[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Jeppetto]

What I'd like to see is being able to perform transgressions against Civ without war as your relationship decays, simulating political machinations against each other (Spy missions) leading into anonymous aggresive acts (trader pillaging by "independent terroristic groups") leading to cold war with small hot conflicts (prompting souzerained city-state into war against Civ without the souzerain going into war themself) leading to potential open war. So, for example, at certain point you'll gain the ability to pillage their traders without being at war. It would still generate Grievances, representing the fact the victim can complain to World Congress that while not enough evidence was found as the attackers did not have any flag or sign indentifying their alliagance, it's quite obvious who is the only guy hating them. Eventually, as this continues and Grievances gather, these transgressions would lead into open conflict and whether one justified by obvious transgression from one side or made-up paranoid blaming from the other side will matter not.

But If that's too much to ask, then another way would be making Anonymous units. Instead of leveraging units from city-state, you could purchase Anonymous unit to do your bidding where the victim of your attacks and pillaging would not see what Civ is in control, or, If this was restricted to souzeracy and mattered in single-player only, the victim wouldn't be able to generate Grievances against the attacker even though they would see who is behind it. On land, these units could go like Barbarian, Outlaw, Highwayman, Mercenary, Landsknecht a If we wanted to be more controversial, end up as Terrorist in modern era (or just move partisians to this if the T-word is not okay for Civ rating). On water, I only have Pirates and Privateers moved here as options.

My point with this litany is that this is another way to represent Pirates in game. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

 

[Cywil]

There is more info to extract from NFP initial announcement we could use to predict new civs. It's like solving an equation with many unknowns.

First let's look at new game modes requirements. Pack#1 game mode requires GS - climate change and disasters for Apocalypse precisely. Pack#2 game mode requires at least R&F - governors mechanics for Secret Societes and loyalty mechanics for cultists precisely. Pack#3 game mode requires again at least R&F mechanics, so something to choose from: governors, loyalty, emergencies, reworked alliances, timeline. Packs #4, #5, and #6 game modes require only vanilla mechanics. So no climate changes, no disasters, no power, no reworked strategic resources, no diplomatic victory, no greviances, no competitions and no earlier mentioned R&F mechanics for Packs #4-#6 game modes. These are requirements for new optional game modes, not for new civs/leaders.

The only pack with special requirement for new civ/leader is Pack#5 which would be R&F for obvious reason - we know already from the leak that's because of Kublai for Mongols (and probably for China). Maybe Vietnam would use R&F mechanics as well - e.g. Trung sisters: one as a leader, another as an unique governor? That leaves us with the rest of new civs/leaders all based on vanilla mechanics. So far neither GC nor Maya, nor Ethiopia uses other mechanics than vanilla's. So civs/leaders in Packs #3, #5, and #6 will use too only vanilla mechanics. In lights of this some assumptions posted in this thread would be wrong - at least partially - e.g. Portugal can neither get an unique governor for colonies because that would require R&F expansion nor get exclusive Great Admirals/Explorers with every new era (like GC's CGs) because that would require R&F again. Of course Portugal could get an unique Grão Navegador even four times in the game by using vanilla roads progress mechanics when new era technology or civic is discovered.

Four new civs we expect to get in September, November and March will be vanilla by game mechanics totally but they could be still extremelly unique like Maya or Gran Colombia or at least unique-ish like Ethiopia. There is still vast potential to use in vanilla mechanics for new civs/leaders. We have already civs/leaders terrain-or-feature depending: Russia and Canada - tundra, Mali and Nubia - desert, Brasil and Kongo - rainforest etc. Even unworkable for other civs mountains can be workable by Inca. What about unworkable oases and ice? I still see a gape for Inuit-like civ working ice, snow, and tundra or for Berber-ish civ working oases.

Next thing - every extension brought some new content and about 75% new civs/leaders somehow connected with this new content. R&F gave us: reworked alliances and Cree; loyalty and Zulu, Mapuche, and Netherlands; timeline and Georgia, and Mapuche; governors and Korea, and Mapuche. GS gave us: reworked strategic resources and Hungary, Canada, Ottomans and reworked England; enviromentalism and Maori; competitions and Canada, and Sweden; diplomatic favors and Sweden; power and reworked England. In NFP so far we got only one new civ connected with some new content - Mayan focus on farms and new global farmable bonus resources - maize. Neither GC nor Ethiopia has connections with new content so far. There will be no new resources requiring Irrigation so no connections for GC's haciendas with new content. So pretty weak usage of new content by new civs at this moment. We could still expect more civs (like 4 of 5 incoming ones) to be connected with new content - e.g. none of already revealed civs in NFP uses Diplomatic Quarter in special way. Let's look now on new content to arrive: Pack#3 - nothing special, Pack#4 - new Great Persons, Pack#5 - new district and 2 new buildings, Pack#6 - nothing special again.

