[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Thenewwwguy]

Actually, despite being the northernmost PNW civ, the coastal environments where the Tlingit lived were still relatively temperate. It's worth noting that PNW men, yes, even as far north as Alaska, went completely naked for much of the year, adding birch bark kilts and cloaks in the winter (or fur cloaks, usually bear, deer, or otter, in particularly inclement weather); even in the winter, they went barefoot. So yeah, Tundra bonuses for the Tlingit would be even stranger than the Tundra bonuses for Russia. The only Native American civ I could see giving Tundra bonuses to would be an inland Athabaskan tribe like the Chipewyan or Gwichʼin, whom I'd consider the darkest of dark horses, or the Cree--but that ship's sailed.


Who said the Huns were viable? To my knowledge, no one was very impressed with that badly cobbled together civ. One might also point out that the Huns weren't European, which doesn't exactly do wonders for your argument.

Being from the PNW, I was aware that western natives didn’t need to wear clothes for most of the year, but I’m surprised that applied even to the Tlingit.

Nomadic civs are fine: Hun implementation was immensely poor but at least a united Hunnic Empire actually existed. The Inuits are nomadic, yes, but they never had settlements large enough to even be considered a city, let alone 25. This also may be a byproduct of their lack of written history, but we are aware of exactly 0 historically relevant leaders who spoke for more than one Inuit settlement, let alone the ethnicity in whole, hence why even though I’m not a fan of Civ 5 huns, they make more sense than the Inuits as a civ.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Silly humans, always trying to read rules into chaos. They could of course follow the pattern of Civ selection based on the past.

Or not. It's their game, they can do anything. We will know in due time. I'm sorry to say, but i think you are investing too much time guessing upcoming civs. It may even seem that you are a bit fanatic.

But I can probably predict their pattern:
Percentage of getting in:
100% Portugal- Because it's called New Frontier and who better to include than the nation who started the Age of Discovery and set the course for England, France, Spain and the Dutch to follow. Also two of the places it colonized, Kongo and Brazil are in the game.
100% Assyria (50%) or Babylon (50%)- Let's face it we need another Mesopotamian Civ that feels like Mesopotamia. Either one would do. Assyria geographically doesn't overlap with Sumer and Babylon is a classic.
90% Byzantines- Byzantines could have made for an interesting alt leader to Rome. But that doesn't mean it can't be it's own Civ. If we follow the tradition of two European Civs than they are up there.
70% Vietnam- East Asia was left out of GS. I assume they don't want to skip that region this time around. We've memed Tamar and Lady Six Sky into Civ Franchise existence. I'm pretty sure the Trung Sisters are on the radar for the devs.
60% Navajo/Apache/Comanche/Tlinglit etc.- I'm under the impression we aren't done with Native North America. The Cree shouldn't represent them all. I'm sure a U.S. tribe is planned and from the SW or Western part. They already tried with the Pueblo.
50% Italy/Bulgaria/Switzerland/Belgium etc. (new European)- Byzantines could take the spot of a new European Civ. Many of them are represented by city-states. If the city-states are shown than they are out.
40% Burma/Tibet- Not as big of a fanbase for Burma as Vietnam. Tibet has a large fanbase, which I now know, but due to political reasons is why I put them here. Also both are located in East Asia. If political issues aren't a problem they would be viable.
30% Iroquois- If we had to have a returning NA tribe, it would be the Iroquois. But out of all the returning ones these can be easily replaced by another tribe as I mentioned above.
20%- Hittites- Viable Near East option but overshadowed by Assyria/Babylon and geographically by Ottomans and possibly Byzantium. Plus city state bonus is cool.
10%- Gaul- I think the only probable "Celts" option if we were to get a proper Celts replacement. I still think Scotland is the stand in for the Celts though.
5%- Austria/Siam/Songhai/Morocco etc. These are all the ones from Civ 5 that I think are easily replaced by others currently in the game and aren't needed with only 5 more spots left.
0%- The Huns and Venice. Hopefully onetime gimmicks. Well at least the Huns.
-1%- The Inuit- Not probable

I left out any Sub-Saharan African Civs because I think we are done after Ethiopia. After Australia and the Maori I don't expect anyone from Austronesia as well, not counting South East Asia.

