[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[sweetbrown89]

I agree with you on many of these points, Sukritact. Especially considering Total War animations, they've been dumbed down in the past few years. In Three Kingdoms, we don't even get to see the soldiers decapitate or stab the other soldiers, it's just the same, generic falling-down animations over and over again. No hate to anyone who disagrees.

I also do not get the hate towards the reused animations. I mean, come on! Should that bother anyone? NO! Civ 6 isn't affected by the leaders' animations, so why the hell would this matter??!! DO WE PLAY CIV 6 FOR THE BLOODY ANIMATIONS??!! NO!! Sorry about that, rant, just needed to type that out loud. No bad faith to anyone who believes otherwise, I just STRONGLY disagree with them.

It adds flavor to an otherwise lifeless game. The game lets you know you’re interacting with a historical figure. Talking to a portrait just seems awkward. And just...not making new idles seems like a weird corner to cut. I’m not a fan of the choice, I guess. I don’t mash through the dialogue no matter how many times I hear it though. Some of us...enjoy the little touches.

 

[Zaarin]

It adds flavor to an otherwise lifeless game. The game lets you know you’re interacting with a historical figure. Talking to a portrait just seems awkward. And just...not making new idles seems like a weird corner to cut. I’m not a fan of the choice, I guess. I don’t mash through the dialogue no matter how many times I hear it though. Some of us...enjoy the little touches.

Same. I understand some people skip the animations and dialogue, but some of us still enjoy it. For me the reused animations are very jarring.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

firstly, there’s no distinction between an empire and a civ, as you seem to suggest. Both are inherently abstract terms


Likewise, the idea of Humankind’s ‘cultures’ is also an abstract term

nonetheless, while Tamilakam could be a fine choice for the name, ultimately, the Chola fall into the case of the Ottomans, where a dynastic name is simply more effective at conveying their accomplishments and stuff

The point that many are trying to make is there doesn't seem to be a distinction between the Chola and the current India civ in game, which I can see considering the lands of the Chola dynasty fall into the modern day Republic of India, which Gandhi represents.
I'm not going to admit that I'm an expert on the subject of South Asia but I don't necessarily see the reason to make a Chola civ when a civ is called India in the game.

I would argue there's a better chance if they went the route of making a Mauryan and Mughal civ without a Gandhi lead Republic of India in the future.
Though at the same time I wouldn't mind a civ called India with a Mauryan and Mughal leader either.

Yes there's the argument of Macedon and Greece but the way Greece is portrayed in game are represented by the classical city-states separate from the kingdom of Macedon.
Not to mention Scotland, under Robert the Bruce, was politically separate from England and remained sovereign for a long time.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

The point that many are trying to make is there doesn't seem to be a distinction between the Chola and the current India civ in game, which I can see considering the lands of the Chola dynasty fall into the modern day Republic of India, which Gandhi represents.
I'm not going to admit that I'm an expert on the subject of South Asia but I don't necessarily see the reason to make a Chola civ when a civ is called India in the game.

I would argue there's a better chance if they went the route of making a Mauryan and Mughal civ without a Gandhi lead Republic of India in the future.
Though at the same time I wouldn't mind a civ called India with a Mauryan and Mughal leader either.

Yes there's the argument of Macedon and Greece but the way Greece is portrayed in game are represented by the classical city-states separate from the kingdom of Macedon.
Not to mention Scotland, under Robert the Bruce, was politically separate from England and remained sovereign for a long time.

i mean, there’d temporal, cultural, lingual, and governmental distinctions between the Chola empire and modern India, not to mention that modern India (in game and irl) hardly represents the Dravidian south in *any* respects, let alone the medieval era’s trading and building empires of the Chola, Chera, Pandya, Jaffna and Vijayanagara

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

i mean, there’d temporal, cultural, lingual, and governmental distinctions between the Chola empire and modern India, not to mention that modern India (in game and irl) hardly represents the Dravidian south in *any* respects, let alone the medieval era’s trading and building empires of the Chola, Chera, Pandya, Jaffna and Vijayanagara

I guess what I'm wondering if the people of Southern India see themselves today as nothing to do with the rest of India and do not call themselves a citizen of the Republic of India?

