[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[onepurpose]

because ‘viking’ and ‘celt’ would be objectively incorrect names for civs considering they’re mainly based in myth and popular culture rather than history

Additionally, Norway was chosen for the ‘viking’ civ because Harald Hardrade was the last great viking king

and Scotland isn’t just a modern country lol, it was a country back in the early middle ages too, hence its choice. Scotland is also one of the major celtic group (Irish, Briton, Cornish, Manx and Welsh would be the other ones), hence its choice as the Celtic civ of choice, even if the design itself isn’t particularly celtic

This is nonsense...

viking civ is Scandinavian VIKING AGE (which, indeed, is a historic term)

and celts are distinctive enough... well... is a game ... would you prefer something like "La Tène" civ.. is stupid

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

because ‘viking’ and ‘celt’ would be objectively incorrect names for civs considering they’re mainly based in myth and popular culture rather than history

50% of people in a pool here have nothing against myth and popular culture in a game. At the same time, they are ok with vampires but are very conservative as it comes to blob Civs. Sorry, just an observation
I think it is all about the desire to see a dreamed Civs. Some of us are more interested in some cultures and digs for some real niche ones. I wouldn't be surprised if for the majority of civ players Native American blob is not a problem. The bigger one is they don't have their nations represented. And we have only five spots left...

 

[onepurpose]

The mechanics and general framework of Civ 6 are already sincerely ahistorical. But I personally don't mind because it is a game, not a historical simulator.

I don't want to be personal here, but if you are arguing that "this is a videogame", "the game is based on stereotypes", "if want historical accuracy playing EU or CK", then why would you bother about vampires?

Because there is a limit... is not a fantasy nor science fiction... at least, there should be "real world" concepts... but I don't want to start a discussion with this

It's about opinions and preferences..

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I buy Norway .. but scotland? really ? golf courses and great engineers? you must be kidding

and why Norway as viking? ..

I can't understand the devs obsession to attach historical civs / cultures to contemporary modern states

As mentioned above, Scotland is considered a Celtic Nation, even if the design in itself isn't as Celtic influenced as people liked.

Also Harald was called King of Norway, who just happened to also be a Viking.
Without the differentiation between the Scandinavian countries we also wouldn't have Early Modern Sweden in the game.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Because there is a limit... is not a fantasy nor science fiction... at least, there should be "real world" concepts... but I don't want to start a discussion with this
It's about opinions and preferences..

Yep. It's all about opinions and preferences, and I agree with @Wielki Hegemon's point above. Like, I am very into the desire of having a Sogdian civ, but if it doesn't happen I wouldn't be disappointed. I also basically know nothing about Native Americans besides Iroquois and some of the Civilized Tribes, but if FXS do offer another one in the future I wouldn't mind to play it and having fun (or criticize it because of bad game design - I mean it is really hard to win a game as Mapuche, but Mapuche as an AI will give you a lot of trouble...)

This is the "possible" civs thread after all, and a lot of communities/groups/nations are, technically, possible.

 

[Zaarin]

viking civ is Scandinavian VIKING AGE (which, indeed, is a historic term)

Viking is a profession, not a civilization. It's the equivalent of calling England "the Sheep Farmer civ." The divisions among Sweden, Norway, and Denmark are not new, as you seem to think.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

against myth and popular culture in a game. At the same time, they are ok with vampires but are very conservative as it comes to blob Civs. Sorry, just an observation
I think it is all about the desire to see a dreamed Civs. Some of us are more interested in some cultures and digs for some real niche ones. I wouldn't be surprised if for the majority of civ players Native American blob is not a problem. The bigger one is they don't have their nations represented. And we have only five spots left...

1. The fantasy elements are easily rationalizeable as abstract versions of real elements. the vampires could literally just be the assassins, but with animations which are a bit more fun. They’re also explicitly optional. If you don’t want them in your game, you don’t have to have them.

