[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[SirMediocrity]

It's still better in my opinion than the Huns who were basically playable barbarians.

Obviously, the Huns didn't really have cities, but they did rule over a vast collection of confederated tribes, which makes a city list at least possible. If a Hunnic civ were to return to the civ franchise, I would prefer that Firaxis use the names of cities that lay within the influence of the Huns, either directly in their territory or perhaps under the ownership of Hunnic vassals. It's not perfect, but it's certainly possible.

Some random tidbits about the Huns: the Huns had music (although the lyrics are lost to history), were brutally effective at horseback archery (everyone knows that one of course), had a complicated social network and dominance hierarchy, and also had a sort of capital for a short period of time. The Huns were also pretty savvy at diplomacy (most of this information comes from Priscus). Obviously these aren't examples of some kind of especially great civilization, but it does certainly poke holes in the idea that many of my non-historian family-members have that the Huns were some kind of midpoint between humans and animals... (I'm not saying that you have these viewpoints)

Fun fact: there was this Roman dude (I forgot his name) who was captured by the Huns and forced to build a Roman bath in Attila's capital. The guy hoped this would earn him his freedom, but instead, he got to be the towel-carrier for the Huns who used the bath.

Most of this comment was just me spitting random facts about the Huns... I wrote two papers on them a while back. Come to think of it, this whole post of mine was just one long tangent.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Obviously, the Huns didn't really have cities, but they did rule over a vast collection of confederated tribes, which makes a city list at least possible. If a Hunnic civ were to return to the civ franchise, I would prefer that Firaxis use the names of cities that lay within the influence of the Huns, either directly in their territory or perhaps under the ownership of Hunnic vassals. It's not perfect, but it's certainly possible.

Some random tidbits about the Huns: the Huns had music (although the lyrics are lost to history), were brutally effective at horseback archery (everyone knows that one of course), had a complicated social network and dominance hierarchy, and also had a sort of capital for a short period of time. The Huns were also pretty savvy at diplomacy (most of this information comes from Priscus). Obviously these aren't examples of some kind of especially great civilization, but it does certainly poke holes in the idea that many of my non-historian family-members have that the Huns were some kind of midpoint between humans and animals... (I'm not saying that you have these viewpoints)

Fun fact: there was this Roman dude (I forgot his name) who was captured by the Huns and forced to build a Roman bath in Attila's capital. The guy hoped this would earn him his freedom, but instead, he got to be the towel-carrier for the Huns who used the bath.

Most of this comment was just me spitting random facts about the Huns... I wrote two papers on them a while back. Come to think of it, this whole post of mine was just one long tangent.

like i said, i wouldn’t be fully opposed to them returning should they be executed properly in a good way

 

[SirMediocrity]

like i said, i wouldn’t be fully opposed to them returning should they be executed properly in a good way

Yeah, 100% agree. The only issue is that we already have two steppe culture civs, making the Huns unlikely (at least for civ 6), which kind of sucks, since it would have been cool to see Attila is civ 6's art style.

 

[Zaarin]

I’m guessing the main limiting factor from Parthia being in game is them, alongside the Sassanids, Seleucids and Medians is that pre-islamic Iran is blobbed into ‘Persia’ with the Achaemenid leader.

Parthia is a weird case because the Parthians existed as an independent entity as well as being the Arsacid dynasty of Persia. They are something of an outlier vis-a-vis the Sassanids or Achaemenids in not being from Pars, too. (Also, I've never seen the Seleucids considered a Persian dynasty before. They ruled from Iraq and, later, Turkey.)

 

[SirMediocrity]

Parthia is a weird case because the Parthians existed as an independent entity as well as being the Arsacid dynasty of Persia. They are something of an outlier vis-a-vis the Sassanids or Achaemenids in not being from Pars, too. (Also, I've never seen the Seleucids considered a Persian dynasty before. They ruled from Iraq and, later, Turkey.)

All this talk of Parthia makes me want to see the Hephthalites in the game. I can only imagine...

EDIT: The more I think about it, the weirder I think it is to say that "All this talk of Parthia makes me want to see the Hephthalites in the game."

 

[Zaarin]

All this talk of Parthia makes me want to see the Hephthalites in the game. I can only imagine...

EDIT: The more I think about it, the weirder I think it is to say that "All this talk of Parthia makes me want to see the Hephthalites in the game."

I'd prefer the Sogdians, personally, but just some Ancient/Classical Central Asian civ would be nice.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Also, I've never seen the Seleucids considered a Persian dynasty before. They ruled from Iraq and, later, Turkey.

fair enough, i suppose they’re the geographical successor to the achaemenids and predecessor to the partisans, but they weren’t especially culturally persian. They’re like a greek version of the seljuks in some ways.

