[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Jewelrunna]

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.

Pretty strongly disagree with both of these points. Austria held a unique gameplay style that hasn’t been replicated in Civ VI. I’m of the opinion that they can take a similar aggressive diplomacy style with a unique twist.

Also think it’s absurd to say that Germany or Hungary would cover Austria. That's sort of like saying that because Victoria is in the game with her British-themed England, we shouldn't have Scotland. Or because we have Brazil, we shouldn't have Portugal. I mean, the Hungary thing makes even less sense because Hungary was absorbed by Austria to create the Austro-Hungarian Empire; and don't be fooled by that name--Austria was the dominant part of that union, and for a long part of Hungary's time within the Austrian Empire, Austria outright dominated Hungary with the latter having little say in the government of the empire. If anything, it should be the other way around, that Austria covers Hungary. Now don't get me wrong, I love that we have Hungary in the game and they're well-overdue for representation. I'm merely saying that if we decide that Hungary is a worthwhile inclusion, then Austria is more than worthwhile.

Also I disagree with the sentiment that having an HRE Germany covers Austria. Once Austria became the de facto seat of the HRE, the region entered a radically different period of history than when Frederick ruled. Frederick is more like those HRE mods that pick someone like Charlemagne to rule over it (which is sort of funny and ahistorical, but still is closer to the mark than saying a Frederick-led Germany covers Austria). Also, what we consider Germany nowadays and Austria have pretty radically different historical trajectories, as modern Germany inherits the legacy of Prussia, and Austria has, well, an Austrian-Habsburg legacy.

 

[Jeppetto]

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"...

But have you considered that Koreans were Georgians led by Tamar all along?

 

[CivLuvah]

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"...

That's the first time I heard of that

 

[Zaarin]

But have you considered that Koreans were Georgians led by Tamar all along?

And suddenly all of history makes sense: we are all Georgian, and Tamar led all of us.

That's the first time I heard of that

Look up any agglutinating language isolate or small language family on Wikipedia and read the section on "possible relations" or "proposed language families." Basque, some Caucasian language family, and Elamite will almost certainly come up; Korean and Sumerian will probably come up. These will even cross continents, like Dene-Caucasian.

 

[CivLuvah]

Question: Who put/why are there "Babylon" and "Babylonian" tags on this thread? This is the first time that I could remember seeing a thread that has tags.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

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?

Eh, the problem doesn't extend to just China and India though. "Greece" was not a unified country either but a loose confederation of city-states, hence why we have a looser idea of Greece represented by the Delian and Pelopponesian Leagues. "Russia" could mean Novgorod, Muscovy, the Tsardom of Russia, the Russian Empire, the USSR, maybe even include Kievan Rus' ("Rus-sia"). "Germany" might include Magna Germania, the Holy Roman Empire, the Kingdom of Germany, the Third Reich, the Federal Republic of Germany. "England" could be the Heptarchy, or Norman England, or Great Britain. And even if we accepted that it is okay in Europe, the problems don't stop at just India and China: Egypt, Arabia, and Persia all present similar problems.

The point, is that the line requiring a Han civ or Maurya civ but not an Achaeamenid or Ayyubid civ is arbitrary, and that sort of pedantry quickly leads down a slippery slope to where half the roster is unrecognizable to the lay consumer. A civ game like that would not be resonant in the primary gaming markets; it wouldn't sell. Not to mention the multiplication of resources necessary to represent such distinctions is, at least with the current state of the franchise, impractical.

The fact is that the game cannot represent every major empire that has formed the cultural backbone of modern states. Most of history gets left out in the Civ franchise. But what we do have to work with are clear, modern nationalist boundaries that are, by and large, accepted to have a unified people with a common cultural heritage. For a game that can only put out about eight civs a year across a limited release schedule, consolidating most surviving cultures under modern nationalism is a fair compromise to try and represent as much of humanity as possible.

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

Despite everything I just said, I still struggle some days to accept Scotland. I will observe that Great Britain was the largest imperial power that ever existed, so if any empire deserved to be "split up," that would be the one to pick. However, it's hard to justify Scotland on top of Canada and Australia.

