[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Zaarin]

Weren't they in Civ 2 as well? Just going off the Civ wiki here.

It's always been The Celts until Civ6 as far as I recall.

 

[sweetbrown89]

Weren't they in Civ 2 as well? Just going off the Civ wiki here.

Nope.

Look at my chart.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

It's always been The Celts until Civ6 as far as I recall.

That's odd... Ah well, you learn something new every day.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

If you look at my chart, it’s because that “niche” is already represented by Hungary, Norway, and Sumeria, respectively

The Siamese niche was represented by Khmer, yet we still got Ayutthaya. We also still have Morocco and Venice represented by city-states (and in prior packs, Portugal, Maya, Babylon, Byzantium, Korea, Indonesia, and the Netherlands).

I would simply be surprised if we got city-states in Wolin and Cardiff, mere provinces or kingdoms, but no reference at all in the game to prior civs that were indisputably empires like Austria or Denmark. That seems to be partly what city-states are functioning as: consolation for the runners-up and past greats. To my mind a Civ VI without Vienna and Copenhagen would seem...incomplete.

Um...Gran Colombia, Gaul, and Vietnam are all completely new

I think you misread my post. I meant "single DLC" pack, not "single DLC pack." All of the solo civ DLC packs had staple civs.

 

[sweetbrown89]

I think you misread my post. I meant "single DLC" pack, not "single DLC pack." All of the solo civ DLC packs had staple civs.

Well...that’s certainly a very odd specification.

It doesn’t really matter in that sense because it’s all one DLC, technically. Just with optional selection.

We’re still missing a 3rd female Civ (unless Magnificent Catherine counts?) and a 4th new Civ for the respective “quotas”, so maybe the last pack will be a single new Civ.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Well...that’s certainly a very odd specification.

It doesn’t really matter in that sense because it’s all one DLC, technically. Just with optional selection.

Some people purchased them individually. And then have to purchase the rest individually. That's something to take into account with how the DLC is selected and organized. A 6th DLC pack with Portugal indisputably would sell incrementally better than a new civ. The question is whether that increment was worthwhile as compared to saving Portugal for a second season, if one is planned at all...

 

[sweetbrown89]

Some people purchased them individually. And then have to purchase the rest individually. That's something to take into account with how the DLC is selected and organized. A 6th DLC pack with Portugal indisputably would sell incrementally better than a new civ. The question is whether that increment was worthwhile as compared to saving Portugal for a second season, if one is planned at all...

OK, sure, maybe...

...but now we’re getting away from actual prediction and more into just marketing...there’s some overlap, sure.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

OK, sure, maybe...

...but now we’re getting away from actual prediction and more into just marketing...there’s some overlap, sure.

My initial comment was in effect responding to a marketing prediction, so, yes...

Given that this thread is about discussing possible new civs, I don't really think it matters what methodology we are using to speculate. Certainly if we had taken a strict marketability stance in predicting NFP, I think everything but Gran Colombia would have been a foregone conclusion...

 

[sweetbrown89]

My initial comment was in effect responding to a marketing prediction, so, yes...

Given that this thread is about discussing possible new civs, I don't really think it matters what methodology we are using to speculate. Certainly if we had taken a strict marketability stance in predicting NFP, I think everything but Gran Colombia would have been a foregone conclusion...

Which then indicates that taking a strict marketability stance isn't the best approach, as it doesn't comprehensively accounts for the thought process of devs...that I am trying to recreate.

As for having Ayutthaya, its all about nuance. We don't consider Gaul to be Belgium or Rome to be Byzantium or Lhasa to be China or Sumeria to be Babylon. I can't give exact lines, only an approximation based on inclusion. Ayutthaya being a middle ground between Khmer and Siam (as Krung Tai, possibly) seems a worthy inclusion without it strictly representing Siam.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Which then indicates that taking a strict marketability stance isn't the best approach, as it doesn't comprehensively accounts for the thought process of devs...that I am trying to recreate.

As for having Ayutthaya, its all about nuance. We don't consider Gaul to be Belgium or Rome to be Byzantium or Lhasa to be China or Sumeria to be Babylon. I can't give exact lines, only an approximation based on inclusion.

Eh it's better than most other approaches...and just because Gran Columbia wasn't as highly requested as Vietnam and Gaul doesn't mean it wasn't still one of the clearer frontrunners based on popularity polls.

And maybe you don't consider Gaul to be Belgium, but I happen to think that Brussels should have been removed with its inclusion.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Gaul was in Civ 4. The others you're right about.

