[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[DWilson]

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?

The main argument against this is that GS includes all mechanics of R&F, and thus would enable this civ to function without requiring R&F.

That said, I have also noted that Firaxis isn't perfect, and this is the kind of slip they might make. I wouldn't expect it, but it's possible.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

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.

With Catherine de Medici, having Richelieu for France would be stupid. He was a great administrator that laid a great secret network in all the kingdom, having a bonus to espionage would be a no-brainer for him, but double with CdM. In fact, I would have prefered Richilieu over CdM in the first place; not because she's a woman, but because he's a priest with possibilities of fantastic hats, and we don't have any fantastic hats.

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.

You're right, but when people talk about Gauls, I don't think they talk about the specific subcultural group of true Gauls. They talked about the Celtic tribes that were globally on the current French territory and that were the target of Cesar during the Gallic Wars. They would put in it the Aquitainii, the Helvetes, the Belgian (Cesar himself said "from all the Gauls, the Belgians are the bravest" so, for a lot of people, Belgian are Gauls) altogether, making it like they were all united, which is wrong, absolutely wrong, there never was a political, even loosely, unity between Gauls, except maybe during the Gallic Wars but, again, they lost. So, why, among all the Celtic tribes, requesting the Gauls? What makes them so different to be worthy of an inclusion besides all the other tribes? I saw all the fan mods making Gauls a civ, and I saw that it was always an horrible mish-mash.
Plus, which leader would we have? Vercengetorix? Please, another militaristic civ, a led by a guy known for loosing against Cesar? I would be pathetic. People criticized Kristina enough because she abdicated, why would you think about a leader which the best and pretty much only well documented historical moment was loosing?

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?

This. In France, Gauls are held as a nationalistic legacy, upon which France has been built (nos ancêtres les Gaulois...). It's a symbol most often used by the right-wing (and I don't speak about the harmless royalist right-wing not able enough to agree upon who is the true heir of the Throne of France, but the kind of right-wing that would vote for Trump if they were Americans). It's despicable. And the worst thing is that a lot of people don't even realize it. All French people have red Astérix, it's our national hero, and it's, of course, full of lies and historical inaccuracies. But the fact is that a lot of people thought the Gauls were united which is, once again, utterly wrong and untrue. Making a civ on them would be silly and utter nonsense because they never manage to do anything as a united group. In fact, Gauls are perfectly represented in the game as the tribal villages: full of resources, of wealth, of treasures, both intellectual, material and spiritual, but they would still be tribes that are not worthy of a civilization. If we began to make every subcultural celtic group into a civilization, what do you decide is worthy of an inclusion? Why not the Ibers? Why not the Aquitainii? Why not the Basques (wait, no, the Basques would be awesome)? Again, we have to make choices, and Gauls, by the innacuracies people have towards them, by the lies vehiculated towards them and by the fact that they never, ever have been united, are unworthy of being represented as a civ when we have so much more countries, people or nations that are waiting in line to be represented, inside or outside of Europe (especially when you already have France occupying the same territory and Scotland representing the "celtic" blob).


Edit: sorry about the rant, but I had so many discussions and arguments with friends and foes about the Gauls that having some people helding them in high esteem while, in my country, they're so much used as a tool from the alt-right to push nationalistic anti-immigration anti-EU and borderline fascist agendas, is kind of a trigger for me. I'll stop talking about it from now.

 

[bite]

It will be interesting to see what size the patch is that will drop with the first of the Season Pass

 

[Thenewwwguy]

With Catherine de Medici, having Richelieu for France would be stupid. He was a great administrator that laid a great secret network in all the kingdom, having a bonus to espionage would be a no-brainer for him, but double with CdM. In fact, I would have prefered Richilieu over CdM in the first place; not because she's a woman, but because he's a priest with possibilities of fantastic hats, and we don't have any fantastic hats.



