[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Codeword Iroquois]

Same problem as the Inuit: most of them were nomadic hunter-gatherers. The best candidate for a near-Siberian civ would probably be the Manchu or Jurchens.

I'm honestly not all that knowledgeable about that region's history, (I know who the Manchu are, thankfully) so that's another area to read up on.

 

[XX36789]

Inuit would make a good civ for aesthetics and music.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm honestly not all that knowledgeable about that region's history, (I know who the Manchu are, thankfully) so that's another area to read up on.

Culturally it's a really interesting area, but the tundra and even the taiga just don't really encourage settling down and developing a specialist-driven society.

Inuit would make a good civ for aesthetics and music.

I take a pretty broad view of what constitutes a potential civ, but I still think having, you know, cities should be considered a prerequisite--followed shortly by having leaders. The Inuit have neither.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

Same problem as the Inuit: most of them were nomadic hunter-gatherers. The best candidate for a near-Siberian civ would probably be the Manchu or Jurchens.

Mostly agreed but I do think you could have a couple of feasible options north of China, Mongolia, and Korea. The Yakuts / Sakha did have permanent settlements as did the coastal Chukchi. Additionally, with their raising of hardy Yakutian cattle and horses, I would've thought that the Yakuts would've actually been a prime candidate for a civ that could actually farm in tundra and snow instead of Canada. Regardless, as much as the Yakuts and Chukchi could be options, I'm not sure how much of priority a civ from Siberia would be to me when any Native American civ after the Aztec, Inca, and Maya would be lucky to consistently show up and the whole continent of Africa is just about to get its 6th or 7th civ.

Out of curiosity, would China be just as angry to see a separate Manchu or Jurchen civ as they would for Tibet and Taiwan? Not sure if Tibet and Taiwan are just particularly touchy subjects or if China is simply opposed to any split of China at all.

 

[Zaarin]

Out of curiosity, would China be just as angry to see a separate Manchu or Jurchen civ as they would for Tibet and Taiwan?

It's my understanding that the PRC claims Manchuria has "always" been China, even to the extent of claiming Goguryeo was China, but on the other hand to my knowledge there's no movement to "free" Manchuria so maybe they'd be less sensitive to portraying the Manchus or Jurchens as independent.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Wow this chat went nuts when I forgot to check it.

Where to start?

How about the no salish argument.

Firstly, no major empires are going to be left out. One of Babylon, Assyria or the Hittites is essentially a given atm in this pack, and we’ll probably get another one should we get a second one of these passes.

Secondly, it’s important to note that civ (and western culture in general) historically has undervalued the cultural accomplishments of places outside of Europe and places extensively studied like India, China and Mesopotamia.

This means that we simply know less about peoples like the Salish or Tlingit or Chinook who otherwise may be much better known.

I’ll make my third point as well, which would be that every game, we get more civs. This means, by definition, we get to expand into more underrepresented cultures, civs and areas of the world.

And this also ignores the fact that some nations have to be sacrificed because they wouldn’t play significantly differently from others, or they overlap, or they’re historical offshoots for each other. This largely seems to have been ignored when it comes to europe (like I said, eurocentric), but you can see why they might do it in Mesopotamia, where Babylon and Assyria probably would be Scientific/Cultural Builder nations with a militaristic twist, or Mali and Songhai, where they both had nations that largely overlapped with focused in Gao and Timbuktu. And then, of course, Siam (specifically under Ramkhanhaeng, first king of Sukhothai), are a Khmer break-off state, historically.

That’s why you won’t see every big civ every game.

Now, anyone else want to see Purépecha, since it was the third largest empire in the new world?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And this also ignores the fact that some nations have to be sacrificed because they wouldn’t play significantly differently from others, or they overlap, or they’re historical offshoots for each other. This largely seems to have been ignored when it comes to europe (like I said, eurocentric), but you can see why they might do it in Mesopotamia, where Babylon and Assyria probably would be Scientific/Cultural Builder nations with a militaristic twist, or Mali and Songhai, where they both had nations that largely overlapped with focused in Gao and Timbuktu. And then, of course, Siam (specifically under Ramkhanhaeng, first king of Sukhothai), are a Khmer break-off state, historically.

