[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[PhoenicianGold]

Mongols are North Asia. Georgia is in the Caucasus; we can have a debate about whether it's in Eastern Europe or the Near East and the best answer is probably "yes"--but we can all agree it's not in Central Asia. Scythia and Huns are both kind of broad and, being nomads, geographically nebulous. Scythia's capital is in Kyrgyzstan so I'll grant them. It would still be nice to have a settled Silk Road civ like Sogdia, Khwarazm, or Kushan, though.

Yeah, since I consider Scythia to be replacing the Huns as a general Eurasian steppe civ, they aren't really new.

So we've only gotten one completely new Asian civ in Vietnam. Two if you count Georgia, which is an extremely generous interpretation of the idea of "Asian."

 

[8housesofelixir]

isn’t that a tie?
Huns/mongols in civ 5
Scythia/mongols in civ 6
Guess it depends on how you count Scythia, and to a lesser extent Georgia.

We don't really know where Huns came from, and they left their most distinguished marks primarily in Eastern Europe.
Mongols lived in Eastern Steppe, which is, technically speaking, Northern part of East Asia.
Scythia is basically a Pontic Steppe civ with a Massagetae leader, and a large portion of their cities are near Black Sea. Hard (to) pass.
Georgia is in the Caucasus and nowhere near Central Asia, which generally lies behind the opposite shore of Caspian Sea.

The only actual Central Asia representation is the City State of Samarkand, which once belonged to a list of great Silk Road nations, including but not limited to: Greek Bactrian city states, Kushan, Sogdians, Göktürk Khaganate, Karakhanids, Khwarazm, and Timurid Empire. Non of these civilizations shown up in the Civ series besides in some scenarios.

 

[pineappledan]

The only actual Central Asia representation is the City State of Samarkand, which once belonged to a list of great Silk Road nations, including but not limited to: Greek Bactrian city states, Kushan, Sogdians, Göktürk Khaganate, Karakhanids, Khwarazm, and Timurid Empire. Non of these civilizations shown up in the Civ series besides in some scenarios.

I have no interest in litigating which steppe nomads belong where, but by your counting that's still a tie: 0/0

 

[8housesofelixir]

I have no interest in litigating which steppe nomads belong where, but by your counting that's still a tie: 0/0

Cree: 1/0.

Of course, that's not to say having just one representation in pre-colonial North America is adequate enough; more Native American civs are always welcome.

*Also, a large portion of the nations I listed were actually not nomads - they lived in cities and did agriculture, even planted rice in the oases (rice is an important part of Central Asian and Iranian diet till today). Which, again, shows how Central Asia is long being neglected in the popular imagination - the region was much more than just horseriding chads.

 

[pineappledan]

Aight, I don't know what kind of point you are trying to prove with all of this. Aside from the fact that no one calls any portion of the North American Great Plains a "steppe" outside of invoking it as a strict ecological term, the majority of Cree still live in heavily wooded areas in the Canadian shield, and only a small portion of them are Plains Cree. So you seem to be trying some sort of taxonomic cultural flex on me, but you're just wrong.

This is all just so laughably obtuse. Cheers.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Aight, I don't know what kind of point you are trying to prove with all of this. Aside from the fact that no one calls any portion of the North American Great Plains a "steppe" outside of invoking it as a strict ecological term, the majority of Cree still live in heavily wooded areas in the Canadian shield, and only a small portion of them are Plains Cree.

This is all just so laughably obtuse. Cheers.

Relax, I'm pretty sure it's a joke.

By that argument, the Mapuche are also a "steppe" civ down in Patagonia. But we all kind of recognize steppe nomads as referring to specifically the Eurasian kurgan cultures.

 

[Zaarin]

Which, again, shows how Central Asia is long being neglected in the popular imagination - the region was much more than just horseriding chads.

So much this. There's so much more to Central Asian history than steppe nomads.