2. Blob civs suck, they’re boring, ill-conceived and end up not resembling anything.

3. We did have a blob native american civ, and people hated it. I don’t think many people would want one again, considering ‘native americans’ don’t even share one single ethnic origin since the humans who originally populated the Americas came in multiple waves.

This is nonsense...

viking civ is Scandinavian VIKING AGE (which, indeed, is a historic term)

and celts are distinctive enough... well... is a game ... would you prefer something like "La Tène" civ.. is stupid

you do realize that Norway existed during the viking age, as did Denmark and Sweden and a number of other viking nations? At the end of the viking age, Norway was the most powerful, and Harald Hardrada is considered the last viking king.

No, I wouldn’t like a La Tene civ. The celts are too broad and expansive to be represented by one civ. It would be like a Romance civ which combined Rome, Spain, France, Italy and Romania. Or a slavic civ which combines Russia, Poland, Czechia and the Balkans

 

[Zaarin]

It would be like a Romance civ which combined Rome, Spain, France, Italy and Romania.

I guess it was foreordained before the founding of the world that you'd forget the French-speaking half of Switzerland.

 

[AntSou]

We already got two american civs and one African civ...I can't understand why everybody is convinced there's gonna be another ones...

It's been thoroughly explained why in regards to a Native American civ.

and why this stupid complaining about "blob" civs?... every major civ is already a blob...we got a german medieval leader with a submarine UU... samurais + electronic factories in japan... the spanish city list includes Oran and Havana ... isn't a "blob"?

Perhaps if you actually put in the effort and read other people's posts instead of pridefully dismissing it all like you've got the whole thing figured out and it's the rest of the entire community that just happens to be stupid.

is a videogame.. is based on stereotipes.. is about DISTINCTIVE and RECOGNIZABLE cultures.. why not a "generic" native american civ or a celt civ? Is far better than some obscure niche civ

Generic yet distinctive sounds like an oxymoron.

Maybe we should go with Generic Anglo-Saxon ex-Colony and give Theodore Roosevelt an Aussie accent while he's threatening you with a hockey stick. Fun.

If you are looking for somewhat historical accuracy... try EU or CK.. not civilization ..

 

[PhoenicianGold]

We already got two american civs and one African civ...

I can't understand why everybody is convinced there's gonna be another ones...

morocco ? berber? really?

cherokee? apache? ... another cavalry rifle raider? we already got Lautaro

and why this stupid complaining about "blob" civs?... every major civ is already a blob...we got a german medieval leader with a submarine UU... samurais + electronic factories in japan... the spanish city list includes Oran and Havana ... isn't a "blob"?

is a videogame.. is based on stereotipes.. is about DISTINCTIVE and RECOGNIZABLE cultures.. why not a "generic" native american civ or a celt civ? Is far better than some obscure niche civ

If you are looking for somewhat historical accuracy... try EU or CK.. not civilization ..

Well VI has clearly been trying harder for purer historical representation than in prior games, foregoing civs like the Celts and Polynesia for specific cultures and polities like Scotland and Maori. It's still not perfect, but there is an obvious attempt being made.

Expecting the Berbers is really just an observation that the civ franchise tends to return or replace civs with each installment rather than cut them altogether. V had Songhai, Morocco, and Carthage crammed up in west Africa, but right now we only have Mali and Phoenicia; a Maghreb civ is still missing, and something Berber like Numidia could capture a very large geographic/cultural region of North Africa that is not represented in the game yet. (Now, as a matter of distinguishing the Berbers from Mali or Scythia, I agree I have doubts about the devs' ability to make them mechanically unique).

Regarding a NA tribe, you are right that we probably won't see a horse raider civ after the Mapuche. But a civ from western US would sell extremely well and many players want/expect something like the Navajo or Salish.

For "historical accuracy" I mean about mechanics and general framework

vampires, chtulu, soothsayers, etc... shouldn't be in this game... well ,, maybe a mod, but not the Devs wasting time and resources in things like that

A large portion of the playerbase wanted or was receptive to fantasy and sci-fi content. One of the best and most subscribed mods to V was a fantasy overhaul. So far, aside from Paititi/Fountain of Youth being included with Maya/GC, I think the devs' decision to add optional fantasy content has been justified for a game that is released on all platforms and is trying very hard to gain a casual audience and survive the death of 4X games.

