[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[8housesofelixir]

The same happens to the Oppidum, it doesn't look quite like a real Oppidum

And Hansa is an Industrial Zone rather than a Commercial Hub (Kontor).

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

Traditionally, we always have at least 1 naval power every expansion, even in the separate DLCs before the first expansion, we most likely always have 1 naval civ. So far for NFP, we have none, while we did expect Portugal, it did not come to fruition in the latest European pack. If pack 5 is truly Vietnam and Kublai, they won't be naval either most likely, which leaves the November and the last (March) pack.

I think the two major geographical areas that haven't had representation in NFP is Indigenous North America and Central Asia, (although I do think the Native American one is pretty much a must while Central Asia can be hit-or-miss), neither of these two regions are really known for great naval powerhouses. What do you guys think? Do I miss something, or do you think we may experience NFP without a naval civ?

 

[8housesofelixir]

The major naval powerhouses which haven't show up in the game are: Portugal, Italian Maritime Cities, Chola Dynasty, Swahili Sultanates (we do have Zanzibar and Kilwa), Omani Empire (we do have Muscat).

In terms of geographical representation, Europe and Africa are already taken, therefore Portugal and Swahili is less likely. Italian Maritime Cities are more likely future City-States, similar to the current Venice.

Although one may argue that Ethiopia cannot represent East Africa as a whole so there are rooms for Swahili; Swahili is also a popular moded civ. Moreover, Swahili Coast were historically part of the Omani Maritime Empire, so an Omani civ can hit two birds with one stone.

Chola can be loosely considered the 3rd "Indian" civ, if they want to represent South Asia more then Chola does have some chance.

On the other hand, IMHO this post probably belongs to the Possible New Civilizations Thread. Moderator Action: Agreed - thread moved

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

Doesn't Byzantium count as a naval civ? It has a UU for water and the civs UA increases all units CS so also naval units.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Doesn't Byzantium count as a naval civ? It has a UU for water and the civs UA increases all units CS so also naval units.

I think by naval civ we usually assume that most - if not all - civ's abilities are strongly gear towards/synergize with naval mechanisms. Phoenicia is a perfect example - every ability of them is centered around Cothon, a unique Harbor. On the contrary, most of Byzantium's abilities are gear towards a Religion-Calvary domination.

If just having a naval UU can make a civ as a naval civ, then Ottomans, Germany, and Brazil are all naval civs as well.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Traditionally, we always have at least 1 naval power every expansion, even in the separate DLCs before the first expansion, we most likely always have 1 naval civ. So far for NFP, we have none, while we did expect Portugal, it did not come to fruition in the latest European pack. If pack 5 is truly Vietnam and Kublai, they won't be naval either most likely, which leaves the November and the last (March) pack.

I think the two major geographical areas that haven't had representation in NFP is Indigenous North America and Central Asia, (although I do think the Native American one is pretty much a must while Central Asia can be hit-or-miss), neither of these two regions are really known for great naval powerhouses. What do you guys think? Do I miss something, or do you think we may experience NFP without a naval civ?

Doesn't Byzantium count as a naval civ? It has a UU for water and the civs UA increases all units CS so also naval units.

I don't look at Byzantium as being naval so much as a generalist civ.

I think we will get a naval civ and that Portugal is the most likely addition for DLC 6 (makes sense to me to spread out the European civ releases).

That said, in the unlikely event Portugal is saved for a second season, and instead we get Assyria in DLC 6, then a naval civ is begged.

I think the clearest option is Oman to cover the Arabian peninsula and the Swahili/Somali coast. However that might be too close geographically to Assyria and the devs might not want two MENA civs.

Long shot Morocco could return, same MENA doubling up but at least filling a more distinct geographic area. Although I think at this point the devs would be leaning toward Numidia if we see anything.

Also longshot Swahili/Zanzibar civ, although for multiple reasons I don't see that happening over Oman.

And I just don't see the Chola or any SEA civ happening alongside Vietnam this season.

So every choice has its drawbacks, which makes me think either we have a clear-cut Assyria/Portugal decision, or perhaps we are getting two completely new civs instead, because Assyria doesn't pair well with the stronger MENA naval options.

Either that, or we are getting the Inuit and Assyria.

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

Doesn't Byzantium count as a naval civ? It has a UU for water and the civs UA increases all units CS so also naval units.

Nah, Byzantium is not anymore naval and the Ottomans.

Also longshot Swahili/Zanzibar civ, although for multiple reasons I don't see that happening over Oman.

And I just don't see the Chola or any SEA civ happening alongside Vietnam this season.

So every choice has its drawbacks, which makes me think either we have a clear-cut Assyria/Portugal decision, or perhaps we are getting two completely new civs instead, because Assyria doesn't pair well with the stronger MENA naval options.

Either that, or we are getting the Inuit and Assyria.

Is the Inuit known for seafaring though? I agree that maybe the devs group North Africa with Middle East due to their close Arabic roots, so Ethiopia may not rule out Morocco. I much prefer a new civ for this region than Assyria coming back, Oman sounds awesome.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

I think by naval civ we usually assume that most - if not all - civ's abilities are strongly gear towards/synergize with naval mechanisms. Phoenicia is a perfect example - every ability of them is centered around Cothon, a unique Harbor. On the contrary, most of Byzantium's abilities are gear towards a Religion-Calvary domination.

If just having a naval UU can make a civ as a naval civ, then Ottomans, Germany, and Brazil are all naval civs as well.

Not just having a naval UU. Taxis (+3 for every converted holy city also to naval units) can let Byzantium dominate the seas (not that AI naval warfare is well). Not any of the other "naval" civs has that bonus, well Japan to some degree for coast tiles. Byzantium is (mainly) not designed around naval bonuses and I would agree calling them a religion-domination civ. But as they are now the naval civs are quite jealous of their sea power. So I wouldn't count them out...