That being said I wouldn't mind Siam actually for a second pass, if it would be based on more Early Modern/Industrial era SE Asia as opposed to Medieval Khmer and Indonesia.
It's less of an overlap than Songhai and Mali especially when it comes to cities.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

That being said I wouldn't mind Siam actually for a second pass, if it would be based on more Early Modern/Industrial era SE Asia as opposed to Medieval Khmer and Indonesia.
It's less of an overlap than Songhai and Mali especially when it comes to cities.

suk used narai, who i think is a good fit

 

[Hogimus]

The Religious Victory thread made me think of an idea for a religious Civ that cannot found its own religion, but if it conquers a Civ that already has a religion it then takes over the religion on a one time basis. A frequent complaint is that you don't control the religion of a Civ when you conquer it, and they often implement unique concepts players request on new civs (unique governors with Ottomans, and moveable capital with Phoenicia). Alternatively, instead of conquest, the Civ could one time "steal" a religion if they have more cities with the religion than the founder. Maybe this civs could get unique beliefs too. Just an idea.

 

[mo123567]

I would rather see smaller tribes and cultures represented through an expanded tribal village and barbarian system.

Imagine if the tribal huts in the game were instead linked to actual tribes with bespoke bonuses such as unique techs on the tech tree that give you access to units, promotions, tile bonuses, tile improvements, policy cards, etc.. that you couldn't get any other way. This would help make each play through unique and could have a big impact on how you proceed through the game.

Old World already demonstrated how barbarian camps could be tied to actual "barbarians" throughout history. I would love to see some version of this in civ as well that could also lead to unique bonuses and situations depending on which barbarian civ's you happen to interact with in each playthrough.

I think Firaxis has been playing it too safe with game design lately. That is why they rely on what I find to be gimmicky choices for civ's and leaders. Adding more than a unique unit, building, and a gimmick or two to each civ would be more difficult to balance so it would require more work. I think one of the reasons people are starting to think the usual civ's are boring is because the game is in desperate need of a design overhaul.

Imagine if CDPR developed a civ like game. I doubt they would play it so safe and I bet the civ's would be more unique than just a few gimmicks given to each. I have enjoyed civ over the years and I still enjoy civ 6 but if adding relatively unknown tribes and modern day countries (that have had little impact on history) as civ's is the only way to keep things fresh at this point then it is time for a complete overhaul of this series. I am glad to see some more competition coming along.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

The Religious Victory thread made me think of an idea for a religious Civ that cannot found its own religion, but if it conquers a Civ that already has a religion it then takes over the religion on a one time basis. A frequent complaint is that you don't control the religion of a Civ when you conquer it, and they often implement unique concepts players request on new civs (unique governors with Ottomans, and moveable capital with Phoenicia). Alternatively, instead of conquest, the Civ could one time "steal" a religion if they have more cities with the religion than the founder. Maybe this civs could get unique beliefs too. Just an idea.

would be an interesting notion for perhaps an alt leader for rome

 

[Zaarin]

Imagine if CDPR developed a civ like game.

All the leaders would be half-naked and the units would viscerally dismember each other? Pass.

 

[berlin88]

Mostly agreed but I do think you could have a couple of feasible options north of China, Mongolia, and Korea. The Yakuts / Sakha did have permanent settlements as did the coastal Chukchi. Additionally, with their raising of hardy Yakutian cattle and horses, I would've thought that the Yakuts would've actually been a prime candidate for a civ that could actually farm in tundra and snow instead of Canada. Regardless, as much as the Yakuts and Chukchi could be options, I'm not sure how much of priority a civ from Siberia would be to me when any Native American civ after the Aztec, Inca, and Maya would be lucky to consistently show up and the whole continent of Africa is just about to get its 6th or 7th civ.

Out of curiosity, would China be just as angry to see a separate Manchu or Jurchen civ as they would for Tibet and Taiwan? Not sure if Tibet and Taiwan are just particularly touchy subjects or if China is simply opposed to any split of China at all.

I think the Communist authorities in China would oppose any attempts by Firaxis to represent splinter factions from Chinas historic pass. Firaxis wants to make money and will thus bow to the demands of the authoritarian regime running China.

In regards to a Siberian related civ, I think Firaxis could start with the Uralic Languages (an estimated 25 million speakers). The Finns, Estonians, Hungarians, Sami and other smaller groups originated in Siberia, so the Western part of Siberia could be represented by one of these civs, even if they no longer live in Siberia.

The four main historical language groups for Siberia, would be Uralic, Altaic, Yeniseian and Paleosiberian, although the later two are not very well defined.

If Firaxis added Finland to the game as a civ, then you could have the Finns and Hungarians representing the Uralic language group. The Samoyeds would be another possibility as well.

For the other three groups, I don't think they are large enough to be represented in the game, and as others have pointed out, they were largely hunter gatherers with no major settlements.

 

[Zaarin]

The four main historical language groups for Siberia, would be Uralic, Altaic, Yeniseian and Paleosiberian, although the later two are not very well defined.

