[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Practically i think persia ends up being primarily a culture civ

Reminds me the first time I played Persia I was a turn away from taking the last remaining capital of other civs when I won a culture victory.

Is this why he got science off conquering in civ 5?

Yes probably so.

And yes, Assyria was exceptional at building infrastructure. But it was also known for aggressively conquering and incorporating other people into that infrastructure. The average armchair historian and casual gamer probably won't buy into the concept of a pure cultural Assyria, and Firaxis likely thinks (possibly correctly) that laying siege to cities with a minimal penalty to converting them would make Assyria flavorfully quite different from Gilgamesh's rush-down tactics.

I don't doubt they would be good for early game war and domination but I still think you should be able to play the science/culture builder game with them more than you might with Gran Colombia and Zulu.

 

[Zaarin]

I think calling Sumeria hypermilitant in VI is hyperbolic. Its UI doesn't grant any militaristic bonuses, war carts are quickly obsolete, and Gilgamesh's (fairly rudimentary) abilities are just as much about diplomacy as they are about warmongering. Functionally it does play out a bit militaristic, but mostly because Sumeria isn't really given a leg up in any other area and the diplomatic aspect of Gilgabro is kind of underdeveloped.

I agree that Sumeria doesn't have to play hypermilitant--but it's very clearly intended to. It's meant to come out of the gates with a scientific edge and a really strong early unique unit and just trample its neighbors.

And yes, Assyria was exceptional at building infrastructure. But it was also known for aggressively conquering and incorporating other people into that infrastructure. The average armchair historian and casual gamer probably won't buy into the concept of a pure cultural Assyria, and Firaxis likely thinks (possibly correctly) that laying siege to cities with a minimal penalty to converting them would make Assyria flavorfully quite different from Gilgamesh's rush-down tactics.

Like I said, it's not wrong to portray Assyria as hyper-militant. It's just a trope I'm tired of. There's a lot more to Assyrian history than that, and especially in the past few decades we've learned just how rich their culture was and how wondrous their architecture was. With exceptions like the Ishtar Gates, many of the wonders attributed to Babylon we've since learned were Assyrian. Assyria also didn't just run ramshackle over all its neighbors. It made alliances with Elam. It made alliances with Egypt. It traded with India. I'd just like to see that side of Assyrian culture explored for a change. I think Civ6 is a good opportunity to do it, too, as it's already shaken up some of the "usual portrayals"--like making China the wonder-monger instead of Egypt (yes, Egypt gets minor bonuses to wonders, but in previous Civ--and other strategy--games Egypt is typically the wonder civ).

To clarify, I'm not against them becoming culture civs, I primarily want to point out that their massive gains in war can also justify them being militaristic civs.

Like I said, any major civilization can be justified as a militaristic, Domination-oriented civ, including Assyria. I just think it's well past time to push past that particular trope. It's how Assyria has been portrayed in every strategy game since the original Age of Empires, and archaeology has increasingly shown another side to the civilization that I think is worth exploring.

Also, as far as I know, their is only one leader that was super militaristic IRL but lost that militaristic trait entirely in the game, Qin Shi Huang. Other figures such as Teddy and Cyrus all kept their military side of things, for Cyrus it even raise to a meme level (surprise wars). Judging from these examples, I would assume that the future in-game Assyria will more likely to have a strong military trait, or at least a strong early game UU with an aggressive UA.

I agree. I'd handle Assyria much like Persia: strong culturally oriented Civ abilities and Unique Infrastructure, a powerful early siege Unique Unit, and a Leader Unique Ability that is either war-related or science-related (and therefore can support war).

 

[8housesofelixir]

Like I said, it's not wrong to portray Assyria as hyper-militant. It's just a trope I'm tired of. There's a lot more to Assyrian history than that, and especially in the past few decades we've learned just how rich their culture was and how wondrous their architecture was. With exceptions like the Ishtar Gates, many of the wonders attributed to Babylon we've since learned were Assyrian. Assyria also didn't just run ramshackle over all its neighbors. It made alliances with Elam. It made alliances with Egypt. It traded with India. I'd just like to see that side of Assyrian culture explored for a change. I think Civ6 is a good opportunity to do it, too, as it's already shaken up some of the "usual portrayals"--like making China the wonder-monger instead of Egypt (yes, Egypt gets minor bonuses to wonders, but in previous Civ--and other strategy--games Egypt is typically the wonder civ).

