[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[8housesofelixir]

Phoenicia and Maori had historical choices, too.

Please tell me it's not Hannibal or Hiram I. I can accept Hongi Hika or Hōne Heke though.

 

[WillowBrook]

At this point make pack 4 a Berber civ with Pack 6 the Inuit (well maybe not that but something out there and unexpected).
That way we can get Portugal+Italy, Assyria+Babylon, Iroquois+Navajo, and pick any 2 Sub-Saharan African civs for season 2.

If you're roughly right on the rest of NFP, and we do get another season pass, my bet is on the Philippines in place of one of those African civs. But otherwise looks like a good guess at a final lineup.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Nanyue would probably be better IMO.

Who? It’s also going to be vietnam, since they accidentally added vietnam in the code so we saw it in the jan pack with kublai khan

Ha, I just wanted to point out that it's really hard to make an argument for the inclusion of the Gauls that includes the terms "deserve", "representation" or "slots per continent". You may argue that they help with balancing out different eras by being an early civ. But them getting packed together with Byzantium doesn't make sense for reasons of map, scenario or cultural closeness.

Rather, it seems like the devs just felt like it and then made sure to chose a leader from Belgium or Switzerland too for national appeal. The civ roster for the pass was decided beforehand, which is why many arguments in this thread fall flat.

Which is also why one should look farther and more out of the box for candidates for a possible second pass: civs like the Soviets, the Hebrews, Haiti or with Napoléon a fifth (!) leader from the region of France.

In the end, the rule of cool trumps any historiographic treatise and the inclusion of the Gauls show that. Nobody in this thread had them on their list, right?

I don’t mind the Gauls. Geographically they’re very much overlapping, and maybe they were picked for Belgium/Swiss rep, but I think it’s far more likely that they devs wanted proper celtic rep, and they knew we wanted it too.

I didn't expect them, but I wanted them, too.

Same. I didn’t expect them, but I did throw them around causally as a possibility and i’m pleasantly surprised.

Would’ve thought Ireland would’ve still a bit better since less geographical overlap, and while a Belgae leader for Gauls isn’t ideal, it’s better than no proper celtic civ

 

[Dale]

At the end of the day it doesn't matter who it is. It's just another set of lever and knob configurations with an arbitrary art UI.

 

[Zaarin]

Please tell me it's not Hannibal or Hiram I. I can accept Hongi Hika or Hōne Heke though.

Hannibal wouldn't work for Phoenicia, but he'd be an excellent choice for Carthage. Hiram I, Ittobaal I, and Pumayyatun (Pygmalion) would all be good choices for Phoenicia. They had long, stable, prosperous reigns, and Ittobaal I in particular greatly expanded his holdings.

 

[AntSou]

At the end of the day it doesn't matter who it is. It's just another set of lever and knob configurations with an arbitrary art UI.

You can use that argument to suck the life out of just about anything worth enjoying, lol.

 

[Dale]

You can use that argument to suck the life out of just about anything worth enjoying, lol.

That's completely not true. Is SMAC or Stellaris any less enjoyable because they use arbitrary fake factions to represent the combination of lever and knob settings?

I've been arguing for a "Custom Civ" faction since Civ2. In fact, I made the Civ Customiser for Civ4. https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/bts-civ-customiser.237182/

 

[Vilvatiktan]

aight let's see the diff

In Civ V but not Civ VI: Assyria, Austria, Babylonia, Carthage, Celts, Denmark, Huns, Iroquois, Morocco, Polynesia, Portugal, Shoshone, Siam, Songhai, Venice
In Civ VI but not V: Australia, Canada, Cree, Gaul, Georgia, Gran Colombia, Hungary, Khmer, Kongo, Macedon, Mali, Maori, Mapuche, Norway, Nubia, Phoenicia, Scotland, Scythia, Sumer, Vietnam

Which ones were probably "exchanges?" I'd say Austria/Hungary, Carthage/Phoenicia, Celts/Gaul, Denmark/Norway, Huns/Scythia, Polynesia/Maori, Siam/Khmer, Songhai/Mali, and Shoshone/Cree. (Or Iroquois, but the Shoshone were less likely to return anyway, so I'll keep things simple.) Most of these were deblobbing (or reblobbing in Phoenicia's case, but still probably a net positive), while a few are just swaps in regions that aren't likely to retain all of their V civilizations. It's probable that Sumer is intended to fill in for one of Assyria or Babylonia, but it's less clear as to which; I'll lean toward Assyria, for the same reason as Iroquois + more Assyrian inspiration in the design.

This means the "hard cuts" without a direct replacement are Babylonia(/Assyria), the Iroquois(/Shoshone), Morocco, Portugal, and Venice. At most two of these will return by the end of the NFP. In exchange for the loss of the remainder, we got Australia, Canada, Georgia, Gran Colombia, Kongo, Macedon, Mapuche, Nubia, Scotland, and Vietnam. There are some pretty good civs there, but I'm not sure that's the lineup I would have chosen personally.

Oh, and F in the chat for the Hittites who have been gone since III. (And I guess a smaller f for the Sioux, who have nominally been gone since II but are essentially the core of IV's weird "Native America" civ.)

Plus the trend that FXS is only introducing new civs alongside returning civ, such as Maya+Gran Colombia, Byzantium+Gaul, and Mongolia/China+Vietnam. With that, it is very unlikely that DLC-4 and DLC-6 would bring out new civs. I think they'll be a Middle Eastern/Oceania pack with Assyrian,Babylonia, or Polynesia and a N.American pack with Iroquois or Shoshone.

