[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Thenewwwguy]

I not said I agree with that racial way to see the world, I agree it was very racist.
BUT, it's astonished how the distribution of leaders of this game fit very well a racist-germanic way to understand the world in early-modern-age.

It only fits into that ‘racist’ model cuz you chose to apply it to that model. I could apply any model that benefits my agenda to make it seem like it fits that model

 

[The Kingmaker]

Political powerhouse, yes. But not really much of an "empire." Yes there was the Italic League, and maybe if we didn't have Catherine I would say just give us Cosimo as the sole Italian leader.

I would prefer they use the term “civilization” to “empire” anyway. When the game talks about the Georgian, Maori or Canadian empires, it just feels goofy.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

An Opera House or Palazzo would be very good for a cultural Italy design. Also museums.

I thought of a unique Art Museum, Galleria, but I'm not sure how I would make it different from Kristina's ability now with automatic theming unless art provides gold as well.

Since Italy is the birthplace of Opera, an Opera House is the next best thing besides the workshop I mentioned, but I'd personally rather it be a universal building exclusive to the Broadcast Center, and focus more on Great Musician generation and Music works while the Broadcast center could focus on rock band tourism.
But with Italy it could come earlier at Humanism instead of Ballet and Opera civic.

To me the unique workshop would be interesting because it would give you great people points, culture, and production towards wonders, which you would want. And I guess it can also go along with this "Disney" theme that some Civs seem to relate to.

Going off the main discussion, what's your guy's opinion on Finland as a civ?

If they were included, I could see either Mannerheim or Urho Kekkonen leading the nation.

They aren't something I would be too excited about. There are more important Civs that I would rather see first, including in Europe. Though I wouldn't object to getting a city-state for them.

 

[Grand-Admiral Thrawn]

Where is the Scythia legacy? Rio Grande do Sul flag still the revolutionary flag and have write in it "República Riograndese".
And they still calling they self Gauchos!


I don't think so, using this german undersding of races

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race

I draw this graph>

To show very clear how un-balanced this is.

Before start to play CIV 6 I also made a graph about CIV 5 and Land distribution.

And also I guess CIV 6 isn't better than CIV 5 in representation. Far east and Americas just grew in White diversity, but still the same number of Native Civs.

This is an extremely oversimplified view of race, there are more than 4 races. The categories should be: white, Asian, Pacific Islander, middle eastern, black, Native American. And the under representation isn’t civ’s fault, it’s history’s.

also, that map..., is it big block of cheese day?

 

[Thenewwwguy]

This is an extremely oversimplified view of race, there are more than 4 races. The categories should be: white, Asian, Pacific Islander, middle eastern, black, Native American. And the under representation isn’t civ’s fault, it’s history’s.

also, that map..., is it big block of cheese day?

It’s not history’s fault. I’ll admit that there is some under representation of africa and the americas, but it isn’t evidence of racism. It’s not like they intentionally didn’t pick ‘black american nations’, it’s just that ‘black american nations’ never rose to the lengths that these other civilizations did.

Although Haiti would be a good civ (I’d still prefer the Taino)

 

[Grand-Admiral Thrawn]

There ir more Black nations in Americas than White nations.
Who is White in America? Canada, USA, Uruguay and Argentina? You want to put Chile in it? Okay, let's do it.
NOW, how many Black Nations in Americas?
Most Black-
Bahamas, Jamaica, Haiti, Antígua e Barbuda, Guadalupe, Dominica, Martinica, Santa Lúcia, São Vicente e Granadinas, Granada, Trinidad e Tobago, Barbados, Belize, Suriname, Guyana and French-Guyana.
Black around (40%-60%)
Cuba, República DOminicana, Porto Rico, Brazil, Honduras, Nicarágua.
Black minority.
USA, México, Canadá, Colômbia, Equador, Peru, Panamá, Costa Rica, El Salvador

I’ll amend my statement: there haven’t been many ‘black civilizations’ in America more worthy of inclusion of the already existing civs (except maybe Canada)

 

[Thenewwwguy]

also, history has just happened for longer in the old world and we know more about it, which means it’ll naturally be more overrepresented

 

[Kupe Navigator]

I not said I agree with that racial way to see the world, I agree it was very racist.
BUT, it's astonished how the distribution of leaders of this game fit very well a racist-germanic way to understand the world in early-modern-age.

