[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[SMcM]

I don't think it will happen. The Aboriginal Australians have a taboo against depicting the dead. Plus the Aboriginal Australians, like the Inuit, were among the most technologically primitive culture groups on the planet. I'd love to see a game about hunter-gatherers, but I don't think Civilization is really set up to accurately portray that kind of lifestyle.

Reminds me of the debate about Huns inclusion Civilization V- lots of people were saying when you already have non-playable 'barbarians' in the game, it doesn't make sense to have a 'civilization' in the game that would usually be characterised as such. But then I don't see anything wrong with there essentially being a 'play the barbarian option', and Attilla's AI was correctly set up to inevitably declare war on everyone at some point.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Reminds me of the debate about Huns inclusion Civilization V- lots of people were saying when you already have non-playable 'barbarians' in the game, it doesn't make sense to have a 'civilization' in the game that would usually be characterised as such. But then I don't see anything wrong with there essentially being a 'play the barbarian option', and Attilla's AI was correctly set up to inevitably declare war on everyone at some point.

the issue with the huns is the hunnic empire could’ve been a good civ, it was just implemented so so so poorly. It could’ve had its own civ list provided they were ok limiting other civ’s in order to avoid city overlap. It could’ve played in a different manner. It’s not that the huns couldn’t have been a civ as much as the way they were implemented made them terrible as a civ

 

[SirMediocrity]

the issue with the huns is the hunnic empire could’ve been a good civ, it was just implemented so so so poorly. It could’ve had its own civ list provided they were ok limiting other civ’s in order to avoid city overlap. It could’ve played in a different manner. It’s not that the huns couldn’t have been a civ as much as the way they were implemented made them terrible as a civ

I've previously mentioned in this thread that the only thing holding the Huns back (other than the presence of Scythia and the potential thematic overlap) is their city list. The best solution is just to use the early names of cities that were within the influence of the Huns or under the control of Hunnic vassals. There shouldn't be too much overlap in terms of cities.

EDIT: Something else worth noting about the Huns is the fact that they were a rather large confederation of Germanic, Scythian, Sarmatian, and proto-Slavic peoples.

 

[SMcM]

the issue with the huns is the hunnic empire could’ve been a good civ, it was just implemented so so so poorly. It could’ve had its own civ list provided they were ok limiting other civ’s in order to avoid city overlap. It could’ve played in a different manner. It’s not that the huns couldn’t have been a civ as much as the way they were implemented made them terrible as a civ

I think choosing city names of regions Attila conquered would be a bad idea, it would be like giving Alexander the Great city names from across the Middle East just because he conquered those areas.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I think choosing city names of regions Attila conquered would be a bad idea, it would be like giving Alexander the Great city names from across the Middle East just because he conquered those areas.

except he has those cities in his city list, mainly the Alexandrias that he built on top of those cities after he razed them.

Numerous civs in this game have cities they conquered rather than founded (think the Spanish city list, which has Manila, which was founded on top of Filipino settlements and probably even existed before Spanish rule, as well as cities founded by moorish rule). The Khmer have cities that they didn’t even rule. Arabia has cities founded far before any caliphate, many of which were founded by Bedouins, Berbers, Aramaic peoples, Babylonians, Assyrians, Levantian peoples and more.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Lenin would be really controversial in the Eastern European market. It would be like having Hitler as a leader.

I know he was used recently in Civ Rev 2. I know Stalin is obviously controversial but I wasn't aware of that for Lenin.

I think choosing city names of regions Attila conquered would be a bad idea, it would be like giving Alexander the Great city names from across the Middle East just because he conquered those areas.

I still think that might be a better implementation than what they did with them in Civ 5 at least although it still wouldn't be ideal.

 

[SMcM]

except he has those cities in his city list, mainly the Alexandrias that he built on top of those cities after he razed them.

Numerous civs in this game have cities they conquered rather than founded (think the Spanish city list, which has Manila, which was founded on top of Filipino settlements and probably even existed before Spanish rule, as well as cities founded by moorish rule). The Khmer have cities that they didn’t even rule. Arabia has cities founded far before any caliphate, many of which were founded by Bedouins, Berbers, Aramaic peoples, Babylonians, Assyrians, Levantian peoples and more.

