Codeword Iroquois
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2020
- Messages
- 149
Problem: from what I can tell, they didn't have a name for individual varieties of their boats, they just kind of existed.
[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread
- Thread starter Eagle Pursuit
- Start date
-
- Tags
- babylon babylonian
Geminus Leonem
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 29, 2016
- Messages
- 40
I'd be astonished if we got anything more from the Pacific. Plus strictly speaking the Gauls are west of Ethiopia. (Your general theory could still hold, though: whether the final civ is Portugal or a second Native American civ, they'd be east of China.)
I am 99.99999999999% sure that they won't do another American or European Civ. They always just do 2 American and 2 European Civs per Expansion and so far they are following their usual quasi-rules to the letter:
- 4 Returned Civs
- 4 New Civs
- 3 Female Leaders, one of which must replace a Returned Civ's male leader from Civ V.
- 1 S.American Civ and 1 N.American Civ with one of them being New and the other Returned
- 1 Civ from Africa
- 2 European Civs with one of them being New and the other Returned
- 3 Civs from Asia+Oceania with 1 one of them being from the Middle East
- 1 Civ must have used to be under the British Empire's sphere (which is why I think Hawaii will be added in as they were a British Protectorate for a while)
Also, I meant they are going eastwards by Region. Continental Europe's Westernmost point is still east of Africa's Westernmost point after all.
Right I didn’t mean he named it but rather discovered it.Bom dia!
Slight correction. Magellan did not come up with the name "Felipinas", he just involved himself in local disputes and got himself killed.It was another Spanish explorer that came up with the name.
So you are saying that there’s a chance for another European or North American civ?
I personally don’t think Hawaii has a big chance due to the Maori design.
Though if the British sphere is the criteria modern New Zealand I feel like would have a better chance.
Not that I want or need it.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 18,949
What are the chances Ashur replaces Babylon as a Science city-state?
I don't think we can rely on what they've done in the past as a reasonable prediction of the future. NFP isn't a typical expansion; it's simply tidying up with the missing staples before closing development. Besides, I'd point out that both previous expansions have had a civilization from anthropological North America (Cree, Canada), which NFP has not. I am 100% certain the final unknown civ is either Portugal or a Native North American civ.
Slim? I'd expect Nineveh personally, though I think Ebla and Mari are the best fits for the replacement.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2017
- Messages
- 4,115
This is what I was thinking too. I'd love to see it.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
@8housesofelixer, thank you very much for your reply. I am not at all familiar with the earlier Chinese Dynasties and their 'northern barbarian' connections, most of my reading having been confined to the Tang and later.
On the other hand, my point remains: assimilation worked both ways, but the predominance of population meant that the culture of the larger group (Han Chinese) predominated in the long run. Was there a large population of 'Steppe-influenced Chinese' by the 18th century? Was there, in fact, much of any indication of steppe-culture influence in China by the 19th? (I'm seriously asking: I don't know of any, but my Asian History professor in college in the 1960s - 70s was a mainland refugee from Taiwan who spent most of her time 'proving' that Everything Good was Traditional Chinese and the Japanese and Communists were all barely distinguishable from Lower Primates. I'm afraid I learned very little useful from her or the course, and as stated, my reading in Chinese history since has been sporadic and not systematic)
Also, the assimilation, genetic or otherwise, of a ruling group or set of families is frequently very different from that of the bulk of the population. As an example I'm familiar with, Alexander married both a Persian and a 'steppe' (well, Sogdian) wife, but he had to command his officers to take Persian wives, and many of those were repudiated as soon as he was dead. The 'acculturation' of Greek philosophies into the Middle East called Hellenistic was in fact a veneer of Greekiness on top of Persian and Middle Eastern cultures already well-established. So much so that less than 200 years later Roman writers were ranting about 'barbaric (meaning Un-Roman or Greek) religions and practices' corrupting their people - among which they included Christianity and Judaism, both "eastern religions' to the Roman elite.