The only actual Central Asia representation is the City State of Samarkand

And Kabul, if you consider Afghanistan Central Asian. Personally I think it fits better in Central Asia than South Asia--it's only sometimes excluded because "Central Asia" was originally a Soviet definition and Afghanistan wasn't Soviet.

the majority of Cree still live in heavily wooded areas in the Canadian shield, and only a small portion of them are Plains Cree.

This is true, but the Civ6 Cree are 100% Plains Cree with Poundmaker and the Mekewap. This is why I say please no to a Sioux or other Plains civ and would really like to see a second Native American civ from the Eastern Woodlands, Southeast, or Northwest.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Aside from the fact that no one calls any portion of the North American Great Plains a "steppe" outside of invoking it as a strict ecological term, the majority of Cree still live in heavily wooded areas in the Canadian shield, and only a small portion of them are Plains Cree. So you seem to be trying some sort of taxonomic cultural flex on me, but you're just wrong. This is all just so laughably obtuse. Cheers.

At what point did I called Great Plains a "steppe", or when did I describe the Cree as "steppe nomadic people"? You may want to check my posts again, since all I described was Central Asia.

Initially, we were discussing "the civ representation of North American cultures and/or Central Asia".

And by saying "Cree: 1/0" my point is, "Native North America currently has a representation, which is Cree; while the Central Asia currently don't have a civ representation".

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see a problem with the above take.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

isn’t that a tie?
Huns/mongols in civ 5
Scythia/mongols in civ 6
Guess it depends on how you count Scythia, and to a lesser extent Georgia.

I'm probably in the minority but I count Scythia as a Central Asian civ. At least on TSL they start east of what would by the Caspian Sea. As said above considering the Hunnic Empire comprised most Eastern Europe, in that regard so I would say it's not even a tie, but an improvement with Scythia being the first civ from Central Asia we've gotten.

This is true, but the Civ6 Cree are 100% Plains Cree with Poundmaker and the Mekewap. This is why I say please no to a Sioux or other Plains civ and would really like to see a second Native American civ from the Eastern Woodlands, Southeast, or Northwest.

You forgot Southwest.

 

[agonistes]

Indeed. The poor designs of Babylon and Byzantium certainly aren't a result of lack of material to work with.

I find Babylon extremely fun. Maybe the most fun. They are just too op.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm probably in the minority but I count Scythia as a Central Asian civ. At least on TSL they start east of what would by the Caspian Sea.

I don't think you're in the minority. They technically are Central Asian, but they're also a steppe culture--the Eurasian steppe spreads from Ukraine to Kazakhstan to Mongolia, and most of its inhabitants found themselves in all of those locations at some point or another (including the Scythians). It would be nice to see the settled merchant confederations of Central Asia like Sogdia or Khwarazm get some attention, especially since most Westerners are only dimly aware that Central Asia even exists.

You forgot Southwest.

I'm not too interested in a tribe from the Southwest as functionally they'd be similar to a Plains tribe.

I find Babylon extremely fun. Maybe the most fun. They are just too op.

You could relabel them to just about anything without changing a single ability. The Palgum, as disappointing as it is, is the only particularly Babylonian thing about the design. Their insipid design is even more frustrating when Sumer was already one of the blandest designs in the game. I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is clearly no one at Firaxis who has any interest or particular knowledge of Ancient history.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't think you're in the minority. They technically are Central Asian, but they're also a steppe culture--the Eurasian steppe spreads from Ukraine to Kazakhstan to Mongolia, and most of its inhabitants found themselves in all of those locations at some point or another (including the Scythians). It would be nice to see the settled merchant confederations of Central Asia like Sogdia or Khwarazm get some attention, especially since most Westerners are only dimly aware that Central Asia even exists.

I don't see enough people say they are so maybe that's why. Of course they are nomadic steppe people, and Central Asia is much more than that, but my point I was trying to make was at least Central Asia did get representation, as much or even more than it did in Civ 5 depending on how you classify the Huns.

I'm not too interested in a tribe from the Southwest as functionally they'd be similar to a Plains tribe.

I don't see the Navajo, who would be my first choice, or the Pueblo, which unfortunately can't get in, being similar to a Plains tribe. Though I do agree that tribes like the Comanche or Apache would be similar.

