[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

With absolutely no disrespect intended to Sukritact, whose Gaul design was honestly better than Firaxis's, I don't think it's incumbent upon Firaxis to take mods into account in their civ selection.

Especially considering Ethiopia at least looks to become a series regular now.

 

[notNamed]

If I'm not mistaken Vietnam even has a growing e-sports scene somewhat similar to Korea's, although oddly enough their game of choice is AoE2, IIRC (and no, this predates the Vietnamese being added as a civ in that game)

Vietnam got addicted to AoE1 about the same time as Korea to SC:BW.
They kept that going, though it seems that after Microsoft showed for the final time that they refuse to support the AoE1 scene, they might have started migrating to AoE2, I guess?

Since we're talking about Vietnam, what do you think Vietnam will be based on?

Spoiler What I think it might be :

I personally think they could be a Cultural/Defensive based civ do to their history. Defensive part, UA and maybe UU, Cultural part UB (Water Puppet Theater) and maybe UA or LUA

I'd love to see the relationship between the civilised (kinh) and barbarian (man) portions of the realm represented somewhat as well. Though no idea how you'd work that in.

 

[Starina]

What about Grand Duchy of Lithuania ? Has this civilization been discussed earlier ?

 

[Zaarin]

What about Grand Duchy of Lithuania ? Has this civilization been discussed earlier ?

They seem unlikely when Poland as represented in Civ6 is really the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

 

[AaronTBD]

They seem unlikely when Poland as represented in Civ6 is really the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

I have a sort of weird idea of a Lithuania civ. It's kind of like Elanor. Anyways, I think Jadwiga could do both Poland and Lithuania.

 

[pokiehl]

I have a sort of weird idea of a Lithuania civ. It's kind of like Elanor. Anyways, I think Jadwiga could do both Poland and Lithuania.

I'm quite over the "one leader leading two civs" gimmick. Hope it doesn't return in VII.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

What about Grand Duchy of Lithuania ? Has this civilization been discussed earlier ?

I'm pretty sure the only reasonable European civ left that would be plausible at this point is Portugal, at least for NFP.

I'm quite over the "one leader leading two civs" gimmick. Hope it doesn't return in VII.

I do think that Kublai would at least be a good pick if it does happen again, arguably a better choice to represent the concept than Eleanor.

 

[SirMediocrity]

I'm quite over the "one leader leading two civs" gimmick. Hope it doesn't return in VII.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who found the "one leader leading two civs" to be kinda janky. It looks really weird on the leader selection screen. The same thing goes for the persona packs.

 

[AaronTBD]

I'm quite over the "one leader leading two civs" gimmick. Hope it doesn't return in VII.

I 100% agree, but It would be the only real way to add Lithuania in Civ 6

 

[pokiehl]

I 100% agree, but It would be the only real way to add Lithuania in Civ 6

Oh I get your point there.

 

[Starina]

They seem unlikely when Poland as represented in Civ6 is really the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

But if you take a step back Commonwealth of Poland = Kingdom of Poland + Grand Duchy of Lithuania since 1569
And even Poland's in game abilities (Jadwiga, Sukiennice, Winged hussars) can only be attributed to the Kingdom of Poland without Commonwealth of Poland. Or i'm wrong?

I'm quite over the "one leader leading two civs" gimmick. Hope it doesn't return in VII.

Why? In my opinion this is a great idea! But the main thing is without fanaticism. I suggested perhaps considering Caesar as an alternative leader of Egypt, but I was corrected in time. I thought: yes, this is a bad idea. You cannot think that a leader can lead ONLY as a conqueror. And Eleanor of Aquitaine and Kublai Khan are probably really not bad choices.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

The "one leader leading two civs" is really an interesting concept, and I would have wished to have seen it more developed... Hopefully (for me, at least, but I know some people might disagree), having Kubilay Khan as a double leader for China and Mongolia could work. Especially if KK's ability is the hidden, not-used-yet ability "Gain a free Eureka and Inspiration once a trade route is finished". It would fit perfectly with the Silk Road historically, and it would work perfectly with both civs: China gets better percentage from Eurekas and Inspirations, and Mongolia gets more bonuses from trade routes. I mean, it screams to be used this way.

 

[LoneRebel]

That being said it looks like the Siamese will get into the base game of Humankind. Siam was the only SE Asian nation, similar to Ethiopia, who resisted colonization and had rapid industrialization which are definite reasons for inclusion. I don't think it has anything to do with today.

Was there a leak or something that the Siamese would be one of the cultures in Humankind? I went to their Twitter page thinking they were the most recent one announced, but it was the Russians.

I'd actually forgotten about the "only Southeast Asian country to never be colonized" thing in my earlier reply, because it tends to be blown out of proportion (Siam had to give up a lot of territory to the British and French to maintain independence), and also because my country has been repeatedly colonized, in contrast. But yes, that is a factor making Siam/Thailand a good candidate for inclusion.

