[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Lord Lakely]

There won't be a Dutch alt. Nobody would ever pick Wilhelmina again.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

But they need to buff a little Wilhelmina. The bonuses are waaay too weak. I used purposefully them once for a city, but I had to use my 7 trade routes to be efficient. No worth the expense.

I for one want a return of king sejong the great as an alternative leader for Korea. He made more sense as a leader then Seondeok anyways. He might overlap as science-focused leader but I kinda hope they find ways to make him different from Seondeok-like focus more on cultural victory than science? He did make great achievement in culture as well as science...

As for my analysis for no alt-leader for the Netherlands, an alt-leader for Korea would be unlikely. Seondeok already have the science/culture shtick, another leader with the same gameplay would be pointless.

Moreover, Seondeok is, for all the leader and especially female leaders, one of the less worst ones. She was a true queen, she ruled, she's remembered, and if we had to put other leaders because "there's some more important and powerful and remembered as them" we would simply get rid of Catherine de Medici, Wilhelmina, Lady Six Sky, Cleopatra or Kristina because we have Louis XIV, Willem van Oranje, Pacal, Toutankhamon and Gustavus Adolphus. But they were ruler in their own rights, and while I'm usually against "positive discrimination" I would have never heard of Lady Six Sky if it was not for this forum or this game, so I think it's better to keep Seondeok. The problem with Korea is clearly not Seondeok, but all the other things making it a boring science powerhouse.

 

[AntSou]

On a different point, I think the fact we won't have an actual alt leader for America in this Frontier Pass (excluding Teddy rework) is some indication of a second pass being in consideration.

Alt leaders for America are likely among the easiest to sell. A second pass would come pretty late in development, so keeping an easy sell for a second pass makes sense.

Some of the more obvious Persona Packs for the future, in case we get any:

- Pedro II

Spoiler :

- Barbarossa:

Spoiler :

Philip II

Spoiler :

 

[Xandinho]

The most underrepresentade continent is Oceania by far.
I would like to have Hawaii or Tonga Empire.

About African. I guess Africa can very well be represented with some Americans CIV as Haiti and Palmares. They are the Africa in Americas.
Haiti have the Dahomey heritage (From nowadays Benin)
Palmares the Angola heritage (From Ndongo, the same of the great Ana Jinga (Nzinga, Njinga).


I guess it will represented very well Africans in America Diaspora.

If we have white leaders in Europe, America and even in Australia.
Why not have some African Civs in America?

Well, Oceania is by far the smallest of the continents, so I don't think this is underrepresented with two civs. I certainly don't object to more Pacific civs - Hawaii is on my wish list for a second round of passes.

Haiti could be cool, but I particularly prefer the Taínos as Caribbean civilization. And I'm more interested in African civilizations anyway. There are many of them that I would like to see in the game: Ashanti, Benin, Madagascar, Morocco and Zimbabwe...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

No, that isn't clear at all. I suspect they had firmer plans to stay with a two-expansion model than Civ V did, simply because it's not clear Civ V was ever originally conceived as having full expansions rather than DLC content - but I don't imagine they had any specific plans about the themes those expansions would cover or the civs they would include. They ended up in retrospect with some omissions the fanbase found unexpected, not because of pre-planned further content, but precisely because they hadn't planned far ahead and simply found that Babylon et al. didn't fit their needs at each stage when they had content to add.

It is hard to say, but I don't know if you know this but it seems R&F originally had 10 civs planned. Both Nubia and Khmer were found in the files and it looked like they were going to be put in there, but were released earlier to DLC because of the backlash regarding the DDE. So then the number went down to 8 and it looked like they didn't pick any extra ones.
If that went through and they went with 10 again for GS I thing we would have come out exactly at 43, which I believe ties Civ 5. I didn't count Indonesia, because it wasn't originally planned it seems but it could have been part of the 43.

People proposing a modern/renaissance Italy or substitute (one major city-State like Florence, Genoa, Venice or Naples) as a new civ: No, impossible, the Romans already fill the role of Italy, they would be at the same spot, too close, and Romans always have been the predecessor of renaissance/modern Italy so they're basically the same. And what would be their capital? Rome too? Preposterous, a same city cannot be used as capital for two different civs!

