[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[The Kingmaker]

From my point of view, more is more.

I don’t ever want to dissuade FXS from including any given civ if they have a good implementation planned.

I appreciate their efforts to expand the # of civs in each iteration. We’re getting at least 50 now, which is great. But I do still want more.

 

[Zaarin]

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.

To be honest, I'd regard Sargon of Akkad and his kin as Akkadian-speaking Sumerians, culturally speaking. But I'd be the last person to turn down another Ancient Near Eastern civ.

 

[riddleofsteel]

From my point of view, more is more.

I don’t ever want to dissuade FXS from including any given civ if they have a good implementation planned.

I appreciate their efforts to expand the # of civs in each iteration. We’re getting at least 50 now, which is great. But I do still want more.

But then you have to ask how they can make so many similar cultures not only play differently, but be interesting to play as. Might be a somewhat crass scenario, but it's a necessary thing to consider from a number of standpoints. Some just aren't different enough or interesting enough to play as in a computer strategy game.

 

[The Kingmaker]

But then you have to ask how they can make so many similar cultures not only play differently, but be interesting to play as. Might be a somewhat crass scenario, but it's a necessary thing to consider from a number of standpoints. Some just aren't different enough or interesting enough to play as in a computer strategy game.

Hence my caveat above about them having a good implementation planned.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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.

I don't have a problem with Nubia at all especially since we are still getting Ethiopia. They are a prominent Ancient African Civ that developed alongside Egypt.

As for Scotland I don't think it's relationship to England or the British Empire had as much to do with the inclusion over other "Celtic" nations like Ireland, but instead what other Civ can you use highlanders while listening to bagpipes while shouting "FREEDOM!"

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.

Both the Shang and Han though are part of the history of "Chinese Civilization" and were just two of the different dynasties that ruled. Franks and Goths developed into several different political kingdoms into places today around modern day France and Germany, which are politically different.
I guess I'm not sure what you want to see, and I'll leave it at that.

 

[riddleofsteel]

To be honest, I'd regard Sargon of Akkad and his kin as Akkadian-speaking Sumerians, culturally speaking. But I'd be the last person to turn down another Ancient Near Eastern civ.

Bronze Age Collapse Scenario anyone?

 

[Lord Lakely]

To be honest, I'd regard Sargon of Akkad and his kin as Akkadian-speaking Sumerians, culturally speaking. But I'd be the last person to turn down another Ancient Near Eastern civ.

So basically, Gilgamesh?

Franks and Goths developed into several different political kingdoms into places today around modern day France and Germany, which are politically different.
I guess I'm not sure what you want to see, and I'll leave it at that.

The Goths conquered kingdoms that would later become Spain and Italy. To be honest I would not turn down a civ led by Pelagius or Ordoacer or by Clovis for that matter.

 

[GenyaArikado]

I stan Amanitore

 

[Zaarin]

Bronze Age Collapse Scenario anyone?

Yes, please.

So basically, Gilgamesh?

I still haven't forgiven Firaxis for making him speak bad Akkadian instead of Sumerian. Crossing my fingers that they find a voice actor with better pronunciation for the leaders of Babylon and/or Assyria.

The Goths conquered kingdoms that would later become Spain and Italy. To be honest I would not turn down a civ led by Pelagius or Ordoacer or by Clovis for that matter.

Alaric I or Theodoric would be my choices.

 

[riddleofsteel]

The Goths conquered kingdoms that would later become Spain and Italy. To be honest I would not turn down a civ led by Pelagius or Ordoacer or by Clovis for that matter.

Yeah, surprising amount of variety for some of those! I wouldn't turn down Widukind on top of that. Would be really cool to see something more Bohemian, or something like Wends or Polabians.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The Goths conquered kingdoms that would later become Spain and Italy. To be honest I would not turn down a civ led by Pelagius or Ordoacer or by Clovis for that matter.

Well they are around France and Germany.
My point still stands that I don't see the need to make a Western Europe blob-Civ, if just to appease the fact that both China and the Maya seem to be a blob Civ by others, which is the point I was trying to make.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Hence my caveat above about them having a good implementation planned.

right. This is why I’m a big fan of the alternating approach Firaxis has seemingly taken:

Assyria/Sumer
Siam/Khmer
Songhai/Mali
Austria/Hungary
Denmark/Norway

I think this can also apply to a lot more civs though, which is why I was earlier saying that by having an overly-eurocentric view, you get both options of possible openings like this. For example, there’s no reason you can’t have Spain and Portugal on rotation like this other than the eurocentric idea that both were so important that one can’t be left out. But mechanically, culturally and historically, they serve the same purpose in game. They did the same things colonially. You don’t need both.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

right. This is why I’m a big fan of the alternating approach Firaxis has seemingly taken:

