[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[The Kingmaker]

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

You’re missing my point there. I’m saying Gurkhani is a better term to use than either Timurid or Mughal because it was at least applied to the actual polities being ruled and not exclusively to the families that ruled them.

Don’t read too much into my Hapsburg comparison. I just picked a well-known European dynasty to make my point.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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

It didn't seem that apparent to me either.
I still don't think Firaxis is going to go down that route anyway no matter what the argument is. The name Gaul would seem more appropriate at this stage if they wanted to single out on a specific Celtic culture, political entity etc. Sort of how they went with the name Gran Colombia, instead of Colombia, to make it clearer to the players that the design wasn't based off of modern day Colombia.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

You’re missing my point there. I’m saying Gurkhani is a better term to use than either Timurid or Mughal because it was at least applied to the actual polities being ruled and not exclusively to the families that ruled them.

Don’t read too much into my Hapsburg comparison. I just picked a well-known European dynasty to make my point.

What new guy is saying though is that those dynasties were concurrent with and defined the beginning and end of their respective empires, much like the Ottomans. If there was only ever a single dynasty which defined an empire, it's pretty unambiguous and not totally inappropriate to refer to that empire by the name of the dynasty. And, similar to the Ottomans, even if the political people in power were known by a different name (in that case, the Osmans), we have generally referred to these empires by western exonyms rather than their own endonym.

 

[The Kingmaker]

What new guy is saying though is that those dynasties were concurrent with and defined the beginning and end of their respective empires, much like the Ottomans. If there was only ever a single dynasty which defined an empire, it's pretty unambiguous and not totally inappropriate to refer to that empire by the name of the dynasty. And, similar to the Ottomans, even if the political people in power were known by a different name (in that case, the Osmans), we have generally referred to these empires by western exonyms rather than their own endonym.

Ideally, I still prefer to refer to a civilization by the name of the people who actually built the monuments and fought the wars, not just the name of the families that ruled them.

 

[Virdrago]

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.

I think because Babylon replaced Seoul that there will more likely be an Assyrian civilization coming over Babylon. If Babylon was an original CS from the base game, I would say different, but I don't remember any replacement CS in Civ 5 or 6 becoming full civs in their own right later.

 

[Zaarin]

But I see that some people are so focused on "blob ridiculous rubbish Celts" that they cant see this greyscale

I agree with you, but previous designs of the Celts in Civ3, Civ4, and Civ5 make me nervous about what Firaxis will do with the civ. Changing the name to be more specific could be a way to change the expectations of both the developers and the fans.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I agree with you, but previous designs of the Celts in Civ3, Civ4, and Civ5 make me nervous about what Firaxis will do with the civ. Changing the name to be more specific could be a way to change the expectations of both the developers and the fans.

Civ5’s depiction was so cringe-worthy that I expect major changes if they revisit the subject.

Just as the Maori replaced the Polynesians, I would expect the Gauls to replace the Celts.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Just as the Maori replaced the Polynesians, I would expect the Gauls to replace the Celts.

I thought it was pretty clear that Scotland replaced the Celts (whether someone approves of that or not). Maybe next time for Gaul

 

[The Kingmaker]

I thought it was pretty clear that Scotland replaced the Celts (whether someone approves of that or not). Maybe next time for Gaul

I don’t think so, at least not in full. Scotland is very different thematically from what earlier versions of the Celts depicted.

 

[Zaarin]

I thought it was pretty clear that Scotland replaced the Celts (whether someone approves of that or not). Maybe next time for Gaul

Hypothetically, but if that was their intent they did a poor job of it. Scotland, as presented in Civ6, is 95% Anglo-Norman; it's a better stand-in for Normandy than "the Celts." The Highlander is the only "Celtic" thing about it.

 

[SagarRathore]

For that matter, India was rarely unified. I don't think a civ has to be politically unified, but it should be culturally unified.

India is not culturally unified,I think that statement is not supported by evidence,history. It can be said political unity is rarer wrt. to China or Iran.
The guy who came up with civilizational state concept for China Mr.Zhang Wei Wei also don't classied India as single civilization though Huntington put it as one civilization,so may be at the end what matters is one perception or idea of term civilization.