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Is the Inuit known for seafaring though? I agree that maybe the devs group North Africa with Middle East due to their close Arabic roots, so Ethiopia may not rule out Morocco. I much prefer a new civ for this region than Assyria coming back, Oman sounds awesome.

The Inuit are known for kayaking, whaling, generally navigating and settling most of Arctic America. They're certainly more seafaring than the Saami or Yakut.

I too would prefer new civs, if only because most of the staples will return anyway and every staple delayed is another opportunity to feature another culture. And frankly if I wanted a game with nothing but staples I could just play V.

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

Not just having a naval UU. Taxis (+3 for every converted holy city also to naval units) can let Byzantium dominate the seas (not that AI naval warfare is well). Not any of the other "naval" civs has that bonus, well Japan to some degree for coast tiles. Byzantium is (mainly) not designed around naval bonuses and I would agree calling them a religion-domination civ. But as they are now the naval civs are quite jealous of their sea power. So I wouldn't count them out...

A naval power is someone who feels crippled having to play on a land-dominated map. Byzantium feels so much worse having to play on a water map, they are the literally the opposite of what you would call naval.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Not just having a naval UU. Taxis (+3 for every converted holy city also to naval units) can let Byzantium dominate the seas (not that AI naval warfare is well). Not any of the other "naval" civs has that bonus.

Germany's City-State combat bonus also apply to their U-Boat. Ottoman's taking-city-without-population-lost ability apply to their Barbary Corsair as well.
Therefore according to the above logic Germany and Ottomans are still naval civs.

And that's why most of us won't consider a naval UU - plus a general ability which somehow apply to your naval units - alone can make you a naval civ:
Like the Byzantium ability, the German and Ottoman abilities apply to all units, including the naval units. But does all units bonus equal to naval unit bonus, and does naval unit bonus only equal to naval-centered playstyle? (A lot of naval civ, despite a naval UU, don't have anything to buff their naval combat strength.)
Byzantium have a toolbox full of tools to help them win religious-domination, but only have 2 tools to help them in the ocean.

 

[Zaarin]

I'd rather have the Makah or Nuu-chah-nulth for a whaling civ TBH.

 

[AaronTBD]

Would Assyria have a RAZING ability?

 

[8housesofelixir]

I think we have discussed this exact topic before in this thread.

Edit: Didn't realize that's nearly 100 pages before, I always thought it's like 20 pages ago or something. This thread is absolutely long.

 

[AaronTBD]

I think we have discussed this exact topic before in this thread.

oh

 

[Zaarin]

Would Assyria have a RAZING ability?

It could, but I'm crossing my fingers for a less militant, more cultured Assyria this time around. TBH I'd like to see the Haudenosaunee/Iroquois get population from razing cities as a nod to the mourning wars.

 

[almughavar]

Hello everyone, I'm back after having left for 9 years because I'm excited about the possibility of a Vietnam/Vietnamese civilization in Civ 6.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

And I just don't see the Chola or any SEA civ happening alongside Vietnam this season.

Yup...numbers just didn’t work out in Asia’s favor this time. Maybe in a future dlc we can get a bunch of the more requested civs among fans (with exception to the inuit, because...the debate we’ve had a million times at this point).

Hittites, Babylon or Assyria (whichever one isn’t in NF), Berbers/Morocco, Oman/Swahili, Sapmi/Finland, Yoruba/Igbo/Ashanti, Chola, Navajo/Haudenosaunee/Tlingit/Coast Salish (whichever one isn’t in NF), Egypt/Arabia alt leader

Some of the other popular requests within and without this server would also be Iran, Muisca, Guarani, Ireland, Iceland, Austria, Philippines

Hello everyone, I'm back after having left for 9 years because I'm excited about the possibility of a Vietnam/Vietnamese civilization in Civ 6.

Welcome back! I’m also excited for vietnam.

 

[AaronTBD]

Some of the other popular requests within and without this server would also be Iran, Muisca, Guarani, Ireland, Iceland, Austria, Philippines

All the other ones are fine but Iran? Doesn’t that fold into Persia?

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Shower thought of the day:

One thing I really appreciate about VI's design is using home terrain to further differentiate civs and craft unique gameplay niches. There aren't many civs which don't have at least some slight terrain bias, and many have a clearly communicated preference.

But it does feel like we might be approaching VI's limits for terrain biases, and many of the strongest new civ candidates could see a lot of overlap with existing niches. I particularly notice that a lot of great options for maritime civs struggle to find distinct design space against each other (Italy, Oman/Swahili, Chola, Morocco), although I would also argue that civs like the Timurids and Bulgaria also find it difficult to find design space. I would even argue the game as it is suffers from this already, as we have three American civs with pretty generic luxury resource bonuses.

But all this talk of whaling makes me see some potential for luxury resources as a foundation for building flavor and distinct gameplay niches.

What if, either in a VI overhaul or in VII, some number of civs were differentiated by specific luxury resources? Maybe even every civ could have a "unique luxury" to add a whole new axis of design space alongside unique units and infrastructure. They could have a start bias for that specific luxury (much like how some civs have biases for strategic resources), certain luxuries could grant particular abilities instead of the fairly generic ones we have now.

I think something like this would open up design space a bit. It would offer an economic dimension to every civ and diplomacy. And it would also provide more room for say, Bulgaria to have roses as something Byzantium doesn't have, or the Aztec and Maya to have different luxury resources instead of generalist luxury biases, or the Chola and Oman could coexist as maritime civs with different luxury bonuses.

Even if we only granted something like this to a few civs with a CA or LA, it would add more to the roster by featuring a few civs with a greater focus on amenities and trade (to balance out a very domination-heavy roster).