Let's focus on packs #4 and #5 for a while. Grand Persons (except for GC's CGs) are generated by specialty districts. There are 3 categories of districts in Civ6: green ones (multiple for civ and for city, non specialty = non generating GPs), purple ones (singular for civ and for city, specialty but non generating GPs YET!) and differently coloured ones (multiple for civ but singular for city, specialty = generating GPs). New GPs from Pack #4 would be new entities for already existing category or for some completely new category. If the last then how these would be generated? By the new district from Pack#5? No, because of timing. GPs from Pack#4 have to be generated by already existing districts. All (but one) of differently coloured specialty districts generates just single GP category. Only TS generates 3 GP categories but all 3 of them doing the same - culture and tourism. I dont expect any of differently coloured specialty districts other than purple ones could be used to generate alleged new GP category in Pack#4. Besides the new district from Pack#5 could be another (third one) purple district in the game, to use together with Government Plaza and Diplomatic Quarter to generate new GPs. Otherwise the new district from Pack#5 would be a green one because a differently coloured specialty district couldn't exist without its own category of GPs. So I expect (and I hope) for new GP category from Pack#4 generated by 3 (2 already known plus the one from Pack#5) purple districts - from now fully specialty districts (like differently coloured ones).

What would it be? My guess - Great Statesmen or Great Diplomats focusing on spying, improving relations with major and minor civs, national prosperity, defense and expansions etc. So what about the new district and its 2 new buildings from Pack#5? I can imagine some kind of Financial Area or National Treasury place with buldings working towards economy but in different way than by commerce. Maybe by issuing currency? Then buildings could be Mint (for coins) and - more advanced - Print House [casa de papel] (for banknotes). It would be used in Pack#5 for its game mode which the leak identified as an "alternate economy" game mode. Maybe we could get an optional victory type - economic or financial one? There is in vanilla a suitable game mechanics already - religion mechanics which could be used almost directly: currency instead of religion; marks like $ instead of religious symbols; monetary policies instead of beliefs; spreading by cities with purple districts instead of cities with HS; dealers/brokers/counterfeiters instead of missionaries/apostles/gurus etc. Whoever spreads their currency to all civs wins. And Pack#5 comes with Kublai. It's worth noting he issued paper money known as Jiaochao that was known then for Europeans thanks to Marco Polo.

Maybe let's look for other optional possible game modes at the end. Anton assured us all of incoming ones will be historical, not fantasy ones. From Pack#4 I would expect a game mode focused on espionage with special units performing covert actions on enemy soil - i.e. on improvements and roads, and by damaging enemy units during peace, and finally by killing (yes, actually killing) enemy GPs (leaving actions in districts for regular spies as currently). As someone guessed MoorTires could mean More Riots As for Pack#3 it should be a game mode using R&F mechanics - different than governors probably. I hope for a civil war feature (maybe based on loyalty mechanics) similar to that from first Civ when you conquer enemy capital and then their civ split into two civs beeing at war to each other. Imagine Rome breaking into Roman civ and Byzantine civ. And BTW, at least one civ/leader in every expansion was from ancient/classical era (e.g. in R&F that was an alt ancient/classical leader for India). Why Byzantium and not Babylon? Well, I expect a second season pass so let's save some iconic Civ civs for it And game mode from Pack#6 based on vanilla mechanics again could be... I don't know. Your turn to guess.

 

[SMcM]

I don't think Firaxis's civ designs operate exclusively within a specific time period. Consider England, France, and Scotland where the UU (or UI and UA for Scotland) are from completely different time periods than the leader.

Yeah, but just from a cultural standpoint mixing pre-islamic Berbers and arabised Berbers would be just weird- they don't belong in the same civilization I wouldn't say. That's like merging Boudica's Celts and England I feel. With the other examples you give there is at least a continuity of culture to a significant extent.

 

[Jeppetto]

The only pack with special requirement for new civ/leader is Pack#5 which would be R&F for obvious reason - we know already from the leak that's because of Kublai for Mongols (and probably for China). Maybe Vietnam would use R&F mechanics as well - e.g. Trung sisters: one as a leader, another as an unique governor? That leaves us with the rest of new civs/leaders all based on vanilla mechanics. So far neither GC nor Maya, nor Ethiopia uses other mechanics than vanilla's. So civs/leaders in Packs #3, #5, and #6 will use too only vanilla mechanics. In lights of this some assumptions posted in this thread would be wrong - at least partially - e.g. Portugal can neither get an unique governor for colonies because that would require R&F expansion nor get exclusive Great Admirals/Explorers with every new era (like GC's CGs) because that would require R&F again. Of course Portugal could get an unique Grão Navegador even four times in the game by using vanilla roads progress mechanics when new era technology or civic is discovered.

