[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Zaarin]

Alfred Nobel was contemporaneous with Kristina

Uh, more like 200 years later...

 

[Patine]

In an 'official' capacity, I'd guess unlikely. There's 'genocidal despot', and then there's 'genocidal despot who is still actively despised in some countries' (Ireland at least). I doubt it would be a huge furor, but enough PR blowback that they'd avoid it. Same reason I doubt we'd ever see Andrew Jackson as a US leader.

I would say that Oliver Cromwell doesn't nearly qualify as "genocidal," at all. But, like some other terms and labels with powerful historical baggage, that one is far overused and irresponsibly applied. You kill a few prisoners of war, burn a village, AND have a nasty demeanor, and you're a "genocidal despot," as far as pop culture Google historians go...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I guess you're right. I mean, Alfred Nobel was contemporaneous with Kristina, and it sounds like some sort of golf existed around the time of Robert the Bruce, and huszars existed for centuries prior to the Austro-Hungarian empire. But I guess there are more mini-tour civs in the DLC than I initially thought.

So here's hoping we get something similar for Ethiopia.

Well I got beat to it but yeah Alfred Nobel was born in the 1800s while Kristina died in 1869. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Nobel
Modern day golf was invented in Scotland around in the 1400s, but even then the Scottish Enlightenment is even later than golf in the 18th/19th century under the British crown.

 

[Patine]

Well I got beat to it but yeah Alfred Nobel was born in the 1800s while Kristina died in 1869. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Nobel
Modern day golf was invented in Scotland around in the 1400s, but even then the Scottish Enlightenment is even later than golf in the 18th/19th century under the British crown.

Mary, Queen of Scots, used golfing for the afternoon on the St. Andrew's golf course as an alibi about here lack of knowledge and involvement in the assassination of her husband (a factoid quoted by the LPGA).

 

[krmarci]

Hungary: Huszar (based off of 18th/19th century used in the alliance with Austria/Prussia etc.)

As well as against Austria in 1848-49.

 

[Kwami]

Eh I've seen enough Hedwig to think it would stick. Plus, between all the pop culture baiting in the leader choices and designs, GoT CdM/Mattias, Moana Gitarja/Kupe, Sleeping Beauty Eleanor, Emperor's New Groove Pachacuti, etc., I would have thought that the Harry Potter reference would be seen as the more marketable name.

I think that they use whatever name is most common in English language publications. So, Peter the Great and Lady Six Sky and Jadwiga. Like, what name would you use on Wikipedia? Jadwiga.

 

[The Civs 6]

I would say that Oliver Cromwell doesn't nearly qualify as "genocidal," at all. But, like some other terms and labels with powerful historical baggage, that one is far overused and irresponsibly applied. You kill a few prisoners of war, burn a village, AND have a nasty demeanor, and you're a "genocidal despot," as far as pop culture Google historians go...

Well that's certainly his perception, Irish people are talking about him to this day. I think it comes down to that horrible boil he had on his nose.

 

[Patine]

Well that's certainly his perception, Irish people are talking about him to this day. I think it comes down to that horrible boil he had on his nose.

Which British Monarch or PM (or Lord Protector) do people in the modern Republic of Ireland give a glowing review of? Honestly?

 

[PhilBowles]

How about Oliver Cromwell for the English? How does the cultural consensus deal with a) a free thinker (for the day) populist who toppled England's fledgling absolute monarchy; b) a genocidal despot; c) England's first and only experience with republicanism/fascism (depending on your perspective), but one that ended up having no staying power; and d) a legitimately strong military leader who won the English civil war?

I'd say the main issue with Cromwell from the perspective of an international audience is that England is so widely recognised as the modern monarchy, and most of its other well-known leaders have been monarchs, that it would be an unexpected inversion to have England of all civs representing a non-monarchic government. Flouting expectations is of course often a welcome thing to do, but I suspect the English case is one where the association with a monarchy is particularly strong. The Commonwealth itself was a very ineffective government - Cromwell would represent a pretty much purely militaristic civ.

England in most incarnations of the game is a warrior civ so a militant ruler is a good fit, but one who combines military with a strong administrative portfolio - such as Edward I, Henry VIII, Elzabeth I or Victoria - seems a better match for the civ as it's usually been portrayed than a leader who's just known for warfare such as Henry V, Cromwell or Churchill.

