[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[PhoenicianGold]

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.

I've seen a couple mild gripes about inconsequential things, and they have been accused of being a bit blobby due to the comanche UU, but they aren't that controversial.

But I do think that, unlike the Iroquois or the Sioux, they fell reasonably short of what could be considered an empire or federation and were at least adjacent to the specific lack of a unified polity as expressed by the Celts and Polynesians.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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.

Not to mention they were a last minute replacement of the Pueblo, which people would have loved to be in the game more.

 

[Zaarin]

Not to mention they were a last minute replacement of the Pueblo, which people would have loved to be in the game more.

I thought the Shoshone were fine (and honestly a fun civ to play); I just never quite understood why they were chosen over the Comanche, especially when their unique unit was Comanche. Pocatello was an interesting leader choice, but it's not like the Comanche don't have a good handful of interesting leaders they could have chosen.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Not to mention they were a last minute replacement of the Pueblo, which people would have loved to be in the game more.

Yes, I forgot to mention this. If nothing else, they do have a bit of a cloud of mild disappointment hanging over them simply as a consequence of post-V revelations about the Pueblo. And even prior to discovering that they were a pivot, I don't think anyone was particularly excited about their inclusion. I understand that in absence of the Pueblo they probably wanted a tribe with the most territorial coverage...but to this day I still haven't made up my mind whether selecting a civ that really feels more like a "Lewis and Clark" extension of the U.S. rather than its own nation is brilliant or lazy game design...or if the Navajo as "espionage" extension of the U.S. is any better.

I thought the Shoshone were fine (and honestly a fun civ to play); I just never quite understood why they were chosen over the Comanche, especially when their unique unit was Comanche. Pocatello was an interesting leader choice, but it's not like the Comanche don't have a good handful of interesting leaders they could have chosen.

It was purely about maximizing territorial representation so that they would feel more like an empire. Also, again, the Shoshone had a stronger history of good diplomacy with the U.S., at least superficially, and therefore made more sense as a well-rounded civ co-ocuppying with the U.S. as opposed to the Comanche, as well as playing into basic pro-native American mythology ala Sacagawea. But it was mostly about scope I think, and the Shoshone alone covered Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado. Add the Comanche and you get New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. That's more states and land area you can vicariously represent than even the Cherokee could cover.

I still think the Comanche will never happen by themselves, much as I wouldn't mind their inclusion. The horse raider archetype is at its worst racist and at its best kind of a cliche, and I get the impression VI wants to generally downplay that aspect in American tribes since we're already pretty biased against the natives.

 

[Zaarin]

It was purely about maximizing territorial representation so that they would feel more like an empire.

Except that's what makes it so awkward because the Comanche were an empire.

I still think the Comanche will never happen by themselves, much as I wouldn't mind their inclusion. The horse raider archetype is at its worst racist and at its best kind of a cliche

Cliche yes, racist only when applied to Native Americans who weren't horse raiders. The Comanche were horse raiders, and in the process they built an empire that forced both the US and Mexico to pay tribute. I don't particularly want the Comanche--civs based on cavalry raiding are boring and we have enough of them--but I think romanticizing Native Americans is as misguided a sentiment as demonizing them. They were (and are) people, and did the things that people do, with all the good and bad that implies.

 

[gunnergoz]

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


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.

Perhaps lack of imagination about what.is possible in designing such a civ restrains your appreciation of the idea's potential. There could be buffs given the civ to compensate once they settle. For that matter, there could be boni given them while they remain nomadic. As it is, C6 could use a real shot in the arm when it comes to civ designs. Maori was a good start. IMO More could be done to break out of the same tired cliche civs.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

lack of a non-fictitious leader in the case of the Maori, and lack of cities in the case of the Mapuche and Cree)

Firstly, Kupe is semi-mythical, so even though we don’t know with certainty that he did exist, we can be somewhat sure of his existence, although less so than Gilgamesh or Tomyris or Dido, the other semi-mythical leaders.

With the mapuche and cree, although they didn’t have cities per se, they did have settlements which would’ve been notable larger than a settlement of 10-20 people or less, which is generally the historic median among inuit settlements

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Except that's what makes it so awkward because the Comanche were an empire.