Manila being on the Spanish city list seems a bit odd tbh, does England have colonial city names? And regarding the caliphate that's fine I think, they held those regions for centuries. In Alexander's case it's different I'd say, since as quickly as he conquered those places they were lost to Macedon following his death. Attila has the same problem having not established a lasting empire.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Numerous civs in this game have cities they conquered rather than founded (think the Spanish city list, which has Manila, which was founded on top of Filipino settlements and probably even existed before Spanish rule, as well as cities founded by moorish rule).

Spain is interesting because several of those cities, like Cordoba and Seville, were originally settlements founded by the Romans and Phoenicians, then the Visigoths came and took over when Rome fell even before the Moors came.
The fact is at least all of those cities are found in modern day Spain.
I also think that nobody here wants Manila or Havana as part of Spain's cities anyway.

does England have colonial city names?

Not that I'm aware of. Of course most of would be names of other civilizations in the game like Australia and America or as city-states like Singapore and Hong Kong.

 

[SMcM]

Also no offence, but being under the impression Lenin isn't controversial is a bit naive. Anything linked to modern ideological debates is going to be. Stalin is actually better in one sense because I think most are under the impression that he was largely pragmatic (often willing to compromise on his supposed principles, for instance the Nazi-Soviet pact), and aren't thinking of him as a mascot for an ideology in the same way as Lenin. Chairman Mao I'm not too informed on tbh. But Lenin I think is viewed as a fairly sincere representation of communist government, and putting him in the game and giving him major science bonuses and et cetera. could well end up looking quite political- they would have to be very careful to not portray him in a way that doesn't make him look completely ideal. Usually Civilization benefits from picking leaders from further back in history, so modern political debates aren't such a problem.

There is also moral questions about Lenin from what I understand (for instance the degree to which he was willing to use violence to achieve his goals), but I won't go much into that since I'm not the best informed on it. I do know that thousands were killed in responses to anti-Bolshevik rebellions, so while not on the level of Stalin it's not like he didn't have blood on his hands. However when we already have countless conquering warlords I don't think that's too big a problem, but again with recent leaders it's a bit touchier. Atilla the Hun might not have been much nicer than Stalin, but he's a hell of a lot less controversial in modern times.

Lenin was in Civilization Revolution 2 iirc though, but that's marketed a slightly difference audience since it's on mobile, and even in the years since that came out I think people have probably become more sensitive about these matters. Of course Stalin and Mao were in Civilization IV, but I get the impression that their thinking about who should be included in these games has changed since then (another example of this being more effort to find female leaders for civilizations).

 

[SirMediocrity]

Atilla the Hun might not have been much nicer than Stalin, but he's a hell of a lot less controversial in modern times.

Indeed. It certainly seems to be a case of the longer someone is dead, the less taboo they become.

 

[SMcM]

Indeed. It certainly seems to be a case of the longer someone is dead, the less taboo they become.

Yes. Something I find odd is how many people seem to act as though Genghis Khan was actually a good guy- they will point to how his conquests helped link the world together in terms of trade routes and etc., and how he didn't treat his subjects too badly. But they ignore that states that refused to become Mongol vassals were subject to what's been described as "terror and mass extermination". Some estimate Genghis Khan's wars resulted in the deaths of about 10% of the world's population at the time. Of course it's pointless to look at him from the perspective that we would judge a leader today, but when people make him out to have been some sort of hero it's ridiculous. If he were a more recent figure he'd be reviled for being a horrendous war criminal of course.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

But they ignore that states that refused to become Mongol vassals were subject to what's been described as "terror and mass extermination". Some estimate Genghis Khan's wars resulted in the deaths of about 10% of the world's population at the time. Of course it's pointless to look at him from the perspective that we would judge a leader today, but when people make him out to have been some sort of hero it's ridiculous. If he were a more recent figure he'd be reviled for being a horrendous war criminal of course.

it’s also well known that persian and chinese historians vastly inflated his death toll to make him look more tyrannical. By no means was he a good guy, but for the amount of land he conquered, and compared to the other leaders of the time, i don’t think his numbers are that unreasonable. Because his conquering was speedy and quick, i think ppl think it’s insanely high, but any large consolidating empire will have a death toll similar, if not above that (see romans, or alexander)

 

[8housesofelixir]

it’s also well known that persian and chinese historians vastly inflated his death toll to make him look more tyrannical. By no means was he a good guy, but for the amount of land he conquered, and compared to the other leaders of the time, i don’t think his numbers are that unreasonable. Because his conquering was speedy and quick, i think ppl think it’s insanely high, but any large consolidating empire will have a death toll similar, if not above that (see romans, or alexander)

