[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Uberfrog]

I think as well as geography being a factor, time period is obviously a factor too.

So while we have a lot of Asian leaders, only Gandhi and Suleiman are post-medieval (now we know Vietnam is led by the classical Lady Triệu). This is a glaring gap:-

• No Mughals
• No Ming or later China
• No Safavid or other Islamic Iran

You could be forgiven for thinking that Asia simply ceased to exist after the Renaissance, which is obviously hugely Eurocentric.

So as an alternative to Portugal or another North American civ I’d be really happy to see one of these. Extremely unlikely, of course.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think as well as geography being a factor, time period is obviously a factor too.

So while we have a lot of Asian leaders, only Gandhi and Suleiman are post-medieval (now we know Vietnam is led by the classical Lady Triệu). This is a glaring gap:-

• No Mughals
• No Ming or later China
• No Safavid or other Islamic Iran

You could be forgiven for thinking that Asia simply ceased to exist after the Renaissance, which is obviously hugely Eurocentric.

So as an alternative to Portugal or another North American civ I’d be really happy to see one of these. Extremely unlikely, of course.

Well Japan does also have Electronic Factories.

That being said it's obvious that Firaxis has always treated Mughals as part of the overall Indian civilization, though it could arguably be separated if they wanted too.

And the others would do better as alternate leaders for the already existing China or Persian civilizations, though the latter is always portrayed as Classical.

That being said I'm pretty sure it's it for Asia after this. Also if we want to go by time period we don't have an "Renaissance" leader for North America (Jigonhsasee Iroquois) or any leaders from Europe born in the 1700s (Maria I) if we follow the pattern of 3 female leaders.

 

[Ticio]

Well North America and South America are seen as two different continents in the real world. Though when they are combined usually people say the Americas, denoting more than one.

Well the region of Mesoamerica, which is historically where Aztecs and Maya were located, is seen as a different region from the rest of the North American natives. That's why I, and many others only see the Cree as the sole representative of Native North America for now.

Yeah, I did not have thought of this point of view. In my country, we see the world as 6 continents, not 7 as America is just one. Of course we do the difference between south and North America, but they are merely subcontinents (like India, It is located in the Indian subcontinent but it is in Asia). Therefore, all people that lived in the continent are "Natives americans", to the northern inuit to the southern mapuches and everything between them.

Writing this, I also notice that the meaning of America can be different too, as when I read "native American" for me the meaning is "american= Whole continent", but for other people it could mean "American= Person from the USA" (so natives tribes inside actual USA).

I find funny that different cultural points of view can change the perception of the actual state of the game!! For me they are 5 native americans civs in the game, but for others just 1! so of course some people will ask for more, as they are underrepresented!

PS: Just for sharing another curious difference, we also may use "Americas" in plural, but with 2 main meanings. To differentiate the latin American part of the anglosaxon one or, in history, when you called all the different kingdoms in the same geographical sphere of America.

 

[onepurpose]

You could be forgiven for thinking that Asia simply ceased to exist after the Renaissance, which is obviously hugely Eurocentric.

No, it's not... geography being a factor , in NFP 7 civs revealed, we have 2 asians (Babilonia, Vietnam), 1 African (Ethiopia) , 2 America (GC, maya) 1 Europa (Celts) and special case of Byzantium (Europe, Asia, Africa)... and an alternate leader for who asian civs..

Said that , this has been discussed before ... , you get dissapeared ancient empires (Rome, Bizantium) , along to modern post-colonial states (Brazil, Canada), along to local tribes (Cree, Mapuche), along to millennial-span continuities (China , India)... all of them shaping "homologable factions" in terms of gameplay .. you need some grade of abstraction.. and obviously it clashes with taliban purity of this forums rejecting anything that resemble a so-called-blob

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

Well in a game called Civilization you also need Rome/Byzantium and Ancient Greece for Europe, right?

You're just furthering my point, and I'm a blatant idiot for having forgotten them

Also, I'd say that Byzantium is clearly not part of of the staples for me (I know, kind of an unpopular opinion). I know people see Rome and Byzantium as "two separated and completely different polities" as if they are completely unrelated, but again it's a very eurocentric vision. We do not separate China into dynasties, and Egypt is considered one single entity from Rameses and Cleopatra, saying "Byzantium and Rome are different and worthy of being separated" is kinda dishonest. They were both called Roman Empire when they were alive, Byzantium was clearly in the continuity of the Western part, it just an evolution. It's like saying "The French Republic and the Kingdom of Franks are worthy of being both represented in the game as different civilizations". It's absurd.

Plus, Byzantium is just an overlap of everything. Constantinople as a capital? Ottomans already have it under another name. Greek language? Well, you have the Greeks! The seat of power is around the Egean sea? Greeks again! They were called the Roman Empire? Well, wasn't there another Empire called Roman? A major center for Orthodoxy? We have Russia. A militarist religious gameplay? We have Spain ! A religious cultural gameplay? Kongo do it in a funnier way. Purple color? Say hello to Dido! The only truly unique things they have in their inclusion in the game is the Hippodrome that is so blatantly overpowered that it's not fun anymore and they had to nerf it.

