[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Hey. HEY.

I like the Huns. I could totally see a Hun clone civ built out of Scythian assets.

Plenty of us have observed some niche design space for Denmark led by Margaret I. If you're arguing for Third-Germany (Austria), then we certainly can argue for Third-Norway.

I would be very surprised if we got a Gurkhani civ and a Kushan civ. Those seem pretty mutually exclusive geographically.

However, Burma and Vietnam fill sufficiently different geographic and cultural gaps that I resent them being lumped together as equivalents.

And do we really need Siam?

I don't want to see the Huns, in a game called Civilization. If they wanted to be realistically playable you would start out at a barb camp and the only way to found other cities would be to take them.

I personally would like Third-Germany over Third-Norway, but I'm doubting either one will make it.

I don't think we do need Siam, though I would be open to the possibility if we did get more than 50 Civs.

If we do get another pass I would choose:
Iroquois
Austria
Assyria/Babylon depending which got in the first time.
Siam
Italy (I'm assuming Portugal and Byzantines will come first for Europe)
Numidia
Benin/Dahomey
Tlingit

 

[CivLuvah]

As for the Hunnic origins, that's much more widespread. Although there is no real scientificially proven link between the two peoples, historians and politicans always kind of liked this narrative as it linked the current nation to a very powerful precedessor. Naturally, common folk also fancied this idea, so it still reamins in circulation even currently. Also, to be honest, this whole relation things is a very subjective matter to define: the Huns' core area during their golden age was certainly in modern day Hungary and the Huns came from the generic area that Hungarians originated from, so linking the two people is not such big a leap of faith. Obviously, this link is not strong at all, and could be made to every single Steppe-based nomadic tribe touring Europe in the 5-10th centuries.

I assume this is why Hungary is the only European country to have Attila as an accepted boy's name.

I'd point out that Hungarian nationalists believe themselves to be Huns and/or Sumerians

I stumbled upon videos on YouTube that say the Basques are descendants of the Sumerians.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Keep in mind that the game the time period of 1800 to 2000 is represented by 4 or 5 eras (if we add in the future era) out of a total 8 or 9 eras (with future era). This mean half the eras in Civilization VI represent a very small part of human history and if each era should have an equal amount of civilizations, half or more of the civs would be modern.

that’s a symptom of our definitions for eras not being equal in length. The future era hasn’t happened yet and the powerful nations for the modern, atomic and informantion era have essentially stayed the same

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

that’s a symptom of our definitions for eras not being equal in length. The future era hasn’t happened yet and the powerful nations for the modern, atomic and informantion era have essentially stayed the same

Considering it's impossible to live in a Future Era though I agree. Even when we do get there it will be the Present.

To me Gran Colombia actually feels different from the other Post-Colonial Civs, as even though it was a Post-Colonial nation, it's not like its around today like the others so it does feel more historical than the others.

That being said I do really want more Ancient Era Civs. That's why I'd also like Ethiopia to not be focused on it's modern history too.

 

[Zaarin]

do hungarians really think they’re related to sumerians?

I was aware of the Hungarians claims to Hunnic heritage. I thought it was Albanians which claimed closer heritage to Sumerians.

what in the god damn...?

Yeah, some do.

The Polish stuff surprises me although I guess it's no more a stretch than the Hun-garians. Very interesting stuff.

Yeah, it was called Sarmatism. It had some interesting consequences, too, like Cumans being much more welcome in Poland than they generally were in Eastern Europe (despite, you know, the Cumans not really being related to Sarmatians, but what's a little confusion of steppe tribes among friends? ).

To clear up things, I can assure all of you that we don't. There are conspiracy theorist nutjobs that toy with this idea along with other crazy hits like "Hungarians come from Sirius" or "Jesus was Hungarian but I would say that every country has their own share of tinfoil hat "historians".

Oh, for sure. I wasn't saying that to single out Hungarians or to suggest that all Hungarians believe it; simply as an illustration that what people believe about their identity isn't necessarily useful from a historical perspective.

the Kushans are technically south asian, so no one says we can’t have them and the timurids

Considering how dimly aware Firaxis (and the general public) seem to be about the existence of Central Asia, I'll be a little surprised (but pleasantly surprised) to get either.

I assume this is why Hungary is the only European country to have Attila as an accepted boy's name.

In the Middle Ages, Atli wasn't uncommon in the Nordic countries.

I stumbled upon videos on YouTube that say the Basques are descendants of the Sumerians.

There was a trend in the early-to-mid 20th century to link any agglutinating language isolate or small family to Basque, Sumerian, and Korean. That's also why there are "Basques are Korean" conspiracy theories or "Finns are Korean"...