Then how come we got both Rome and Venice in Civ 5? I do agree that the only way it does make sense for an Italian Civ is if the capital would be Florence, Genoa, or Venice etc. being based off of Renaissance Italy. But I wouldn't write it off. There is substantial difference between them and the Roman Empire. That happens to be why Bologna is currently a city-state now and not part of the Roman Empire.

(Also, if we have Byzantium to have yet another religious focused civ while we could have a civ turned towards culture and city-States in a more engaging way than Pericles, I don't see the point of having Byzantium except "BUt tHeY'Re a StAPLe nOw!")

The Byzantines have been a staple though as long as the Incans, Maya, Dutch, and presumably Portugal. Them being a staple is nothing new.

 

[DWilson]

Then how come we got both Rome and Venice in Civ 5?

I believe they were trying to make the point that claiming such reasonings is especially weak/problematic when so many are high on the Byzantines.

Clearly a coming double civ pack will be the zombies, which cannot own or settle cities, and win by razing all cities with their captured/infected units and the aliens, which make Korea look weak with their science bonuses (and will see ubiquitous calls for nerfing ala Gran Colombia)

 

[Henri Christophe]

I think Swahili would be perfectly fine, something in the vein of Maya or Greece: group of city states represented by one (probsbly Zanzibar or Kilwa)

Botswana would be interesting and in line with some of what civ 6 goes for.

Mutapa is more appealing to me though as it basically united all of southern africa and succeeded the Kingdom of Zimbabwe

I agree Swahili can be a CIV, but have some reasons I would vote against they become a civ.
First, they can very well be represented as a lot of city states.
Second, Most of African Civs we already have too much Euro-Asiatic influence.
As an historian nerd who loves Africa I know Nubia, Marrocos, Ethiopia and Mali are true africans, but I guess some players look to they and think "hnmmm African's empire just grew with Arabe influence"
Even the Great Zimbabwe, in Civilopedia, have this "Semitic Influence explanation", I don't like it.
https://www.civilopedia.net/en-US/gathering-storm/wonders/building_great_zimbabwe

Third reason, We cannot do ALL Civs we want, so, if we want to do an African Civ, let's do some very Root-African, some CIV who nobody can say "hnmmm, it is more semitic, I guess" Let's try avoid this kind of thinking.

I guess the best options to next African Civ is the Civs who history is linked with African Diaspora.
Ndongo with the great Queen Nzinga.
As the Queen Nzinga is considered by Angolans as the mother of Angola, Ndongo Empire can have Unique Units from Angolan Civil War (it finished in 2002) and it is a oportunity to have more Unique Units of late eras.

Dahomey with Ghezo as leader.
Ghezo come to power just after Haiti/France revolution in the new era created by Haiti, the Slavery routes need to change after Haiti. Haiti isn't just the place where almost all black-enslaved was send, but it is now the place where the Millenar Institution of Slavery start to be abolish.
How should the Emperor of the "Slavery Coast" react to end of Slavery?
By luck (or not) there is, at the time, a Brazilian called Francisco Félix de Souza in Dahomey who will work together with Ghezo to change everything the world already see in the Slavery history.
After Ghezo no more Fon people should be enslaved by Yoruba people, but instead, the Yoruba people start to be enslaved by the Fon people. (That is the why Haiti/Lousiana heritage is more Fon and Cuba/Brazil heritage is more Yoruba).
Ghezo capture the city of Ketu, the biggest Yoruba city next to Dahomey empire. I guess this event is the most important event in Trans-Atlantic Slavery history, because all citizens of Ketu was enslaved in Brazil or Cuba, the ancient King of Ketu (Oxóssi or Ochossi) still praised as a good in Americas, but he was totally forgoten in Africa.
Dahomey Empire also have the Amazon Warriors, it will be the most Unique Unit of all Civs, the first Unique Unit just by female, I would like an hability to Amazon Warriors have +10Atk against male units XD