 

[cosmicmangobear]

Who said the Huns were viable? To my knowledge, no one was very impressed with that badly cobbled together civ. One might also point out that the Huns weren't European, which doesn't exactly do wonders for your argument.

I'm simply pointing out that some extinct and comparatively obscure Old World cultures (i.e. the Huns) have been included in the game that don't meet the arbitrary "civilization" criteria, while many important native cultures (i.e. the Inuit) are continuously excluded despite spanning a massive geographical range, playing a vital role in the history of the Americas, and having a unique culture that is still evolving today.

 

[Zaarin]

Being from the PNW, I was aware that western natives didn’t need to wear clothes for most of the year, but I’m surprised that applied even to the Tlingit.

The Tlingits obviously wore more clothing than other PNW tribes--to my knowledge, they're the only ones who wore fur--but yeah, even the Tlingits went barefoot year round and naked for much of the year. Even as far north as Yukutat, their northernmost settlement.

Hun implementation was immensely poor but at least a Hunnic Empire actually existed.

TBH the Huns got in because of Attila, but the design was atrocious--from Attila's bad Chuvash to the random city names. The Huns are just too poorly understood to build a civ around. Even the Scythians--who are a huge improvement over the Huns--are kind of poorly known, as demonstrated by the use of archaeological sites as their city names. (Personally I would have named the cities after Scythian clans; they could have come up with a decent number of cities that way.)

This also may be a byproduct of their lack of written history, but we are aware of exactly 0 historically relevant leaders who spoke for more than one Inuit settlement, let alone the ethnicity in whole

I don't think it's a byproduct of the lack of written history: we're talking about an ethnicity that spans the entire region from Eastern Siberia (a back-migration) all the way to Greenland. We're also talking about a society that was really low on centralized authority; it's a lot easier to lead by consensus when your community is a couple dozen people at most.

I'm simply pointing out that some extinct and comparatively obscure Old World cultures (i.e. the Huns) have been included in the game that don't meet the arbitrary "civilization" criteria, while many important native cultures (i.e. the Inuit) are continuously excluded despite spanning a massive geographical range, playing a vital role in the history of the Americas, and having a unique culture that is still evolving today.

I'm not being inconsistent, though: I don't think the Huns should even have been considered for a moment. I also think that there should be certain qualities that a society should possess in order to be a civilization, and I think urbanization is the most fundamental one. This includes urbanized Native Americans like the Iroquois, the post-Mississippian confederations, the Navajo, and the PNW tribes; it excludes the Inuit and most other Siberian natives--and the Huns. Eurasian steppe nomads are a fringe case because 1) they've played a huge role in history from the earliest period (the Kassites) through the Middle Ages (Mongols, Magyars, Cumans, etc.), and 2) many of them became settled empires after using their superior mobilization to conquer others (Kassites, Amorites, Parthians, Magyars, Mongols, etc.). I'd still exclude the Huns because we simply know too little about them, as compelling as Attila himself might be; Civ6 had the right idea of making him a Great General.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

