[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[PhilBowles]

Regarding Italy, I just fiinished my first full game as the Romans and noticed that weirdly - although they can hardly have been short of appropriate Roman name options - they have spies with modern Italian names like Benito. That suggests to me that they chose names deliberately to emphasise that they still consider Rome = Italy.

Scotland: It's a Commonwealth nation. Although there's only 5 million living in Scotland, There's a significant Scottish diaspora AND I suspect commonwealth leaders are favoured in other commonwealth / anglophone countries.

So a leader for Scotland would, I speculate, be favoured in important markets such as Britain (outside Scotland) and the US. It may be yet another way to indirectly target those markets.

They're hardly short of Commonwealth leaders in a game with Australia and Canada.

I do think Scotland is a more credible option for a second leader than some people here seem to think, whether or not Kublai is disallowed for reasons of cultural sensitivity. I'd expect them to go one of two routes:

a) A Pictish leader or possibly the (likely fictional) Calgacus known from Tacitus, to represent 'the Celts' without a full Celtic civ. As odd as that is with the Scottish uniques, it's not really any worse than associating them with Robert the Bruce or than industrial England led by Eleanor, and would address the desire for a culturally 'Celtic' face character in Civ 6.

b) A Scottish Enlightenment-era leader who's more consistent with the Scottish uniques than Robert the Bruce, much as Chandragupta fit India's presentation better than the original leader Gandhi.

 

[Zaarin]

Regarding Italy, I just fiinished my first full game as the Romans and noticed that weirdly - although they can hardly have been short of appropriate Roman name options - they have spies with modern Italian names like Benito. That suggests to me that they chose names deliberately to emphasise that they still consider Rome = Italy.

This happens to most of the civs: Inca have civilians with Hispanic names in the modern era; Sumer has civilians with Arabic names in the modern era; etc. It's frankly obnoxious; they should have stuck to native names regardless of era. (Especially since you don't see the reverse: Victoria doesn't have civilians with Anglo-Saxon names in the early period, for instance.)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

In my opinion a Mongolia alt would have neither the wider interest that an alt for Rome and Egypt can muster, nor localised interest akin to Chandragupta.

I agree that Rome and Egypt would be the more popular approach than just Mongolia. Of course that looks like it won't happen at least right now. Still I remember some people were looking for a different leader instead of seeing Genghis Khan returning during R&F announcements.

a) Address the desire of players who want a more complex approach to the Science path; (although this was already addressed with Maya);

b) Appease the national sentiments of Koreans and potentially drive sales in that country. Regardless of how one might personally feel about this, I feel it's a very strong point.

If the main goal would to bring Sejong back, I don't see him as being so different than Seondeok, no matter how much people want him.

Scotland: It's a Commonwealth nation. Although there's only 5 million living in Scotland, There's a significant Scottish diaspora AND I suspect commonwealth leaders are favoured in other commonwealth / anglophone countries.

I'm one of them and I don't care for another one as Robert the Bruce is fine. I don't think they want to give us another anglophone leader though, even if Eleanor wasn't she still leads one.

Regarding Italy, I just fiinished my first full game as the Romans and noticed that weirdly - although they can hardly have been short of appropriate Roman name options - they have spies with modern Italian names like Benito. That suggests to me that they chose names deliberately to emphasise that they still consider Rome = Italy.

I think modern Aztec citizens have Spanish names, so I don't think that disqualifies them.
Edit: Ninja'd

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I think alts are an easy way to milk revenue from national markets which are already represented in the game. Exception to these would be Ancient Civs like Greece, Rome or Egypt, which have wider appeal.

Eleanor was a pretty ingenious addition. Two of the most important markets targeted with a single leader which differ in appearance in only two elements: the hair and the crown.

Persona Packs are an extension of the same concept with even less investment being required, and unsurprisingly it is again directed at two of their main markets: US and France.
---

In my opinion a Mongolia alt would have neither the wider interest that an alt for Rome and Egypt can muster, nor localised interest akin to Chandragupta.



This may all be secondary considerations. If it makes sense from a marketing perspective, they'd make it work.

Netherlands: Adding a leader to the Netherlands would also give some incentive to update Wilhelmina's ability, which is pretty underwhelming atm. It should provide +2 Loyalty per trade route. The Netherlands has a population of 17 million.