You're not wrong. It is indeed weird.

Cliche yes, racist only when applied to Native Americans who weren't horse raiders. The Comanche were horse raiders, and in the process they built an empire that forced both the US and Mexico to pay tribute. I don't particularly want the Comanche--civs based on cavalry raiding are boring and we have enough of them--but I think romanticizing Native Americans is as misguided a sentiment as demonizing them. They were (and are) people, and did the things that people do, with all the good and bad that implies.

Racist in that it reinforces racist stereotypes of Native Americans generally, not necessarily that it would be misrepresenting the Comanche. I don't believe in romanticizing Native Americans either, but I also think that for a game that is trying to diversify it's representation and focus on the best of humanity, there are plenty of other tribes who have less stereotypical facets the devs can focus on.

Firstly, Kupe is semi-mythical, so even though we don’t know with certainty that he did exist, we can be somewhat sure of his existence, although less so than Gilgamesh or Tomyris or Dido, the other semi-mythical leaders.

I still find him roughly comparable to Ekeuhnick as far as being historically verifiable. So whatever semi-mythical "rule" that might have existed to allow Gilgamesh and Dido as leaders had already been pushed far enough to accommodate him as of the Maori's inclusion. I think having a leader is a non-issue for the Inuit.

With the mapuche and cree, although they didn’t have cities per se, they did have settlements which would’ve been notable larger than a settlement of 10-20 people or less, which is generally the historic median among inuit settlements

I also imagine it is simply harder to sustain large settlements in extreme climates. But neither the Mapuche nor the Cree founded cities, so it's not hard to imagine a sliding scale for the Inuit. Maybe Inuit cities would even have a population cap to represent this gimmick. That could be an interesting handicap to create a challenge style civ like the Maya. Again, while I don't dispute that it would still be more ahistorical than the Cree or Mapuche, I don't think having no large cities or settlements would be what ultimately prevents the Inuit from being in the game.

 

[ButtBillionaire]

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 personally think that the territory historically held by a civ is of little importance in a game where, most of the time, the world's geopolitical make-up will not correspond to those factors. Overlapping territory should not be a concern, especially if separate city lists can still be made, and even then you could use exonyms for city names that do overlap. We already have examples of this in the game, with Râ-Kedet being the Egyptian capital while Alexandria is a Macedonian city.

The Norwegian and Swedish city lists are largely concentrated on the southern halves of those countries and their overseas possessions, and of the cities that are located in the northern halves, none of them are associated with or regarded as Sámi today. Finding city names to use that don't step on Norway or Sweden's toes would be no challenge at all. Same goes for finding Sámi-language names for them.

 

[agonistes]

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


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.

I would play a Russia led by Anastasia. I would love to see that.

Maybe I’m sappy. But doing what was done to her was wrong, and simultaneously honoring her while spitting on the jackals is a maneuver I like.

I’d also argue that the guidelines for who is worthy as a candidate to lead a civ have been boiled down to ‘whatever the heck we feel like’.

You're not wrong. It is indeed weird.



Racist in that it reinforces racist stereotypes of Native Americans generally, not necessarily that it would be misrepresenting the Comanche. I don't believe in romanticizing Native Americans either, but I also think that for a game that is trying to diversify it's representation and focus on the best of humanity, there are plenty of other tribes who have less stereotypical facets the devs can focus on.



I still find him roughly comparable to Ekeuhnick as far as being historically verifiable. So whatever semi-mythical "rule" that might have existed to allow Gilgamesh and Dido as leaders had already been pushed far enough to accommodate him as of the Maori's inclusion. I think having a leader is a non-issue for the Inuit.

So now we want to exclude civs for having too stereotypical a characteristic?

That would exclude everyone.

 

[Zaarin]

Perhaps lack of imagination about what.is possible in designing such a civ restrains your appreciation of the idea's potential.

Okay.

I’d also argue that the guidelines for who is worthy as a candidate to lead a civ have been boiled down to ‘whatever the heck we feel like’.

So far every leader in civ has held some degree of political power, even Gandhi. I don't want to see that changed.

