[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Zaarin]

You can use the same argument to say that England is an offshot from ancient Rome and so on.

Not really, but reductio ad absurdum is always fun.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Civilization didn’t end prior to colonization. Post-colonial nations serve more of a purpose in the game than being marketing tools. After all, Australia and Canada have played very influential roles in WW2 and world events since, while both Gran Colombia’s successor states and Brazil are of key regional importance.

While I don’t see the need for 5 post colonial nations, I have no issue with them being included in the game. History means all history, which includes post-colonialism.

I'm fine with all of them. Australia is one of my favorites to play as and Gran Colombia was on my wish list. I do admit I could have originally done without Canada, but it does make sense that they released them in the expansion with the Diplomatic Victory, no matter the fact that I thought the region was adequately covered with the Cree.

You're entitled to your opinion that postcolonial nations add something meaningful to the game, and I'm entitled to my opinion that they don't. Canada and Australia were already adequately covered by England, especially Civ6's very British England. Nation-state ≠ civilization.

What about India and Scotland?
I appreciate that they did make England feel less British with GS by giving us Eleanor and removing the British Museum, therefore making England more French and well not sounding as British.

 

[Jeppetto]

I am generally not missing any of the big names from prior installments. However, I don't think anyone misses Austria so much as they miss Maria Teresa.

In which case I propose the devs release Maria Teresa as an alternate leader. For every civ.

Maria Teresa leads Germany. Maria Teresa leads Hungary. Maria Teresa leads Spain. Maria Teresa leads the Maori.

I just imagine her sailing in front of the ship like Kupe in the cinematic, finding new home to settle in.

 

[Zaarin]

What about India and Scotland?

I've been an advocate of breaking up the India blob for a long time, but adding Chandragupta Maurya was a step in the right direction. As for Scotland, what about it? I have mixed feelings about it (particularly that it feels as British as England), but I wouldn't call it a postcolonial nation, not least of all because it's not a nation-state. That Ireland would have been a more satisfying choice isn't really relevant to the conversation.

 

[PhilBowles]

I didn't bring up any of those things. I pointed out that we have Braustralcanalombia, Poland (by Firaxis' explicit statement), probably Hungary, etc. because Firaxis wants to appeal to nationalist fanbases in those countries. That's hardly a conspiracy. It's kind of obvious, and in several cases it's by Firaxis' own explicit statement.

They've said that they choose civs because there are demographics in those countries, certainly, and I've made that point several times myself - it's why we have Indonesia and Brazil among others. It's a pretty major stretch to consider that appealing to "nationalist fanbases". I'm not aware of any Canadian nationalist lobby actively campaigning to have their civ in the game, or that's appeased by its presence - it's just an acknowledgment by Firaxis that there are players in those countries who, while they may not care unduly whether Canada et al. are in the game in principle, will be happy to find that it is an option.

It also has the marketing value for countries and cultures that get little representation in computer games, such as Indonesia, that it may prompt local press to report on it or spread by word of mouth to people in that country who may not be aware of the game otherwise - whether or not those people care particularly whether the civ is in the game.

It's not an especially good example since I happen to come from a country whose associated civ isn't likely to be left out of the game (and is well-represented in games more generally), but I'd be just as interested in Civ whether it had England in or not, just as Total War games focused on China or Japan interest me as much as ones featuring England (or indeed English fantasy properties). I can still appreciate England being present as an option without being in any way 'nationalist' about its presence or absence.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I just imagine her sailing in front of the ship like Kupe in the cinematic, finding new home to settle in.

Makes land, plops out an anchor baby, sets sail for the next continent.

I think the Maori are also a very clear example of Firaxis' priorities. If they only cared about empires like in V, they would have added an actual empire like Tonga (which also works much better as a sort of proto-Polynesian civ than the Maori). Instead they chose the Polynesian ethnic group with the largest population with a TSL in a much more westernized and populated area. The Maori are much more recognizable and have more quasi-nationalist cultural pride as a consequence of being more populous. Maori or Hawai'i would sell more units than Tonga.

Not really, but reductio ad absurdum is always fun.