Oyo this empire should have 2 leaders.
First Oduduwa, he was the founder of Ifé city, the Yorubans say it was the first city of the Earth, way older than Uruk or Ur. And I guess Nigerians Players would prefer this leader.
Second Shango or Xangô.
In my book "The history of Orishas" write by Reginaldo Prandi, it say Shango was the 3rd king of Oyo.
Shango is praised in Americas as a thunder and fire God (Some says he is the African Thor, but Thor just is god of Thunder, not of Fire also). And I guess Afro-American would prefer to play with this leader.
Both leaders are a bit mithological, but, Gilgamesh and Qin Shi Huang also are and it isn't a problem.

By Unique Units, Oduduwa can have some a modern unit from the Biafra war, as it fit the Nigerians narrative of history.
Shango can have a swordman called Ogum.

Ogum is the god of Iron and war, and is praised by Fon and Youruba alike. Yoruba dress him with Blue colors and Fon with red collors (In Brazil both colors, Haiti just red, Cuba is green).
As a god of war, a guess he can have a speacial hability as that.
Each Ogun unity died in battle, all other units receive a free promotion.

Ashante I don't know that much about Ashante history, I just know their heritage is more linked with Jamaica, another place in African Diaspora history I don't know that much.


I'm fine if Zimbabwe come as Mutapa or Mwenemutapa. I would vote to Zimbabwe because I like more this name, I guess it is as Guarani X Paraguay issue, both are good, we need to vote for it.

Mongolia being the most likely BECAUSE of China. France, England and soon the US will all have alts. The ones remaining among the usual suspects are China and Germany, and to a lesser extent Russia.

The world full of voids of nation, why do more Euro-Asiatic leaders?
I guess to fill Asia void of leadres one cool option is Akbar as alternative leader to Mongol Empire.

Well, Oceania is by far the smallest of the continents, so I don't think this is underrepresented with two civs. I certainly don't object to more Pacific civs - Hawaii is on my wish list for a second round of passes.

Haiti could be cool, but I particularly prefer the Taínos as Caribbean civilization. And I'm more interested in African civilizations anyway. There are many of them that I would like to see in the game: Ashanti, Benin, Madagascar, Morocco and Zimbabwe...

Oceania isn't small, we just don't know that much about they. I don't know.
I guess it can have Hawaii, Maori, Tonga and at least one Australian-Native Civ.
I like Madascar as a city state, but also would like if they are a Civ.
Benin works more as a city State, all Unique Improvements of Benin can be made as an Oyo Empire, I guess.
Marroco, as I said before, it is a muslim country, I guess we need to do first more Root-African, maybe after back to do muslim Africans. We already have Mali and also Nubia (Nubia is nowadays a muslim country).

I believe they were trying to make the point that claiming such reasonings is especially weak/problematic when so many are high on the Byzantines.

Clearly a coming double civ pack will be the zombies, which cannot own or settle cities, and win by razing all cities with their captured/infected units and the aliens, which make Korea look weak with their science bonuses (and will see ubiquitous calls for nerfing ala Gran Colombia)

About Byzantine Issue. In CIV 6 I think there is a good alternative.
Justinian and Charles Magne should be alternative leaders to Rome.

There is NO Byzantine Empire, both think about they self as Rome. They are Romans in the Roman Empire.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I believe they were trying to make the point that claiming such reasonings is especially weak/problematic when so many are high on the Byzantines.

It's hard to read sarcasm on these forums without the Smilies at the end.

Oceania isn't small, we just don't know that much about they. I don't know.
I guess it can have Hawaii, Maori, Tonga and at least one Australian-Native Civ.

Oceania is done for this game. They already have stated after looking at all the different cultures, they decided on the Maori. The Maori have generic abilities that any of the Polynesian cultures would get.
Australia isn't getting a native Civ as depicting them would be too problematic.

Justinian and Charles Magne should be alternative leadres to Rome.

Charlemagne wouldn't lead Rome, but either France or Germany.

 

[AntSou]

About Byzantine Issue. In CIV 6 I think there is a good alternative.
Justinian and Charles Magne should be alternative leaders to Rome.

