[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Thenewwwguy]

I personally hope everyone's expectations are subverted.

It's interesting how there's already this general air of confidence here regarding the future civs: everyone appears very sure that Italy and Vietnam and Kublai Khan are coming for instance.

Aside from the lack of evidence for anything, to me, the inclusion of Gran Colombia (which few people anticipated) shows all bets are off.

Here's to be being surprised!

Vietnam and Italy are really low on my wishlist. I’m hoping that they aren’t givens. Same is true with Byzantium too, tbh.

Kublai is a returning leader who can lead two ingame Civs and who gets a lot of community support. Same with Vietnam.

I'll keep my bets on Angola but I expect a very big cookie if I get that one right. It's a long shot and this spot is likely needed to make space for both a Native American and Mesoporamian Civ in this pass.
If either Byzantium or Babylon fail to make it this season, that's a good sign we might get further content.

I can’t see Angola in civ at this point because Kongo was mostly in modern day Angola

Agree on Kublai, not sure about the future content assertion.

Or maybe they're changing their plans.

As much as I love Babylon and would love to see their return, I don't think they're necessary and I won't be disappointed if they didn't make it in Civ VI.

On the other hand, I hate the hype over Byzantium. I mean, the major argument people had to not have Italy being in the game was "There was already Rome, we can't have Italy!" while Byzantium was literally the Roman Empire (they never called themselves Byzantium IIRC) and their capital is literally at the same place as Ottomans capital. And don't get me started over the Greece/Byzantium overlap (and Macedon now too).

Plus, if Byzantium is a contender, what would they be? A religious militaristic/cultural civ? Haven't we have enough of them? Byzantium is a "classic" empire, not so much new about them that "big empire that went wide". I mean, with Italy, we have the possibilities to try new gameplays about the city-states organization of renaissance Italy; even Babylon, if we simply keep the city-State bonus and make it a CUA, would be an interesting take on a scientific civ, making science not necessarily out of campuses but out of great works (but it would work great with Assyria and Nineveh). But Byzantium? I bet that if they put it in NFP they would be another basic civ with no new and engaging gameplay, and would be there only because it's a fan staple with no reason than being a staple.

I don’t want Byzantium in either, especially seeing as we have 4 directly hellenic influenced civs and 4 hellenic leaders.

Also, the city state aspect of italy is already mimicked in the similar Germany represented as Barbarossa, the HRE Emperor.

I don't know what the odds are for Celts, but they are definitely a Civilization classic we might expect to have back.

Celts are ultra blobby. They should specify by picking Gauls or Ireland

Guess is not a Leak. He didnt even say in the post he had any information about the new Civs. He didnt say it was "a leak". It is also clear he didnt have any real information about the new Civs, because listing some 90-100% certain Civs and saying expansion will have "Babylon OR Assyria" is not actual information. What people want to know is what the NEW Civs will be. He didnt have information about these so his guess is pretty much totally irrelevant.

Generally, leakers tend to make their leaks look like guesses so that they don’t get found out on the company end. It’s very common among Pokemon leaks, as well as all of the GS leaks on both reddit and here.

Amongst the general fanbase, is Lorenzo de’ Medici one of, if not the most popular choice for leading an Italian civ? I know he’s not really been mentioned in here when talking Italy from what I’ve seen, but the Tuscany mod for V is really popular, and we’ve gotten at least Kongo, maybe Mapuche too(?), from the popularity of their V mods thrusting them into the conversation. He’s also a big personality with an interesting story during his life, which lines up with Firaxis’ general philosophy for VI leaders.

I always thought Vittorio Emmanuel II would be more likely because Lorenzo di Medici only led Florence (which I wouldn’t mind as a civ in its own right, although I hope it doesn’t happen in this expansion)

that said, if we get Tuscany, I want Mathilda, not Lorenzo, to lead it.

 

[blackcatatonic]

I'll admit, that as much as I want Italy, I would be disappointed if they made everything based around post-unification and modern Italy. At that point I would rather another Civ in it's place. I'm hoping that wouldn't be the case especially since Ed Beach is fascinated with the Renaissance/Early Modern Europe.
I am also hoping they don't go too modern with Ethiopia as well.

I think they could go either way with Ethiopia.