You're right, but when people talk about Gauls, I don't think they talk about the specific subcultural group of true Gauls. They talked about the Celtic tribes that were globally on the current French territory and that were the target of Cesar during the Gallic Wars. They would put in it the Aquitainii, the Helvetes, the Belgian (Cesar himself said "from all the Gauls, the Belgians are the bravest" so, for a lot of people, Belgian are Gauls) altogether, making it like they were all united, which is wrong, absolutely wrong, there never was a political, even loosely, unity between Gauls, except maybe during the Gallic Wars but, again, they lost. So, why, among all the Celtic tribes, requesting the Gauls? What makes them so different to be worthy of an inclusion besides all the other tribes? I saw all the fan mods making Gauls a civ, and I saw that it was always an horrible mish-mash.
Plus, which leader would we have? Vercengetorix? Please, another militaristic civ, a led by a guy known for loosing against Cesar? I would be pathetic. People criticized Kristina enough because she abdicated, why would you think about a leader which the best and pretty much only well documented historical moment was loosing?



This. In France, Gauls are held as a nationalistic legacy, upon which France has been built (nos ancêtres les Gaulois...). It's a symbol most often used by the right-wing (and I don't speak about the harmless royalist right-wing not able enough to agree upon who is the true heir of the Throne of France, but the kind of right-wing that would vote for Trump if they were Americans). It's despicable. And the worst thing is that a lot of people don't even realize it. All French people have red Astérix, it's our national hero, and it's, of course, full of lies and historical inaccuracies. But the fact is that a lot of people thought the Gauls were united which is, once again, utterly wrong and untrue. Making a civ on them would be silly and utter nonsense because they never manage to do anything as a united group. In fact, Gauls are perfectly represented in the game as the tribal villages: full of resources, of wealth, of treasures, both intellectual, material and spiritual, but they would still be tribes that are not worthy of a civilization. If we began to make every subcultural celtic group into a civilization, what do you decide is worthy of an inclusion? Why not the Ibers? Why not the Aquitainii? Why not the Basques (wait, no, the Basques would be awesome)? Again, we have to make choices, and Gauls, by the innacuracies people have towards them, by the lies vehiculated towards them and by the fact that they never, ever have been united, are unworthy of being represented as a civ when we have so much more countries, people or nations that are waiting in line to be represented, inside or outside of Europe (especially when you already have France occupying the same territory and Scotland representing the "celtic" blob).


Edit: sorry about the rant, but I had so many discussions and arguments with friends and foes about the Gauls that having some people helding them in high esteem while, in my country, they're so much used as a tool from the alt-right to push nationalistic anti-immigration anti-EU and borderline fascist agendas, is kind of a trigger for me. I'll stop talking about it from now.

representing the gauls as tribal villages makes no sense what? the maya and the scythians would also be better represented as tribal villages by that logic. So the gauls’ inherent decentralization doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t qualify for a civ

also, i don’t think political connotations used for the gauls are a valid reason to leave them out.

 

[bbbt]

The main argument against this is that GS includes all mechanics of R&F, and thus would enable this civ to function without requiring R&F.

That said, I have also noted that Firaxis isn't perfect, and this is the kind of slip they might make. I wouldn't expect it, but it's possible.

And that this is explicitly delineated on the release page (http://civilization.com/new-frontier-pass/):

*New game mode requires the Gathering Storm expansion to play.

**New game mode requires either the Rise and Fall or Gathering Storm expansions to play.

***New leader requires Rise and Fall expansion to play.

It would be hard to make this oversight when they spelled it out for the game modes, it almost certainly means it's an alt for a RF civ.

 

[Kimiimaro]

Plus, which leader would we have? Vercengetorix? Please, another militaristic civ, a led by a guy known for loosing against Cesar? I would be pathetic. People criticized Kristina enough because she abdicated, why would you think about a leader which the best and pretty much only well documented historical moment was loosing?

It's not victory or defeat to Caesar that was impressive about Vercingetorix, but the fact that he managed to amass tens thousands of Gallic soldiers to fight Julius at Alesia. After all, Boudicca lost in her rebellion as well, but the greater complaints about her inclusion in Civ are her anachronistic or fantasque depictions rather than about her eventual defeat.

 

[Grand-Admiral Thrawn]

also, i don’t think political connotations used for the gauls are a valid reason to leave them out.

When, from the sounds of it, there are plenty of alternatives to the Gauls, political connotations would be a very good reason to include a different civ (one that’s similar to the gaul stereotype)

 

[cosmicmangobear]

Unpopular Opinion: I'd much rather have Ireland in the game than "blob Gauls". It's a lot easier to do justice to a unified political entity than a loose collection of cultures, and makes it much easier to implement in-game. Celts need true representative in the game after the botched attempt at lumping them in with Anglo-Norman Scotland.