I have always felt very funny how the wonder-obsessed Wu Zetian head a somewhat militaristic China in V, and how the world-conqueror Qin Shi Huang become a peaceful simcity player in VI. That's more like falling into another trope.

Anyway, I do understand that the designs of civ traits are tied to the simple victory conditions. Having a secondary trait/tendency can partially solve this trope problem.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I agree. I'd handle Assyria much like Persia: strong culturally oriented Civ abilities and Unique Infrastructure, a powerful early siege Unique Unit, and a Leader Unique Ability that is either war-related or science-related (and therefore can support war).

I might switch around the LUA and make that culture/science related and the Civ UA more along the lines of empire builder, which can include conquest, but I agree nonetheless.

 

[Morningcalm]

I have always felt very funny how the wonder-obsessed Wu Zetian head a somewhat militaristic China in V, and how the world-conqueror Qin Shi Huang become a peaceful simcity player in VI. That's more like falling into another trope.

Anyway, I do understand that the designs of civ traits are tied to the simple victory conditions. Having a secondary trait/tendency can partially solve this trope problem.

Yeah, I do find it odd that in my experience Qin is nicer in my Civ VI games than Wu Zetian ever was to me in Civ V. Given that Qin rose to power through military might, and was a hyper-paranoid ruler, it would make sense for him to be somewhat more paranoid and/or aggressive on the world stage too IMO. It is fitting that Wu was militant though (she was IRL).

 

[Zaarin]

I might switch around the LUA and make that culture/science related and the Civ UA more along the lines of empire builder, which can include conquest, but I agree nonetheless.

My issue there is that LUAs are usually weaker than CUAs: an Assyria with a Dom CUA and culture/science LUA is going to be, for all intents and purposes, a Dom civ.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

My issue there is that LUAs are usually weaker than CUAs: an Assyria with a Dom CUA and culture/science LUA is going to be, for all intents and purposes, a Dom civ.

which is why Persia is actually better at culture than dom

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

My issue there is that LUAs are usually weaker than CUAs: an Assyria with a Dom CUA and culture/science LUA is going to be, for all intents and purposes, a Dom civ.

Not necessarily. Menelik, Kristina, Mattias, and maybe Suleiman, come to mind as having a better LUA than the civ UA at first glance.

Besides my idea is a free settler appears every time you conquer a city and then a free builder appears once you settle the city, to mimic the resettlement policies of the empire which is more along the line mainly building and some conquering.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Besides my idea is a free settler appears every time you conquer a city and then a free builder appears once you settle the city, to mimic the resettlement policies of the empire which is more along the line mainly building and some conquering.

I would say deportation/resettlement is more like every time you conquer a city your capital gain 1 pop (you move the captured population to your capital), or every time you raze a city you gain a free settler (you try to resettle the captured population elsewhere).

Edit: For historical references, Qin Shi Huang was a fan of moving conquered population to his capital, and Tiglath Pileser III was a fan of moving conquered population to somewhere else.

 

[Zaarin]

I would say deportation/resettlement is more like every time you conquer a city your capital gain 1 pop (you move the captured population to your capital), or every time you raze a city you gain a free settler (you try to resettle the captured population elsewhere).

An ability I've brainstormed for the Iroquois would be to have half the population distributed among your cities every time you raze a city to represent the Iroquois mourning war practices (where they would adopt captives to replace war deaths).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I would say deportation/resettlement is more like every time you conquer a city your capital gain 1 pop (you move the captured population to your capital), or every time you raze a city you gain a free settler (you try to resettle the captured population elsewhere).

Edit: For historical references, Qin Shi Huang was a fan of moving conquered population to his capital, and Tiglath Pileser III was a fan of moving conquered population to somewhere else.

That does sound better though the razing cities in the ability makes them feel way more militaristic than what I was originally thinking.

 

[8housesofelixir]

That does sound better though the razing cities in the ability makes them feel way more militaristic than what I was originally thinking.

The current city razing mechanism will usually result in a lose-lose situation, AI lost a city. you lost a city as well, and you don't get anything directly (you do get a massive penalty because everyone thinks you are a terrible person). But if you do get something - say, a settler, which means you still technically gain a city - that can sometimes encourage the player to become more militaristic (see: Montezuma's free builder).

This mechanism can also become more sophisticated if civ introduced ethnic groups as a mechanism in the future (though unlikely).

