[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Duke William of Normandy]

You mean the game that has both the Franks and Teutons in the Medieval Era in addition to Byzantines, English and Norseman in the Medieval?

I mean I guess they don't have Portugal, but who needs them when you have the Dutch, Polish, Spain and Venice in the Early Modern.

Okay I'll stop.

You mean the game that has the Russians, Austro-Hungarians, British, French, Germans, and Italians in the Industrial Era.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

You mean the game that has the Russians, Austro-Hungarians, British, French, Germans, and Italians in the Industrial Era.

Well those are fine. The later you get in the game the more Eurocentric a historical game will be.

My real complaint was I don't see the need for both Franks and Teutons in the Medieval Era. I think the Franks could have represented Western Europe just fine with the Byzantines for Eastern Europe.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

My real complaint was I don't see the need for both Franks and Teutons in the Medieval Era. I think the Franks could have represented Western Europe just fine with the Byzantines for Eastern Europe.

That makes sense.

 

[Birch617]

I think its cool the Teuton and Franks presence in Humankind but i do hope for the future more Cultures outside of Europe

 

[Zegangani]

I noticed a Pattern in the Civ VI Change Depots on SteamDB: many of them contain the Base Game, XP1, XP2, DLC1 (Vikings), DLC2 (Poland) and DLC 5 (Nubia), but no other DLCs. I didn't dig deeper, so don't take this as reliable/proof.

Does this mean that we're getting, for the smaller DLCs, balance/polish for Norway, Poland and Nubia only? And not for Macedonia, Persia, Australia, Aztec, Indonesia and Khmer? The Devs said that it's going to be only 2/3 of the Civs/Leaders, but that's just 1/3 of the smaller DLCs Civs. So perhaps Most of the Base Game Civs and RnF Civs will get rebalanced/polished.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I noticed a Pattern in the Civ VI Change Depots on SteamDB: many of them contain the Base Game, XP1, XP2, DLC1 (Vikings), DLC2 (Poland) and DLC 5 (Nubia), but no other DLCs. I didn't dig deeper, so don't take this as reliable/proof.

Does this mean that we're getting, for the smaller DLCs, balance/polish for Norway, Poland and Nubia only? And not for Macedonia, Persia, Australia, Aztec, Indonesia and Khmer? The Devs said that it's going to be only 2/3 of the Civs/Leaders, but that's just 1/3 of the smaller DLCs Civs. So perhaps Most of the Base Game Civs and RnF Civs will get rebalanced/polished.

Norway is in the base game, not the Vikings DLC. It's the only DLC that didn't come with a civ, just city-states and natural wonders.
Of course that means they could still get reworked if you are correct.

 

[Zegangani]

Norway is in the base game, not the Vikings DLC. It's the only DLC that didn't come with a civ, just city-states and natural wonders.
Of course that means they could still get reworked if you are correct.

Yes, you're right. How could I forget that?!!
Maybe a Hope that the Scenarios will get some polish too (which would explain the Zombies)?

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I noticed a Pattern in the Civ VI Change Depots on SteamDB: many of them contain the Base Game, XP1, XP2, DLC1 (Vikings), DLC2 (Poland) and DLC 5 (Nubia), but no other DLCs. I didn't dig deeper, so don't take this as reliable/proof.

Does this mean that we're getting, for the smaller DLCs, balance/polish for Norway, Poland and Nubia only? And not for Macedonia, Persia, Australia, Aztec, Indonesia and Khmer? The Devs said that it's going to be only 2/3 of the Civs/Leaders, but that's just 1/3 of the smaller DLCs Civs. So perhaps Most of the Base Game Civs and RnF Civs will get rebalanced/polished.

I mean, depending on how many civs in the base game and expacks are receiving updates, that could still amount to 2/3 of all the pre-NFP civs. Leaving out 6 of 42 civs still leaves a lot of wiggle room.

If we look at those civs in particular, I can't really say either way. Australia is OP and I wouldn't expect it to get updates, but many have wanted some Khmer retooling. I think many consider Macedon a little OP/snowballing/gimmicky so that probably wouldn't need changes, and Indonesia and Aztecs seem pretty solid. But I think I've seen a few mention they wanted changes to Persia.

I can't really say either way, but if that's what's on the SteamDB, it could very well be what we're looking at. I also would speculate that the civs most likely to receive changes are everything in R&F except Korea (which could still be nerfed) and Georgia (which has received a lot of buffs including the NFP mode), and most of the base game besides Sumeria. I suspect GS wouldn't have many updated civs because many are already asymmetric and gimmicky.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yes, you're right. How could I forget that?!!
Maybe a Hope that the Scenarios will get some polish too (which would explain the Zombies)?

Maybe similar to how Poland's scenario already had Janissaries as a unit maybe Basil II in the Viking's Scenario might get Dromons and Tagmas instead of quadriremes and knights.

 

[Zegangani]

I mean, depending on how many civs in the base game and expacks are receiving updates, that could still amount to 2/3 of all the pre-NFP civs. Leaving out 6 of 42 civs still leaves a lot of wiggle room.