In case of India,there is a lot of cultural unity and it becomes more clearer when u see Hinduism more than just a religion. It is present in every dimension of life whether culture,science,polity,society structure. A very important unifying factor is Sanskrit and it's traditions,literature,philosophy etc. Though it was not a mass language at least for regions far from core Vedic regions,it was a connecting language which ensured transfer of culture all over India.
Examples can be seen through out history whether it is presence of Vedic deities,Idealisation of Ram Rajya(Rule)(chola texts) in Tamil region or propagation of Bhakti Movement from Tamil Nadu to rest of India which shaped North India during Muslim rule.
The Concept of sacred geography also play a very important role as it gives a geographical sense to masses,whether it is sacred Ganga or Pilgrimage to temple,mountains etc .One can understand its value by the fact when Maratha finally manage to break Mughal power they renovated city of Varanasi on bank of Ganga and brought Marathi Brahmins to settle down there. Chola king brought North Indian brahmins with him for his campaign in North.
In terms of Polity,the concept Dharma in accordance to rta(cosmic order) is underlying theme. King is not seen as having divine power but as protector of rta in accordance to Dharma guided by Dharmashasta,Arthasashtra. One can easily see similarity in their conducts like patronising all religions Hinduism,Buddhism,Jainism irrespective of King's own religion. Many dynasties all over India claimed they r part of kshatriya traditions to gain legitimacy. Asvamedha is a good example of continuity from Vedic period to last happed in 1741 by rajput King.

In terms of Sceince one can see continuity from Vedic time to last school of Indic Science in Kerala. Indian kings patronized science and India was among leader before invasions especially in field of Mathematics,Botany and Medicines.

So there is enough continuity,unity in terms of culture. One can easily see the impact in today's time there r region which r much closer to Delhi but separated from India. Region much closer to capital and there is insurgency while region comparatively far away in south but not any such separatism on the other hand right now most contributing region in India's growth.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Hypothetically, but if that was their intent they did a poor job of it. Scotland, as presented in Civ6, is 95% Anglo-Norman; it's a better stand-in for Normandy than "the Celts." The Highlander is the only "Celtic" thing about it.

I think, regardless of how successful the endeavor was, it is a pretty safe guess that Scotland was intended to replace the Celtic blob.

And yet if the developers weren't adhering to some sort of map-gap principle, one would think they would have clearly gone for the Gauls over the Scots to replace the Celts...they actually had an empire for a brief time and generally hit the Celtic flavor a lot better. But given that they are just another snapshot of French history, and we already have a French civ, I suspect they fell lower on the priority list simply for having co-occupied a lot of similar territory as CdM and Eleanor.

I'm not saying this line of thinking is necessarily correct or admirable, but as a matter of increasing buy-in by pandering to nationalist sentiment, "France" was already checked off...whereas nothing from the non-Anglo part of Britain yet existed in the game. And much like Babylon, "Gallic" nationalism doesn't seem to have survived history to the extent that Scottish or Irish pride has.

At this point, I would find it quite weird to see Scotland juxtaposed against the Gauls; it would be as if I could see two completely different games rubbing up against each other. And if we did feel the need to add the Gauls, then I wouldn't want them to be sticking out like a sore thumb as the only older European civ to substantially overlap with other civs' history; if they got in I would surely want the Goths and the Rus' and maybe the Danes to better balance out the continent. Except I don't really need or want any of those civs so I am fine with the devs just sticking to their modern nationalism shtick. As far as I'm concerned whatever is lost by not including Celtic civs under an alternative creative vision is gained by representing regions Scythia, Georgia, Canada, Gran Colombia...overall crafting a much more complete picture of the world, even if it comes at the cost of artificially making every region feel equally deep/shallow.

The thing about poetic license is something is always sacrificed in order to focus on the main objective. I can't fault VI for having flaws if they were deliberately neglected to facilitate other goals.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think because Babylon replaced Seoul that there will more likely be an Assyrian civilization coming over Babylon. If Babylon was an original CS from the base game, I would say different, but I don't remember any replacement CS in Civ 5 or 6 becoming full civs in their own right later.

I think that might be a possibility as well and I wouldn't mind because I would prefer Assyria. At the same time Babylon has been in the game as playable since the beginning. Because of that I see it going either way.

Hypothetically, but if that was their intent they did a poor job of it. Scotland, as presented in Civ6, is 95% Anglo-Norman; it's a better stand-in for Normandy than "the Celts." The Highlander is the only "Celtic" thing about it.

