[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Thenewwwguy]

Well, you're not entirely correct. We have both Greek and Roman evidence that at least certain portions of the Gallii as well as the Celtiberii called themselves Keltoi. However, I think we're on the same page. I don't want a civilization called "the Celts"; I want something more specific (ideally the Gauls) the next time they show up. Like I said, the fact that they've done horribly the past four times isn't a justification for their continuing to do horribly.


Virtually all the tribes in the Mississippi watershed and Eastern Woodlands were urbanized and agrarian. The indigenous people of the Pacific Northwest had the sophisticated, stratified, urbanized society one would expect of agrarians without agriculture due to the abundance of the PNW rainforests.


Small correction: there was no agriculture in the PNW. At the time of contact, there's some evidence that the Coast Salish may have been deliberately cultivating skunk cabbage, which would mark the start of horticulture, but generally speaking both the waters and the forests were so abundant that there was no need to farm or even garden.

Noted.

All I'm saying is that "Civilization" may be a bit of an outdated misnomer for a franchise that may be trying to pull away from including strict "civilizations" and explore new design space with cultures that don't quite fit that mold.



I'm okay with us not getting full cultural representation of Native American peoples. Generally, we don't get the full cultural picture of any region of the world; plenty of cultural patches are skipped over in favor of larger, more influential cultures.

But more importantly, including people who were subjugated and colonized in a game like this is a tough balancing act. Many tribes simply don't want to have anything to do with a franchise that has traditionally been and largely remains focused on conquest as a defining feature of society. Again, there are plenty of other parts of the world where we wouldn't want to include subjugated peoples; the issue is magnified in America where we have the largest disparity between the concept of "natives" (people who lived here for milennia) and "invaders" (people who came from a completely different continent, took over, and have maintained control as the dominant culture).

If Civ strayed further away from a war-focused 4X game, I think more native tribes would be okay with media exposure. But as it stands I think only the largest and most modernized tribes would want to have anything to do with Civ. We are probably only limited to a shortlist comprising not much more than the Navajo, the Cherokee, the Sioux, and the Anishinaabe, maybe the Iroquois, and even then it would be understandable if all of them requested not to be in VI. I suspect the Shoshone would take issue at being featured more than once. I am still really, really holding out that the Navajo are of the collaborative nature which would facilitate getting at least one more civ in the game.

I’m not suggesting we get full cultural coverage but in all honesty, the current and historic coverage of first nations and native americans in civ has been pretty bad. Civ 6 has done the best of any of the iterations so far imo, but there’s a ways to go, and at least having one more native american civ, if not two or three to fill out the geographical areas missed, would go a long way.

Didn’t some Shoshone leaders advise on Assassin’s Creed or something? I don’t know if they specifically are against being in video games. I do understand and respect most first nations’ concerns in being in this game given how it plays. I mean, this is a game that mechanically can’t distinguish those who fought war to liberate or protect (Lautaro and Bolivar) from conquerors like Genghis. However, I can imagine the PNW peoples as effective tall civs with big bonuses towards working with bonus and luxury resources and general culture victory biases.

What's even more impressive is the timeline in which they developed this skill and culture. Horses were extinct in the Americas prior to European re-contact, and the peoples of the plains adapted to them incredibly quickly, and did so in the midst of what truly was an apocalypse (some estimates suggest 90% of people in the Americas ultimately died in a wave of afroeurasian plagues hitting their communities without the relevant antibodies or diverse immunities which had long been developed naturally in the "old world" over millennia).

Yeah this is a key point. Groups like the Sioux, Apache and Comanche adopted horses really fast in the grand scheme of things. It’s quite impressive

 

[The Kingmaker]

I think the North American natives could do with at least 2-3 more representatives. Take your pick from the most famous of the PNW, NE, SE, SW or Plains tribes.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I think the North American natives could do with at least 2-3 more representatives. Take your pick from the most famous of the PNW, NE, SE, SW or Plains tribes.

Ideally, I think we could fill NA out with the Iroquois, Tlingit/Salish and Navajo


unfortunately that’s probably not happening :/

 

[The Civs 6]

On this subject I think it is a little curious that Civ didn't steal the Endless Legend's Roving Clans' power to up and re-settle their cities and districts. I think the right nomadic group, even someone like the Goths maybe, would be a good candidate to introduce this concept.