There is NO Byzantine Empire, both think about they self as Rome. They are Romans in the Roman Empire.

No, stop.

Justinian as alt for Rome was already suggested. Charlesmagne as Roman is insane and the statement "there is NO Byzantine Empire... they are Romans" is ludicrous.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

The world full of voids of nation, why do more Euro-Asiatic leaders?
I guess to fill Asia void of leadres one cool option is Akbar as alternative leader to Mongol Empire.

It has been said that the pack with the new leader will need R&F. The most probable hypothesis is that it's because it's an alt-leader for a civ released with R&F. This will mean: Scotland/Netherlands (unrealistic because why whould we need them), Zulus/Mapuches/Georgia/Cree (unrealistic because they're already "minor" civs in Firaxis point of view and thus having them or another "worthy" leader is something kind of difficult to find), Korea (Korea is THE science civ so giving it another leader without science lead would be odd), and Mongolia. Mongolia is the best contestant, especially if we think about Kubilai Khan who could be a leader for China AND Mongolia ala Eleanor. Rationally, it's the best outcome. Of course, we need more African civ (and your posts allowed me to learn a lot of things, thank you) but the harsh reality is that it will not happen.

Then how come we got both Rome and Venice in Civ 5? I do agree that the only way it does make sense for an Italian Civ is if the capital would be Florence, Genoa, or Venice etc. being based off of Renaissance Italy. But I wouldn't write it off. There is substantial difference between them and the Roman Empire. That happens to be why Bologna is currently a city-state now and not part of the Roman Empire.

I believe they were trying to make the point that claiming such reasonings is especially weak/problematic when so many are high on the Byzantines.

That's what I was trying to say. We hear people giving arguments against an Italian civ while Byzantium has exactly the same problems, if not worse. If we can have Byzantium, we can have Italy. And since Italy has been something asked for a long time and Byzantium has already been in games (and they're a "staple" only since Civ 3), I think it would be better to have Italy rather than Byzantium. Byzantium is on the table only because there's a lot of byzaboos everywhere that worship Byzantium (for God's know why) so we should need them while they would feel no niche already used (Religious trading expansionnist empire? You can already do all of that and Byzantium will not give a specific experience IMO) while Italy is tailored to have an assymetric gameplay, dealing dynamically with city-states, having an intern mechanism of city-states and being a cultural powerhouse through trade and districts.
Also, if we speak of cultural importance, Byzantium was important, right, but medieval Italy is literally the region in the world that gave us one of the eras of the game. We have the Renaissance, but we still lack the people that created this renaissance.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Ndongo with the great Queen Nzinga.
As the Queen Nzinga is considered by Angolans as the mother of Angola, Ndongo Empire can have Unique Units from Angolan Civil War (it finished in 2002) and it is a oportunity to have more Unique Units of late eras.

Angola was a Kongo vassal state, so both shouldn’t appear at the same time. They occupy the same area of land as well

Oyo this empire should have 2 leaders.

no

The world full of voids of nation, why do more Euro-Asiatic leaders?
I guess to fill Asia void of leadres one cool option is Akbar as alternative leader to Mongol Empire.

akbar wasn’t mongolian. He was a persified turk leader of India.

 

[AntSou]

Of course, we need more African civ (and your posts allowed me to learn a lot of things, thank you) but the harsh reality is that it will not happen.

I wouldn't be so certain. I think there's a good chance there's a final African Civ after Ethiopia.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I wouldn't be so certain. I think there's a good chance there's a final African Civ after Ethiopia.

one can hope.

If the packs are regionally themed, i doubt we’ll see another one, and we’ll have to hope for a second season pass

if they aren’t, i’d bet on swahili, mutapa or benin, if not the berbers in a ‘mediterranean pack’

 

[AntSou]

Angola was a Kongo vassal state, so both shouldn’t appear at the same time. They occupy the same area of land as well

They are adjacent.

As for "shouldn't appear at the same time", why not? Plenty of Civs in the game have been incorporated, in one form or another, by another Civ also in the game.