What about the bagpipes?

 

[Thenewwwguy]

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


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

I mean, calling the gauls celts in general is just asking for confusion, because celtic cultures don’t start and end at gaul and there exist ‘celts’ outside of it.

Ideally, I still prefer to refer to a civilization by the name of the people who actually built the monuments and fought the wars, not just the name of the families that ruled them.

Oh fair, I agree.

India is not culturally unified,I think that statement is not supported by evidence,history. It can be said political unity is rarer wrt. to China or Iran.
The guy who came up with civilizational state concept for China Mr.Zhang Wei Wei also don't classied India as single civilization though Huntington put it as one civilization,so may be at the end what matters is one perception or idea of term civilization.

In case of India,there is a lot of cultural unity and it becomes more clearer when u see Hinduism more than just a religion. It is present in every dimension of life whether culture,science,polity,society structure. A very important unifying factor is Sanskrit and it's traditions,literature,philosophy etc. Though it was not a mass language at least for regions far from core Vedic regions,it was a connecting language which ensured transfer of culture all over India.
Examples can be seen through out history whether it is presence of Vedic deities,Idealisation of Ram Rajya(Rule)(chola texts) in Tamil region or propagation of Bhakti Movement from Tamil Nadu to rest of India which shaped North India during Muslim rule.
The Concept of sacred geography also play a very important role as it gives a geographical sense to masses,whether it is sacred Ganga or Pilgrimage to temple,mountains etc .One can understand its value by the fact when Maratha finally manage to break Mughal power they renovated city of Varanasi on bank of Ganga and brought Marathi Brahmins to settle down there. Chola king brought North Indian brahmins with him for his campaign in North.
In terms of Polity,the concept Dharma in accordance to rta(cosmic order) is underlying theme. King is not seen as having divine power but as protector of rta in accordance to Dharma guided by Dharmashasta,Arthasashtra. One can easily see similarity in their conducts like patronising all religions Hinduism,Buddhism,Jainism irrespective of King's own religion. Many dynasties all over India claimed they r part of kshatriya traditions to gain legitimacy. Asvamedha is a good example of continuity from Vedic period to last happed in 1741 by rajput King.

In terms of Sceince one can see continuity from Vedic time to last school of Indic Science in Kerala. Indian kings patronized science and India was among leader before invasions especially in field of Mathematics,Botany and Medicines.

So there is enough continuity,unity in terms of culture. One can easily see the impact in today's time there r region which r much closer to Delhi but separated from India. Region much closer to capital and there is insurgency while region comparatively far away in south but not any such separatism on the other hand right now most contributing region in India's growth.

Good Info, I guess, but I don’t fully see how it’s all tangential or relevant? I mean, i think the question of whether India historically has been culturally or politically united is fairly well established in that the answer is a resounding no.

I think, regardless of how successful the endeavor was, it is a pretty safe guess that Scotland was intended to replace the Celtic blob.

And yet if the developers weren't adhering to some sort of map-gap principle, one would think they would have clearly gone for the Gauls over the Scots to replace the Celts...they actually had an empire for a brief time and generally hit the Celtic flavor a lot better. But given that they are just another snapshot of French history, and we already have a French civ, I suspect they fell lower on the priority list simply for having co-occupied a lot of similar territory as CdM and Eleanor.

I'm not saying this line of thinking is necessarily correct or admirable, but as a matter of increasing buy-in by pandering to nationalist sentiment, "France" was already checked off...whereas nothing from the non-Anglo part of Britain yet existed in the game. And much like Babylon, "Gallic" nationalism doesn't seem to have survived history to the extent that Scottish or Irish pride has.

At this point, I would find it quite weird to see Scotland juxtaposed against the Gauls; it would be as if I could see two completely different games rubbing up against each other. And if we did feel the need to add the Gauls, then I wouldn't want them to be sticking out like a sore thumb as the only older European civ to substantially overlap with other civs' history; if they got in I would surely want the Goths and the Rus' and maybe the Danes to better balance out the continent. Except I don't really need or want any of those civs so I am fine with the devs just sticking to their modern nationalism shtick. As far as I'm concerned whatever is lost by not including Celtic civs under an alternative creative vision is gained by representing regions Scythia, Georgia, Canada, Gran Colombia...overall crafting a much more complete picture of the world, even if it comes at the cost of artificially making every region feel equally deep/shallow.

