[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[The Kingmaker]

No, no, I don't think Armenia would work at this point (Civ7, hopefully). I was suggesting that, since some people have blamed the Turks for our lack of Armenia (an argument I don't buy), they're clearly such a massive market as to justify the Hittites, with whom the Turks have something of an obsession.

I think Armenia has been left out this far just because of size and relative obscurity comparable to other options. Georgia itself only got in on a fluke meme.

It’s Turkey though that presents problems, due to political considerations past and present that need not be delved into here. Note that they’ve been called the Ottomans and not the Turks in every iteration. And FXS have never touched Turkey, the modern nation-state.

I could maybe see the Seljuks in a later game (although the Ottomans are more well-known), but again I wouldn’t expect them to be identified as the Turks.

But no, I’m not expecting Hittites, Armenia or the Seljuks right now either.

 

[SMcM]

No you didn't miss anything. I'm just speculating. I was just saying if Vietnam's leader was Trung Trac we most likely wouldn't be able to get both Maria the Mad for Portugal or Semiramis for Assyria, which I'm okay with.
If anything I'm expecting Theodora for the Byzantines to return.

Theodora for Byzantium is definitely a possibility. And I hadn't noticed before that they usually go for 3 female leaders for every expansion/dlc cycle, but you're right. So that makes Theodora even more likely.

I think Armenia has been left out this far just because of size and relative obscurity comparable to other options. Georgia itself only got in on a fluke meme.

I think that's completely unfair given Armenia was actually pretty large at it's peak, definitely I think they would be a viable civilization choice were it not for Georgia ticking that box as far as Civ VI is concerned. Some representation of that part of the world is definitely a good idea I would say.

 

[Zaarin]

I think Armenia has been left out this far just because of size and relative obscurity comparable to other options. Georgia itself only got in on a fluke meme.

Like I said, I don't think Firaxis ever considered the region until Tamar became a meme.

It’s Turkey though that presents problems, due to political considerations past and present that need not be delved into here.

It's my understanding, though, that while Turkey objects to the idea of Ottoman Armenia being part of Armenia, they don't deny its existence like China and Tibet. I really don't think the Turkish government would car a whit about an Armenian civ.

Theodora for Byzantium is definitely a possibility.

I'd take her for granted. We will never, ever be rid of her.

I think that's completely unfair given Armenia was actually pretty large at it's peak, definitely I think they would be a viable civilization choice were it not for Georgia ticking that box as far as Civ VI is concerned. Some representation of that part of the world is definitely a good idea I would say.

Given the choice, I'd choose Armenia over Georgia, which is what I hope happens in Civ7.

 

[Guandao]

Who are interesting Armenian leaders?

 

[Zaarin]

Who are interesting Armenian leaders?

Tigranes the Great would be one good option, but since he's pre-Christian and Christianity is so central to Armenian identity I'd favor Tiridates III.

 

[Guandao]

Tigranes the Great would be one good option, but since he's pre-Christian and Christianity is so central to Armenian identity I'd favor Tiridates III.

Do we have any clue how Tiridates III looked like?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

By the way I wonder what city could replace Hattusa if the Hittites hypothetically got in?

Theodora for Byzantium is definitely a possibility. And I hadn't noticed before that they usually go for 3 female leaders for every expansion/dlc cycle, but you're right. So that makes Theodora even more likely.

I don't think it was planned at least for the first DLC cycle considering we weren't supposed to get Nubia or Indonesia. Still the other pattern I'm also considering is they've always gone with a returning European civ (Poland, Dutch, Sweden) and a brand new one from Europe as well (Macedon, Scotland, Hungary), as long as you count Georgia not being European.

 

[SirMediocrity]

By the way I wonder what city could replace Hattusa if the Hittites hypothetically got in?

Maybe Washukanni, capital of the Mitanni empire. The Mitanni are known for creating some of the chariot designs that the Hittites perfected/utilized.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

By the way I wonder what city could replace Hattusa if the Hittites hypothetically got in?


I don't think it was planned at least for the first DLC cycle considering we weren't supposed to get Nubia or Indonesia. Still the other pattern I'm also considering is they've always gone with a returning European civ (Poland, Dutch, Sweden) and a brand new one from Europe as well (Macedon, Scotland, Hungary), as long as you count Georgia not being European.

well since we have Mohenjo-Daro as a cultural City State, I wouldn’t mind seeing Harappa as a scientific one. I don’t remember Hatussa’s specific bonus, but Baikonur would be a good scientific city state.

