[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[8housesofelixir]

I always thought of Kabul as representing the Afghan empires, while a hard deconfirmation of the Timurids would be Samarkand.

Samarkand still doesn't show up in any of the city lists so probably 1.Timurids 2.Sogdians 3. November pack as a returning CS. Either is fine for me, although personally I would like to see Sogdians being represented more.

Babylon was the only one that got a whole new one but it was so generic: Gain a free Eureka when you advance to the next era. Vilnius had the same one but for Inspirations and they changed it in R&F without it being replaced

I think that is because Babylon is a replacement of Seoul when Korea was added in.

In general, I would say the problem is we still only have very limited interaction choices with CS - when you are not Hungary or Germany you will just insert envoys into them and that's it. Even trading with them is primarily for envoys. If CS have more "agency" and we can do a lot with them - for instance becoming your small buddies/coup targets in a Cold War - I don't mind underrepresented civilizations turns into a CS rather than a civ.
(Not saying let's turn CS into the stand-in of full civs, just want to spice up the arena of diplomacy, and have people less likely to "dissatisfy" when their loved civs becoming CS.)

 

[Thenewwwguy]

It's not that arbitrary. For a game like VI which seems to have undergone a lot of preproduction planning, one would think the devs would keep potential civs out as city-states, and only add them if they were fairly certain they would never be up for consideration.

Considering a lot of the specific work re: NFP (i.e. reused animation assets, relatively last minute announcement, even the format of release), I think it’s a strong possibility that NFP was not initially planned, and originally was conceived shortly after GS’s release or the famous survey which asked if there was demand for more content. For that reason, I reject the notion that somehow, the devs have planned out all along what civs they were going to do—otherwise civs that respond to ongoing trends (like Tamar in RF after the Tamar/Gorgo thing) would never have happened. For that reason, I think it’s fairly clear that this idea of a roadmap where every civ and city-state considered for the game is meticulously mapped out and planned years in advance. If it was, why were Genoa and Haida seemingly scrapped? Presumably if the devs contacted the Haida and the Haida didn’t want to be in the game, if they had planned on that civ far ahead of time, why didn’t they get permission when they were planning? Likewise, if they never planned on having the Byzantines and Babylonia, why weren’t Antioch and Babylon added in the base game, since they’re EXTREMELY important historical city states, instead of RF? My guess is perhaps they have some loose idea of what civs they’re considering, but with the exception of core returning civs like Ottomans, Mongolia, Zulu, they aren’t planned out in advance of the development of the DLC they’re being released in. If they planned everything ahead of time, why even bother with city states which would get replaced like Amsterdam, Seoul, Jakarta to begin with?

And again, I doubt arbitrary rules which probably aren’t real like “A city state shouldn’t be double replaced” are any more than trying to find a pattern where there isn’t one. Not only is the possibility of the devs changing their minds there ahead of time, replacing a city state is just designing a new symbol and renaming it in code. It’s minimal work. Why would the devs be so desperate to preserve some arbitrary rule that doesn’t even matter?

especially for Babylon and Antioch as those replacements date back to Rise and Fall where the Civ 6 development roadmap may have looked a lot different. Considering that city states are not that resource intensive (an icon and a civilopedia entry), I think the developers would have interest in civs like Babylon or the Byzantines (Plus the Byzantine city list could just not include Antioch as they have plenty of options).

yup

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Well rest in City-State sized pieces Italy. I can't argue with making Venice a trade city state, as it is built for the role. I could see it filling a Lisbon replacement more than Antioch just based on abilities, but we will just have to wait and see.

I reject the notion that multiple replacements are impossible, especially for Babylon and Antioch as those replacements date back to Rise and Fall where the Civ 6 development roadmap may have looked a lot different. Considering that city states are not that resource intensive (an icon and a civilopedia entry), I think the developers would have interest in civs like Babylon or the Byzantines (Plus the Byzantine city list could just not include Antioch as they have plenty of options).

Fast edit: Ah so Babylon is still a city state per the stream. That's fair.

I think the bigger question, in my opinion, is what about Akkad? I think having both Akkad and Babylon as city-states might mean they might look a little more northward towards Assyria, or Babylon becomes the Venice of Civ 6 as the playable city-state.