 

[PhilBowles]

Well, you're not entirely correct. We have both Greek and Roman evidence that at least certain portions of the Gallii as well as the Celtiberii called themselves Keltoi. However, I think we're on the same page. I don't want a civilization called "the Celts"; I want something more specific (ideally the Gauls) the next time they show up. Like I said, the fact that they've done horribly the past four times isn't a justification for their continuing to do horribly.

Oh yes, I fully agree with this. I imagine that the archaeological label 'Celts' did indeed come from an earlier source, but my essential point was that using the word in its modern sense to describe a civilisation is an anachronism. I'd be happy with a Gallic civilisation, though I'd prefer it not to use the name 'Celts'.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Personally I’d be fine with the Iroquois, Cherokee, Navajo or Apache, and Sioux (they’re just so famous).

I’d love to see a Cahokia moundbuilders civ but they seem mostly untenable given a lack of language and leaders unless very late era placeholders are used.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

There is Eurocentrism but it comes from baffling decisions - like including the Portuguese, the Dutch, and the Hungarians, and most egregiously, the Canadians, Scots, and Australia. We might as well make Wales and Essex while we are at it. We would simply not make those distinctions if we were assessing another type of culture. For example, you could easily reassess the Chinese historical record and make a litany of new Civs based on their various incarnations. This is where my objection to including those little Civs comes into play. If we looked at European history in the same grand sweep as we did the other continents, we would at least be consistent. The English may be divided into five nations (UK, America, Australia, Canada), but they (we?) are all essentially English for the way in which Civ allows us to tell stories.

What are the problems of including the Portuguese and the Dutch in a game about world empires?

I'm not sure by what you mean as a little Civ? We are past the days where only the top 20 or so world empires make the game. We're coming up on 50 so there is bound to be not so popular options, or ones that don't make some sense. I for one haven't really hated any inclusion so far and I hope not too. I've come around to Canada and have been thrilled at Australia and Scotland from the beginning. The golf course is kind of baffling but I've even got used to that.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

What are the problems of including the Portuguese and the Dutch in a game about world empires?

Well, culturally, mechanically, and historically, the Portuguese and the Spanish are very similar. So similar and related that Spain under Philip effectively incorporates the Portuguese empire in totality.

The Dutch are also a weird overseas empire to include, if we already have the Zulu and Indonesia, although I think they have a lot more to differentiate themselves from Germany than Portugal does from Spain. I mean, how many cultures can claim to be so "expansionist" that they literally created more land to expand into? That's pretty unique and I think barely justifies cramming them into the European map.

I'm not sure by what you mean as a little Civ? We are past the days where only the top 20 or so world empires make the game. We're coming up on 50 so there is bound to be not so popular options, or ones that don't make some sense. I for one haven't really hated any inclusion so far and I hope not too. I've come around to Canada and have been thrilled at Australia and Scotland from the beginning. The golf course is kind of baffling but I've even got used to that.

I was a little shocked by Georgia and Scotland, but I came around to them. The only civ I still think was kind of unnecessary was Nubia. I feel the concept and execution is some of the most underwhelming in the roster, and if we were only going to get vanilla civ ideas then Ethiopia should have had that DLC slot instead of cramming a civ so similar to Egypt and Ethiopia up between them. Would have rathered we dedicate the space to Morocco/Berbers, Swahili/Oman, or even something along the Guinea coast.

I still think that VI is trying to focus on the "biggest" civs in each region, even if they weren't actually huge. The Dutch kind of qualify as an overseas empire occupying very different spaces from Britain and Spain/Portugal. And Scotland kind of qualifies as a second head of the British Empire. Scotland is really the biggest stretch away from it and I think wouldn't have happened if the devs weren't deliberately trying to make a more cohesive "celtic" civ. But point being, I don't see a lot of "smaller" kingdoms standing a chance as a civ in VI; they have generally been relegated to city-states.

 

[Jcturmer]

What if instead of Portugal, we get the Lusitanians under Viriato?
They occupied the same geographical place (the west of the Iberian peninsula) and also take the place of the Celts of the classical era.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

What if instead of Portugal, we get the Lusitanians under Viriato?
They occupied the same geographical place (the west of the Iberian peninsula) and also take the place of the Celts of the classical era.