Eh I'm not unhappy with representing modern empires like America, Canada, Australia, Brazil (and India, Ethiopia). The past couple centuries have seen an exponential increase in human technology and culture and having a few civs exemplify that seems fair. Canada represents global diplomacy. America represents conservativism and the media explosion. Australia seems to represent frontier expansionism generally. Brazil is the closest thing to an empire and we really could use more "party" civs.

I think the bigger problem for your camp is not that these civs exist, but that they take up a portion of the roster that isn't dedicated to more culturally rich sections of the map. I think if these civs existed in a roster twice as large, with Ireland, Assyria, Babylon, etc. already accounted for, they would feel more like bonus content than main features.

I of course don't agree with this and think Canada and Australia are....fine. My biggest issue with civs like Gran Colombia and Canada are, again, setting an expectation for certain regions of the world which is not being met in other regions like Africa and Southeast Asia. If we needed two Canadian civs or four South American civs, then we need Berbers and Burma and Bangkok.

They've said that they choose civs because there are demographics in those countries, certainly, and I've made that point several times myself - it's why we have Indonesia and Brazil among others. It's a pretty major stretch to consider that appealing to "nationalist fanbases". I'm not aware of any Canadian nationalist lobby actively campaigning to have their civ in the game, or that's appeased by its presence - it's just an acknowledgment by Firaxis that there are players in those countries who, while they may not care unduly whether Canada et al. are in the game in principle, will be happy to find that it is an option.

It also has the marketing value for countries and cultures that get little representation in computer games, such as Indonesia, that it may prompt local press to report on it or spread by word of mouth to people in that country who may not be aware of the game otherwise - whether or not those people care particularly whether the civ is in the game.

It's not an especially good example since I happen to come from a country whose associated civ isn't likely to be left out of the game (and is well-represented in games more generally), but I'd be just as interested in Civ whether it had England in or not, just as Total War games focused on China or Japan interest me as much as ones featuring England (or indeed English fantasy properties). I can still appreciate England being present as an option without being in any way 'nationalist' about its presence or absence.

That may be true for you, but generally it seems that pandering to modern nationalism does generate good press all around. While there are no countries campaigning to be in civ, there are posts all the time on reddit from players who would like to see their particular culture portrayed in the game. The fact is that Canadian players were ecstatic, first to see a Canadian tribe in the game, then to see Canada itself in the game. Even vicariously representing a nation or heritage seems to generate goodwill; Argentinian players were happy to see the Mapuche, New Zealanders were happy to see the Maori.

It has some positive effect on sales, even if that particular effect is incalculable. Representing a large gaming market makes it more likely for gamers in that country to buy. Representing culturally diverse people appeals to both cultural appreciation and exociticism. It's targeted, incremental sales optimization.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I've been an advocate of breaking up the India blob for a long time, but adding Chandragupta Maurya was a step in the right direction. As for Scotland, what about it? I have mixed feelings about it (particularly that it feels as British as England), but I wouldn't call it a postcolonial nation, not least of all because it's not a nation-state. That Ireland would have been a more satisfying choice isn't really relevant to the conversation.

I was meaning it as a joke considering Scotland and India were also a part of Victoria's British Empire as well as Canada and Australia.

In fact one could say Canada actually feels more French because Laurier is actually the closest thing we will probably get to a native French speaking leader.

 

[Jewelrunna]

I am generally not missing any of the big names from prior installments. However, I don't think anyone misses Austria so much as they miss Maria Teresa.

In which case I propose the devs release Maria Teresa as an alternate leader. For every civ.

Maria Teresa leads Germany. Maria Teresa leads Hungary. Maria Teresa leads Spain. Maria Teresa leads the Maori.

Speak for yourself, but I really want Austria back. They're the most significant European nation not currently in the game. Maybe you could argue that Portugal were more significant globally, but on the continent Austria were certainly more significant. They were also more historically relevant than a lot of European nations currently in the game--Sweden, Poland, Sweden, Scotland, and Georgia had less of an impact on European history than Austria. And I say this not to downplay those other nations in the slightest, but merely to emphasize Austria's role in European history. Hell, the country basically absorbed Hungary, a current Civ itself. Historically speaking, they're more than worthwhile for an inclusion.

