazy theory before we all accidentally open the floodgates to hell.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

Though if they do I can see Gaul being the most probable. With Scotland in the game I don't see Ireland showing up or the Iceni.

I'm still crossing my fingers for the Gauls, but with so few civ slots left I'm skeptical.

Please, please, you're all incredibly cultured people, I always learn so much thanks to you about extra-european cultures, so why, why are you advocating for the Gauls?

Saying "I want the Gauls" is the same as saying "I want the Celts". No, it's even worse: while Celts, at least, are somehow part of the same linguistic family, Gauls are a completely artifical name used to describe people who happened to live in the same place, popularised by Julius Cesar and put as national history by the Third French Republic. There was as much difference between a Belgian, a gaul from Aquitaine, from Britanny, from Auvergne (don't know the english name) that between a "Gaul" and a Britton from British Islands. Making a Gaul blob is as painful as a Celtic blob - and, as again, worse because calling them Gauls were completely non-vernacular.

Most of what we call the unity of the Gauls came from the wars against Cesar (which they lost, so basing a civilization about how they were defeated is kind of pointless) and from the Roman Empire as gallo-romans. Making a civilization out of them would be the same as making Congo but under Leopold's rule.

So, please, please, as someone who has been told since he was 5 yo that "Our ancestors are the Gauls" and now see the fallacy and the lie behind that, please, I beg you: do not continue to perpetuate the nationalistic, right-wing idea that the Gauls were, somehow and at any point in History besides Cesar's invasion, a unity. There was nobody more eager to fight a Gaul than another Gaul, worse dissension than the Italic peninsula during the Renaissance. Don't make me believe that they could be united in a civilization.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

This might be a bit air-brained on my behalf, but what if the the 1 Civ/2 Leaders DLC is actually Vietnam with both Trung Sisters as leaders? With a LUA that is centered around Free Cities (or another R&F mechanic), which could explain why the DLC requires Rise and Fall?

Like, I am crazy, I know, and I change my mind all the time (you know), but look at it this way.

The first XPac introduced an alt leader (Chandragupta)
The second XPac introduced an alt leader for two countries at once (Eleanor)
The third XPac (which is what NFP is in all but name) introduces the first time one Civ is led by *two* leaders at ONCE. In case of Vietname each sister has a unique set of abilities and which sister leads the country depends on whether you are at peace or at war.

It doesn't necessarily have to be Vietnam either. A similar mechanic could work for Byzantium and Justinian/Theodora.

That would be pretty sick so I totally need someone to debunk this crazy theory before we all accidentally open the floodgates to hell.

i feel like this goes against the idea of unique governors

like ik that we only have one reference point, but having one of justinian or theodora being the governor for the other, or one of the trung sisters being the governor to the other, would be way more interesting to me

Please, please, you're all incredibly cultured people, I always learn so much thanks to you about extra-european cultures, so why, why are you advocating for the Gauls?

Saying "I want the Gauls" is the same as saying "I want the Celts". No, it's even worse: while Celts, at least, are somehow part of the same linguistic family, Gauls are a completely artifical name used to describe people who happened to live in the same place, popularised by Julius Cesar and put as national history by the Third French Republic. There was as much difference between a Belgian, a gaul from Aquitaine, from Britanny, from Auvergne (don't know the english name) that between a "Gaul" and a Britton from British Islands. Making a Gaul blob is as painful as a Celtic blob - and, as again, worse because calling them Gauls were completely non-vernacular.

Most of what we call the unity of the Gauls came from the wars against Cesar (which they lost, so basing a civilization about how they were defeated is kind of pointless) and from the Roman Empire as gallo-romans.

So, please, please, as someone who has been told since he was 5 yo that "Our ancestors are the Gauls" and now see the fallacy and the lie behind that, please, do not continue to perpetuate the nationalistic, right-wing idea that the Gauls were, somehow and at any point in History besides Cesar's invasion, a unity. There was nobody more eager to fight a Gaul than another Gaul, worse dissension than the Italic peninsula during the Renaissance. Don't make me believe that they could be united in a civilization.

Gauls would be a blobby civ and i don’t like blobby civs, i.e. Civ 4 Native Americans, Civ 5 Polynesia, civs 2-5 Celts and civ 2-4 Vikings

 

[FinalDoomsday]

I'm wondering if they will get around to giving all the base civs unique palaces certainly something I'd like to see more than extra costumes for leaders!

 

[cosmicmangobear]

i feel like this goes against the idea of unique governors

like ik that we only have one reference point, but having one of justinian or theodora being the governor for the other, or one of the trump sisters being the governor to the other, would be way more interesting to me

Ooh, should I play as Ivanka or Tiffany?

