[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[PhilBowles]

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.

Yes, you could make Assyria different - but you could also make Babylon different, and the main argument raised against them is that their Civ V portrayal is too close to Sumer in Civ VI.

I'm still not seeing why there's any "feeling" that Babylon has been mishmashed into Sumer in Civ VI. I've seen two cities on the Sumerian list that used to be given to Babylon, and significantly they don't include the most characteristic Babylonian cities. The Sumer wiki entry explicitly distinguishes Sumer from Babylon, and Babylon already exists in the game as an entity separate from Sumeria. Sumer has no uniques that have been linked to Babylon in the earlier games.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Yes, you could make Assyria different - but you could also make Babylon different, and the main argument raised against them is that their Civ V portrayal is too close to Sumer in Civ VI.

I'm still not seeing why there's any "feeling" that Sumer has been mishmashed into Sumer in Civ VI. I've seen two cities on the Sumerian list that used to be given to Babylon, and significantly they don't include the most characteristic Babylonian cities. The Sumer wiki entry explicitly distinguishes Sumer from Babylon, and Babylon already exists in the game as an entity separate from Sumeria. Sumer has no uniques that have been linked to Babylon in the earlier games.

sumer has mishmashed babylon because the civ doesn’t feel representative of just sumer, but instead a combination of multiple mesopotamian civ’s, one of which, to me, feels like babylon

 

[Dotsworthy]

Have we heard much about what the natural wonders will do? If I was to guess:

Bermuda Triangle - some kind of naval promotion. Maybe they will kill off the first naval unit to set sail on it in exchange for an empire wide boost

Fountain of Youth - I imagine a boost to food with perhaps some benefit to faith/religion. Maybe religious units gain some form of damage resistance in theological combat.

 

[pokiehl]

Bermuda Triangle is intriguing me. It could be the first natural wonder that one has no chance of actually owning in their territory.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Bermuda Triangle is intriguing me. It could be the first natural wonder that one has no chance of actually owning in their territory.

do we know whether the new natural wonders are exclusive to apocalypse or always there?

it would be weird for the fountain of youth and el dorado to be in every game knowing the don’t actually exist. Yeah, like yes, explorers looked for them but they never actually found them because they don’t exist. And the Bermuda triangle feels very specific to the apocalypse mode to me

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Have we heard much about what the natural wonders will do? If I was to guess:

Bermuda Triangle - some kind of naval promotion. Maybe they will kill off the first naval unit to set sail on it in exchange for an empire wide boost

Fountain of Youth - I imagine a boost to food with perhaps some benefit to faith/religion. Maybe religious units gain some form of damage resistance in theological combat.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Bermuda Triangle is totally negative, randomly sinking naval units.

In Civ V, the Fountain of Youth healed units in a single turn. I expect it will have some kind of similar bonus this time around. Perhaps an increased healing promotion for units that encounter it.

In Civ V, El Dorado gave the first discoverer a large sum of gold. I expect Paititi to have a similar bonus.

 

[VermelhoRed]

kabul has little to do with the ottomans tf

Yes, but if they were doing the Civ V thing, and first adding potential civs as city-states to have them as full civs later, they'd definitely add Istambul as a city-state before Kabul, that's the point. Being a CS is not a factor for or against being later added as a full civ in Civ VI. Of course, the remaining 5 civs could very well be Portugal, Italy, Afghanistan, Babylon and Micronesia for all we know... but they could also be Byzantium, Gauls, Vietnam, Timurids ande Iroquois.

I think a CS having an unique improvement is a good argument for them not being replaced, though, so I'd rule out Ireland and the Moors from the civs that have been sugested on this thread.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Yes, but if they were doing the Civ V thing, and first adding potential civs as city-states to have them as full civs later, they'd definitely add Istambul as a city-state before Kabul, that's the point. Being a CS is not a factor for or against being later added as a full civ in Civ VI. Of course, the remaining 5 civs could very well be Portugal, Italy, Afghanistan, Babylon and Micronesia for all we know... but they could also be Byzantium, Gauls, Vietnam, Timurids ande Iroquois.

I think a CS having an unique improvement is a good argument for them not being replaced, though, so I'd rule out Ireland and the Moors from the civs that have been sugested on this thread.

i’m still confused as to what Kabul has to do with the Ottomans, your assertion makes no sense. The turkic people which Kabul was influenced by were the Ghaznavids and the Seljuks, not the Ottomans, and for much of their history, they were controlled by Persian, Indian, or local forces like the Pashtuns.

