[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[The Kingmaker]

In general, Civ ought to have “agent” units of various types in addition to great people, missionaries and spies.

Bards would be a great medieval culture agent.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

As for Italy. Here is my concept:

UA Antichi Stati Italiani
Holy Site, Campus, Harbor, Commercial Hub, Theater Square, and Harbor can only be built in your capital city. Cannot recruit Great Generals. Non-capital cities can only be built on your home continent but produce +2 science +2 faith +2 culture +2 production +1 Diplomatic Favor.
UD: Signoria
replaces Neighborhood (Each Signoria has a distinct graphical appearance)
Unlocks with Civil Service. The first time you build a Signoria in your City you may choose a ruling house in this City. After discovering Humanism doubles adjacency bonuses
- Signoria of Venezia - +4 Housing Can be built on Marsh and coastal titles. Yield does not change on the title appeal. +1 gold from each adjacent city center and Signoria. +3 gold +1 culture +1 Great Merchant and Great Admiral point per turn, +1 trade route capacity +1 Citizen slot (+2 gold), units in this city cost 10% less gold (do not stack)
- Signoria of Florence +4 Housing Can be built on title adjacent to city center or farm. Yield does not change on the title appeal. +1 culture from each adjacent city center and Signoria. +3 culture +1 gold, +1 Great Artist +1 Great Musician after discovering Opera and Ballet. +1 Citizen slot (+2 culture) + 2 great works slots
- Signoria of Roma +4 Housing Can be built on title adjacent to the city center. Yield does not change on the title appeal. +1 faith from each adjacent city center and Signoria. +3 faith+1 Diplomatic Favor, +1 Great Writer, allows purchasing religious units +1 Citizen slot (+2 faith) + 1 relic or great work slot. Relics provide +2 faith +2 Diplomatic Favor
- Signoria of Milan Citta +4 Housing Can be built on title adjacent to the city center or mine. Yield does not change on the title appeal. +1 production from each adjacent city center and Signoria. +3 production +1 science, +1 Great Engineer, +1 Citizen slot (+2 production), Ski resorts adjacent to Citta gives gold equal to Tourism. Allow training Military Engineers.
- Signoria of Bolonia Citta +4 Housing Can be built on title adjacent to the city center. Yield does not change on the title appeal. +1 science from each adjacent city center and Signoria. +3 science +1 production, +1 Great Scientist, +1 Citizen slot (+2 science), +1 artifact slot Artifacts gives +2 science. Allow training Archeologist.
UU: Condottieri
Unique Great Person. Movement +4 +5 combat strength +1 movement to a military unit in a same title. When retire grants a random UU from the actual era. Claimed each time you build first Signoria in your City.

The concept needs a balance of cause.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

In general, Civ ought to have “agent” units of various types in addition to great people, missionaries and spies.

Bards would be a great medieval culture agent.

they could upgrade to rock bands or an intermediate

 

[PhoenicianGold]

As for Italy. Here is my concept:

