[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Kmart_Elvis]

A design decision like that would be so hamfisted because it would not only encourage Mongolia and China to lean harder into narrow playstyles they already favor, but also completely obviate Genghis and Qin as leaders.

I don't think it would since there would still be different playstyles and strategies. Genghis would still be the choice for when you want to take Mongolia on an aggressive, domination route. Qin has one of the best leader abilities in the game. I don't think anyone is going to ignore +1 builders and rushing early wonders just because Kublai is available.

The two civs where the main leader would be ignored by most people would be Netherlands and Scotland.

 

[Leucarum]

Except the two broken aspects of GC don't directly compound. Ejercito Patriota buffs all units indiscriminately so is equally a civilian unit buff. And Commandante Generals are just an op unit that GC has too much access to. Both are broken ideas in isolation but neither pointedly interacts and conflates the other, like say great persons getting additional movement from EP or units that move their full range getting adjacency bonuses from CGs.

A design decision like that would be so hamfisted because it would not only encourage Mongolia and China to lean harder into narrow playstyles they already favor, but also completely obviate Genghis and Qin as leaders.

I dunno if it'd obviate Qin, those extra builder charges compare well enogh, but yeah especially given recent cavalry nerfs it would be the end of Genghis for sure

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

Except the two broken aspects of GC don't directly compound. Ejercito Patriota buffs all units indiscriminately so is equally a civilian unit buff. And Commandante Generals are just an op unit that GC has too much access to. Both are broken ideas in isolation but neither pointedly interacts and conflates the other, like say great persons getting additional movement from EP or units that move their full range getting adjacency bonuses from CGs.

A design decision like that would be so hamfisted because it would not only encourage Mongolia and China to lean harder into narrow playstyles they already favor, but also completely obviate Genghis and Qin as leaders.

I understand your arguments, but frankly I think we all like good synergized civs, and this would be perfect. And not too broken. I mean, Dynastic Cycle would probably become interesting rather than just "meh".

And as other people said, Qin and Gengis would not be obviate.

Qin has the best ability in the game. If I'm right, I'd still play Qin a lot because, let be honest, a free builder charge + ability to rush antique/classical wonders is just too good, while Kubilai would be a soft start (especially if it's international trade routes: you'd have to use those routes to gain Eureka rather than develop new cities).

And Gengis is militaristic, while Kubilai would be more cultural/scientific. Two completely different playstyles. I mean, if would be like saying the presence of Gorgo completely obviate the presence of Pericles. It's not.

Also, you said the Silk Road would have something to be with diplomacy or luxuries... While it's true, diplomatic exchanges have been quite restricted while people living of the Silk Road directly enjoyed all cultural and scientific advancements. I see the Silk Road more of a cultural propagator than a diplomatic one (and for luxury... I don't know how it could translate elengantly as a LUA).

But I hear your objections, and after all, I'm just one among many false prophets on CivFanatics and I have no evidence that I'm right except the firm and indestructible feeling that I am.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

there’s a non-zero probability that September will be Portugal and a mainland Europe civ other than Byzantium, like Ireland, the Goths, Austria (unlikely), Tuscany/Florence, Bohemia, Croatia, etc. and November will be Byzantium as a Middle East Civ (or there is no byzantium and november is Babylon or Assyria)

I mean I think Byzantines have much as an equal chance to be coming this month if we consider the possibility of Venice could be a replacement for Antioch with Portugal being in November because of the name MoorTires.

 

[agonistes]

there’s a non-zero probability that September will be Portugal and a mainland Europe civ other than Byzantium, like Ireland, the Goths, Austria (unlikely), Tuscany/Florence, Bohemia, Croatia, etc. and November will be Byzantium as a Middle East Civ (or there is no byzantium and november is Babylon or Assyria)

Portugal and Bohemia or Croatia would be cool, or Bavaria, if Austria is out.

Does the inclusion of Hungary impact the probability of Austria in any meaningful way?

Do we need another UU? I mean, you could just give another ui or something instead.

 

[raen]

And again, it's a prediction based on context and past performance. Portugal is a weird civ that always struggles to differentiate itself from Spain in historical strategy games. In a game where staples like France, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, and Poland have all gone with entirely new and often odd leader choices, I do not expect Portugal to bring back a returning face if it would make for stronger characterization juxtaposed against Philip II.

In that sense, maybe we got Joao I or Afonso V.
In my opinion, the difference exists, but the game has to be adapted to that difference.

 

[Big Earth]

Would Israel ever be an option, or is that too controversial?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Portugal and Bohemia or Croatia would be cool, or Bavaria, if Austria is out.

Does the inclusion of Hungary impact the probability of Austria in any meaningful way?

Do we need another UU? I mean, you could just give another ui or something instead.

Most likely. I wouldn't say it has a zero percent chance, but I wouldn't rate the chances of it returning very high when others have a better chance.

And if you mean Austria would need a UU, there are other options including a Grenzer or Pandur, as Hussars were originally Hungarian in origin.

Would Israel ever be an option, or is that too controversial?

Modern Israel yes.
Ancient Israel less controversial, but still probably won't happen, though it would be nice.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Portugal and Bohemia or Croatia would be cool, or Bavaria, if Austria is out.

Does the inclusion of Hungary impact the probability of Austria in any meaningful way?

Do we need another UU? I mean, you could just give another ui or something instead.

I’d imagine Maria Theresa or whoever else they choose as the Austrian leader would almost fit better as a german alt leader since Germany is the HRE in this game.