Edit: Nevermind... They were in Civ 2.

Edit 2: Nevermind... They were called the Celts back then.

Interesting enough one of the Relics of the Void was named Hint Guide: Civilization 2, which could have been hinting at Gaul coming in the next pack.

We’re still missing a 3rd female Civ (unless Magnificent Catherine counts?) and a 4th new Civ for the respective “quotas”, so maybe the last pack will be a single new Civ.

The first wave of DLC actually had 5 returning civs, if you count the Aztecs because they technically were a free DLC, and three new civs unlike the expansions which was split 4 and 4.

I'm pretty sure this next one will be a returning one with a female leader. The best bets are Portugal and the Iroquois with Jigonhsasee most likely.

And maybe you don't consider Gaul to be Belgium, but I happen to think that Brussels should have been removed with its inclusion.

Well the Gaesatae, Gaul's UU, weren't from present-day Belgium.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Well the Gaesatae, Gaul's UU, weren't from present-day Belgium.

The only 'Belgian' components about Gaul are the leader (Like legit. We ranked Ambiorix 6th or summat on The Greatest Belgians Of All Times list) and the hook of the diplo theme, which was taken from our national anthem. Otherwise, they're pure Gallic, baby.

If Gaul is supposed to represent Belgium, then well... let's just say it does so vicariously through their form, but the overal Civ feels much broader than that.

 

[Codeword Iroquois]

The only 'Belgian' components about Gaul are the leader (Like legit. We ranked Ambiorix 6th or summat on The Greatest Belgians Of All Times list) and the hook of the diplo theme, which was taken from our national anthem. Otherwise, they're pure Gallic, baby.

If Gaul is supposed to represent Belgium, then well... let's just say it does so vicariously through their form, but the overal Civ feels much broader than that.

And to be honest... I would prefer Belgium under Albert I than Gaul having to represent them.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If Gaul is supposed to represent Belgium, then well... let's just say it does so vicariously through their form, but the overal Civ feels much broader than that.

You've reiterated my point.
If Gaul was supposed to represent Belgium and replaces Brussels, then the Cree should have got Toronto so we could have avoided Canada and got another North American civ.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

You've reiterated my point.
If Gaul was supposed to represent Belgium and replaces Brussels, then the Cree should have got Toronto so we could have avoided Canada and got another North American civ.

If this is all we are getting and no Navajo/Cherokee/whatever, I honestly would have preferred this as well. Two Canadian civs in a fifty-civ roster with nothing in the Maghreb, Swahili Coast, or Indosphere outside of India...

Also, gonna mention Scotland in the same breath.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If this is all we are getting and no Navajo/Cherokee/whatever, I honestly would have preferred this as well. Two Canadian civs in a fifty-civ roster with nothing in the Maghreb, Swahili Coast, or Indosphere outside of India...

Also, gonna mention Scotland in the same breath.

To be fair, even though I like Scotland, I don't think that both Scotland and Gaul are necessary and would have rather just have one Celtic civ and still get to keep Canada.
Considering Scotland and Canada are both very meme civs I guess it would have to be Scotland.

Funny enough maybe they could get Scottish Enlightenment as there civ ability instead because apparently on a list of the10 famous Canadians three were born in Scotland (Alexander Graham Bell, Sir John A. Macdonald, Tommy Fox).
The Four Faces of Peace could then go to Laurier.

 

[Tsuchinoko]

I'm kind of leaning towards the final civ being the Berbers led by Tin Hinan at this point (maybe with a Tuareg Cavalry UU and Foggara UB?). I think that people may have become a little fixated on the idea that the final civ is likely to be Portugal or a Native American civ because the 'Assembling Typhoon' leaks suggested that Byzantium, Portugal, the Maya, Babylon or Assyria, Ethiopia and a Native American civ were likely for the third expansion pack. Although almost all of that did come true it's impossible for both of the last two predicted civs to get in the game now (unless there's a fourth expansion), and given that Firaxis know that we all knew about the leaks (as they also read the forums) I think they might have chosen something unexpected for their final civ. It would fit the 'patterns' of having 4 returning and 4 similar or new civs and having 3 female leaders per expansion as well as filling out a very empty part of the map. Plus, it would also mean they still have a few heavily requested/expected civs available for another civ pack/expansion.