 

[Jewelrunna]

My personal wish list would probably be Iroquois, Portugal, Austria, Byzantium, Babylon, and Vietnam/Siam. I realize these are almost all returning Civs, but IMO it doesn't fee right to have a game without Babylon, Byzantium, and Portugal. I also think it'd be weird to have Hungary in the game and not have Austria, considering how important Austria was in European history. Plus they were my favorite Civ to play in Civ V, so I'm a little biased. And I just want more Native American Civs, and the most deserving IMO are the Iroquois. For Asia, I personally would rather see Siam return over adding Vietnam, which I realize is an unpopular opinion, but I'd still be happy with Vietnam.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

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.

If anything I would think we would get the Goths. They are the most popular mod on Civ V steam boards, held two actual kingdoms which spanned the Iberian and Italic peninsulas, and were conveniently united under Theoderic for a hot minute.

While the Goths don't seem to serve a utilitarian map-filling purpose like, say, Oman or Bulgaria or Burma, I do consider them a dark horse and probably the most likely "barbarian" civ. They check a lot more boxes for a unified, imperialistic political entity than the Gauls.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

My personal wish list would probably be Iroquois, Portugal, Austria, Byzantium, Babylon, and Vietnam/Siam. I realize these are almost all returning Civs, but IMO it doesn't fee right to have a game without Babylon, Byzantium, and Portugal. I also think it'd be weird to have Hungary in the game and not have Austria, considering how important Austria was in European history. Plus they were my favorite Civ to play in Civ V, so I'm a little biased. And I just want more Native American Civs, and the most deserving IMO are the Iroquois. For Asia, I personally would rather see Siam return over adding Vietnam, which I realize is an unpopular opinion, but I'd still be happy with Vietnam.

siam was a break off state from khmer, and you can see how similar they would be by comparing the overlap between civ 5 siam and civ 6 khmer. I don’t see the value of having both. Vietnam or Burma would at least be distinct

 

[AriochIV]

If being beaten by Rome was grounds for exclusion, we'd have to remove pretty much all of the existing ancient civilizations...

 

[PhoenicianGold]

siam was a break off state from khmer, and you can see how similar they would be by comparing the overlap between civ 5 siam and civ 6 khmer. I don’t see the value of having both. Vietnam or Burma would at least be distinct

I still really want Burma, especially if we can't have Tibet. I really like Sukritact's mod, although I would prefer a more religious-oriented version led by Anawrahta.

This is accepting that Vietnam, Trung Trac, and water theatres seem almost inevitable. But I'm still of the opinion that SEA was dense enough with prosperous empires that if we get Vietnam, we also have room for and deserve Burma.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I still really want Burma, especially if we can't have Tibet. I really like Sukritact's mod, although I would prefer a more religious-oriented version led by Anawrahta.

This is accepting that Vietnam, Trung Trac, and water theatres seem almost inevitable. But I'm still of the opinion that SEA was dense enough with prosperous empires that if we get Vietnam, we also have room for and deserve Burma.

I’m fine with not getting any nation or leader that sukritact has done because as long as it’s a high quality animated mod with voice acting, i don’t care if it’s official or not

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I’m fine with not getting any nation or leader that sukritact has done because as long as it’s a high quality animated mod with voice acting, i don’t care if it’s official or not

Oh yeah if we don't get Burma in NF or any future DLC I hope he makes an Anawrahta leader. His animations have only gotten better with each project.

That said, I would like a paya with more intuitive yields. I know it would be similar to Scythia's kurgans, but payas scream gold and faith to me, and the fact that they provide neither feels off the mark.
Also, Suk's paya model, while beautiful, doesn't have the typical stupa shape to it. So there's definitely room for Firaxis to do something different; the question is whether the differences would matter or improve the idea at all.

 

[Zaarin]

You're right, but when people talk about Gauls, I don't think they talk about the specific subcultural group of true Gauls.

I think you can assume when people here are asking for the Gauls, they're asking for the Galli. (That being said, there's no reason to believe the Helvetii weren't Galli.)