UA Antichi Stati Italiani
Holy Site, Campus, Harbor, Commercial Hub, Theater Square, and Harbor can only be built in your capital city. Cannot recruit Great Generals. Non-capital cities can only be built on your home continent but produce +2 science +2 faith +2 culture +2 production +1 Diplomatic Favor.
UD: Signoria
replaces Neighborhood (Each Signoria has a distinct graphical appearance)
Unlocks with Civil Service. The first time you build a Signoria in your City you may choose a ruling house in this City. After discovering Humanism doubles adjacency bonuses
- Signoria of Venezia - +4 Housing Can be built on Marsh and coastal titles. Yield does not change on the title appeal. +1 gold from each adjacent city center and Signoria. +3 gold +1 culture +1 Great Merchant and Great Admiral point per turn, +1 trade route capacity +1 Citizen slot (+2 gold), units in this city cost 10% less gold (do not stack)
- Signoria of Florence +4 Housing Can be built on title adjacent to city center or farm. Yield does not change on the title appeal. +1 culture from each adjacent city center and Signoria. +3 culture +1 gold, +1 Great Artist +1 Great Musician after discovering Opera and Ballet. +1 Citizen slot (+2 culture) + 2 great works slots
- Signoria of Roma +4 Housing Can be built on title adjacent to the city center. Yield does not change on the title appeal. +1 faith from each adjacent city center and Signoria. +3 faith+1 Diplomatic Favor, +1 Great Writer, allows purchasing religious units +1 Citizen slot (+2 faith) + 1 relic or great work slot. Relics provide +2 faith +2 Diplomatic Favor
- Signoria of Milan Citta +4 Housing Can be built on title adjacent to the city center or mine. Yield does not change on the title appeal. +1 production from each adjacent city center and Signoria. +3 production +1 science, +1 Great Engineer, +1 Citizen slot (+2 production), Ski resorts adjacent to Citta gives gold equal to Tourism. Allow training Military Engineers.
- Signoria of Bolonia Citta +4 Housing Can be built on title adjacent to the city center. Yield does not change on the title appeal. +1 science from each adjacent city center and Signoria. +3 science +1 production, +1 Great Scientist, +1 Citizen slot (+2 science), +1 artifact slot Artifacts gives +2 science. Allow training Archeologist.
UU: Condottieri
Unique Great Person. Movement +4 +5 combat strength +1 movement to a military unit in a same title. When retire grants a random UU from the actual era. Claimed each time you build first Signoria in your City.

The concept needs a balance of cause.

Piazza would likely be chosen over Signoria but it works.

I would add Genoa as another coastal/hill option, perhaps splitting off with the great admiral ability and maybe some food benefits. It feels wrong to include Bologna but omit Genoa.

You could also have Naples with a unique great general. I think the weirdest aspect are the "+3 ___, + 1____" abilities, which seem rather arbitrary and might need some retooling to make each signoria/piazza feel unique.

Otherwise, I would be okay with an Italy resembling something like this.

 

[AsH2]

they could upgrade to rock bands or an intermediate

I think that's accurate IRL for The Rolling Stones.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

An idea for Burma:

I think the paya is a strong candidate for a Holy Site UD, given that they tended to be complexes that extended beyond stupas. We could use a second Holy Site UD and I think a Buddhist counterpart to the lavra would be pretty elegant.

Also, Burmese payas tended to be gilded and housed treasuries. So my proposal would be for Burma to have some sort of unique ability where they can exchange gold for faith. I've always wondered if we might get a currency-converting civ and again the paya is a structure that kind of invites that sort of cross-mechanical thinking. Gold-to-faith also seems like a fun mechanic specifically because of all the ways you can get gold through deals with other civs.

I've thrown out this idea before but I think with the out of the box designs for many of the new Civs this doesn't seem that crazy.

What if either Ethiopia, or perhaps Burma, could get a unique worship building?

Even if you don't found a religion yourself, if you build up to a temple you can build one in your Holy Site. Even if you choose another worship belief, like a Meeting house you have the option to choose.

If one of them doesn't get a Holy Site UD I could possibly see a rock-hewn church for Ethiopia, or the Paya for Burma. The Rock-hewn church could hold a relic slot and the Paya give gold on top of the faith bonuses.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I've thrown out this idea before but I think with the out of the box designs for many of the new Civs this doesn't seem that crazy.

What if either Ethiopia, or perhaps Burma, could get a unique worship building?

Even if you don't found a religion yourself, if you build up to a temple you can build one in your Holy Site. Even if you choose another worship belief, like a Meeting house you have the option to choose.

If one of them doesn't get a Holy Site UD I could possibly see a rock-hewn church for Ethiopia, or the Paya for Burma. The Rock-hewn church could hold a relic slot and the Paya give gold on top of the faith bonuses.

that’s a good idea

 

[The Kingmaker]

Piazza would likely be chosen over Signoria but it works.

I would add Genoa as another coastal/hill option, perhaps splitting off with the great admiral ability and maybe some food benefits. It feels wrong to include Bologna but omit Genoa.

You could also have Naples with a unique great general. I think the weirdest aspect are the "+3 ___, + 1____" abilities, which seem rather arbitrary and might need some retooling to make each signoria/piazza feel unique.