Korea: Korea is consistently regarded as boring. I understand the argument that simplicity makes it easier for the AI to handle, but ultimately it's replayability which should count the most. Unlike Wilhelmina, I don't think they should change Seondeok. Leaders in the game should vary in degree of complexity, and Seondeok's ability is simple enough for new players to handle.

A new leader for Korea would accomplish two things:

a) Address the desire of players who want a more complex approach to the Science path; (although this was already addressed with Maya);

b) Appease the national sentiments of Koreans and potentially drive sales in that country. Regardless of how one might personally feel about this, I feel it's a very strong point.

Scotland: It's a Commonwealth nation. Although there's only 5 million living in Scotland, There's a significant Scottish diaspora AND I suspect commonwealth leaders are favoured in other commonwealth / anglophone countries.

So a leader for Scotland would, I speculate, be favoured in important markets such as Britain (outside Scotland) and the US. It may be yet another way to indirectly target those markets.

Scotland and Korea seem like the places where they could also grow and expand the most as well

using Gwangaeto or Taejo as an alt leader for Korea would change Korea’s strategy completely

going Scotland means they can pick a genuine Scots-speaking or Scottish Gaelic-speaking leader. I see Korea as probably the second most likely atm, although I know that a consideration firaxis probably makes if they decide a second korean leader would be the criticisms that Seondeok unduly got

However, like the Netherlands, a new scottish leader would mean no one would play Robert, just as a new Dutch leader would make Wilhelmina obsolete.

Mongolia holds general appeal, although less, I’d argue, than Greece, Egypt and Rome. Even if they want to avoid criticisms in China with Kublai, they can pick Ogatai, or Chagatai (the later of whom became the ancestor of Timur’s wife and Babur, and by extension, the Mughals, fun fact)

That leaves the Cree and Mapuche, who don’t have any well known alts, and Zulu and Georgia, which have well-known and deserving alt leaders (namely David the Builder and Cetshwayo).

Zulu have a very one-sided game which Cetshwayo could expand, perhaps by halving or neutralizing the occupied capital bonus on favor.

Likewise, David could generally improve Georgia, but this too runs the risk of making Tamar the Great obsolete.

And of course, that doesn’t even cover the fact that I’d argue Mongolia and Korea are the only RF civs that ‘deserve’ a second leader, just cuz they were longer lasting, more relevant and/or more regionally/internationally influential.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

So, if I understand well and try to summarize all we babbled about (correct me if I'm wrong): the civs peoples would want the most to see (or at least those whom we hear about the most) are:

Timurids
Byzantines
Babylon/Assyria/Something that is not Sumer but in the same region but not based upon one literary text
Italy
Portugal
Austria
Kubilai Khan as an alternate leader for Mongolia and possibly China
Iroquois
Navajo (even if it would be apparently impossible)
Swahili
Morocco
Vietnam
Burma
Hawai

And since I'm a bloody eurocentrist that already has difficulties to remember names and places east of the Iron Curtain, could please somebody else summarize for the ones I forgot!

Venice
The Celts
Nepal
Mississippians
Sioux
Inuit/Saami
Teutonic Order
Ashanti
Benin
Nok
Muisca
Axum
Harappans
Mughal
Khazars
Siam
and many more mentioned on this forums hundred of times

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Venice
The Celts
Nepal
Mississippians
Sioux
Inuit/Saami
Teutonic Order
Ashanti
Benin
Nok
Muisca
Axum
Harappans
Mughal
Khazars
Siam
and many more mentioned on this forums hundred of times

Chola
Philippines
Tlingit
Salish
Shona
Gaul
Ireland


I’ll also note that Eleanor of Acquitane doesn’t deserve the hate she gets. She’s a bit of an awkward leader choice in implementation but as a character she’s super interesting and definitely deserving

 

[ButtBillionaire]

(Especially since you don't see the reverse: Victoria doesn't have civilians with Anglo-Saxon names in the early period, for instance.)

Actually, she does. All of the non-modern English citizen names are Anglo-Saxon/Old English, but that doesn't make it any less dumb that the modern Roman, Aztec (which I believe you confused the Inca with, as the modern Incan citizen names seem to be Incan) and Egyptian names are Italian, Mexican and Arabic, respectively. In Civ games we create "realities" where those cultural changes never occurred. Unless e.g. the Aztecs are conquered by Spain, but then there won't be any Aztec citizens in the game anyway.