Joking aside, I'm really holding out for Vietnam and the ability to switch leaders midgame would be dope.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Ooh, should I play as Ivanka or Tiffany?

Joking aside, I'm really holding out for Vietnam and the ability to switch leaders midgame would be dope.

ah frick, autocorrect strikes again. Noted and corrected

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

regarding the moors, I know Granada is a city state, but are other moorish cities already on the spain city list, like córdoba?

Yes Córdoba is and others. Granada was actually a Spanish city in the base game but was quickly removed and put in the Vikings DLC. A Moor/Moroccan Civ seems not likely. Also Fez was just introduced with GS. I'm sure if Morocco was on their radar they wouldn't have released it so late.

We already know the NA is Maya, SA is Colombia and Africa is Ethiopia. So that leaves, in my mind, the civs which I believe will be the 2 european civs, 3 asian civs, and the altérnate leader.

I'm under the impression that the Maya were grouped with Gran Colombia as a Latin America pack saving room for another Native American tribe from the U.S. At least that's what I'm hoping for.
I also can't see Europe getting more than two civs and I'm expecting one in the middle east and one for SEA Asia. At least these are my reasonings.

Please, please, you're all incredibly cultured people, I always learn so much thanks to you about extra-european cultures, so why, why are you advocating for the Gauls?

I'm not advocating a Gaul civ but I'm pointing out that now with the de-blobbing of the Celts I think they have a chance of inclusion somewhere down the line. Not necessarily in Civ 6. If we do get a new European Civ I would want it to be Italy based off of the city-states of the Medieval/Renaissance.

 

[cosmicmangobear]

That darn autocorrect! I would like to see more unique governors, though... maybe Lady Trieu for Vietnam, PM Churchill for England, and Richelieu for France.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

That darn autocorrect! I would like to see more unique governors, though... maybe Lady Trieu for Vietnam, PM Churchill for England, and Richelieu for France.

churchill wasn’t a PM for victoria (not to mention he was amazingly racist and i don’t want to see him in the game), Gladstone and Disraeli were. Would be interesting if Gladstone and Disraeli were both governor options for vicky and if you’re playing as her you can only pick one and they have different promotion trees

 

[Zaarin]

Please, please, you're all incredibly cultured people, I always learn so much thanks to you about extra-european cultures, so why, why are you advocating for the Gauls?

Saying "I want the Gauls" is the same as saying "I want the Celts". No, it's even worse: while Celts, at least, are somehow part of the same linguistic family, Gauls are a completely artifical name used to describe people who happened to live in the same place, popularised by Julius Cesar and put as national history by the Third French Republic. There was as much difference between a Belgian, a gaul from Aquitaine, from Britanny, from Auvergne (don't know the english name) that between a "Gaul" and a Britton from British Islands. Making a Gaul blob is as painful as a Celtic blob - and, as again, worse because calling them Gauls were completely non-vernacular.

This is 100% untrue. The Celts are a blobby civ because they comprise dozens of cultures spanning about 3,000 years of history across the entire European continent (and into Asia Minor). The Gauls are a specific Celtic culture who spoke a specific Celtic language at a specific time in a specific region. The Belgae were not Gauls; they were Germanic. The Aquitainii were not Gauls; they were Vascones. The proper analogy here is Greece or Maya: a Gaul who was Arverni might be different from a Gaul who was Treveri, but no more so than a Spartan and Athenian--both are Galli, both are Hellenes. That the Britons were closely related to the Gauls was a popular theory for a time, but these days most Celticists agree that there is no particularly close relationship among Gaulish, Celtiberian-Gallaecian, and Brythonic.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

This is 100% untrue. The Celts are a blobby civ because they comprise dozens of cultures spanning about 3,000 years of history across the entire European continent (and into Asia Minor). The Gauls are a specific Celtic culture who spoke a specific Celtic language at a specific time in a specific region. The Belgae were not Gauls; they were Germanic. The Aquitainii were not Gauls; they were Vascones. The proper analogy here is Greece or Maya: a Gaul who was Arverni might be different from a Gaul who was Treveri, but no more so than a Spartan and Athenian--both are Galli, both are Hellenes. That the Britons were closely related to the Gauls was a popular theory for a time, but these days most Celticists agree that there is no particularly close relationship among Gaulish, Celtiberian-Gallaecian, and Brythonic.

good clarification. So they’d be a blob civ that’s close enough culturally that it wouldn’t necessarily be overly blobby like the Polynesians or Celts, but rather something more specifically aimed at Celts from central and western Europe, like Greece, Maya, and to a lesser extent, Phonecia

Then it must be something with how the OPs home treats the gauls that led to this misunderstanding? perhaps popular and political culture lump in all tribes in France and Germany during Roman times into being Gaulish?