I can agree that somebody that lives in the south of India could have different culture with the people of the North. I mean that's the same way in the U.S. Even in Texas where I live is vastly different than the people even on the other side of the state. I still refer to myself as an American or Texan though.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Would said.

- Gauls were mainly part of what is now France and I dont see them as alternative French leader. Then why every historical nation from India should be "Indian" despite being of different eras, regions, language families and religions?
Tamils are not just part of modern India, they are also on Sri Lanka. Same with Mughals and their strong relation to Pakistan, or even the Magadha and their role on what is now Bangladesh history.
- Why not Benito Juarez as alternative leader of the Aztecs? Mexicas is a way better historical name for what we get again and again as "Aztecs", the name of modern Mexico is a direct reference to the Mexica (Aztec) empire. As a mexican I must say that we have way more relevant problem to deal with but there is the chance to go all "I am offended by ..." and demand the use of Mexican to refer to any "Aztec" related as always was until some 19th century foreign historians and the 20th century pop culture went full "Aztec". Even many maps from early colonial time refer to North America as "Mexican America" .
- Byzantines have many reasons to be just an alt leader for Romans or Greeks, but they are not this way on game.
- If Scotland was independent many time then what about the souther tip of India and Sri Lanka whose Tamil states keep their independence from the big indian empires?
Also Chola was building one of the biggest tradding empires of their time and expanding their culture all around Southeast Asia, while Scotland was more as part of the whole British influence.

I am 99.9% sure that there is not going to be any form of "India split off" on CIV6, and 95% sure neither CIV7 would do it, I guess Firaxis love to much their Gandhi meme, fear to offend Indian nationalists, and give a reason to the guys that think like "only western history is special all others are blobs of looking similar and history less people" to ask for every Italian city state to be their own civ because "if they split India on 2 or 3 civs then I want Wales, Ireland, Britons, Angles, Picts, England, UK and Scotland on my game!". Like if context of time range, area, population, religion, language, wealth, ways of production, intitutions, goverments and real cultural diversity means nothing to justify real different mechanics for each civ.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I guess what I'm wondering if the people of Southern India see themselves today as nothing to do with the rest of India and do not call themselves a citizen of the Republic of India?

I can agree that somebody that lives in the south of India could have different culture with the people of the North. I mean that's the same way in the U.S. Even in Texas where I live is vastly different than the people even on the other side of the state. I still refer to myself as an American or Texan though.

Tamil ppl in India are a unique case. They’ve got incredible regional/cultural/ethnic pride and like to view themselves as different while simultaneously indian. It’s a complicated relationship that’s hard to explain. Tamil ppl (generally) despise Hindi, both major parties (they almost exclusively vote their own regional parties, the ADMK or DMK) and are one of the few demographics in India which support the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka rather than the Sinhala government.

The same is true for the Tamil-adjacent Malayalam culture/ethnolinguistic group. Similar beliefs about themselves in relation to India, Similar linguistic pride, despise of Hindi, Similar rejection of the main parties (they basically only vote CPI or CPI (M))


In general, those of south indian descent or South Indians as a whole tend to feel as if South India is erased often by the west and general outside views about what India is. a Chola civ wouldn’t be viewed as necessary by Indians outside of the southern states, but those within the southern states, as well as tamil sri lankans and the dravidian diaspora would much rather have the chola than not

 

[679x]

What I personally dislike most about the Leaders is that they take you to their own distinct leader screens. It just takes up time and you out of your immersion. That‘s also why I think they will go a dramatically different route with leaders in the next civ game. I just feel there‘s a lot of room for optimization there.

One of my favourite parts of Civ 5, in comparison to 6, is that its leaders had full scenes with a surrounding environment. You're visiting them in their throne room, as you do with Attila, or meeting them at a public spot, like with Enrico Dandolo, and every time you do that, it feels like you're talking to a real person in a real setting. Not to mention that the environments are always diverse and downright beautiful. In 6, it's more like the leaders are standing in front of a green screen and sending you a recorded video of themselves. The 'green screen' effect is not something I would have noticed had I not also seen how 5's scenes had environments, but because I have seen both, I now regard 5's scenes as superior. If I were a newcomer to civ and started with 6, I don't think I would complain.