And about Semitic-Caucasian, they are kind of togethers...
Inside other caucasians start with Helenic caucasians, other europeans caucasians, some semitic-I don't know-caucasian and in the botton Aryans-Caucasians.

That chart is garbage and if you show that to any historian you WILL be laughed off and be told that the chart belongs in same place as left over dinner-in the garbage bin! Edit: Also Ghandi belonging same group as Trajan? WTH?

 

[Thenewwwguy]

That chart is garbage and if you show that to any historian you WILL be laughed off and be told that the chart belongs in same place as left over dinner-in the garbage bin!

well he used classifications which were developed by far-right eugenicists in the 1800s to 1950.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

well he used classifications which were developed by far-right eugenicists in the 1800s to 1950.

And why is it relevant here? Am I dumb or an I missing something? I do not think civ team is even aware of far right eugenicists when they are thinking about civs

 

[The Kingmaker]

The human race is so intermingled at this point that attempting to break it down into separate “races” at all is fruitless and unhelpful.

What we mean when we say “race” is generally some combination of ethnicity, skin color and culture, none of which tells the person’s genetic history.

For instance, if I say a person is “Spanish,” they could be any combination of Tartessian, Celtiberian, Lusitanian, Carthaginian, Greek, Roman, Visigothic, Vandal, Suevi, Berber, Arab or any other historic ethnic group to set foot on the Iberian peninsula.

They may speak Castilian and look like Antonio Banderas but who knows what their “race” is.

Other than “human,” which is the only race that matters.

Now can we please get back on topic before this thread implodes in fire and brimstone?

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I thought of a unique Art Museum, Galleria, but I'm not sure how I would make it different from Kristina's ability now with automatic theming unless art provides gold as well.

Since Italy is the birthplace of Opera, an Opera House is the next best thing besides the workshop I mentioned, but I'd personally rather it be a universal building exclusive to the Broadcast Center, and focus more on Great Musician generation and Music works while the Broadcast center could focus on rock band tourism.
But with Italy it could come earlier at Humanism instead of Ballet and Opera civic.

To me the unique workshop would be interesting because it would give you great people points, culture, and production towards wonders, which you would want. And I guess it can also go along with this "Disney" theme that some Civs seem to relate to.


They aren't something I would be too excited about. There are more important Civs that I would rather see first, including in Europe. Though I wouldn't object to getting a city-state for them.

Fair point about the Galleria. On principle Italy is a good candidate for a unique museum, but I agree with you that an Opera House seems a better fit.

Fortunately, palazzos were used as both museums and opera houses.

I would prefer they use the term “civilization” to “empire” anyway. When the game talks about the Georgian, Maori or Canadian empires, it just feels goofy.

The problem (and why I dismiss so many smaller kingdoms at face value as being unlikely for VI) is the mechanics. The way Civ is still structured emphasizes exploration and conquest. I think calling them "empires" is just the devs being honest about the fact that they are still trying to limit their roster only to civs which were "expansionist" and imposed their culture on other regions. It's an attempt to keep the game feeling loosely historically accurate and only including civs whose histories match the 4X model.

And the more I think about it, the more I like an Italy "city-states" civ led by Mathilda. She could start with a capital of Florence and then found other Italian city states (somewhat representing what happened with the Lombard League and how the Italian states broke free of the HRE not too long after her reign). It makes sense having Florence as the sort of political head of Italy. But it also finds a way to tie together the concepts of a unified Italian kingdom (Queen of the Kingdom of Italy), the Italian city states which followed, and Italies origins in the Tuscany region.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

The problem (and why I dismiss so many smaller kingdoms at face value as being unlikely for VI) is the mechanics. The way Civ is still structured emphasizes exploration and conquest. I think calling them "empires" is just the devs being honest about the fact that they are still trying to limit their roster only to civs which were "expansionist" and imposed their culture on other regions. It's an attempt to keep the game feeling loosely historically accurate and only including civs whose histories match the 4X mode

i think this has changed in 5 and more so in 6 though. Conquest is less important

 

[Kupe Navigator]

The human race is so intermingled at this point that attempting to break it down into separate “races” at all is fruitless and unhelpful.

