[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Eagle Pursuit]

Bribing the barbs, aka the Wergeld option, may feel historically accurate, but you're better off spending less to hire a mercenary or two that can defend you from the barbs and any other aggressors.

 

[Leucarum]

I'm certainly hoping for an NA civ. I feel like that is the least covered region thus far, though I am expecting Portugal...

Couldn't say; I have Babylon modded.

Out of curiosity what mod are you using? The version of Babylon which we got has frustrated me a lot for similar reasons to what you'd described. They feel like a gimmick rather than a fully fleshed out civ to me. And in previous versions of civ they were one of my go-to choices...

 

[Ticio]

As a counterpoint, Portugal shares a lot of similarities with Spain and could very easily pass with Spain's uniques.

I don't think they are so similar that we could skip Portugal. I mean, with the same rule we should eliminate Gran Colombia or any post-colonial hispanic Civ, as they could be englobed under any "hispanic" civ (and many more different civs, like Canada, Australia, and so on) Sure, Portugal and Spain have a lot of similitudes, but historically not so many. One had a commercial empire centered in the acquisition of fortresses that allow them to control the flow of commerce, and the other went for a more "classical" kind of empire (incorporating land and vassals). One had half of the world, and the other the other half, that meant many differences at the end.

As I have defended in other posts, for me the importance of Portugal is the gameplay they can offer. We do not have any explorer focused Civ, and in an absence of an "Explorer Spain" they are the best option! (Not saying Spain should be the "explorer Civ" for exelance, but they were more into discovering new land yet unknown and looking for the "cities of gold", "Fountains of youth"... so the stereorypical view of age of sail exploration).

 

[Zaarin]

Lol no you wouldn't have.

Fair.

Out of curiosity what mod are you using? The version of Babylon which we got has frustrated me a lot for similar reasons to what you'd described. They feel like a gimmick rather than a fully fleshed out civ to me. And in previous versions of civ they were one of my go-to choices...

Port Limes Babylon Overhaul. It redesigns the civ from the ground up in a way that is much more flavorful.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I would like to suggest some Civilizations and Leaders that you can all talk about. Not necessarily the best choices, but the interesting choices.

Also (Hamilton sing-song voice), What did I miss? What did I miss?

1: Baldwin IV of Jerusalem.

2: Usman Dan Fodio of the Sokoto Empire.

3: Skanderbeg of Albania.

4: Nizam al-Mulk of the Seljuk Empire.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I would like to suggest some Civilizations and Leaders that you can all talk about. Not necessarily the best choices, but the interesting choices.

Also (Hamilton sing-song voice), What did I miss? What did I miss?

1: Baldwin IV of Jerusalem.

2: Usman Dan Fodio of the Sokoto Empire.

3: Skanderbeg of Albania.

4: Nizam al-Mulk of the Seljuk Empire.

There was a Baldwin IV Mod in Civ V which wasn't bad.

Much as I like your take on the Seljuks with al-Mulk, I think he is a classic case of a historical personage who would better serve as a Great Minister providing bonuses to any leader for that Civ. That would (in this specific case) allow you to have the typical Conquering Hero Alp Arslan with a Non Conquerer set of bonuses from a Great Minister.

Other examples of Great Ministers range from Solon of Athens to the already-frequently-discussed Cardinal Richelieu of France, and Olivares of Spain, Alcuin of the HRE (Charlemagne). Hasdai ibn Shaprut of Andalus, Tlacaelel of the Aztecs, Thomas Cromwell of England, etc.

This mechanic would potentially add a lot of variety and flexibility to the current 1 Leader per Civ (in most cases) without requiring a complete set of alternate Leaders for everybody . . .

 

[Zaarin]

1: Baldwin IV of Jerusalem.

If we're having the Kingdom of Jerusalem (which...no thank you, it's just transplanted Francia), Melisende seems like the really obvious choice. Or maybe she's just obvious to me because I wrote a paper on her. Either way, if we get a Crusader Kingdom civ, she gets my vote. Then again, she's basically CdM.

Much as I like your take on the Seljuks with al-Mulk, I think he is a classic case of a historical personage who would better serve as a Great Minister providing bonuses to any leader for that Civ. That would (in this specific case) allow you to have the typical Conquering Hero Alp Arslan with a Non Conquerer set of bonuses from a Great Minister.

Seconded.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

To be fair, I chose Baldwin IV due to the big personality he could have in Civ 6, as well as his many accomplishments. A contemporary of Saladin, capable king, early death, defeated Saladin at Montgisard, etc.

 

[j51]

The problem is that no one at Firaxis seems interested in the period or region.

What happened to the guy that got Assyria into Civ 5? That was nice. The only time they ever made it into the series though!

 

[Zaarin]

To be fair, I chose Baldwin IV due to the big personality he could have in Civ 6, as well as his many accomplishments. A contemporary of Saladin, capable king, early death, defeated Saladin at Montgisard, etc.

His scheming grandmother was a pretty big personality herself...

What happened to the guy that got Assyria into Civ 5? That was nice. The only time they ever made it into the series though!

Good question. Wasn't he an intern? I think he worked on BE, but I don't know if he's still there.