Vietnam got addicted to AoE1 about the same time as Korea to SC:BW.
They kept that going, though it seems that after Microsoft showed for the final time that they refuse to support the AoE1 scene, they might have started migrating to AoE2, I guess?

That's probably it then! I had no idea Vietnam's obsession with Age of Empires went back as far as AoE1.

What about Grand Duchy of Lithuania ? Has this civilization been discussed earlier ?

What about Jogaila as leader of Lithuania? Then when both Lithuania and Poland are in the game, things would get pretty...awkward.

 

[Zaarin]

And even Poland's in game abilities (Jadwiga, Sukiennice, Winged hussars) can only be attributed to the Kingdom of Poland without Commonwealth of Poland. Or i'm wrong?

Jadwiga's ability is called "Lithuanian Union."

What about Jogaila as leader of Lithuania? Then when both Lithuania and Poland are in the game, things would get pretty...awkward.

So when they go to war it's technically a domestic dispute?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The "one leader leading two civs" is really an interesting concept, and I would have wished to have seen it more developed... Hopefully (for me, at least, but I know some people might disagree), having Kubilay Khan as a double leader for China and Mongolia could work. Especially if KK's ability is the hidden, not-used-yet ability "Gain a free Eureka and Inspiration once a trade route is finished". It would fit perfectly with the Silk Road historically, and it would work perfectly with both civs: China gets better percentage from Eurekas and Inspirations, and Mongolia gets more bonuses from trade routes. I mean, it screams to be used this way.

I'm kind of hoping that does seem to be the case with that being his leader ability leading both civs.

Was there a leak or something that the Siamese would be one of the cultures in Humankind? I went to their Twitter page thinking they were the most recent one announced, but it was the Russians.

I'd actually forgotten about the "only Southeast Asian country to never be colonized" thing in my earlier reply, because it tends to be blown out of proportion (Siam had to give up a lot of territory to the British and French to maintain independence), and also because my country has been repeatedly colonized, in contrast. But yes, that is a factor making Siam/Thailand a good candidate for inclusion.

There seemed to be a SEA Industrial Era culture represented on a screenshot with the EU as an elephant mounted with a jingal. It's presumed to be the Siamese anyway.

If Siam does return for Civ I would like to see it portrayed in this time period anyway to differentiate it from the other SEA civs which have always been portrayed so far as Medieval.

So when they go to war it's technically a domestic dispute?

Wouldn't be the first time a war was that.

 

[Lord Lakely]

So when they go to war it's technically a domestic dispute?

This is a bit OT, but when I designed my Civ 7 vision, I dabbled with splitting Spain into Castile and Aragon; If one spawned in the game, the other would be in the game as well and they would enter a permanent alliance upon meeting each other (and each would receive a strict penalty to yields until they did). Balance would be a huge problem though; In my Castile/Aragon design, Isabella and Ferdinand had weak, inconsistent bonuses to make up for it (Isabella would discover a small bonus every era (example "+1 movement to recon units") that would last for two era's until it expired, while Ferdinand could change his Leader Ability into that of an ally's in exchange for 1000 faith)

Lithuania and Poland could follow a similar trajectory, but obviously done by someone with actual design experience.

 

[sweetbrown89]

I'm simply taking issue with the framing, because Siam is no more a "substitute" for Vietnam than France would be acceptable as a "substitute" for Germany. They're from the same geographic region and little more. I don't disagree that geographic region must be taken into account when considering how likely a civ is to be included however.

That's just not true. Mitla isn't banned by the Mayans or Aztecs, the Maori don't prevent Rapa Nui (to use a very clear example for your Maori/Polynesia example) Hong Kong isn't even banned by China. There's nothing in the precedent that prevents them from possibly including Ayutthaya/Vienna/Hanoi/Tiwanaku/Reykjavik as a city state. They've only ever taken out/replaced City-States when the city appears as an actual city on someone's city-list (and I'd like to point out that even then, we somehow have both the Aztec's Tenochtitlan and Mexico City as a CS), not just because the two cultures are sorta close to each other.

You'll note that I agreed wholeheartedly to this particular post because there's a distinction in what you two said, and it's a distinction that IMHO matters.

I firstly need to point out that I made a correction to the representation: Khmer / Siam are the slant and Vietnam is brand new.

City-States of ancient / historically mysterious cultures are separate from the Civs: Mitla represents the Zapotecs. La Venta the Olmecs. Rapa Nui inhabitants have been found to have genetics other than Polynesian in the timeframe of roughly 300AD-1722AD (fist European contact):

“Genetic analysis performed by Erik Thorsby and other geneticists in 2007 revealed genetic markers of European and Amerindian origin that suggest that the Rapa Nui had European and Amerindian contributions to their DNA during or before the early 1800s.”

So there were situations like with the Austronesians in the Philippines outnumbering the native Negrito populations, meaning it’s not entirely clear if Rapa Nui was originally Polynesian or not.

Hong Kong was a British colony. Until returned to China, it was a Vatican City (Medieval) / Rome (Classical) or Mexíco City (more post Industrial) / Aztec (Medieval) as you’ve pointed out, but those are not contemporaneous as I’m pointing out.