Otherwise, I would be okay with an Italy resembling something like this.

I 100% support a piazza district concept.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I've thrown out this idea before but I think with the out of the box designs for many of the new Civs this doesn't seem that crazy.

What if either Ethiopia, or perhaps Burma, could get a unique worship building?

Even if you don't found a religion yourself, if you build up to a temple you can build one in your Holy Site. Even if you choose another worship belief, like a Meeting house you have the option to choose.

If one of them doesn't get a Holy Site UD I could possibly see a rock-hewn church for Ethiopia, or the Paya for Burma. The Rock-hewn church could hold a relic slot and the Paya give gold on top of the faith bonuses.

I think Ethiopia is a better option for a unique worship building, I think. I don't see a rock-hewn church being a strong candidate for a district (even though we do have things like the "observatory"). And since I don't want a third unique temple, I would rather push rock-hewn churches into a unique niche.

I also am just campaigning really hard for Burma and think a UD is a better selling point than simply a UB or UI.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I 100% support a piazza district concept.

unique city center time

 

[Zaarin]

I think Ethiopia is a better option for a unique worship building, I think. I don't see a rock-hewn church being a strong candidate for a district (even though we do have things like the "observatory"). And since I don't want a third unique temple, I would rather push rock-hewn churches into a unique niche.

I'll be very disappointed if Rock-hewn Churches are a building. They should either be a UD or a UI in my opinion; I don't want to have to squint at my screen to see them.

 

[The Kingmaker]

If Italy is to be taken into consideration, and is presumably to receive two leaders a la Greece, which two leaders should they be? Or which two city-states should be represented?

As major as the Papacy was, I’d rule them out. Too much possible religious controversy + the most direct overlap with Rome (same capital). Let it stay a city-state.

I think Lorenzo de’ Medici and Florence are the strongest contenders for spot #1.

As for spot #2, there’s Caterina Sforza and Milan. Or Enrico Dandolo and Venice again. Genoa? Naples? Turin? Maybe Cesare or Lucrezia Borgia?

 

[Henri Christophe]

As as French who don't want to see the Gauls in the game (for various reasons), seeing someone wanting the Gauls because of Astérix is part of the problem for me.
We don't need civs because we liked how they were represented in medias because Firaxis do (or at least try very hard) to do something historically accurate. And, as a French as I repeat it, the depiction of the Gauls in Asterix is such an oversimplication with so many inaccuracy that if ever they will be in the game you'll be disappointed because you'll have a metallurgic wine trading civilization and not you little village that resist, again and again, against the invader...

If a Frech guy is saying, I will agree.
If one day Vercingetórix become a Gaul leader, I will vote for winged hat. But it isn't a big deal for me, if Fireaxis really want accurate history, ok, I will just accept it.


I know the Scots and Gauls are different people, but they share the Celtic-heritage.
Gauls also share earth-location with France and the Celts was also well represented in CIV 5. That is 3 reasons I guess the Gaul can wait a bit more to be in this game.

Enough people are complaining about Zulus and Aztecs being a staple because they were depicted a lot in medias when civ I came out (there is nothing against those civilizations per se but they might take the place of more "worthy" civilization on the same location), people are also complaining to have (semi)mythical characters as leaders (Dido and Gilgamesh), it's not the time to base our reclamations on popular medias and especially cartoons (especially in France and Belgium where we treating our History with little to no respect for accuracy in favor to national History).

about (semi)mythical , I don't want to start other controversia, but I guess this idea of (semi)mythical is just possible because most of people don't believe in No-European sources.
Sumerians write about Gilgamesh, Chineses write about the emperor 大禹 (Da-Yu).
At the time they believe in Magic and tell fantastic stuff about their emperors, but don't mean they are mythical, they just have an history better than we think it should have.
I understand it can be a issue for some people, but I like to have more (semi)mythical Leaders. I can think in the Indian god king of Ayodhya, the Greatest Rama. Or, as I love Africans, the Oyo empire (who held the city of Ifé) have more than half of their kings as (semi)mythical by europeans-sources.
As I said before, but I will say it again. Oduduwa can be a great king to Oyo empire, because it fit the Nigerian narrative of history and Shango (Xangô) can be an alternative leader because still praised as god in Americas.