You need expansion for part of pack not the whole pack. Trung Sisters won't use expansion mechanics as only the leader needs R&F. Likewise, If Grand Columbia can have per-era mechanic, so can Portugal, as Gathering Storm requirement is only bound to Apocalypse game mode.

 

[Cywil]

You need expansion for part of pack not the whole pack. Trung Sisters won't use expansion mechanics as only the leader needs R&F. Likewise, If Grand Columbia can have per-era mechanic, so can Portugal, as Gathering Storm requirement is only bound to Apocalypse game mode.

In terms of announcements language every leader in NFP is "new leader" - either one for a new civ or a new one for an old civ. So technically Trung would get treatment as a "new leader" too.

As for per-era mechanic I play with all DLCs and expansions so just don't know how GC's CGs works for players without GS. You're probably right.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

First let's look at new game modes requirements. Pack#1 game mode requires GS - climate change and disasters for Apocalypse precisely. Pack#2 game mode requires at least R&F - governors mechanics for Secret Societes and loyalty mechanics for cultists precisely. Pack#3 game mode requires again at least R&F mechanics, so something to choose from: governors, loyalty, emergencies, reworked alliances, timeline. Packs #4, #5, and #6 game modes require only vanilla mechanics. So no climate changes, no disasters, no power, no reworked strategic resources, no diplomatic victory, no greviances, no competitions and no earlier mentioned R&F mechanics for Packs #4-#6 game modes. These are requirements for new optional game modes, not for new civs/leaders.

Okay, agreed so far.

The only pack with special requirement for new civ/leader is Pack#5 which would be R&F for obvious reason - we know already from the leak that's because of Kublai for Mongols (and probably for China). Maybe Vietnam would use R&F mechanics as well - e.g. Trung sisters: one as a leader, another as an unique governor? That leaves us with the rest of new civs/leaders all based on vanilla mechanics. So far neither GC nor Maya, nor Ethiopia uses other mechanics than vanilla's. So civs/leaders in Packs #3, #5, and #6 will use too only vanilla mechanics. In lights of this some assumptions posted in this thread would be wrong - at least partially - e.g. Portugal can neither get an unique governor for colonies because that would require R&F expansion nor get exclusive Great Admirals/Explorers with every new era (like GC's CGs) because that would require R&F again. Of course Portugal could get an unique Grão Navegador even four times in the game by using vanilla roads progress mechanics when new era technology or civic is discovered.

So far the pack descriptions have been fairly specific, in a way that means several of your inferences here are not completely correct:

1. Ethiopia actually does use GS mechanics if they are available (volcanic soil). But it is not described as requiring GS and can function with or without the mechanics; therefore:

2. Vietnam cannot have a unique governor unless the design is intended to and able to function with or without a unique governor. Elsewise, we would expect that, unlike Ethiopia, Vietnam would be listed as requiring R&F in addition to Kublai requiring R&F.

2a. There is actually some ambiguity to this point, however, as Kublai is listed as requiring R&F as opposed to R&F being optional, which if taken literally means that he isn't available as a Chinese alternate leader because that would render R&F optional as opposed to required (i.e. the leader would still function totally fine in vanilla civ as just a Chinese leader even if you didn't have R&F to make him playable for Mongolia). Needless to say, the contradiction between how Ethiopia and Kublai are described creates some unresolved ambiguity.

3. I don't think Gran Colombia requires R&F for any of its uniques?

Four new civs we expect to get in September, November and March will be vanilla by game mechanics totally but they could be still extremelly unique like Maya or Gran Colombia or at least unique-ish like Ethiopia. There is still vast potential to use in vanilla mechanics for new civs/leaders. We have already civs/leaders terrain-or-feature depending: Russia and Canada - tundra, Mali and Nubia - desert, Brasil and Kongo - rainforest etc. Even unworkable for other civs mountains can be workable by Inca. What about unworkable oases and ice? I still see a gape for Inuit-like civ working ice, snow, and tundra or for Berber-ish civ working oases.

Again, Ethiopia shows that the civs could have aspects which are modified/amplified by expansions, even if they work totally fine in vanilla. That said, I think there is pretty unambiguous mechanical design space for the Inuit. The Berbers, I'm not so sure about since Mali and the Ottomans tread a lot on their niche and I don't think oases happen frequently enough to be particularly useful to a civ's uniques.