The thing about poetic license is something is always sacrificed in order to focus on the main objective. I can't fault VI for having flaws if they were deliberately neglected to facilitate other goals.

i mean, if we were really talking map gap theory, ireland is a whole empty island they could’ve used. I don’t think we can safely say that Scotland is the celtic stand in.

Scotland, historically, would never be a good celtic stand in anyway. Zaarin has mentioned this before, but the Scottish Gaellic highlands were woefully underdeveloped and also tinged with a lot of nordic culture, while the Scots/Anglo-Norman lowlands would be linguistically and culturally similar to Normandy and the contemporary england

 

[Zaarin]

I think, regardless of how successful the endeavor was, it is a pretty safe guess that Scotland was intended to replace the Celtic blob.

Oh, I agree that was the intention. I don't think that precludes the dev team recognizing it wasn't received as such.

And much like Babylon, "Gallic" nationalism doesn't seem to have survived history to the extent that Scottish or Irish pride has.

Actually, Babylon does play a role in Iraqi nationalism. Saddam Hussein was obsessed with Babylon. He wrote historical fiction about Babylon. He frequently compared his regime to Babylon. I'm not sure how much of that has survived him, though. Certainly to my knowledge the Iraqis don't consider themselves Babylonian, unlike the modern Assyrians; it's just poetic language. Still, it's there.

At this point, I would find it quite weird to see Scotland juxtaposed against the Gauls

They're so different it wouldn't even strike me. It's true the Gauls aren't a market-pandering civilization, but then again neither are the Scythians (unless you think the Kazakh and Ukrainian markets are much larger than I do ). Not every civ has to market-pander. Gaul would represent all the non-Hellenistic or non-Hellenized civilizations of Iron Age Europe.

What about the bagpipes?

The bagpipes that last for an era then go away? Besides, bagpipes aren't explicitly or even exclusively Celtic.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

And much like Babylon, "Gallic" nationalism doesn't seem to have survived history to the extent that Scottish or Irish pride has.

While babylon, unlike assyria, doesn’t have modern descendents, it plays into the Iraqi mythos a lot. they don’t view themselves as babylonian or the descendents of such, but they do view their nation built on the backs of the great babylonian empire. Assyrians, while a large minority ethnicity with a lot of recognized efforts for self-determination, are fairly small and I doubt Assyria would have any meaningful ‘nationalism points’ as you call them.

The gauls are HUGE in france. The Belgae and Gauls are viewed as the building blocks of modern france and are often called too or referenced in more nationalistic works there. While almost all french people don’t feel association to them, they’re often used by nationalistic politicians to drum up support

 

[Zaarin]

Assyrians, while a large minority ethnicity with a lot of recognized efforts for self-determination, are fairly small and I doubt Assyria would have any meaningful ‘nationalism points’ as you call them.

I'd be willing to bet there are more Assyrians than Iraqis in the West, though. I know both the US and Sweden have very significant Assyrian populations. The vast majority of Middle Eastern restaurants or stores I've visited have been run by either Assyrians or Copts. I wouldn't discount them as a market.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

At this point, I would find it quite weird to see Scotland juxtaposed against the Gauls; it would be as if I could see two completely different games rubbing up against each other. And if we did feel the need to add the Gauls, then I wouldn't want them to be sticking out like a sore thumb as the only older European civ to substantially overlap with other civs' history; if they got in I would surely want the Goths and the Rus' and maybe the Danes to better balance out the continent. Except I don't really need or want any of those civs so I am fine with the devs just sticking to their modern nationalism shtick. As far as I'm concerned whatever is lost by not including Celtic civs under an alternative creative vision is gained by representing regions Scythia, Georgia, Canada, Gran Colombia...overall crafting a much more complete picture of the world, even if it comes at the cost of artificially making every region feel equally deep/shallow.

Honestly at this point Ireland would feel weirder to me than the Gauls at this point.
At least Gaul would contrast with Scotland with one being a Stone Age/Classical Celtic group and the other one being based off of a modern day Celtic nation.
Plus having England, Scotland, Ireland and not Wales would be just mean to the Welsh.

