[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[PhoenicianGold]

Wikipedia says they were used throughout Inuit lands, from Alaska to Greenland.

Sorry, but I'm a bit burned out on stone statue CS UIs. And especially here where the Inuit have a much clearer and more unique/valuable suz bonus: the ability to sail through ice tiles without getting stuck.

 

[Zaarin]

Sorry, but I'm a bit burned out on stone statue CS UIs. And especially here where the Inuit have a much clearer and more unique/valuable suz bonus: the ability to sail through ice tiles without getting stuck.

Yeah, I don't recall the Inuit having icebreakers, and a kayak is a lot easier to drag over the ice than a caravel. Barring the Inuksuk, my second choice would be a bonus to sea resources, since the Inuit predominantly survived by fishing, whaling, and seal-hunting.

(Also, the statue-shaped ones are more iconic, but most inuksuit are just cairns if that helps. )

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Yeah, I don't recall the Inuit having icebreakers, and a kayak is a lot easier to drag over the ice than a caravel. Barring the Inuksuk, my second choice would be a bonus to sea resources, since the Inuit predominantly survived by fishing, whaling, and seal-hunting.

(Also, the statue-shaped ones are more iconic, but most inuksuit are just cairns if that helps. )

No they didn't, but they did somehow manage to navigate the icy passages of half of the northern hemisphere, icebreaker or not.

Inuksuits are fine, I just really, really want to be able to cross those tiles man.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Sorry, but I'm a bit burned out on stone statue CS UIs. And especially here where the Inuit have a much clearer and more unique/valuable suz bonus: the ability to sail through ice tiles without getting stuck.

Yeah, I don't recall the Inuit having icebreakers, and a kayak is a lot easier to drag over the ice than a caravel. Barring the Inuksuk, my second choice would be a bonus to sea resources, since the Inuit predominantly survived by fishing, whaling, and seal-hunting.

Why not both?
Let ice floats yield food and let units pass through them.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Why not both?
Let ice floats yield food and let units pass through them.

SURE. Give it all to me Firaxis. Om nom nom.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

unique naval unit bought with faith: kayak: can navigate ice chonks

also, +1 food, +1 culture to coast adjacent to snow

 

[luigilime]

Very good. I doubt you will find much in the way of Medieval Native Americans due to the conflagrations of colonialism, but you could feasibly consider Iroquois or a similar Eastern Woodland group to be Renaissance.

As I said before, any European beyond Portugal and Byzantium would likely go in the Industrial era. Like the Kingdom of Italy.

An Asian or SEA civ would probably want to be Renaissance or Industrial.

Interesting, perhaps they are going with queen Margherita of savoy, i hope the capital would be Turin at this point instead of Rome. And i hope the italian abilities are connected to the renaissance instead of the risorgimento.

 

[AntSou]

Ok, here it is. It's not perfect, sometimes it was a pain, but it gives a much better picture than the previous one:

https://i.imgur.com/6Zphdzv.png (A bit crisper)

I think we might get either Tiglath-Pileser III or Sammu-Rammat leading Assyria.

The lack of a Renaissance Asian Civ, which I had not noticed until now, makes me believe Vietnam will be focused in that period, possibly even led by Le Loi. Even if we get Trung Trac or someone else (or maybe not even Vietnam), I still think a lot of the focus for the new Asian Civ will be post-Renaissance.

Edit: the whole Late Classical / Early Medieval period is seriously under-represented in Civ.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Ok, here it is. It's not perfect, sometimes it was a pain, but it gives a much better picture than the previous one:

https://i.imgur.com/6Zphdzv.png (A bit crisper)

I think we might get either Tiglath-Pileser III or Sammu-Rammat leading Assyria.

The lack of a Renaissance Asian Civ, which I had not noticed until now, makes me believe Vietnam will be focused in that period, possibly even led by Le Loi. Even if we get Trung Trac or someone else (or maybe not even Vietnam), I still think a lot of the focus for the new Asian Civ will be post-Renaissance.