I’m really confused as to what the Ottomans have to do with Kabul in your mind.

Although, it’s highly possible that Kabul becomes incorporated into a Ghaznavid civ in NF, which i’m high key hoping for

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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.

Besides Cleopatra, who is as much Egyptian as she is Greek/Macedonian by ethnicity, nothing about the rest of Egypt screams Greek though. And just because Rome is Greek-influenced doesn't make it a Greek civ. By that logic Korea, Japan and possibly Vietnam would be considered Chinese.

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.

I said it jokingly as it would seem the only reasonable way we could get the unit in the game. I doubt Henry V will get in as another leader for England.

 

[pokiehl]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Bermuda Triangle is totally negative, randomly sinking naval units.

In Civ V, the Fountain of Youth healed units in a single turn. I expect it will have some kind of similar bonus this time around. Perhaps an increased healing promotion for units that encounter it.

In Civ V, El Dorado gave the first discoverer a large sum of gold. I expect Paititi to have a similar bonus.

The return of these wonders from V makes me anxious to see the return of Solomon's Mines too. Always loved that one!

 

[PhilBowles]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Bermuda Triangle is totally negative, randomly sinking naval units.

In Civ V, the Fountain of Youth healed units in a single turn. I expect it will have some kind of similar bonus this time around. Perhaps an increased healing promotion for units that encounter it.

In Civ V, El Dorado gave the first discoverer a large sum of gold. I expect Paititi to have a similar bonus.

I just hope the Bermuda Triangle is specific to the Apocalypse mode - I thought people sent the message loud and clear in Civ V after El Dorado and the Fountain of Youth that they didn't want fantasy Natural Wonders (even though we subsequently got King Solomon's Mines).

Of course 'the Bermuda Triangle', unlike these, does refer to a real geographical area - but it's not an area with anything special about it, so it's in the game only because of its reputation for supernatural occurrences.

sumer has mishmashed babylon because the civ doesn’t feel representative of just sumer, but instead a combination of multiple mesopotamian civ’s, one of which, to me, feels like babylon

It doesn't feel mishmashed to me. It doesn't feel well-implemented, but I think it's intended to be just Sumer - as the Wiki also suggests.

 

[Inhalaattori]

Well we could also separate South-America and Central - and North America. That makes more sense from geographical point of view.

R&F: Mapuche (South-America) and Cree (Central - and North America)
GS: Inca (South-America) and Canada (Central - and North America)
NF: Gran Colombia (South-America) and Maya (Central - and North America)

On the other hand lots of Civilizations had presence in multiple continents. Many Civs had land in 3 continents: Europe, Africa and Asia (Ottomans, Rome, Greece, Phoenicia etc.). So its not really that simple, but what is clear to me is that they want to have pretty equal representation in each expansion/season pass. Also in CIV VI they clearly seem to be thinking "empty" spots in the map more than before. Gran Colombia IMO is example of this kind of thinking and also Eastern-Europe is now better represented with Poland and Hungary than it has ever been before.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I just hope the Bermuda Triangle is specific to the Apocalypse mode - I thought people sent the message loud and clear in Civ V after El Dorado and the Fountain of Youth that they didn't want fantasy Natural Wonders (even though we subsequently got King Solomon's Mines).

Of course 'the Bermuda Triangle', unlike these, does refer to a real geographical area - but it's not an area with anything special about it, so it's in the game only because of its reputation for supernatural occurrences.

yeah i agree i don’t necessarily like the fantasy wonders. I hope they at least give us a toggle for them in the game set up

it’s really weird for us to have el dorado and the fountain of youth in civ 6 again

 

[pokiehl]

I just hope the Bermuda Triangle is specific to the Apocalypse mode - I thought people sent the message loud and clear in Civ V after El Dorado and the Fountain of Youth that they didn't want fantasy Natural Wonders (even though we subsequently got King Solomon's Mines).

Of course 'the Bermuda Triangle', unlike these, does refer to a real geographical area - but it's not an area with anything special about it, so it's in the game only because of its reputation for supernatural occurrences.

I loved getting those fanciful wonders in V.

 

[VermelhoRed]

i’m still confused as to what Kabul has to do with the Ottomans, your assertion makes no sense. The turkic people which Kabul was influenced by were the Ghaznavids and the Seljuks, not the Ottomans, and for much of their history, they were controlled by Persian, Indian, or local forces like the Pashtuns.

I’m really confused as to what the Ottomans have to do with Kabul in your mind.