Assyria/Sumer
Siam/Khmer
Songhai/Mali
Austria/Hungary
Denmark/Norway

I think this can also apply to a lot more civs though, which is why I was earlier saying that by having an overly-eurocentric view, you get both options of possible openings like this. For example, there’s no reason you can’t have Spain and Portugal on rotation like this other than the eurocentric idea that both were so important that one can’t be left out. But mechanically, culturally and historically, they serve the same purpose in game. They did the same things colonially. You don’t need both.

We don't have a good exploration Civ yet though. Spain doesn't quite do that. I think that the nation that started the Age of Discovery would offer different approaches though to Spain and their missionary zealous conquests. Portugal being the first global empire warrants inclusion, in my opinion with 50 different options to choose from.

And I wouldn't say that Sumer replaced Assyria just yet.

 

[Zaarin]

This is why I’m a big fan of the alternating approach Firaxis has seemingly taken:

Assyria/Sumer

I don't think this is an alternation. Assyria was included in Civ5 BNW because one of the developers had a personal interest in Assyria (which kind of boggles my mind--one of the most important civilizations in human history only made it in because of someone's pet interest ). I understand why Babylon is generally the base Mesopotamian civ: before Sumer was well known, Babylon was generally taken to be the basis of all civilization in the West--that title now goes to Sumer, on whose foundation Babylon was built. However, I think if I had to choose the major Mesopotamian civilization to be included in every version of civ, I'd choose Assyria. Assyria was a powerhouse, and its influence was incredibly long-lasting. It was Rome to Babylon's Greece. (On which note, if we can have Greece and Rome in every game, I really think we should be able to have Assyria and Babylon in every game.) If I can have Babylon and Assyria in every game, I'm willing to sacrifice Sumer honestly--especially if The Epic of Gilgamesh is the best we can hope to get out of them.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

March: Byzantium/Rome (Constantine) - A leader that can lead both Rome and Byzantium would be cool. Although I would defeinatly prefer a Native American Civiziliation from North America! But I am doubtful we will get one as I feel Maya and Gran Colombia will just represent "The Americas" both north and south.
+ Temple of Zeus, Borobudur, Shwedagon Zedi Daw, Hemji Castle.
+ Antioch CS becomes "Venice" - a nice simple "gold for every luxury resouce at the destination" bonus; although perhaps a bonus to ship building similar to Ngazargamu might be in order instead?

I think Basil II would be a good choice for the Byzantine leader, he fits right in the great personality thing, maybe the greatest Byzantine or even Roman emperor given his long reign and absolute dedication to his empire. He conquered Bulgaria who had defeated the Byzantine Empire many times in the past and made the empire reach its peak in military and economy Power since like Justinian 500 years Before. Also unlike many other rulers he seems to have been good at pretty much every area of statemanship, diplomacy, administration and as a general.

 

[AsH2]

For an ‘Inuit’ city state you could do Nuuk, although that’s Greenland more generally.

Then we know their UU..

 

[The Civs 6]

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.

I agree with a lot of this. Just see other posters who think that Shang China = Han China as exhibit A of this.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't think this is an alternation. Assyria was included in Civ5 BNW because one of the developers had a personal interest in Assyria (which kind of boggles my mind--one of the most important civilizations in human history only made it in because of someone's pet interest ).

Do we know who it is and are they still working at Firaxis?

I understand why Babylon is generally the base Mesopotamian civ: before Sumer was well known, Babylon was generally taken to be the basis of all civilization in the West--that title now goes to Sumer, on whose foundation Babylon was built. However, I think if I had to choose the major Mesopotamian civilization to be included in every version of civ, I'd choose Assyria. Assyria was a powerhouse, and its influence was incredibly long-lasting. It was Rome to Babylon's Greece. (On which note, if we can have Greece and Rome in every game, I really think we should be able to have Assyria and Babylon in every game.) If I can have Babylon and Assyria in every game, I'm willing to sacrifice Sumer honestly--especially if The Epic of Gilgamesh is the best we can hope to get out of them.

Honestly I would pick Sumer every time if we had to have one, for the sole fact that it is considered the "Cradle of Civilization".
That doesn't mean every iteration has to be based off of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

But ideally I wouldn't want any of them to alternate. I mean if we can have Alexander, Gorgo and Pericles in one game we could have all three of the Mesopotamian Civs.