In other words, I agree that it's a bit immersion-breaking but I think the solution would be to go in the opposite direction and make scenes more distinct. However, that will be more resource-intensive for development, especially now that the leader models are such a high quality and the surrounding environment would have to match that or it would just break immersion even further.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Hey guys... who do you think new leaders for Vietnam will be in January? will it be trung sisters? dose it mean we will finally have new animations for leaders?

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Hey guys... who do you think new leaders for Vietnam will be in January? will it be trung sisters? dose it mean we will finally have new animations for leaders?

Not likely, they have one of the Trung sisters, I forgot which one, as a Great General. I personally predict Le Loi.

 

[DWilson]

I predict Trần Nhân Tông

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

- Gauls were mainly part of what is now France and I dont see them as alternative French leader. Then why every historical nation from India should be "Indian" despite being of different eras, regions, language families and religions?
Tamils are not just part of modern India, they are also on Sri Lanka. Same with Mughals and their strong relation to Pakistan, or even the Magadha and their role on what is now Bangladesh history.

Well Ambiorix is from modern-day Belgium so I don't see the need for that either.

- If Scotland was independent many time then what about the souther tip of India and Sri Lanka whose Tamil states keep their independence from the big indian empires?
Also Chola was building one of the biggest tradding empires of their time and expanding their culture all around Southeast Asia, while Scotland was more as part of the whole British influence.

I guess it's about semantics to me. There is no civ called Britain so in my mind there is a way for Scotland and England to exist independently.
The core region of the Chola were in Southern India which is encompassed by India so it's hard for me to find a way that they could exist independently the way India is portrayed in the game.

In general, those of south indian descent or South Indians as a whole tend to feel as if South India is erased often by the west and general outside views about what India is. a Chola civ wouldn’t be viewed as necessary by Indians outside of the southern states, but those within the southern states, as well as tamil sri lankans and the dravidian diaspora would much rather have the chola than not

I mean I can possibly see them focusing on Sri Lanka as another civ as a representation. I just don't see a Chola civ happening as long as a civ called India keeps showing up is all I am saying. Would there be a problem with a leader from the Chola Dynasty leading India in the future?

Hey guys... who do you think new leaders for Vietnam will be in January? will it be trung sisters? dose it mean we will finally have new animations for leaders?

Considering Trung Trac is now a Great General it doesn't seem likely it will be one of them.

 

[JR Magallanes]

I know, but I'd say that's a very minor change to do especially that Manila's very far below Spain's city list.

Compare that to Manila being one of the city-states where they would have to conceptualize another replacement if the Philippines were to be a new civ.

If we are to treat the Philippines as an “Oceania” Civ there could still be some possibility it could be in a game.
The Philippines is one of the bigger Austronesian groups and is yet to be represented in a Civ franchise as full-pledged Civ.

I’d say it has a niche on great people/religion/disaster

Hoping for Portugal too though.

Corazon Aquino of the Philippines, maybe? New civ, with a female leader, from Asia/Oceania. Only issue is that she's so recent, having only passed away in 2009

The Philippines could have a semi-mythical leader too - Like Urduja. She can be militaristic/ exploration/ disaster-driven/ religious Civ

 

[Zaarin]

Hey guys... who do you think new leaders for Vietnam will be in January? will it be trung sisters? dose it mean we will finally have new animations for leaders?

I don't think the Trung Sisters--as in both of them--was ever on the table, and with Trung Trac having just been added as a Great General it seems she's out. I also predict Le Loi.

 

[batusay]

The Philippines could have a semi-mythical leader too - Like Urduja. She can be militaristic/ exploration/ disaster-driven/ religious Civ

This.

Not to mention she has a connection (however tenuous) with kublai khan, as her mythical kingdom is said to have ships that rivalled that of the yuan dynasty's.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I don't think the Trung Sisters--as in both of them--was ever on the table, and with Trung Trac having just been added as a Great General it seems she's out. I also predict Le Loi.

Third Le Loi, suggest that you keep an eye out for Ngo Quyen or Ho Chi Minh as well

 

[SMcM]

This.

Not to mention she has a connection (however tenuous) with kublai khan, as her mythical kingdom is said to have ships that rivalled that of the yuan dynasty's.