I will ridicule about, for example, Russia's great people printing machine, but when I am playing Russia I can say I am having a lot of fun, because IMHO a "historical" game doesn't exist.

Yeah, while the choice of giving Russia a GWAM bonus isn't the worst, I do often wonder if that should/could have been a French or German or even Italian thing, and tying it to a lavra is just weird.

50% of people in a pool here have nothing against myth and popular culture in a game. At the same time, they are ok with vampires but are very conservative as it comes to blob Civs. Sorry, just an observation
I think it is all about the desire to see a dreamed Civs. Some of us are more interested in some cultures and digs for some real niche ones. I wouldn't be surprised if for the majority of civ players Native American blob is not a problem. The bigger one is they don't have their nations represented. And we have only five spots left...

I think there are quite a few people who are turned off by blobs as a matter of perpetuating pop history misinformation about non-Western cultures. Native American blobs are probably the worst in a game which is mostly developed for American gamers, and I think it's a very common opinion that the "Native Americans" in IV were the most offensive civ design in the franchise, regardless of whether it personally offended them or not.

It would be like a Romance civ which combined Rome, Spain, France, Italy and Romania. Or a slavic civ which combines Russia, Poland, Czechia and the Balkans

I....would actually prefer a game like this. Think of all the design space that could be freed up if we only had Europe represented by: Celts, Latins/Goths, Franks/Germans/Teutons, Slavs, and Norse/Danes! That's five civs covering all of Europe. No more of this euro-centric BS.

 

[Josephias]

I guess it was foreordained before the founding of the world that you'd forget the French-speaking half of Switzerland.

the Italian-speaking fourth of Switzerland sends its regards

 

[Zaarin]

I didn't know Caligula was a playable character in CK2.

I....would actually prefer a game like this. Think of all the design space that could be freed up!

Freed up for what? If we're treating Western Europe as a civ, it just makes sense to have a Sinosphere civ, an Indosphere civ, a Greater Persia civ, an Arab World civ...

the Italian-speaking fourth of Switzerland sends its regards

Not to mention the Romansh-speaking part of Switzerland. But my joke was actually about Calvinism.

 

[onepurpose]

As mentioned above, Scotland is considered a Celtic Nation, even if the design in itself isn't as Celtic influenced as people liked.

Also Harald was called King of Norway, who just happened to also be a Viking.
Without the differentiation between the Scandinavian countries we also wouldn't have Early Modern Sweden in the game.

????

I know Harald was viking. To say that having "scandinavian viking civ" exclude "sweden" is like say that "roman civ" exclude Spain, France , England , Egypt , etc...


As I stated before, Civilization is a strategic game (4X) with historical flavor ...

For design purposes there is a mix of modern countries , recognitive historic empires and so... we have a "roman civilization" that occupied the Mediterranean countries .. and not-so-modern countries like France or Spain.. we got thousand years continuity cultures like China or India and we got USA with a 250 year lifespan (indeed, less in Canada , Brazil .etc...) .. we got the odd decision to divide UK between England and Scotland...



It has been that way since Civ 1.. (by the way , I started in civ 2) and will be this way

so , the game is a so-called "blob"

 

[onepurpose]

the Italian-speaking fourth of Switzerland sends its regards

I would approve a Switzerland civ that could not declare war...

 

[Thenewwwguy]

we got the odd decision to divide UK between England and Scotland...

Not weird. They were independent until 1707

we have a "roman civilization" that occupied the Mediterranean countries .. and not-so-modern countries like France or Spain.. we got thousand years more or less continuity cultures like China or India and we got USA with a 250 year lifespan (indeed, less in Canada , Brazil .etc...)