To be honest, I've never noticed any practical/mechanical difference between non-modern and modern citizen names in-game, so I don't really know why that distinction is made. They seem to appear regardless of era.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

And of cause the most anticipated duo that will never be a thing:
Hebrews and Tibet.

 

[GenyaArikado]

b) Appease the national sentiments of Koreans and potentially drive sales in that country. Regardless of how one might personally feel about this, I feel it's a very strong point.

No

 

[Zaarin]

Actually, she does. All of the non-modern English citizen names are Anglo-Saxon/Old English, but that doesn't make it any less dumb that the modern Roman, Aztec (which I believe you confused the Inca with, as the modern Incan citizen names seem to be Incan) and Egyptian names are Italian, Mexican and Arabic, respectively. In Civ games we create "realities" where those cultural changes never occurred. Unless e.g. the Aztecs are conquered by Spain, but then there won't be any Aztec citizens in the game anyway.

To be honest, I've never noticed any practical/mechanical difference between non-modern and modern citizen names in-game, so I don't really know why that distinction is made. They seem to appear regardless of era.

I stand corrected. I never play as England. At least they're consistent, I guess? But yeah, it's as horrible an idea as all the modern leaders in Civ3 wearing suits. An alternate history simulator shouldn't force real history to happen; if Sumer never got conquered by (a slew of successive empires followed by) Arabia they're not going to start using Arabic out of the blue.

 

[GenyaArikado]

I stand corrected. I never play as England. At least they're consistent, I guess? But yeah, it's as horrible an idea as all the modern leaders in Civ3 wearing suits. An alternate history simulator shouldn't force real history to happen; if Sumer never got conquered by (a slew of successive empires followed by) Arabia they're not going to start using Arabic out of the blue.

Thats....... Relative. Since it's alternate history you could argue they invented those fashions rather than Europe. If Civ ever went back to Civ3 model, i think they'd probably be more culturally sensitive about it though. I think/hope Humankind does go full "dress your leader whatever you want"

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Venice
The Celts
Nepal
Mississippians
Sioux
Inuit/Saami
Teutonic Order
Ashanti
Benin
Nok
Muisca
Axum
Harappans
Mughal
Khazars
Siam

The Celts aren't going to happen as it seems the blob has been broken. I wouldn't rule out a civ called Gaul though.

Nok and Muisca just came in as city-states. One could say Lahore will keep the Mughals too, if India wasn't.

We don't know any leaders of the Mississippians or the Harrapans. Descendants of the Mississippians would be better choices as some of them are considered the "Five Civilized Tribes". The Inuit also have the problem of no leaders or major settlements.

I think Acre would serve better as a city-state and give you a Teutonic Knight UU instead of making the Teutonic Order it's own.

Also Axum is covered by Ethiopia, though I hope Ethiopia is basically Axum.

 

[AntSou]

I agree that Rome and Egypt would be the more popular approach than just Mongolia. Of course that looks like it won't happen at least right now. Still I remember some people were looking for a different leader instead of seeing Genghis Khan returning during R&F announcements.

If the main goal would to bring Sejong back, I don't see him as being so different than Seondeok, no matter how much people want him.

It depends on design. Why wouldn't it be different? Seondeok ability is attached to Governors. Besides, it doesn't need to be Sejong.

I'm one of them and I don't care for another one as Robert the Bruce is fine. I don't think they want to give us another anglophone leader though, even if Eleanor wasn't she still leads one.

Well, we're already getting Teddy 2, so they want to give us more anglophone leaders. I think it's more a matter of "how much anglophone can we stuff in this Civ sandwich", and I suspect the answer is a lot.

I think the most obvious would be James IV and James VI (potential alt for England as well).

No

No as in "Firaxis wouldn't do it"? Because that's the only "No" that matters.
---


Edit: Forgot to mention William III of England as alt for the Netherlands for similar reasons.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It depends on design. Why wouldn't it be different? Seondeok ability is attached to Governors. Besides, it doesn't need to be Sejong.

If it was to appease the fans, most likely it would be Sejong.

Well, we're already getting Teddy 2, so they want to give us more anglophone leaders. I think it's more a matter of "how much anglophone can we stuff in this Civ sandwich", and I suspect the answer is a lot.