I’d imagine that would function more as an alt leader like Chandragupta Maurya for India, as he represents an Empire which encompassed much of the subcontinent and was ethnically North India, but wasn’t India itself. I’d imagine this would function similarly

 

[Lord Lakely]

The problem with the underrepresented regions is that the differences between the separate cultures isn't well-known to most people. If you take a look at central Africa, the Mali, Songhai, Hausa, Yoruba, Benin and Ashanti all blend together in a wash - despite being *objectively* as distinct as the French and the German are.

Same issues apply to the near east - the Persians and Babylonians are well-known to casuals, but the rest? Would someone know the difference between Assyria and Sumeria? Between Phoenicia and Palestine? Between the Hittites and the Phrygians? Let alone the Aramites, Elamites, Medians, Nabateans, Kusshans,...

Deserving or not has little to do with it. It's all about memorability and being able to establish their identity with a fanbase who are largely ignorant about their accomplishments. Good design can convince most of the sceptics - fingers crossed that, when a new culture makes their way into Civ, they also make their way into the hearts of the casual fans.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

The problem with the underrepresented regions is that the differences between the separate cultures isn't well-known to most people. If you take a look at central Africa, the Mali, Songhai, Hausa, Yoruba, Benin and Ashanti all blend together in a wash - despite being *objectively* as distinct as the French and the German are.

Same issues apply to the near east - the Persians and Babylonians are well-known to casuals, but the rest? Would someone know the difference between Assyria and Sumeria? Between Phoenicia and Palestine? Between the Hittites and the Phrygians? Let alone the Aramites, Elamites, Medians, Nabateans, Kusshans,...

Deserving or not has little to do with it. It's all about memorability and being able to establish their identity with a fanbase who are largely ignorant about their accomplishments. Good design can convince most of the sceptics - fingers crossed that, when a new culture makes their way into Civ, they also make their way into the hearts of the casual fans.

This. Which is why more Native American civs is really good, because it mechanically adds more flavor to what casual fans may consider monolithic, and also serves to actually create some capacity of education that helps inform the players so they can explore more into lesser known civs in the future

 

[The Civs 6]

What are the problems of including the Portuguese and the Dutch in a game about world empires?

I'm not sure by what you mean as a little Civ? We are past the days where only the top 20 or so world empires make the game. We're coming up on 50 so there is bound to be not so popular options, or ones that don't make some sense. I for one haven't really hated any inclusion so far and I hope not too. I've come around to Canada and have been thrilled at Australia and Scotland from the beginning. The golf course is kind of baffling but I've even got used to that.

Just think about the context. We assign a single Civilization for China's 6,000 years of history (and don't give me the PRC line about continuity. The Shang are as different from the Han as the Achaean Greeks are from Rome). But for basically different iterations of the Germanic peoples who settled Europe during the Great Migration (the Franks, Goths, etc.), we privilege every single one with their own place in civilization. I haven't studied the Mayan civilization too closely, but I'm sure that the sweep of having a bucket called "Mayan" is roughly the same as creating a blob of Western European nations.

So if we are looking from that perspective, and I am saying this as an American, why can't we just have a single "Anglo-Saxon" civilization that encompasses the 5 Eyes? And if have to have each of the 5 Eyes (god forbid we get New Zealand, Quebec, Texas, or the Mormon state as new civilizations), why don't we have the Huns, the Xiong Nu, the Bulgars, and the various iterations of the Mongols each with their own Civ?

 

[Lord Lakely]

This. Which is why more Native American civs is really good, because it mechanically adds more flavor to what casual fans may consider monolithic, and also serves to actually create some capacity of education that helps inform the players so they can explore more into lesser known civs in the future

I agree, their characterization must be top notch - though this is generally really good with Firaxis. They've done a sterling job with the Cree and the Aztecs, and their designs for the Mayans and the Mapuche were very good as well. Not mentioning the Inca since that's basically a reskin of their Civ5 incarnation (where they were definitely one of the best designed civs so,sure why not)

Overall, I think Firaxis did pretty well with the new civs their introduced. I don't think we've seen the last of Kongo and Maori, Nubia are *very* fun for both aggressors and builders and while Scythia's abilities are a one-trick pony, I don't think anyone has qualms about their portrayal in the game.

Personally I'm fine with any bold choice firaxis want to make, as long as the design elements are good, which seems to be their overall philosophy. Let the games begin.