And less-regulated cultures can be very attractive to people brought up under heavy legal and cultural restrictions. Not only Imperial Chinese subjects, but European colonials regularly ran away to or refused to return from Native American groups they joined, because they preferred the 'savage' to the 'civilized' - this is one of the 'dirty little secrets' of American History not told in the approved history books, but evidence is readily available if you bother to look.
To bring it all back to the game, 'assimilation' right now in Civ VI is pretty much limited to a Loyalty mechanic, which devolves everything about cultural, linguistic, genetic or administrative assimilation down to "Are they mad enough to Revolt" and nothing else.
It would be far more interesting, but probably also complex enough to be better left to Civ VII, if the Social Policies and Civics adopted by different Civs (including City States and maybe even Barbarians) had an effect on both the conquered/assimilated and the conquerers, and seriously affected the speed or even the possibility of maintaining enough 'Loyalty' to safely administer a city or region without requiring a major military garrison and security investment. This would also allow/require the game to include the possibility of moving populations around to ensure loyalty, a trick practiced by numerous states throughout history from Assyria to the Soviet Union.
On the other hand, my point remains: assimilation worked both ways, but the predominance of population meant that the culture of the larger group (Han Chinese) predominated in the long run. Was there a large population of 'Steppe-influenced Chinese' by the 18th century? Was there, in fact, much of any indication of steppe-culture influence in China by the 19th? (I'm seriously asking: I don't know of any, but my Asian History professor in college in the 1960s - 70s was a mainland refugee from Taiwan who spent most of her time 'proving' that Everything Good was Traditional Chinese and the Japanese and Communists were all barely distinguishable from Lower Primates. I'm afraid I learned very little useful from her or the course, and as stated, my reading in Chinese history since has been sporadic and not systematic)
Also, the assimilation, genetic or otherwise, of a ruling group or set of families is frequently very different from that of the bulk of the population. As an example I'm familiar with, Alexander married both a Persian and a 'steppe' (well, Sogdian) wife, but he had to command his officers to take Persian wives, and many of those were repudiated as soon as he was dead. The 'acculturation' of Greek philosophies into the Middle East called Hellenistic was in fact a veneer of Greekiness on top of Persian and Middle Eastern cultures already well-established. So much so that less than 200 years later Roman writers were ranting about 'barbaric (meaning Un-Roman or Greek) religions and practices' corrupting their people - among which they included Christianity and Judaism, both "eastern religions' to the Roman elite.
And less-regulated cultures can be very attractive to people brought up under heavy legal and cultural restrictions. Not only Imperial Chinese subjects, but European colonials regularly ran away to or refused to return from Native American groups they joined, because they preferred the 'savage' to the 'civilized' - this is one of the 'dirty little secrets' of American History not told in the approved history books, but evidence is readily available if you bother to look.
To bring it all back to the game, 'assimilation' right now in Civ VI is pretty much limited to a Loyalty mechanic, which devolves everything about cultural, linguistic, genetic or administrative assimilation down to "Are they mad enough to Revolt" and nothing else.
It would be far more interesting, but probably also complex enough to be better left to Civ VII, if the Social Policies and Civics adopted by different Civs (including City States and maybe even Barbarians) had an effect on both the conquered/assimilated and the conquerers, and seriously affected the speed or even the possibility of maintaining enough 'Loyalty' to safely administer a city or region without requiring a major military garrison and security investment. This would also allow/require the game to include the possibility of moving populations around to ensure loyalty, a trick practiced by numerous states throughout history from Assyria to the Soviet Union.
Geminus Leonem
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 29, 2016
- Messages
- 40
Is... is the bit about Canada being anthropologically North American suppose to be a joke of some sort? Because they are assuredly NOT. The Canadian government even famously went out of their way to kidnap proper North American Native children and forcefully send them to schools to culturally cleanse them. To not even mention the multiple forced starvation of native tribes, the spread of disease through the native communities that were actively ignored, and such other awful stuff.
Plus the Mayans were anthropologically North American, as they were native to Mesoamerica, a region of the North American sub-continent... Don't really know why this is even an issue... Anyway, it doesn't even really matter because I meant Geographic regions, not Anthropological Ancestry.