 

[krmarci]

did matthias actually have some historical precedent for being scientific?

Not really, his Renaissance court and his library is famous, which would mean a more cultural take on him.

 

[krmarci]

Well, the idea is leave out the civs named China and India , and instead of them have Han, Tufan (Tibetans), Qing (Manchus), Maurya, Chola (Tamils) and Mughal civilizations.

The problem with that is, as usually, marketing. Everyone knows where China or India is. It is easy to sell it that way. However, if you had a Civ game with the aforementioned civilizations, only history nerds would have an idea that these are actually supposed to be India and China. There is a tradeoff between popularity and historical accuracy.

However, I like the way they handled it in Civ6 with both Greece and India. Both civs have easily recogniseable names, while the leaders still represent different empires of the same region.

@Zaarin do hungarians really think they’re related to sumerians? WTH,

No, we don't. Maybe a really tiny minority, but most Hungarians accept the Finno-Ugric theory.
The relation to the Huns mostly appears in myths (which are actually taught in school, but just like that: myths). The name Hungarian comes from the Onogurs, a Bulgar tribe which was confused with the Hungarians by contemporary Western (German) historians (10th century). Some countries added an H before the name as they saw similarities with the Huns, who raided Europe similarly half a millennium ago. In the 13th-14th century, Hungarian "historians" embraced the relationship with the Huns, probably to present themselves more powerful. This theory was later disproven (around the 18th century).

 

[Zaarin]

However, if you had a Civ game with the aforementioned civilizations, only history nerds would have an idea that these are actually supposed to be India and China. There is a tradeoff between popularity and historical accuracy.

This is true, but I'd also point out Age of Kings chose names that were both less recognizable and in many cases dubious: Britons instead of English, Saracens instead of Arabs, and (anachronistic) Celts instead of Irish being the most egregious, but there are other examples that may not be ahistoric but certainly aren't the most recognizable to casual audiences like Choson (Joseon) instead of Korea.

 

[The Kingmaker]

This is true, but I'd also point out Age of Kings chose names that were both less recognizable and in many cases dubious: Britons instead of English, Saracens instead of Arabs, and (anachronistic) Celts instead of Irish being the most egregious, but there are other examples that may not be ahistoric but certainly aren't the most recognizable to casual audiences like Choson (Joseon) instead of Korea.

I think AoE2 was deliberately trying to make the medieval world feel different and less familiar by using those less familiar terms.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

This is true, but I'd also point out Age of Kings chose names that were both less recognizable and in many cases dubious: Britons instead of English, Saracens instead of Arabs, and (anachronistic) Celts instead of Irish being the most egregious, but there are other examples that may not be ahistoric but certainly aren't the most recognizable to casual audiences like Choson (Joseon) instead of Korea.

Exactly. Any person who’s finished high school history knows of at least some chinese dynasties (at minimum, the han, song, ming, qin and qing) and indian kingdoms (at minimum the maurya and mughals, usually the tamil kings as a generic grouping, if not the specific kingdom names)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Exactly. Any person who’s finished high school history knows of at least some chinese dynasties (at minimum, the han, song, ming, qin and qing) and indian kingdoms (at minimum the maurya and mughals, usually the tamil kings as a generic grouping, if not the specific kingdom names)

I don't think so. I think it does depend on interest in history and how long ago that they attended. I can say for sure that my mom probably wouldn't know any of them.

Though I can't say for certain if she actually was able to, or required to take a World History class.

 

[Zaarin]

I think AoE2 was deliberately trying to make the medieval world feel different and less familiar by using those less familiar terms.

Maybe, but "Britons" is straight up wrong, "Celts" is anachronistic, and "Saracens" is a generic Roman term initially for Arabs and later for the people of the Middle East and Africa in general. I'm also pretty unsympathetic towards trying to alienate the Middle Ages; Classical-Middle Ages-Early Modern history represents far more continuity than discontinuity. I'm hopeful that AoE4 will make better choices--and so far we know that one faction is the English, not the Britons, so I think my hope is well-founded.