Next thing - every extension brought some new content and about 75% new civs/leaders somehow connected with this new content. R&F gave us: reworked alliances and Cree; loyalty and Zulu, Mapuche, and Netherlands; timeline and Georgia, and Mapuche; governors and Korea, and Mapuche. GS gave us: reworked strategic resources and Hungary, Canada, Ottomans and reworked England; enviromentalism and Maori; competitions and Canada, and Sweden; diplomatic favors and Sweden; power and reworked England. In NFP so far we got only one new civ connected with some new content - Mayan focus on farms and new global farmable bonus resources - maize. Neither GC nor Ethiopia has connections with new content so far. There will be no new resources requiring Irrigation so no connections for GC's haciendas with new content. So pretty weak usage of new content by new civs at this moment. We could still expect more civs (like 4 of 5 incoming ones) to be connected with new content - e.g. none of already revealed civs in NFP uses Diplomatic Quarter in special way. Let's look now on new content to arrive: Pack#3 - nothing special, Pack#4 - new Great Persons, Pack#5 - new district and 2 new buildings, Pack#6 - nothing special again.

Sure.

Let's focus on packs #4 and #5 for a while. Grand Persons (except for GC's CGs) are generated by specialty districts. There are 3 categories of districts in Civ6: green ones (multiple for civ and for city, non specialty = non generating GPs), purple ones (singular for civ and for city, specialty but non generating GPs YET!) and differently coloured ones (multiple for civ but singular for city, specialty = generating GPs). New GPs from Pack #4 would be new entities for already existing category or for some completely new category. If the last then how these would be generated? By the new district from Pack#5? No, because of timing. GPs from Pack#4 have to be generated by already existing districts. All (but one) of differently coloured specialty districts generates just single GP category. Only TS generates 3 GP categories but all 3 of them doing the same - culture and tourism. I dont expect any of differently coloured specialty districts other than purple ones could be used to generate alleged new GP category in Pack#4. Besides the new district from Pack#5 could be another (third one) purple district in the game, to use together with Government Plaza and Diplomatic Quarter to generate new GPs. Otherwise the new district from Pack#5 would be a green one because a differently coloured specialty district couldn't exist without its own category of GPs. So I expect (and I hope) for new GP category from Pack#4 generated by 3 (2 already known plus the one from Pack#5) purple districts - from now fully specialty districts (like differently coloured ones).

What would it be? My guess - Great Statesmen or Great Diplomats focusing on spying, improving relations with major and minor civs, national prosperity, defense and expansions etc. So what about the new district and its 2 new buildings from Pack#5? I can imagine some kind of Financial Area or National Treasury place with buldings working towards economy but in different way than by commerce. Maybe by issuing currency? Then buildings could be Mint (for coins) and - more advanced - Print House [casa de papel] (for banknotes). It would be used in Pack#5 for its game mode which the leak identified as an "alternate economy" game mode. Maybe we could get an optional victory type - economic or financial one? There is in vanilla a suitable game mechanics already - religion mechanics which could be used almost directly: currency instead of religion; marks like $ instead of religious symbols; monetary policies instead of beliefs; spreading by cities with purple districts instead of cities with HS; dealers/brokers/counterfeiters instead of missionaries/apostles/gurus etc. Whoever spreads their currency to all civs wins. And Pack#5 comes with Kublai. It's worth noting he issued paper money known as Jiaochao that was known then for Europeans thanks to Marco Polo.

While we might get a new category of GP, which I expect would just be spliced off from existing specialty districts, I think it is more likely they will just add more great people to the existing categories. I don't think we would have something like "great politicians" being slapped onto the purple districts, since it would require DLC packs 4 and 5 to have some interaction contingencies/dependencies. And since the Kublai pack has an alternate economy mode, I don't see much point in DLC pack introducing a purple district. Even if this were possible, I don't think the great persons in DLC 4 will have much of anything to do with the new district in DLC 5.

Maybe let's look for other optional possible game modes at the end. Anton assured us all of incoming ones will be historical, not fantasy ones. From Pack#4 I would expect a game mode focused on espionage with special units performing covert actions on enemy soil - i.e. on improvements and roads, and by damaging enemy units during peace, and finally by killing (yes, actually killing) enemy GPs (leaving actions in districts for regular spies as currently). As someone guessed MoorTires could mean More Riots As for Pack#3 it should be a game mode using R&F mechanics - different than governors probably. I hope for a civil war feature (maybe based on loyalty mechanics) similar to that from first Civ when you conquer enemy capital and then their civ split into two civs beeing at war to each other. Imagine Rome breaking into Roman civ and Byzantine civ. And BTW, at least one civ/leader in every expansion was from ancient/classical era (e.g. in R&F that was an alt ancient/classical leader for India). Why Byzantium and not Babylon? Well, I expect a second season pass so let's save some iconic Civ civs for it And game mode from Pack#6 based on vanilla mechanics again could be... I don't know. Your turn to guess.