On that note, "whether Qin Shi Huang is a good guy or a bad guy as he created a big empire but also overworked people to death" is the single most debated historical question throughout the entire Chinese history; it even became a political issue in the communist era.
Generally speaking, a lot of pre-modern "great leaders" had generated a terrible death toll by the modern standard.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

On that note, "whether Qin Shi Huang is a good guy or a bad guy as he created a big empire but also overworked people to death" is the single most debated historical question throughout the entire Chinese history; it even became a political issue in the communist era.
Generally speaking, a lot of pre-modern "great leaders" had generated a terrible death toll by the modern standard.

i think it’s a relatively unimportant question in the modern context also. If the leader who started slavery, or Andrew Jackson made civ, I’d be pretty pissed off cuz they’re unequivocally bad ppl with no redeeming factors. They caused genocide and harm. Compare that to someone like Genghis, a Mongolian national hero for whom violence was a last resort: he always seeked peaceful unification or client state status first. Genghis may have been bad, but he wasn’t unequivocally so, he was very religiously tolerant, didn’t kill nearly as many people as they claim he did and such. He was by all means a good ruler as well, and despite his disdain outside of his home countries, those outside of Mongolia were still treated well

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: We're veering off topic yet again. Please come back to topic.

 

[SMcM]

Ok well on topic, I would say my predictions for what will be included are the following:

- Kublai Khan since apparently others are sure about that
- Vietnam for the same reason
- A Native civ from Northern America (Civ V had Iroquois and Shoshone, so far we only have Cree in 6)

• Hard to guess because could be any, perhaps Sitting Bull leading the Sioux would be my top guess
• Iroquois I wouldn't rule out but my guess is they will go for a different group for a change
• Apache, Navajo, Comanche probably contenders

- Babylon since it's in every game so far

• Hammurabi as a change from Nebuchadnezzar would be my guess for leader

- Portugal since it's been in most Civilization games

• João II is likely
• Manuel I, João II and Henry the Navigator are possible too
• Afonso de Albuquerque I'd like to see but probably not likely
  
• Doubt they will repeat Maria, don't think she was that popular a choice for V and certainly not important enough to repeat 2 games in a row

- I'm going to cautiously guess Byzantines- only because they've been in most civ games

• Repeating Theodora isn't impossible, might do Justinian for a change
• I'm going to guess though they will try and be more original and go for a later ruler, Basil II or Alexios I Komnenos perhap

I do think Byzantines seem less essential than Babylon and Portugal given we already have a lot of thematically linked civilizations and leaders- 2 Greek leaders, a Ptolemaic leader for Egypt, Macedon, and of course the Western Roman Empire. They might instead go for a non European civilization instead for some variety, and maybe release Byzantines for future separate DLC. I do however think that Byzantine leaders from after the fall of the Western Roman Empire as Roman alts is a hideous idea, even more irritating to me than naming Dido's civilization Phoenicia, and I hope they don't do it.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Ok well on topic, I would say my predictions for what will be included are the following:

These are all valid and realistic predictions (and also very popular as far as I know). I would not surprised if FXS bring up a list very similar to these.

- Portugal since it's been in most Civilization games

By the way, who's that Portuguese king who died mysteriously and later became the central figure of a messianic myth?

Besides these popular predictions, and in terms of variety, I would like to see some not-that-famous but important trade-oriented civs to be included - especially those who had a strong impact on the communications between East and West - even in the form of city-states. To name a few: Chola, Champa, Sogdia, and the several Turkic Khaganates.
Although I do think the Timurid Empire is the most possible choice game-wise.

 

[Zaarin]

By the way, who's that Portuguese king who died mysteriously and later became the central figure of a messianic myth?

Sebastian. He'd fit nicely with all the other leaders with messianic/king under the mountain myths attached to them, like Frederick Barbarossa and Tamar.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Was he a king? I thought he was only a prince infante or whatever.

 

[Zaarin]

Was he a king? I thought he was only a prince infante or whatever.

From Wikipedia: "Sebastian (Portuguese: Sebastião I Portuguese pronunciation: [sɨbɐʃˈti.ɐ̃w̃]; 20 January 1554 – 4 August 1578) was King of Portugal from 11 June 1557 to 4 August 1578 and the penultimate Portuguese monarch of the House of Aviz." So for a little over a year he was king...