Also, you claim that you can't predict the NFP Civ choices because it isn't a typical expansion, BUT every single Civ released until now with the Pack follow the EXACT same rules as the previous 2 expansions. I should even point out that I predicted 5 of the 7 released/leaked Civs 9 months ago before the NFP was even announced. I got the leaders all wrong aside from Bolivar (because of course it would be him leading Colombia) and I really wanted Ireland, Portugal, and Mughalistan to be picked, but the same overall rules were followed to a similar result of what we ended up with.
Still, I gotta be honest, I also kinda wish that they would break their internal consistency so that they could pick a Civ that I want (especially if it's Portugal). Alas, the chance is borderline nill, as breaking whatever rules they have for one Civ like that would probably cause unnecessary conflicts within the dev team.
Last edited:
What does any of that have to do with where Canada is located?
Anthropological North America is the region from the Rio Grande to the Arctic Ocean. The behavior of the people who lived there is utterly and bafflingly irrelevant to a discussion of where it's located.Mesoamerica is its own anthropological region and is not considered with North America in anthropology, which, again, begins at the Rio Grande. The Maya are Mesoamerican, not North American.
Congratulations, I did, too, since I predicted from day one that this was going to be a fan service pack. The people speculating on all manner of obscure and unexpected civs, however worthy, were bound to be disappointed. I expected Assyria over Babylon and Gaul was a surprise, but overall NFP has been exactly what I predicted it would be. And to that end a second Oceania civ has a 0% chance of making it into NFP. Very few people are asking for it; it doesn't suit the purpose of the pass.
Well, then I think you're in for a pleasant surprise. I think you're regarding their "rules" as much more sacrosanct than they do. NFP exists as fan service, pure and simple. We've had a few surprises, but they're not going to pick Hawai'i when Portugal or a Native North American civ will sell better and will round out the roster better before they move on to whatever is in development next.Still, I gotta be honest, I also kinda wish that they would break their internal consistency so that they could pick a Civ that I want (especially if it's Portugal). Alas, the chance is borderline nill, as breaking whatever rules they have for one Civ like that would probably cause unnecessary conflicts within the dev team.
I’d expect Nineveh if we were going to go with an Assyrian city-state because of Ashurbanipal’s Royal Library.
Speaking of city-state replacements is there a chance that Akkad might get replaced as well?
Akkad has been a Babylonian city in every game and I guess Assur could take that place while Babylon turns into Ebla.
8housesofelixir
Emperor
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2020
- Messages
- 1,902
Qing government maintained a very strict control over the migration of Chinese population into Manchuria and Mongolia (then called Guanwai 關外, "the Land beyond the Passes of the Great Wall") before late 19th century. Technically speaking, the Manchu culture heavily "influenced" the "Chinese" culture (for instance, clothing, language customs, foods), but not to the point of a large scale assimilation.
However, there is one important point about the Manchus - you probably noticed I didn't talk much about Manchus in my last post about assimilation, and this is the reason: They are not steppe people. They didn't live in the steppes; they were settled farmers with advanced agriculture, and they barely practice pastoral nomadism. Han Chinese and Koreans who lived in Manchuria before 17th century easily assimilated into the Manchus, because their lifestyle and economical practices were not that different. And, conversely (as you can tell), when Han Chinese migrated into Manchuria in massive numbers in late 19th century, the Manchus assimilated into them as well (but not "easily", it took nearly 100 years and some forced education), for both are agriculturists.
The Mongols, on the other hand, remained on steppes with their own culture and lifestyle. A massive amount of Han Chinese migrated into Mongol territories - on the border of the steppes - since 19th century and turned these regions into farmlands, but the Mongols (even those who now lived in PRC) still retained their culture, social practice, and not to say, language. One of the reason is the Mongols still practice pastoralism (or at least livestock raising) on the steppes while the Han Chinese are just move into the region for farming and commerce.
That's why I said, after Humankind's portrayals of the Huns, what 4x games still lacks about steppe people is how they turned a land of a logistic nightmare into an empire based on "highways" - in other words, how they actually survived in the steppes, while the agriculturists cannot.