I think that is because Babylon is a replacement of Seoul when Korea was added in.

Yes I forgot to mention that it did replace Seoul. Either way it was still a pretty generic suzerain bonus for a city-state that could be changed easily.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Considering a lot of the specific work re: NFP (i.e. reused animation assets, relatively last minute announcement, even the format of release), I think it’s a strong possibility that NFP was not initially planned, and originally was conceived shortly after GS’s release or the famous survey which asked if there was demand for more content. For that reason, I reject the notion that somehow, the devs have planned out all along what civs they were going to do—otherwise civs that respond to ongoing trends (like Tamar in RF after the Tamar/Gorgo thing) would never have happened. For that reason, I think it’s fairly clear that this idea of a roadmap where every civ and city-state considered for the game is meticulously mapped out and planned years in advance. If it was, why were Genoa and Haida seemingly scrapped? Presumably if the devs contacted the Haida and the Haida didn’t want to be in the game, if they had planned on that civ far ahead of time, why didn’t they get permission when they were planning? Likewise, if they never planned on having the Byzantines and Babylonia, why weren’t Antioch and Babylon added in the base game, since they’re EXTREMELY important historical city states, instead of RF? My guess is perhaps they have some loose idea of what civs they’re considering, but with the exception of core returning civs like Ottomans, Mongolia, Zulu, they aren’t planned out in advance of the development of the DLC they’re being released in. If they planned everything ahead of time, why even bother with city states which would get replaced like Amsterdam, Seoul, Jakarta to begin with?

I didn't say that the roadmap wasn't flexible. But generally VI has had a lot more forethought put into it since V, largely as a product of having had the entirety of V's run to see what they would do differently. It seems fairly apparent to an outsider that one of the things they did early on was categorize concepts into most likely civs, most likely city-states, and probably a third category of "needs more deliberation." And that third category has been sorted out as development has gone on, where some ideas end up working as civs and others are abandoned and relegated to city-states.

It's just a more streamlined process than V's, where now the devs have had years to think on and vet concepts, and as a consequence of having a better roadmap don't have to consider replacing city-states that weren't in the base game. Again, it makes for fewer duplicative efforts and likely results in less coding work since they only need to code against the base game unless the replaced CS had Suze bonuses changed later.

 

[Bast]

I like the idea behind it but there needs some definitely tweaking:

Instead of taking over the other civs cities and units, because that's bonkers , why not you basically add an extra "delegation/ambassador" based off one of her children and earn possible culture, or diplo favor if you have GS, similar to the diplo quarter for both you and your allies.

Opera House is an okay building but it should replace the Broadcast Center and come earlier at Opera and Ballet. Honestly it should probably be a unique building for Italy though considering they are the home of opera, but it does works thematically with the whole music ability for Austria and I like it better than the coffee house. Too bad the Ski Resort is in the game now because I would have loved that for an Austria unique improvement.

As for the UU, they could get the Grenzer, considering the Huszar is originally from Hungary anyway.

Yeah those are all good suggestions. I just thought the Royal Marriage ability might be something really different and shake things up. Haha.

 

[Potworny]

For that reason, I reject the notion that somehow, the devs have planned out all along what civs they were going to do—otherwise civs that respond to ongoing trends (like Tamar in RF after the Tamar/Gorgo thing) would never have happened. For that reason, I think it’s fairly clear that this idea of a roadmap where every civ and city-state considered for the game is meticulously mapped out and planned years in advance. If it was, why were Genoa and Haida seemingly scrapped?

Trying to deduce the development process of Civ is quite a complex subject really. Why are there hints of Genoa but no actual assets related to them? Why are there Firaxis-branded clothing textures without any models or leaders related to them? Why was there Isabel of Portugal on the leader chart and why was Civ VI codenamed 'Madrid'? Why are unused test leaderheads animated with quality on par with the in-game leaders, and yet now we are getting DLCs with reused animations? Who would appear in R&F if Tamar didn't become a meme? How could there be a Firaxis logo on each and every leader and yet we are missing almost thirty of them?