I also like Mediocrity’s suggestion of Washukunni.

 

[Zaarin]

Do we have any clue how Tiridates III looked like?

These are by a Armenian artists; no idea how accurate they are:

By the way I wonder what city could replace Hattusa if the Hittites hypothetically got in?

I'd choose Tarsus, the capital of Cilicia and a possible location of Biblical Tarshish--and a vital source of all sorts of metals that were used throughout the region, including tin, copper, iron, silver, and gold.

 

[The Kingmaker]

It's my understanding, though, that while Turkey objects to the idea of Ottoman Armenia being part of Armenia, they don't deny its existence like China and Tibet. I really don't think the Turkish government would car a whit about an Armenian civ.

As I said, Turkey’s not a problem for Armenia’s inclusion. It’s a problem for Turkey’s.

I think that's completely unfair given Armenia was actually pretty large at it's peak, definitely I think they would be a viable civilization choice were it not for Georgia ticking that box as far as Civ VI is concerned. Some representation of that part of the world is definitely a good idea I would say.

My point is that if we can’t even get Assyria to appear in the game on a consistent basis, what chance has Armenia had thus far?

 

[Zaarin]

As I said, Turkey’s not a problem for Armenia’s inclusion. It’s a problem for Turkey’s.

Ah, I misunderstood your post. That's fine. I didn't want Turkey anyway.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

As I said, Turkey’s not a problem for Armenia’s inclusion. It’s a problem for Turkey’s.

turkey’s political status is pretty much the only reason why there’s validity in calling the Ottomans Ottomans and not Turkey (given Ottomans is a dynastic name)

 

[The Kingmaker]

turkey’s political status is pretty much the only reason why there’s validity in calling the Ottomans Ottomans and not Turkey (given Ottomans is a dynastic name)

Yep, it’s the rare exception to calling a civ by a dynastic name rather than a demonym.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Yep, it’s the rare exception to calling a civ by a dynastic name rather than a demonym.

hence why it makes sense to call the Timurids the Gurkhani

(and while the Mughals also called themselves that, in all fairness, most Indian empires didn’t have common names besides their dynastic names. The Maurya, Chola didn’t have regional names, they’ve pretty much only been known by their dynastic names)

 

[The Kingmaker]

hence why it makes sense to call the Timurids the Gurkhani

I agree with that, as I prefer demonyms to dynasties as far as civ names go. I fear if they were included though, the more familiar Timurid term would be used for western audiences.

AoE2 DE calls them the “Tatars.”

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I agree with that, as I prefer demonyms to dynasties as far as civ names go. I fear if they were included though, the more familiar Timurid term would be used for western audiences.

AoE2 DE calls them the “Tatars.”

Tatars?

Timurids wouldn’t be terrible since it’s technically correct, but Gurkhani is more correct

 

[Zaarin]

AoE2 DE calls them the “Tatars.”

Aren't the Tatars a completely different Turkic people from the Gurkhani, more closely related to the Kipchaks and Cumans?

ETA: Wikipedia confirms that Chagatai, the language of the Gurkhani, was not closely related to Tatar, Kipchak, and Cuman.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Aren't the Tatars a completely different Turkic people from the Gurkhani, more closely related to the Kipchaks and Cumans?

ETA: Wikipedia confirms that Chagatai, the language of the Gurkhani, was not closely related to Tatar, Kipchak, and Cuman.

Yeah, the AoE2 developers kind of explain the rationale for fudging the name by saying that westerners called all steppe peoples “Tatars,” but it’s a lame excuse if you ask me. They basically made that faction a Chagatai/Timurid/Tatar blob... while also including a separate Cuman faction.

https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Tatars

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Yeah, the AoE2 developers kind of explain the rationale for fudging the name by saying that westerners called all steppe peoples “Tatars,” but it’s a lame excuse if you ask me. They basically made that faction a Chagatai/Timurid/Tatar blob... while also including a separate Cuman faction.

https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Tatars

AoE2 has a reputation of being terrible with names outside of that community. I don’t play the game