 

[The Civs 6]

Which British Monarch or PM (or Lord Protector) do people in the modern Republic of Ireland give a glowing review of? Honestly?

To be fair I am in favor of Cromwell being included, although I want to see William the Conqueror first, second, and third before the Lord Protector. I will bang that drum over and over again. His enormous contribution to civilization is regrettably forgotten by history. at the very least, he should be recognized for creating the strongest and most centralized feudal state that existed in Medieval Europe.

I'd say the main issue with Cromwell from the perspective of an international audience is that England is so widely recognised as the modern monarchy, and most of its other well-known leaders have been monarchs, that it would be an unexpected inversion to have England of all civs representing a non-monarchic government. Flouting expectations is of course often a welcome thing to do, but I suspect the English case is one where the association with a monarchy is particularly strong. The Commonwealth itself was a very ineffective government - Cromwell would represent a pretty much purely militaristic civ.

England in most incarnations of the game is a warrior civ so a militant ruler is a good fit, but one who combines military with a strong administrative portfolio - such as Edward I, Henry VIII, Elzabeth I or Victoria - seems a better match for the civ as it's usually been portrayed than a leader who's just known for warfare such as Henry V, Cromwell or Churchill.

I agree on your point about the Protectorate being mostly about warfare - although you might work in a spiritual angle for Cromwell as the leader of a very Puritan religious movement? But yeah I agree with that. I also think, although he is in line behind Elizabeth and William, you also need to talk about King James the First, who would perhaps being considered England's only real culturally focused leader (not counting that strange lady that Firaxis thinks ruled England from Southwestern France).

 

[The Kingmaker]

Other than four of his six wives, he didn't kill anymore than most monarchs of his day by any measure - certainly less than Karl V or Suleyman the Magnificent (I think Ivan the Terrible was nearing contemporary in time period to him, too) - even Francois I probably offed more people than Henry VIII. But you seem stuck on his pop culture of a PARTICULARLY and GRATUITIOUSLY bad monarch for his day, which doesn't seem to bear out. Plus, regardless, even if he did have a lot of people killed, I absolutely DETEST the sick and warped obsession some have with "body count Olympics," as the SOLE determining factor of how horrible or not a leader was, with all other context ignored. It's a vile and despicable measuring stick and way of viewing things, ultimately.

I think you’re reading rather more into my comment than I intended to convey.

 

[Zaarin]

King James the First, who would perhaps being considered England's only real culturally focused leader

Elizabeth I? Not only did she preside over perhaps the greatest period in English literature (as well as a renaissance in other arts), but she was also a very talented poet herself. (NB I'd love to see James I lead England at some point.)

 

[PhilBowles]

To be fair I am in favor of Cromwell being included, although I want to see William the Conqueror first, second, and third before the Lord Protector. I will bang that drum over and over again. His enormous contribution to civilization is regrettably forgotten by history. at the very least, he should be recognized for creating the strongest and most centralized feudal state that existed in Medieval Europe.

Sadly, I think perception issues count against any Norman leader - it would just be too strange to the audience to have an English civ whose leader doesn't speak English. I still think that William just isn't the best representation of any specific period in English history - he was a Norman leader of what was, in most organisational terms, the final stage of the Saxon state (a state whose best representative may be either Alfred or Knut). James Campbell's volume on the Anglo-Saxons, while still authoritative, may be somewhat out of date - however he points out that 'feudalism' is a more nebulous term than is often realised, and it's not clear that what William introduced was substantially different from the system already in place under the late Saxon rulers, who had succeeded in centralising the kingdom's governance. William's UU would likely be Norman cavalry, but cavalry is the main military arm with which England has never since been strongly associated - depending on era it could be represented with strong ranged infantry, artillery, line infantry, naval power or air power, but in Civ game terms it's very far from the best civ to represent with cavalry.

I agree on your point about the Protectorate being mostly about warfare - although you might work in a spiritual angle for Cromwell as the leader of a very Puritan religious movement? But yeah I agree with that. I also think, although he is in line behind Elizabeth and William, you also need to talk about King James the First, who would perhaps being considered England's only real culturally focused leader (not counting that strange lady that Firaxis thinks ruled England from Southwestern France).