Also, if we speak of cultural importance, Byzantium was important, right, but medieval Italy is literally the region in the world that gave us one of the eras of the game. We have the Renaissance, but we still lack the people that created this renaissance.

Yes, the region. We already have the people, they are Great People in the game.

Adding Italy to the game only to completely ignore ACTUAL Italy and instead make it just a blob of medieval Italian states would not be good imo.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

They are adjacent.

As for "shouldn't appear at the same time", why not? Plenty of Civs in the game have been incorporated, in one form or another, by another Civ also in the game.



Yes, the region. We already have the people, they are Great People in the game.

Adding Italy to the game only to completely ignore ACTUAL Italy and instead make it just a blob of medieval Italian states would not be good imo.

i would not be opposed to Italy functioning like greece or maya, a group of city states represented by one, but i think it would be more fun to pick a certain kingdom or city state like Tuscany, Florence, Genoa, or Two Sicilies, although I don’t view Italy as essential or a needed addition to the cast because of geographical overlap, same reason why I don’t want to see the Byzantines

 

[Zaarin]

Re:Byzantium, despite being frustrated by just how many Greek civs we have, IMO making a game called Civilization and leaving out the Byzantines is like making a documentary about Baroque music and not mentioning Vivaldi or Bach. I think for our limited European slots, Byzantium is both likelier and more essential than Portugal or Italy.

I for one want a return of king sejong the great as an alternative leader for Korea. He made more sense as a leader then Seondeok anyways. He might overlap as science-focused leader but I kinda hope they find ways to make him different from Seondeok-like focus more on cultural victory than science? He did make great achievement in culture as well as science...

There's a lot more to Korean history than the Joseon period. Seondeok was a great choice. If Korea does get an alternate leader, Gwanggaeto and Taejo are likelier choices as being further removed from Seondeok.

I'm not sure how the Netherlands theory got started but I would say they're one of the least likely to get a new leader.

We know that the alternate leader requires R&F (not R&F or GS, but specifically R&F) and is therefore for an R&F civ. I don't know about you, but I'm not expecting an alternate leader for the Mapuche. The logical choices are therefore Mongolia, Korea, Netherlands, and maybe Scotland. Most people here I think are expecting Kublai Khan, whether for Mongolia or Mongolia and China.

called themselves the Roman Empire (so there is no doubt that, in a sense, the Romans and Byzantium are the same

So should Peter be an alternate leader of Rome, since Imperial Russia also called itself Roman? How about Suleiman, Sultan of Rome? Should Elizabeth I lead France since the Tudors still called themselves "King/Queen of France"?

 

[Jewman]

Korea is such a boring civ (in-game, not in real life) that i really hope its not them that get the new leader. Mongolia/China are at least very flexible in the direction they can take the civ with just a leader change. That being said the R&F civ that could benefit the most from a leader change is indeed wilhemina. The dutch are already a very solid civ only held back by the most underwhelming leader in the game.

But were speculating all too much, its definitely gonna be kublai khan cmon they practically telegraphed it.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I for one want a return of king sejong the great as an alternative leader for Korea. He made more sense as a leader then Seondeok anyways. He might overlap as science-focused leader but I kinda hope they find ways to make him different from Seondeok-like focus more on cultural victory than science? He did make great achievement in culture as well as science...

joseon isn’t everything, seondeok was a great leader choice.

Sejong makes more sense as a science focus, yeah, but seondeok makes lots of sense too. If Korea gets an alt leader, I’d rather it be Taejo, who apparently is the longest ruling leader of all time, according to (dubious) records, or Gwangaeto, the only leader besides Sejong to be called ‘The Great’

just curious though, does Seondeok speak Sillan or modern Korean in civ 6?

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Re:Byzantium, despite being frustrated by just how many Greek civs we have, IMO making a game called Civilization and leaving out the Byzantines is like making a documentary about Baroque music and not mentioning Vivaldi or Bach. I think for our limited European slots, Byzantium is both likelier and more essential than Portugal or Italy.


There's a lot more to Korean history than the Joseon period. Seondeok was a great choice. If Korea does get an alternate leader, Gwanggaeto and Taejo are likelier choices as being further removed from Seondeok.