All you said about wanting independist states as civs to play is just... crazy. I mean, see all the fuss about Scotland because its abilities are based upon its British times, and Scotland had a right to be considered a civ and an independent nation for centuries! A lot of people are also complaining about having so many post-colonial civs (Canada, USA, Brazil, Australia) to not letting independist of post-colonial nations taking a spot for more historical and representating ones.

I guess the fuss about Scotland (or a possible Texas) is the lack of representation. If this game is very well balanced and every player can see it self in it, we really can start to do all kinds of Civs.
Before made my account in this forum, I was one of the angry youtubers who saying bad things in the First Look Youtube video about the Scott, Canada and Australia. I don't have problem with they, but I still thinking there is other CIVs who should come first.

You complain about Blacks not being enough represented, but the fact is Black people (not "mixed-race" as you put sooo much attention into it it becomes embarassing) were mostly originated from Africa and Australia. For Australia, we already responded to you enough: Firaxis does not want to represent Aborigens from Australia in the game for respect for them because they don't want to. But you have a weird obsession about them. At first, I thought you were genuinely defending the cause of representation of Black people in the game (which, is true, could be more inclusive). But seeing all the fuss you do about Aborigens, I begin to think that you don't want to respect those cultures. Wanting to shoehorn the Aborigens "for better representation of Black people" is utterly a lack of respect for those same Black people that don't want representation. You clearly have an Agenda without the least respect for the people you ought to "defend". I don't know if you're a person of color, but just know that being one does not magically protect you from racism.

About Australian, OK, I don't know that much about they. I just want to see Black people everywhere.
*Ps. I don't understand black people as Africans, for me, Black people is everyone who have dark skin don't matter their ethinical background
Can I ask about other Melanesia-heritage people, not just in Australia, but in Papua New-Guinea. Can they become a CIV or have some political issue with Australian government I don't know?
Is the aborigenal question to Australia something similar to Tibet question to China?
I really don't know about Australia issue, but I find this video, I really don't know if it right or not.

I really think Oceania have a lot of amazing history to be discovered.

The only game I ever saw who used this Black-Blond ethinicity as character was Pokémon.

He one of the Elite Four of Pokémon Black and White, and his name is a clear reference to where this people live. Marshal Island.

And please: stop wanting Garibaldi for Rio Grande dol Sul. Even if it was a legit choice (which is absolutely not), we have enough European leaders that we don't need them leading Non-European civs.

About that, I guess the people would like this idea, I saw many people speaking about Texas and Italian republic and I thought a Rio Grande do Sul can help both.
But, if people don't like the Rio Grande do Sul, OK! I would agree other Civs can be made first.

Important means:
1. archived a certain level of development
2. has an impact on world history
3. has a distinct, significant and recognized culture
4. at some point of history has a strong army and recognizable war tactics, units or war technology
5. at least in one of those above stands out from the rest possible civs.
6. gives value to the game: either enable some fun game mechanic or just answer fanbase demands.

And now answer those questions for Gauls and Acre...

I guess this kind of understanding don't help the development of human being.
I guess all nations with a cool history and a cool leader already have enough to be a civ.
Some battles in history is important to have a Unique Unit, but, for me, it's pointless to measure who kills more.

It isn't conspiracy, the Empire still killing people abroad because we all think as emperors, we need to understand it isn't good at all.

that is like saying mesoamerica civilizations ( Aztec, Inca and Maya) aren't important because they lost to Spain. And yet as of 2020 all three of them are in civ 6.
Ever since Scotland became its own thing I think Gauls can be its own civ. If you read Astrex you will see that at least modern French people think Gauls are different from Scots.

I don't like the idea of states being their own civs when its nation is already in the game. It just overlaps too much. I do believe Civ can do something with State system but making state like RIO GRANDE DO SUL and Texas to be its own civ... why? When Brazil and America is already in the game... what is next Jeju Island be its own civ separate from Korea?