Although, it’s highly possible that Kabul becomes incorporated into a Ghaznavid civ in NF, which i’m high key hoping for

I'll try to explain what I said before in a more detailed manner, once, if you can't get it I give up. In Civ V, they used to add city-states that would later be converted into full civs. Their selection of city-states was basically any important city that was not yet depicted in a full civ to that point, which led to a lot of replacement. Of the 8 new civs added in Civ V's last expansion, 6 were depicted as city-states before. In Civ VI, however, they haven't shown the same pattern. They have skipped many cities that would be turned later into full civs, and had many of the CS in this cycle be from cultures they didn't want to depict as full civs. So they never had Istambul as a city-state, even though they could have had it as a militaristic Middle Eastern CS up until GS. Instead they had Kabul, which was less important, historically, as a CS since Vanilla, but added the Ottomans, and not Afghanistan, as a civ in GS. They did include 6 city-states that were later replaced due to being on full civs added later, but choices such as having Presslav as a militaristic European CS on vanilla and not Budapest, Vilnius as a cultural European CS on vanilla and not Warsaw, Yerevan and not Tbilisi, Buenos Aires and not Bogotá, all this points out to them having either planned ahead, or simply having a different philosophy in choosing what is CS-material and what is Full-Civ-material in this cycle, which makes trying to predict new civs based on the current CS list pretty unreliable to me.

 

[DWilson]

I'm hoping mods will be able to further break up the game modes (e.g. disable Soothsayers and Natural Mythical Wonders, keep the city destroying meteors).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Also in CIV VI they clearly seem to be thinking "empty" spots in the map more than before. Gran Colombia IMO is example of this kind of thinking and also Eastern-Europe is now better represented with Poland and Hungary than it has ever been before.

I agree. If we consider though the Cree to cover the western part of current day Canada, wouldn't we need a tribe from located in the western U.S. to fill out the gap there as well? At least that is how I see it.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I'm hoping mods will be able to further break up the game modes (e.g. disable Soothsayers and Natural Mythical Wonders, keep the city destroying meteors).

I'm sure it will be easy

What I'm intrigued to know if this will open a door to modders creating their own game modes.

 

[DWilson]

I'm sure it will be easy

What I'm intrigued to know if this will open a door to modders creating their own game modes.

Hopefully.

Creating their own game modes is one reason I expect Firaxis wants to keep the DLL unreleased until they finish their own releases. Wouldn't want a modder to release their own very good version prior to Firaxis. It would make their DLC look cheaper

 

[Inawordyes]

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

Something interesting that your graph at the top just pointed out to me is that we’ve so far gotten, from the collective Asia continent, 2 Asia civs in R&F, and 2 Middle East civs in GS. This is on top of the first DLC Pass, which gave us Persia (1 Middle East), and Indonesia and Khmer (2 Asia). Both wildcard civs also geographically have been on the opposite side from the two ‘AME’ civs but in adjacent areas (Georgia in the Caucasus by the Middle East while the other two are in Asia, Maori in Oceania by Asia while the other two are in the Middle East); Australia is the only outlier in that it fell on the same side of the world as the majority in its group of civs.

By pattern - which is a bit clouded by the fact that Khmer and Indonesia were likely meant for R&F originally, and thus were replaced by Korea and Mongolia when they got moved to the DLC Pass, we’ve gotten:

2 Asia, 1 ME, 1 Asia-adjacent
2 Asia, 1 ME-adjacent
2 ME, 1 Asia-adjacent
???

so in theory, we should get 2 ME, 1 Asia this time around, with possibly an ME-adjacent as well if they’re gonna somewhat mirror the first pass. And it does fit, considering everybody’s assuming Babylon/Assyria and Vietnam, and Byzantium obbiously fits as the ME-adjacent civ. Personally, I still feel like we’re gonna skip Byzantium for now and just get surprise Hittites without an ME-adjacency, but either way the pattern does seem to check out reasonably well. If we got all 3 + Hittites, though, it would leave just one spot open for the second Europe civ, which would either be Portugal or Italy most likely.

Remember, with the first DLC pass, the same geographical rule set held true as well, just with one of the Americas rep being an extra AMEO civ instead. So there’s also an outside chance for more Asian representation, which would take away from Europe in this case since Americas is covered already, or the vice-versa and we lose probably the second ME civ to get 3 in Europe (Portugal/Italy/Byzantium)

Patterns are fun, it’s a fun time, this is fun, I like this.