 

[riddleofsteel]

Just think about the context. We assign a single Civilization for China's 6,000 years of history (and don't give me the PRC line about continuity. The Shang are as different from the Han as the Achaean Greeks are from Rome). But for basically different iterations of the Germanic peoples who settled Europe during the Great Migration (the Franks, Goths, etc.), we privilege every single one with their own place in civilization. I haven't studied the Mayan civilization too closely, but I'm sure that the sweep of having a bucket called "Mayan" is roughly the same as creating a blob of Western European nations.

So if we are looking from that perspective, and I am saying this as an American, why can't we just have a single "Anglo-Saxon" civilization that encompasses the 5 Eyes? And if have to have each of the 5 Eyes (god forbid we get New Zealand, Quebec, Texas, or the Mormon state as new civilizations), why don't we have the Huns, the Xiong Nu, the Bulgars, and the various iterations of the Mongols each with their own Civ?

I think there was just one Mayan group, though.

 

[Zaarin]

I’d love to see a Cahokia moundbuilders civ but they seem mostly untenable given a lack of language and leaders unless very late era placeholders are used.

Language isn't so much a problem--while with a few exceptions like Natchez and Chickasaw it's often difficult to say what mound was associated with what people, we know who the Mississippians' successors were--but leaders is a big problem. All of the Mississippian sites were already in sharp decline when De Soto marched through, and at next contact they were gone entirely.

What if instead of Portugal, we get the Lusitanians under Viriato?
They occupied the same geographical place (the west of the Iberian peninsula) and also take the place of the Celts of the classical era.

The Lusitanians were Celticized, but they probably weren't Celts (para-Celts, maybe). The Lusitanian language is so marginally attested that we can't even classify it beyond saying it was Indo-European and probably not Celtic (because it retains PIE *p). Plus Hispania didn't come close to the level of sophistication of Gallia; the Hispano-Celts (the Celtiberians and Gallaecians) and the Lusitanians were by comparison primitive and sparsely populated.

The problem with the underrepresented regions is that the differences between the separate cultures isn't well-known to most people. If you take a look at central Africa, the Mali, Songhai, Hausa, Yoruba, Benin and Ashanti all blend together in a wash - despite being *objectively* as distinct as the French and the German are.

Same issues apply to the near east - the Persians and Babylonians are well-known to casuals, but the rest? Would someone know the difference between Assyria and Sumeria? Between Phoenicia and Palestine? Between the Hittites and the Phrygians? Let alone the Aramites, Elamites, Medians, Nabateans, Kusshans,...

Deserving or not has little to do with it. It's all about memorability and being able to establish their identity with a fanbase who are largely ignorant about their accomplishments. Good design can convince most of the sceptics - fingers crossed that, when a new culture makes their way into Civ, they also make their way into the hearts of the casual fans.

TBH this is why I love when Firaxis makes surprising choices. They've even taught me about a few civilizations, and it's great to be able to get some of that out to the general audience as well. Unfortunately, though, you make a good point about Civilization being much more dependent on popular history (or, frankly, pop culture) than scholarly history. Though your comment about all the Near Eastern civs blending together is kind of making my Near Eastern-obsessed blood boil a bit. I mean, good grief, if you can't tell Assyria from Sumer what is wrong with you and how do you justify your existence? And the Nabataeans were Arabs! And the Kushans are Central Asian--they're not even from the Middle East!

I think there was just one Mayan group, though.

I think one could justify contrasting Classical Maya and Mayapan (the post-classical Maya), but the Maya definitely had a sense of ethnic identity, just like the Hellenes--except that the Maya spoke a smattering of related languages while the Hellenes all spoke Greek, which is pretty fascinating when you think about it.

 

[snakeboy]

This thread is getting surreal. To debate the inclusion of the Portuguese and the Dutch as world empires is insanity. They practically invented the modern world (for better or worse).

Personally, I can't wait for the Portuguese 'feitoria' to finally arrive so I won't have to found complete cities anymore to get my strategic resources. Would be nice to get early caravels too

 

[riddleofsteel]

This thread is getting surreal. To debate the inclusion of the Portuguese and the Dutch as world empires is insanity. They practically invented the modern world (for better or worse).

Personally, I can't wait for the Portuguese 'feitoria' to finally arrive so I won't have to found complete cities anymore to get my strategic resources. Would be nice to get early caravels too

Completely agree, almost mind boggling.