Exactly. Any person who’s finished high school history knows of at least some chinese dynasties (at minimum, the han, song, ming, qin and qing) and indian kingdoms (at minimum the maurya and mughals, usually the tamil kings as a generic grouping, if not the specific kingdom names)

I think you overestimate the education system. Most curriculum barely touches on China and India at all, at least in the US. I'd be surprised if your average American could name any Chinese dynasty (they miiiiight be able to name an individual emperor or two if they're either well-educated or exposed to enough wuxia media), and I'd be even more surprised if they could name any Indian leader at all other than Gandhi (who wasn't an Indian leader ). In my observation American education focuses on the Middle East for the bare minimum of time until they can move over to Greece and Rome. Then they stay in Europe until America comes on the scene, at which point who cares about the rest of the world? India and China, meanwhile, are lucky to get footnotes; Japan gets a little more attention because we fought a war against them and because Americans are obsessed with samurai. All that being said, I think games are a great tool to educate people.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Maybe, but "Britons" is straight up wrong, "Celts" is anachronistic, and "Saracens" is a generic Roman term initially for Arabs and later for the people of the Middle East and Africa in general. I'm also pretty unsympathetic towards trying to alienate the Middle Ages; Classical-Middle Ages-Early Modern history represents far more continuity than discontinuity. I'm hopeful that AoE4 will make better choices--and so far we know that one faction is the English, not the Britons, so I think my hope is well-founded.

Oh, I don’t disagree. I found the faction names and hodge-podge cultures misleading at best. What’s worse is that I’ve met several people who based their historical knowledge on that game. Sorry to disappoint, folks, but William Wallace was not a “woad raider.”

 

[SeelingCat]

Rosetta Stone changes city names into native language options when conquered. Like I mentioned though, the transliteration is generally poor and inconsistent, and often different from the English spelling for being different’s sake, even if pronunciation is the same (Chennai is spelled Cennai, Uxmal as Oo’xmaal)

Apologies to all for being a few days behind on this as I know that the conversation has moved on a bit, but I just wanted to clarify something on this point. While not 100% perfect by any means, I have gone to great pains to ensure that the transliteration schemes for Rosetta are as consistent as possible.

As per the examples you cite: The /ch/ sound from Tamil is represented as 'c' in the Library of Congress's transliteration scheme (also by Wikipedia as well) - it may show up as incongruous or inconsistent when playing as Gandhi because he is set to use each Indian city's native name (as opposed to only using Hindi names) and Tamil romanization may use a different notation that Bengali or Marathi or Kannada, but all Tamil place names should use the same transliteration rules. Uxmal (Óoxmáal) is written that way because that is a/the standard Yucatec Mayan orthography, as opposed to the Spanish/English one.

I have not altered spellings to be different "for different's sake" in any way - I have simply done my best to represent the names in the way most authentic to that culture/civilization while still keeping everything in a Latin alphabet.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Apologies to all for being a few days behind on this as I know that the conversation has moved on a bit, but I just wanted to clarify something on this point. While not 100% perfect by any means, I have gone to great pains to ensure that the transliteration schemes for Rosetta are as consistent as possible.

As per the examples you cite: The /ch/ sound from Tamil is represented as 'c' in the Library of Congress's transliteration scheme (also by Wikipedia as well) - it may show up as incongruous or inconsistent when playing as Gandhi because he is set to use each Indian city's native name (as opposed to only using Hindi names) and Tamil romanization may use a different notation that Bengali or Marathi or Kannada, but all Tamil place names should use the same transliteration rules. Uxmal (Óoxmáal) is written that way because that is a/the standard Yucatec Mayan orthography, as opposed to the Spanish/English one.

I have not altered spellings to be different "for different's sake" in any way - I have simply done my best to represent the names in the way most authentic to that culture/civilization while still keeping everything in a Latin alphabet.

as a native tamil speaker, i will note that literally no one in tamil nadu spells chennai or similar words that way when romanticized

that said, i apologize if it seemed like i was insulting your work, it just seemed inconsistent to me, but you’ve put lots of work into it so I’m sure you’ve done the best you can. I really like the mods, I do, I use them in all my games. Thank you for making them.

 

[Zaarin]

Sorry to disappoint, folks, but William Wallace was not a “woad raider.”

I generally blame Braveheart for that one. But yeah, AoK unhelpfully contributed.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I generally blame Braveheart for that one. But yeah, AoK unhelpfully contributed.

No kidding. Only one of many historical flubs in that game, I’m sorry to say.

By contrast, I’m glad FXS is gradually tightening up on those, despite the occasional Gilgabro.

 

[BuchiTaton]

The problem with that is, as usually, marketing. Everyone knows where China or India is. It is easy to sell it that way. However, if you had a Civ game with the aforementioned civilizations, only history nerds would have an idea that these are actually supposed to be India and China. There is a tradeoff between popularity and historical accuracy.

However, I like the way they handled it in Civ6 with both Greece and India. Both civs have easily recogniseable names, while the leaders still represent different empires of the same region.

If the base/release version of CIV 7 come with Han and Maurya (specially if they come with previous leaders like Chandragupta) player would not take more than two minutes to realize who are supposed to be these civilizations. Or would people stop buying the new CIV game that also include Rome, Greece, England, America, Russia, Germany, etc. Just because they are so lazy to read who are these Han and Maurya in the internet?