 

[Zaarin]

Not the Navajo, who would be my first choice, or the Pueblo, which unfortunately can't get in. Though I do agree that tribes like the Comanche or Apache would be similar.

The Navajo were settled horse raiders which makes them slightly different but still in the vicinity of a Sioux or Cheyenne or Apache civ, since Civ6 has no effective way to portray nomads. I think a Navajo civ would look a lot like Scythia but with light cavalry instead of ranged cavalry. A Puebloan tribe would indeed be different, but since they won't/can't happen I wasn't considering them when I said I wouldn't prefer a Southwestern civ. If Firaxis knows something I don't about the Zuni or Hopi being willing to be depicted, I'd be all for it.

 

[agonistes]

I don't think you're in the minority. They technically are Central Asian, but they're also a steppe culture--the Eurasian steppe spreads from Ukraine to Kazakhstan to Mongolia, and most of its inhabitants found themselves in all of those locations at some point or another (including the Scythians). It would be nice to see the settled merchant confederations of Central Asia like Sogdia or Khwarazm get some attention, especially since most Westerners are only dimly aware that Central Asia even exists.


I'm not too interested in a tribe from the Southwest as functionally they'd be similar to a Plains tribe.


You could relabel them to just about anything without changing a single ability. The Palgum, as disappointing as it is, is the only particularly Babylonian thing about the design. Their insipid design is even more frustrating when Sumer was already one of the blandest designs in the game. I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is clearly no one at Firaxis who has any interest or particular knowledge of Ancient history.

That doesn't diminish the fun I had playing them. There are many more boring civs to play.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I'm not too interested in a tribe from the Southwest as functionally they'd be similar to a Plains tribe.

Except the Navajo could have a desert bias. And I'm all for more desert civs. We have plenty of river civs already, so I'm less intrigued by Muscogean civ proposals.

I do however admit that I don't have a particularly strong case against PNW civs aside from none of them covering a particularly large area/population. We need more maritime depth and diversity.

You could relabel them to just about anything without changing a single ability. The Palgum, as disappointing as it is, is the only particularly Babylonian thing about the design. Their insipid design is even more frustrating when Sumer was already one of the blandest designs in the game. I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is clearly no one at Firaxis who has any interest or particular knowledge of Ancient history.

I abhor the design as well, and I think it illustrates how difficult it is to design an ancient civ in a game that is primarily preoccupied with everything that came after the ancient era. I just don't think older civs shine very well in the Civ model. Phoenicia was imo a fluke. And I think that really Sumeria was about as good as we were going to get for an ancient Mesopotamian civ--protypical, archetypal, "Ur-iconic." Nothing too deep, but also at least having enough mechanical dimension to fill the role of baby's first civ game.

 

[Zaarin]

That doesn't diminish the fun I had playing them. There are many more boring civs to play.

Couldn't say; I have Babylon modded. But while I'm all for asymmetric civ designs, I like that asymmetry rooted in history. I might have forgiven Babylon's flavorless design if it weren't the second Mesopotamian civ that was flavorless.

Except the Navajo could have a desert bias. And I'm all for more desert civs. We have plenty of river civs already, so I'm less intrigued by Muscogean civ proposals.

I wouldn't really see a Muscogean civ doing anything special with rivers. Considering what makes them stand out is how well they hybridized Native and Western culture and technology, I'd see them focusing on that.

I think it illustrates how difficult it is to design an ancient civ in a game that is primarily preoccupied with everything that came after the ancient era. I just don't think older civs shine very well in the Civ model.

