[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Zaarin]

Moreover,aren't Gaul & Franks different people. So they do look like different Civilizations IMO.

100% this. The influence of the Gauls on France is limited to some place names. Gaulish culture was already on the verge of extinction when the Franks invaded, and no vestige of it survived the invasion. One sees a similar picture in Great Britain with the Britons and the Anglo-Saxons, except that the Britons managed to survive on the fringes in Wales and Cornwall.

 

[SirMediocrity]

Tbh,thats not a good comparison. Gaul were Civilization,Maurya was Empire.
Moreover,aren't Gaul & Franks different people. So they do look like different Civilizations IMO.

I thought it was obvious that I was speaking more geographically than culturally. I'll make sure to specify that more clearly next time.

And I used the term "civilization" because that's synonymous with the term civ.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

If you really want to get into this topic: Civ, CK, HoI, etc., all these games are selling via Steam, a US platform, obviously doesn't controlled by PRC government, but still having access to Mainland market.

The only way to let Steam remove some game from the Chinese region is actually mass reporting, to give pressure to those who originally couldn't give less of a damn but are forced to do it. And as I said before, PRC government will not really give a damn about a very trivial game, unless someone orchestrates a movement across the Chinese Internet hope to take the game down - which is very unlikely, considering the relatively small size of the player base.

No sir. If you want to operate legally in the Chinese market you must have a joint venture with a Chinese company. This is how Valve works.

Valve has partnered with a Chinese company called Perfect World to launch a proper Chinese version of Steam. The launch date is not known yet but it will only feature licensed games, unlike regular Steam, as confirmed in this EuroGamer interview.

 

[8housesofelixir]

No sir. If you want to operate legally in the Chinese market you must have a joint venture with a Chinese company. This is how Valve works.

However, what you quoted haven't been launched yet. As of now, Civ is still selling on a US platform, outside the purview of the direct censorship of PRC. The Chinese region of the Steam only took down a few games to this day, most of which have a more direct political intention than Civ, and being taken down because of mass online protest instead of direct censorship.

As I said before, and I will say that again: currently the only way to let Steam remove some game from the Chinese region (note: only from the Chinese region, if you change region you can still buy the game) is mass reporting or mass online movement on Chinese Internet in order to pressure Steam to take it down - that's actually why these games was taken down, instead of direct censorship from very beginning. As a Chinese who also have friends worked in Chinese gaming industry I'm deadly sure how PRC totalitarianism works and how Chinese gaming community usually voice their (nationalism) opinion.

Even if this "proper Chinese version of Steam" eventually launches, it will be separated from Valve's Steam, and will be likely to have zero influence on the latter whatsoever. If 2k has any intention to join that said platform, FXS can sell a censored version of the game (say, doesn't have Kublai) only on that Chinese platform, while all the other players on the Steam can enjoy a full version.

My whole point is Civ only has fairly trivial influence in China, the PRC government will be very unlikely to give the game a damn specifically, whether Kublai (or even Tibet) is in the game or not. Games like HoI are still online on the Chinese region of the Steam (the only thing is one cannot stream the game on Chinese Internet - a situation which have no influence on the developers of HoI whatsoever).

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Please get back to topic. China and what they are sensitive about is not a good direction to follow.

 

[Jkchart]

Oh, to clarify, I wasn't justifying Firaxis's use of the feature. I was simply saying that they said it was only a feature for modders--and if they had left it at Greece I probably could have bought that line. But since they have added additional leaders, I feel like their choices have been arbitrary. Chandragupta is a great addition, but I could have done without Eleanor--and if he doesn't lead China, I could have done without Kubilai, too. It seems weird that they chose a second leader for France and England who is subject to the same criticisms as their original choices (I'd definitely like her better if the original French and English leaders had been, say, Henry IV and Elizabeth I), and if Kubilai only leads Mongolia I can't say I was just dying for a second Mongolian leader, either.

I think Eleanor is an inspired choice that they probably won't re-use, though she makes far more sense as an English leader since she actually had a fair amount of power, running England most of the time because Richard was always crusading and warring. I'm not dying for a second Mongol leader either, so I hope that he's also for China because then we are at LEAST representing one of the other many dynasties of China rather than leaving them with a single leader.

 

[berlin88]

100% this. The influence of the Gauls on France is limited to some place names. Gaulish culture was already on the verge of extinction when the Franks invaded, and no vestige of it survived the invasion. One sees a similar picture in Great Britain with the Britons and the Anglo-Saxons, except that the Britons managed to survive on the fringes in Wales and Cornwall.