I'm sorry but seeing so many people asking for Byzantium while we lack other major european players way more interesting and that could bring way more fun gameplays (Portugal and Italy) is one of the most eurocentric thing I ever witnessed on this forum.

 

[Ticio]

In France, we learn that it's one continent called America (like we say Christophe Colomb a découvert l'Amérique and not Christophe Colomb a découvert les Amériques). Both can be said, of course, and we hear people saying both, be generally, when we learn (at least when I was in geography lessons) about it it's more one continent than two. From our foreign European vision where all this landmass is just rebellious pesky colonies where the only point of interest is, of course, the French Guyanne (obviously, this is meant as a joke, I hope everyone will understand).

I knew in France is studied as only 1 continent as my mother is french and therefore I went to the French school and learned it thus way, but also in Spain as my friends know the world this way too.
Maybe it has something to do with Europe. I don't know, but the important point.... how the developpers see the world?

It could be the difference between having a new american civ or not !!

 

[JR Magallanes]

Firaxis gods, please give Oceania to the Philippines. we need some water tile district.

 

[onepurpose]

I knew in France is studied as only 1 continent as my mother is french and therefore I went to the French school and learned it thus way, but also in Spain as my friends know the world this way too.
Maybe it has something to do with Europe. I don't know, but the important point.... how the developpers see the world?

It could be the difference between having a new american civ or not !!

In most of Europe America is considered a single continent .. Anglosphere, China , Japan, etc.. divide America in two continentes ... South America and NorthAmerica ... Mesoamerica is a subregion of North America

Said that, most of international instances (U.N., COI, etc..) recognize America as a single continent

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

You're just furthering my point, and I'm a blatant idiot for having forgotten them

Also, I'd say that Byzantium is clearly not part of of the staples for me (I know, kind of an unpopular opinion). I know people see Rome and Byzantium as "two separated and completely different polities" as if they are completely unrelated, but again it's a very eurocentric vision. We do not separate China into dynasties, and Egypt is considered one single entity from Rameses and Cleopatra, saying "Byzantium and Rome are different and worthy of being separated" is kinda dishonest. They were both called Roman Empire when they were alive, Byzantium was clearly in the continuity of the Western part, it just an evolution. It's like saying "The French Republic and the Kingdom of Franks are worthy of being both represented in the game as different civilizations". It's absurd.

Plus, Byzantium is just an overlap of everything. Constantinople as a capital? Ottomans already have it under another name. Greek language? Well, you have the Greeks! The seat of power is around the Egean sea? Greeks again! They were called the Roman Empire? Well, wasn't there another Empire called Roman? A major center for Orthodoxy? We have Russia. A militarist religious gameplay? We have Spain ! A religious cultural gameplay? Kongo do it in a funnier way. Purple color? Say hello to Dido! The only truly unique things they have in their inclusion in the game is the Hippodrome that is so blatantly overpowered that it's not fun anymore and they had to nerf it.

I'm sorry but seeing so many people asking for Byzantium while we lack other major european players way more interesting and that could bring way more fun gameplays (Portugal and Italy) is one of the most eurocentric thing I ever witnessed on this forum.

I wanted Byzantium to be separate, but at the same time I wouldn't mind making them an alternate leader for Rome so we could get another unique civ. Though I think Basil II is too far removed for him to be considered and it would have to be someone from everyone's favorite power couple (Justinian and Theodora).

Though I do admit I wanted fire spitting Dromons and the Hippodrome does look pretty cool in game.

I knew in France is studied as only 1 continent as my mother is french and therefore I went to the French school and learned it thus way, but also in Spain as my friends know the world this way too.
Maybe it has something to do with Europe. I don't know, but the important point.... how the developpers see the world?

It could be the difference between having a new american civ or not !!

Well that's why I was saying back in May there still might be a chance for Pack 6 to be focused on Anglosphere America and not the Latin America world, even though the Maya are located in North America.

Considering in the U.S. we are taught to be two separate continents, I would assume the developers believe that too.

 

[8housesofelixir]

I wanted Byzantium to be separate, but at the same time I wouldn't mind making them an alternate leader for Rome so we could get another unique civ.

One thing I'm don't really like about the Byzantine design is that, for some reason, BOTH Romans and Byzantines in this game are Domination civs with a unique district focuses on Amenity, which kind of cancelling out each other's uniqueness. If their playstyle are very much different that would be better.

 

[Ticio]

Considering in the U.S. we are taught to be two separate continents, I would assume the developers believe that too.

I hope it too, this way we could have Inuits! I'm praying for them to be in the last NFP slot. This would mean a certain last dlc, with Portugal and focused on international trade and colonisation (a man can dream...).

