[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Zaarin]

P.S. please take the entire idea of Pocahontas leading the Powhatan as far away from this game as possible

Nonsense! It will open the door for other great choices like Anastasia Romanov leading Russia!

I disagree. I think that a land equivalent to the Maori would work if it was allowed to wander and prosper until it found the right spot to settle and create a capital.

And yet once they settle they are no different from any other civ. It might make an interesting gimmick, but it won't really represent transhumance pastoralists or nomadic hunter-gatherers.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I disagree. I think that a land equivalent to the Maori would work if it was allowed to wander and prosper until it found the right spot to settle and create a capital.

This is, essentially, what Humankind does with its 'Neolithic Pre-Era' - you start as a nomadic group and wander the map until you accumulate enough Science or Population to start your first city. This also gives you, presumably, time to find a really good site for that first city.

Unfortunately, after that 'Pre-Era' you are right back in the old Civ mold of Cities = Civilization with no real model for a true pastoral 'Civ/Faction' like the historical Scythians, Huns, Pechenegs, Comanche, etc. IF there was a single change I'd love to see in Civ VII, it would be the development of an in-game mechanism to represent at least semi-accurately the pastoral groups as Civilizations for at least par of the game.

 

[utahbutmakeitatheist]

Anastasia Romanov leading Russia!

Introducing Anastasia of Russia. Her unique leader ability is The Princess of Conspiracy. You can't pick her and every time you see her in game, when you go to check she's just not there anymore.

 

[Zaarin]

Introducing Anastasia of Russia. Her unique leader ability is The Princess of Conspiracy. You can't pick her and every time you see her in game, when you go to check she's just not there anymore.

Her theme music is "Once Upon a December."

 

[8housesofelixir]

I disagree. I think that a land equivalent to the Maori would work if it was allowed to wander and prosper until it found the right spot to settle and create a capital.

In addition to @Zaarin's post, I would also like to point out that from a historical prospective, the majority of nomadic civilizations actually had a capital.

What makes a difference is the nomadic capital is a mobile capital for gathering/rituals/assembly, etc., they wander and prosper together with this mobile capital, rather than they wander first and then decided to settle down. Even when they decided to "settle down", they often established multiple seasonal capitals and move between them from time to time.

And both mobile and seasonal capitals don't exist in current game mechanics; we may see them showing up in, say, Civ 7.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I disagree. I think that a land equivalent to the Maori would work if it was allowed to wander and prosper until it found the right spot to settle and create a capital.

So like the Navajo who wandered down from present day Canada to the SW US and learned farming and animal domestication from the Pueblo and then the Spanish?

 

[Thenewwwguy]

What would a PNW civ like the Salish be?

Pretty trade and culture oriented, with either a pacific longhouse if it was the chinook, a totem pole if it was the haida, and a potlatch house for almost any of the PNW tribes. The Coast Salish have a really appealing leader option in Chief Seattle, so I’d love for that side of things to be explored.

I keep hearing you say this but I've never seen you elaborate as to why they wouldn't make a good civ design (to my knowledge). Could you explain as to why?

(Not trying to be rude or condescending or anything like that, I'm just curious).

Never really any real gatherings of over 20 ppl that were significant or permanent settlements. The signs of ‘civilization’ in the large population, agricultural, city-building, empire-esque style don’t particularly apply to the inuit, even less than nomadic empires liek Scythia, Huns or Pechenegs that can be implemented in civ well if they’re designed well (the Huns, and to a lesser extent, Scythia, aren’t, but i think good designs could be made for them, including, in the huns case, not settling other civ’s cities)

Like what would their city list even be? Their leader? Those are really difficult questions that literally would not work in the scope of the Inuit.

Would a culture like the Lapps or Sami as they are also called, be interesting to anyone? I would love to see a "nomadic herder" culture kind of like we saw in Civ V IIRC.

Sapmi would work decently, esp. if you want them to be the ‘snow civ’. They have a lot of indsutrial-era freedom fighters who fought to protect the language and eliminate the laws that meant they could only be reindeer herders, so those would be a good leader choice, and they have cities/settlement options as well.

 

[TeddyMain]

The signs of ‘civilization’ in the large population, agricultural, city-building, empire-esque style don’t particularly apply to the inuit, even less than nomadic empires liek Scythia, Huns or Pechenegs that can be implemented in civ well if they’re designed well (the Huns, and to a lesser extent, Scythia, aren’t, but i think good designs could be made for them, including, in the huns case, not settling other civ’s cities)

I see where you're coming from, what makes these signs less applicable to the Inuit compared to other nomadic civilizations? The Scythians, the Huns, and the Inuit all never really had those city-building and agricultural traits.

Like what would their city list even be? Their leader?

