[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Zaarin]

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.

I don't know about you, but I can't even make the people I vote for do what I want.

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.

For me personally I'd qualify that the leader should have held some formalized degree of political authority. Cleopatra, Gilgamesh, and Dido aren't even relevant to this discussion as they were the formal heads of state (we can debate whether Dido existed, but if you accept the legend she was the queen-regnant of Carthage). Catherine de Medici was queen-consort, queen-dowager, and regent for three of her children. Hannibal was a suffet, as close as you're going to get to a ruler for Carthage, the equivalent of a Roman senator. Theodora was a regent on behalf of her husband when he was away. Gandhi is the awkward one, but we can still say he wielded a great degree of political influence, kind of like a pacifist George Washington.

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.

Because a Muskogean tribe like the Choctaw or Chickasaw would represent them better? The heart of the Mississippian culture was Muskogean, after all.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

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

Probably because there are only 6000 Caddo members? So far, the indigenous choices for civ have been generally appealed to broader demographic appeal. There are about 1.3 million people of Mapuche descent living in Chile and Argentina, over 750,000 people of Maori descent in New Zealand, and over 350,000 people of Cree descent living in Canada and the U.S. Seems quite clear to me that VI is going for very broad representation, where they are more likely to catch potential consumers who either identify with a particular heritage, or are more likely to have been exposed to people with that heritage. Even the Shoshone/Comanche currently have some 30,000 members and sprawl across most of the Western U.S., and the Iroquois currently number about 125,000.

Given how much of VI's design has attempted to cast very wide demographic nets, I think it's pretty obvious why there isn't much interest in the Caddo. Because they represent a fairly niche interest group in a much larger market, and if we were going to get anything Mississippian it almost certainly wouldn't be a subset of the Mississippians but a collective civ called "the Mississippians" to try to appeal to more than 6,000 people. And either way, I don't see it happening after we have a Cahokia city-state and there are still very large organized tribes like the Navajo, Sioux, Iroquois, Cherokee, etc. who are just far safer investments because they have some 100K, 200K, 300K tribal members.

I'm sorry, but the words "I don't understand" in contexts like this just trigger me. We know exactly why hundreds of smaller civs haven't been considered by devs or proposed by fans. Because it's already too much for us to hope for many large and influential civs to be added, and throwing ideas around for anything less is really just fanciful dreaming.

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

That would exclude everyone.

That's oversimplifying things beyond the reality we actually live in where certain stereotypes are definitely more harmful than others, not to mention the fact that Civ and especially VI have tended to lean into only positive stereotyping for every civ. It doesn't matter if it would be accurate to the Comanche; including any American tribe as primarily a horse raider civ would be, at best, insensitive in a time where the effects of colonial takeover are still felt and most Native American tribes still resent the "noble savage" archetype being perpetuated in media.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That's oversimplifying things beyond the reality we actually live in where certain stereotypes are definitely more harmful than others, not to mention the fact that Civ and especially VI have tended to lean into only positive stereotyping for every civ.

Canada says hi.
I actually don't find the design of Canada to be bad except the snow and tundra parts, other than I understand the requirement to build hockey rinks on them.

 

[Zaarin]

Canada says hi.
I actually don't find the design of Canada to be bad except the snow and tundra parts, other than I understand the requirement to build hockey rinks on them.

I would have liked Canada better if it had focused on New France with a Coureur de Bois UU and Samuel de Champlain or Louis de Baude, Comte de Frontenac as a leader; throw in a Sugar Shack unique improvement if you want something fun--that was also historically (and presently) important and useful.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I would have liked Canada better if it had focused on New France with a Coureur de Bois UU and Samuel de Champlain or Louis de Baude, Comte de Frontenac as a leader; throw in a Sugar Shack unique improvement if you want something fun--that was also historically (and presently) important and useful.

I could understand that, but I wasn't expecting it considering the civ was to be called Canada, not New France. I could see those being uniques in a colonization scenario/game for New France.
Though instead of a sugar shack I would give them a Fur Trading Fort.

 

[Zaarin]

I could understand that, but I wasn't expecting it considering the civ was to be called Canada, not New France.

It was first called Canada by Cartier from an Iroquoian word meaning "town," and its inhabitants were already being called canadiens.

Though instead of a sugar shack I would give them a Fur Trading Fort.

I thought of that but didn't want to triple down on the fur trade, which would already be covered by the Coureur de Bois and Champlain/Frontenac.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Canada says hi.
I actually don't find the design of Canada to be bad except the snow and tundra parts, other than I understand the requirement to build hockey rinks on them.

I don't think Canada's portrayal is e

Canada says hi.
I actually don't find the design of Canada to be bad except the snow and tundra parts, other than I understand the requirement to build hockey rinks on them.

Eh, I still think of Canada as a positive stereotype. Positive stereotypes will always have some detractors but on the whole they aren't offensive per se, and the devs can always maintain some degree of good intent.

I would have liked Canada better if it had focused on New France with a Coureur de Bois UU and Samuel de Champlain or Louis de Baude, Comte de Frontenac as a leader; throw in a Sugar Shack unique improvement if you want something fun--that was also historically (and presently) important and useful.