Parthia is a weird case because the Parthians existed as an independent entity as well as being the Arsacid dynasty of Persia

i suppose, but i still think they’re blobbed into the persia we have in-game

 

[Zaarin]

i suppose, but i still think they’re blobbed into the persia we have in-game

There's nothing in Persia's design that looks anything but Achaemenid. While I'd have no problem with an Arsacid or Sassanid alternate leader for Persia (in fact, I'd love that very, very much), I don't think they have anything that really precludes a Parthian civ--like, say, a "Parthian Horse Archer" UU. Plus I'm talking about Civ7, not Civ6.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

There's nothing in Persia's design that looks anything but Achaemenid

I guess it would theoretically be possible in that regard, i.e. Macedon and Greece being separate civs, but it would be awkward since Persia being called persia seems to imply it’s a stand in for all persian empires represented via the achaemenids, akin to how Indonesia is majapahit standing in for all indonesia kingdoms, despite options like Srivijaya.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

tbh, the huns wouldn’t be a terrible choice in theory since they technically had a unified empire (and culture) for a short period of time, it’s just that we don’t know much about them, their empire didn’t last long, and you’d have a lot of city overlap with Poland, Hungary, Germany, Rome, etc.

Yes a lack of cities and the overlap to me was the main problem I had with them.

I was excited for Scythia when they were announced, but their city list is such a mess--and the Scythians weren't really a single people. I think their role as "playable barbarians" could be better filled by Parthia, which has a city list as well as better-attested leaders.

I agree that the city list is the one thing that could have been better. Though I don't mind the use of some of the archaeological sites over choosing the different tribal names. A capital called Massagetae would work well though for Tomyris instead of Pokrovka.

Obviously, the Huns didn't really have cities, but
they did rule over a vast collection of confederated tribes, which makes a city list at least possible. If a Hunnic civ were to return to the civ franchise, I would prefer that Firaxis use the names of cities that lay within the influence of the Huns, either directly in their territory or perhaps under the ownership of Hunnic vassals. It's not perfect, but it's certainly possible.

Some random tidbits about the Huns: the Huns had music (although the lyrics are lost to history), were brutally effective at horseback archery (everyone knows that one of course), had a complicated social network and dominance hierarchy, and also had a sort of capital for a short period of time. The Huns were also pretty savvy at diplomacy (most of this information comes from Priscus). Obviously these aren't examples of some kind of especially great civilization, but it does certainly poke holes in the idea that many of my non-historian family-members have that the Huns were some kind of midpoint between humans and animals... (I'm not saying that you have these viewpoints)

Fun fact: there was this Roman dude (I forgot his name) who was captured by the Huns and forced to build a Roman bath in Attila's capital. The guy hoped this would earn him his freedom, but instead, he got to be the towel-carrier for the Huns who used the bath.

Most of this comment was just me spitting random facts about the Huns... I wrote two papers on them a while back. Come to think of it, this whole post of mine was just one long tangent.

I do think the problem I have with them is the execution of them namely the city list, or lack thereof. I think the modded version of them made them slightly better, only you had to conquer other cities after founding your capital instead of using the cities of other civilizations. It is true they did have an empire but the same can be said for Scythia who at least Firaxis tried to make a better implementation of a nomadic empire.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

True, I suppose we could have one of each alongside Persia, theoretically and ideally. If we get the Timurid Gurkhani, I suppose we would have both.

Side note—found out recently that the Gurkhani is also what the mughals called themselves, so if people wanted to theoretically represent both the Mughals and Timurids under one civ without overlapping cities too much into India’s city list, we could have Babur, Akbar or Timur leading the Gurkhani (For akbar, they could add Fatehpur Sikri into the city list and then use mainly central asian timurid cities for the city list)

I do think that a Timurid civ would be vicariously representing the Mughals and function as a sort of blob, and vice versa. As for the name, while I wouldn't mind if the civ were called Gurkhani (and in fact would prefer it), the naming convention appears to prefer western exonyms.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I do think that a Timurid civ would be vicariously representing the Mughals and function as a sort of blob, and vice versa. As for the name, while I wouldn't mind if the civ were called Gurkhani (and in fact would prefer it), the naming convention appears to prefer western exonyms.

Yeah, either “Timurids” or “Mughals” will have at least marginal name recognition as opposed to “Gurkhani,” which may be more obscure to western players.

Never mind that both the Timurids and Mughals were dynasties, not civilizations, and as such would not be wholly appropriate demonyms for the people they ruled. It’d be like having a playable Hapsburg civ.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yeah, either “Timurids” or “Mughals” will have at least marginal name recognition as opposed to “Gurkhani,” which may be more obscure to western players.