They could use more modern Inuit settlements (Iqaluit, Kuujjuarapik, Qikiqtarjuaq, etc). Its what they did with some cities for the Cree (their capital, Mikisiw-Wacîhk, is the Nehiyaw word for the Red Pheasant reservation, and the city of Mistahi-Sipihk is Nehiyaw for the town of Big River, many of these places were founded by Canada mind you, just referred to by their Cree names).

Regarding leaders, the Inuit may have to fall under more mythological/legendary leaders with some evidence pointing towards their actual existence, but Civ 6 isn't opposed to that (see Gilgamesh, Kupe, Dido). The best choice IMO could be Ekeuhnick (who is considered many historians to actually have existed), being the one who, according to legend, taught the Inuit their adaptive lifestyle, and is considered to be THE first Inuit.

Here's a link detailing the legend of Ekeuhnick if you're interested: http://www.alaskool.org/native_ed/historicdocs/people_of_kauwerak/kauwerak.htm

 

[Zaarin]

I see where you're coming from, what makes these signs less applicable to the Inuit compared to other nomadic civilizations? The Scythians, the Huns, and the Inuit all never really had those city-building and agricultural traits.

The Scythians and Huns had agriculture: they kept horses and cattle, and in the cities they conquered they farmed. They had metallurgy. The Scythians had a few cities of their own. The Huns and Scythians are less than ideal civs, but they're still in a very different category from Mesolithic hunter-gatherers like the Inuit or Aboriginal Australians.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I see where you're coming from, what makes these signs less applicable to the Inuit compared to other nomadic civilizations? The Scythians, the Huns, and the Inuit all never really had those city-building and agricultural traits.

they did have agricultural and metallurgical aspects, even if they didn’t necessary settle. They had the concept of an empire, although in the scythian issue, that never existed since it was mostly city states.

They could use more modern Inuit settlements (Iqaluit, Kuujjuarapik, Qikiqtarjuaq, etc). Its what they did with some cities for the Cree (their capital, Mikisiw-Wacîhk, is the Nehiyaw word for the Red Pheasant reservation, and the city of Mistahi-Sipihk is Nehiyaw for the town of Big River, many of these places were founded by Canada mind you, just referred to by their Cree names).

it could work, it would just be difficult

but Civ 6 isn't opposed to that (see Gilgamesh, Kupe, Dido). The best choice IMO could be Ekeuhnick (who is considered many historians to actually have existed),

Gilgamesh, Kupe, Dido and Tomyris are semi-mythical bcs they likely exist, but their stories were also likely deified and made to be fictional. In that sense the leader choice you suggest may be in that line of thought.

Inuit or Aboriginal Australians.

Which again, could work, it would just be really hard to design in a way that isn’t gimmicky or outright offensive

 

[TeddyMain]

The Scythians and Huns had agriculture: they kept horses and cattle, and in the cities they conquered they farmed. They had metallurgy. The Scythians had a few cities of their own. The Huns and Scythians are less than ideal civs, but they're still in a very different category from Mesolithic hunter-gatherers like the Inuit or Aboriginal Australians.

That makes it more clear, thanks.

However, while I don't think this adds much to the debate, there is a group of Inuit that did actually practice metallurgy, known as the Kitlinermiut (or by their English name, the Copper Inuit). They used copper to create spearheads, ulu knives, harpoons, chisels, etc, for both personal use and trade in the Bering strait.

 

[ButtBillionaire]

Truth be told, I don't really find any reason to insist on fitting in another mythical leader, of whom very little is known, if there are other candidates for Arctic civs that have leader options whose existence is a certain fact (I can't find anything that says Ekeuhnick is considered to have existed when I look him up), and whose lives are well-documented. The Sámi do have such options, and I'm sure I've already stated that I believe that Elsa Laula Renberg would be the best choice, considering how vocal I've already been about this. Or how vocal I feel I've been, anyway.

As far as city names are concerned, you'd pull from Sámi settlements across northern Norway, Sweden, Finland and northwestern Russia. Kárášjohka, as a centre of Sámi culture and institutions, such as the Sámi Parliament of Norway (where the largest portion of Sámi reside), would probably be the forerunner for capital city. Giron and Anár could also be good options. Alternatively, since quite a lot of the capitals are defined by the civ's current leader, you could choose where Elsa Laula lived while she was most active politically: Vaapste.

 

[Zaarin]

However, while I don't think this adds much to the debate, there is a group of Inuit that did actually practice metallurgy, known as the Kitlinermiut (or by their English name, the Copper Inuit). They used copper to create spearheads, ulu knives, harpoons, chisels, etc, for both personal use and trade in the Bering strait.