 

[Thenewwwguy]

The current city razing mechanism will usually result in a lose-lose situation, AI lost a city. you lost a city as well, and you don't get anything directly (you do get a massive penalty because everyone thinks you are a terrible person). But if you do get something - say, a settler, which means you still technically gain a city - that can sometimes encourage the player to become more militaristic (see: Montezuma's free builder).

This mechanism can also become more sophisticated if civ introduced ethnic groups as a mechanism in the future (though unlikely).

right, plus history is full of examples where a nation burned down a city and replaces it. See: Mosul and Nineveh, Mexico City and Tenochtitlan, etc.

 

[Zaarin]

This mechanism can also become more sophisticated if civ introduced ethnic groups as a mechanism in the future (though unlikely).

Granted it's dealing with alien species, but I think Endless Space 2 handles this quite well. I think either Humankind or Civ7 (or both) could make good use of such a mechanic.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

This mechanism can also become more sophisticated if civ introduced ethnic groups as a mechanism in the future (though unlikely).

I'm so glad you mentioned this. In my hypothetical third expansion design I had this as a mechanic and any new city founded by Assyria, with the free settler after conquest, would be the majority ethnicity of the conquered civ.

I'm hoping that maybe they tack it on into a game mode maybe released with Assyria but that might be wishful thinking.

 

[Morningcalm]

I'm so glad you mentioned this. In my hypothetical third expansion design I had this as a mechanic and any new city founded by Assyria, with the free settler after conquest, would be the majority ethnicity of the conquered civ.

I'm hoping that maybe they tack it on into a game mode maybe released with Assyria but that might be wishful thinking.

Might be controversial to introduce ethnicity as a gameplay mechanic in quite that way, but it does fit Assyria's history of forced migration of conquered peoples.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Might be controversial to introduce ethnicity as a gameplay mechanic in quite that way, but it does fit Assyria's history of forced migration of conquered peoples.

Well I would assume that whenever you conquer another city the population would be mostly of the original inhabitants in the first place.

Vietnam and Argentina also played around with the hypothetical ethnicity mechanic but in different ways.

 

[Morningcalm]

Well I would assume that whenever you conquer another city the population would be mostly of the original inhabitants in the first place.

Vietnam and Argentina also played around with the hypothetical ethnicity mechanic but in different ways.

Civ IV had a mechanic whereby conquered cities retained the cultural/ethnic affinity of the conquered civ (but they avoided specifying it was ethnicity specifically). For example, a conquered city might begin as 100% of the conquered civ (say, Egyptian), and then gradually shift percentage wise to the conqueror's civ.

 

[Xandinho]

Civ IV had a mechanic whereby conquered cities retained the cultural/ethnic affinity of the conquered civ (but they avoided specifying it was ethnicity specifically). For example, a conquered city might begin as 100% of the conquered civ (say, Egyptian), and then gradually shift percentage wise to the conqueror's civ.

Yeah, let's say that this is something far more appropriate than loyalty.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

that doesn’t make the civ better in any capacity, just a weird gimmick.

Mechanic twists are not to make Civ better, but to make their game style different and unique

Ppl need to stop with one-city Venice though. It had cities up and down the adriatic coast and the balkans and it makes complete sense to put those on its city list. Venice would be way better than an Italy civ imo, and if they bring it back, I hope it’s nothing like Civ 5 Venice

As I said one city Venice is just a mantra because people know it from Civ V and they lack the imagination to step out of that box. Venice was a maritime trading empire. They care about controlling ports, trade routes and sea. We shouldn't use the same measures for sea powers and continental powers.

I would like more of Italy as a whole represented, but Venice just works better than any of the other Italian city-states.

Agree. And they fit to already implemented mechanics in Secret Societies.
Trade + espionage
(Council of Ten)
Historical fact:
Historian Edward Wallace Muir Jr. wrote: "The Council of Ten stood somewhat apart from the hierarchy of offices but was proverbially powerful. With its secret funds, system of anonymous informers, police powers, and broad jurisdictional mandate over matters of state security, the members of the Council of Ten, along with those of the Collegio, rotated offices among themselves and constituted the inner circle of oligarchical patricians who, in effect, ruled the republic."[
Game mechanic: Owls of Minerva: "+1 Wildcard Policy slot. +2 Spy capacity. Your cities gain +4 Loyality per turn and +1 Amenity when your Spy is in their territory".