Ok...so??

so , the game is a so-called "blob"

how did you get from point a to point b here? How does having various time frames of civs make them blobs? lmao

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Or a slavic civ which combines Russia, Poland, Czechia and the Balkans

Well I wasn't expecting a Soviet Union civ, but I wouldn't be surprised to see an argument for that it could be the case.

I think there are quite a few people who are turned off by blobs as a matter of perpetuating pop history misinformation about non-Western cultures. Native American blobs are probably the worst in a game which is mostly developed for American gamers, and I think it's a very common opinion that the "Native Americans" in IV were the most offensive civ design in the franchise, regardless of whether it personally offended them or not.

Especially after they already set a precedent with the Sioux and the Iroquois, even though those weren't the best designs in the world either with Sacagawea leading and the Iroquois getting a horse raider UU.

I know Harald was vinking. To say that having "scandinavian viking civ" exclude "sweden" is like say that "roman civ" exclude Spain, France , England , Egypt , etc...

I'm sure if you called them the Scandinavians it kind of would exclude a more Early Modern Sweden or Kalmar Union Denmark (well maybe not this one). The only acceptable term I would use is maybe the Norse or Norsemen, like Humankind is doing, though I have no problem with using the name Denmark or Norway when the respective leader did actually lead them.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

1. The fantasy elements are easily rationalizeable as abstract versions of real elements. the vampires could literally just be the assassins, but with animations which are a bit more fun. They’re also explicitly optional. If you don’t want them in your game, you don’t have to have them.

2. Blob civs suck, they’re boring, ill-conceived and end up not resembling anything.

3. We did have a blob native american civ, and people hated it. I don’t think many people would want one again, considering ‘native americans’ don’t even share one single ethnic origin since the humans who originally populated the Americas came in multiple waves.

Thank you for your opinion sir
I am with @8housesofelixir here. I am neither for or against Native American Civs in any form. I am far more interested in Civ design. I just wanted to point there are a lot of opinions, everyone has their favorites and a number of Civs in a game is limited. That's why possible new Civs topics are so hot.
Let's just not refer to some objective criteria in a discussion about personal preferences.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm sure if you called them the Scandinavians it kind of would exclude a more Early Modern Sweden or Kalmar Union Denmark (well maybe not this one). The only acceptable term I would use is maybe the Norse or Norsemen, like Humankind is doing, though I have no problem with using the name Denmark or Norway when the respective leader did actually lead them.

Kalmar Union Denmark would be fun.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Because there is a limit... is not a fantasy nor science fiction... at least, there should be "real world" concepts... but I don't want to start a discussion with this

It's about opinions and preferences..

I hope you’re aware that ppl wanted fantasy and sci fi OPTIONS in civ 5, hence why the devs decided to make give us those OPTIONS in civ 6. If you’re so pissed off at the devs giving players who might enjoy fantasy or sci fi elements as OPTIONS in their game, then maybe you should consider the fact that the Civ team is one of the best dev teams i’ve ever encountered in terms of the games I play. They’re incredibly responsive, accommodate all kinds of players, often incorporate fan requests, popular mods.

If OPTIONAL game modes piss you off so much that you can’t enjoy a game that’s incredibly fantastical to begin with (eternal leaders? Military powerhouses have to conquer every capital? Using solar sails to move faster than light speed (which is impossible btw...)) then maybe you’re better off playing a different game (and i’ll be honest, no grand strategy game or 4x historical game is going to be much better...they’re all abstractions at best)

And if you think the devs have goofed up, i’d like to see you try and see if you can do any better. Civ 6 is imperfect, but characterizing it as having gone too far for putting (again, easily rationalizeable) vampires in an OPTIONAL game mode, is completely unfounded

 

[onepurpose]

Not weird. They were independent until 1707

Ok...so??
how did you get from point a to point b here? How does having various time frames of civs make them blobs? lmao

Not really , but there is no place to start a lesson on political history of western europe

we have a bunch of historic empires & cultures and 200 un countries.. we can't have a civ for all of them

Dividing UK makes sense in marketing terms (that it all that would matter in this case) ,

I have nothing about Scotland (I lived there a couple of years)