Maybe Dayang Kalangitan would be a better female leader choice for the Philippines than Urduja? She is supposed to have ruled the historical Kingdom of Tondo as opposed to a mythical land, the location of which is debated. Apparently there is even a theory Urduja is actually from Java and could be the same person as Gitarja! I hadn't heard of Urdjuja before and she seems like an interesting character, but perhaps slightly problematic as a leader choice for a few reasons.

Third Le Loi, suggest that you keep an eye out for Ngo Quyen or Ho Chi Minh as well

I find it bizarre I keep seeing people predict Ho Chi Minh! We had this debate here ages ago, I would say they are very unlikely to go for someone who is still so politically controversial. I'm pretty sure Civilization has left the days where it would casually throw in Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. into the game.

Le Loi I think it most likely also probably. Tran Thanh Tong, Quang Trung and Gia Long are other options that could make sense.

 

[notNamed]

I find it bizarre I keep seeing people predict Ho Chi Minh! We had this debate here ages ago, I would say they are very unlikely to go for someone who is still so politically controversial. I'm pretty sure Civilization has left the days where it would casually throw in Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. into the game.

Le Loi I think it most likely also probably. Tran Thanh Tong, Quang Trung and Gia Long are other options that could make sense.

Ho Chi Minh is not any more politically controversial than Roosevelt is (brutally colonising Phillipines, screwing over Panama,...).
Ho Chi Minh is a very legit Vietnamese ruler and one who basically has to make an appearance in the game at least once. The real argument against him is that, depending on how you structure the rest of the civ, it could easily become a one-trick civ focusing on a single and porportionally overdone event in Vietnamese history. So a historical pre-colonial king (done right) would be a welcome change of pace in that regard.

 

[SMcM]

Ho Chi Minh is not any more politically controversial than Roosevelt is (brutally colonising Phillipines, screwing over Panama,...).
Ho Chi Minh is a very legit Vietnamese ruler and one who basically has to make an appearance in the game at least once. The real argument against him is that, depending on how you structure the rest of the civ, it could easily become a one-trick civ focusing on a single and porportionally overdone event in Vietnamese history. So a historical pre-colonial king (done right) would be a welcome change of pace in that regard.

Yes, he is controversial. I think any modern communist or communist aligned leaders are by definition controversial. Political considerations are real, they don't want to alienate audiences. Some games going for more realism will have more controversial content (e.g. paradox games- you can play as Hitler, Stalin, etc., in HOI4), but in Civ 6 the leaders are presented in a child friendly caricature way. I don't see how they are going to fit representing a Vietnam war period leader of Vietnam into that. Most of the leaders in the game are from less recent history and so aren't really controversial anymore. The recent leaders that are in the game aren't especially controversial ones- someone like John Curtin may have had outdated racial views that were of his time, but this is not something he's famous for.

As to Teddy Roosevelt (I presume that's the Roosevelt you mean since he's in Civ 6), you might have grievances against him, probably justified, but he isn't really anywhere near as controversial. That's not a moral judgement (what you seem to think I'm doing), its a recognition of the fact that Ho Chi Minh is controversial for ideological reasons. And I'm not saying he was in the wrong in the Vietnam war, but by including him (especially if he is seen to be portrayed in a positive way) Firaxis might be seen to be taking his side on that conflict, which probably is also more political than they want to be. Alternatively if they portrayed him deliberately negatively that would be equally unpopular with other people. You can tell me about awful things Roosevelt did if you want, and you're probably right, but doesn't change the fact that he isn't really very controversial.

So, not really wanting to end up being seen as taking a side on ideological debate or modern wars, my guess would be Firaxis would go for a different leader. I personally wouldn't care about moral considerations of Ho Chi Minh being included or not, my only issue would be that I'd find him boring when I'd rather have a much less recent leader for such an old country, same goes for my problem with Gandhi.

 

[almughavar]

Regarding the discussion about "de-blobbing" a civ, I don't think devs are too keen on that. The fact that civs are named after demonyms, not after names of countries (for example Indian, not India) and your civ in the game is referred to as "demonym + Empire" (such as American Empire), no matter what type of government your civ has. Those factors are clearly very pro-blobbing, because the demonym lumps everyone living in a country plus the primary ethnicity of said group of people which it referrers to who can also live in other countries, as well as Empire suggesting the opposite of a homogenous nation.