I think a religious angle could be interesting for England, but Henry VIII, Elizabeth I and Richard I are all good leaders to explore that route with.

James I is a good option, though perhaps again more religious than cultural. The more I've read about him the clearer it is that his reputation as an intellectual or man of the arts is largely self-promotion; he was seen by many of his contemporaries as vulgar and ignorant, and he certainly had some irrational obsessions such as witch-hunting (which in his time was a current pursuit in Scotland but deemed rather backward by the English who had never previously given any real credence to beliefs about witches).

 

[Patine]

Sadly, I think perception issues count against any Norman leader - it would just be too strange to the audience to have an English civ whose leader doesn't speak English. I still think that William just isn't the best representation of any specific period in English history - he was a Norman leader of what was, in most organisational terms, the final stage of the Saxon state (a state whose best representative may be either Alfred or Knut). James Campbell's volume on the Anglo-Saxons, while still authoritative, may be somewhat out of date - however he points out that 'feudalism' is a more nebulous term than is often realised, and it's not clear that what William introduced was substantially different from the system already in place under the late Saxon rulers, who had succeeded in centralising the kingdom's governance. William's UU would likely be Norman cavalry, but cavalry is the main military arm with which England has never since been strongly associated - depending on era it could be represented with strong ranged infantry, artillery, line infantry, naval power or air power, but in Civ game terms it's very far from the best civ to represent with cavalry.



I think a religious angle could be interesting for England, but Henry VIII, Elizabeth I and Richard I are all good leaders to explore that route with.

James I is a good option, though perhaps again more religious than cultural. The more I've read about him the clearer it is that his reputation as an intellectual or man of the arts is largely self-promotion; he was seen by many of his contemporaries as vulgar and ignorant, and he certainly had some irrational obsessions such as witch-hunting (which in his time was a current pursuit in Scotland but deemed rather backward by the English who had never previously given any real credence to beliefs about witches).

One can't have a Norman, but a Dane is fine, eh?

 

[Navelgazer]

FWIW Songhai were probanbly my favorite Civ in Civ5 and I'd really love to see Askia Muhammad I return. But I don't expect it.

 

[Zaarin]

Sadly, I think perception issues count against any Norman leader - it would just be too strange to the audience to have an English civ whose leader doesn't speak English.

Eleanor speaks Occitan so maybe as an alternate leader?

I think a religious angle could be interesting for England, but Henry VIII, Elizabeth I and Richard I are all good leaders to explore that route with.

Elizabeth I is largely remembered for being rather lukewarm towards religious subjects and generally favoring a moderate path for the Church of England; to me, she'd be a strange choice for a religious England.

 

[The Civs 6]

Sadly, I think perception issues count against any Norman leader - it would just be too strange to the audience to have an English civ whose leader doesn't speak English. I still think that William just isn't the best representation of any specific period in English history - he was a Norman leader of what was, in most organisational terms, the final stage of the Saxon state (a state whose best representative may be either Alfred or Knut). James Campbell's volume on the Anglo-Saxons, while still authoritative, may be somewhat out of date - however he points out that 'feudalism' is a more nebulous term than is often realised, and it's not clear that what William introduced was substantially different from the system already in place under the late Saxon rulers, who had succeeded in centralising the kingdom's governance. William's UU would likely be Norman cavalry, but cavalry is the main military arm with which England has never since been strongly associated - depending on era it could be represented with strong ranged infantry, artillery, line infantry, naval power or air power, but in Civ game terms it's very far from the best civ to represent with cavalry.



I think a religious angle could be interesting for England, but Henry VIII, Elizabeth I and Richard I are all good leaders to explore that route with.

James I is a good option, though perhaps again more religious than cultural. The more I've read about him the clearer it is that his reputation as an intellectual or man of the arts is largely self-promotion; he was seen by many of his contemporaries as vulgar and ignorant, and he certainly had some irrational obsessions such as witch-hunting (which in his time was a current pursuit in Scotland but deemed rather backward by the English who had never previously given any real credence to beliefs about witches).