Either way, cities from slant representations still have not shown up on the map.

And finally, I have to remind you again that the pattern is there. I’m *not saying* that I *personally believe* whatever cultures are fair enough representations — especially when Persia in the game is clearly Achaemenid, Indonesia is Majapahit, Scythia / Greece / Maya / were a collection of City-States or tribes and are a blob civs, as examples. I’m providing an analysis of Civ selection based on dev logic (“what can I choose that is close or similar?”), not cultural historian logic of anything to do with languages or whatever distinction you’re insisting on for accuracy.

 

[sukritact]

A

City-States of ancient / historically mysterious cultures are separate from the Civs: Mitla represents the Zapotecs. La Venta the Olmecs. Rapa Nui inhabitants have been found to have genetics other than Polynesian in the timeframe of roughly 300AD-1722AD (fist European contact):

“Genetic analysis performed by Erik Thorsby and other geneticists in 2007 revealed genetic markers of European and Amerindian origin that suggest that the Rapa Nui had European and Amerindian contributions to their DNA during or before the early 1800s.”

So there were situations like with the Austronesians in the Philippines outnumbering the native Negrito populations, meaning it’s not entirely clear if Rapa Nui was originally Polynesian or not.

Hong Kong was a British colony. Until returned to China, it was a Vatican City (Medieval) / Rome (Classical) or Mexíco City (more post Industrial) / Aztec (Medieval) as you’ve pointed out, but those are not contemporaneous as I’m pointing out.

Either way, cities from slant representations still have not shown up on the map.

After you having said all this, if you still think Siam/Vietnam, Austria/Hungary, or basically all your suggested pairings other than maybe Denmark/Norway are acceptable “slant representations” of each other, I’m honestly going to have to say you’re being either absolutely arbitrary with your criteria or wilfully culturally ignorant tbh.

(Also I strongly feel the urge to point out that Rapa Nui was like, part of the Polynesia blob in Civ 5, so I can’t even...)

I’m providing an analysis of Civ selection based on dev logic (“what can I choose that is close or similar?”)

Yes, and I think the devs know enough to understand that adding Vietnam is not adding representation for Thailand (especially since they have a scholar of the region on their writing team), even if adding either probably does give Mainland Southeast Asia enough representation. The ultimate effect on the game of both viewpoints are the same. But you’re framing can be taken as extremely ignorant. I’m personally slightly affronted as someone from Thailand that you think Vietnam can be treated as a “slant replacement” for Siam for instance.

To be clear, I agree that many of those pairing mean that including one makes the other less likely (because diversity of representation does matter), I don’t disagree with you there. I do disagree with the logic you’re using to exclude the other however, because many of your suggested slants have very distinct cultures.

I firstly need to point out that I made a correction to the representation: Khmer / Siam are the slant and Vietnam is brand new.

My issues and critiques remain regardless. Like for instance, the Khmer were Hindu/Mahayana Buddhist whereas Siam is Theravada Buddhist, not to mention languages from different languages families, time period; The Khmer are Medieval, Siam is more representative of the Early Modern (Hey! What do you know! Just like Norway/Sweden!), etc, etc. Similar arguments can be pulled up for the other pairings

 

[Zaarin]

This is a bit OT, but when I designed my Civ 7 vision, I dabbled with splitting Spain into Castile and Aragon; If one spawned in the game, the other would be in the game as well and they would enter a permanent alliance upon meeting each other (and each would receive a strict penalty to yields until they did). Balance would be a huge problem though; In my Castile/Aragon design, Isabella and Ferdinand had weak, inconsistent bonuses to make up for it (Isabella would discover a small bonus every era (example "+1 movement to recon units") that would last for two era's until it expired, while Ferdinand could change his Leader Ability into that of an ally's in exchange for 1000 faith)

Lithuania and Poland could follow a similar trajectory, but obviously done by someone with actual design experience.

I actually love the idea of civs that are designed to work in tandem. I don't play multiplayer, but I could see that being super fun.

 

[almughavar]

Since we're talking about Vietnam, what do you think Vietnam will be based on?

Spoiler What I think it might be :

I personally think they could be a Cultural/Defensive based civ do to their history. Defensive part, UA and maybe UU, Cultural part UB (Water Puppet Theater) and maybe UA or LUA

To be fair they let Sukritact design the Palaces of Byzantium and Gaul

I think it takes much more than a single UB to make a Civ a truly cultural based civ: as least leader's and civ's abilities should also boost culture. as well as synergizing with the UB to make it a cultural powerhouse. Personally I don't think Vietnam is gonna be a cultural civ, because the selling point of such a civ is expected to be... warfare. Not to mention we already have other cultural civs in Asia, who are right next door to Vietnam: China and Khmer - which also making much more sense for cultural based civs than Vietnam.

I agree. We haven't had a culture civ yet in NFP, and Vietnam is a prime choice for that.

Ethiopian though, moreover we still have another unrevealed civ.