Never mind that both the Timurids and Mughals were dynasties, not civilizations, and as such would not be wholly appropriate demonyms for the people they ruled. It’d be like having a playable Hapsburg civ.

I can agree with that. I'm going to say it though before somebody mentions the Ottomans though.
To be fair the Ottomans in the game basically represents the possibility of having a playable Turkey in the game, without causing controversy by giving a Turkey civ Ottoman traits.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I can agree with that. I'm going to say it though before somebody mentions the Ottomans though.
To be fair the Ottomans in the game basically represents the possibility of having a playable Turkey in the game, without causing controversy by giving a Turkey civ Ottoman traits.

Yes, the Ottomans open up a bit of design space for the Timurids. And I do think it will be the Timurids over the Mughals, given that it seems really difficult to justify making the Mughals a separate civ from an India that incorporates the Maurya.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Yeah, either “Timurids” or “Mughals” will have at least marginal name recognition as opposed to “Gurkhani,” which may be more obscure to western players.

Never mind that both the Timurids and Mughals were dynasties, not civilizations, and as such would not be wholly appropriate demonyms for the people they ruled. It’d be like having a playable Hapsburg civ.

Yes, as much as I think someone like Timur would be really interesting in the game, Timurid civ? No thanks. Find some other way.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Yeah, either “Timurids” or “Mughals” will have at least marginal name recognition as opposed to “Gurkhani,” which may be more obscure to western players.

Never mind that both the Timurids and Mughals were dynasties, not civilizations, and as such would not be wholly appropriate demonyms for the people they ruled. It’d be like having a playable Hapsburg civ.

tbf, dynasties of what? they essentially created their own empires. There was no pre-existing Pan-Turkic or Pan-North Indian empire that they overtook control of, they founded their own empires. While the Mughals/Timurids were a familial dynasty, ultimately, they are unique in the sense that they are also an empire in their own right, something that was rightfully noted in regards to the Ottomans as well

I agree with @PhoenicianGold — i think going Timur rather than mughals makes more sense since the mughals have a considerable amount of overlap w/ modern india (gandhi) and the mairya

 

[PhoenicianGold]

tbf, dynasties of what? they essentially created their own empires. There was no pre-existing Pan-Turkic or Pan-North Indian empire that they overtook control of, they founded their own empires. While the Mughals/Timurids were a familial dynasty, ultimately, they are unique in the sense that they are also an empire in their own right, something that was rightfully noted in regards to the Ottomans as well

I agree with @PhoenicianGold — i think going Timur rather than mughals makes more sense since the mughals have a considerable amount of overlap w/ modern india (gandhi) and the mairya

Especially in the case of the Timurids, which although culturally and geographically very Persian are not really considered a Persian dynasty. But the Mughals are often lumped in with the major empires which unified and defined "India."

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Especially in the case of the Timurids, which although culturally and geographically very Persian are not really considered a Persian dynasty. But the Mughals are often lumped in with the major empires which unified and defined "India."

both are persified turkic empires.

The gurkhani empires are really too unique to say they were just a dynasty imo, the comparison to a playable hapsburgs isn’t entirely fair, since the hapsburgs didn’t define the existence of their ruled nation (although austria pretty much was ruled by them forever, austria was a polity before, after, exclusive and inclusive of the hapsburgs—this isn’t true of the timurids/mughals, who founded their own polity rather than overtaking an existing one

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yes, as much as I think someone like Timur would be really interesting in the game, Timurid civ? No thanks. Find some other way.

I'm not sold on the Timurids coming either considering Timur is the GG who replaced Genghis Khan in R&F.
I mean I guess it's a possibility considering Babylon is also likely to be replaced as a city-state which first appeared in R&F as a replacement for Seoul.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Fair, but I think Wielki essentially is arguing for a Gaulish civ called "the Celts," if I'm understanding him correctly. From a historical perspective, he's not wrong; that's just not how the term "Celt" is used in modern academia.

Something like that Zaarin. The reality of names and strictness in video games is not a 100% academic history in my opinion (especially knowledge and classification of this kind of culture where we lack sources is usually blurry and may change over time. There are always some mutually exclusive theories neither fully proven nor fully debunked) We cannot be completely ok with the history if historians are not . We should leave some reasonable design space there. Reasonable. In other words there is a greyscale between over-generalizations and over divisions. This is the space for mechanically fun, historically, and culturally interesting and well and elegant designed Celts.
But I see that some people are so focused on "blob ridiculous rubbish Celts" that they cant see this greyscale

didn't he argue for the inclusion of British "celts" and Gauls altogether? That is bloody rubbish!

Oh my Oh my...Sometimes it's better to read than argue with your own thoughts