I'm pretty sure Scotland is our "Celtic" civ, the closest thing any Celtic people came to having a structured, expansionist "empire." I think it was an attempt to "civilize" fans desires for a Celtic civ that wasn't a blob, and otherwise would have never been included. For that matter, however, I think a Gaulish civ would have compared even less favorably in this Han/Maurya argument than Scotland does.

 

[The Kingmaker]

The rule of thumb I try to keep in mind regarding marketing a product to the general populace is that Backyard Burgers went out of business because they marketed 1/3 lb. burgers for the same price as McDonald’s 1/4 lb. burgers.

People actually said, “Why would we pay the same amount for only 1/3 lb. when we could get 1/4 lb. at McDonald’s?”

I get that FXS has in some ways educated the market with its new content. But I’d expect complaints about India and China’s absence if we got, say, the Mughals and the Tang.

As stupid as that sounds.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Also think it’s absurd to say that Germany or Hungary would cover Austria. That's sort of like saying that because Victoria is in the game with her British-themed England, we shouldn't have Scotland. Or because we have Brazil, we shouldn't have Portugal. I mean, the Hungary thing makes even less sense because Hungary was absorbed by Austria to create the Austro-Hungarian Empire; and don't be fooled by that name--Austria was the dominant part of that union, and for a long part of Hungary's time within the Austrian Empire, Austria outright dominated Hungary with the latter having little say in the government of the empire. If anything, it should be the other way around, that Austria covers Hungary. Now don't get me wrong, I love that we have Hungary in the game and they're well-overdue for representation. I'm merely saying that if we decide that Hungary is a worthwhile inclusion, then Austria is more than worthwhile.

Also I disagree with the sentiment that having an HRE Germany covers Austria. Once Austria became the de facto seat of the HRE, the region entered a radically different period of history than when Frederick ruled. Frederick is more like those HRE mods that pick someone like Charlemagne to rule over it (which is sort of funny and ahistorical, but still is closer to the mark than saying a Frederick-led Germany covers Austria). Also, what we consider Germany nowadays and Austria have pretty radically different historical trajectories, as modern Germany inherits the legacy of Prussia, and Austria has, well, an Austrian-Habsburg legacy.

Well for starters, I would have initially preferred Austria to return over the inclusion of Hungary, or the return of Sweden, but that's beside the point because I still like their inclusion and the way they are implemented in the game.

I was just making comparisons to why I think it is unlikely that they will return mainly based upon the introduction of Hungary as a Central European power, no matter if Austria is more deserving. It's the same reason I don't expect Denmark to return when we have Norway, even though the Danish Vikings were considered the main power over their Norwegian and Swede counterparts.
The HRE inspired Germany is probably not even be an issue, at least it wasn't originally to me, but it's one I thought was worth noting right now on why they probably decided to choose Hungary to differentiate it.

The bigger issue might not even be Hungary but the fact that we also have Portugal, Byzantines, possible Italy/ city-states, and other European Civs that Austria will compete with a spot in the New Frontier Pass. And we know they can only add so many of them.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

i’m against the breaking up of china but for the breaking up of the india civ simply because unlike greece, or to a certain extent, arabia, the various leader options are all of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds, ruled different places and had literally nothing in common with each other except for their status as nations on the same subcontinent. While the governance style of chinese dynasties and greek city states specifically varied significantly, and as a result, their focused shaped the governed, the actual polities ruled in the case of china were the same, while in the case of greece, the actual cultures and ethnicities of city states were similar, even if one might be more warlike and another, more peaceful.

India is likely the only civ in this game which has reached such a level of blobbiness that it is only one step down from the painful civ 4 ‘vikings’ and ‘native americans’ as well as the civ 5 ‘polynesians’ and civ favorite ‘celts’. The only thing making it less so is the modern form which is united and represented by a modern leader.

What sucks is the fact that yes, to a western audience, splitting up India into the Mughals, Maurya or Chola would make it less recognizable. But logically, this wouldn’t hurt sales or make people angry because firstly, India likely isn’t the make-or-break civ for any western audience. As people have noted, that usually goes to civs which are from key audiences, and splitting up india likely wouldn’t hurt sales in India, where these three nations are well known and with the exception of the mughals, well regarded.