We know that the alternate leader requires R&F (not R&F or GS, but specifically R&F) and is therefore for an R&F civ. I don't know about you, but I'm not expecting an alternate leader for the Mapuche. The logical choices are therefore Mongolia, Korea, Netherlands, and maybe Scotland. Most people here I think are expecting Kublai Khan, whether for Mongolia or Mongolia and China.


So should Peter be an alternate leader of Rome, since Imperial Russia also called itself Roman? How about Suleiman, Sultan of Rome? Should Elizabeth I lead France since the Tudors still called themselves "King/Queen of France"?

joseon isn’t everything, seondeok was a great leader choice.

Sejong makes more sense as a science focus, yeah, but seondeok makes lots of sense too. If Korea gets an alt leader, I’d rather it be Taejo, who apparently is the longest ruling leader of all time, according to (dubious) records, or Gwangaeto, the only leader besides Sejong to be called ‘The Great’

just curious though, does Seondeok speak Sillan or modern Korean in civ 6?

yeah but what did Seondeok do apart from being first female ruler? Heck she wasn't even the one who unified three nations Baekje and Goguryeo, and Silla . In fact if game directors wanted ruler in Silla they could have gone with Muyeol who ACTUALLY started and almost completed the whole unification process. In fact according to Korean scholars She is often looked negatively because she was too much in to Buddism and did nothing to solve crisis that Silla was facing at the time.
Sejong should be No.1 leader since even now almost 100% of Koreans respect him and adore him as ideal leader. I have yet to see any Koreans who despise him. ( they might admit he had faults but will still say he was great leader) Just saying Muyeol SHOULD have been Korean leader but nope.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Korea is such a boring civ (in-game, not in real life) that i really hope its not them that get the new leader. Mongolia/China are at least very flexible in the direction they can take the civ with just a leader change. That being said the R&F civ that could benefit the most from a leader change is indeed wilhemina. The dutch are already a very solid civ only held back by the most underwhelming leader in the game.

But were speculating all too much, its definitely gonna be kublai khan cmon they practically telegraphed it.

i think korea would be fine with a different leader, as someone like taejo or gwanggaeto could pull a twist on the current korean abilities, as would mongolia, which, under Kublai, can use war as a prerequisite for diplomacy or culture, which would also be a good leader ability for China. But Sejong wouldn’t play different enough from Seondeok (I’d still be excited if he did get in, though Korea should get Gwangaeto if they have an alt leader, although I don’t want them to, because of all the sexist complaints about Seondeok)

The point of an alt leader isn’t to replace bad ones, it’s to provide an alternate spin on the current civ. So that makes less sense for the Netherlands, as the whole reason why Wilhelmina has a bad ability is because the Netherlands is so good w/out her leader ability. Seeing a different leader who doesn’t nerf the Netherlands like that would make sense because it would make sense Wilhelmina obsolete.

This doesn’t even touch on the facts that chances are, the leader will likely also be a co-leader for a base game civ, since all alt leaders so far have been base game civs, although it is totally possible that the leader won’t actually end up doing this.

The Netherlands has the least options, the region has already gotten alt leaders, and the directions that a different leader could go are really limited

Scotland is kinda like the netherlands, where the civ is really hit hard by bad abilities, as is the Mapuche, but all 3 don’t have good leaders who would act really differently than their current leader or play in a different style.

Mongolia and Zulu have the most to gain from a different leader, as Cetshwayo and Kublai would enforce a different playstyle for a limited civ.

Korea would have the most to gain from an alt leader, but I don’t want them to get one because almost all of the Seondeok criticisms are exclusively sexist (She was a strong leader culturally, scientifically and religiously. Helped to control unrest which directly allowed for Silla to unify the peninsula rather than fall apart).

The Cree don’t have any good leader choices besides Poundmaker either, so that leaves Georgia, which doesn’t have many good options

So, to me, the most reasonable would be a leader for Mongolia or Zulu, but Kublai has the opportunity to lead a different civ too, which is why I think we’ll see him