 

[Vilvatiktan]

MONDAY GUYS!
https://twitter.com/CivGame/status/1304499484647280640?s=20

 

[AaronTBD]

MONDAY GUYS!
https://twitter.com/CivGame/status/1304499484647280640?s=20

I was about to post it but i was a little late. Thanks for being a faster messager than me but anyways...


MONDAY IS IN 3 DAYS TIME TO SET MY CALENDER!

 

[Thenewwwguy]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CFAiMc3BiOz/?igshid=ms649qvtak9l

My guess is first looks next tuesday and thursday and then a launch the friday after that (25th)

 

[agonistes]

Okay.


So far every leader in civ has held some degree of political power, even Gandhi. I don't want to see that changed.

That’s kind of my point. *I* have ‘some’ degree of political power. Anyone on the planet capable of communication has ‘some’ degree of political power. There is no real bar. Its a true patchwork menagerie.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That’s kind of my point. *I* have ‘some’ degree of political power. Anyone on the planet capable of communication has ‘some’ degree of political power. There is no real bar. Its a true patchwork menagerie.

There's a difference between you and me having political power through voting in a democracy though and the leader who we put in the leadership positions.

 

[ferretbacon]

That’s kind of my point. *I* have ‘some’ degree of political power. Anyone on the planet capable of communication has ‘some’ degree of political power. There is no real bar. Its a true patchwork menagerie.

Perhaps some notable degree of political power is more like it. I don't know about you, but my political power is neglible.

 

[Laurana Kanan]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CFAiMc3BiOz/?igshid=ms649qvtak9l

My guess is first looks next tuesday and thursday and then a launch the friday after that (25th)

More likely Thursday and the following Tuesday and release on that next Thursday. Releases have almost universally been on Thursdays with a few on Tuesdays and I believe one on a Monday. There hasn't been a Friday release, though, since the 2016 Fall Update.

 

[agonistes]

There's a difference between you and me having political power through voting in a democracy though and the leader who we put in the leadership positions.

I wasn’t speaking about voting.

I agree with your sentiment though. And you also leapt ahead to where I was going: an apparent leadership role - which is distinct from political power.

But let’s look at the US. Would RFK be a valid choice? Or Carnegie?

Maybe dominant political force is the qualifier? But is even that true for every leader? I don’t think so. @Zaarin I’m sure would know. But if you waive that qualifier for one, why not another?

I just am not sure there is a hardline rule that makes someone a candidate.

You have Cleo, Gandhi, Gilgo, Cat, Dido... all seem acceptable, but decent arguments could be made that they are not. There seems to be some gerrymandering going on when it comes to what qualifies someone.

And you could go back... Hannibal? Theo?

I guess they are all leaders, they have that in common, though not necessarily leaders of the civ they represent, just leaders *in*.

I concede, Ana was no leader by any means. But she could represent a dynasty, and a time.

edit: haha, and, @Zaarin correct me here, she could also represent the Byzantines!

 

[SolInvictus]

In terms of speculation on Native American civs, I really don't understand why there isn't more of an interest in having the Caddo represent the Mississippians. For the TSL fans they are almost equidistant between Tenochtitlan and Washington DC. They have one of the longest records of documentation for indigenous cultures in the region. I would really love to be surprised to see them as a new civ. I'm not great at balancing things and could use some help, but I thumbed through an academic history as I wrote this in addition to my preexisting knowledge, so I stand by the history and cultural representation through a gamey lens. I'd like to see a NFP Caddo civ work something like this:

Caddo
Leader: Dehahuit
Capital: Sha'chadinnih
LUA: Deer Wars Only- can enter into alliances from the discovery of pottery and +1 trade route for each non-military alliance; cannot enter into military alliances
Agenda: Natchitoches to Nacogdoches- likes civs that send delegations and embassies; dislikes civs that do not send delegations and embassies
CUA: Hasinai Trade Fairs- +1 Food, +1 Amenity, for each international trade route (does not stack on alliance bonuses) and small boost to either diplomatic favor or science on completion
UU: Amayxoya- replaces the Archer; can capture defeated enemy units and disband them for a random small boost in great person points
UD: Fire Mound District- replaces Holy Site; +1 Loyalty upon completion and for each additional building; Holy Site Prayers project replaced by the longer Turkey Dance project which has the same effects as the project it replaces but also +1 culture per citizen upon completion