What we mean when we say “race” is generally some combination of ethnicity, skin color and culture, none of which tells the person’s genetic history.

For instance, if I say a person is “Spanish,” they could be any combination of Tartessian, Celtiberian, Lusitanian, Carthaginian, Greek, Roman, Visigothic, Vandal, Suevi, Berber, Arab or any other historic ethnic group to set foot on the Iberian peninsula.

They may speak Castilian and look like Antonio Banderas but who knows what their “race” is.

Other than “human,” which is the only race that matters.

Now can we please get back on topic before this thread implodes in fire and brimstone?

Welp we tried before but somehow we find ourselves in a same old mess again. Ain't that a kicker?

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Please get back to topic.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[The Kingmaker]

And the more I think about it, the more I like an Italy "city-states" civ led by Mathilda. She could start with a capital of Florence and then found other Italian city states (somewhat representing what happened with the Lombard League and how the Italian states broke free of the HRE not too long after her reign). It makes sense having Florence as the sort of political head of Italy. But it also finds a way to tie together the concepts of a unified Italian kingdom (Queen of the Kingdom of Italy), the Italian city states which followed, and Italies origins in the Tuscany region.

Although I still prefer Lorenzo, I wouldn’t complain if we got Mathilda.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Anyway... waiting for King Sejong the great as alternative leader civ. Don't dissapoint me. (Please )

 

[ButtBillionaire]

Going off the main discussion, what's your guy's opinion on Finland as a civ?

If they were included, I could see either Mannerheim or Urho Kekkonen leading the nation.

I agree that they are the two most prominent candidates for a hypothetical Finnish civ, but I must admit that I don't find the idea of Finland in the game particularly interesting. I wouldn't object to their presence, but I would be a little disappointed, as I find the Sámi to be a more compelling option for Finnic representation, if we had to pick one, and Finland's inclusion would mean the loss of that opportunity.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

And why is it relevant here? Am I dumb or an I missing something? I do not think civ team is even aware of far right eugenicists when they are thinking about civs

beats me. He accused them of using the far right eugenics i think

I agree that they are the two most prominent candidates for a hypothetical Finnish civ, but I must admit that I don't find the idea of Finland in the game particularly interesting. I wouldn't object to their presence, but I would be a little disappointed, as I find the Sámi to be a more compelling option for Finnic representation, if we had to pick one, and Finland's inclusion would mean the loss of that opportunity.

Agree, the Sami are far more appealing

 

[PhoenicianGold]

i think this has changed in 5 and more so in 6 though. Conquest is less important

Only marginally. They've still been generally limiting their non-empire additions to civs which were imperialistic or, alternatively, expansionist.

1) Almost-empire kingdoms (Kongo, Georgia, Phoenicia)
2) Powerful part-of-empires (with vaguely expansionist tendencies) (Scotland, Hungary, kinda Nubia)
3) Territorially expansionist (Cree, Mapuche, Maori, again Phoenicia)
4) Modern territorial empires (Canada, Australia, kinda Gran Colombia)

I think the devs might be hypersensitive to portraying cultures as civs that weren't expansionist and regionally domineering at some point in their history. It's not a matter of smaller kingdoms being weak; I think it's just trying not to misrepresent anyone too much and accidentally get backlash from some small country for portraying it as imperialistic when it never was.

(I think it also has the convenient consequence of relieving the devs of responsibility. If they have a pretty strict standard that roughly sorts civs by size and whether they should be civs or city-states, it also maintains some sense of meritocracy and allows them to release a clear, finite set of civs which players will accept. If they released Ireland, players would then be complaining why one small kingdom got in while Switzerland, Belgium, Finland, and Bohemia were passed over. The more they can keep the standard within some definition of "large," they don't have to deal with the backlash of failing to please everyone.)