[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[PhoenicianGold]

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.)

I don't disagree with you.

But....she is a woman. And a female leader in the middle east, which is really hard to come by outside of Egypt (which btw I am hoping for Hatshepsut over any other Egyptian alternate). Much like Six Sky was chosen pretty much solely to differentiate the Maya superficially from the Aztec, and Seondeok from China and Japan...she might be chosen purely because she offers greater aesthetic difference from Gilgabro.

Honestly, I don't care much for the historical significance of leaders as long as they are given enough personality. Since Shammuramat is kind of a blank canvas the devs could do a lot with her like with Gilgabro. I realize this and other characterizations are offensive to historical purists, but the way I see it Assyria is superfluous as it is; I would think people would be happy to get Assyria or Babylon in the game in any form.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

But....she is a woman. And a female leader in the middle east, which is really hard to come by outside of Egypt (which btw I am hoping for Hatshepsut over any other Egyptian alternate). Much like Six Sky was chosen pretty much solely to differentiate the Maya superficially from the Aztec, and Seondeok from China and Japan...she might be chosen purely because she offers greater aesthetic difference from Gilgabro.

Dido says hello.

Personally to me I think Assyria has a wide range of big personality leaders to go off of, including the recurring Ashurbanipal, to where we don't have to resort to necessarily a female we don't know much about, let alone a possible semi-legendary leader based upon that same leader.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Dido says hello.

Personally to me I think Assyria has a wide range of big personality leaders to go off of, including the recurring Ashurbanipal, to where we don't have to resort to necessarily a female we don't know much about, let alone a possible semi-legendary leader based upon that same leader.

Yes we do have Dido. Although she has much more Mediterranean than Mesopotamian flavor. I still suspect the devs are going to try to make Assyria as different as possible from Sumeria and gender will be one thing they have tended to lean into to assist with that.

I would be totally fine with Ashurbanipal and in fact that's who I was expecting if anyone. But then Antsou mentioned Semiramis and I had a bit of an oh **** moment. If they are set on Assyria, I could absolutely see the devs leaning toward the female option.

 

[Kwami]

I would be totally fine with Ashurbanipal and in fact that's who I was expecting if anyone. But then Antsou mentioned Semiramis and I had a bit of an oh **** moment. If they are set on Assyria, I could absolutely see the devs leaning toward the female option.

I don't buy it at all. The female leaders that they've chosen so far have been worthy choices that weren't chosen simply because they were female.

 

[Killer Rabbit]

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.

You might be right! Just my speculation. In my (anecdotal) experience, I haven't seen the clamoring for Babylon as a Civ that I've seen for Byzantines or Portugal (or Maya and Ethiopia). But maybe I'm wrong.

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.

This is the thing. I think that Babylon is very well represented as a city-state, and I don't think it needs to be a Civ. I guess what I'm saying is the main argument in favor of Babylon seems to mainly be that "it's been a playable Civ in every game." Which is well and good, but I think the dev team has shown that they're willing to break with precedent. Personally, I'd be okay with it in this instance, and I wouldn't be surprised if they do. I think Byzantines and Portugal are almost guaranteed, but I'd rate Babylon's chances a bit lower.

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.

Yes, I want an Italy based on the Renaissance period, there was an interesting idea a few pages back (or maybe 50 now!) about an Italy civ based on the Renaissance city states. I think that would be great.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

This is the thing. I think that Babylon is very well represented as a city-state, and I don't think it needs to be a Civ. I guess what I'm saying is the main argument in favor of Babylon seems to mainly be that "it's been a playable Civ in every game." Which is well and good, but I think the dev team has shown that they're willing to break with precedent. Personally, I'd be okay with it in this instance, and I wouldn't be surprised if they do. I think Byzantines and Portugal are almost guaranteed, but I'd rate Babylon's chances a bit lower.

I actually agree with this, however I still think they aren't going to leave us with just one Ancient Era Mesopotamia Civ. Plus I'd like Assyria better even if it's only been in the game once as Babylon is represented well as a city-state in the game.

 

[Zaarin]

Personally to me I think Assyria has a wide range of big personality leaders to go off of, including the recurring Ashurbanipal, to where we don't have to resort to necessarily a female we don't know much about, let alone a possible semi-legendary leader based upon that same leader.

This, 100%. Assyria is filled to overflowing with interesting leaders; there's no reason on Earth to give it a leader with no accomplishments and barely a record of her existence. I'd argue that choosing a woman simply because she was a woman would, in fact, be rather sexist...

 

[SirMediocrity]

If you want a badass middle-eastern woman, I think Queen Mavia of the Tanukhids would be a pretty great candidate. I learned about her through Total War Attila, of all places.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mavia_(queen)

Yes, I'm aware that this is more of a discussion of Assyrian female leaders rather than middle-eastern female leaders as a whole. I just wanted an excuse to inject Mavia into the conversation.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

This, 100%. Assyria is filled to overflowing with interesting leaders; there's no reason on Earth to give it a leader with no accomplishments and barely a record of her existence. I'd argue that choosing a woman simply because she was a woman would, in fact, be rather sexist...

Name brand recognition. Just look at Gilgabro.