If no-one likes the Rio Grande do Sul idea, OK.
If in the future you change your mind, you already have a very good option to South America, with a great leader, a cool Unique Unit and also a funny Unique Improvement.

Blacks in America — there’s been only one black guy as president, and he would anger half the American players
it would be great to have more cultural representation in this game, but you still have to fit the facts: black people have only really lead in Africa until recent times, when the people would be remembered for their divisive politics, not their good ideas. So use more African civs.

This it the kind of thinking make me believe we really need to have more representation. I don't think the Grand-Admiral is racist because what he said, he just don't see Black people outside Africa and believe in the Racist-Narrative builded in our civilization, he didn't create this racist narrative, he just learn it somewhere and now believe it.

Just to start, we have a lot of Black president in Caribe.
By Haitian's contitution, all people who born in Haiti, don't matter their color of skin, they are Black.
That means ALL Haitian's presidents are black, don't matter their color of skin.

Haiti also had 3 emperors, and by Haiti Monarchy rules you need to be full Black to be a noble.
(By the way, Haiti is very good to study racial issues in human history, they had the first racial war I ever saw. The Black Empire lead by my avatar, Henri Christophe and the Mulato Republic in the south)
Mulato is a mix race between Black-White.
The Flag of Haiti also speak a bit about this racial problem of Haiti.
The Blue represent the Black people (Emperial flag changes Blue for Black)
And the Red represent the Mulato people (mix race Black-White).
The Blue is over than red because geography, Black people live in North Haiti and south Haiti is more mix-race.

And also suggest more two other Black Leaders to be a Civ in this game.
First the kingdom of Palmares (1580-1710). It was bigger than Muisca or Portugal, it survive longer than Sovietic Union, their spot in world map is empity (North West South America) and they have a cool history, with cool leaders and some Unique Units as the Capoeira fighter (who can be as the Monker Warrior)
As leaders. Ganga Zumba (1630-1678), he was king of two world, was king in Africa and was King in Brazil.
Zumbi (1678-1695) he is the most well know leader of Palmares, he had the greatest battles against Paulistas invasions. And also really like his name, Zumbi is the same as Zoombie. It is a great warrior name, because it mean "the one who never dies."

Second the Seminole lead by Negro Abraham.
I don't want to erase any Native of this game, I don't think a Seminole leaded by Negro Abraham will erase nothing. The most beautifull thing about Seminole history is their equal race society, when all they live in Florida, they never had any racial problem, they don't even understand what a race was, they was a true big familly before lose the war against Andrew Jackson.

And, of course, Haiti lead by Toussaint L'Overture
I guess it is a shame, even in XX century, he isn't be already in this game.

this civ sound cool, but naval units on land would break the game, and besides, we already have land equivalents for all of the naval units. Maybe naval units can travel along rivers, and you can build your ports there?

The Farrapos revolution was an inland revolution, but the Brazilian empire had a strong Armada, so the Garibaldi and other Gauchos leaders build boats inland and move it to the sea. I think it was a cool chapter in the History of American's revolutions and can be a feature for this game.

It can work as that, the boat inland is very weak and any other unit can easly destroy it, but, it can move on land to go somewhere else.

If we’re having garibaldi, he’s gonna lead a unified Italy (I kinda want a Renaissance one though). That would be like some Habsburg as a Dutch alt — they ruled that nation, but it wasn’t their main country

Okay, I would vote to Garibaldi be an American leader just to full fill American's void of Civs.

Edit: I just looked this up on Wikipedia, and it’s just another Brazilian state? They should add the Guaraní, Muisca first

I also would like the Guarani, I thought in two ways to do it.
It can have a Paraguayan leader as Solano Lópes and an ancient Guarani Unique Unit as this cool archer, it can work as Catapult, can't move and shoot at the same turn.

Or the Guarani can have some leader more "Guarani-ish" as Sepé Tiaraju and a very modern Unique Unit from Paraguay heritage.
Did you know? Paraguay was the first country to use an Airplane at war? It was the Chaco war 1928-1935. (I read it at a Paraguayan source).