Altaic was rejected as a language family by linguists ages ago. Paleosiberian is just a generic waste bin grouping of unrelated families that aren't Uralic, Turkic, Mongolic, Sinitic, Russian, or Tungusic. Yeniseian is considered Paleosiberian, but, like most Paleosiberian families, most of its languages are dead with the sole exception of Ket. Yeniseian is interesting because the most plausible trans-Bering linguistic relationship proposed so far is Dene-Yeniseian (though it's still a long way from being proven). I'm not particularly eager to see the Ket in Civ, however.

If Firaxis added Finland to the game as a civ, then you could have the Finns and Hungarians representing the Uralic language group.

The Finns and Hungarians aren't Siberian, though, any more than the French are steppe nomads like the Proto-Indo-Europeans; at that rate Korea is much more representative of Siberia than the Finns or Hungarians, being ancestrally from Siberia.

For the other three groups, I don't think they are large enough to be represented in the game

Again, Altaic isn't a thing, but if it were we'd have two-and-a-half-and-a-quarter Altaic-speaking civs already in the game: Turkish and Mongolic were regarded as Altaic, and Korean and more rarely Japanese were sometimes included, too. But yeah, Altaic has been regarded as an areal rather than genetic relationship for ages now.

 

[Revanchist]

Finland led by mannerheim with a bonus towards lakes would be one of my go to picks, but then again Scandinavia has 2 civilizations. I just want a civilization with something that allows them to mess around with lakes. Unfortunately the Aztecs do no such thing in Civ 6.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

sapmi and ainu are the only ‘siberian’ peoples who would make sense imo, they were the only ones with large enough communities and substantial qualities defining themselves as civs.

Unfortunately it might be hard to find an Ainu voice actor but a Sami person would be easier

 

[Arianrhod]

Although, yes, I do find rotely repeating the same textbook stuff every civ installment is "boring;" we have already done the Hittites and Assyria before and it is what VI has to say that is new that interests me.

They've been done before, yes.

They've been done before once each. There's plenty of room for both of them to do something new/different/interesting provided that the developers give a toss. And in the case of the Hittites, that "once" was in Civ 3, which is far removed from what the developers are capable of doing for a Civ nowadays in terms of uniqueness. They might fare better than civs that have never appeared at all, but not to any extent that I'd call them boring for showing up again.

I'd be more inclined to agree on Babylon, but that one's "hot" for the opposite reason: it's the last absent member of the Civ 1 lineup. I concede that this is a perfectly vapid and shallow reason to want someone back, but... if they ever intend to break that lineup, the Zulu should go first.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

They've been done before, yes.

They've been done before once each. There's plenty of room for both of them to do something new/different/interesting provided that the developers give a toss. And in the case of the Hittites, that "once" was in Civ 3, which is far removed from what the developers are capable of doing for a Civ nowadays in terms of uniqueness. They might fare better than civs that have never appeared at all, but not to any extent that I'd call them boring for showing up again.

I'd be more inclined to agree on Babylon, but that one's "hot" for the opposite reason: it's the last absent member of the Civ 1 lineup. I concede that this is a perfectly vapid and shallow reason to want someone back, but... if they ever intend to break that lineup, the Zulu should go first.

this is so so true. Hittites and Assyria deserve so much more than being 1 time inclusions.

I’d argue that in terms of relevance, out of the original 12, the Zulu were the least dominant, although they were undoubtedly a powerful nation, especially under Shaka’s rule, where they conquered much of Southern Africa.

That said, Babylon also is probably the one of the original 12 which is the least unique, and can have its game niche filled elsewhere. I’ve never been one for precedent (I’d be happy to see the game not include the Byzantines, for no reason other than the city overlap), but Babylon can be fairly well replaced if Sumer and/or Assyria were properly done (Sumer isn’t, but Assyria could be). I don’t see Babylon as noticeably more relevant in the regional history than Assyria, Sumer or Hittites, so I don’t see them as necessary to the game feeling complete for any reason other than precedent.

In my ideal world we’d get a whole lot of mesopotamian and mesopotamian-adjacent civs (Hittites, Elam, Babylon, Phonecia and Assyria in one game, please), but at least in this instance if Assyria becomes a babylonian stand in, I wouldn’t mind.

 

[Zaarin]

That said, Babylon also is probably the one of the original 12 which is the least unique, and can have its game niche filled elsewhere.

I reluctantly agree, though I'd also argue that if we can have both Greece and Rome, we can have both Babylon and Assyria, as their cultural relationship was very similar. (However, I agree that if we can only have one in Civ6, I would actually prefer Assyria to Babylon--as long as its a cultural/builder-focused Assyria rather than a hyper-militant Assyria; Gilgabro has that niche covered just fine.)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

What would be the chances that they throw in Sargon of the Akkadian Empire to satisfy both the Babylonian and Assyrian camps?