Whenever we there is another civ information drought, I recommend digging into this stuff. Fun.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Trying to deduce the development process of Civ is quite a complex subject really. Why are there hints of Genoa but no actual assets related to them? Why are there Firaxis-branded clothing textures without any models or leaders related to them? Why was there Isabel of Portugal on the leader chart and why was Civ VI codenamed 'Madrid'? Why are unused test leaderheads animated with quality on par with the in-game leaders, and yet now we are getting DLCs with reused animations? Who would appear in R&F if Tamar didn't become a meme? How could there be a Firaxis logo on each and every leader and yet we are missing almost thirty of them?

Whenever we there is another civ information drought, I recommend digging into this stuff. Fun.

really interesting stuff yeah. But yeah, it’s super complex, which why i find the numerous really broad, minimally definitive claims made in the name of being ‘Patterns’ by @PhoenicianGold to be suspect at best.

Although I’m curious about the Isabella of Portugal stuff. If we get portugal *now* could she still be the leader?

 

[Zaarin]

Samarkand still doesn't show up in any of the city lists so probably 1.Timurids 2.Sogdians 3. November pack as a returning CS. Either is fine for me, although personally I would like to see Sogdians being represented more.

The Sogdians are at the top of my dark horse wishlist, and the lack of Samarkand anywhere in the game is extremely pointed.

I think the bigger question, in my opinion, is what about Akkad? I think having both Akkad and Babylon as city-states might mean they might look a little more northward towards Assyria, or Babylon becomes the Venice of Civ 6 as the playable city-state.

I agree with this assessment, though strictly speaking Akkad isn't really that decisive in and of itself. Akkad was a Sumerian city that was of virtually no importance in Babylonia or Assyria. It could easily be left as a city-state if Babylon were made its own civ--it ought to be on Sumer's city-list if any. (But again I agree with your assessment that the collective evidence points to Assyria.)

Although I’m curious about the Isabella of Portugal stuff. If we get portugal *now* could she still be the leader?

If one really wanted to push things, she could lead Spain, Germany, and the Netherlands--but she could not lead Portugal. Portugal was where she was from; she was Holy Roman Empress to Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain Charles V.

 

[Potworny]

Although I’m curious about the Isabella of Portugal stuff. If we get portugal *now* could she still be the leader?

The thing is, she never really had anything to do with ruling Portugal, neither did her husband. As far as I remember, some people here called her 'The Wrong Isabella'. It was a similar case as Gustavus Adolphus in V, it seems

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I agree with this assessment, though strictly speaking Akkad isn't really that decisive in and of itself. Akkad was a Sumerian city that was of virtually no importance in Babylonia or Assyria. It could easily be left as a city-state if Babylon were made its own civ--it ought to be on Sumer's city-list if any. (But again I agree with your assessment that the collective evidence points to Assyria.)

I'm no expert on the Ancient Near East but Akkad has always been on Babylon's city list, whereas it has not for Sumer(ia), which is why I pointed it out.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I'm no expert on the Ancient Near East but Akkad has always been on Babylon's city list, whereas it has not for Sumer(ia), which is why I pointed it out.

Babylonia grew organically from the Akkadian empire (and by organically i mean through violence with the Babylonian king supplanting the Akkadian one as the latter's empire crumbled), so it makes sense that Akkad would be on city list on the Babylonian Civilization as one of the highest cities. Akkad and Babylon are effectively the same Civ. They were culturally identical, spoke the same language, worshipped the same gods and maintained near identical traditions. Since we don't know where Akkad is exactly, "Agade" might have been a local name for one of the other already identified city states found in the area.

An Akkadian city state can exist independently with Babylon being in the game. The problem is that several of Babylon's cities already exist as a part of Sumeria's city list (the names of which are listed in Akkadian, Babylon's language, rather than Sumerian), which really hints at Babylon not being in NFP as a playable Civ.

I *think* it's Assyria, with an off-chance of the Hittites, Armenians or Israelites.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm no expert on the Ancient Near East but Akkad has always been on Babylon's city list, whereas it has not for Sumer(ia), which is why I pointed it out.

City lists in Civilization have always been a mess. The people of Agade spoke Akkadian (hence the name), but culturally they were Sumerian. By the time of the early Babylonian period, Agade was a backwater; modern scholars aren't even certain where it was or where to look for its ruins. Indeed, Agade has no satisfactory Akkadian etymology which means the city is either Sumerian or, more likely, pre-Sumerian/Ubaid in origin.

