[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[AsH2]

Why would they choose Lenin’s wife when they could just pick Lenin himself?

Did you read the post I replied?
Why did they choose female leaders for France when they could just pick Louis XIV?

Spoiler Also.. :

Her balls were bigger. (Seen eg during the "tension" with Stalin.)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I apologize if this has been discussed before.

Civ Pack #5 adds a new Leader to an existing Rise and Fall civilization. India already has two leaders, and most of the other civs don't seem to have any viable alternate leaders, so the new leader has to be for Korea or the Dutch (or less likely Scottland). Am I presumably correct in my assumption? Is this the community consensus?

The consensus from what I've seen is Mongolia has a good shot, or better than the others. Kublai Khan could also possibly be an alternate leader for China as well.

 

[Kwami]

The consensus from what I've seen is Mongolia has a good shot, or better than the others. Kublai Khan could also possibly be an alternate leader for China as well.

Based on almost nothing other than wishes, though. We've had absolutely no hints at all about who the new leader will be, except that it will be an alternate leader for a civilization added in R&F. The new leader could just as easily be for Korea or the Dutch.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Based on almost nothing other than wishes, though. We've had absolutely no hints at all about who the new leader will be, except that it will be an alternate leader for a civilization added in R&F. The new leader could just as easily be for Korea or the Dutch.

I'm just pointing it out and is still very probable, even though it is wishful thinking.
To me though the Dutch seem less likely because we just had a European alt leader and East Asia needs some love after GS. That would also make Chandragupta the only alt leader out of 4 not from Europe. They might not want to do that.
Korea is a possibility but I wonder how the new leader would differentiate from Seondeok?

 

[Jkchart]

That's fair, but...


That's precisely what I'm talking about. The Sumerians were not aggressive expansionists. They were only briefly unified under Sargon of Akkad; the rest of the time they were a band of city-states that warred with each other a lot more often than they warred with outsiders. Really what I'd associate Sumer with would be: 1) irrigation; 2) priest-kings; 3) lots and lots of "firsts"; and 4) remarkably honest record-keeping. In game terms, that should mean bonuses to farms with fresh water, some kind of faith bonus, and science bonuses of some kind.


I'm cynical, trust me. I'm just hopeful.


He's boring? That's a personal opinion, yes, but there's simply nothing about him I find interesting. He's also been done to death: he's been in what, five Civ games now? I'd frankly rather have his nephew if we must have a Napoleon; at least he'd be novel.


This, especially since the Epic of Gilgamesh, while rooted in Sumerian sources, is ultimately a Babylo-Assyrian piece of literature. We don't have Sumer; we have The Epic of Gilgamesh civilization. It's the equivalent of having Achilles lead Greece with both his leader and civ abilities referencing The Iliad, with the difference that at least The Iliad has historical basis.

I did an entire college personal study class on Napoleon, so I find him fascinating, but Napoleon III would be a welcome and interesting choice.

 

[tedhebert]

Certainly Samarkand as one of the premier trade cities in world history deserves some more love. Do we know enough about them? Would they be a sexy enough pick for the developers?

Isn't Samarkand also tightly linked to the first Assassins/terrorist civ-lead organisation ???

I'm sorry, I'm really not a history buff, so I don't know if Amin Maalouf's book is pure fiction or fact relevant ! I always took it as historically accurate

Anyways, seems to me it might nicely tie in with secret societies and/or a possible Spy district

 

[Navelgazer]

The reason I think Kublai is most likely is because he could be slotted into the current Mongolian design in a really elegant way that makes Mongolia more about administration and trade than conquest (though they would still be quite good at the latter.) I don't see him making as much sense in the current Chinese design (especially building the Great Wall, a distinctly non-Yuan-dynasty UI) but it's possible.

If it were another European alt-leader, I'd expect it to be William leading the Dutch. Radio Oranje is one of the weaker and more derided LUAs in the game and William is a pretty obvious leader choice for them to take Netherlands in a different direction. Scotland could also definitely use a different LUA but I don't think it's going to happen.

 

[DWilson]

The reason I think Kublai is most likely is because he could be slotted into the current Mongolian design in a really elegant way that makes Mongolia more about administration and trade than conquest (though they would still be quite good at the latter.) I don't see him making as much sense in the current Chinese design (especially building the Great Wall, a distinctly non-Yuan-dynasty UI) but it's possible.

If it were another European alt-leader, I'd expect it to be William leading the Dutch. Radio Oranje is one of the weaker and more derided LUAs in the game and William is a pretty obvious leader choice for them to take Netherlands in a different direction. Scotland could also definitely use a different LUA but I don't think it's going to happen.

I think that some Leader abilities, including Wilhelmina's, are deliberately weak to balance a very powerful civ. That makes it less likely to me that they would want to add another leader of such a civ. It would be hard to keep interesting and balanced.

 

[Karmah]

I still want his mom instead.

Tell me we are still talking about civ!

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Based on almost nothing other than wishes, though. We've had absolutely no hints at all about who the new leader will be, except that it will be an alternate leader for a civilization added in R&F. The new leader could just as easily be for Korea or the Dutch.