One thing I'm don't really like about the Byzantine design is that, for some reason, BOTH Romans and Byzantines in this game are Domination civs with a unique district focuses on Amenity, which kind of cancelling out each other's uniqueness. If their playstyle are very much different that would be better.

Yeah, I think we all have the image of:

Roman Empire = Expansionism and domination

Bizantines = Defensive

But I certainly like how Bizantium is played!

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

One thing I'm don't really like about the Byzantine design is that, for some reason, BOTH Romans and Byzantines in this game are Domination civs with a unique district focuses on Amenity, which kind of cancelling out each other's uniqueness. If their playstyle are very much different that would be better.

They are somewhat different, with Byzantium having more of a focus on Religion. I still see your point, though.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Yeah, I think we all have the image of:
Roman Empire = Expansionism and domination
Bizantines = Defensive

Instead, I have the image of Roman Empire being a successful empire manager (from Republic to Empire, bread and circus, powering through several crises without quality of life dropping) and a great builder with strong urban culture (roads, aqueducts, harbors, basilicas, etc), not to say being a powerful colonizer as well. I do like the current Rome design, which covers some of these points, but still, they were more than monuments and legions. Byzantines, on the other hand, was big in religion, cultural influence, trade, diplomacy, instead of just a wall constructor, or the current wall ignorer.

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

I am still keeping my wishful thinking up that March will be a Native American civ and for the last piece of free content on April, it will be Portugal to conclude the development of Civ6.
I remember I wrote a "plea" a few pages back to FXS Andrew that please don't let us go without both the NA civ and Portugal, a lot of people would like to see both so it is like easy money, and he liked my comment I know, haha, I'm reading too much into simple things but I guess that is what the forum is for most of the time anyway

 

[Ticio]

Instead, I have the image of Roman Empire being a successful empire manager (from Republic to Empire, bread and circus, powering through several crises without quality of life dropping) and a great builder with strong urban culture (roads, aqueducts, harbors, basilicas, etc), not to say being a powerful colonizer as well. I do like the current Rome design, which covers some of these points, but still, they were more than monuments and legions. Byzantines, on the other hand, was big in religion, cultural influence, trade, diplomacy, instead of just a wall constructor, or the current wall ignorer.

That's for sure, but I think all civs are limited to their stereotypes. You cannot give all of them more that 2 or 3 typical features.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I am still keeping my wishful thinking up that March will be a Native American civ and for the last piece of free content on April, it will be Portugal to conclude the development of Civ6.
I remember I wrote a "plea" a few pages back to FXS Andrew that please don't let us go without both the NA civ and Portugal, a lot of people would like to see both so it is like easy money, and he liked my comment I know, haha, I'm reading too much into simple things but I guess that is what the forum is for most of the time anyway

Wait, is @Andrew Johnson [FXS] part of the development team?

 

[8housesofelixir]

That's for sure, but I think all civs are limited to their stereotypes. You cannot give all of them more that 2 or 3 typical features.

However, in the case of Vanilla - Rise and Fall - Gathering Storm, you can see a gradual increase of complexity in Civ abilities and representations. Many Gathering Storm civs, although stereotypical, already have a complex toolbox that covers a lot of aspects of the said civilization, and with good synergy (cf. Mali, Maori, new English ability, and Phoenician). It is only in the NFP that some of the civs began to return to simpler designs, albeit far more powerful.

 

[Jkchart]

If I could pick another 8 (assuming the last NFP civ is Portugal), and try to make it similar in scope to the previous expansions/DLC:
-Italy, so we stop getting all these posts asking for it but also there have been a lot of interesting concepts for it crop up that have warmed my heart to the idea
-Madagascar, because it has super interesting history, some cool leader ideas too
-Siam or Burma, (or both) because Southeast/East Asia needs more love always
-Numidia/Berbers/Morocco, it's ridiculous we don't have a north african faction, though yes we have Phoenicia I would like something else there
-something left field from North American non-mesoamerican natives, there have been way too many good suggestions and it frustrates me that we don't have more
-Hittites (baby come back)
-perhaps controversial but Manchus would be interesting and give us a renaissance-ish era East Asia faction
-I want something else in South America but idk what

Wait, is @Andrew Johnson [FXS] part of the development team?

he’s literally the guy that does the Vietnam announcement in Vietnamese lol

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

he’s literally the guy that does the Vietnam announcement in Vietnamese lol

How did I miss that??!! I've been talking with him as I just thought he was a casual Civ fan with a love of history, dear me, I really need to pay attention.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

One thing I'm don't really like about the Byzantine design is that, for some reason, BOTH Romans and Byzantines in this game are Domination civs with a unique district focuses on Amenity, which kind of cancelling out each other's uniqueness. If their playstyle are very much different that would be better.

I agree I wouldn’t have made them as much of a domination focus civ if I designed them.

Then again a domination focus is a given if you have Basil II as leader.

Wait, is @Andrew Johnson [FXS] part of the development team?

Did the FXS standing for Firaxis not give it away?