I'm not holding my breath on "historical." PThe Bermuda triangle is "historical." The Hermetic Order is "historical." Pirates are "historical."

I don't see this civil war concept happening at all. In generally the idea of breakaway states is too daunting to design if the devs want to be historically pedantic (what would the Maori break up into?), and too sloppy if they don't (the Maori break up into a random civ from the roster so...China and Macedon?)

In terms of announcements language every leader in NFP is "new leader" - either one for a new civ or a new one for an old civ. So technically Trung would get treatment as a "new leader" too.

As for per-era mechanic I play with all DLCs and expansions so just don't know how GC's CGs works for players without GS. You're probably right.

Yes, Trung would be a "new leader", but she wouldn't require R&F, since all of the mechanics in R&F were included in GS...she would instead be listed as requiring R&F or GS.

Yeah, but just from a cultural standpoint mixing pre-islamic Berbers and arabised Berbers would be just weird- they don't belong in the same civilization I wouldn't say. That's like merging Boudica's Celts and England I feel. With the other examples you give there is at least a continuity of culture to a significant extent.

Germany incorporates the Prussians with the Teutonic Iron Cross icon. Phoenicia incorporates Carthage. England has an Occitan leader. Gandhi exists.

While it wouldn't be the purest representation of a culture, the fact is that most of the Maghreb in the modern day is a uniquely heterogenous cultural admixture of Amazigh and Arabic influence. It would at least be more historically honest than the Celts or Polynesia.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

As for per-era mechanic I play with all DLCs and expansions so just don't know how GC's CGs works for players without GS. You're probably right.

I'm pretty sure for the people without expansions a Comandante General just shows up every time you reach the new era through a technology or civic.

2a. There is actually some ambiguity to this point, however, as Kublai is listed as requiring R&F as opposed to R&F being optional, which if taken literally means that he isn't available as a Chinese alternate leader because that would render R&F optional as opposed to required (i.e. the leader would still function totally fine in vanilla civ as just a Chinese leader even if you didn't have R&F to make him playable for Mongolia). Needless to say, the contradiction between how Ethiopia and Kublai are described creates some unresolved ambiguity.

His leader ability could still be related to loyalty which would mean he needs R&F mechanics in addition to obviously leading Mongolia. Because of that possibility I still think there is a chance that he could also lead China if he uses R&F mechanics.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I'm pretty sure for the people without expansions a Comandante General just shows up every time you reach the new era through a technology or civic.

My thoughts exactly.

His leader ability could still be related to loyalty which would mean he needs R&F mechanics in addition to obviously leading Mongolia. Because of that possibility I still think there is a chance that he could also lead China if he uses R&F mechanics.

If it was related to loyalty, it would be that he would require R&F or GS to function as a leader, independent of whether you had access to China or Mongolia or both. But he only requires R&F, which taken literally means the only thing he could possibly require from R&F and not GS is the specific civ he leads, i.e. Mongolia.

I know, it's a lot of dumb semantics to work through, but I just don't think that scenario is probable where, if Kublai could lead China in vanilla with R&F mechanics irrespective of Mongolia, he would have been listed as requiring either R&F or GS and not just R&F. Or, put another way, Kublai leading China but not Mongolia would still work as long as you had GS.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If it was related to loyalty, it would be that he would require R&F or GS to function as a leader, independent of whether you had access to China or Mongolia or both. But he only requires R&F, which taken literally means the only thing he could possibly require from R&F and not GS is the specific civ he leads, i.e. Mongolia.

I know, it's a lot of dumb semantics to work through, but I just don't think that scenario is probable where, if Kublai could lead China in vanilla with R&F mechanics irrespective of Mongolia, he would have been listed as requiring either R&F or GS and not just R&F. Or, put another way, Kublai leading China but not Mongolia would still work as long as you had GS.

I don't know. I'm under the impression that the only way he would be playable is that R&F would still be required, even when playing him as a leader of China, considering he would come packaged as a dual leader.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I don't know. I'm under the impression that the only way he would be playable is that R&F would still be required, even when playing him as a leader of China, considering he would come packaged as a dual leader.