Edit: the whole Late Classical / Early Medieval period is seriously under-represented in Civ.

I would be astounded if we got a Vietnam that wasn't lead by Trung Trac. Flabbergasted. Gobsmacked. But we could get Bayinnaung leading Burma for that Le Dynasty slot. Same for something Gurkhani in the Middle East.

I think anyone but Ashurbanipal or Sargon would have to be Shammuramat. She's a woman(!).

Also Diyha would slide nicely into that large African/Middle Eastern slot.

I also think the era filling theory all but falls apart with respect to Europe. Look how many leaders we have around the 1100s lol.

 

[Xandinho]

Ok, here it is. It's not perfect, sometimes it was a pain, but it gives a much better picture than the previous one:

https://i.imgur.com/6Zphdzv.png (A bit crisper)

I think we might get either Tiglath-Pileser III or Sammu-Rammat leading Assyria.

The lack of a Renaissance Asian Civ, which I had not noticed until now, makes me believe Vietnam will be focused in that period, possibly even led by Le Loi. Even if we get Trung Trac or someone else (or maybe not even Vietnam), I still think a lot of the focus for the new Asian Civ will be post-Renaissance.

Edit: the whole Late Classical / Early Medieval period is seriously under-represented in Civ.

Well, we can realize that early European is another huge gap, probably the biggest.

 

[AntSou]

I also think the era filling theory all but falls apart with respect to Europe. Look how many leaders we have around the 1100s lol.

Not sure. The blocky thing is Eleanor so it kinda doesn't count as it's its own thing. Then there's Hardrada, but the focus of his Civ is towards the left of him to the Viking Age, and that of Germany is towards the right. Only Georgia seems pretty solid in that slot.

That period in general does seem well represented in general, since there's a lot of them from Asia (including Arabia).

Well, we can realize that early European is another huge gap, probably the biggest.

I don't think you can look at it that way in regards to the Ancient Era. You have to consider it globally.

But I would say there's certainly space for one Bronze/Iron Age European culture.

 

[Killer Rabbit]

So, if I were to make 2 assumptions (that this is the last hurrah for Civ VI, and all series regulars will be included in the final roster), my guess would look something like this

Maya
Gran Colombia
Ethiopia
Babylon (series regular)
Portugal (series regular)
Byzantines (series regular)

And then 2 of the following
Iroquois (almost a series regular) or a similar borderline pre-Industrial Native North American group
Burma/Siam/Vietnam (Renaissance or Industrial era leader)
Berbers/Morocco
Kingdom of Italy or another Industrial era focused European (least likely of this set)

I strongly doubt we will see an additional Renaissance or Medieval European civ or a Classical/Medieval Asian civ or any more Sub-saharan African civs. Or anything else from South America or Oceania.

I tend to agree with pretty much all of this. I do think there's a chance there will be a Final Frontier type pack given extended dev cycles today (and I do hope for that!), but the game is 4 years old at this point, so chances are good that this is the last official content that will be released.

With that in mind, I think Portugal and Byzantines are a lock as series regulars (somehow forgot about Portugal in my earlier post), and I think that Vietnam, given all the fan fervor around it, is also basically guaranteed.

My only disagreement would be about Babylon. They are a series regular, for sure, but aside a few folks here (and even here it's only a few) I haven't seen the same type of consistent clamoring for Babylon that there has been for other series regulars like Ethiopia, Maya, Byzantines, and Portugal, or even what there has been for new Civs like Gran Colombia and Vietnam. I just don't think they're as much of a fan favorite as some people think, and NF is clearly about giving the people what they want (at least with the Civs). Sure, Babylon has been in every entry, but aside from the series regular argument they're definitely more niche, and I wouldn't be surprised if they don't make the cut for NF.

Personally, I'd rather see a different Civ too.

Given these assumptions, my hopes are:
Maya
GC
Ethiopia
Portugal
Byzantines
Vietnam
Italy
A Native American Civ

Very excited for the next announcements!