But I can probably predict their pattern:
Percentage of getting in:
100% Portugal- Because it's called New Frontier and who better to include than the nation who started the Age of Discovery and set the course for England, France, Spain and the Dutch to follow. Also two of the places it colonized, Kongo and Brazil are in the game.
100% Assyria (50%) or Babylon (50%)- Let's face it we need another Mesopotamian Civ that feels like Mesopotamia. Either one would do. Assyria geographically doesn't overlap with Sumer and Babylon is a classic.
90% Byzantines- Byzantines could have made for an interesting alt leader to Rome. But that doesn't mean it can't be it's own Civ. If we follow the tradition of two European Civs than they are up there.
70% Vietnam- East Asia was left out of GS. I assume they don't want to skip that region this time around. We've memed Tamar and Lady Six Sky into Civ Franchise existence. I'm pretty sure the Trung Sisters are on the radar for the devs.
60% Navajo/Apache/Comanche- I'm under the impression we aren't done with Native North America. The Cree shouldn't represent them all. I'm sure a U.S. tribe is planned and from the SW or Western part. They already tried with the Pueblo.
50% Italy/Bulgaria/Switzerland/Belgium etc. (new European)- Byzantines could take the spot of a new European Civ. Many of them are represented by city-states. If the city-states are shown than they are out.
40% Burma/Tibet- Not as big of a fanbase for Burma as Vietnam. Tibet has a large fanbase, which I now know, but due to political reasons is why I put them here. Also both are located in East Asia. If political issues aren't a problem they would be viable.
30% Iroquois- If we had to have a returning NA tribe, it would be the Iroquois. But out of all the returning ones these can be easily replaced by another tribe as I mentioned above.
20%- Gaul- I think the only probable "Celts" option if we were to get a proper Celts replacement. I still think Scotland is the stand in for the Celts though.
10%- Austria/Siam/Songhai/Morocco etc. These are all the ones from Civ 5 that I think are easily replaced by others currently in the game and aren't needed with only 5 more spots left.
0%- The Huns and Venice. Hopefully onetime gimmicks. Well at least the Huns.
-1%- The Inuit- Not probable

I left out any Sub-Saharan African Civs because I think we are done after Ethiopia. After Australia and the Maori I don't expect anyone from Austronesia as well, not counting South East Asia.

agree with the assessments re: mesopotamia and portugal. Byzantines have to be less likely than that given the amount of existing greek leaders. I’d put a higher chance on Vietnam provided Philippines is also a possibility. New European civ may be Ireland, which to me seems the most likely. For Native American civs, don’t leave out the Tlingit, Nez Perce, Salish or Haida. NW Civs are also probable in the new options. I see Burma as more likely than Tibet, but neither as likely as a less often considered civ like the Timurids or the Sultanate of Oman and Muscat. The 5 replaceable civs already have been replaced imo. Agree on everything else.

I'm simply pointing out that some extinct and comparatively obscure Old World cultures (i.e. the Huns) have been included in the game that don't meet the arbitrary "civilization" criteria, while many important native cultures (i.e. the Inuit) are continuously excluded despite spanning a massive geographical range, playing a vital role in the history of the Americas, and having a unique culture that is still evolving today.

The Huns aren’t obscure, met the civilization criteria as they have well recorded leaders, a cohesive, although poorly understood, history, actually captured settlements, although they didn’t really found any themselves (maybe if they were implemented they can’t have settlers and have to capture cities?)

While I agree on the Inuit’s importance and very powerful culture, as a result of their homeland, they never built a cohesive ‘civilization’ because they never had settlements larger than 20-30 people or a leader who would represent more than their village.

The Tlingits obviously wore more clothing than other PNW tribes--to my knowledge, they're the only ones who wore fur--but yeah, even the Tlingits went barefoot year round and naked for much of the year. Even as far north as Yukutat, their northernmost settlement.


TBH the Huns got in because of Attila, but the design was atrocious--from Attila's bad Chuvash to the random city names. The Huns are just too poorly understood to build a civ around. Even the Scythians--who are a huge improvement over the Huns--are kind of poorly known, as demonstrated by the use of archaeological sites as their city names. (Personally I would have named the cities after Scythian clans; they could have come up with a decent number of cities that way.)


I don't think it's a byproduct of the lack of written history: we're talking about an ethnicity that spans the entire region from Eastern Siberia (a back-migration) all the way to Greenland. We're also talking about a society that was really low on centralized authority; it's a lot easier to lead by consensus when your community is a couple dozen people at most.


I'm not being inconsistent, though: I don't think the Huns should even have been considered for a moment. I also think that there should be certain qualities that a society should possess in order to be a civilization, and I think urbanization is the most fundamental one. This includes urbanized Native Americans like the Iroquois, the post-Mississippian confederations, the Navajo, and the PNW tribes; it excludes the Inuit and most other Siberian natives--and the Huns. Eurasian steppe nomads are a fringe case because 1) they've played a huge role in history from the earliest period (the Kassites) through the Middle Ages (Mongols, Magyars, Cumans, etc.), and 2) many of them became settled empires after using their superior mobilization to conquer others (Kassites, Amorites, Parthians, Magyars, Mongols, etc.). I'd still exclude the Huns because we simply know too little about them, as compelling as Attila himself might be; Civ6 had the right idea of making him a Great General.

agree on all. Attila is an amazing historical figure, as are his co-leader and predecessors, but they aren’t exactly well understood as a culture.