People can learn who is Cree or Mapuche but cant understand that two modern countries the size and population of Western Europe and older histories used to be empires of different areas, time periods, ethnics, religious, languages and focus?

The United Kingdom can have England and Scotland but modern India or China cant not have separated entities?

I'm hopeful that AoE4 will make better choices--and so far we know that one faction is the English, not the Britons, so I think my hope is well-founded.

The problem is that they said that AoE4 would have less civs than AoE2 but more unique, probably complety different units, some uniques ways to get resources.
So if you want to have less civs is better to chose broader entities not more specific ones. Almost sure half the civs would end being western europeans, and we gonna be lucky to get more than one muslim nation.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think you overestimate the education system. Most curriculum barely touches on China and India at all, at least in the US. I'd be surprised if your average American could name any Chinese dynasty (they miiiiight be able to name an individual emperor or two if they're either well-educated or exposed to enough wuxia media), and I'd be even more surprised if they could name any Indian leader at all other than Gandhi (who wasn't an Indian leader ). In my observation American education focuses on the Middle East for the bare minimum of time until they can move over to Greece and Rome. Then they stay in Europe until America comes on the scene, at which point who cares about the rest of the world? India and China, meanwhile, are lucky to get footnotes; Japan gets a little more attention because we fought a war against them and because Americans are obsessed with samurai. All that being said, I think games are a great tool to educate people.

I don't want to stray off topic but this is pretty much what I got in my advanced World History class in high school.

The farthest we got through China was the Han and that was after we briefly talked about the Harappans, or Indus River Valley Civilization, but not before the Near East and Egypt.

After Greece and Rome was when we talked about all the major world religions: Christianity in the Roman Empire, Islam and the Arab world, and back to India to talk about Hinduism and caste systems, and the founding of Buddhism.

After learning about all the major religions of the world, the attention turned to the Europe for the rest of the class starting in the Middle Ages only talking about the Aztecs, Inca and other Native Americans when the Europeans came over and Japan was only mentioned during WWII.

I didn't really learn anything about Korea or much of Medieval/Early Modern Japan until college and that's only when I took a class over East Asia to 1800.

If the base/release version of CIV 7 come with Han and Maurya (specially if they come with previous leaders like Chandragupta) player would not take more than two minutes to realize who are supposed to be these civilizations. Or would people stop buying the new CIV game that also include Rome, Greece, England, America, Russia, Germany, etc. Just because they are so lazy to read who are these Han and Maurya in the internet?

People can learn who is Cree or Mapuche but cant understand that two modern countries the size and population of Western Europe and older histories used to be empires with different ethnics, religious, language and focus.

The United Kingdom can have England and Scotland but modern India or China cant not have separated entities?

All of that does relate to the fact that many people, at least on YouTube, were irked when it came to the DLC when Nubia and Khmer announced, they weren't happy with these "insignificant" civs in the game. The only reason they probably were insignificant is that nobody had ever heard of them when in reality Nubia did conquer Egypt at one point and established their own dynasty their and the Khmer were the first major empire on mainland SE Asia and apparently the city of Angkor Wat had one of the largest populations in the world.

I think the same criticisms would happen if they decided to say split up China definitely, How many people would know if they called a civ the "Han" that it would correlate to one of the golden ages of China?

That's one of the reasons actually they decided to go with the name Indonesia over Majapahit in Civ 5. When it was suggested, I'm not sure any of the devs knew what was being talked about so they changed the name to be consumer friendly. I actually never knew anything about the Majapahit Empire, but now I do thanks to Civ.

I'm not saying that's not a reason to do it, but it's something they probably the devs do consider. The same can be said about splitting Russia into Soviet Russia and Tsarist Russia and Germany into HRE and Prussia, and I don't expect that either.

And there's never been a Civ called the United Kingdom. It's always purposefully called England, even if some of the attributes are British, so they could have gotten Scotland in.

 

[Zaarin]

The problem is that they said that AoE4 would have less civs than AoE2 but more unique, probably complety different units, some uniques ways to get resources.
So if you want to have less civs is better to chose broader entities not more specific ones. Almost sure half the civs would end being western europeans, and we gonna be lucky to get more than one muslim nation.

I'm 100% okay with this. Fewer asymmetric factions is the way to go with an RTS. Expansions/DLC will add more civs in the future.

All of that does relate to the fact that many people, at least on YouTube

Life is much happier when you don't read YouTube comments. But yeah, Firaxis has to make certain compromises to appeal to general audiences.