We do have a French speaking leader. While I think I could get behind the concept, we do run into a few snags that complicate the elegance of a clear Canada/US distinction. For one, we have part of New France still effectively in the US in 'Cadian Louisiana. For two, do we really want France representing the Mississippi or the Mississippians? And then there is the issue of Quebecan sovereignty, which sits on the fence of representing Canada between having the most non-tribal, non-territorial representation, but also leaving out other post-colonial cultures like Nova Scotia and PEI. I'm actually okay with the Canadian design we have as a first attempt, as compared to America and Australia.

 

[Zaarin]

We do have a French speaking leader. While I think I could get behind the concept, we do run into a few snags that complicate the elegance of a clear Canada/US distinction. For one, we have part of New France still effectively in the US in 'Cadian Louisiana. For two, do we really want France representing the Mississippi or the Mississippians? And then there is the issue of Quebecan sovereignty, which sits on the fence of representing Canada between having the most non-tribal, non-territorial representation, but also leaving out other post-colonial cultures like Nova Scotia and PEI. I'm actually okay with the Canadian design we have as a first attempt, as compared to America and Australia.

I'd consider New France Canada representing Northeastern Algonquians more than Mississippians. The low population density and virtual absence of European women required the habitants to work closely with the indigenous people, far more so than anywhere else in the colonial New World, which gives us the modern day Métis. You could even make this explicit by making the coureur de bois Mi'kmaq/Abenaki/Mahican. Also, strictly speaking, Louisiana was considered different from Acadia, which is the part of New France I was considering the civ to be focused on. Yes, it leaves out the later British Canada, but I'm okay with that--it's not like British colonialism isn't copiously represented in Civ6, what with the US and Australia already being in the game. This is all hypothetical: I would have been just fine without any Canada whatsoever. I'm just saying if we had to have Canada, it could have been the interesting part of Canada. I realize that's subjective, but honestly the fur trade is the only really interesting part of Canadian history to me--and it was so important that I'm astonished it's not so much as obliquely referenced in Canada's design.

(Also, for the record, since treating Canada as New France would be comparable to treating the US as the Thirteen Colonies, I'd be just fine with William Bradford or William Penn or Roger Williams leading America in the future.)

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I'd consider New France Canada representing Northeastern Algonquians more than Mississippians. The low population density and virtual absence of European women required the habitants to work closely with the indigenous people, far more so than anywhere else in the colonial New World, which gives us the modern day Métis. You could even make this explicit by making the coureur de bois Mi'kmaq/Abenaki/Mahican. Also, strictly speaking, Louisiana was considered different from Acadia, which is the part of New France I was considering the civ to be focused on. Yes, it leaves out the later British Canada, but I'm okay with that--it's not like British colonialism isn't copiously represented in Civ6, what with the US and Australia already being in the game. This is all hypothetical: I would have been just fine without any Canada whatsoever. I'm just saying if we had to have Canada, it could have been the interesting part of Canada. I realize that's subjective, but honestly the fur trade is the only really interesting part of Canadian history to me--and it was so important that I'm astonished it's not so much as obliquely referenced in Canada's design..

Agreed on British vs. French. A Frenchier Canada would be a nice juxtaposition against Brazil and Australia.

I think they skipped the fur trading bit because the Cree already had a trade bias. Which, just brings me back to my general complaint about Cree/Canada both existing in a roster of only 40-50 civs.

 

[8housesofelixir]

I'm just saying if we had to have Canada, it could have been the interesting part of Canada. I realize that's subjective, but honestly the fur trade is the only really interesting part of Canadian history to me--and it was so important that I'm astonished it's not so much as obliquely referenced in Canada's design.

I feel like all the colonial civs - USA, Canada, Australia, and even Gran Colombia - don't really have their "frontier" aspect represented in the game (besides Outback Station, although it's more like a compensation for the Australian desert bias).

 

[Zaarin]

I think they skipped the fur trading bit because the Cree already had a trade bias. Which, just brings me back to my general complaint about Cree/Canada both existing in a roster of only 40-50 civs.

I mean, the fur "trade" was less about trade and more about cooperative hunting, at least in New France. A bonus for camps would have been very appropriate (but, again, infringing on the Cree).

I feel like all the colonial civs - USA, Canada, Australia, and even Gran Colombia - don't really have their "frontier" aspect represented in the game (besides Outback Station, although it's more like a compensation for the Australian desert bias).

Agreed.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Eh, I still think of Canada as a positive stereotype. Positive stereotypes will always have some detractors but on the whole they aren't offensive per se, and the devs can always maintain some degree of good intent.

For the most part I agree. They could have done without the tundra farms at least considering those are non-existent.

Agreed on British vs. French. A Frenchier Canada would be a nice juxtaposition against Brazil and Australia.

I think they skipped the fur trading bit because the Cree already had a trade bias. Which, just brings me back to my general complaint about Cree/Canada both existing in a roster of only 40-50 civs.

Honestly I think that's why they picked Laurier as the leader so it would feel French, without making it based off of Colonial New France.