With the Scythians and other Steppe Nomads with the exception to the Huns, I agree: some are well known enough to be able to turn into a civ, but great work needs to be done to pick the right nomadic groups (not the Huns or Scythians) which are well understood, had compelling leaders and a culture that is at least somewhat understood to be able to build a civ based on them.

Unfortunately, the Inuit are not the best choice for a North American First Nation nor a ‘snow civ’. Even Greenland has a somewhat understood history, and I’d still not pick them for a civ.

If y’all keep demanding the Inuits, we’ll get them bcs Firaxis likes listening to their fans. Then we’ll get a poorly researched civ which isn’t representative of the culture at all and doesn’t do such a compelling people justice.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

agree with the assessments re: mesopotamia and portugal. Byzantines have to be less likely than that given the amount of existing greek leaders. I’d put a higher chance on Vietnam provided Philippines is also a possibility. New European civ may be Ireland, which to me seems the most likely. For Native American civs, don’t leave out the Tlingit, Nez Perce, Salish or Haida. NW Civs are also probable in the new options. I see Burma as more likely than Tibet, but neither as likely as a less often considered civ like the Timurids or the Sultanate of Oman and Muscat. The 5 replaceable civs already have been replaced imo. Agree on everything else.

Byzantines have been in the game since Civ 3 so that's why they are at the top.

I would put Ireland in the same group with Gaul as another Celtic Civ, but even less likely due to Scotland.

Yes the PNW might also possible so I added them in. Honestly any new Native American is probable but I'm thinking they are going to pick one located out in the west to be as far away from the starting location of America. Not sure about the Haida though. They were apparently replaced by the Cree last minute as their name was found in the R&F files.

Yes Burma is more likely than Tibet, but less likely than Vietnam. As I said Far East Asia was left out of GS so I expect one of the spots to go to a Civ there with Vietnam being the most likely.

 

[cosmicmangobear]

*le sigh*

If I can't have my precious Inuits, hopefully the Haida or Navajo will get in eventually. Mississippians or Cherokee would also be pretty rad.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Yes the PNW might also possible so I added it. Not sure about the Haida though. They were apparently replaced by the Cree last minute as their name was found in the R&F files.
Yes Burma is more likely than Tibet, but less likely than Vietnam. As I said Far East Asia was left out of GS so I expect one of the spots to go to a Civ there with Vietnam being the most likely.

Haida are definitely the least likely imo. They seemingly got cut, and whatever reason, i don’t know that the issue all of a sudden doesn’t exist. Given the language is about as rare as Ainu, it might have been finding a speaker to voice act?

Tlingit are my favorite as a civ, but Salish means Chief Seattle could be the leader, which makes them also an interesting possibility. And as an Oregonian, the Nez Perce or Chinook would be fun to see.

So we know the Pueblo and probably the Haida can’t be in due to voice actor reasons and that the Cree didn’t want to be in. This also kinda limits the possibilities for Civ 7.

That said, outside of the realm of the Pacific Northwest, the Navajo and Cherokee are the most interesting to me, while the Sioux or Comanche or Apache would act more militaristic than any of the current native civs (but would they be distinctive? they’d be another horse warrior people)

 

[Zaarin]

Haida are definitely the least likely imo. They seemingly got cut, and whatever reason, i don’t know that the issue all of a sudden doesn’t exist. Given the language is about as rare as Ainu, it might have been finding a speaker to voice act?

There's Haida-language media, including comics and films. I don't think finding a voice actor would have been a problem.