To clarify, they cold worked copper (i.e., by hammering it and/or shredding it into wire), as did many Native Americans, which is different from actually melting copper to forge copper utensils. Forging requires very high temperatures, which in the Old World developed as a result of pottery kilns; since kilns existed in the New World, it's interesting that metallurgy never developed north of the Rio Grande (the Mesoamericans worked not only gold and silver but also bronze). The Tlingit, coincidentally, had iron implements that would drift to the Alaskan shore from Chinese and Japanese shipwrecks; this may be why they were the premier woodworkers of the region, having access to iron adzes fashioned out of nails. They also prized drift bamboo as hair ornaments, calling it "iron wood." The Appalachian tribes also made limited use of raw, unworked iron.

Truth be told, I don't really find any reason to insist on fitting in another mythical leader, of whom very little is known, if there are other candidates for Arctic civs that have leader options whose existence is a certain fact (I can't find anything that says Ekeuhnick is considered to have existed when I look him up), and whose lives are well-documented. The Sámi do have such options, and I'm sure I've already stated that I believe that Elsa Laula Renberg would be the best choice, considering how vocal I've already been about this. Or how vocal I feel I've been, anyway.

As far as city names are concerned, you'd pull from Sámi settlements across northern Norway, Sweden, Finland and northwestern Russia. Kárášjohka, as a centre of Sámi culture and institutions, such as the Sámi Parliament of Norway (where the largest portion of Sámi reside), would probably be the forerunner for capital city. Giron and Anár could also be good options. Alternatively, since quite a lot of the capitals are defined by the civ's current leader, you could choose where Elsa Laula lived while she was most active politically: Vaapste.

Agreed. That's also why I proposed the Evenks, who have Bombogor.

 

[8housesofelixir]

However, while I don't think this adds much to the debate, there is a group of Inuit that did actually practice metallurgy, known as the Kitlinermiut (or by their English name, the Copper Inuit). They used copper to create spearheads, ulu knives, harpoons, chisels, etc, for both personal use and trade in the Bering strait.

To clarify, they cold worked copper (i.e., by hammering it and/or shredding it into wire), as did many Native Americans, which is different from actually melting copper to forge copper utensils. Forging requires very high temperatures, which in the Old World developed as a result of pottery kilns; since kilns existed in the New World, it's interesting that metallurgy never developed north of the Rio Grande (the Mesoamericans worked not only gold and silver but also bronze). The Tlingit, coincidentally, had iron implements that would drift to the Alaskan shore from Chinese and Japanese shipwrecks; this may be why they were the premier woodworkers of the region, having access to iron adzes fashioned out of nails. They also prized drift bamboo as hair ornaments, calling it "iron wood." The Appalachian tribes also made limited use of raw, unworked iron.

IMHO the difference is not simply whether a group of people have certain technology or not, but social ideas and structures. Back to your question, "what makes these signs less applicable to the Inuit compared to other nomadic civilizations?" - I would say the answer is that Huns, Scythians, or Karluks, Xiongnu, etc., had the concept of Empire, complicated social structures, and how to control/rule foreign people and foreign settlements. Outside Eurasia, the Cree consists of several tribal federations, the Maoris and Mapuches had developed similar federations with a nominated wartime leader when fighting with Europeans; and they already have large tribes with thousands of clans before that.

But IIRC the Inuits are still at a socially primitive state. They don't have cities or tribes, only villages without a leader. The Inuit society primarily consists of extended families, usually less than a Dunbar's number - in the words of Civ 6, that is, they haven't developed into Chiefdom yet.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I see where you're coming from, what makes these signs less applicable to the Inuit compared to other nomadic civilizations? The Scythians, the Huns, and the Inuit all never really had those city-building and agricultural traits.



They could use more modern Inuit settlements (Iqaluit, Kuujjuarapik, Qikiqtarjuaq, etc). Its what they did with some cities for the Cree (their capital, Mikisiw-Wacîhk, is the Nehiyaw word for the Red Pheasant reservation, and the city of Mistahi-Sipihk is Nehiyaw for the town of Big River, many of these places were founded by Canada mind you, just referred to by their Cree names).

Regarding leaders, the Inuit may have to fall under more mythological/legendary leaders with some evidence pointing towards their actual existence, but Civ 6 isn't opposed to that (see Gilgamesh, Kupe, Dido). The best choice IMO could be Ekeuhnick (who is considered many historians to actually have existed), being the one who, according to legend, taught the Inuit their adaptive lifestyle, and is considered to be THE first Inuit.

Here's a link detailing the legend of Ekeuhnick if you're interested: http://www.alaskool.org/native_ed/historicdocs/people_of_kauwerak/kauwerak.htm

The problem I have with Ekeuhnick is that it feels like his leader ability would be too similar to the Civ ability, and it would feel like Gilgamesh all over again, except it would feel more like two civ abilities instead of two leader abilities, in the case of Gilgamesh.