On top of that, I thought their Civ V iteration was very fun. They had a unique gameplay interaction that was interesting to play. I'd love to see some riff of that "aggressive diplomacy" make a return in Civ VI.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Whoever said Indonesia was added for marketing purposes, the devs have publically said it was added because it was a popular request

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Speak for yourself, but I really want Austria back. They're the most significant European nation not currently in the game. Maybe you could argue that Portugal were more significant globally, but on the continent Austria were certainly more significant. They were also more historically relevant than a lot of European nations currently in the game--Sweden, Poland, Sweden, Scotland, and Georgia had less of an impact on European history than Austria. And I say this not to downplay those other nations in the slightest, but merely to emphasize Austria's role in European history. Hell, the country basically absorbed Hungary, a current Civ itself. Historically speaking, they're more than worthwhile for an inclusion.

On top of that, I thought their Civ V iteration was very fun. They had a unique gameplay interaction that was interesting to play. I'd love to see some riff of that "aggressive diplomacy" make a return in Civ VI.

I would argue Bulgaria was more important than Austria. And that arguments from importance are kind of weak when consistently the most interesting aesthetics and playstyles have come from unrepresented regions of the world. I would much rather have a Burmese, Vietnamese, Omani/Swahili, Berbers, Navajo civ over Germany-Again.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I would argue Bulgaria was more important than Austria. And that arguments from importance are kind of weak when consistently the most interesting aesthetics and playstyles have come from unrepresented regions of the world. I would much rather have a Burmese, Vietnamese, Omani/Swahili, Berbers, Navajo civ over Germany-Again.

Austria was considered one of the world’s most powerful empires from the 1500s to 1900s

But I’d prefer that they don’t appear in this game given their gimmicks have already been covered

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Austria was considered one of the world’s most powerful empires from the 1500s to 1900s

But I’d prefer that they don’t appear in this game given their gimmicks have already been covered

I do agree that they are pretty much covered by both Germany, based off of the HRE, and Hungary. Still if we did have a second pass I would put them on my wish list for it. Well at least Maria Theresa.

 

[PhilBowles]

That may be true for you, but generally it seems that pandering to modern nationalism does generate good press all around. While there are no countries campaigning to be in civ, there are posts all the time on reddit from players who would like to see their particular culture portrayed in the game. The fact is that Canadian players were ecstatic, first to see a Canadian tribe in the game, then to see Canada itself in the game. Even vicariously representing a nation or heritage seems to generate goodwill; Argentinian players were happy to see the Mapuche, New Zealanders were happy to see the Maori.

Indeed, and that's why I said my example was a bad one: if England isn't in Civ I don't exactly have to hunt around to find a game that includes England or Britain, a faction inspired by England or Britain, or any number of properties that are heavily influenced by British culture. Canadians, Argentinians and New Zealanders don't get anything like as much recognition or exposure, so I can imagine they would be very excited to see representation of their societies.

What I take issue with is the suggestion that this is in any way 'nationalist' - I raised the point that people can enjoy having their culture represented without demanding or expecting it precisely to explain a marketing rationale for doing so which isn't 'nationalistic'.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Suppose enough people support New Frontier that Final Frontier becomes a thing. Now imagine you have 16 new civ slots instead of just 8. (Of course we already know what the first three are.) How does that affect your civ wishlist?

 

[Zaarin]

I think the bigger problem for your camp is not that these civs exist, but that they take up a portion of the roster that isn't dedicated to more culturally rich sections of the map. I think if these civs existed in a roster twice as large, with Ireland, Assyria, Babylon, etc. already accounted for, they would feel more like bonus content than main features.

This is very much true. If the civ roster were much fuller and Canada and Australia weren't taking slots from more important civs like Babylon, Assyria, Byzantium, etc., sure, I'd roll my eyes, put them on my ban list, and not really care that they're in the game.

I was meaning it as a joke considering Scotland and India were also a part of Victoria's British Empire as well as Canada and Australia.

Ah, sorry, missed the joke. TBH I hope Vicky retires for Civ7 and we get a much more English England next time around.