 

[cosmicmangobear]

That said, outside of the realm of the Pacific Northwest, the Navajo and Cherokee are the most interesting to me, while the Sioux or Comanche or Apache would act more militaristic than any of the current native civs (but would they be distinctive? they’d be another horse warrior people)

Comanche would most definitely get Quanah Parker, who founded a religion and could get some interesting bonuses to diplomacy, too.

 

[Zaarin]

the Cree didn’t want to be in.

Correction: one Cree headman didn't want them in.

the Nez Perce

Nex Perce is my second favorite Native American language, after Tlingit, so I'd be delighted to see them--or hear them, rather.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I think it might be accurate to say that one Cree headman successfully turned the Cree inclusion in Civ VI into a media drama in order to accomplish a political goal.

 

[DWilson]

I think it might be accurate to say that one Cree headman successfully turned the Cree inclusion in Civ VI into a media drama in order to accomplish a political goal.

And I can appreciate the results of that effort, as a net good. Even if I worry it'll scare Firaxis in the future.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

And I can appreciate the results of that effort, as a net good. Even if I worry it'll scare Firaxis in the future.

yeah even though it was just one headman, i don’t think we’ll be seeing the cree in civ again.

 

[Inhalaattori]

Huns are totally fine, but Inuits are somehow not viable. Why, because they're not European?

Huns had huge EMPIRE, they had advanced warfare, they had huge historical significance. They are in totally different category. Comparing them to Inuits is totally ridiculous. Having Inuits in the game would be even little sillier than having "Civs" like Cree. IMO Inuits would be almost in the same category as Australian aboriginals, who practically never invented ANYTHING we have in the game. I do understand that Civilization series is not to be taken seriously, but I personally dont feel we dont need to make it even sillier. Are we going to just make up some unit and infrastructure to them? I guess we already have "Civs" that didnt have cities or even really agriculture so I guess the line has already been crossed in many ways. "Civs" like Sioux and Cree are already pretty questionable, but I feel Inuit would be really hard to make to a serious civilization that would not be silly. If your "civilization" never invented even the things we START the game with I think this is a wrong game for you. Lets leave Sami people, Inuit and Australian aboriginals to modders. They are no doubt interesting cultures, but this game is just not for them IMO.

Civs like Huns or Scythia are problematic, because we dont even know the language and we have very limited information about them. But they had huge historical importance so I understand why they are in the game. Huns also were not originally "European" although they did later mix with several European tribes.

 

[Zaarin]

Well I guess we already have "Civs" that didnt have cities or even agriculture

Name one. The Cree were a settled, agricultural people, albeit not quite "urbanized" like the Iroquois or Mississippians. The Scythians had a few cities and practiced herding, which is a form of agriculture. I'm not extremely knowledgeable about the Mapuche, but a cursory look suggests they were urbanized and agricultural. So, again, name one.

 

[Inhalaattori]

Name one. The Cree were a settled, agricultural people, albeit not quite "urbanized" like the Iroquois or Mississippians. The Scythians had a few cities and practiced herding, which is a form of agriculture. I'm not extremely knowledgeable about the Mapuche, but a cursory look suggests they were urbanized and agricultural. So, again, name one.

Maybe I should have added that I was speaking about the Civ series, not only Civ VI. I was referring to Sioux and Shoshone, but I might actually be wrong about Sioux. Before going nomadic they might have been agricultural.

 

[Zaarin]

Maybe I should have added that I was speaking about the Civ series, not only Civ VI. I was referring to Sioux, but I might actually be wrong about them. Before going nomadic they might have been agricultural.

Ah. Yeah, Civ6 feels like it's done better on that front. I'm not a fan of including the Sioux for the same reason.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That said, outside of the realm of the Pacific Northwest, the Navajo and Cherokee are the most interesting to me, while the Sioux or Comanche or Apache would act more militaristic than any of the current native civs (but would they be distinctive? they’d be another horse warrior people)

The Navajo are my number one pick for reasons.
I don't have a preference when it comes to a particular PNW, any would do but to me the Tlinglit have been the most interesting to me and would welcome them.
I would put the Iroquois in my top 3 as well, and would be warranted.

 

[King William I]

I love native cultures, but at this point if it's not the Mississippians I don't want them. It's a serious oversight that they've never been playable before