But if R&F were required for Kublai to work mechanically, then GS would work just as well, at least as playing him as a leader for China, since GS includes all the R&F mechanics. It's only the introduction of Mongolia that could require R&F but not GS, which then creates the conundrum of why Kublai requires R&F (or even just Mongolia) to function as a vanilla civ leader for China.

It's poorly worded in any context, regardless of whether he incorporates R&F mechanics or not.

 

[Jeppetto]

In terms of announcements language every leader in NFP is "new leader" - either one for a new civ or a new one for an old civ. So technically Trung would get treatment as a "new leader" too.

What you are suggesting is that Kublai Khan leads China instead of Mongolia (requires no expansion as only one leader of the two does) and the Trung Sisters (or like any Vietman leader) lead(s) another Rise and Fall civ alongside Vietman (as only Rise and Fall is required, not Gathering Storm) and in addition to that they also utilize Rise and Fall mechanics (and even there Phoe has point this would still be wrong), as otherwise they would be playable with vanilla since even alt leaders count as separate civ in code so it would literally take less than no effort to make only their alt requiring Rise and Fall. That's speculating for the sake of speculating, really, chances of this are rather slim I'd say.

I don't know. I'm under the impression that the only way he would be playable is that R&F would still be required, even when playing him as a leader of China, considering he would come packaged as a dual leader.

Phoe has point, dual or not, alts are coded as another civ so it's absolutely easy, in fact more beneficial, to make the configuration:

Requires either Rise and Fall or Gathering Storm.
If either is owned, you get Kublai for China.
If Rise and Fall is specifically owned, you also get Kublai for Mongolia.

If his mechanics are unrelated to Rise and Fall, it would be:

Requires Rise and Fall partially.
If not owned, you get Kublai for China.
If owned, you also get Kublai for Mongolia.

It's worded as completely requires Rise and Fall, so the wording, albeit maybe wrong, suggests him as Mongolia only leader.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It's poorly worded in any context, regardless of whether he incorporates R&F mechanics or not.

Right. I still think it's worded ambiguously enough to still be a possibility.

Phoe has point, dual or not, alts are coded as another civ so it's absolutely easy, in fact more beneficial, to make the configuration:

Requires either Rise and Fall or Gathering Storm.
If either is owned, you get Kublai for China.
If Rise and Fall is specifically owned, you also get Kublai for Mongolia.

If his mechanics are unrelated to Rise and Fall, it would be:

Requires Rise and Fall partially.
If not owned, you get Kublai for China.
If owned, you also get Kublai for Mongolia.

It's worded as completely requires Rise and Fall, so the wording, albeit maybe wrong, suggests him as Mongolia only leader.

I think if they did word it that you partially need R&F to play that would have given something away more so than the unintentional names found in the game files.

 

[Cywil]

1. Ethiopia actually does use GS mechanics if they are available (volcanic soil). But it is not described as requiring GS and can function with or without the mechanics

Again, Ethiopia shows that the civs could have aspects which are modified/amplified by expansions, even if they work totally fine in vanilla.

I'm pretty sure for the people without expansions a Comandante General just shows up every time you reach the new era through a technology or civic.

It seems pretty simple. All NFP new civs work in vanilla environment but that doesn't mean that some modifications when playing with R&F and/or GS are impossible but none of their UA, LUA, UU, UB or UI can be dependent ONLY on R&F or GS mechanics.

The Berbers, I'm not so sure about since Mali and the Ottomans tread a lot on their niche and I don't think oases happen frequently enough to be particularly useful to a civ's uniques.

I just think oases are one more thing (other then MoorTires) to consider North Africa civ to be present in NFP.

I think it is more likely they will just add more great people to the existing categories.

Me too but it's more interesting to discuss the other possibility because... you know... this is about New Frontier so let's explore it a bit

I'm not holding my breath on "historical." PThe Bermuda triangle is "historical." The Hermetic Order is "historical." Pirates are "historical."

I just refered to Anton message that incoming game modes will be "historical" as opposed to ahistorical Apocalypse and Secret Societes modes (ahistorical because Apocalypse never happened - yet - and Secret Societes made never serious impact in real history beeing rather harmless clubs or myths). So to think about incoming game modes I tried to ignore dwarves, elves and orcs as possibilities. Pirates are OK i.e. they have been pain in the back since ancient and classical era to today.

(the Maori break up into a random civ from the roster so...China and Macedon?)

Yeah, that how it worked in first Civ. Many people liked it and you can find some sentimental posts about it on this forum. I remember that once - 27 years ago - as Zulus I lost my capital and half of my cities went to rebels - Stalin's Russians. Man, that was a lot of fun!