In fact one could say Canada actually feels more French because Laurier is actually the closest thing we will probably get to a native French speaking leader.

The awkward moment when the Canadien speaks better French than the French leader. Well, Eleanor speaks lovely Old Occitan.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

This is very much true. If the civ roster were much fuller and Canada and Australia weren't taking slots from more important civs like Babylon, Assyria, Byzantium, etc., sure, I'd roll my eyes, put them on my ban list, and not really care that they're in the game.

I don't think they will in the end. Remember when R&F came out and everybody kept on complaining that the Mapuche took the Inca's spot? Then they appeared in GS and everybody thought that the Maya were going to be the indigenous group that was replaced. And now that's not the case.

If anything Australia would take away an Aboriginal spot probably, that was never going to happen anyway, and Canada was just bound to happen. I also don't think it will take the place of the second Native American tribe, as they did release the Cree beforehand. If anything I think at least a tribe from the U.S. is bound to happen and would be on par with Civ 5 and all that would be added was Canada.

I do think the Epic of Gilgamesh Civ (Sumeria) though will ultimately keep either Assyria or Babylon off of the roster though unless we get another pass. I don't see both getting in as all three have never been in the same game before, but who knows?

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Suppose enough people support New Frontier that Final Frontier becomes a thing. Now imagine you have 16 new civ slots instead of just 8. (Of course we already know what the first three are.) How does that affect your civ wishlist?

I’d be much more open to returning civs. Right now, I’m bored of Byzantium and Portugal and all that and the only returning civs I’d like to see besides Maya and Ethiopia would be Babylon, Assyria, and the Hittites.

Having more slots means that I’d be more open to seeing returning civs now, as well as the over requested ones like Vietnam, and more excited to see more lower recognition, less requested civs

So my New Frontier list as of now is as follows:

Maya
Colombia
Ethiopia
Timurids
Tlingit/Salish
Assyria
Portugal
Kublai Khan
Philippines

But if we get another expansion, I would be less opposed to the more commonly requested

Maya
Colombia
Ethiopia
Portugal
Byzantium
Kublai Khan
Vietnam
Babylon
Timurids

provided the second expansion looks something like

Navajo
Tlingit/Salish
Philippines
Assyria/Hittites
Oman
Ireland
Olmecs/ another Central American or South American indigenous group that I’m less familiar with
Ghaznavids
Ramses/Yongle/Isabella

As a side note, if our first season pass has Kublai and Vietnam, I think it would be really fun to have Ramses and the hittites in a second season pass, as it would follow up on like a irl conflict in one of the packs


I’m also hoping that some of the confusing civs design wise are cleaned up in the second pack and it acts as a finishing sheen on the game rather than a dump of more content. I’d like for them to re-add the baray, revisit Indonesia by giving them Gaja Madah as a unique governor now that they’ve added that mechanism with the Ottomans, as well as make Sumer more Sumerian, which would open up design space for other old age civs like Babylon, Assyria and the Hittites

 

[Zaarin]

I don't think they will in the end. Remember when R&F came out and everybody kept on complaining that the Mapuche took the Inca's spot? Then they appeared in GS and everybody thought that the Maya were going to be the indigenous group that was replaced. And now that's not the case.

Those were examples. There's a lot longer list of civs I'd want in before I felt complacent enough to ignore that Braustralcanalombia was in.

I do think the Epic of Gilgamesh Civ (Sumeria) though will ultimately keep either Assyria or Babylon off of the roster though unless we get another pass. I don't see both getting in as all three have never been in the same game before, but who knows?

Unfortunately I agree.

 

[DWilson]

Just out of curiosity, would it be considered appropriate for Saladin to be playable as the leader of Egypt? I realize he doesn't fit with Ancient Egypt, but Cleopatra doesn't really either.

 

[Zaarin]

Just out of curiosity, would it be considered appropriate for Saladin to be playable as the leader of Egypt? I realize he doesn't fit with Ancient Egypt, but Cleopatra doesn't really either.

That gets a hard no from me. Ptolemaic Egypt at least wasn't as far removed from Ancient Egypt as the Ayyubids were.