If we look at those civs in particular, I can't really say either way. Australia is OP and I wouldn't expect it to get updates, but many have wanted some Khmer retooling. I think many consider Macedon a little OP/snowballing/gimmicky so that probably wouldn't need changes, and Indonesia and Aztecs seem pretty solid. But I think I've seen a few mention they wanted changes to Persia.

I can't really say either way, but if that's what's on the SteamDB, it could very well be what we're looking at. I also would speculate that the civs most likely to receive changes are everything in R&F except Korea (which could still be nerfed) and Georgia (which has received a lot of buffs including the NFP mode), and most of the base game besides Sumeria. I suspect GS wouldn't have many updated civs because many are already asymmetric and gimmicky.

That's true.
Khmer and Persia are the Civs that many Players anticipated a balance/polish for them. But Aztecs could also need some polish, though.
And For RnF, I really wish that the Science Power House Korea will get some nerf. I can't either play with it nor against it because it's too Science heavy.

There is still some Time till April, so they might just have added the things they are finished with to the SteamDB Depots.

 

[SMcM]

I'm sure the layout of the chart would change if they updated the information and civs from the NFP now that we have Babylon, Gaul and Vietnam.

Well sure, but my point is the logic behind that was never sound, Siam should never have been viewed as simply the Civ 5 variant of Khmer.

Saw that. I made a screenshot in case it gets nuked

https://imgur.com/a/acubiUU

I don't suppose Joao III is too surprising a choice- him, Joao II and Manuel cover the period of Portuguese history in which representations of Portugal seem most likely to focus on typically. We've had Joao II previously, I don't know enough to comment on whether Manuel or Joao III would be a better choice.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't suppose Joao III is too surprising a choice- him, Joao II and Manuel cover the period of Portuguese history in which representations of Portugal seem most likely to focus on typically. We've had Joao II previously, I don't know enough to comment on whether Manuel or Joao III would be a better choice.

I think the surprising choice is that they didn't go for a female leader, considering we've always had 3 in every other DLC/Expansion cycle. However I'm not complaining because Joao III seems like a good choice.

 

[Morningcalm]

I yawned when I heard it was Portugal. Europe in Civ VI is overcrowded as is. Still, one can hope for unique abilities, if nothing else.

(Would have preferred Morocco, Benin, or the Haudenosaunee...)

 

[SMcM]

I think the surprising choice is that they didn't go for a female leader, considering we've always had 3 in every other DLC/Expansion cycle. However I'm not complaining because Joao III seems like a good choice.

I don't agree that is surprising, I think this is another example of where people's thinking was too rigid- people have insisted every expansion/content pack would have set quotas of female leaders, alt leaders, etc. I think actually there is no reason to think we won't see things like this vary slightly, it isn't like these quotas are based on any set in stone rule.

Presuming this is the last wave of content for Civ 6, Portugal was always very likely. In the case of Portugal, I think most are agreed the female leader options are not the best. I would maintain that, even if some consider Maria II to have been a decent ruler, it would be hard to justify having her as leader two games in a row.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Presuming this is the last wave of content for Civ 6, Portugal was always very likely. In the case of Portugal, I think most are agreed the female leader options are not the best. I would maintain that, even if some consider Maria II to have been a decent ruler, it would be hard to justify having her as leader two games in a row.

Maria II hasn't been in the game yet. In Civ 5 the leader was Maria I.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I think the surprising choice is that they didn't go for a female leader, considering we've always had 3 in every other DLC/Expansion cycle. However I'm not complaining because Joao III seems like a good choice.

If Wikipedia is to be trusted(which it shouldn't), he has more than merited his inclusion. Britannica I would check, but I have to pay to see their articles, and I don't have the money.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If Wikipedia is to be trusted(which it shouldn't), he has more than merited his inclusion. Britannica I would check, but I have to pay to see their articles, and I don't have the money.

Along with both Joao II and Manuel I, he was a ruler during Portugal's Golden Age of so I'm not complaining.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

You mean the game that has both the Franks and Teutons in the Medieval Era in addition to Byzantines, English and Norseman in the Medieval?

I mean I guess they don't have Portugal, but who needs them when you have the Dutch, Polish, Spain and Venice in the Early Modern.

Okay I'll stop.

yeah humankind has 5 european civs and 5 non-european civs in every era. It’s terrible and beyond frustrating when you look at what they left out

where’s my chola/majapahit/mutapa/muisca/swahili/purepecha/mississippians in the medieval era

 

[Birch617]

yeah humankind has 5 european civs and 5 non-european civs in every era. It’s terrible and beyond frustrating when you look at what they left out

where’s my chola/majapahit/mutapa/muisca/swahili/purepecha/mississippians in the medieval era

Big same for those cultures you just listed and yeah i hope future dlcs for that game have more worldwide diversity

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

yeah humankind has 5 european civs and 5 non-european civs in every era. It’s terrible and beyond frustrating when you look at what they left out

where’s my chola/majapahit/mutapa/muisca/swahili/purepecha/mississippians in the medieval era

I mean I wouldn't expect any of them to show up at all, at least for the base game. I really only have a problem with the Teutons which could have easily been the Inca instead in the base game, though at least it's basically confirmed they will eventually appear.