What you are suggesting is that Kublai Khan leads China instead of Mongolia

No, of course I don't. I'm just not sure if words form NFP announcement "Pack #5: Adds one new civilization and two new leaders*** ***New leader requires Rise and Fall expansion to play." refer to Kublai only or to both new leaders (Kublai and Vietnamese one).

It's poorly worded in any context, regardless of whether he incorporates R&F mechanics or not.

Right. I still think it's worded ambiguously enough to still be a possibility.

Yes, it's not clear enough.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

It seems pretty simple. All NFP new civs work in vanilla environment but that doesn't mean that some modifications when playing with R&F and/or GS are impossible but none of their UA, LUA, UU, UB or UI can be dependent ONLY on R&F or GS mechanics.

Yes, but my primary point is that I doubt Vietnam would have something as central to its design as a unique governor if it isn't listed as requiring R&F or GS.

I just think oases are one more thing (other then MoorTires) to consider North Africa civ to be present in NFP.

Maybe as a sprinkle on top of a more robust design. But I don't think oases could carry a civ as a core feature when they just don't appear that much on the map (although maybe the Berbers could have an oases bias, just like how the Maya have a luxury bias.

Me too but it's more interesting to discuss the other possibility because... you know... this is about New Frontier so let's explore it a bit

Fair. I wouldn't be unhappy at all with some sort of great statesman GP.

I just refered to Anton message that incoming game modes will be "historical" as opposed to ahistorical Apocalypse and Secret Societes modes (ahistorical because Apocalypse never happened - yet - and Secret Societes made never serious impact in real history beeing rather harmless clubs or myths). So to think about incoming game modes I tried to ignore dwarves, elves and orcs as possibilities. Pirates are OK i.e. they have been pain in the back since ancient and classical era to today.

I don't trust Anton. I haven't trusted the devs to keep the game purely historical since we got the nonsense that was Paititi and the Fountain of Youth lol.

Yeah, that how it worked in first Civ. Many people liked it and you can find some sentimental posts about it on this forum. I remember that once - 27 years ago - as Zulus I lost my capital and half of my cities went to rebels - Stalin's Russians. Man, that was a lot of fun!

I'm sure it has some sentimental value, but I think the series has moved beyond that into a design philosophy that cares more about cultural authenticity. I guess it could happen, but I suspect the devs would take splinter/colonial/puppet states in a different direction.

No, of course I don't. I'm just not sure if words form NFP announcement "Pack #5: Adds one new civilization and two new leaders*** ***New leader requires Rise and Fall expansion to play." refer to Kublai only or to both new leaders (Kublai and Vietnamese one).

New leader is singular. And the only way the Vietnamese leader could possibly require Rise and Fall but not GS is if it led a R&F civ, which just doesn't make any sense. It's pretty obvious that what they are referring to is that Kublai leads Mongolia, even if they didn't use very precise language as to whether/how he leads China as well.

 

[Bojmir]

Newbie here but..... why couldn't they make a pirate civilization, maybe call it the Pirate Round lead by Henry Morgan? They have to settle on coasts but can create cities on Coastal and Ocean tiles. They would have a passive that modifies water tiles within 3 tiles of the city center based on if the center is on land or water. Additionally, they are always at war with other players but Grievances generate no modifiers against them. They gain population and units by converting Barbarians and all military units have a "Recruit" action option to secure enemy player units (50% probability of success). All land military units would have -5 defense to compensate. Their special unit would be a Flibustier, a unit with equivalent attack/defense on land and sea and has +8 Attack during a Golden Age and no resource reqs. Their building would be the Booty Hold and replace the Commercial District and would award an large % of gold each time a unit pillaged an enemy tile, bonus gold to internal trade routes (to compensate for lack of international trade routes), and 1 Amenity for every 10 tiles pillaged.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Newbie here but..... why couldn't they make a pirate civilization, maybe call it the Pirate Round lead by Henry Morgan? They have to settle on coasts but can create cities on Coastal and Ocean tiles. They would have a passive that modifies water tiles within 3 tiles of the city center based on if the center is on land or water. Additionally, they are always at war with other players but Grievances generate no modifiers against them. They gain population and units by converting Barbarians and all military units have a "Recruit" action option to secure enemy player units (50% probability of success). All land military units would have -5 defense to compensate. Their special unit would be a Flibustier, a unit with equivalent attack/defense on land and sea and has +8 Attack during a Golden Age and no resource reqs. Their building would be the Booty Hold and replace the Commercial District and would award an large % of gold each time a unit pillaged an enemy tile and bonus gold to internal trade routes (to compensate for lack of international trade routes).

UI: Booty Hold - holds booty.