Bohemia and Croatia would be fun additions to the game, perhaps under Charles IV and Kresimir the Great respectively

Charles in particular would be interesting since he was also holy roman emperor

 

[AaronTBD]

I wonder what the Portuguese theme song would be. Same with Vietnam.

 

[agonistes]

Most likely. I wouldn't say it has a zero percent chance, but I wouldn't rate the chances of it returning very high when others have a better chance.

And if you mean Austria would need a UU, there are other options including a Grenzer or Pandur, as Hussars were originally Hungarian in origin.


Modern Israel yes.
Ancient Israel less controversial, but still probably won't happen, though it would be nice.

For the uu, I had Bulgaria in mind. But just generally, if a civ doesn’t have a really special uu, do we need to force it? Couldn’t we give another unique in place of a uu?

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Modern Israel yes.
Ancient Israel less controversial, but still probably won't happen, though it would be nice.

Two evidents where current politics destroys Civilization game. Tibet and Israel. What a waste...

 

[Xandinho]

Two evidents where current politics destroys Civilization game. Tibet and Israel. What a waste...

Maybe Armenia as well.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

For the uu, I had Bulgaria in mind. But just generally, if a civ doesn’t have a really special uu, do we need to force it? Couldn’t we give another unique in place of a uu?

Considering all of the other civs have at least one UU and one unique infrastructure it would be weird to me.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Two evidents where current politics destroys Civilization game. Tibet and Israel. What a waste...

More specifically, "Current politics" can destroy the expected Profits from an internationally-marketed Civilization game.

To my way of thinking, this is exactly the place for Mods.
There are two different Modded Tibetan Civs for Civ VI now, and there was one for (ancient) Israel, but I haven't checked to see if it still works with the latest DLCs and patches.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

More specifically, "Current politics" can destroy the expected Profits from an internationally-marketed Civilization game.

To my way of thinking, this is exactly the place for Mods.
There are two different Modded Tibetan Civs for Civ VI now, and there was one for (ancient) Israel, but I haven't checked to see if it still works with the latest DLCs and patches.

the good thing is there’s culturally adjacent options which can be added: Phoenicia for Ancient Israel/Judah/Hebrews, and Burma for Tibet.

My biggest gripe is that we don’t have a single major jewish leader or civ in game, which would be more interesting and add a lot more depth. It doesn’t even have to be an Israelite leader, but not having any jewish leader at all is a bit odd.

 

[8housesofelixir]

the good thing is there’s culturally adjacent options which can be added: Phoenicia for Ancient Israel/Judah/Hebrews, and Burma for Tibet.

Currently the Phoenicians will generate Israel/Palestine place names for rivers and lakes, and IIRC Dido is speaking some form of ancient Hebrew.

And IMHO, comparing to Burma, Nepal is more similar to Tibet, since Nepalese also live in the high altitude plateaus, and Burma don't really have any Tibetan Buddhism tradition.

It's a shame that we cannot have Tibetans in the game, because they are the real "mountain" civilization, more mountain-ish than the Incas. I would image they can put pastures, holy sites, and neighborhoods directly on mountain tiles.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Currently the Phoenicians will generate river and lake names from Israel/Palestine, and IIRC Dido is speaking some form of ancient Hebrew.

I would say compare to Burma, Nepal is more similar to Tibet, since Nepalese also live in the high altitude plateaus, and Burma don't really have any Tibetan Buddhism tradition.

The reason why I said Phoenicia as a cultural substitute for ancient Israel is bcs of a shared origin and geographical region. I don’t know too much about their relations, but I believe they also did share a language and some aspects of a culture

Burma is better as a substitute for Tibet than Nepal bcs

a) both buddhist (burma is theravada, yes, not vajrayana, but point c explains why it’s a better comparison. Nepal doesn’t have a vajrayana buddhist past either though, and theravada buddhism is closer anyway)

b) the Tibeto-Burman language family contains both languages

c) both insular regions that maintained their religion to a great deal of cultural influence even when external influences like Hinduism, Islam converted neighboring kingdoms

Nepal is Hindu, an Indo-Aryan language and was largely shaped by Tibetan and various Indian kingdoms. It’s much less a substitute for Tibet than Burma

 

[8housesofelixir]

Burma is better as a substitute for Tibet than Nepal bcs
a) both buddhist (burma is theravada, yes, not vajrayana, but point c explains why it’s a better comparison. Nepal doesn’t have a vajrayana buddhist past either though, and theravada buddhism is closer anyway)
b) the Tibeto-Burman language family contains both languages
c) both insular regions that maintained their religion to a great deal of cultural influence even when external influences like Hinduism, Islam converted neighboring kingdoms
Nepal is Hindu, an Indo-Aryan language and was largely shaped by Tibetan and various Indian kingdoms. It’s much less a substitute for Tibet than Burma

I have no problem accept these points, although - my apologies - I also edited my previous post to emphasis Tibet's possible mountain focus. Plateau life is the most distinguishing feature of Tibet, the same for Nepal, but much less so for Burma.

Burma would look like a stupa-loving version of Khmer if it is implemented in a very superficial fashion.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I have no problem accept these points, although - my apologies - I also edited my previous post to emphasis Tibet's possible mountain focus. Plateau life is the most distinguishing feature of Tibet, the same for Nepal, but much less so for Burma.

Burma would look like a stupa-loving version of Khmer if it is implemented in a very superficial fashion.

I’d argue Tibet’s most resounding feature is religious isolationism and defense against external religious influences, something it shares thematically with Burma