Cesar himself said

Taking anything the Romans said about their enemies at face value is always a risky proposition. The Romans were expert propagandists. They, like the Greeks, also had a notorious tendency to lump people into large groups. The Romans very much had an attitude of "one barbarian is pretty much like any other barbarian." That Caesar even bothered to make distinctions among the Galli, Belgae, and Aquitainii (which he did, inconsistently) is telling.

Plus, which leader would we have? Vercengetorix?

Vercingetorix would be fine. Dumnorix or Divitiacus would be better.

another militaristic civ

What would you expect of any Celtic civ? They were warriors. That being said, they wouldn't be another Zulu or Macedon that only does warfare. The Gauls were premier craftsmen (their metallurgy was the finest in Europe) and traders, to say nothing of the fact that they were culturally sophisticated and well-educated. Bonus Production from strategic resources and bonuses to culture and/or science would be very appropriate for the Gauls. They were also mercenaries; a considerable portion of Hannibal's army was made up of Celtiberians and Gauls.

why would you think about a leader which the best and pretty much only well documented historical moment was loosing?

There's no shame in losing to someone as brilliant as Caesar, and Vercingetorix made him carry on the war for years. I'd also point out that Cleopatra is in the game. Her most important contribution to history was presiding over the doom of the oldest civilization in the world. Not really her fault--Egypt's doom was written before she took the throne--but I'm just saying...

In France, Gauls are held as a nationalistic legacy, upon which France has been built

TBH I don't care about fictional history or how people use it. Gaulish culture had been dead for centuries by the time the Franks showed up; the Gauls were so thoroughly Romanized after the Gallic War that you couldn't have told a Roman from Gallia Narbonensus from a Roman in Rome. Same with the Britons in Great Britain, which is why I very much don't want to see an Iceni civ. (That and the Brythonic language is almost completely unattested prior to Old Welsh.)

But the fact is that a lot of people thought the Gauls were united which is, once again, utterly wrong and untrue. Making a civ on them would be silly and utter nonsense because they never manage to do anything as a united group.

Once again: Greece. Maya. Phoenicia. India. Many civs don't represent a single polity. A civilization transcends political boundaries.

In fact, Gauls are perfectly represented in the game as the tribal villages: full of resources, of wealth, of treasures, both intellectual, material and spiritual, but they would still be tribes that are not worthy of a civilization.

That's absurd. The Gauls were an urbanized, well-educated, sophisticated culture. Don't take Caesar's propaganda for proper history. They weren't some hunter-gatherers or Neolithic farmers.

every subcultural celtic group into a civilization, what do you decide is worthy of an inclusion? Why not the Ibers? Why not the Aquitainii? Why not the Basques (wait, no, the Basques would be awesome)?

Maybe because none of those is Celtic? The Iberians were maybe Vascones. The Aquitainii and Basque were definitely Vascones. If you mean the Celtiberians, they're language is too poorly known, they have too few leader options, and they weren't nearly as urbanized or sophisticated as the Gauls. The only other Ancient or Classical Celtic people that really compares favorably with the Gauls is the Old Irish, and there's simply no reason to choose the Old Irish over the Medieval Irish, who were the beating heart of European intellectualism in the Early Middle Ages and arguably the most important civilization in Early Medieval Western Europe.

 

[bite]

Moderator Action: This is not a history thread, if you want to discuss history the site has a whole forum for that

 

[AntSou]

Maybe if we behave we get something tomorrow

The better scenario would be a patch video and/or notes Monday, then First Look on Tuesday, or the other way around.

Wednesday for people to hype and digest the upcoming changes, then release on Thursday.

 

[acluewithout]

It will be interesting to see what size the patch is that will drop with the first of the Season Pass

Agreed. I’ll also be interested to see what content (if any) we get with the first update proper in June.

I’m guessing that each DLC will include some limited additional base game content related to the DLC, eg how Apocalypse includes a few additional disasters.If that’s so, then it means FXS might hold off patching in some key content until the appropriate DLC comes along. eg If FXS decided to add more Future Units, they might hold off until they release a war or tech related DLC; if FXS want to patch in Trebuchets, they may wait for a War DLC.

Anyway. I think the overall approach will be more clear after 21 May.

 

[blackcatatonic]

I'm still sticking with my (pessimistic) prediction of Gran Colombia FL on Tuesday, video/livestream on release day.