It would take a lot of balancing but I would hope for something like this. A coastal civ with automatically built trade routes and a huge loyalty buff.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

The only pack with special requirement for new civ/leader is Pack#5 which would be R&F for obvious reason - we know already from the leak that's because of Kublai for Mongols (and probably for China). Maybe Vietnam would use R&F mechanics as well - e.g. Trung sisters: one as a leader, another as an unique governor?

Only the additional leader requires RF, as they are an alt to a RF civ. If the leader needed solely RF mechanics, it would say RF or GS. The pack itself does not require RF, only the alt leader, which through soft leaks, we know is Kublai Khan.

Even unworkable for other civs mountains can be workable by Inca. What about unworkable oases and ice? I still see a gape for Inuit-like civ working ice, snow, and tundra or for Berber-ish civ working oase

Oases are workable.

In terms of announcements language every leader in NFP is "new leader" - either one for a new civ or a new one for an old civ. So technically Trung would get treatment as a "new leader" too

No she wouldn’t, since it would also state that she could also use GS if she used RF mechanics. Also, we don’t know if she is the leader that they’ve chosen.

Yes, Trung would be a "new leader", but she wouldn't require R&F, since all of the mechanics in R&F were included in GS...she would instead be listed as requiring R&F or GS.

This

But if R&F were required for Kublai to work mechanically, then GS would work just as well, at least as playing him as a leader for China, since GS includes all the R&F mechanics. It's only the introduction of Mongolia that could require R&F but not GS, which then creates the conundrum of why Kublai requires R&F (or even just Mongolia) to function as a vanilla civ leader for China

My guess is they just didn’t consider to make Kublai available to people who had access to RF mechanics but not RF (and therefore, Mongolia).

Phoe has point, dual or not, alts are coded as another civ so it's absolutely easy, in fact more beneficial, to make the configuration:

Requires either Rise and Fall or Gathering Storm.
If either is owned, you get Kublai for China.
If Rise and Fall is specifically owned, you also get Kublai for Mongolia.

If his mechanics are unrelated to Rise and Fall, it would be:

Requires Rise and Fall partially.
If not owned, you get Kublai for China.
If owned, you also get Kublai for Mongolia.

It's worded as completely requires Rise and Fall, so the wording, albeit maybe wrong, suggests him as Mongolia only leader.

This is all true, but there’s always the possibility they just didn’t consider making Kublai as a China alt available alone.

Monday is the game update video btw

 

[PhoenicianGold]

My guess is they just didn’t consider to make Kublai available to people who had access to RF mechanics but not RF (and therefore, Mongolia).


This is all true, but there’s always the possibility they just didn’t consider making Kublai as a China alt available alone.

Monday is the game update video btw

This does seem to be the most obvious explanation for the discrepancy. While they absolutely could have made Kublai available for China alone, it seems just about as likely that they made him an all-or-nothing addition.

Although, based on the leak, there's no apparent reason why they would have done so when the notes clearly indicate that each DLC has different versions to install based on what expansions the player already has.

Ultimately I do think we are all overthinking this and either your explanation is the case, or Kublai actually is compatible with vanilla China alone and the devs just wanted everyone to think that R&F was a requirement rather than an option.

 

[Jeppetto]

Why would they be capable to make several Commandante Generals adjust their bonuses based on whether you have Rise and Fall and Gathering Storm or not, but somehow were not capable to make simple flag on one civilization (by code) still wasn't explained to me. Regardless of how much proper wording would reveal, they would be losing possible clients (those without Rise and Fall who'd feel like losing important part of content) without any relevant reason. The only counter-argument I could find is how Secret Societies could easily work without Rise and Fall If they had unique "currency" instead of Governor Titles and different UI and they put that R&F/GS wall there needlessly.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

This is all true, but there’s always the possibility they just didn’t consider making Kublai as a China alt available alone.

That's basically what I am trying to say
Honestly Kublai to me makes more sense as a dual leader for both Mongolia and China than Eleanor does for England and France, which is why I'll be sort of surprised if that doesn't turn out to be the case.

Why would they be capable to make several Commandante Generals adjust their bonuses based on whether you have Rise and Fall and Gathering Storm or not, but somehow were not capable to make simple flag on one civilization (by code) still wasn't explained to me. Regardless of how much proper wording would reveal, they would be losing possible clients (those without Rise and Fall who'd feel like losing important part of content) without any relevant reason. The only counter-argument I could find is how Secret Societies could easily work without Rise and Fall If they had unique "currency" instead of Governor Titles and different UI and they put that R&F/GS wall there needlessly.

Well there's also no way around Apocalypse Mode without GS either.