I'm not saying I like it. But there is absolutely precedent for the devs to go with Shammalama.

 

[AvianBritish]

Personally to me I think Assyria has a wide range of big personality leaders to go off of, including the recurring Ashurbanipal, to where we don't have to resort to necessarily a female we don't know much about, let alone a possible semi-legendary leader based upon that same leader.

I actually agree with this, however I still think they aren't going to leave us with just one Ancient Era Mesopotamia Civ. Plus I'd like Assyria better even if it's only been in the game once as Babylon is represented well as a city-state in the game.

This, 100%. Assyria is filled to overflowing with interesting leaders; there's no reason on Earth to give it a leader with no accomplishments and barely a record of her existence. I'd argue that choosing a woman simply because she was a woman would, in fact, be rather sexist...

I'm still hoping for Sennacherib to lead Assyria! He's definatly the most intresting and accomplished Assyrian leader in my oppinion; and would be able to have an ability representing Babylon which he conquered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sennacherib

 

[blackcatatonic]

So now, with the reveal of Ethiopia, we are back into 'terra incognita' as to which Civs will be next.

If they follow a similar schedule to this reveal, we might get a pack overview video on Monday 14th September, with the name of the pack - possibly including the names of the Civs - revealed the week before.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm still hoping for Sennacherib to lead Assyria! He's definatly the most intresting and accomplished Assyrian leader in my oppinion; and would be able to have an ability representing Babylon which he conquered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sennacherib

Leader Ability: Fall of Babylon Again, or First Fall of Babylon.

If they follow a similar schedule to this reveal, we might get a pack overview video on Monday 14th September, with the name of the pack - possibly including the names of the Civs - revealed the week before.

I don't think I can wait that long.
We knew about the Ethiopia Pack in May though so theoretically they should tell us now.

 

[AvianBritish]

Leader Ability: Fall of Babylon Again, or First Fall of Babylon.


I don't think I can wait that long.
We knew about the Ethiopia Pack in May though so theoretically they should tell us now.

I was thinking "Assyria's Babylonian Bride" and focus more on their union rather then the conquering

As for the reveal of the next Civ; I suspect we will get a hint or reveal of the Civ's names during next month's Dev Update video.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

So now, with the reveal of Ethiopia, we are back into 'terra incognita' as to which Civs will be next.

If they follow a similar schedule to this reveal, we might get a pack overview video on Monday 14th September, with the name of the pack - possibly including the names of the Civs - revealed the week before.

I think the new map will tie into both civs. So I don't think we will get two European civs, or two East Asian civs for expack 3.

There are two large "continents" they haven't made maps for yet. Americas (presuming north and south combined) and Africa. There is also the possibility of a Middle East map. The ironic thing is that both America and Africa have already featured in DLC packs 1 and 2, so if we got either of those continents we would likely need at least one more American/African civ to tie the pack together. Here are some possible outcomes:

* America - Navajo/Apache and Portugal. We could feasibly have an America map pack and lump Portugal in with it as a colonial power.
* America - Navajo/Apache and Tlingit/Inuit. If both the Maya and GC count as "South American" civs, then we could feasibly have a map pack with two "North American" civs.
* Africa - Berbers and Oman/Swahili. If we are on the topic of doubling up on American civs to fill out a continent, then we could easily see the same thing happen for Africa.
* Middle East - Timurids and Byzantium/Assyria. This one feels the most likely to me since fans probably really want a Middle East map and Byzantium/Assyria would be a huge draw. I don't think we will have two returning civs though; probably one new, one old.

 

[SirMediocrity]

Part of me expects that the next pack will include Portugal as well as an African civ (after all, Portugal did have a lot of colonial escapades in Africa). Maybe they'd include a Moorish civ like Morocco, or maybe something else like the Swahili or something like that.

 

[The Kingmaker]

While the topic of female middle eastern leaders is still fresh, I’m going to just quietly name-drop Zenobia of Palmyra, an epic personality about whom a fair amount is already known.

So let’s let Assyria have Sennacherib or Ashurbanipal and give the mandatory female slot to a truly worthy candidate.

#Palmyra

 

[PhoenicianGold]

While the topic of female middle eastern leaders is still fresh, I’m going to just quietly name-drop Zenobia of Palmyra, an epic personality about whom a fair amount is already known.

So let’s let Assyria have Sennacherib or Ashurbanipal and give the mandatory female slot to a truly worthy candidate.

#Palmyra

I doubt we will get both Palmyra and Assyria, though.

I also think Diyha is more likely than Zenobia. Much more successful reign representing a much larger demographic, in a region that could really use another civ.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I doubt we will get both Palmyra and Assyria, though.

I also think Diyha is more likely than Zenobia. Much more successful reign representing a much larger demographic, in a region that could really use another civ.

As worthy as all three of these civs are, I really doubt we’ll get any of them this time around. Assyria is a maybe.

 

[SirMediocrity]

I'm probably the only guy who wants the Hittites over Assyria or Babylon.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I'm probably the only guy who wants the Hittites over Assyria or Babylon.

I want all three. Of course that isn’t likely to happen unless DLC seasons keep going right up until Civ7. Which I wouldn’t be opposed to, honestly.