In fact, since we already know we're getting one 19th-century leader in the form of Bolivar, and we also know they won't want to include too many late-era leaders if earlier options are available, the direction they take with Ethiopia could suggest which way they'll go with other leaders. Haile Selassie or Menelik II might suggest to me that a 19th-century Italian leader is unlikely.

 

[bbbt]

I don’t want Byzantium in either, especially seeing as we have 4 directly hellenic influenced civs and 4 hellenic leaders.

I'm not super psyched for Byzantium, but do see it as an opportunity to do something interesting with religion - i.e. give them a schism mechanic (or give everyone a schism mechanic and have Byzantium something interesting with it).

If not, it will be a doubly wasted opportunity.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I'm not super psyched for Byzantium, but do see it as an opportunity to do something interesting with religion - i.e. give them a schism mechanic (or give everyone a schism mechanic and have Byzantium something interesting with it).

If not, it will be a doubly wasted opportunity.

i’m not saying byzantium isn’t an interesting civ, but they should’ve thought about that before making 3 greek city state civ’s, adding cleopatra as a greek leader and having rome as a greek-influenced civ, creating too much greek in the game, as well as choosing an ottoman emperor who led from Istanbul instead of one who led from Bursa or Edirne.

Byzantium as a science and religion civ would be really interesting though.

 

[blackcatatonic]

I think one of the strongest cases for Byzantium is the interesting opportunities they offer for religion in the game. I'd like religion to be reworked in any case, too!

 

[CPWimmer]

AssemblingTyphoon said that they were guessing:



That’s why, despite their record with Gathering Storm and that they obviously are (or at least were) well connected with the design team, this is not a “leak”, and why it does not compare to the complete reveal of the final list of Civs that was the GS leak.

Very possibly these were mooted civs that didn’t make the cut last time. Very possibly they will all be in this new lot of DLC. But frankly it is an unsurprising list of safe bets and old favourites that would have been common guesses anyway.

Just to be clear, AT also said "I think we'll get Ottomans, Inca, Mali, Maori, Phoenicia, Sweden, Hungary and Canada."

That was just the way he posted about stuff that wasn't actually officially announced yet. I'm not saying that in fall 2018 they had the full list, and again I'm not saying that the information hasn't changed in 20 months. But to say that his list of post GS Civ's was just guessing and reading the room seems a bit disingenuous to me.

All indications were that was an actual leak of an early list of Cvs that Firaxis had in the works for what is now NFP. And so far at least, all current indications have proven that list to be correct (however not complete - which isn't what I was trying to express).

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Just to be clear, AT also said "I think we'll get Ottomans, Inca, Mali, Maori, Phoenicia, Sweden, Hungary and Canada."

That was just the way he posted about stuff that wasn't actually officially announced yet. I'm not saying that in fall 2018 they had the full list, and again I'm not saying that the information hasn't changed in 20 months. But to say that his list of post GS Civ's was just guessing and reading the room seems a bit disingenuous to me.

All indications were that was an actual leak of an early list of Cvs that Firaxis had in the works for what is now NFP. And so far at least, all current indications have proven that list to be correct (however not complete - which isn't what I was trying to express).

yup, the i think is really common in leaking, as I mentioned earlier. It’s often done with the purpose of making it look less like a leak and such.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think they could go either way with Ethiopia.

In fact, since we already know we're getting one 19th-century leader in the form of Bolivar, and we also know they won't want to include too many late-era leaders if earlier options are available, the direction they take with Ethiopia could suggest which way they'll go with other leaders. Haile Selassie or Menelik II might suggest to me that a 19th-century Italian leader is unlikely.

Hopefully a certain 20th century Italian leader is unlikely as well (He most certainly is).

I mentioned this earlier but so far we have had a leader from the Classical Era to Industrial Era representing Sub-Sahara Africa (if you consider Nubia).
If that's the case than if they follow the pattern Ethiopia's leader is most likely going to be from either the Modern period, which I think Menelik II counts or (hopefully) Axum period if Nubia isn't considered Sub-Saharan.

i’m not saying byzantium isn’t an interesting civ, but they should’ve thought about that before making 3 greek city states and choosing an ottoman emperor who led from Istanbul instead of one who led from Bursa.