Also Scythia did have some cities, such as Scythia Neapolis, even if half the population might have been Greek.

 

[Zaarin]

IMHO the difference is not simply whether a group of people have certain technology or not

I do think two technologies are necessary: urbanization and agriculture. Every civ that's been included so far has these, even the Maori and Scythia.

But IIRC the Inuits are still at a socially primitive state. They don't have cities or tribes, only villages without a leader. The Inuit society primarily consists of extended families, usually less than a Dunbar's number - in the words of Civ 6, that is, they haven't developed into Chiefdom yet.

Precisely.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

The Sámi do have such options, and I'm sure I've already stated that I believe that Elsa Laula Renberg would be the best choice, considering how vocal I've already been about this. Or how vocal I feel I've been, anyway.

As far as city names are concerned, you'd pull from Sámi settlements across northern Norway, Sweden, Finland and northwestern Russia. Kárášjohka, as a centre of Sámi culture and institutions, such as the Sámi Parliament of Norway (where the largest portion of Sámi reside), would probably be the forerunner for capital city. Giron and Anár could also be good options. Alternatively, since quite a lot of the capitals are defined by the civ's current leader, you could choose where Elsa Laula lived while she was most active politically: Vaapste.

I would love a Sapmi civ, and I think this would be a great design

 

[God of Kings]

INUIT
Leader: Nanuq
LUA: Gains the unique unit "Polar Bear"; gains a unique luxury: Ice Cold Coca-Cola
Agenda: Tries to settle in Snow; dislikes civs who settle in Snow (say hello to the new Gilgabro )
CUA: Snow tiles gain +1 Food, +1 Production, +1 Faith, +1 Diplomatic Favor; can only settle in Snow
UU: Dog Sled: Replaces the Chariot, weaker and cheaper, moves faster in Snow, doesn't require Horses
UI: Igloo: Can only be built in Snow, provides +1 Food, +1 Housing

Unique Great Merchant: John S. Pemberton: creates two copies of the Cola luxury

 

[PhoenicianGold]

IMHO the difference is not simply whether a group of people have certain technology or not, but social ideas and structures. Back to your question, "what makes these signs less applicable to the Inuit compared to other nomadic civilizations?" - I would say the answer is that Huns, Scythians, or Karluks, Xiongnu, etc., had the concept of Empire, complicated social structures, and how to control/rule foreign people and foreign settlements. Outside Eurasia, the Cree consists of several tribal federations, the Maoris and Mapuches had developed similar federations with a nominated wartime leader when fighting with Europeans; and they already have large tribes with thousands of clans before that.

But IIRC the Inuits are still at a socially primitive state. They don't have cities or tribes, only villages without a leader. The Inuit society primarily consists of extended families, usually less than a Dunbar's number - in the words of Civ 6, that is, they haven't developed into Chiefdom yet.

This is actually the first compelling argument I've seen against the Inuit, since it is something that actually breaks "rules" of VI's civ selection that haven't already been broken (lack of a non-fictitious leader in the case of the Maori, and lack of cities in the case of the Mapuche and Cree).

So far we haven't had any civ in the franchise that wasn't politically unified or at least federated to some extent. We can make all sorts of concessions for civs at various technological levels, and even if it would be odd to have the Inuit building infrastructure it's not really much less implausible than giving the Mapuche, the Cree, the Maori, and Scythia the ability to develop cities all the way to the modern era in a European manner. But so far VI has not had to break suspension of disbelief that the player's governmental structure and policies have actual jurisdiction; every civ has assumed some level of political union. And that's something I wouldn't really want to mess with, since it fixed a lot of complaints with V's civ selections like Polynesia, the Celts, and (I think) the Shoshone.

That said...Greenland does exist as a modern, de facto Inuit nation. Maybe not founded by the Inuit, but possibly enough for the devs to stretch into a justification. The other benefit Greenland has is that we have no Denmark in the game to undermine Inuit domination of that territory; whereas Norway and especially the Swedish empire kind of already claimed much of the territory the Sapmi would represent.

I would want a compromise. Ice Age mode pack. Last DLC of the game, thoroughly optional content. Both the Inuit and the Sapmi, maybe throw Sakha/Siberia in there too. Give the players what they want, but under the express understanding that it's a massive exception to the game's usual design.

 

[Zaarin]

it fixed a lot of complaints with V's civ selections like Polynesia, the Celts, and (I think) the Shoshone.

Have people complained about the Shoshone? They're certainly an odd design, particularly insofar as they seem to be a stealth inclusion of the Comanche under a Shoshone umbrella for reasons that are inscrutable, but I don't think there's anything controversial about them.