Elizabeth I? Not only did she preside over perhaps the greatest period in English literature (as well as a renaissance in other arts), but she was also a very talented poet herself. (NB I'd love to see James I lead England at some point.)

I get your argument but it's a shame that one of history's all time great leaders slips through the cracks like that. In general I wonder if Civ still buys into the silly "Medieval = bad" idea.

Also, I'm no expert on the matter, but people who are have told me that via his patronage, James the 1st oversaw England's greatest contribution to the kind of art that we see in museums. Other than Elizabeth, as is pointed out, I can't think of any English monarch that is a well known patron of the arts or at least purported to be so.

Edit - two last thoughts. First is that Henry the 8th could be an interesting leader from a religious perspective. He could have some sort of mechanic where he could create a new religion or something. Second, it's funny that we are talking about British alt leaders when we all know that we will never be getting another British alt leader in Civ 6.

 

[PhilBowles]

Elizabeth I is largely remembered for being rather lukewarm towards religious subjects and generally favoring a moderate path for the Church of England; to me, she'd be a strange choice for a religious England.

Elizabeth reversed Mary's efforts at restoring Catholicism and is ultimately the reason Protestantism prevailed in the country. It was a major ongoing issue throughout her reign and she engaged in active suppression of Catholics, as well of course as being famously at war with a major Catholic state. Her motives were almost certainly more pragmatic and political than religious, indeed, and she allied herself with Islamic powers because of their shared opposition to the Catholic states - but religion was absolutely the defining issue of her reign in terms of both domestic and foreign policy regardless of her own personal religious convictions.

I get your argument but it's a shame that one of history's all time great leaders slips through the cracks like that. In general I wonder if Civ still buys into the silly "Medieval = bad" idea.

More likely they just want a variety of civs from different periods in each region, and the medieval era is not widely seen as a period when England was at its most prominent (somewhat unfairly, as it had its greatest territorial extent prior to the British Empire during that period) - compared with, for instance, the Viking states. At the same time it's one of the best choices for an early modern or modern civ, albeit sometimes with longbows.

Also, I'm no expert on the matter, but people who are have told me that via his patronage, James the 1st oversaw England's greatest contribution to the kind of art that we see in museums.

That could well be the case. He certainly wanted to be seen as cultured even if he wasn't personally (quite possibly because he wasn't personally), so it could be a similar case to Elizabeth not necessarily being personally strongly dogmatic religiously but overseeing a period where religion was the major national concern.

Though James has in some ways the opposite issue from Cromwell: his reign was almost entirely peaceful. There's nothing wrong with a peaceful English civ, but if there's one thing people know about England it's the British Empire and in a game focused on territorial expansion and conflict with other nations, England naturally fits into a militaristic mould.

 

[agonistes]

My top five new civilizations that I seriously doubt will make it in, but would love to see anyway, in no particular order:

1) The Kushans, led by Kanishka
2) Syria (with a Palmyrene flavor), led by Zenobia
3) The Cherokee (or another of the 5 civilized tribes), led by Sequoyah
4) Al-Andalus/The Moors (essentially Morocco with a stronger Iberian component), led by Yusuf ibn Tashfin or Yaqub al Mansur
5) Italy (Renaissance-themed, with multiple leaders for different city-states, Greece-style), led by Lorenzo de’ Medici AND Caterina Sforza or Lucretia or Cesare Borgia or Enrico Dandolo

the moors would be refreshing

 

[Zaarin]

In general I wonder if Civ still buys into the silly "Medieval = bad" idea.

I don't think it does. Ed Beach is a big Medievalist. Unfortunately, it's still deeply rooted in pop culture, perpetuated by nonsense like Game of Thrones.

Elizabeth reversed Mary's efforts at restoring Catholicism and is ultimately the reason Protestantism prevailed in the country. It was a major ongoing issue throughout her reign and she engaged in active suppression of Catholics, as well of course as being famously at war with a major Catholic state. Her motives were almost certainly more pragmatic and political than religious, indeed, and she allied herself with Islamic powers because of their shared opposition to the Catholic states - but religion was absolutely the defining issue of her reign in terms of both domestic and foreign policy regardless of her own personal religious convictions.

Fair, but anti-Catholic sentiments notwithstanding, she was a very tepid Protestant.