The bagpipes that last for an era then go away? Besides, bagpipes aren't explicitly or even exclusively Celtic.

Well I was referring to the Highland bagpipes that are basically synonymous with the Scottish Highlands which is populated by mostly the Gaelic.
To me it's more Celtic than the Highlander unit which is based off the regiment used by the British even if it does unfortunately only last one era.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

i mean, if we were really talking map gap theory, ireland is a whole empty island they could’ve used. I don’t think we can safely say that Scotland is the celtic stand in

Scotland has a higher population. As far as I can tell, if the point of map-gap is to try to rein in casual consumers who identify with or are adjacent to as-yet-unrepresented cultural heritages, then Ireland and Scotland were rough equivalents, and Scotland got the edge for casting a slightly wider net and having a slightly more resonant UI option (i.e. the golf course). I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was a very close contest.

At any rate, they could only choose one, so regardless of whether it was Scotland or Ireland the point is the Gauls were generally a better example of a Celtic "empire", and the devs still neglected them in favor of a modern Celtic nation. To me that speaks volumes as to where the devs' priorities are; if they can find a modern country or region with a strong sense of nationalism, and they can find a roughly corresponding kingdom at some point in its history that can retrofitted into the mold of an empire, they will likely go with that over older, extinct empires that don't quite align with modern heritages. That is just the way of VI.

Actually, Babylon does play a role in Iraqi nationalism. Saddam Hussein was obsessed with Babylon. He wrote historical fiction about Babylon. He frequently compared his regime to Babylon. I'm not sure how much of that has survived him, though. Certainly to my knowledge the Iraqis don't consider themselves Babylonian, unlike the modern Assyrians; it's just poetic language. Still, it's there.

I'm sure some of it will survive among niche fascist groups. That really is what fascism tends to thrive on; the idea that its members descend from a past "great race" that deserves to return to supremacy. But yes I don't see it associated much with Iraqi nationalism generally as much as say Persian nationalism ties back to the Achaemenids or Syrian nationalism ties back to Palmyra.

They're so different it wouldn't even strike me. It's true the Gauls aren't a market-pandering civilization, but then again neither are the Scythians (unless you think the Kazakh and Ukrainian markets are much larger than I do ). Not every civ has to market-pander. Gaul would represent all the non-Hellenistic or non-Hellenized civilizations of Iron Age Europe.

Maybe not in isolation, but against the entire backdrop of the game to this point, I would find them to be a divergence from the devs' tendency to have "one region, one civ." And I definitely feel like Scythia was intended to satisfy map-gap in the most efficient way possible, filling out a large region of several less-populated, weak gaming markets with a "civ" that could represent twice as much territory as the huns.

The gauls are HUGE in france. The Belgae and Gauls are viewed as the building blocks of modern france and are often called too or referenced in more nationalistic works there. While almost all french people don’t feel association to them, they’re often used by nationalistic politicians to drum up support

In which case they survive in French nationalist pride, which again is already quite pandered to with "France." There's just so little incentive to pander to the French people twice (on top of two leaders and a persona) when they could catch the eye of casual gamers in Ireland, Denmark, Bulgaria, Austria, Italy...

From a purely cynical standpoint (and I do think VI is more cynical than at first blush), I wouldn't expect to start seeing "double-up" civs like the Gauls until most of the other major opportunities are capitalized on first. And at minimum I would believe an Irish civ would make it in before the Gauls if the devs continue on the path they've been on.

Honestly at this point Ireland would feel weirder to me than the Gauls at this point.
At least Gaul would contrast with Scotland with one being a Stone Age/Classical Celtic group and the other one being based off of a modern day Celtic nation.
Plus having England, Scotland, Ireland and not Wales would be just mean to the Welsh.

Argmagh could still represent Northern Ireland, technically. Also I don't think the Welsh were ever a contender.

 

[Zaarin]

At least Gaul would contrast with Scotland with one being a Stone Age/Classical Celtic group and the other one being based off of a modern day Celtic nation.

The Gauls were a little past the Stone Age. The Proto-Indo-Europeans weren't even in Europe yet until the Bronze Age.

From a purely cynical standpoint (and I do think VI is more cynical than at first blush)

While I don't entirely agree with your map-gap theory, I do agree that Civ6 has been much more aggressive about market-pandering than previous iterations (e.g., Brazil in the base game).