I think the most obvious would be James IV and James VI (potential alt for England as well).

I can only imagine the outrage if England gets another leader before China, Egypt, or Rome. This is another reason why I think it won't happen with Scotland as the possibility of one leading England as well.

 

[AntSou]

What about William III?

I can see pack #5 containing Portugal + William leading both the Netherlands and England.

I think the outrage would be minimal.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

The problem with a new leader for the Netherlands (and my problem with the frequent complaints about Wilhomena's ability) is that I have no reason to believe they didn't intentionally give a weaker ability in order to balance out the civ as a whole.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I stand corrected. I never play as England. At least they're consistent, I guess? But yeah, it's as horrible an idea as all the modern leaders in Civ3 wearing suits. An alternate history simulator shouldn't force real history to happen; if Sumer never got conquered by (a slew of successive empires followed by) Arabia they're not going to start using Arabic out of the blue.

That's okay. I don't think that in an alternate history they'd end up inventing the same languages anyhow.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

What about William III?

I can see pack #5 containing Portugal + William leading both the Netherlands and England.

I think the outrage would be minimal.

It would still be another leader for England, let alone another European alt. leader right after Eleanor.

I'm not saying that I would be outraged at what they chose, but I have a feeling a lot of people would especially when people have been advocating for another leader of both Egypt or China for the longest.

 

[Zaarin]

Thats....... Relative. Since it's alternate history you could argue they invented those fashions rather than Europe. If Civ ever went back to Civ3 model, i think they'd probably be more culturally sensitive about it though. I think/hope Humankind does go full "dress your leader whatever you want"

To some extent fair, though it's also fairly unlikely. I'm not sure how you'd arrive at business suits from Aztec Renaissance-era fashion. But either way, Civ6's citizen name changes are only less horrible by being less visible; conceptually they're much worse. Why would the Aztec switch from Nahuatl to Spanish or the Sumerians from Sumerian to Arabic without the real-life historical context? In a game where leaders are immortal, civilian names should be static IMO.

I'm not saying that I would be outraged at what they chose, but I have a feeling a lot of people would especially when people have been advocating for another leader of both Egypt or China for the longest.

Agreed. I'm already mildly annoyed that it's an R&F civ that's getting an alt leader when I think there are a good handful of vanilla and DLC civs who are better candidates for one.

 

[Jeppetto]

So my most recent guess-list based on new theories brougth by others - I don't remember the last one - would be:

1) May: Maya & GC + Apocalypse

2) July: Ethiopia + Secret Societies* + Espionage District (Renaissance Unlock + Additional Building in Modern Era)
* A) Loayalty and Free Cities related: Free Cities form custom civs and/or become dynamic City-States
* B) Governors related: Unique Governors based on quest-line choices
* C) Government Plaza related: Natural Wonder-like gameplay

3) September: Byzantium & Assyria/Babylon + Game Mode* + Middle East & Central South Asia Map
* A) Loayalty related: Relationship with Free Cities
* B) Governors related: New way to enhance fully promoted Governors, enhancing Tall Playstyle
* C) Government Plaza related: New Faith-based Units for Diplomatic Affairs

4) November: Italy + Game Mode*
* A) Scientific & Cultural: Heurekas and Inspirations reworked, new ways of acquiring Great People
* B) Religion Overhaul: Secondary Religions after Ancient ones
* C) Diplomatic: New ways to acquire Envoys, new City-State Benefits and Interactions
* D) Governmental: New Policy and Regime System, Ideologies
* E) Military: Naval and Aeral Combat Overhaul | New Combat Mechanics (Renown, Lifespan)

5) January: Portugal & Alt Leader for Mongols/Korea + Game Mode* + Health/Housing District (Industrial Unlock + Additional Building in Modern/Atomic Era)
* A) Economic: Resources and Deals Overhaul
* B) Plague: Housing, Roads and Tall vs Wide Playstyle Overhaul
* C) One of A - E from November

6) March: NA Native American Civ (Iroquis, Shoshone or Navajo) + Game Mode* + Americas Map
* One of November or January

More specific guesses for Game Modes and Patch Overhauls:
July july.C + july.A + september.A
August november.D
September september.B + july.B + september.C
October november.B
November november.A
December november.C
January january.B
February january.A
March november.E