America-( not native Americans but Colonial America) was born by whites- by founding fathers. African Americans were kidnapped and were forcefully immigrated to America. I am not being racist but merely stating facts- that blacks were not heavily involved with birth of America.

If we forgot the idea of people can be better than another, it would be no more a problem.
If there is Black people in America, it is already enought to they are important to our history.
The question is, if they can be a CIV, who is the leader, the Unique Unit, the Unique Improvement and the name of their State.

America has been built by white anglo-saxon protestant for white anglo-saxon protestant on the shoulders on countless black slaves would be a more fair description, but it didn't erase the fact that the country was built for WASP.

I guess you are talking about North America.
But I don't agree, all Americans build America together. Wasp was the Empire, but we also had the Resistance force against it.

I just want to say that trust me, that Oklahoma design was a joke. No Texan would want Oklahoma as a separate Civ.
I guess it should have been more clearer.
I don't think that breakaway provinces/states in the New World should be a civ just for the sake of representation, even Texas. Those are best left to mods and rather not be put in the game officially, and I'm pretty sure there are already some. I'll just leave it at that.

Can you do a serious proposal of Texas? Who can be a Texans leader you can be proud of?

I'm biased toward the Axum Empire era and Ezana, but if I had to pick a more modern one I will go with Menelik II. Both haven't been in a game yet.

I like Ezana because she is woman, Gender equality is also in my equality agenda.

About Ethiopian leaders, I just don't want Haile Selassie because I don't like to declare war against him, I really feel bad each time I need to declare war against him.
He is a god, and I beleive it, I'm a Rastafari guy also.

As Ethiopia have sooooooooooooo many good characters, I will like everyone. I just want to do a suggestion, I would like someone VERY COLORFUL. Full Bright with the Pan-African colors.

Again, sorry if someone is angry with me, I just want a balanced game, I swear.
And the French guy ask if I'm black. I'm not.
I'm mix race Brazilian, in Brazil other Brazilians should say I'm white, but when I lived in Germany everyone though I'm Turkish.
I love African history because the history of my neighborhood.
My neighborhood is called K11, in Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
K11 come from the Bantu word Kwanza, and my neighborhood-heritage is linked with Ndongo kingdom.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Ezana is a dude

no one seriously wants texas

 

[Zaarin]

the Celts was also well represented in CIV 5.

No, they weren't. Civ5's Celts was one of the worst civ designs in the franchise's history. It was appallingly, offensively bad.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

If Italy is to be taken into consideration, and is presumably to receive two leaders a la Greece, which two leaders should they be? Or which two city-states should be represented?

As major as the Papacy was, I’d rule them out. Too much possible religious controversy + the most direct overlap with Rome (same capital). Let it stay a city-state.

I think Lorenzo de’ Medici and Florence are the strongest contenders for spot #1.

As for spot #2, there’s Caterina Sforza and Milan. Or Enrico Dandolo and Venice again. Genoa? Naples? Turin? Maybe Cesare or Lucrezia Borgia?

I would skip Florence and go with Dandolo and di Campofregoso. If we are still sticking to leaders as representing "empires" or "leagues", then the Venetian and Genoese empires should take priority over Florence.

Also, we have enough Medicis in the game.

 

[Grand-Admiral Thrawn]

If a Frech guy is saying, I will agree.
If one day Vercingetórix become a Gaul leader, I will vote for winged hat. But it isn't a big deal for me, if Fireaxis really want accurate history, ok, I will just accept it.


I know the Scots and Gauls are different people, but they share the Celtic-heritage.
Gauls also share earth-location with France and the Celts was also well represented in CIV 5. That is 3 reasons I guess the Gaul can wait a bit more to be in this game.




about (semi)mythical , I don't want to start other controversia, but I guess this idea of (semi)mythical is just possible because most of people don't believe in No-European sources.
Sumerians write about Gilgamesh, Chineses write about the emperor 大禹 (Da-Yu).
At the time they believe in Magic and tell fantastic stuff about their emperors, but don't mean they are mythical, they just have an history better than we think it should have.
I understand it can be a issue for some people, but I like to have more (semi)mythical Leaders. I can think in the Indian god king of Ayodhya, the Greatest Rama. Or, as I love Africans, the Oyo empire (who held the city of Ifé) have more than half of their kings as (semi)mythical by europeans-sources.
As I said before, but I will say it again. Oduduwa can be a great king to Oyo empire, because it fit the Nigerian narrative of history and Shango (Xangô) can be an alternative leader because still praised as god in Americas.