The agriculturists cannot simply "transplant" their way of life to the steppes (at least before modern technology such as dams and large-scale irrigation works); if they want to survive, they need to adopt the "steppe way" - and often being assimilated as a result. Conversely, the steppe people (real steppe people, not Manchu farmers), when move into agricultural lands, need to either 1. adopt the agricultural way (being assimilated as a result) 2. turn the agricultural lands into pastures (which is actually quite feasible, Yuan had done this) and continued their pastoralism, but at the cost of reduce agricultural population and their economical outputs in huge amount.
If any 4x games in the future can represent this dynamic - that is, represent the steppes as unsurvivable for agrarian society (similar to how Desert and Tundra works currently), requires every empire that moved into it to adopt the "steppe way" in order to survive, and made the steppe feature an important part of these empire's culture traits - then I would safely call it a (nearly) perfect 4x game. That's how the Huns, the Mongols, the Göktürks, etc. made their history.
Last edited:
DNA reconstructions have shown the indo-europeans (pastoral) greatly outnumbered the Early European Farmer (EEF).I think it would be more accurate to say that Scythians/Sakae were the same or extremely similar people in culture, language, possibly religion, certainly in 'technology' living in different areas and observed by different outsiders. For anybody traveling from somewhere outside 'Scythia' along, say, the Tanais (Don) River in 300 BCE to tell the difference between one felt-hat-wearing horse archer with gorytis bow/arrow case and another and define them as Scythian or Saka (or Massagetae or Getae or later as Sarmatian, for that matter) would be, I suspect, highly problematical. Even recent DNA reconstruction (an ongoing project) has not been able to make any meaningful distinction among the people of the steppe from approximately modern Hungary to northeast of the Caspian Sea before the late Roman Imperial period: they were all visibly similar in appearance, culture, language (mostly), and intermarried amongst each other regularly as far as the evidence suggests. And, at least from the outside-looking-in Classical authors, there is little or no evidence of any political cohesion amongst all the groups, so a 'Civilization' made up of them will be to some extent an artificial construct until Civ learns how to model states without central governments, like the city states of Classical Greece or Renaissance Italy, or the 'tribes' of pastoral Central Asia.
As stated, Civ (and, up until now, most other attempts at 4X Historical Games) has had a real problem modeling cultures that are not also centralized political constructs. This is made even worse with regard to pastoral groups like most of the Native North Americans or Central Asian groups by the single-minded Civ concept that City = Civilization, since a great many peoples in world history (and prehistory) built no cities to speak of but still managed to be quite influential and long-lasting.
And in this respect I'm afraid that I am once again:
Spoiler disturbing example :
Neither Akkad/Agade nor Aššur belongs on Babylon's city list IMO. Agade was gone by the time Babylon rose to power, and Aššur was never under Babylon's sphere of influence.
As I said in the other thread, I'm glad to see more ancient civilizations... though I don't think there is all that much difference between Sumeria and Babylon.
As for the Heroes and Legends mode, I can't comment as we don't know anything about it.
As for the Heroes and Legends mode, I can't comment as we don't know anything about it.
I agree about Assur. What I meant was if they decided to replace Akkad as well Assur would make the most sense as a militaristic city-state, with the same suzerain bonuses, than it replacing Babylon as a scientific city.
Pfeffersack
Deity
You can change the thread title yourself by using the thread tools (right upper corner of your original post)
Ah, I thought you were talking about replacing it on Babylon's city list. Yes, I agree that Aššur is a prime candidate for replacing Akkad if they insist on placing it on Babylon's city list. (I hope they don't, though. If any civ in the game should have Agade on their city list, it's Sumer.)
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 12,023
@8housesofelixir If I may ask, what do you think is the likelihood that the Huns that plagued the latter days of the Roman Empire were actually, as some theorize, a westward migrating column of the Xianbei or the Xiongnu (or even, perhaps, Rouran Khaganate), and whether or not the groups of "Huns," of the 5th-8th Century Northern Indian Subcontinent/Southern Central Asian plains were actually ethnically and linguistically related to Attila's Huns, or were actually just assigned such an association by Byzantine writers?
Similar threads
- Poll