 

[Zaarin]

Do we know who it is and are they still working at Firaxis?

It's simply something I recall reading back in the day, but I wasn't as familiar with the team back then. Something makes me think he left after BE, but that's just an impression. (Also, I was glancing at their Civwiki page to see if it's mentioned there. It's not, but I had no idea Ashurbanipal favored Zoroastrianism in Civ5. By Civ5's logic, I would have expected him to favor Orthodoxy, since the Assyrians are Syriac Orthodox Christians now--like Ramesses favoring Islam or Monty favoring Catholicism.)

Honestly I would pick Sumer every time if we had to have one, for the sole fact that it is considered the "Cradle of Civilization".
That doesn't mean every iteration has to be based off of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

But ideally I wouldn't want any of them to alternate. I mean if we can have Alexander, Gorgo and Pericles in one game we could have all three of the Mesopotamian Civs.

I think we can have Babylon, Assyria, Sumer, Elam, Mitanni, Urartu, Phoenicia, Israel, Hittites, Achaemenid Persia, Arsacid Persia, Sassanian Persia...But people seem to disagree with me. I'm just saying if I have to choose, Assyria is my first pick for their versatility and power, but I think Babylon and Assyria just ought to go with each other by default. Assyrian literature literally talks about Babylon as its wife--the Assyrians regarded Babylon as the cultural ideal they aspired to but whom they also wished to control. (That's why I invoked the Rome-Greece relationship.) Of the three, Sumer then becomes the "nice to have." Also you say not every iteration has to be the Epic of Gilgamesh, but Firaxis has yet to demonstrate they know anything else about Sumer--NB Gilgamesh led Sumer the last time they were in Civ. I'd love to see them prove me wrong by one day giving me a Sumer led by Gudea or Ur-Nammu or even Kugbau, though.

 

[PhilBowles]

I don't have a problem with Nubia at all especially since we are still getting Ethiopia. They are a prominent Ancient African Civ that developed alongside Egypt.

As for Scotland I don't think it's relationship to England or the British Empire had as much to do with the inclusion over other "Celtic" nations like Ireland, but instead what other Civ can you use highlanders while listening to bagpipes while shouting "FREEDOM!" .

I just wish they'd given us Edward I as an English leader to troll Robert the Bruce...

In all seriousness, Edward I would be an excellent leader choice for England (unless his legacy really is seen so negatively 700 years on in Scotland and Wales that he'd be contentious - someone earlier on the thread said he has a poor reputation in Hungary because for whatever reason the Hungarians have a song about his treatment of Welsh poets, which is a pretty random piece of infamy for someone who may be the most neglected in English popular consciousness of all the major English monarchs). He was regarded by his contemporaries - even the ones who hated and feared him - as the embodiment of medieval English kingship and was extremely successful both militarily and in terms of domestic legal reforms and maintaining civil order within England. His reign saw the ascendancy of the quintessential longbow, and the large trebuchet he ordered constructed, Warwolf, is immortalised in the Age of Empires II civ roughly based on his period.

I don't think this is an alternation. Assyria was included in Civ5 BNW because one of the developers had a personal interest in Assyria (which kind of boggles my mind--one of the most important civilizations in human history only made it in because of someone's pet interest ). I understand why Babylon is generally the base Mesopotamian civ: before Sumer was well known, Babylon was generally taken to be the basis of all civilization in the West--that title now goes to Sumer, on whose foundation Babylon was built. However, I think if I had to choose the major Mesopotamian civilization to be included in every version of civ, I'd choose Assyria. Assyria was a powerhouse, and its influence was incredibly long-lasting. It was Rome to Babylon's Greece. (On which note, if we can have Greece and Rome in every game, I really think we should be able to have Assyria and Babylon in every game.) If I can have Babylon and Assyria in every game, I'm willing to sacrifice Sumer honestly--especially if The Epic of Gilgamesh is the best we can hope to get out of them.

There's no alternation as such, because we've only had Assyria once, but Civ's ancient Near/Middle East has always been 'Babylon plus Other(s)' be they Sumeria, Hittites or Assyria.

I see Sumer taking Assyria's place in Civ VI because its playstyle is basically that of Civ V Assyria (and much more appropriate for Assyria - it's a testament to how well implemented that civ was in Civ V, or alternatively how relatively forgettable Babylon's treatment was, that a sometime-requested civ here is now preferred over a series stalwart by some) - and because Babylon has been in every Civ game and I'm a believer in keeping the original 12 (and if I dropped any, the Zulu and the Aztecs would go before Babylon).