I like Greek/Mediterranean Classical history, so maybe I'm biased but I don't personally see the problem. I am also wondering what three separate Greeks do we have now? The cities of Athens and Sparta are part of one Civ, just like Gandhi and Chandragupta are both considered from India. Sure Macedon is also there but that would still only two "Greek" civs.
I'd be fine with Justinian as leader who was the last of the more "Roman Emperor" for the Byzantines anyway.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Hopefully a certain 20th century Italian leader is unlikely as well (He most certainly is).

I mentioned this earlier but so far we have had a leader from the Classical Era to Industrial Era representing Sub-Sahara Africa (if you consider Nubia).
If that's the case than if they follow the pattern Ethiopia's leader is most likely going to be from either the Modern period, which I think Menelik II counts or (hopefully) Axum period if Nubia isn't considered Sub-Saharan.


I like Greek/Mediterranean Classical history, so maybe I'm biased but I don't personally see the problem. I am also wondering what three separate Greeks do we have now? The cities of Athens and Sparta are part of one Civ, just like Gandhi and Chandragupta are both considered from India. Sure Macedon is also there but that would still only two "Greek" civs.
I'd be fine with Justinian as leader who was the last of the more "Roman Emperor" for the Byzantines anyway.

well i think the fact that you have sparta, athens and pella all represented in the game right now, as well as cleopatra, who was greek, and the roman empire, which was greek influenced, means you’ve got a lot of greek in the game right now. I’d much rather have Byzantium’s spot be given to a native american civ or an asian/middle eastern civ we’ve never seen before.

Maybe in Civ 7, they give us Mehmet II leading from Edirne and less greek leaders. Then I can fw the byzantines.

 

[Zaarin]

I imagined it could be a shrine or unique Worship building as well. But Holy Site makes just as much sense.

However they present it, I want the Rock-Hewn Churches in the game, and I want them to look big and bold on the map. That means Unique District, Wonder, or Unique Improvement; I'd be very dissatisfied with having to squint at my Holy Site with a Shrine or Temple replacement.

 

[Kjimmet]

Not certain if known but the NFP playlist has now privated video

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Here is the pattern:

Every expansion contains 2 American Civs 2 European Civs 2 Asia MiddleEastern Civs 1 African Civ and 1 Geographical Wild Card Civ
On top of that, every expansion contains 4 new Civs and 4 returning Civs

That mean:
We have covered Americas with The Maya and Gran Colombia
We have covered Africa with Ethiopia
We already have two returning Civs in a new set.

What we miss:
2 European Civs
2 Asian Middle Eastern Civs
1 Wild Card Civ
On top of that 3 new Civs and 2 returning Civs

Asia and the Middle East:
If Babylonians and The Byzantine is a thing than Vietnam is out and two European Civs an a Wild Card Civ must be new ones.
Europe:
If Portugal or Celts is the thing Babylonians or The Byzantine are out but that leaves a spot for a new Asian Civ - Vietnam? and second a new European Civ - Italy?
If both Portugal and Celts is a thing both Babylonians and The Byzantine are out and we have a spot for two new Asian Civs
Last Wild Card Civ is probably a new one.

On that basis my odds are:
Europe: Portugal/Celts and Italy
Asia and Middle East Babylonians/The Byzantine and Vietnam
Wild Card: Innuits/Native North Americans

So my guess: Portugal, Italy, Babylonians, Vietnam, Inuit

 

[PhilBowles]

One of Assyria / Babylon is definitely making it into the game lol. The only way they would get snubbed would be if Firaxis decided to introduce a new civ from the same area (Akkadia, Armenia, Elam, Judea) or slam us out of nowhere with the Hittites. Of the two, Assyria is more likely, since Babylon and Akkad are city states (though they could be replaced with Nineveh and Ashur respectively without a hitch)

In Civ V, city-states were actually a pretty good guide as to whether a civ would be added and people tended to predict civs based on whether their capital was one of the CSes. Didn't Australia replace multiple CSes in Civ VI? I don't see why they'd subvert expectations for the sake of it by choosing Assyria over Babylon, especially with Sumeria having an aggressive science playstyle similar to Civ V's Assyria. Assyria was well-implemented in Civ V, but it's not a major feature of the series like Babylon.

If anything I would want Wales so we could get Longbowmen.