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

My only disagreement would be about Babylon. They are a series regular, for sure, but aside a few folks here (and even here it's only a few) I haven't seen the same type of consistent clamoring for Babylon that there has been for other series regulars like Ethiopia, Maya, Byzantines, and Portugal, or even what there has been for new Civs like Gran Colombia and Vietnam. I just don't think they're as much of a fan favorite as some people think, and NF is clearly about giving the people what they want (at least with the Civs). Sure, Babylon has been in every entry, but aside from the series regular argument they're definitely more niche, and I wouldn't be surprised if they don't make the cut for NF.

Personally, I'd rather see a different Civ too.

Given these assumptions, my hopes are:
Maya
GC
Ethiopia
Portugal
Byzantines
Vietnam
Italy
A Native American Civ

As much as I kind of want to agree with this I think we could definitely use another Ancient Era leader and none of those civilizations would do that no matter how much I want all of these.

Ideally I wouldn't have minded a "Byzantine" alt leader for Rome and put Assyria in the Byzantines slot, but I know that's not going to happen because the new leader will be from a R&F civ, and I don't think the game is going to end without some reference to Constantinople/Byzantines.

I have a feeling we'll get an Ancient era Civ, whether it be Assyria or Babylon, over Italy as much as it pains me to say. The reason is I think 3 European civs would be overkill and the others are more likely because of being staples, like you mentioned.

I'll also like to add that if Italy were to be based off of 19th century unification, and not Medieval or Renaissance, I would rather something else.

 

[pokiehl]

I disagree totally. I see a lot of fan desire for Babylon especially on Reddit and Discord. Not including them would be a huge disappointment (and a mistake IMO).

 

[GenyaArikado]

I don't really care about Babylon. I mostly want to say i can "serve it ancient-city style"

 

[Xandinho]

Babylon has been around since Civ1, this is why many people want it back, it's like a basic element of the franchise.

 

[blackcatatonic]

Babylon has a big advantage in that we have very few Ancient-era Civs, and there's not much else that would fill that gap that is a plausible candidate in NFP. Assyria could easily take that spot, but of the two, only Babylon has been in every iteration of Civilization to date.

 

[GenyaArikado]

Tbh i only want Assyria if we get Semiramis

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I disagree totally. I see a lot of fan desire for Babylon especially on Reddit and Discord. Not including them would be a huge disappointment (and a mistake IMO).

Babylon has been around since Civ1, this is why many people want it back, it's like a basic element of the franchise.

Babylon makes so much sense as a city-state, though. Definitely one of those "duh" moments that could only be had after V introduced the concept. It's certainly the most "city-state" of the recurring staples. I just don't think it's quite fair to assert that Babylon needs to be a civ when it is already in the game, and the argument as to whether it should be a civ or city-state couldn't even exist for Civs I-IV.

While I personally don't need any more Mesopotamian civs, I think the devs are much more likely to go with the Neo-Assyrian Empire if anything. It's better distinguished against Sumeria geographically, temporally, culturally, mechanically. It also has a female leader option and I bet the devs are really proud of a prospective pairing of Gilgamesh and Shammuramat.

 

[Zaarin]

I think anyone but Ashurbanipal or Sargon would have to be Shammuramat. She's a woman(!).

She's a woman...who did very little of note. IMO there's no point of including Assyria without either Tiglath-Pileser III or a Sargonid: Ashurbanipal, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, or Sargon II all being good options. IMO most of Firaxis' female leader choices have been good, and the few that have been less good have at least been defensible--with the possible exception of Kristina, who at least has a big personality. Shammuramat would be as dubious as Kristina but without the personality. Ancient Mesopotamia is just not the place to look for interesting female leaders; try Egypt instead, which had a good handful of them, even if you don't count Cleopatra VII Philopator. (Ancient Arabia actually had quite a few queens, but I don't think we'll ever see a pre-Islamic Arabia in Civ.)