Personally, I could see a potential Expansion #4 looking something like something like: Portugal (Joao II), Siam (Rama IV), the Navajo (Chief Manuelito), Argentina (Eva Peron), the Hittites (Puduhepa), the Ashanti (Yaa Asantewaa), the Kushans (Kanishka I) and the Noongar/Aborigines (Yagan) plus a two-civ leader like Constantine (Rome/Byzantium) or Taharqa (Egypt/Nubia)... or they could just go wild and try to get to 60 civs total with Bulgaria (Simeon I) and Haiti (Toussaint L'Ouverture). Either way that would give a good selection of civs from different time periods and different parts of the world, though admittedly with a larger proportion of 'new' civs than usual. We'll probably know if there is going to be a fourth expansion or not depending on whether or not a 'Civ VI Complete Edition' gets released after the last New Frontier Pass civ is available.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

To be fair, even though I like Scotland, I don't think that both Scotland and Gaul are necessary and would have rather just have one Celtic civ and still get to keep Canada.
Considering Scotland and Canada are both very meme civs I guess it would have to be Scotland.

Funny enough maybe they could get Scottish Enlightenment as there civ ability instead because apparently on a list of the10 famous Canadians three were born in Scotland (Alexander Graham Bell, Sir John A. Macdonald, Tommy Fox).
The Four Faces of Peace could then go to Laurier.

But what Gaul and Scotland have in common despite celtic orgins that makes those Civs mutually exclusive? You can use this argument and come to conclusion why do we need France if we have Rome? Why do we need the Netherlands if we have Germany. Why do we need US if we have England. Oh we have England? We dont need England, we already have Germany... Its nonsense.

 

[Ticio]

Civ Vi is my first and only Civilization game, so I don't know what civs made it into the past or not, but now that I'm playing CK3, could be interesting to have more civs from this period? For example the Caliphate of Córdoba or the Frankish kingdom? Had they been in previous games?


P.S:
I don't want to be off topic, so this is the only thing I will say about this topic:

Sorry but this is just a typical Spanish soundbite of the "actually other colonisers were much worse!" type, which is frequently used by the Spanish for the sake of emotional comfort. It lets people feel pride in the accomplishments of their ancestors without having to really question the atrocities committed.

There's similar variants in Portugal and the UK, and I'd guess other countries as well. These were common beliefs during Salazar's and Franco's dictatorship and they persist to this day.

Here's a few other examples:

- "Barbary Pirates did slavery too!" - I've often heard Anglo-Americans using this one with the intent of dismissing African slavery, since Africans enslaved Europeans as well (the logic goes).

- "The Wermacht were honest soldiers! It's the SS who committed the atrocities." - This one used extensively by Germans after the war.

- "The Civil War was about state rights and actually blacks were treated fairly in the South!" - A common American trope.

I totally agree with you, I see it too and I think is fast growing, I would say it goes both ways too. Many people that try to downplay what happened and many people that try to exaggerate it. I personally think it make no sense to put actual labels on historic events. A good exception is WWII as is quite recent...

For this reason, I love to check the laws regarding certain topics, as they always tell you the point of view of the administration.

In the case of what Onepurpose said, I too think that the spaniards had a quite distinct way of conquering the world. Not better o worse, just different, I suppose it depends of what do you think is better or worse.

What seems to be a fact is that the Spanish conquest were almost a copy of the roman style. Quite brutals and unforgiving for the ones that resisted, but not racially motivated. If you just accepted to be part of the kingdom, you were better treated and had a place on the system (not well treated, but better...).

And all the Indian legislation goes to this direction: Make the Indigenous population part of the system. That does not mean they were not under a racist system or mistreated, but the trend cannot be ignore.

If the objective of integration was not true, I think it would have been impossible for the first spanish Constitution (1812) to declare all people equal (including Indians, mestizos, creiollos, people from peninsular Spain, etc) except for the blacks from Africa.


So I understand Onepurpose wants to point that out, as it was a legal fact. I don't see, in this case, an argument to make the spanish look better, he just want to specify how it was.

(Sorry again for the off topic).

 

[Lord Lakely]

I'd like to see Ireland take over from Scotland and Gaul as the token Celt in Civ 7

I love the idea of a Tin Hinan-led Berber civ (focused on Algeria, rather than Morocco). Generally, I will accept any Civ in the final slot (not like I have a choice. Firaxis won't be like "oh no! The sassy pompous Belgian on CivFanatics doesn't like it!! ABORT ABORT.) and a good design would sweeten it for me.

Portugal should have been in the game already anyway. (Over Australia )