The longbowman was actually Anglo-Norman in origin, even though it's been associated with the Welsh, and its representation as an English UU in the past is historically appropriate. The English, famously, are the people who had laws in place regarding longbow training for the general populace.

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

With the sheer breadth of attitudes among the characters represented in this series, Churchill's 'amazing racism' is far from exceptional. It's popular - and certainly not inaccurate - to criticise Churchill for his attitudes, not least because his reputation is still unjustly inflated in his home country, but he was a conservative product of his time as much as ' Roosevelt, whose idea of an enlightened attitude was "I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every 10 are", let alone the characters from generally less tolerant periods than the 20th Century. Though if Churchill is especially controversial outside the UK I can imagine Firaxis steering clear of him: even if his attitudes weren't atypical, wider awareness of his opinions than those of other characters could make him a sore point.

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.

That sounds no different from the way "the Celts" have been adopted as an origin myth in the British Isles, combining the Welsh - the remnants of pre-Saxon inhabitants who, so far as we can tell, weren't very distinct culturally from the Germanic newcomers and much of whose modern characteristic 'Celtic' folklore seems to either have relatively recent English origins or to be part of a pan-European folklore that didn't differ substantially between Germanic and Celtic groups, and whose language is part of the same group as but not closely related to Gaelic; the Scots - named for a Nordic group who arrived from Ireland and whose historical culture is a mix of resident Celtic, Anglo-Norman, and Nordic influence; and Ireland, which is probably the most 'purely' Celtic but with strong Norse influence into an imagined single ancestral entity.

 

[blackcatatonic]

Not certain if known but the NFP playlist has now privated video

Hmm, maybe they're doing this with all their FL videos now! Could be a working from home workaround.

In any case, I hereby declare Gran Colombia hype for tomorrow

 

[Zaarin]

I'd be absolutely astonished to see the Inuit. They have no leaders and no cities. They rarely congregated in groups larger than a couple dozen because of the low carrying capacity of the land they inhabited. To my knowledge, they're also sensitive about media portrayals. They make no sense as a civ, even as a novelty. IMO the Wild Card will be a Native American civ.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Here is the pattern:

Every expansion contains 2 American Civs 2 European Civs 2 Asia MiddleEastern Civs 1 African Civ and 1 Geographical Wild Card Civ
On top of that, every expansion contains 4 new Civs and 4 returning Civs

That mean:
We have covered Americas with The Maya and Gran Colombia
We have covered Africa with Ethiopia
We already have two returning Civs in a new set.

What we miss:
2 European Civs
2 Asian Middle Eastern Civs
1 Wild Card Civ
On top of that 3 new Civs and 2 returning Civs

Asia and the Middle East:
If Babylonians and The Byzantine is a thing than Vietnam is out and two European Civs an a Wild Card Civ must be new ones.
Europe:
If Portugal or Celts is the thing Babylonians or The Byzantine are out but that leaves a spot for a new Asian Civ - Vietnam? and second a new European Civ - Italy?
If both Portugal and Celts is a thing both Babylonians and The Byzantine are out and we have a spot for two new Asian Civs
Last Wild Card Civ is probably a new one.

On that basis my odds are:
Europe: Portugal/Celts and Italy
Asia and Middle East Babylonians/The Byzantine and Vietnam
Wild Card: Innuits/Native North Americans

So my guess: Portugal, Italy, Babylonians, Vietnam, Inuit

your ‘wild card’ civs have also always been from the asia/oceania region

you can also extend this pattern to DLC with some, albeit less, consistency on pattern.

The Inuit have no historical leaders. If we want a snow civ, I’d rather see Sapmi.

In Civ V, city-states were actually a pretty good guide as to whether a civ would be added and people tended to predict civs based on whether their capital was one of the CSes. Didn't Australia replace multiple CSes in Civ VI? I don't see why they'd subvert expectations for the sake of it by choosing Assyria over Babylon, especially with Sumeria having an aggressive science playstyle similar to Civ V's Assyria. Assyria was well-implemented in Civ V, but it's not a major feature of the series like Babylon.



The longbowman was actually Anglo-Norman in origin, even though it's been associated with the Welsh, and its representation as an English UU in the past is historically appropriate. The English, famously, are the people who had laws in place regarding longbow training for the general populace.