I guess the fuss about Scotland (or a possible Texas) is the lack of representation. If this game is very well balanced and every player can see it self in it, we really can start to do all kinds of Civs.
Before made my account in this forum, I was one of the angry youtubers who saying bad things in the First Look Youtube video about the Scott, Canada and Australia. I don't have problem with they, but I still thinking there is other CIVs who should come first.




About Australian, OK, I don't know that much about they. I just want to see Black people everywhere.
*Ps. I don't understand black people as Africans, for me, Black people is everyone who have dark skin don't matter their ethinical background
Can I ask about other Melanesia-heritage people, not just in Australia, but in Papua New-Guinea. Can they become a CIV or have some political issue with Australian government I don't know?
Is the aborigenal question to Australia something similar to Tibet question to China?
I really don't know about Australia issue, but I find this video, I really don't know if it right or not.

I really think Oceania have a lot of amazing history to be discovered.

The only game I ever saw who used this Black-Blond ethinicity as character was Pokémon.

He one of the Elite Four of Pokémon Black and White, and his name is a clear reference to where this people live. Marshal Island.



About that, I guess the people would like this idea, I saw many people speaking about Texas and Italian republic and I thought a Rio Grande do Sul can help both.
But, if people don't like the Rio Grande do Sul, OK! I would agree other Civs can be made first.



I guess this kind of understanding don't help the development of human being.
I guess all nations with a cool history and a cool leader already have enough to be a civ.
Some battles in history is important to have a Unique Unit, but, for me, it's pointless to measure who kills more.

It isn't conspiracy, the Empire still killing people abroad because we all think as emperors, we need to understand it isn't good at all.


If no-one likes the Rio Grande do Sul idea, OK.
If in the future you change your mind, you already have a very good option to South America, with a great leader, a cool Unique Unit and also a funny Unique Improvement.



This it the kind of thinking make me believe we really need to have more representation. I don't think the Grand-Admiral is racist because what he said, he just don't see Black people outside Africa and believe in the Racist-Narrative builded in our civilization, he didn't create this racist narrative, he just learn it somewhere and now believe it.

Just to start, we have a lot of Black president in Caribe.
By Haitian's contitution, all people who born in Haiti, don't matter their color of skin, they are Black.
That means ALL Haitian's presidents are black, don't matter their color of skin.

Haiti also had 3 emperors, and by Haiti Monarchy rules you need to be full Black to be a noble.
(By the way, Haiti is very good to study racial issues in human history, they had the first racial war I ever saw. The Black Empire lead by my avatar, Henri Christophe and the Mulato Republic in the south)
Mulato is a mix race between Black-White.
The Flag of Haiti also speak a bit about this racial problem of Haiti.
The Blue represent the Black people (Emperial flag changes Blue for Black)
And the Red represent the Mulato people (mix race Black-White).
The Blue is over than red because geography, Black people live in North Haiti and south Haiti is more mix-race.

And also suggest more two other Black Leaders to be a Civ in this game.
First the kingdom of Palmares (1580-1710). It was bigger than Muisca or Portugal, it survive longer than Sovietic Union, their spot in world map is empity (North West South America) and they have a cool history, with cool leaders and some Unique Units as the Capoeira fighter (who can be as the Monker Warrior)
As leaders. Ganga Zumba (1630-1678), he was king of two world, was king in Africa and was King in Brazil.
Zumbi (1678-1695) he is the most well know leader of Palmares, he had the greatest battles against Paulistas invasions. And also really like his name, Zumbi is the same as Zoombie. It is a great warrior name, because it mean "the one who never dies."