 

[pineappledan]

I was very surprised Assyria got passed over for Babylon again in the NFP pass. Civ6 was on a lady leaders kick and... Semiramis. NFP has few female leaders relative to the base game and DLC

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I was very surprised Assyria got passed over for Babylon again in the NFP pass. Civ6 was on a lady leaders kick and... Semiramis. NFP has few female leaders relative to the base game and DLC

*hides under the desk and covers ears*

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I was very surprised Assyria got passed over for Babylon again in the NFP pass. Civ6 was on a lady leaders kick and... Semiramis. NFP has few female leaders relative to the base game and DLC

Only by one. All DLC's and the base game have had 1/3 of their Leaders as women. We have one more Leader in the NFP, so by logic and from past examples, I assume that the next Leader will be a woman.

 

[Zaarin]

I was very surprised Assyria got passed over for Babylon again in the NFP pass. Civ6 was on a lady leaders kick and... Semiramis. NFP has few female leaders relative to the base game and DLC

If Semiramis was the only way we could get Assyria, I am eternally grateful we didn't get Assyria.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Only by one. All DLC's and the base game have had 1/3 of their Leaders as women. We have one more Leader in the NFP, so by logic and from past examples, I assume that the next Leader will be a woman.

I really hope the pattern holds true and we get something out of left field. Matilda or Nanyehi or even something like Idia or Ranavolona. I just don't see VI as being done yet when we still have so many map-gaps that aren't even filled by city-states.

 

[BD123]

I was very surprised Assyria got passed over for Babylon again in the NFP pass. Civ6 was on a lady leaders kick and... Semiramis. NFP has few female leaders relative to the base game and DLC

If the last civ is led by a woman (and for Women's History Month I just realized) then NFP will be equal to the expansions in terms of female rulers.

I'm glad Babylon got in, it was weird they were out for so long as well as the Maya, but I'm very disappointed with the way they got implemented. Sumer is also in the same boat, good to have them but the way they play is off for me. I'm more surprised the Hittites haven't returned since Civ 3 tbh.

The omission of Portugal is more glaring to me in 6 bc, aside from interesting gameplay mechanics centered around naval exploration and mercantile colonization that they could bring, is that we have Brazil in the game as a vanilla civ. It just strikes me as odd it would be like having Gran Colombia without Spain or Australia and Canada but no England/UK/Great Britain.

 

[Zaarin]

I really hope the pattern holds true and we get something out of left field. Matilda or Nanyehi or even something like Idia or Ranavolona. I just don't see VI as being done yet when we still have so many map-gaps that aren't even filled by city-states.

I think Portugal + Maria II (or perhaps Maria I again) is the likeliest scenario, with a slim chance for Haudenosaunee + Jigonhsasee or Molly Brant. If there's one thing that NFP has not been it's surprising (with the exception of Gaul--a surprise, but not a completely out-of-left-field surprise as Gaul has been discussed extensively here).

 

[Potworny]

Regarding the Inuit, are there any interesting documented leaders for them?

After my inextensive research I've stumbled upon Ekeuhnick, who could be good enough, I guess, and considering some of the previous leader choices in Civ VI (e.g. Kupe) there may be no better time to introduce him.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Regarding the Inuit, are there any interesting documented leaders for them?

After my inextensive research I've stumbled upon Ekeuhnick, who could be good enough, I guess, and considering some of the previous leader choices in Civ VI (e.g. Kupe) there may be no better time to introduce him.

He's probably our best choice. And I think he works in the same way that Kupe or Gilgamesh do.

I think Portugal + Maria II (or perhaps Maria I again) is the likeliest scenario, with a slim chance for Haudenosaunee + Jigonhsasee or Molly Brant. If there's one thing that NFP has not been it's surprising (with the exception of Gaul--a surprise, but not a completely out-of-left-field surprise as Gaul has been discussed extensively here).

Yeah even Gaul and GC were very heavily pushed on these forums. Neither were much of a surprise.

Either way, I hope it doesn't mean the end of content.

 

[BD123]

I really hope the pattern holds true and we get something out of left field. Matilda or Nanyehi or even something like Idia or Ranavolona. I just don't see VI as being done yet when we still have so many map-gaps that aren't even filled by city-states.

I feel like they'll be cleaning up 6 after NFP and it is indeed the final big add-in of new or returning civs and city-states. I know 6 is geographically and temporally more diverse than its predecessors but it just doesn't feel that way for some reason. There seems to be a lack of ancient civs, and the ones that are in-game are so-so in terms of gameplay with the exception of Phoenicia, who I think has a pretty fun and unique focus coastal colonies and using the colonial cards to boost your core cities.

North America is horribly represented if I'm being honest. Mesocamerica has more to offer than just the Aztecs and Maya. We have the US and Canada, with the US having an additional leader, and then just the Cree. I'd be more receptive of Canada if the civ itself wasn't so tonally detached from civ even by 6's standards (an ice hockey rink? mounties? Literally just give them maple syrup power ups and bagged milk as unique luxury at this point).

Scotland is also in the same category as Canada with its golf course. I'm not expert in Scottish history but a quick wikipedia of "Scottish castles" led me to "brochts" and that literally could've been their UI and would've played into the semi-defensive science/production civ they were supposed to be.

North Africa is also oddly empty, I'm surprised Morocco didn't return they seemed popular in V even if they didn't have that great of an ability. Also odd that the Swahili coast is only represented by Zanzibar. V had Mogadishu, Mombasa, and Zanzibar. We could also use a bit more Islamic civs. Afghanistan has a rich history of trade, arts, and so forth they could easily be made into an interesting civ without needing to go into a "graveyard of empires" stereotype.