However, with such high demand for Navajo civ, they'd probably introduce it in DLC-4 alongside new city states for N.America TSL.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

If Ambiorix is the leader they might be closer to beta-Belgium, which is interesting.

One more reason for France to annex Belgium once an for all (at least Wallonia, we let Flanders to the Netherlands)

 

[AntSou]

That's completely not true. Is SMAC or Stellaris any less enjoyable because they use arbitrary fake factions to represent the combination of lever and knob settings?

Arbitrary? SMAC has some of the best character design in a strategy game that I can recall. Would the game be less enjoyable if the abilities did not fit the character's personality, voice acting, photos, quotes, etc? Absolutely.

Stellaris is a sandbox game where you get to create those characters and offers the player loads of customisation, not only in terms of abilities, but graphical as well. Why bother with designing alien creatures? Just have an empty square with the line "imagine alien creature here." In fact, Why bother offering any graphical customisation at all?
---

The bottom line is, if it's all just levers, then why is it that Rome always appears at the top of most played Civs, in any iteration? Because people want to play Rome, not the particular combination of "levers/knobs". They want to play and conquer their neighbours with Legions.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Please tell me it's not Hannibal or Hiram I. I can accept Hongi Hika or Hōne Heke though.

Hongi Hika still would’ve been a better Maori leader choice imo

and like Zaarin alluded to, Pygmalion would be a good phoenician leader choice

unless you wanted to treat phoenicia like greece or maya where it’s treated as a culture grouping of city states and a leader of just one is the leader of the whole thing, in which case Hannibal works

 

[Jeppetto]

Yeah, the Defenstration of Prague was the start of the Hussite Wars. Jan Žižka would be a great choice for leader. (Also, you forgot Dvořak.) The war wagon just begs to be a unique unit.

Dvořák reminds me how grateful I am for the attention Czechs got at least in Great People department this time. Mainly I mean I am glad they included Karel Čapek. As far as I know he wasn't in Civ 5 (or I never somehow got him) which was unfortunate. Ma boi Čapek deserves some attention.

 

[Morningcalm]

Agreed Hongi Hika would have been better than Kupe, but there’s always next time for the Hawaiiki-home explorer Maori! I suspect it’s not the last we will see of them.

If Jigonhsasee is included, I bet they will be named Haudenosaunee rather than “Iroquois”, especially since Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition is changing the name of “Iroquois” to Haudenosaunee and consulting a cultural advisor (https://www.ageofempires.com/news/i...S7nAPARIVjbBzapJKAlvWA56aytgvuxzP4v0miivR0KyU)

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Yeah, the Defenstration of Prague was the start of the Hussite Wars. Jan Žižka would be a great choice for leader. (Also, you forgot Dvořak.) The war wagon just begs to be a unique unit.

Charles IV?

 

[Jeppetto]

Agreed Hongi Hika would have been better than Kupe, but there’s always next time for the Hawaiiki-home explorer Maori! I suspect it’s not the last we will see of them.

If Jigonhsasee is included, I bet they will be named Haudenosaunee rather than “Iroquois”, especially since Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition is changing the name of “Iroquois” to Haudenosaunee and consulting a cultural advisor (https://www.ageofempires.com/news/i...S7nAPARIVjbBzapJKAlvWA56aytgvuxzP4v0miivR0KyU)

Humankind also included them as such. I was thinking about it too, though it's still probable they would count them as "re-introduced" Civ for double pack alongisde new one or as strong choice for singular pack, where using more familiar name might be more worth it.

 

[Zaarin]

Charles IV?

He works, too, but I want a Hussite.

 

[Jeppetto]

He works, too, but I want a Hussite.

It's truly a hot topic to discuss. I'm getting all heated up just thinking about it. A Hussite ruler in Civ 6 would set ablaze new hope for representation for smaller nations. One that we truly appriciate, considering all the passionate and fiery discussions we have about the topic. Me too. I just have burning desire for Hussite leader. As yougsters nowadays say, that would be lit.

 

[Weraptor]

Let me just say that as a Czech, I 'love the love' for Bohemian/Czech speculation going on now, and would like to mention that there was an actual king nicknamed The Hussite King, George of Poděbrady. Don't get the false impression tho, he was a very peaceful ruler who tried to unite both Hussites and Catholics and envisioned an international Christian institution with its common parliament in order to settle problems dividing European nations peacefully -- an idea shared by today's European Union, just about 400 years earlier.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Humankind also included them as such. I was thinking about it too, though it's still probable they would count them as "re-introduced" Civ for double pack alongisde new one or as strong choice for singular pack, where using more familiar name might be more worth it.

Not sure if that would count as "re-introduced" but I made a similar suggestion for maybe introducing a single tribe of the confederacy, such as the Mohawk. At this point I wouldn't count it out after Phoenicia over Carthage, or unexpected Gaul.

 

[Zaarin]

Not sure if that would count as "re-introduced" but I made a similar suggestion for maybe introducing a single tribe of the confederacy, such as the Mohawk. At this point I wouldn't count it out after Phoenicia over Carthage, or unexpected Gaul.

I wouldn't be thrilled with that as the Five Nations constituted a political unit, with each tribe bearing traditional duties (e.g., the Mohawk and Seneca were the "doorkeepers" or vanguards). However, I grant it would make selecting a leader easier, e.g. Joseph Brandt of the Mohawk or Cornplanter of the Seneca.