Also for the same reasons, I was definitely expecting the mountie and the hockey rink considering the Cree did take the fur trading aspects.

I still don't mind the idea of both Canada and Cree existing together. It's no different then the Iroquois and the Shoshone existing against America in Civ 5. Maybe they wanted to balance it out this time to where Canada gets an indigenous group and now it will be the U.S. turn in NFP, instead of making both tribes with their original homeland in present-day day U.S. territory.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I feel like all the colonial civs - USA, Canada, Australia, and even Gran Colombia - don't really have their "frontier" aspect represented in the game (besides Outback Station, although it's more like a compensation for the Australian desert bias).

I think they do, inasmuch as they can do so while conforming to a standard civ mold. USA has rough riders who are basically formalized cowboys from the western frontier, Canada has mounties which are quite similar; both have national park bonuses. Australia also has the digger, and gold rushes were definitely part of frontier culture. And both haciendas and llaneros are very frontier-adjacent, representing the plantation and ranching set up by Spanish colonial expansion.

I would argue that these civs, along with maybe Russia and maybe the Maori and the Cree, are the most frontier-themed in the roster. We would need a complete paradigm shift to afford for civs to be even more frontier-themed. But the representation is clearly there, even if it tokenized and genericized quite a bit.

 

[Zaarin]

I still don't mind the idea of both Canada and Cree existing together.

To me it's not so much geography as that the Cree fill the niche that a more sensible Canada design ought to have: the fur trade. (NB the fur trade wasn't just the backbone of New France: it was the backbone of British Canada really until the dawn of the 20th century.) That the Cree could have stood for Canada is particularly elegant insofar as the Cree were their chief partners from the mid-19th century on, replacing the Eastern Algonquians New France originally allied itself with. IMO the Cree made Canada feel kind of unnecessary in a way that no Native American tribe in the US could do.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

To me it's not so much geography as that the Cree fill the niche that a more sensible Canada design ought to have: the fur trade. (NB the fur trade wasn't just the backbone of New France: it was the backbone of British Canada really until the dawn of the 20th century.) That the Cree could have stood for Canada is particularly elegant insofar as the Cree were their chief partners from the mid-19th century on, replacing the Eastern Algonquians New France originally allied itself with. IMO the Cree made Canada feel kind of unnecessary in a way that no Native American tribe in the US could do.

My thoughts exactly. And contrariwise, had Canada come first with a fur trade element, we probably could have done without the Cree. I don't hate either civ design, in fact I like both quite a lot and the idea of culturally subdividing larger expanses to be very attractive. But when we could have consolidated the two and we are still missing things like Morocco/Berbers, Oman/Swahili, Burma/Chola, something out of Samarkand...in addition to no Tupi-Guarani, Tibet, Sakha, Inuit/Noongar, or even something in the western US...it just strikes me as extremely poor allocation of development resources.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

To me it's not so much geography as that the Cree fill the niche that a more sensible Canada design ought to have: the fur trade. (NB the fur trade wasn't just the backbone of New France: it was the backbone of British Canada really until the dawn of the 20th century.) That the Cree could have stood for Canada is particularly elegant insofar as the Cree were their chief partners from the mid-19th century on, replacing the Eastern Algonquians New France originally allied itself with. IMO the Cree made Canada feel kind of unnecessary in a way that no Native American tribe in the US could do.

I can agree with this. But it's clear that they had in mind from the beginning a more modern Canada, with a French speaking leader at least to distinguish it from the other British colonial nations.

 

[reddishrecue]

I can agree with this. But it's clear that they had in mind from the beginning a more modern Canada, with a French speaking leader at least to distinguish it from the other British colonial nations.

Yeah sort of like Brazil instead of New Portugal.

 

[Zaarin]

Yeah sort of like Brazil instead of New Portugal.

A missed opportunity to have a Dutch-speaking leader when Brazil was briefly New Holland. To my knowledge, however, Portuguese Brazil was always called Brazil, not New Portugal, unlike New Spain, New Granada, New France, New Netherlands, New England, etc.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Which reminds me of a thought I had today:

Age of Empires II added Portugal in the African Kingdoms pack, and it appeared on the African campaigns map rather than the European map (even though the campaigns themselves went further than Africa).

What do we think are the chances DLC pack 3 has an "Africa" map including Portugal and something Berber or Swahili? Certainly seems more likely to me than Portugal being paired with a North American civ and an Americas map.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Which reminds me of a thought I had today:

Age of Empires II added Portugal in the African Kingdoms pack, and it appeared on the African campaigns map rather than the European map (even though the campaigns themselves went further than Africa).

What do we think are the chances DLC pack 3 has an "Africa" map including Portugal and something Berber or Swahili? Certainly seems more likely to me than Portugal being paired with a North American civ and an Americas map.

I said earlier it could be a possibility though one would have thought that Ethiopia should have come with an African map. I think Portugal would more likely come with the Berbers/Morocco from North Africa as the Swahili would have made sense to pair with Ethiopia for Sub-Sahara Africa.

The thing is I think MoorTires is a reference to Pack 4, and that sounds like it would be based off of North Africa or just Portugal.