Second the Seminole lead by Negro Abraham.
I don't want to erase any Native of this game, I don't think a Seminole leaded by Negro Abraham will erase nothing. The most beautifull thing about Seminole history is their equal race society, when all they live in Florida, they never had any racial problem, they don't even understand what a race was, they was a true big familly before lose the war against Andrew Jackson.

And, of course, Haiti lead by Toussaint L'Overture
I guess it is a shame, even in XX century, he isn't be already in this game.


The Farrapos revolution was an inland revolution, but the Brazilian empire had a strong Armada, so the Garibaldi and other Gauchos leaders build boats inland and move it to the sea. I think it was a cool chapter in the History of American's revolutions and can be a feature for this game.

It can work as that, the boat inland is very weak and any other unit can easly destroy it, but, it can move on land to go somewhere else.
Okay, I would vote to Garibaldi be an American leader just to full fill American's void of Civs.

I also would like the Guarani, I thought in two ways to do it.
It can have a Paraguayan leader as Solano Lópes and an ancient Guarani Unique Unit as this cool archer, it can work as Catapult, can't move and shoot at the same turn.

Or the Guarani can have some leader more "Guarani-ish" as Sepé Tiaraju and a very modern Unique Unit from Paraguay heritage.
Did you know? Paraguay was the first country to use an Airplane at war? It was the Chaco war 1928-1935. (I read it at a Paraguayan source).

If we forgot the idea of people can be better than another, it would be no more a problem.
If there is Black people in America, it is already enought to they are important to our history.
The question is, if they can be a CIV, who is the leader, the Unique Unit, the Unique Improvement and the name of their State.

I guess you are talking about North America.
But I don't agree, all Americans build America together. Wasp was the Empire, but we also had the Resistance force against it.


Can you do a serious proposal of Texas? Who can be a Texans leader you can be proud of?


I like Ezana because she is woman, Gender equality is also in my equality agenda.

About Ethiopian leaders, I just don't want Haile Selassie because I don't like to declare war against him, I really feel bad each time I need to declare war against him.
He is a god, and I beleive it, I'm a Rastafari guy also.

As Ethiopia have sooooooooooooo many good characters, I will like everyone. I just want to do a suggestion, I would like someone VERY COLORFUL. Full Bright with the Pan-African colors.

Again, sorry if someone is angry with me, I just want a balanced game, I swear.

Rio grande do sul is way too minor of a ‘civ’ to have representation before any other civ that was independent for more than a year

there is no British empire anymore, but I agree that it’s having bad effects after it’s dismantling. However, the bad things happening are not the result of current people, but those of the past

you’re talking about me being in the racist narrative. I liked Obama. Sadly, half of my compatriots didn’t, and he would be too divisive. I would like a haiti with Toussaint L’Oveurture

the guarani would be good, but they didn’t have the first warplane. You say the Chaco war started in 1928, but warplanes were used in world war 1, which ended in 1918

you talk about a ‘black Americans’ civ. This doesn’t seem like the way to go. We shouldn’t make up civs that never existed. Instead, use civs that actually existed which had black leaders

I don’t think anybody is actually thinking a Texas civ would make it into the game




basically, black representation is good, but that doesn’t mean we can put controversial / made up civs in the game

 

[The Kingmaker]

No, they weren't. Civ5's Celts was one of the worst civ designs in the franchise's history. It was appallingly, offensively bad.

My wife loves playing as Celtic tribes in history games. They’re her favorite.

She was so bitterly disappointed and borderline offended at the shameful depiction of Boudica that she wouldn’t even play the Celtic civ. Immodest, impractical, anorexic, inaccurate. Modern Welsh. Ceilidhs. Made her really hate Civ5.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I would skip Florence and go with Dandolo and di Campofregoso. If we are still sticking to leaders as representing "empires" or "leagues", then the Venetian and Genoese empires should take priority over Florence.

Also, we have enough Medicis in the game.

Respectfully disagree. Florence is the cornerstone of the famous Italian Renaissance. Powerhouse cultural and economic civ.

 

[TeddyMain]

no one seriously wants texas

I would seriously love Texas to be in, I just know their chances are slim to none.