Likewise, as someone who never heard of the mapuche before civ, and has learned about various leaders in civ, the advantage to having lesser known names is how they become well known within the fanbase and greater civ-centered culture. No one is going to not buy Humankind because they’ve never heard of the Harrapans or the Mauryans, who are civs in that game, or complain that the Classical ‘Indians’ aren’t in the game because the Maurya are a classical indian kingdom.

India is a recognizable name in civ. But it’s not going to hurt sales to split it up.

 

[Zaarin]

Danish Vikings were considered the main power over their Norwegian and Swede counterparts.

To some extent that's true, but Norwegians colonized Iceland, the Faroes, Greenland, Vinland (Leif Eiriksson was Norwegian, one generation removed), the Hebrides, Orkney/Shetland, and Normandy (the latter alongside Danes) so Norwegian Vikings were a pretty big deal. IMO Sweden is the one that should never be "the Viking civ" since it hit its heyday as a great power in the 17th century, long after the Viking period.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

To some extent that's true, but Norwegians colonized Iceland, the Faroes, Greenland, Vinland (Leif Eiriksson was Norwegian, one generation removed), the Hebrides, Orkney/Shetland, and Normandy (the latter alongside Danes) so Norwegian Vikings were a pretty big deal. IMO Sweden is the one that should never be "the Viking civ" since it hit its heyday as a great power in the 17th century, long after the Viking period.

you can make a case for any of the 5 Nordic civ possibilities:

The danes were the initial viking powerhouse, and during the late medieval and renaissance developed strong leanings towards scientific and cultural research, especially astronomy (see: copernicus)

the norwegians were the predominant viking colonists, expanding their empire the furthest by far, but lost influence as time progressed

the swedes were at the forefront of the protestant expansion, had strong scientific and cultural leanings, especially towards the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, and grew powerful

the finns and sami fit more as some of the smaller, less influential nations, but nonetheless were cultures that influenced the development of the region immensely, especially the sami, who have a long history of activism since the 19th century due to their constant status as oppressed people under Norwegian and Swedish rule. Likewise, the sami were one of the only peoples who i’d classify as a snow civ that counts as a civ. They indeed did have settlements and moved pass hunter-gatherer status, which are probably the main two categorizations that allow for a people to be considered a civ

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

To some extent that's true, but Norwegians colonized Iceland, the Faroes, Greenland, Vinland (Leif Eiriksson was Norwegian, one generation removed), the Hebrides, Orkney/Shetland, and Normandy (the latter alongside Danes) so Norwegian Vikings were a pretty big deal. IMO Sweden is the one that should never be "the Viking civ" since it hit its heyday as a great power in the 17th century, long after the Viking period.

Yes the Norwegians were the main explorers and colonizers, but the Danish were the most active in the British Isles and Western Europe and the first Viking attack was attributed to them. Though I personally like the Norwegians as the Viking Civ, as Denmark can explore other routes like with Margaret if they wanted too.

 

[Jewelrunna]

Well for starters, I would have initially preferred Austria to return over the inclusion of Hungary, or the return of Sweden, but that's beside the point because I still like their inclusion and the way they are implemented in the game.

I was just making comparisons to why I think it is unlikely that they will return mainly based upon the introduction of Hungary as a Central European power, no matter if Austria is more deserving. It's the same reason I don't expect Denmark to return when we have Norway, even though the Danish Vikings were considered the main power over their Norwegian and Swede counterparts.
The HRE inspired Germany is probably not even be an issue, at least it wasn't originally to me, but it's one I thought was worth noting right now on why they probably decided to choose Hungary to differentiate it.

The bigger issue might not even be Hungary but the fact that we also have Portugal, Byzantines, possible Italy/ city-states, and other European Civs that Austria will compete with a spot in the New Frontier Pass. And we know they can only add so many of them.

I agree, and I share the sentiment that Austria's inclusion is unlikely at this point. I'm just making the case, because they're my most desired European Civ at this juncture (barring perhaps Byzantium).

 

[PhilBowles]

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.”

Britons in AoE annoys me. A friend tells me that the manual indicates that this was used over English because the faction's longbowmen were originally intended to represent the Welsh, so the faction wasn't fully English (though even so 'Briton' was not the correct term for 'English + Welsh').