With the sheer breadth of attitudes among the characters represented in this series, Churchill's 'amazing racism' is far from exceptional. It's popular - and certainly not inaccurate - to criticise Churchill for his attitudes, not least because his reputation is still unjustly inflated in his home country, but he was a conservative product of his time as much as ' Roosevelt, whose idea of an enlightened attitude was "I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every 10 are", let alone the characters from generally less tolerant periods than the 20th Century. Though if Churchill is especially controversial outside the UK I can imagine Firaxis steering clear of him: even if his attitudes weren't atypical, wider awareness of his opinions than those of other characters could make him a sore point.



That sounds no different from the way "the Celts" have been adopted as an origin myth in the British Isles, combining the Welsh - the remnants of pre-Saxon inhabitants who, so far as we can tell, weren't very distinct culturally from the Germanic newcomers and much of whose modern characteristic 'Celtic' folklore seems to either have relatively recent English origins or to be part of a pan-European folklore that didn't differ substantially between Germanic and Celtic groups, and whose language is part of the same group as but not closely related to Gaelic; the Scots - named for a Nordic group who arrived from Ireland and whose historical culture is a mix of resident Celtic, Anglo-Norman, and Nordic influence; and Ireland, which is probably the most 'purely' Celtic but with strong Norse influence into an imagined single ancestral entity.

In regards to Assyria/Babylon, I’d think that Assyria could definitely distinguish itself more from Sumer, given that Ziggurats, which I connect to Babylon closely, have already been taken.

As others have mentioned, Assyria could also pick a leader like Tiglath-Pileser who would focus on non-military endeavors. Babylon feels like it’s been mishmashed into sumer while Assyria has something to still give imo.

You’re correct that CS’s, contrary to this chat’s popular opinion, so far have been good measures of civs appearing later.

Consider Amsterdam, Toronto, Seoul, Palanque and Jakarta, just to name the ones that came to my mind immediately.

 

[VermelhoRed]

In Civ V, city-states were actually a pretty good guide as to whether a civ would be added and people tended to predict civs based on whether their capital was one of the CSes. Didn't Australia replace multiple CSes in Civ VI? I don't see why they'd subvert expectations for the sake of it by choosing Assyria over Babylon, especially with Sumeria having an aggressive science playstyle similar to Civ V's Assyria. Assyria was well-implemented in Civ V, but it's not a major feature of the series like Babylon.

However, they seem to have mostly done the opposite for Civ VI. For example, Yerevan has been depicted as a CS since vanilla, but the expansions added the neighbouring Georgia as a full civ instead. Same for Mexico City and Buenos Aires, with Gran Colombia being the full civ instead. Other examples would be Vilnius and Poland, Preslav and Hungary, Armagh and Scotland, Kumasi and Mali. There were only six instances of City-States being replaced by a full Civilization in Civ VI's DLC and two expansions, compared to 14 for Civ V.

Edit: Seven with Palenque and Maya, but NFP has no equivalent on Civ V's cycle, so it would be unfair to count it.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I feel like you're making a mistake lumping the Cree with the Mapuche. From the US perspective, the natives of South America and the natives of North America are not in the same category. The Mapuche are better lumped with the Inca.

He ‘lumped them in together’ cuz they came out in the same expansion :facepalm: he’s making the point that there are two american civs in each expansion, which is correct per his theory.

However, they seem to have mostly done the opposite for Civ VI. For example, Yerevan has been depicted as a CS since vanilla, but the expansions added the neighbouring Georgia as a full civ instead. Same for Mexico City and Buenos Aires, with Gran Colombia being the full civ instead. Other examples would be Vilnius and Poland, Preslav and Hungary, Armagh and Scotland, Kumasi and Mali. There were only six instances of City-States being replaced by a full Civilization in Civ VI's DLC and two expansions, compared to 14 for Civ V.

Edit: Seven with Palenque and Maya, but NFP has no equivalent on Civ V's cycle, so it would be unfair to count it.

Mexico city was added in GS to replace Toronto.

 

[VermelhoRed]

Mexico city was added in GS to replace Toronto.

Fair, but the point still stands. I'd also like to add Kabul and Ottomans to that list.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Fair, but the point still stands. I'd also like to add Kabul and Ottomans to that list.

kabul has little to do with the ottomans tf