It’s not really unfounded. Consider this: All alternate leaders so far have been for base game civs. We also know that leaders can lead two civs, If the Dutch were to get a second leader, the only leader who could fulfill these roles while being well known is William of Orange, who could also be a England Ruler. But that would mean England would get 3 rulers while many civs deserving of a second ruler don’t even have one alternate leader. Korea? No co-leaders at all, tbh. Scotland? Only with England, again. Cree? Mapuche? the only notable leaders have been used already. Also, who else would they lead? Same with Georgia or Zulu. That leaves the Mongols, who also have Kublai Khan, who could also lead China.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think that some Leader abilities, including Wilhelmina's, are deliberately weak to balance a very powerful civ. That makes it less likely to me that they would want to add another leader of such a civ. It would be hard to keep interesting and balanced.

Plus would they really change the only trading and loyalty bonuses that they have, which is reminiscent of their golden age trading empire?

 

[GenyaArikado]

I just don't want Korea to get an alt because of the sexism regarding Seondeok.

 

[durfal]

It’s not really unfounded. Consider this: All alternate leaders so far have been for base game civs. We also know that leaders can lead two civs, If the Dutch were to get a second leader, the only leader who could fulfill these roles while being well known is William of Orange, who could also be a England Ruler. But that would mean England would get 3 rulers while many civs deserving of a second ruler don’t even have one alternate leader. Korea? No co-leaders at all, tbh. Scotland? Only with England, again. Cree? Mapuche? the only notable leaders have been used already. Also, who else would they lead? Same with Georgia or Zulu. That leaves the Mongols, who also have Kublai Khan, who could also lead China.

Like I said before the dutch leader has always been William the Silent aka William of Orange (the first) in the civ games (before Wilhelmina), who lead the Dutch in the 80 years war against the Spanish and has never set foot on British soil. He is the father of the fatherland in Dutch history. So he's not a English leader unless they make William III (only English nickname was William of Orange cause he was their only Dutch leader) who sat on the British throne, the Dutch leader. But him before William the Silent I have my doubts.
Most Dutch male leaders were named William and almost all were named "of Orange", so I understand the confusion people have.

 

[Zaarin]

I have titles from footnotes and some pdf journal articles if you are interested—though it’s not much.

Very.

Korea is a possibility but I wonder how the new leader would differentiate from Seondeok?

They could go for a very militaristic Gwanggaeto or Taejo of Joseon, but Korea is so heavily built around science it would feel strange. I can't see any way to make Sejong meaningfully different from Seondeok.

Tell me we are still talking about civ!

We are. Sorghaghtani Beki was a fascinating woman who influenced policy, positioned all three of her sons in strong leadership roles, and administrated the empire on her sons' behalves.

Korea? No co-leaders at all, tbh.

"Saitō Makoto leads Japan and Korea in Sid Meier's Civilization VI." That won't make anyone upset. No controversy there at all.

 

[reddishrecue]

How about the minoans? Their empire was good until an earthquake killed everyone.

 

[The Civs 6]

I did an entire college personal study class on Napoleon, so I find him fascinating, but Napoleon III would be a welcome and interesting choice.

Except usually in Civ games they (try to) choose actually good leaders.

 

[Zaarin]

How about the minoans? Their empire was good until an earthquake killed everyone.

No leaders, no language, no city names beyond Knossos.

Except usually in Civ games they (try to) choose actually good leaders.

So what's the connection to that statement and Napoleon III, who was a good leader? It's true that Napoleon III's foreign policy for the most part failed, but he modernized the backwards, dirty, Medieval cities of France and instituted broad legal and administrative reforms. Napoleon III was a brilliant administrator. I've always thought he and Bismarck could have made a good team had they not hated each other.

 

[VermelhoRed]

Based on almost nothing other than wishes, though. We've had absolutely no hints at all about who the new leader will be, except that it will be an alternate leader for a civilization added in R&F. The new leader could just as easily be for Korea or the Dutch.

The new leader could also be for the Mapuche or Georgia, there's nothing stopping this. However, I think the far more likely chance is for the leader to come from the civilization that had the biggest contiguous empire by area of the world's history, which has many charismatic leaders that occupy global public consciousness. It's only a possibility, we definitely could get an alt leader for Korea, but it's silly to not see Mongolia as the front-runner on that race.

 

[The Civs 6]

No leaders, no language, no city names beyond Knossos.


So what's the connection to that statement and Napoleon III, who was a good leader? It's true that Napoleon III's foreign policy for the most part failed, but he modernized the backwards, dirty, Medieval cities of France and instituted broad legal and administrative reforms. Napoleon III was a brilliant administrator. I've always thought he and Bismarck could have made a good team had they not hated each other.

Well I'm sure you are more knowledgeable about him than I am, but I think in the mainstream is legacy is the absolutely disastrous Franco-Prussian war (including the diplomatic bungling that lead up to it), the disastrous and arguably immoral attempt to conquer Mexico, and bringing back despotism to a France that had almost successfully shaken it off in favor of democracy.

 

[Kwami]

It’s not really unfounded. Consider this: All alternate leaders so far have been for base game civs. We also know that leaders can lead two civs, If the Dutch were to get a second leader, the only leader who could fulfill these roles while being well known is William of Orange, who could also be a England Ruler. But that would mean England would get 3 rulers while many civs deserving of a second ruler don’t even have one alternate leader. Korea? No co-leaders at all, tbh. Scotland? Only with England, again. Cree? Mapuche? the only notable leaders have been used already. Also, who else would they lead? Same with Georgia or Zulu. That leaves the Mongols, who also have Kublai Khan, who could also lead China.

But who says that the new R&F leader has to lead two civilizations? That's just something that you've made up. Why can't the Dutch just get a second leader and leave it at that? Or any of the others? I don't think that they're all equally likely, but surely the Dutch and Korea have to be in the running.