As expansion content added Yeomanry, Warwolf and so forth, the faction was evidently reimagined as being essentially fully Anglo-Norman-era English (which happens to be the era the longbow comes from - the association with Wales is due to Agincourt, but it was actually principally English). They should probably have renamed the civ at the same time.

 

[Zaarin]

Yes the Norwegians were the main explorers and colonizers, but the Danish were the most active in the British Isles and Western Europe and the first Viking attack was attributed to them. Though I personally like the Norwegians as the Viking Civ, as Denmark can explore other routes like with Margaret if they wanted too.

Agreed. In Civ7 I'd like either an Icelandic or Norwegian Viking civ so that we can get science/trade Denmark under Margaret I.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Agreed. In Civ7 I'd like either an Icelandic or Norwegian Viking civ so that we can get science/trade Denmark under Margaret I.

Why stop at Denmark?

“Margaret leads Denmark, Norway and Sweden in Sid Meier’s Civilization VII.”

#KalmarUnion

 

[Zaarin]

Why stop at Denmark?

“Margaret leads Denmark, Norway and Sweden in Sid Meier’s Civilization VII.”

#KalmarUnion

I'll honestly be surprised if they do alternate leaders again, never mind another Eleanor. But if they did, sure, she can lead all the Nordic civs plus Scotland for good measure.

 

[Jewelrunna]

I'll honestly be surprised if they do alternate leaders again, never mind another Eleanor. But if they did, sure, she can lead all the Nordic civs plus Scotland for good measure.

I love the idea of alternate leaders. I just feel like they somewhat missed the mark by making the alternate leaders we currently have kind of boring. Gorgo and Pericles were the best execution of the idea thus far, IMO. Chandragupta and Gandhi on paper should be amazing, but the base design of India is just really boring, not making either or them especially fun to play, in my opinion. And Eleanor is a meme, a fairly superfluous unique ability on a leader that no one really wanted in the first place. It doesn't help that Eleanor leads two of the most popular Civs in the game (pop culturally speaking) and isn't an especially well-known face for either of them. So I feel like they really missed the mark, and if the rumors of Kublai Khan are correct, I kind of feel like the fourth alternate leader won't hit the mark either.

 

[BuchiTaton]

"Greece" was not a unified country either but a loose confederation of city-states, hence why we have a looser idea of Greece represented by the Delian and Pelopponesian Leagues.

So both classical greeks, same religion, basically same language, already represented on base game with different rulers. Plus Macedonia with Alexander that was the leader of Greeks on previous CIV games, and the greek Cleopatra for Egypt. Not to forget the highly likely Byzantine civ that represent since various CIVs ago another period and characteristics of Greek history.

And how many space people believe have Greece to put more civs on the real world map?

Greece is not an example of other civs that can be "split-off", Greeks is a example of a civ that is already splited-off!

"Russia" could mean Novgorod, Muscovy, the Tsardom of Russia, the Russian Empire, the USSR, maybe even include Kievan Rus' ("Rus-sia").

Would love to have the Ruthenians from Kievan Rus', they could fit as a medieval Ukranian representative.
Novgorod, Muscovy are culturally very close each other and the Tsardom and the Empire are the evolution of the same group. Soviet Union is one of the few pretty intersting phenomenon of 20th century but is highly political and recent to not be problem (especially with the recent events on Eastern Europe).

EDIT: By the way apart of Ruthenians from Kievan Ru´s, the Komi from Great Perm or the Tatar from Sibir Khanate are more on the wave of what I want.

"Germany" might include Magna Germania, the Holy Roman Empire, the Kingdom of Germany, the Third Reich, the Federal Republic of Germany.

Dont we already had Germany+HRE and Germany+Austria, are not those are mainly german nations?
Is Austria now a independent country and not part of modern Germany? Yes, like Mughals are related to Pakistan, Chola to Sri Lanka and Maurya to Bangladesh.
HRE was not germans, but also italians, frankish, wends, etc? Yes, but we must remember how diverse are India and China.

Again the history, population and size of Germany is a fraction of India or China.