I think one could justify contrasting Classical Maya and Mayapan (the post-classical Maya), but the Maya definitely had a sense of ethnic identity, just like the Hellenes--except that the Maya spoke a smattering of related languages while the Hellenes all spoke Greek, which is pretty fascinating when you think about it.

Sure. I was just addressing the previously quoted text saying it seemed perfunctory to give the Mayans "one bucket" when that's essentially what the Maya were. Inclusion for inclusion's sake doesn't necessarily make for a good addition to a game.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Just think about the context. We assign a single Civilization for China's 6,000 years of history (and don't give me the PRC line about continuity. The Shang are as different from the Han as the Achaean Greeks are from Rome). But for basically different iterations of the Germanic peoples who settled Europe during the Great Migration (the Franks, Goths, etc.), we privilege every single one with their own place in civilization. I haven't studied the Mayan civilization too closely, but I'm sure that the sweep of having a bucket called "Mayan" is roughly the same as creating a blob of Western European nations.

So if we are looking from that perspective, and I am saying this as an American, why can't we just have a single "Anglo-Saxon" civilization that encompasses the 5 Eyes? And if have to have each of the 5 Eyes (god forbid we get New Zealand, Quebec, Texas, or the Mormon state as new civilizations), why don't we have the Huns, the Xiong Nu, the Bulgars, and the various iterations of the Mongols each with their own Civ?

while maya is technically a blob civ, it’s less so of one than some other civs in this game, like the majapahit empire representing all of indonesia, the existence of blob India, Arabia and Persia.

Generally i’m ok with groups of city states being lumped into one civ like Greece or Maya because cultural differences were limited.


Portugal, while having some mechanical redundancy with Spain, arguably is deserving of being in the game, as is the Netherlands. My point regarding seeing more native american civs is we seem to give *more* importance to worthy european civs. Portugal and Tlingit are, in my eyes, both worthy. the Tlingit were an advanced, urbanized first nation, while portugal was a colonial powerhouse. However, Portugal, mechanically, geographically and culturally, is somewhat redundant. It’s taking a slot from a culture and nation that are equally interesting and while not as successful (whatever that means), nonetheless qualifying of being in Civ.

My point is, from our eurocentric, western world perspectives, we see places like what we historically call ‘China’ and ‘India’ as monolithic, while European kingdoms and post colonial nations seem more relevant to us than native americans because of our own educational biases regarding history. Being that Firaxis knows that a large amount of its fans care about history, and the devs themselves are generally history buffs, it’s important to challenge the way we were taught history with a more unbiased, holistic look at what cultures deserve entry.

There are hundreds of cultures on every continent worthy of being in civ.

Do we have to have some of the ones we do in Europe at the cost of unexplored cultures which are equally intriguing and regionally relevant?

Yes, Hungary was important, but so were the Ashanti, or the Nez Perce.

Yes, Macedon and Alexander were important, but so much so that it needed its own civ instead of replacing one of the two greek leaders, which would’ve opened up a spot for an underrepresented culture?

Given Spain and Portugal, despite both having different literal histories, used similar tactics, have similar cultures, and colonized similar places, do we really need both?

Can’t we, for example, alternate them the way we’ve down with Khmer and Siam, or Mali and Songhai, which are literally different historically but similar cultures which the devs recognized don’t both need to be in the same iteration of the game?

That’s my point. No one is saying Portugal is unworthy. But many civs are worthy of being in this game. Implicitly, both the devs and the fans are looking at this from a eurocentric pov.

 

[Lord Lakely]

TBH this is why I love when Firaxis makes surprising choices. They've even taught me about a few civilizations, and it's great to be able to get some of that out to the general audience as well. Unfortunately, though, you make a good point about Civilization being much more dependent on popular history (or, frankly, pop culture) than scholarly history. Though your comment about all the Near Eastern civs blending together is kind of making my Near Eastern-obsessed blood boil a bit. I mean, good grief, if you can't tell Assyria from Sumer what is wrong with you and how do you justify your existence? And the Nabataeans were Arabs! And the Kushans are Central Asian--they're not even from the Middle East!

And they're all the same to someone who doesn't know any better!

and ftr, I can distinguish between the Sumerians and Assyrians (though unrelatedly, I would actually love to see the Akkadians in the game, as they bridge the gap between Ancient Sumer and Ancient Babylonia). Not all of my life has been wasted. My dad will be proud to hear it.