Babylonia grew organically from the Akkadian empire (and by organically i mean through violence with the Babylonian king supplanting the Akkadian one as the latter's empire crumbled), so it makes sense that Akkad would be on city list on the Babylonian Civilization as one of the highest cities. Akkad and Babylon are effectively the same Civ. They were culturally identical, spoke the same language, worshipped the same gods and maintained near identical traditions.

I very strongly disagree with this assessment except insofar as Babylonia grew organically out of Sumerian culture and civilization more broadly. Akkad/Agade was not an important city in Babylonia, and they were most definitely not culturally identical. Yes, the Babylonians continued to worship many Sumerian deities (generally under Semitic or Semiticized names), but they transferred regnal authority from Anu to Marduk, patron god of Babylon. It's worth remembering that Sumer was a multicultural and polyglot culture; many Sumerians spoke Akkadian--or Kassite (which may have been Hurro-Urartian, though the evidence is unfortunately rather slim). Babylon continued this tradition, as the most famous "Babylonian," Hammurabi, was an Amorite with an Amorite name. But I don't agree that there was particular continuity between Akkad and Babylon except insofar as there was continuity between Sumer and Babylon--Sumerian continued in use as a liturgical language into the first century AD. I'd argue for more of a relationship between Assyria and Akkad than Babylon and Akkad; many of the Neo-Assyrian kings were obsessed with Sargon and wove intricate origin myths connecting them to him. NB Babylon spoke a different dialect of Akkadian, nor did Babylonian Akkadian descend directly from the Akkadian of Akkad.

 

[Terminacarnival]

I honestly am fine with any choice for a second near east civ, even if I am a stickler for tradition due to Babylon being my nostalgic civ I used the most. And I while would enjoy others above (Mostly the Hittites and Hebrews), I can concede that that Assyrian empire had very substantial impact and have the largest fan demand.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I *think* it's Assyria, with an off-chance of the Hittites, Armenians or Israelites.

I agree but I still think Babylon might have an equal chance as the second choice with the rest above in that order.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I agree but I still think Babylon might have an equal chance as the second choice with the rest above in that order.

The same Babylon that appeared as a city-state in the livestream?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The same Babylon that appeared as a city-state in the livestream?

Not for Pack 3.
It could theoretically be the civ in pack 4 or pack 6.
I still think Babylon has a higher chance of appearing than the Hittites, Armenia, or Israel for reasons which is what I was implying.

 

[reddishrecue]

Assyria does have a large fan base though. I also thought that Babylon would appear in the later packs because they did the same thing with Maya and Palenque. I also thought the developers would make Cardiff as the capital of Celts in a future pack but we already talked about it because of leader issues.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

It was a similar case as Gustavus Adolphus in V, it seems

wdym

Assyria does have a large fan base though. I also thought that Babylon would appear in the later packs because they did the same thing with Maya and Palenque. I also thought the developers would make Cardiff as the capital of Celts in a future pack but we already talked about it because of leader issues.

they also have a modern contingent, unlike Babylon or the Hittites, meaning they’re more marketable

 

[Zaarin]

wdym

She was the wrong Isabella--they wanted Isabella of Castile, just like Gustavus Adolphus in Civ5 was modeled on the wrong Swedish king, Eric XIV.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

She was the wrong Isabella--they wanted Isabella of Castile, just like Gustavus Adolphus in Civ5 was modeled on the wrong Swedish king, Eric XIV.

While I wouldn't put it past them and this is a totally acceptable hypothesis, I also have my own tinfoil theory that Spain may have been planned early on to either be blobbed with Portugal and led by two leaders; or the devs were experimenting with "clone" civs, wherein Portugal would have been a clone of Spain. Either way, the idea would have been scrapped before release.

Some part of me still wishes we were still getting something like that. There are certain civs like Portugal that, no matter how much the devs try to differentiate them, still feel very similar to other civs due to sharing similar cultural histories. I would rather the devs acknowledge and lean into that more, maybe actually open up design for Austria/Prussia, Mughals/Maurya, Umayyad/Fatimid, Sasanian/Parthia, etc., instead of constantly insisting that we get Spain and also Portugal separate because of tradition. We can have clone and semi-clone civs to conserve design space and maximize the roster.