"England" could be the Heptarchy, or Norman England, or Great Britain.

I see you lost complety my point. Is not just about moments on the history of X or Y country, the dynastic names are just a tool to save modern politics, Magadha, Tamil and Mughal are complety different people, also for Han(Chinese), Tibetans and Manchus, different cultures from different regions various times biggers than Japan or Korea.

Again. People have problem with complety different empires just because they are now part of India or China but England and Scotland are separated from UK?!

Do you remember Rome + Venice?

Egypt, Arabia, and Persia all present similar problems.

- Egypt changed with the greeks and romans, and the muslim conquest was for sure a complete "before and after", so why not?!
- Arabia is a must for Medieval, but there are some good options like classical Sabaeans or early modern Omani empire.
- Classical Zoroastrian Persia is also "set on stone", but after the arabs, turks and mongols Iran is now a lot different, so it make sense.

Did you know there are people asking for Italy and Mexico despite their capital would end being the same as Rome and Aztec, but people feel that the modern ones are really different from the old ones. In the case of the suggested civs for India and China and despite the dynastic name as "camouflage", they represent different peoples and regions and not just different moments.

The point, is that the line requiring a Han civ or Maurya civ but not an Achaeamenid or Ayyubid civ is arbitrary, and that sort of pedantry quickly leads down a slippery slope to where half the roster is unrecognizable to the lay consumer.

Maurya= Maghada, India+Bangladesh
Mughal= Urdu, Pakistan+India
Chola= Tamil, India+Sri Lanka

Han= China (proper)
Tufan= Tibet
Qing= Manchuria

Well Ayyubid to differentiate them from? Achaeamenid to differentiate them from?

So we must have Vercingetorix as an alternative leader of France? Or what about Benito Juárez as the leader of the Aztecs?!

Why is Ralpacan pedantry but not Boudica?

The modern UK can have their cultural regions represented (Scotland+England) and their historical verions (Boudica), not to forget that the native nations (Cree) that survived to their colonies are a must.
Meanwhile the thousand of years of history of Central Asia and the siberian frontier (bigger than Canada) and South Asia, the millions of peoples from the kingdoms and empires of that regions that linked the West and the East must be put on a couple of civilizations.

I am not asking for each Japanese Daimyo or Italian city state (we know there are people asking for some of these last). I am asking for many centuries old, highly populated historica, from different cored regions each one at least Iran or Turkey sized, even bigger empires, of all different religion and language, plus different eras.

The fact is that the game cannot represent every major empire that has formed the cultural backbone of modern states. Most of history gets left out in the Civ franchise.

So, that is why we MUST have celtic civilizations, the poor native nations that survived anglo-colonialism and as many greco-roman representatives as possible?

For a game that can only put out about eight civs a year across a limited release schedule, consolidating most surviving cultures under modern nationalism is a fair compromise to try and represent as much of humanity as possible.

Then like I said, where is my Benito Juárez as the leader of the Aztecs, or Moctezuma I as the leader of México?

 

[BuchiTaton]

i’m against the breaking up of china but for the breaking up of the india civ simply because unlike greece, or to a certain extent, arabia, the various leader options are all of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds, ruled different places and had literally nothing in common with each other except for their status as nations on the same subcontinent. While the governance style of chinese dynasties and greek city states specifically varied significantly, and as a result, their focused shaped the governed, the actual polities ruled in the case of china were the same, while in the case of greece, the actual cultures and ethnicities of city states were similar, even if one might be more warlike and another, more peaceful.

I am not sure but I think there is a confusion about China.
The idea is not to just have different chinese dynasties like Han, Tang or Ming. What I want is a way to represent proper China (Han), Tibet (Tufan) and Manchuria (Qing).
This three dont only represent different regions of the modern China, they also represent different periods, religions, languages and focus.

The use of dynastic names instead of ethnic, regional or cultural ones is to reduce the chance of modern political censure. Historical entities had the pass on chinese market on other games.

Tufan (Tibetan empire) did not even was one of the "main" or "true" chinese dynasty, just a empire on the area of the modern China.

Qing was a "main/true" dynasty of China, but the more manchu nature could be represented by one of the early leaders or even be named Jin.