I think this is misleading, as the Gauls left behind a strong genetic footprint in France. Sure the Greeks, Romans, Vikings and Franks had a cultural influence on France, but the primary demographic was Gauls who absorbed the new (but smaller) groups and slowly adopted a new cultural identity. Great Britain, Spain and Portugal have also contributed to the DNA melting pot, but the dominant ancestry is still the Gauls, and remnants of Steppe ancestry as well. The primary Haplotypes found in France are H and U, while the early Germanic populations are thought to be Haplotype I1. However, there is a significant split amongst the Germans, as Germans east of the Elbe tend to be haplogroup R1b, while those west of the Elbe tend to be R1a.

A perfect sample to look at, is the French Canadians. The French Canadians are primarily descended from colonists who came from the coastal areas of Western France, Perche and the Paris region. French Canadians have a strong Celtic / Iberian influence, with some Viking thrown in, but not as much much in the way of Germanic, since the Franks were more to the central and eastern parts of France, as opposed to the coastal regions.

 

[Zaarin]

I think Eleanor is an inspired choice that they probably won't re-use, though she makes far more sense as an English leader since she actually had a fair amount of power, running England most of the time because Richard was always crusading and warring. I'm not dying for a second Mongol leader either, so I hope that he's also for China because then we are at LEAST representing one of the other many dynasties of China rather than leaving them with a single leader.

I do like Eleanor--I just feel like she compounds rather than alleviates some of the problems with England's and France's previous leaders. CdM was a queen-consort and regent; Eleanor was a queen-consort and regent. Victoria was officially the head of state but exerted very little real power; Eleanor was not officially head of state but exerted power as regent, consort, and dowager. So again, I'd like her better if France and England had different original leaders.

I think this is misleading, as the Gauls left behind a strong genetic footprint in France.

I never claimed otherwise, but that is also highly irrelevant. Culture is not genetic.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I do like Eleanor--I just feel like she compounds rather than alleviates some of the problems with England's and France's previous leaders. CdM was a queen-consort and regent; Eleanor was a queen-consort and regent. Victoria was officially the head of state but exerted very little real power; Eleanor was not officially head of state but exerted power as regent, consort, and dowager. So again, I'd like her better if France and England had different original leaders.

I agree. I don't have a problem with Eleanor as a dual leader but in the long run if we wanted a cultural/loyalty leaders for both England and France, Elizabeth I and Louis XIV would have worked just fine, in my opinion, with Louis XIV getting Magnificence Catherine's ability and agenda. Black Queen Catherine and Victoria are fine to stay.

Then use the dual leader gimmick for Kublai.

 

[sweetbrown89]

To illustrate my prediction, I made a chart outlining the pattern of Civs, so far (open in another window to get a better zoom):

Red = Civs that have been slanted out
Blue = Civs that were slanted back in
Green = Civs that have a branched / split Civ
Gray = Indeterminately designated Civ (Cree, so far)
Italicized = City-State

I would describe each generation as from top to bottom (by group) more likely to appear in a Civ game than the next (group), and also that niches are being filled or -- as of Civ VI -- being created, giving us a total of 50.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Hi Andrew from Firaxis, we know you are reading this but you cannot comment or like comments regarding unreleased content. Since pack 6 cannot be both a Native American civ AND Portugal, please let the dev team know that it is literally easy money since a lot of us would be willing to pay for them Please be super extra wholesome (which you guys already are) and don't end Civ6 after NFP just yet. Thanks!

This but Chola, Mughals, Timurids, Tonga, Hawaii, Berbers,

As much as I want this to happen I can't see it happening unless there is a serious paradigm shift in the way civilizations are chosen.

Personally, I really want civ to move toward a more de-blobbing way of doing things. Make India like France where we have a more modern civilization from the area and an older civilization. In the case of France: Gaul. In the case of India: Maurya and/or Chola.

which is unfortunate, considering I wouldn’t really categorize modern India as a civ in any capacity: it’s not a unified culture nor ethnicity, nor has modern India been powerful enough or been around long enough to justify being a civ nonetheless. It simply makes the most sense to turn India into 3/4 civs: Mughals, Maurya, Chola and maybe the Republic too.

If they do a second frontier pass I'd absolutely love if they went back and revisited old civs and seriously redesign some of them to at least be on par with new ones. Debblobing India is possible and should be done, they've already made abundantly clear they don't shy away from post colonial civs, break India apart, keep Gandhi (so that Firaxis can keep on the stupid nuke joke) but make him the leader of post colonial India alone. And give Chandragupta a proper Maurya civ. As you mention they could also add another leader while they are at it and give us Chola or Mughal.