I strongly disagree. The Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, and Egyptians were all meticulous record keepers, and Mesopotamia and Egypt are probably the two most excavated regions of the world (plus the desert environment in Egypt and Upper Mesopotamia/Assyria are wonderful for preserving things, even soft things and perishable things like dyes--the marshes of Lower Mesopotamia/Babylon/Sumer, not so much). General point being, there is abundant material to draw from in designing unique infrastructure and units as well as abilities. Really the only challenge I see is that all of Western civilization is built on the foundations of Babylon and Egypt (including Greece) which means that many of the things the Babylonians and Egyptians did others did later. Still, there's plenty of material to draw from: astronomy (which would advance very little past Babylon until the Renaissance), god-kings, early writing, monumental architecture (without access to stone in the case of Sumer and Babylon), ziggurats/pyramids, again immaculate record keeping, early codification of laws, far-ranging luxury trade, chariot warfare in Egypt and horsemanship in Assyria...

The problem isn't that the material isn't there. The problem is that no one at Firaxis seems interested in the period or region.

 

[Foulweather]

It would still be nice to have a settled Silk Road civ like Sogdia, Khwarazm, or Kushan, though.

Since I made a little mod years ago on Kanishka and the Kushan, I'd love to see what Firaxis would do with them! - Although I'm afraid that Kublai Khan kind of serves the role of Silk Road representative in Civ 6. Oh well, maybe I'm wrong, we'll find out soon.

 

[Josephias]

I strongly disagree. The Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, and Egyptians were all meticulous record keepers, and Mesopotamia and Egypt are probably the two most excavated regions of the world (plus the desert environment in Egypt and Upper Mesopotamia/Assyria are wonderful for preserving things, even soft things and perishable things like dyes--the marshes of Lower Mesopotamia/Babylon/Sumer, not so much). General point being, there is abundant material to draw from in designing unique infrastructure and units as well as abilities.

I’m inclined to think the lack of material is not the difficulty, but the lack of imagination to turn this material into abilities that are relevant in more than the first 50 turns of the game (that just go away too quickly).

On an ancient civ you need to think: how (characteristic X) would have survived during history (and, as you say, discard the options that became traits of derived civilizations already in game). It is an exercise that is not so easy as just saying “canada like hokey, put there an hockey rink”

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I strongly disagree. The Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, and Egyptians were all meticulous record keepers, and Mesopotamia and Egypt are probably the two most excavated regions of the world (plus the desert environment in Egypt and Upper Mesopotamia/Assyria are wonderful for preserving things, even soft things and perishable things like dyes--the marshes of Lower Mesopotamia/Babylon/Sumer, not so much). General point being, there is abundant material to draw from in designing unique infrastructure and units as well as abilities. Really the only challenge I see is that all of Western civilization is built on the foundations of Babylon and Egypt (including Greece) which means that many of the things the Babylonians and Egyptians did others did later. Still, there's plenty of material to draw from: astronomy (which would advance very little past Babylon until the Renaissance), god-kings, early writing, monumental architecture (without access to stone in the case of Sumer and Babylon), ziggurats/pyramids, again immaculate record keeping, early codification of laws, far-ranging luxury trade, chariot warfare in Egypt and horsemanship in Assyria...

The problem isn't that the material isn't there. The problem is that no one at Firaxis seems interested in the period or region.

I'm not saying that the civs aren't well-attested or didn't have accomplishments. What I am saying is that, for some reason, civ as a series still hasn't quite figured out how to develop a tech/civic progression system that shows off ancient civs as well as later civs. Although I do think, as you said, that it is antagonized by the fact that Firaxis doesn't seem to be displaying any real, specialized interest in the era.

Couldn't say; I have Babylon modded. But while I'm all for asymmetric civ designs, I like that asymmetry rooted in history. I might have forgiven Babylon's flavorless design if it weren't the second Mesopotamian civ that was flavorless.

Lol no you wouldn't have.

 

[mitsho]

Really? The early game is the most important so civs with early uniques are the best ones and get some love. I do agree that since so much focus is on expansion during that phase of the game, the uniques can't be as creative or society-changing as you'd want it to be. But the way civ the game is set up, you can't really get there anyways. Also, civs from later eras get given uniques from this phase of the game since that's the level of technology that is attributed to them, maybe wrongly. But again, civ the game simply cannot provide for what you are asking, in my mind.

And that's my wish for the next civ, that they find a way to change this, the way the game starts.