There's still civs I want to see back (Haudenosaunee and Assyria) but think that adding a bunch of old favourite leaders could seriously gain some traction even if all of the favourite civs seem to be done. Ramses, Isabella, Catherine, William of Orange, Julius Cesar, Wu Zetian, Theodora, etc.

make it...sort of Civ VI ultimate, all your favorites are back.

I would love this

Since traditional 4x Historical Game = Civ, there will be a lot of pressure to relook at the Civ mechanisms - again, any such implementation will result in a completely new game.

especially in regard to religion and ideology, the two things that Humankind looks like it’s just crushing Civ in.

 

[SeelingCat]

After reading the Babylon pack's page on the civ website, it looks like the city-states are confirmed to be Samarkand and Nalanda.

 

[Xandinho]

Samarkand is most likely mercantile (Central Asian)
Nalanda is either scientific or religious (South Asian)

Considering the geographical balance:

This leaves cultural, militaristic, industrial and scientific/religious for Europe, the Americas, Africa and possibly Southeast Asia.

 

[Jkchart]

I do like Eleanor--I just feel like she compounds rather than alleviates some of the problems with England's and France's previous leaders. CdM was a queen-consort and regent; Eleanor was a queen-consort and regent. Victoria was officially the head of state but exerted very little real power; Eleanor was not officially head of state but exerted power as regent, consort, and dowager. So again, I'd like her better if France and England had different original leaders.


I never claimed otherwise, but that is also highly irrelevant. Culture is not genetic.

All fair points, good sir!

they could have put Napoleon in again though

 

[Zaarin]

they could have put Napoleon in again though

Oh, was I complaining about Eleanor? No, no, no, Eleanor is great. Eleanor is wonderful. Eleanor is just the best.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

After reading the Babylon pack's page on the civ website, it looks like the city-states are confirmed to be Samarkand and Nalanda.

It’s really odd they picked Nalanda, which not only is within the conceptualization of India in this game but in the core provincial regions of the Maurya Empire, especially and specifically modern Bihar. If anything, Nalanda should be a city in the Maurya city list, so that pick makes no sense to me...

Additionally, until now, city states have seemingly been stand ins for civ’s that can’t be in game due to no language, no leader or not important enough, but a city that should be in a civ’s city list, but isn’t, as a city state is so awkward, especially given that the maurya are basically forced to use a set of modern city names.

I hope there’ll be a mod to rename Nalanda to Anuradhapura or Lalitpur or Somapura

 

[8housesofelixir]

It’s really odd they picked Nalanda, which not only is within the conceptualization of India in this game but in the core provincial regions of the Maurya Empire, especially and specifically modern Bihar. If anything, Nalanda should be a city in the Maurya city list, so that pick makes no sense to me...

I understand that Nalanda is not really an independent city-state, but I don't think it is a "city" on an Empire's "city list" either.

It was like an autonomous Buddhism university that enjoyed a long history of semi-independence under a lot of different regimes - which, in terms of Civ's categorization of polities, is more of a City State. (See also Bologna, which only developed into an important city after the establishment of the university.)

 

[SagarRathore]

To make Nalanda a City State is very disappointing at the least. I mean it ideally should be a wonder.
There is no Oxford or Sankore city state. If they had just looked around there was Nepal just nearby.

 

[j51]

To make Nalanda a City State is very disappointing at the least. I mean it ideally should be a wonder.
There is no Oxford or Sankore city state. If they had just looked around there was Nepal just nearby.

It's Firaxis. They don't plan things like this through thoroughly anymore. They're too busy with vampires and Hercules.

Leave deeper consideration of such things to the French.

 

[8housesofelixir]

I think the problem is still "what is a city-state in a Civ game".

Besides "real" city-states (Singapore, Vatican, etc) and important historical cities (Jerusalem, Geneva, etc), It can be a compensation of a full civ (Akkad, Yerevan, etc), it can be a representation of a culture/community that cannot really become a full civ (Kumasi, Bandar Brunei, etc).

Besides these categories, we also have Armagh, Nan Madol, Rapa Nui, and Nazca, etc., which are clearly not "cities" or "city states" IRL - Armagh was a monastery, Nan Madol was a palace, Rapa Nui had many different tribes - but important historical sites featuring architectures (for Nazca, lines) and cultural influence.

TBH, making Nalanda a CS seems to echo with making Armagh, Nan Madol, etc., as CS. They can be either Wonders or City States - Moai was a wonder in Civ IV - and FXS chooses City States this time.